# Unjustified events (in fiction)



## Darth Angelus (Aug 26, 2012)

I have been pondering various tropes that have been bothering me in speculative fiction, and I think I am getting to the point where I see the one trait that they all have in common. It may be very pretentious to call it a grand unified theory, but I think there is definitely something that can be fits most of them.

Let us just call it the topic title, "unjustified events".

Allow me to explain what I mean!
In any fictional story, we tend to expect a continuity. It is most satisfying when the events in a story follow naturally from what preceeds them. Ultimately, this is what makes it a story at all, rather than a meaningless randomly generated sequence of imaginary events. The less natural and believable this flow of events is, the harder it is to get attached to the story. This means, among other things, that a rather large dose of logical coherence is required to make it work, but it goes beyond that.

In my recent thread about how two tropes to solve insurmountable problems were really rather similar (of which this thread is partly a spinoff, admittedly), I talked about changing and/or adding something to alter the state of things in the story in order to make a previously impossible outcome possible. Because these tropes bring in something that has not been properly introduced into a story, but which often superceeds the established state of things, they do bring in a logical contradiction of sorts, even though it isn't clear enough to actually prove it a lot of the time (especially the strong as they need to be, which isn't really very hard to accept in mild cases, although personally I don't count cases that mild as belonging to the trope at all). Even when the reader can't prove those, they may still doubt the story, though, and merely stretching believability to far can detach the readers or audience.

This thread is not about repeating that thread under a new name, though. Rather, I would want to explain how I think it can be seen as a subset of a (much) larger group of tropes. I (and others) touched upon some of these points briefly there, but I would like to develop them further.
As I brought up in the other thread, there is a type of situations where new events in the story are disconnected from what preceeded them in the story. Don't get me wrong, some cause is presented to explain the effect, but because no justification is required, the cause is merely a placeholder for the will of the author or the need of the plot. Common cases of such causes in speculative fiction are...
- Luck or randomness.
- Unpredictability of magic.
- Fate or prophecy (especially self-fulfilling ditto in cases where the probability of prophecised event is rather trivial on its own).

I read on TV Tropes about suspension of disbelief a few months ago that you can ask the audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable, which I think had to do with the first point above. The example of a ferocious carnivore (although when I think of the example, I think it applies to any kind of dengerous enemy) just happening to die of heart attack as it is about to attack the hero is brought up in that article.
It is fairly clear that both magic and fate/prophecy can be used in a fashion way to justify without further explanation (almost) any event the writer finds convenient for the plot.

Note that in all the cases above, no logical contradiction can really be found. This may sound like a good thing, but it really isn't when you think about it. Basically, we have these universal justifications, these causes that can basically create any effect/event that the writer desires. A universal justification ironically becomes no justification in this case.
The problem is that all those causes are really fake, merely serving as placeholders for the whims and needs of the writer and the plot. Everything that ever happens in any fictional story does so because the writer made it up that way, and everyone knows this, but we don't want to be reminded of this. Another thing we all know is that the only thing the writer can hide this from us is to create this coherent in-story chain of events, so that story flow seems to follow causality. This cannot happen when the cause presented for the desired outcome could have equally been used for (almost, as randomness does not allow for impossible events to happen, merely exceedingly unlikely ditto, which can be enough in a fictional world that allows things to happen that couldn't in our world) any other outcome.
Again, I think it would be beyond pretentious to equate my own theories about fiction with science, I think this concept I am getting at is fairly similar in logical structure to falsifiability. Basically, because (almost) no outcome could ever be shown to be a plot hole based on these universal justifications, they become weak justifications.
Back to the knowledge that fictional randomness is fake (as was brought up in the other thread), I think this is the reason why asking the reader or audience to believe the improbable is too much, even though they may have in real life. The difference is that in real life, in the unlikely event that the improbable occurs, the witness will know that it did happen by the authentic (no matter how low) probability as it was. In fiction, what is that "one in _insert your own immense number here_" chance in-story really is just that placeholder for the writer's needed outcome.

What I am getting at is that in addition to the known tropes where plot holes or logical contradictions arguably come up because justifications are lacking where they were needed, we also have these other universal "no further justification is needed" causes. I think that together, they can be said to make up "unjustified events" in fiction. There is no doubt in my mind that overused (or if key story elements hinge upon them), these can also severely jeopardize the integrity of the plot.


As a side note, only speculative fiction really suffers from magic, fate or prophecy serving this role. Other genres only have luck or randomness to worry about. I have only in the past year gotten increased interest in crime stories at the expense of speculative fiction, because even though it is less imaginative, it suffers less from this and consequently comes off as less childish. Yet, I cannot help thinking that even in a highly imaginative world, writers needn't make these shortcuts. Tolkien invented a fictional world (with relatively small role for magic, but still) with a rather strong, coherent plot.
I basically would be interested in a series that has the imagination of speclative fiction, but the plot integrity and logical strength and coherence of a good crime story (or at least, close to it). Does anyone have a recommendation?

Sorry about long post, and if I did come off as whining or preaching, or indeed too theoretical, I am sorry about that, too. I hope this is a somewhat interesting read to someone and doesn't just come off as a rant, which is not how it is intended. However, isn't overuse of these universal causes/justifications (that cannot be made into a plot hole) nearly as bad as plot holes themselves?

Cheers!


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 26, 2012)

I'm rather hoping - not too forlornly, I (again) hope - that where something improbable happens, the reader may begin to wonder why it happened.  If they mostly just think, "That's too improbable to believe; the author is just being lazy!" that would be worrying.

I do my best to avoid _deus ex machina_ events, but one or two things do happen that aren't going to be explained for quite a while (and certainly not in the first book of the series), so they risk looking "improbable, thus lazily plotted". I've dropped the odd hint - characters who tell each other that they don't believe in coincidences and who are sometimes proved right there and then - that all is not always what it seems, but I worry if it's enough.

None of which is to say that most of the main happenings of, say, WiP1 aren't "explained" by the end of that volume. (If one's story was but the tiniest part of the tip of an iceberg of hidden explanations, one is almost certainly expecting too much patience from one's readers.)


----------



## Darth Angelus (Aug 26, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> I'm rather hoping - not too forlornly, I (again) hope - that where something improbable happens, the reader may begin to wonder why it happened.  If they mostly just think, "That's too improbable to believe; the author is just being lazy!" that would be worrying.


Yes, me too. I think the reader's reaction here depends largely on how improbable it is, how much it has previously been used and how major the plot points were that were justified by chance. A reasonable reader will accept some amount of improbable events, and start looking for explanations at first, before dismissing the author as lazy, I think.



Ursa major said:


> I do my best to avoid _deus ex machina_ events, but one or two things do happen that aren't going to be explained for quite a while (and certainly not in the first book of the series), so they risk looking "improbable, thus lazily plotted". I've dropped the odd hint - characters who tell each other that they don't believe in coincidences and who are sometimes proved right there and then - that all is not always what it seems, but I worry if it's enough.


I hadn't really considered the delay aspect, I admit, although I guess it is valid, too. What I was thinking about was the series as a whole, and how much would be explained by the time you'd reach the end.
You are right in that it is sometimes hard to put ourselves in the shoes (or, as the case may be, minds) of our readers. When I write, I constantly worry whether I am explaining too little or too much, although I suspect that gets better with experience.
Certainly, you can't explain everything at right away as it happens, as that would kill excitement rather effectively. However, hints that things don't happen just by chance and that further explanation may be coming can certainly show the reader that the issue is not being ignored. I also think the beginning of an explanation that is later finished (sometimes with a twist that changes parts or all of it) is a method that could work well.



Ursa major said:


> None of which is to say that most of the main happenings of, say, WiP1 aren't "explained" by the end of that volume. (If one's story was but the tiniest part of the tip of an iceberg of hidden explanations, one is almost certainly expecting too much patience from one's readers.)


Agreed, fully.


----------



## Boneman (Aug 28, 2012)

Because I like the ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances. I have to work hard to ensure I don't fall into the trap of lacking justification, even when random events have conspired against my hero. Effectively, I try to take the position that there are no random events - only a (sometimes very small) trope that I'm working, trying to hope the audience doesn't see it as such. It's very hard, and some are removed in re-writes. In the end everything MUST be explained, or it risks coming over as laziness...


----------



## Kissmequick (Aug 29, 2012)

Make the events justified (or at least likely)

Simples.


----------



## nightdreamer (Sep 1, 2012)

This thread comes at an opportune time, as I am about to self-publish a novel whose premise is based upon an improbable event.  The cause is not explained by the end, but the book is the first of a series and I hope I have made it clear that there is an explanation that will be resolved in a later installment.  Most other mysteries are resolved by the end of this volume, but that was one of the things I wanted to leave unanswered, and, in fact, it becomes the premise for book 4.  Now I'm hoping I've done the right thing. :/


----------



## Dante DiBenedetto (Sep 5, 2012)

Deus ex machina as well as improbable and unexplained events bug the hell out of me -- especially in short fiction. Deus ex machina pretty much bugs me in any context, to be frank, but I'll move on.

If you're going to implement improbable events, I feel you should at least leave their potentially discerned intent open for intrigue, debate, etc; not simply a plot band-aid. Make the reader wonder, was this really an accident/luck, or did this happen from covert planning from an internal force/character?

Furthermore, I despise those improbable events that don't seem to affect the characters to near the extent they should.

Improbable events are something I actually enjoy when I find out later that it was something that occurred due to aforementioned planning, etc.

I still feel at the end of the day that the writer should ultimately flex their own free will, but that doesn't make them immune to criticism, especially when something like this subject occurs and is poorly executed.


----------



## Jeffbert (Sep 13, 2012)

Excuse me for not reading all the posts, but this thread seems all too similar to another one, both started by Darth Angelus:  Deus ex Machina vs. Strong As They Need To Be; and yet, both exist in seeming ignorance of each other. While I might have something worthwhile to add, I know not in which thread I ought to post it!


----------



## Darth Angelus (Sep 13, 2012)

Jeffbert said:


> Excuse me for not reading all the posts, but this thread seems all too similar to another one, both started by Darth Angelus:  Deus ex Machina vs. Strong As They Need To Be; and yet, both exist in seeming ignorance of each other. While I might have something worthwhile to add, I know not in which thread I ought to post it!


Just put it where you think it fits best.

And yes, the topics are related, but I think this is more general.

So I would say that if what you have to add relates to one or both of those tropes specfically, put it in that thread. Otherwise, put it in this on. However, overall, I don't think it matters all that much.


----------



## Glitch (Sep 13, 2012)

I've often heard the suspension of disbelief can be applied once -  believe in faster than light travel; believe in time travel; believe in robots that look and act like humans; believe in magic etc...After that everything should be consistent within the world/environment you have established.

What annoys me the most are things of convenience that appear at just the right moment to be of use, but have never been mentioned before.


----------

