Plausibility?

[snoopercharmbrights]

... But some authors start OK and then blow it. An example is the Lensman novels of E E (Doc) Smith. At first the suspended disbelief is easy, but as the series develops it turns into a childhood war game "I've got a gun."; "I've got a bigger gun."; "I've got artillery."; "I've got bigger artillery." as Doc Smith invents a new weapon to defeat the enemy every time. It works for a while and then the reader knows that a new super-duper atomic gizmo will come along in time to save the world, worlds, civilisation... ...

Those of us a little older than you (or at least a little older than you look in your avatar) will remember the wonderful series "Dick Barton, Special Agent" on the wireless, which contradicts the theory of yours quoted here. About every fifth episode ended with Dick, or Jock, or Snowy, or some combination of them, facing certain death, and sure enough, a miracle happened at the start of the next episode and all was well again. We never failed to suspend our disbelief.

 

[oggbashan]

Those of us a little older than you (or at least a little older than you look in your avatar) will remember the wonderful series "Dick Barton, Special Agent" on the wireless, which contradicts the theory of yours quoted here. About every fifth episode ended with Dick, or Jock, or Snowy, or some combination of them, facing certain death, and sure enough, a miracle happened at the start of the next episode and all was well again. We never failed to suspend our disbelief.

That is the cliff-hanger, necessary for a serial. It goes back even further than Dick Barton to "The Perils of Pauline".

The classic cliff-hanger was when the hero was left in an impossibly dangerous situation with no means of escape. For some reason, illness or death, the original scriptwriter wasn't available to give the solution. The substitute wrote "With one bound - he was free!".

I didn't mean cliff-hangers when I was referring to E E (Doc) Smith. He used the deus ex machina ploy from Greek or Roman drama - an external solution that really spoils the plot. A modern equivalent is a story that ends "But it was all a dream." That defeats the object of story-telling.

As for my age? That avatar is of me wearing stage make-up to colour a white beard that had been white for many years. Even then, and that av is a few years old, I was older than Henry VIII was when he died.

 

[sr71plt]

That is the cliff-hanger, necessary for a serial.

Also for a thriller novel.

 

[Athalia]

As usual, I come late to these threads. I usually don't peruse this board, but this particular thread was called to my attention.

I edit mainly non-fiction work, but there are some things that apply to both genres:

First, I agree that the editor is not a critic, in the reviewer's sense of the term. But as an editor, I am obliged to not only correct spelling, grammar, referential inconsistencies, and the like, but to ask the writer from time to time: "Is what I'm reading here what you're trying to say here?" If he or she says, "You bet!" then my role is ended. But more often than not, I'm thanked for pointing out the unclear areas.

Beyond that, I do look for physical impossibilities (people being in two places at the same time, for example). If I don't point them out, the readers surely will.

 

[oggbashan]

I remember one of my on-line friends who was writing in English that was not his native language. He had a recurring phrase.

His characters often "turned to speak". When there was a passage of extended dialogue between the hero and heroine, the two of them were spinning like tops.

As with our own unnoticed flaws, he hadn't noticed how often he used the "turned to speak" until I pointed it out. One of my recurring words is 'then'. Whenever I use it, I try to think why I needed it. Could I do without it? But then it slips into my writing without me noticing...

Another friend used to insist that all the actions must be stated and not assumed so to get the characters into bed they would leave the living room, by opening and closing the door, climb the stairs, cross the landing, open the bedroom door, close it behind them, walk to the bed, pull back the duvet... All the story needed was that they went to bed - together.

The reader wouldn't care how many stairs they had climbed, how many doors they had open and closed - unless those actions were important to the plot.

 

[lazyhobo]

I remember one of my on-line friends who was writing in English that was not his native language. He had a recurring phrase.

His characters often "turned to speak". When there was a passage of extended dialogue between the hero and heroine, the two of them were spinning like tops.

As with our own unnoticed flaws, he hadn't noticed how often he used the "turned to speak" until I pointed it out. One of my recurring words is 'then'. Whenever I use it, I try to think why I needed it. Could I do without it? But then it slips into my writing without me noticing...

Another friend used to insist that all the actions must be stated and not assumed so to get the characters into bed they would leave the living room, by opening and closing the door, climb the stairs, cross the landing, open the bedroom door, close it behind them, walk to the bed, pull back the duvet... All the story needed was that they went to bed - together.

Yeah, he was probably overusing Turned to Speak, but as far as the second friend went, that's not really plausibility, that's descriptiveness, which I will admit, differs between authors. With one author, who generally writes description, you expect him to describe walking up the steps and all that, probably not numbering the steps, but he does the walk up. Whereas another author may just say, went to the bedroom together. It differs on writing style, I'm not really gonna debate which style is better. But descriptiveness does work in stories.

 

[oggbashan]

... but as far as the second friend went, that's not really plausibility, that's descriptiveness, which I will admit, differs between authors. With one author, who generally writes description, you expect him to describe walking up the steps and all that, probably not numbering the steps, but he does the walk up. Whereas another author may just say, went to the bedroom together. It differs on writing style, I'm not really gonna debate which style is better. But descriptiveness does work in stories.

I agree that description does work, but not in that story which was intended to be simple stroke.

It wasn't really a problem of differing style, but of consistency and plausibility in that context.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Im sorry but I dont quite understand, again, where is said rules of writing? and using that post you just gave, can you specifically point out where I have a misguided view of something?

Sorry, no insult intended, but even sr likes to behave as a cop on a junction and let some go but not others. Ask other editors about story mechanics. Sure, they aren't tablets of stone but a good editor gives advice on the plotting/mechanics of the story which are much more important to the reader than an errant comma.

 

[lazyhobo]

I agree that description does work, but not in that story which was intended to be simple stroke.

It wasn't really a problem of differing style, but of consistency and plausibility in that context.

Im sorry but in what way was his describing the journey to the bedroom about consistency and plausibility.

I Can get consistency, sort of, if you're saying he usually doesnt write that descriptively, but are you telling me that it is implausible for someone to walk up the 14 steps of his staircase, past the banister and down the hall, opening his bedroom door and closing it behind him before finally lifting up the duvet for him and his date. Is that implausible? even in a quick sex scene?

 

[lazyhobo]

Sorry, no insult intended, but even sr likes to behave as a cop on a junction and let some go but not others. Ask other editors about story mechanics. Sure, they aren't tablets of stone but a good editor gives advice on the plotting/mechanics of the story which are much more important to the reader than an errant comma.

I dont recall saying that Editors shouldnt give advice or dont give advice to Authors or anyone.

My comment about the "Rules of Writing" was a sarcastic way of asking "Can you point out my "misguided view"?"

 

[sr71plt]

I dont recall saying that Editors shouldnt give advice or dont give advice to Authors or anyone.

My comment about the "Rules of Writing" was a sarcastic way of asking "Can you point out my "misguided view"?"

Unfortunately, getting Elfin to make sense is usually a losing battle.

 

[oggbashan]

...Is that implausible? even in a quick sex scene?

As I said above, his continual description of all actions was implausible in the context of the story he was trying to write. It could have been appropriate and plausible in a novel, or another story, but not in the short stroke scene he intended.

The descriptions swamped the sex, and he intended to write sex.

Once he had edited it, it worked, but was a third of the original length.

 

[lazyhobo]

As I said above, his continual description of all actions was implausible in the context of the story he was trying to write. It could have been appropriate and plausible in a novel, or another story, but not in the short stroke scene he intended.

The descriptions swamped the sex, and he intended to write sex.

Once he had edited it, it worked, but was a third of the original length.

So you're saying that a sex (erotic) story cannot be descriptive, because having description with your sex is implausible?

 

[oggbashan]

So you're saying that a sex (erotic) story cannot be descriptive, because having description with your sex is implausible?

No. Whatever works is right.

I'm saying that in context the story wasn't achieving the author's intention. That doesn't imply a general rule.

 

[lazyhobo]

No. Whatever works is right.

I'm saying that in context the story wasn't achieving the author's intention. That doesn't imply a general rule.

Not seeming reasonable or probable; failing to convince; not believable.

That's the definition of implausible. It basically lingers on "unbelievable" or "unreasonable". Neither of which makes me think of "An Author that wrote a story that didn't end as he had pictured it" In fact, when thinking of Authors that end with a story that they had envisioned differently before, I think of that being normal, because a lot of writers picture one thing, and end with another. Whether that be over descriptiveness, under descriptiveness or even other elements. But I just don't see how any of that relates to a stories Plausibility.

 

[oggbashan]

Apparently you think that:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.”

is appropriate for a short stroke story. I still think that sort of description is implausible in that context.

 

[lazyhobo]

Apparently you think that:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.”

is appropriate for a short stroke story. I still think that sort of description is implausible in that context.

Whether a story be short or long, any story can be descriptive. Think over the fact that Erotic Roleplays (Sexual Roleplays) which is all about eroticism and for certain ones, getting off. They can still be very very descriptive.

Now if the author had intended a short stroking erotic kind of story, then fine, but detail in a "short" story is NOT implausible. Unnecessary if you want, but NOT implausible.

 

[oggbashan]

Not seeming reasonable or probable; failing to convince; not believable.

That's the definition of implausible...

My Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'implausible' as:

1. Not worthy of applause; unacceptable.
2. Not having the appearance of truth, probability, or acceptability; not plausible.

My Compact Oxford Dictionary refers from implausible to not plausible and defines plausible as:

1. [of an argument, statement etc] seeming reasonable or probable;
2. [of a person] persuasive but deceptive.

So 'implausible' 1. would be unreasonable or improbable, and 2. not persuasive but deceptive.

I think excessive description in a short stroke story is not worthy of applause, not having the appearance of acceptability, unacceptable, unreasonable and improbable.

 

[lazyhobo]

My Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'implausible' as:

1. Not worthy of applause; unacceptable.
2. Not having the appearance of truth, probability, or acceptability; not plausible.

My Compact Oxford Dictionary refers from implausible to not plausible and defines plausible as:

1. [of an argument, statement etc] seeming reasonable or probable;
2. [of a person] persuasive but deceptive.

So 'implausible' 1. would be unreasonable or improbable, and 2. not persuasive but deceptive.

I think excessive description in a short stroke story is not worthy of applause, not having the appearance of acceptability, unacceptable, unreasonable and improbable.

If we're going by the Compact one, then Implausible would be something of an Argument / statement being Unreasonable or improbable.

With the other one, reason 2 - Not appearance of truth? not likely to be of any validity in this scenario.

Now, Not Worthy of Applause and Unacceptable, they are touchy subjects mainly because, they are based on peoples own opinions and what one finds unacceptable, another will not.

Now, I myself actually enjoy descriptiveness EVEN IN an Erotic stroke scenario. Now, Im not saying Excessive description is as entertaining, but I hardly find describing the journey up the stairs as "excessively described". You cannot say Description, in any story, long or short is Unreasonable, it is up to each author how he wants to write it. Different readers will have different views regarding how they wish to read it. You can hardly view it as Implausible Simply because you or anyone else finds that Unreasonable. Its not unreasonable, its not Unacceptable.

 

[lazyhobo]

My Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'implausible' as:

1. Not worthy of applause; unacceptable.
2. Not having the appearance of truth, probability, or acceptability; not plausible.

My Compact Oxford Dictionary refers from implausible to not plausible and defines plausible as:

1. [of an argument, statement etc] seeming reasonable or probable;
2. [of a person] persuasive but deceptive.

So 'implausible' 1. would be unreasonable or improbable, and 2. not persuasive but deceptive.

I think excessive description in a short stroke story is not worthy of applause, not having the appearance of acceptability, unacceptable, unreasonable and improbable.

I probably should have done this before, but here.
Standard google description;
im·plau·si·ble/imˈplôzəbəl/
Adjective:
Not seeming reasonable or probable; failing to convince; not believable.
Synonyms:
improbable - unlikely - unbelievable - incredible

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implausible
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implausible
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implausible
http://thesaurus.com/browse/implausible
http://www.answers.com/topic/implausible
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/implausible
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/implausible
http://www.yourdictionary.com/implausible
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/implausible
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/implausible

There are 10 links along side the google definition. Here is the Oxford Dictionary Link : http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/implausible

Now all 12 of these definitions, say the same thing, though it is worded differently. And that is that Implausible means something along the lines of "Not seeming to be reasonable or truthful" Another was "Unbelievable" but all a long the lines of Being Untrue or unbelieving.

I have yet to find a definition that says "Not worthy of Applause; Unacceptable", And I've tried over a dozen, including the oxford dictionary translation. Now are you sure you have the correct definition? because I cant find it, and even if I did, perhaps we have misconstrued what it was saying, perhaps it was another way of wording the Disbelief the others say it means.

 

[oggbashan]

I have just checked my definition from the Shorter Oxford in my copy of the complete Oxford Dictionary - the multivolume one.

That agrees with the definitions I quoted from the Shorter but I admit that the full Oxford adds 'obsolete' to definition 1. Definition 2 still stands, and that includes acceptability.

The trouble with online dictionaries is that they do not use the full texts which are only available to subscribers or purchasers.

 

[lazyhobo]

The trouble with online dictionaries is that they do not use the full texts which are only available to subscribers or purchasers.

Hence why I went onto a Dozen different ones, including some that are Free.

 

[oggbashan]

Hence why I went onto a Dozen different ones, including some that are Free.

So what? They are all small compared to the complete Oxford.

 

[lazyhobo]

So what? They are all small compared to the complete Oxford.

Look i've checked dictionaries, I've asked around, Everyone im asking, all Literate Englishmen, all are saying that it means what the online dictionaries have said. In fact, when I showed them your definition of the "Unacceptable" they said that in all their years it had never meant anything like that before. Now I dont know what it actually says, and if it does say that, Then Once again I point out that maybe our understanding of how it phrased it may differ, But I find that Implausible is word that does not describe the scenario you are pointing out.

Secondly, Does this discussion we are having have anything to do with the topic starter? after your post will the topic starter go to someone and say, Hmm you're being far too descriptive here, if you just want a short stroke story, lets cut out a lot of the words. ? I find it doubtful.

 

[oggbashan]

Look i've checked dictionaries, I've asked around, Everyone im asking, all Literate Englishmen, all are saying that it means what the online dictionaries have said. In fact, when I showed them your definition of the "Unacceptable" they said that in all their years it had never meant anything like that before. Now I dont know what it actually says, and if it does say that, Then Once again I point out that maybe our understanding of how it phrased it may differ, But I find that Implausible is word that does not describe the scenario you are pointing out.

Secondly, Does this discussion we are having have anything to do with the topic starter? after your post will the topic starter go to someone and say, Hmm you're being far too descriptive here, if you just want a short stroke story, lets cut out a lot of the words. ? I find it doubtful.

1. You might want to define your 'Literate Englishmen'. Englishmen of what age? What authors had they studied? Have they looked at the full Oxford Dictionary?

2. I'm not denying that one of the meanings of implausible, and the main one at that, is as the smaller dictionaries state it, but that is not the only one, nor does it exclude others.

3. Going back to the OP - and I quote where the sequence of events fails to make sense. the sequence of events as described in the draft I was given to look at did not make sense - in the context of what the author had said he wanted to achieve - and was therefore implausible (improbable, unlikely, unbelievable) as part of that story.