Premise vs Plausibility (The Suspension of Disbelief)

One of the most common, and sometimes infuriating, comments or critiques of fantasy/sci-fi – whether it’s a book, movie or tv show – is the plausibility.  The argument for suspension of disbelief can be used and misused by supporters and critics of the piece in question, so I’d thought I’d write a quick post to lay things out, at least from a writing point of view.  I’ll refer to books or movies from here on but this post applies to all forms of fiction.

Premise

Every piece of fiction, regardless of the genre, relies on a premise.  Writing theory and guides/how-tos sometimes define the premise as something different from what I intend here.  For the purposes of this post, I’ll define the premise as being the “gimme”, the initial suspension of disbelief that allows the reader to go along with the story in the beginning.  For fantasy, it’s often the existence of a specific magic system or the fantasy world.  In sci-fi, it’s a futuristic technology or society.  In hard sci-fi, it’s the existence of a near-future technology or the resolution of a contemporary research that gives rise to this.  In mysteries, it’s the initial crime and the wherewithal of the protagonist to solve it.

Some examples in popular fiction:

• Elantris by Brandon Sanderson: the existence of the Aon magic system
• Batman:  the motivation, the money, the physical and mental capabilities all belong to one man (it might as well be a superpower)
• Star Wars: the Force (pretty much a fantasy series, not sci-fi, but this is a whole other issue)
• Breaking Bad: the chemistry teacher getting cancer, creating his motivation to become involved with the drug underworld.

Plausibility

Once the “gimme” has been established, the story must continue under its own steam, as per the world/setting, the characters and the themes and message that the writer wants to convey.  This means that the characters will act and behave as anyone else would, under the same circumstances.  Even if magic exists, and the rules have been established, the rest of the physical world should be plausible – at least as far as the magic system/world specifics would change it.

Continuing from that – if magic exists, its existence must also have an effect on the world and its development.  There must be logical consequences for the characters, for the culture, for the environment, for the relations and perceptions of everyone involved.  For example, if a magic system relies on the sacrifice of toads and frogs, there must be consequences for this: are toads going extinct?  Or are there efforts to farm them?  Are toads sold?  Are they expensive?  Is there a blackmarket for them?  If someone sees a toad in the wild, they will not have the same reaction as we would.

If a new “gimme” is thrown into the mix, say, in the second act, it ruins the drama of the story.  It’s arguably a form of deus ex machina and it’s a narrative cheat, a sign of weak storytelling.  It is, however, acceptable for the original “gimme” to develop, for its history to become known, for new uses to be discovered etc.  This is a normal part of plot development and escalation.

In other words, once the premise has been established and accepted, the story must have internal consistency and continuity.  Without this, we are left with what are commonly known as plot-holes.

In Closing

So, when a fellow viewer is complaining that something is not plausible, it is incorrect to reply with something along the lines of, “Stop complaining.  You’re watching a movie about a person with telekinesis/shoots lasers from his eyes/about aliens.”

The fellow viewer has no problem with the initial premise, it’s the implausibility of the current situation or more likely, the implausible behaviour of the characters in the later development of the story.   It could also be an illogical situation – eg. we might accept the premise of aliens being deathly allergic to water but why would the same aliens choose to land on a planet consisting of 75% ocean, with water vapour in the air, clouds, fog and rain – not to mention being capable of interstellar travel but have no concept of clothing or doorknobs.

Using these guidelines, we can also determine if a criticism of the plot or the use of the magic system/technology should be taken seriously.  There might be instances where things might need to be made more concise or explained more clearly.  There might be instances where the reader/viewer has a legitimate point and these are the most important.  Always be prepared to rework elements of the story to make it better.

ps.

Non-Fiction

The advantage of non-fiction is that all of the above does not apply.  The disadvantage is that if it’s ever found out to be falsified, well… ask James Frey.

Advertisement