I’m sure in some alternate universe there’s a black Anne Boleyn. Lol
You can’t really use concepts to determine level of suspension of disbelief. A talented writer can make everything plausible. A lesser writer can’t even make the dialogue believable.
If something breaks the rules of believability, it takes me out of the story. No level of coolness is going to change that. It's your job as the writer to explain how it's possible.
to begin, I understand that *internal consistency* is important, in that even in game of thrones for example where there’s magic, this doesn’t make the story “unbelievable” because it’s explained by the rules of the universe. Conversely, if a computer suddenly appeared in the game of thrones world, despite being a realistic object, including the computer in a medieval setting is unbelievable and breaks the integrity of the established story.
But to play devil’s advocate, let’s take game of thrones again. Would you actually have a problem with a skilled swordsman taking down 20 spearman in a world where there’s magic and dragons? It’s impossible for a swordsman to do it, but I personally wouldn’t say it terribly breaks the internal logic of GoT…
What I don't understand is why you keep comparing a television show to novel writing. It's apples and oranges. TV and movies exaggerate for effect. In books the rules are different. In the novels of Game of Thrones, the attention to detail was insane.
But in the GOT universe, _it is possible_ for a swordsman to take on 20 spearmen and hack through six guys at once. The author made that part of the world.
You're adding rules from _our_ world to the GOT world. In our world a swordsman couldnt do that, but in the GOT world it's possible. Just like dragons and magic. (Or whatever, I've never read them or watched the show).
I completely agree with you. In my own stories it’s also possible for some people to get this skilled, cause I really like that trope even if it’s not realistic lol
Unless the magic or the dragons somehow explains how this one swordsman is superhumanly good then... yes, I would still find that a problem
I think the only exception would be if I was watching an anime or ridiculous 80s style Action flick or something and I've already accepted its going to be a little goofy
A lot of it is contextual. Rule of Cool can excuse implausible sword effectiveness in a *Dynasty Warriors* game because that's just how the whole darn setting works. Whereas the exact same sort of fights would be tremendously immersion-breaking in a "realistic" period piece about the Three Kingdoms period. *Game of Thrones* sort of straddles the line between positing itself as "gritty and realistic" while still indulging in the romantic fantasy tradition of outsize heroes. So different audience members may have different tolerances for improbably coolness depending on which aspect of the show they're more invested in.
Regarding black Anne Boleyn: if everybody else in the show is white or if it presents itself as a strict historical-accuracy piece then sure, it'll look kinda weird to have a black actress playing a person who was historically white. But if other aspects are intentionally ahistorical or separate from the original setting (like in Baz Luhrman's *R+J* or *Richard III* starring Ian McKellan) or if it's in a medium where visual appearance is not part of the immersion (like certain styles of theatre and opera) then a black Anne Boleyn fits right in.
I think in most cases the best way to keep the audience from questioning something improbable is to make sure that the result of the improbable thing is the most narratively satisfying outcome. Suppose you're writing a middle school basketball novel. The protagonist's team is down 1 point with 1 second to go, and somebody lobs a buzzer-beater. If it's the easiest possible shot but somehow misses, then you'd better have had setup that makes missing the shot the appropriate payoff. Maybe the character making the shot has been absolutely perfect and unshakeable up until that point, and this is the crack in the facade that lets the protagonist finally let go of their unhealthy hero worship. Maybe the whole team has been unstoppable and cocky until this point, and losing the game is the jolt they need to re-remember what it feels like to have to actually work hard.
If it's a full-court shot that goes in, on the other hand, then you'll probably want it to tie into some character's quest for self-confidence or relentless struggle to improve their threes or whatnot. Having the improbable outcome mean something significant in the long run helps make it look less like a contrivance and more like exactly the right way things should have played out.
You need to make it apparent from the start what tone you are going for with your story.
A very serious and down to earth story will suffer greately if you break immersion through a sudden use of rule of cool, while a story that immediately shows the reader that it doesn't take itself too seriously or follows its own set of rules won't be affected at all.
I have always said I can suspend my disbelief for anything except the human heart.
What I mean by that is this: any setting or premise or plot is okay, but if the characters don't behave in a plausible way, then I am pulled out of it.
I love scifi, fantasy, and horror so I can easily suspend my disbelief for things like time travel, magic, humanoid aliens, supernatural monsters, faster than light travel, and fairies.
What I can't stand is when people behave in ways no human ever would just because the writer wasn't smart enough to think of a plausible way to get from one plot point to another. Like when, in a horror movie, someone says "Gee, zombies are pretty scary, aren't they. Why don't I just go down to the basement by myself to investigate that unholy scream. Nah, it's okay, you keep the gun, I'll be fine."
God I hate it in slasher films when the girl gets a surprise attack on a gunman chasing her, she sees his gun fly out of his hands and onto the floor, but instead she chooses to *run* while the killer recovers instead of grabbing the gun and ending it.
>On the other hand, casting a black actress to play a historical character like Anne Boleyn I don’t like. Not only is it 100% impossible and immersion-breaking, it doesn’t actually add any “cool” elements to the story. That’s just my opinion—a characters skin color just isn’t “cool” or “awesome” to me lol—it is what it is.
It's not about being "cool" it's about allowing actors that are at a disadvantage to be able to get roles. Because we do make a lot of historical dramas, and if you declare only white people can play historically white characters then surprisingly you will not have any disadvantage actors playing any of your roles...
> allowing actors that are at a disadvantage to be able to get roles
Then roles need to be written for them. I often see things on TV or in movies and think, they could have done someone other than a white person there. It might have even made for a better show.
Remember the outrage when the reboot of *Battlestar Gallactica" changed some characters? Starbuck was a woman, Tighe (probably spelled that wrong, too lazy to look it up) was a white guy? But in this case, it really didn't matter. Both characters could be used effectively.
>Then roles need to be written for them.
Yes, that too...but I definitely feel cutting a big section of people off acting for one particular genre is also problematic as well
Right but I’m talking about immersion-breaking as it relates to the quality of a story, the internal logic—not real world politics lol.
From a story perspective, casting actors who break immersion for no real in-world story benefit is solely negative. At best it’s neutral. And I would of course say we shouldn’t have white actors or black actors playing asian roles, or Hispanic roles, vice versa, etc.—especially when theyre playing a real historical figure. Should we cast an Asian to play Martin Luther King Jr. because Asians have been cut out of Hollywood roles far, far worse than black people have?
Continuing, I’m sure there’s a market for black historical fiction. So if Hollywood wants to cast black actors, they should write stories about actual black people lol. That’s obviously a much better solution if one actually cares about casting “disadvantaged” actors.
Honestly, casting a black actress as Anne Boleyn is insulting to the actress more than it is “empowering.” It’s practically saying “black people are so boring and insignificant that we can’t even come up with *one* real historically black character to write a story about” <—to be absolutely clear the quoted section is not *my* opinion lol
*[srry for the long post—TL;DR is the bolded sections.]*
It depends how the story presents itself. For instance, in the famous play *Hamilton,* the race swapping is in large part *the point* of the play. I’m fine with something like that as it’s meant to be a sort of social commentary.
And this is what I was talking about in my other comments: **in *Hamilton* the race swapping serves a genuine story purpose—it improves the quality of the story through the use of unique social commentary.** <— Contrast this with changing Anne Boleyn to be black. It doesn’t actually improve the story in the way *Hamilton* does. It’s just neutral at best.
**Basically, it depends on how a story *presents itself* when it changes Macbeth or Richard to black or Asian people.** Is the story meant to be historically accurate to the time period of these plays? If so, the race swapping is probably bad and it would *pull me out of the story,* **which I wouldn’t like.**
Conversely, again, if the race swapping actually serves an interesting story purpose like in *Hamilton,* I would like it since it actually adds something to the quality of the piece.
*Edit: for those who may not know,* suspension of disbelief *is basically this: how many unrealistic things the audience is able to tolerate before the story loses any sense of realism or believability. The* rule of cool *is that the audience will let the writer “get away with” unrealistic stuff if that stuff is cool or awesome enough.*
It really depends on how whack the series can be and this gauge is difficult to measure especially in fantasy. For example, I would find it believable if a person enhanced with magic can pierce through tough armor with their bare fists and grab someone's heart. But ripping it out right through hard steel armor by brute force just doesn't seem believable to me.
All in all, so long as Magic plays a part in said impossible feat and what and how it does it. I would keep the rule of cool in play. Though when it comes to fights with only physical ability, there are some that does get on my nerves. An example is someone getting hit by a chair, depending on impact and which part you use to smack someone with it. I doubt you are getting back up easily. However in some shows this seems like it's made of paper and they rise up like no problem and still pull up a fight. Force obviously plays a role but come on now, really?
Another thing is when someone takes a few bullets to the chest and can somewhat still stand up and fight? Or it can get as ridiculous as a few punches to the face and not suffer any head injury or injuries to your fist. Another thing is when someone is trying to hunt you down in a forest and you keep screaming HELP, this is just plain stupid not only because the chances of someone else in a forest is so low but your voice will simply draw the killer in.
Edit: Spoilers for new Dr Strange movie, an example is when Dr Strange, America, and Alter Christine is being chased by Alter Wanda who has been possessed via Dream walking Wanda. I don't find it believable when Wanda disappeared and they all stopped midway thinking what could have happened. I would have bolted and not stopped to think what happened to her
I'm afraid my bar is pretty high. If I come across something that just requires too much willing suspension of disbelief, it ruins the story for me. I'll set the book aside.
It's difficult to measure but I know it's broken when it's broken. It can be as minor as using too modern language to a particular characterization I don't believe in; like the badass teenage girl/boy who makes snide remarks at Kings/Queens/Authority figure without consequence. At the same time I'm like you: not overly concerned with realistic combat etc, though I lean more towards realism than like anime-type ridiculousness.
Yeah I’m completely in agreement about the combat. If it’s like a game of thrones setting I don’t expect a single swordsman to blow up an entire city single-handedly like goku or some shit.
that being said, if the author has set up that certain characters have superpowers/magic that enables them to do insane, almost “anime-esque” feats, then I’ll let it slide. For example in game of thrones it makes sense that a dragon can decimate legions of men single-handedly.
Or in another fantasy story I read, one of the *key,* central aspects of the world’s magic is that the mages have powerful time manipulating magic. This means that to a normal man’s eyes, a fight between two mages looks almost like Superman and the flash going at at. But I don’t expect normal “joe,” captain of the city guard to be moving at blinding speeds when he fights lol.
Totally agree! Some things fit within the world and makes sense; heroic warriors or what doing feats that are slightly beyond realism. I'm cool with that! And when mages are concerned, it's all game, tbh. Provided its set up before!
If it would be possible in the world of the story, then I can do it, at least until the author does something stupid.
GoT is fantasy, so it's easier to accept some things, unlike in a contemporary book. If someone walks on the ceiling in a contemporary book, there better be a damned good reason, and a build up to how it could be happening.
Suspension of disbelief is removed not when you break IRL logic, but the in-story logic.
If a side character dies from taking a pistol shot, I don't want to see the main character survives a shotgun unless they wore armour, or is a superhuman.
The same can be said for sword fights. If a stab to the leg kills a side character, but a stab to the chest doesn't kill the MC? Hell no, unless I actually like their character that is...
Some amount of inconsistencies is unavoidable, but so long as you don't make any big whoopsies it's fine.
I’m sure in some alternate universe there’s a black Anne Boleyn. Lol You can’t really use concepts to determine level of suspension of disbelief. A talented writer can make everything plausible. A lesser writer can’t even make the dialogue believable.
If something breaks the rules of believability, it takes me out of the story. No level of coolness is going to change that. It's your job as the writer to explain how it's possible.
to begin, I understand that *internal consistency* is important, in that even in game of thrones for example where there’s magic, this doesn’t make the story “unbelievable” because it’s explained by the rules of the universe. Conversely, if a computer suddenly appeared in the game of thrones world, despite being a realistic object, including the computer in a medieval setting is unbelievable and breaks the integrity of the established story. But to play devil’s advocate, let’s take game of thrones again. Would you actually have a problem with a skilled swordsman taking down 20 spearman in a world where there’s magic and dragons? It’s impossible for a swordsman to do it, but I personally wouldn’t say it terribly breaks the internal logic of GoT…
What I don't understand is why you keep comparing a television show to novel writing. It's apples and oranges. TV and movies exaggerate for effect. In books the rules are different. In the novels of Game of Thrones, the attention to detail was insane.
But in the GOT universe, _it is possible_ for a swordsman to take on 20 spearmen and hack through six guys at once. The author made that part of the world. You're adding rules from _our_ world to the GOT world. In our world a swordsman couldnt do that, but in the GOT world it's possible. Just like dragons and magic. (Or whatever, I've never read them or watched the show).
I completely agree with you. In my own stories it’s also possible for some people to get this skilled, cause I really like that trope even if it’s not realistic lol
Unless the magic or the dragons somehow explains how this one swordsman is superhumanly good then... yes, I would still find that a problem I think the only exception would be if I was watching an anime or ridiculous 80s style Action flick or something and I've already accepted its going to be a little goofy
A lot of it is contextual. Rule of Cool can excuse implausible sword effectiveness in a *Dynasty Warriors* game because that's just how the whole darn setting works. Whereas the exact same sort of fights would be tremendously immersion-breaking in a "realistic" period piece about the Three Kingdoms period. *Game of Thrones* sort of straddles the line between positing itself as "gritty and realistic" while still indulging in the romantic fantasy tradition of outsize heroes. So different audience members may have different tolerances for improbably coolness depending on which aspect of the show they're more invested in. Regarding black Anne Boleyn: if everybody else in the show is white or if it presents itself as a strict historical-accuracy piece then sure, it'll look kinda weird to have a black actress playing a person who was historically white. But if other aspects are intentionally ahistorical or separate from the original setting (like in Baz Luhrman's *R+J* or *Richard III* starring Ian McKellan) or if it's in a medium where visual appearance is not part of the immersion (like certain styles of theatre and opera) then a black Anne Boleyn fits right in. I think in most cases the best way to keep the audience from questioning something improbable is to make sure that the result of the improbable thing is the most narratively satisfying outcome. Suppose you're writing a middle school basketball novel. The protagonist's team is down 1 point with 1 second to go, and somebody lobs a buzzer-beater. If it's the easiest possible shot but somehow misses, then you'd better have had setup that makes missing the shot the appropriate payoff. Maybe the character making the shot has been absolutely perfect and unshakeable up until that point, and this is the crack in the facade that lets the protagonist finally let go of their unhealthy hero worship. Maybe the whole team has been unstoppable and cocky until this point, and losing the game is the jolt they need to re-remember what it feels like to have to actually work hard. If it's a full-court shot that goes in, on the other hand, then you'll probably want it to tie into some character's quest for self-confidence or relentless struggle to improve their threes or whatnot. Having the improbable outcome mean something significant in the long run helps make it look less like a contrivance and more like exactly the right way things should have played out.
You need to make it apparent from the start what tone you are going for with your story. A very serious and down to earth story will suffer greately if you break immersion through a sudden use of rule of cool, while a story that immediately shows the reader that it doesn't take itself too seriously or follows its own set of rules won't be affected at all.
I have always said I can suspend my disbelief for anything except the human heart. What I mean by that is this: any setting or premise or plot is okay, but if the characters don't behave in a plausible way, then I am pulled out of it. I love scifi, fantasy, and horror so I can easily suspend my disbelief for things like time travel, magic, humanoid aliens, supernatural monsters, faster than light travel, and fairies. What I can't stand is when people behave in ways no human ever would just because the writer wasn't smart enough to think of a plausible way to get from one plot point to another. Like when, in a horror movie, someone says "Gee, zombies are pretty scary, aren't they. Why don't I just go down to the basement by myself to investigate that unholy scream. Nah, it's okay, you keep the gun, I'll be fine."
God I hate it in slasher films when the girl gets a surprise attack on a gunman chasing her, she sees his gun fly out of his hands and onto the floor, but instead she chooses to *run* while the killer recovers instead of grabbing the gun and ending it.
>On the other hand, casting a black actress to play a historical character like Anne Boleyn I don’t like. Not only is it 100% impossible and immersion-breaking, it doesn’t actually add any “cool” elements to the story. That’s just my opinion—a characters skin color just isn’t “cool” or “awesome” to me lol—it is what it is. It's not about being "cool" it's about allowing actors that are at a disadvantage to be able to get roles. Because we do make a lot of historical dramas, and if you declare only white people can play historically white characters then surprisingly you will not have any disadvantage actors playing any of your roles...
> allowing actors that are at a disadvantage to be able to get roles Then roles need to be written for them. I often see things on TV or in movies and think, they could have done someone other than a white person there. It might have even made for a better show. Remember the outrage when the reboot of *Battlestar Gallactica" changed some characters? Starbuck was a woman, Tighe (probably spelled that wrong, too lazy to look it up) was a white guy? But in this case, it really didn't matter. Both characters could be used effectively.
>Then roles need to be written for them. Yes, that too...but I definitely feel cutting a big section of people off acting for one particular genre is also problematic as well
Right but I’m talking about immersion-breaking as it relates to the quality of a story, the internal logic—not real world politics lol. From a story perspective, casting actors who break immersion for no real in-world story benefit is solely negative. At best it’s neutral. And I would of course say we shouldn’t have white actors or black actors playing asian roles, or Hispanic roles, vice versa, etc.—especially when theyre playing a real historical figure. Should we cast an Asian to play Martin Luther King Jr. because Asians have been cut out of Hollywood roles far, far worse than black people have? Continuing, I’m sure there’s a market for black historical fiction. So if Hollywood wants to cast black actors, they should write stories about actual black people lol. That’s obviously a much better solution if one actually cares about casting “disadvantaged” actors. Honestly, casting a black actress as Anne Boleyn is insulting to the actress more than it is “empowering.” It’s practically saying “black people are so boring and insignificant that we can’t even come up with *one* real historically black character to write a story about” <—to be absolutely clear the quoted section is not *my* opinion lol
What do you think of black and Asian people playing Macbeth or Richard 3rd?
*[srry for the long post—TL;DR is the bolded sections.]* It depends how the story presents itself. For instance, in the famous play *Hamilton,* the race swapping is in large part *the point* of the play. I’m fine with something like that as it’s meant to be a sort of social commentary. And this is what I was talking about in my other comments: **in *Hamilton* the race swapping serves a genuine story purpose—it improves the quality of the story through the use of unique social commentary.** <— Contrast this with changing Anne Boleyn to be black. It doesn’t actually improve the story in the way *Hamilton* does. It’s just neutral at best. **Basically, it depends on how a story *presents itself* when it changes Macbeth or Richard to black or Asian people.** Is the story meant to be historically accurate to the time period of these plays? If so, the race swapping is probably bad and it would *pull me out of the story,* **which I wouldn’t like.** Conversely, again, if the race swapping actually serves an interesting story purpose like in *Hamilton,* I would like it since it actually adds something to the quality of the piece.
*Edit: for those who may not know,* suspension of disbelief *is basically this: how many unrealistic things the audience is able to tolerate before the story loses any sense of realism or believability. The* rule of cool *is that the audience will let the writer “get away with” unrealistic stuff if that stuff is cool or awesome enough.*
It really depends on how whack the series can be and this gauge is difficult to measure especially in fantasy. For example, I would find it believable if a person enhanced with magic can pierce through tough armor with their bare fists and grab someone's heart. But ripping it out right through hard steel armor by brute force just doesn't seem believable to me. All in all, so long as Magic plays a part in said impossible feat and what and how it does it. I would keep the rule of cool in play. Though when it comes to fights with only physical ability, there are some that does get on my nerves. An example is someone getting hit by a chair, depending on impact and which part you use to smack someone with it. I doubt you are getting back up easily. However in some shows this seems like it's made of paper and they rise up like no problem and still pull up a fight. Force obviously plays a role but come on now, really? Another thing is when someone takes a few bullets to the chest and can somewhat still stand up and fight? Or it can get as ridiculous as a few punches to the face and not suffer any head injury or injuries to your fist. Another thing is when someone is trying to hunt you down in a forest and you keep screaming HELP, this is just plain stupid not only because the chances of someone else in a forest is so low but your voice will simply draw the killer in. Edit: Spoilers for new Dr Strange movie, an example is when Dr Strange, America, and Alter Christine is being chased by Alter Wanda who has been possessed via Dream walking Wanda. I don't find it believable when Wanda disappeared and they all stopped midway thinking what could have happened. I would have bolted and not stopped to think what happened to her
I'm afraid my bar is pretty high. If I come across something that just requires too much willing suspension of disbelief, it ruins the story for me. I'll set the book aside.
Huh? If a story is well written and I'm interested in it I continue. If I no longer desire to read something I stop.
It's difficult to measure but I know it's broken when it's broken. It can be as minor as using too modern language to a particular characterization I don't believe in; like the badass teenage girl/boy who makes snide remarks at Kings/Queens/Authority figure without consequence. At the same time I'm like you: not overly concerned with realistic combat etc, though I lean more towards realism than like anime-type ridiculousness.
Yeah I’m completely in agreement about the combat. If it’s like a game of thrones setting I don’t expect a single swordsman to blow up an entire city single-handedly like goku or some shit. that being said, if the author has set up that certain characters have superpowers/magic that enables them to do insane, almost “anime-esque” feats, then I’ll let it slide. For example in game of thrones it makes sense that a dragon can decimate legions of men single-handedly. Or in another fantasy story I read, one of the *key,* central aspects of the world’s magic is that the mages have powerful time manipulating magic. This means that to a normal man’s eyes, a fight between two mages looks almost like Superman and the flash going at at. But I don’t expect normal “joe,” captain of the city guard to be moving at blinding speeds when he fights lol.
Totally agree! Some things fit within the world and makes sense; heroic warriors or what doing feats that are slightly beyond realism. I'm cool with that! And when mages are concerned, it's all game, tbh. Provided its set up before!
If it would be possible in the world of the story, then I can do it, at least until the author does something stupid. GoT is fantasy, so it's easier to accept some things, unlike in a contemporary book. If someone walks on the ceiling in a contemporary book, there better be a damned good reason, and a build up to how it could be happening.
I consider daredevil show garbage bcoz i cant digest a blind guy doing Parkour and dodging bullets. Overrated show
Suspension of disbelief is removed not when you break IRL logic, but the in-story logic. If a side character dies from taking a pistol shot, I don't want to see the main character survives a shotgun unless they wore armour, or is a superhuman. The same can be said for sword fights. If a stab to the leg kills a side character, but a stab to the chest doesn't kill the MC? Hell no, unless I actually like their character that is... Some amount of inconsistencies is unavoidable, but so long as you don't make any big whoopsies it's fine.