How much disbelief can you suspend?

[SimonDoom]

This is an endlessly interesting issue for me, both as I write stories and when I read comments to my stories, or to other authors' stories. To what degree are you willing to suspend disbelief as a reader? How far do you push your readers as an author? What things do you do as an author to try to keep your readers on board?

I have a fairly high ability to suspend disbelief, but my tolerance falls quickly if I'm asked to do it too often. As a reader I follow the "not too much magic" principle: You can make me buy into one ridiculous thing, but if you keep throwing too many things at me you lose me.

In erotica this manifests in characters doing things that seem unbelievable. I tend to like edgy erotica, so I can put up with some of this, but not too much. Much of the incest erotica at this site is, frankly, ridiculous, including the stuff I write, but I find I can still enjoy it if the author makes at least a modest attempt to explain why family member A and family member B get together beyond, "I saw my son in his gym shorts and suddenly I knew I wanted him to breed me." That sort of thing.

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?

 

[AlwaysDancing]

I recall an interview about “Jaws.” A shark expert (it was probably author Peter Benchley) told Spielberg that no shark would ever bite on to a diver’s tank (the one that Brody shot to make mass explosion).

Spielberg responded it didn’t matter because at that point he had the audience and eating out of his hand and he can do whatever he wants.

I think this is an answer to your query. Your reader has to be going along for the ride with you already to get away with elements of disbelief. And if they are … that’s a testimony to your storytelling!!!

 

[mentalmaven]

Emotion is key.

As a reader - believing to the point of emotion (whether the reader realizes they’ve become emotionally engaged or not). Without realism and possibility it’s difficult to attach emotion. Background details can make anything possible or seemingly realistic.

As a writer - evoking emotion. A disjointed or random act without explanation jars any emotional buildup/attachment to the scene or story.

 

[Priscilla_June]

I think if the rest of the story is done well, is compelling and is enjoyable to read, I can go with it. If all of that criteria is met then I view the suspending of disbelief as just my reader’s right to create head canon as to why something could happen. Give me that inch and I will take a mile with what I perceive of your story. But as long as it is enjoyable what does it matter?

I think too much in society today with stories both written and in media people demand every detail be explained. I like things being left open ended to a degree.

 

[StillStunned]

As long as people act and respond like normal, reasonable people, given the premise of the story, I'll buy into most of their actions.

 

[yowser]

The fellow in the office next to mine is a Sci-Fi enthusiast, and I asked him roughly the same question about that genre. He said an author generally gets one 'gimme' - one law of physics violated, one axiom on a planet, one 'magic' type of thing - and readers are happy to go with that. But start pushing things much further, the author really has to make it work on a logical level. And this supports one of your points - the 'not too much.' But this brings up the main thing for me:

I have to have confidence in the writer. Am I in good hands? If written well and intelligently, I will go a long way into the maze. If the least bit sloppy or careless or clumsy, the suspension dissolves and I am gone. And a lot of this has to do with the characters involved, and whether they make sense, are relatable in one way or another. I can ignore a lot of hand-waving and outlandishness if I am invested in the people involved.

 

[Otto26]

Consistent context. If your story is consistent within the context you've established then the reader won't be forced to stretch their suspension of disbelief past the breaking point.

 

[KeithD]

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.

 

[Gamblnluck]

I have a problem when the characters do not act believably given their situation. Star Wars was utterly out there, but within the context of that world, the characters were solid.
Personally I have a problem where the person loses his or her mind simply because they get aroused. Now slow seduction or a developed reason why that person finds himself 'sucked in' is a different matter.

 

[FifthEstate]

I tend to try and push the edges, but believability is always a factor for me. I don’t like logic jumps which often can be associated with stories that push the limits too far. That said, some incredulous erotic fantasy is never a bad thing.

Like others have said, (including the excellent Jaws example) as a reader or an author I’m far better with it if the story has already captured my interest. In my own work, I write mostly chapter stories and tend to introduce less realistic components in the latter chapters.

 

[Bazzle]

I struggle with Sci Fi...I just cant suspend my belief long enough.

So I struggle unless there is some reality in it.

 

[StillStunned]

Just this week I published a story about a woman who meets three beings called the Aspects of Orgasm. They send her on a journey through time and space to give orgasms back to people who deserve them more.

I still wanted her responses to be realistic though.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

This is an endlessly interesting issue for me, both as I write stories and when I read comments to my stories, or to other authors' stories. To what degree are you willing to suspend disbelief as a reader? How far do you push your readers as an author? What things do you do as an author to try to keep your readers on board?

I have a fairly high ability to suspend disbelief, but my tolerance falls quickly if I'm asked to do it too often. As a reader I follow the "not too much magic" principle: You can make me buy into one ridiculous thing, but if you keep throwing too many things at me you lose me.

In erotica this manifests in characters doing things that seem unbelievable. I tend to like edgy erotica, so I can put up with some of this, but not too much. Much of the incest erotica at this site is, frankly, ridiculous, including the stuff I write, but I find I can still enjoy it if the author makes at least a modest attempt to explain why family member A and family member B get together beyond, "I saw my son in his gym shorts and suddenly I knew I wanted him to breed me." That sort of thing.

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?

what do you feel about hary poter? does it throw too many things at you?

 

[mrs_mackenzie]

This, I think, is the crux of what makes good erotica. Whatever the context and however unusual the situation, if the characters act believably it makes everything sexier.

That's why build-up and introducing the characters is so important, for me.

 

[AlwaysDancing]

This, I think, is the crux of what makes good erotica. Whatever the context and however unusual the situation, if the characters act believably it makes everything sexier.

That's why build-up and introducing the characters is so important, for me.

Stephen King says he enjoys taking normal, believable people and putting them in crazy situations to see what they’d do. In fiction. Of course. He doesn’t do that in real life. I don’t think.

 

[Thanatos_X13]

Suspension of disbelief is an unspoken social contract that the reader enters into with the work. Essentially, "I'll believe if you give me something to believe." Importantly, the full phrase is "willing suspension of disbelief," because no amount of great writing will make a reader believe if they go into it choosing not to. For example, in a horror game, you get scared if you choose to immerse yourself in it, but there are lots of people who don't find horror games scary b/c they say "it can't actually hurt me, they're just pixels on a screen." But for most people, they'll go along with it as long as the author presents the story in a way that they can buy in. What most often happens is the writing suddenly does something that either strains credulity or reminds the reader that this is all make-believe. The author breaks the social contract.

For an author, it comes down to writing the world of your story in a way that it can be believed. Internally consistent logic, a consistency in tone and atmosphere, an attention to detail, etc. You can get away with basically anything if you write it in such a way that the audience can accept it within the context of your world. Like, if you stop to think about it, the Death Star destroying Alderaan is silly. That would fuck up the gravitational balance of the solar system and send massive amounts of debris colliding into all nearby worlds and probably the Death Star itself. But we've already sat down in the theater with our popcorn to watch a movie with aliens and space ships and laser swords and space magic. If you weren't here for the silly, why did you buy the ticket?

(I realize I am repeating a lot of points others have made, but in my defense, I started writing when there was 1 reply. I'm a sloooow writer. >_< )

 

[Omenainen]

I will go absolutely anywhere if the author is worth following. It doesn’t need to be real-world-believable but it does need to be internally consistent.

 

[NotWise]

I have a low tolerance for the unbelievable, but I make exceptions where Clarke's third law applies: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Motivations need to be believable. Events need to follow a rational pattern, or there needs to be some explanation why they don't. That said, I can forgive a lot of sins if I'm wrapped up in an engaging story.

The differences in readers' ability to suspend their disbelief probably explains the range of reactions to Escape from Cimarron.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I can suspend a lot, but it has to lead to something, it has to have a point and be consistent. If you are imagining a whole new world, make it make sense, make it so that within the fantasy, no matter how wild it is, the world works consistently, logically; make it so there is a purpose for the whole fantasy.
Funnily though, even the wildest fantasy world doesn't suspend disbelief as much as some incest stories do.

 

[Plathfan]

People are built to believe; they are simply wired that way. The more developed your imagination is, the more comfortable you are with holding onto illusions. Seventy percent of humanity believes in a biblical God, and the rest believe in aliens. Everyone has to believe in something. If you are a gifted storyteller, you can make them believe anything you say, especially if there's redemption at the end. People will even believe you died and were resurrected if you tell it convincingly.

It's unfortunate that people are so drawn to the improbable when reality surpasses all imagination. Just look around you; life is a miracle. So many variables have to align to make it possible. Only a few miles above your head, the temperature is a hundred degrees below zero, so violent, and here you are, wrapped in cotton wool, walking in heaven, refusing to realize how magical this planet is.

I wish people could appreciate the here and now, celebrate the one-time experiences of life, and recount its wonders instead of fantasizing about an alternative reality. Realism is a wonderful word...

Wait! What was the question?

 

[Anise_Wood_Nymph]

People are built to believe; they are simply wired that way. The more developed your imagination is, the more comfortable you are with holding onto illusions. Seventy percent of people believe in a biblical God, and the rest believe in aliens. Everyone has to believe in something. If you are a gifted storyteller, you can make them believe anything you say, especially if there's redemption at the end. People will even believe you died and were resurrected if you tell it convincingly.

It's unfortunate that people are so drawn to the improbable when reality surpasses all imagination. Just look around you; life is a miracle. So many variables have to align to make it possible. Only a few miles above your head, the temperature is a hundred degrees below zero, so violent, and here you are, wrapped in cotton wool, walking in heaven, refusing to realize how magical this planet is.

I wish people could appreciate the here and now, celebrate the one-time experiences of life, and recount its wonders instead of fantasizing about an alternative reality. Realism is a wonderful word...

Wait! What was the question?

That’s actually a delightful concept, but people get bogged down in the quagmire of reality of everyday life and that can carry over into the fantasy. I think everyday life has many beautiful facets to explore and build upon for artistic expression.

 

[StillStunned]

It's unfortunate that people are so drawn to the improbable when reality surpasses all imagination. Just look around you; life is a miracle. So many variables have to align to make it possible. Only a few miles above your head, the temperature is a hundred degrees below zero, so violent, and here you are, wrapped in cotton wool, walking in heaven, refusing to realize how magical this planet is.

If people started thinking about reality too much, they'd stop believing in it, and then where would we be? The whole thing would just fall apart.

 

[SimonDoom]

I recall an interview about “Jaws.” A shark expert (it was probably author Peter Benchley) told Spielberg that no shark would ever bite on to a diver’s tank (the one that Brody shot to make mass explosion).

Spielberg responded it didn’t matter because at that point he had the audience and eating out of his hand and he can do whatever he wants.

I think this is an answer to your query. Your reader has to be going along for the ride with you already to get away with elements of disbelief. And if they are … that’s a testimony to your storytelling!!!

There was a great episode of Mythbusters in which they tested many ideas people had about sharks, and "blowing up an air tank" was one of them. Turns out the whole thing was bunk. Even if the bullet hit the tank (which is itself absurd) it wouldn't blow up like that.

But I thought this was an example of disbelief I could suspend, because the director did such a meticulous job of leading up to it and did everything else so well. Spielberg guessed right on that one.

An example of a Spielberg movie that did NOT work in this regard was War of the Worlds. That movie, to me, felt like a mish-mash of expertly crafted and visually stunning set pieces that worked great individually but made no sense as a narrative. The whole idea of the enemy craft being underground the whole time just made no sense and it never did, even though it made for a great initial scene. And it made no sense at the end when the aliens, who obviously were technologically superior, were oblivious to the risks of infection on an alien planet. Silliness.

 

[alohadave]

I've read some pretty ridiculous stories with outrageous premises, but when the story is told well, with relatable characters, I can suspend a lot of disbelief.

It helps if the story isn't completely balls to the wall over the top.

 

[SimonDoom]

what do you feel about hary poter? does it throw too many things at you?

I have no problem with Harry Potter, although without question it violates my "too much magic" rule, and it's obvious that Rowling was constantly making up new stuff as she went along. I read Harry Potter as an adult with children who were reading the books, so I always saw them as fun children's books and nothing more. The magical plasticity of the Harry Potter universe was part of its fun, and it was established from the beginning.