How much disbelief can you suspend?

[SimonDoom]

"Shoot a tank and everything explodes" is also an extremely common trope that the audience already believes in, most often when it's a gas tank in a car. So it's not just Spielberg doing a "good" job there but all the action films before him.

This is a good example of "write what is realistic in the mind of most readers" as opposed to "write only what the expert on the subject will believe is real." I'm sure Spielberg didn't give a hoot about those very few experts on air tanks who would know the scene was BS.

I think the same attitude is fair with erotica. It's one of the reasons why I strenuously support the right of someone to write a BDSM story without knowing a single thing about the "real-world" BDSM lifestyle. It's not important to one's story and the majority of readers won't care because they don't know anything at all about that lifestyle.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The most important thing to me is that the story be internally consistent. Once you set up the rules of your universe then stick with them. Sudden loopholes to either rescue the protagonist with some Deus ex machina or to create some sort of conflict just breaks the whole spell.
The Last Jedi is a good example. Star Wars is soft Sci-Fi, the physics don't really matter, it's all about the story telling. Throughout the entire Star Wars saga up til that point ships just flew around and did what they needed to do. Now, out of nowhere the big problem driving the plot is "we are going to run out of gas!"
And (spoilers!) then we find out you can just jump into hyperspace and collide with a ship and destroy it. Why bother with manned X-wings, just set the autopilot to jump into hyperspace and ram the Imperial ships?

Stuff like the tank scene in Jaws worked because it was 1977 and no one was making YouTube videos about shark behavior.
Sure, experts knew a shark wouldn't bite a tank like that, but it seemed perfectly reasonable to the general public. People didn't have to suspend disbelief, they just plain didn't know better.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

And (spoilers!) then we find out you can just jump into hyperspace and collide with a ship and destroy it. Why bother with manned X-wings, just set the autopilot to jump into hyperspace and ram the Imperial ships?

Because it was a million-to-one shot, of course. That plot point was remarkably clever, you just don't see it.

 

[MillieDynamite]

To be fair, Roy Schider threw the tank into Bruce's mouth. But I'm sure that the shark should've spat it out.

Stuff like the tank scene in Jaws worked because it was 1977 and no one was making YouTube videos about shark behavior.
Sure, experts knew a shark wouldn't bite a tank like that, but it seemed perfectly reasonable to the general public. People didn't have to suspend disbelief, they just plain didn't know better.

 

[TheLobster]

Because it was a million-to-one shot, of course. That plot point was remarkably clever, you just don't see it.

Something tells me that the hyperspace ramming plot hole won't be explained by a movie as good as Rogue One anytime soon, though.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Something tells me that the hyperspace ramming plot hole won't be explained by a movie as good as Rogue One anytime soon, though.

Rogue One is a good example for this discussion. It shows the way our expectations degraded over time. It's a decent movie, but not more than that in my opinion. Yet many people use it as an example of how Hollywood can still make a good Star Wars movie. The movie is perceived as good just because it stands out in comparison to the rest of the Star Wars garbage that Hollywood spewed out in the last ten years. Reference points matter.

 

[Lovecraft_Lore]

All of the disbelief is being suspended in most of these stories.

The 18 year old babysitter with d cups has no idea men think she is hot and wants to have sex with the dad because of some non reason. Because nothing seduces a teenager faster than some lame dad joke.

The 12 inch dicks on a ex navy seal millionaire who owns his own business. A business that for some reason includes a bunch of super models who also happened to be spies.

The 18 year old virgin who does not cum in his pants as his teacher unbuckles his belt.

The stories where the dude is creepy as can be but the woman finds it sexy. I know my neighbors would be thrilled if she saw some dude looking in her window one night, masterbating.

Adding werewolves to any of these stories will not make it less believed.

In real life your friend's mom gives you a hug and you end up cumming in your pants, your 18 year old self unsure what to even do.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

To be fair, Roy Schider threw the tank into Bruce's mouth. But I'm sure that the shark should've spat it out.

True, but for a layperson who knows nothing about sharks but sees them as these aggressive killing machine it "made sense" for the shark to try and eat anything in its mouth.

 

[jaF0]

I don't know why but over the last few weeks, maybe more, I've been having dreams about people I haven't seen in over 40 years, many of them dead for much of that, engaging in situations that there is absolutely no possibility they ever would have. Suspension of disbelief has been extreme to the Nth power, times a few quadrillion.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Because it was a million-to-one shot, of course. That plot point was remarkably clever, you just don't see it.

Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Terry Pratchett

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

And (spoilers!) then we find out you can just jump into hyperspace and collide with a ship and destroy it. Why bother with manned X-wings, just set the autopilot to jump into hyperspace and ram the Imperial ships?

I don't think I've seen any of the movies post Jar-Jar, but didn't something like that happened in the Expanded Universe too? It was an accident in that case, but I seem to remember fans wondering why ramming out of hyperspace wasn't done as a standard battle tactic, if it was possible at all.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Terry Pratchett

Never tell me the odds!
Han Solo

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I don't think I've seen any of the movies post Jar-Jar, but didn't something like that happened in the Expanded Universe too? It was an accident in that case, but I seem to remember fans wondering why ramming out of hyperspace wasn't done as a standard battle tactic, if it was possible at all.

I haven't read any of the expanded universe stuff.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Ah well.

Weaponizing the theory of relatively is the kind of thing that happens in Pournelle/Niven-type works. But then, there's a reason why that kind of sci-fi doesn't get made into movies.

 

[AlexBailey]

I like how the sound barrier was thought to be unbreakable… until it was.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

I like how the sound barrier was thought to be unbreakable… until it was.

Anyone who's ever worked with cattle knows that the sound barrier can be broken. That's how whips work.

 

[AlexBailey]

Anyone who's ever worked with cattle knows that the sound barrier can be broken. That's how whips work.

I doubt that your mid 1900’s cowpoke knew that.

 

[TheLobster]

Weaponizing the theory of relatively is the kind of thing that

…really has to be avoided, because it basically breaks any space opera setting. Effective interstellar travel inherently requires so much energy that anyone capable of it can wreak havoc just by redirecting said energy towards a chosen target. Think vehicular manslaughter, except on a planetary scale.

Contrivances that bypass the speed of light are typically even worse, which is even sometimes highlighted in works like Star Trek where you absolutely can’t engage warp drive anywhere near a planet.

In general, there has to be a tacit understanding in this kind of sci-fi that writers simply can’t go there, or the entire fictional universe simply falls apart.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

…really has to be avoided, because it basically breaks any space opera setting. Effective interstellar travel inherently requires so much energy that anyone capable of it can wreak havoc just by redirecting said energy towards a chosen target. Think vehicular manslaughter, except on a planetary scale.

Contrivances that bypass the speed of light are typically even worse, which is even sometimes highlighted in works like Star Trek where you absolutely can’t engage warp drive anywhere near a planet.

In general, there has to be a tacit understanding in this kind of sci-fi that writers simply can’t go there, or the entire fictional universe simply falls apart.

I think that's a common "out" as far as that goes.
In David Weber's Honorverse you can't go into or out of Hyper within a certain distance of a star's gravity. The "hyper limit" of each star becomes fairly important.

 

[jomar]

I like to think I have a high tolerance for disbelief as long as the story as a whole is holding my interest and the story is internally consistent. At the same time, I don't read a lot of sci-fi, which I think comes with more danger of belief challenging than more down-to-earth genres do.

This is my view as well. I can buy lots of world building and quirky things, but if the author breaks with their internal logic it snaps me out of it.

The most important thing to me is that the story be internally consistent. Once you set up the rules of your universe then stick with them. Sudden loopholes to either rescue the protagonist with some Deus ex machina or to create some sort of conflict just breaks the whole spell.
…

Yes, I recall some sci-fi book that was going along just fine until the end when the author wrapped it up by tossing in never before mentioned alien space zombies or werewolves or something ridiculous as the reason for things happening and I was both miffed and amused.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

My pet peeve with internal consistency is when characters/society aren't impacted by what happened in the past.
In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when Donovan is recruiting Indy he dismisses the Grail legend as a fairytale. Like, Dude, you were there when the Arc of the Covenant melted all those Nazis. You watched a dude pull another guy's heart out of his chest and saw it burst into flame.
Seems like you'd be willing to believe damn near anything after that.

Same thing with the MCU, the whole world saw a bunch of aliens attack NYC in the Avengers. After that people wouldn't be shocked by anything.

 

[Bamagan]

My pet peeve with internal consistency is when characters/society aren't impacted by what happened in the past.
In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when Donovan is recruiting Indy he dismisses the Grail legend as a fairytale. Like, Dude, you were there when the Arc of the Covenant melted all those Nazis. You watched a dude pull another guy's heart out of his chest and saw it burst into flame.
Seems like you'd be willing to believe damn near anything after that.

Same thing with the MCU, the whole world saw a bunch of aliens attack NYC in the Avengers. After that people wouldn't be shocked by anything.

I think the exchange between Dr. Jones and Donovan makes sense if you believe that Indy is not in the habit of discussing supernatural experiences with men who employ thugs. Donovan probably doesn't strike him as particularly trustworthy and, whether or not the Grail has any magical powers, he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. So lying and prevaricating and pretending magic doesn't exist may seem prudent, at least initially.

Plus, Indy might honestly be hoping it's just a myth, since his last few encounters involved melting people and hearts ripped out, as you mentioned.

 

[AG31]

As a reader, are there particular things that trip you up on the issue of believability? As an author, are there particular things you do to make your reader suspend disbelief?

When characters use language or do mundane things that wouldn't happen in real life. Like tell a close acquaintance facts about their mutual environment in casual conversation. That's a language thing. Right off the bat I can't think of a mundane thing, but they happen. I'm fine with science fiction that isn't based on science (how would I know???), etc.

Edit: I've only read half of one page of this thread, and already I want to endorse @Kelliezgirl 's post about internal consistency.

 

[StillStunned]

When characters use language or do mundane things that wouldn't happen in real life. Like tell a close acquaintance facts about their mutual environment in casual conversation.

Actually, the older I get the more plausible these conversations are. My wife is forever saying things like, "So remember how I was telling you about my cousin? The one with the beard? And how his wife has a new job? For fuck's sake, it was just this morning!" And I'll be staring blankly the whole time.

 

[TheLobster]

Actually, the older I get the more plausible these conversations are. My wife is forever saying things like, "So remember how I was telling you about my cousin? The one with the beard? And how his wife has a new job? For fuck's sake, it was just this morning!" And I'll be staring blankly the whole time.

Perhaps you should consider a change of profile picture? The color fits, as it is basically gold, but it seems that it would make sense to swap the cat for fish