True coincidences you might not believe in a novel

[Ursa major]

Yesterday, I put on a CD I hadn't played for a very long time. When I first listened to one of the pieces, the so-called Malédiction concerto by Liszt**, the only source of information one could easily get about it was on the CD insert. (Oh, and a book I happened to have on the composer.) Thinking that there must be more information out there by now, I checked on Wikipedia. Nothing. So I went looking and found the following (from a book by Humphrey Searle):

After a short piano cadenza, mainly based on the clash of two chords a triton apart---an effect not afterwards paralleled till Petroushka*

[...]

* Incidentally the parallel passage in Petroushka is in fact called "Malédictions de Petroushka"---a curious coincidence, as Liszt's Malediction was still unpublished at the time Stravinsky wrote the ballet.

Now if this was all from a novel, one would know without being told that this is no coincidence, because novels simply don't have those; not deliberately, that is. (And one's belief would be bolstered by the extreme nature of the coincidence.) In addition, because novels are meant to (though not always do) contain things only pertinent to the story (or characters or setting), one might suspect that there's some importance associated with Stravinsky's use of the same name for the same musical effect, an importance that we would expect to be shown later.

So my questions are:

• Do we include any true coincidences in our stories?
• Do we expect them to be believed?
• Do we find them in our stories and remove them -- or change them -- to avoid accusations that we're misleading the readers?

** - Note that the name was written on the manuscript by Liszt, but only as the name of one of the themes. (There are other themes, and these too have names.) The concerto itself was not given that name until it was published, after Petroushka was written and performed. (Note that I'm not saying that there is no way that Stravinsky could have seen both the name and the music; it's just highly unlikely. And given that the device is called the Petroushka chord, one could argue that he had good reason not to say even if he was aware of the connection. But then he might have borrowed the effect from Ravel***, not Liszt, and Ravel said nothing about it being called Malédiction.)

*** - Showing that Humphrey Searle was wrong about the effect not appearing between the concerto and the ballet.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I think sometimes characters can realise something isn't a solution to a mystery but only a coincidence. Also sometimes a fortuitous coincidence happens.

Stuff DOES happen for no good reason. Coincidently they spoke about it on R4 this afternoon. 16:30 "More or Less"

 

[The Judge]

I've never included a coincidence of this kind in any of my writings, nor can I recall reading of one -- as a reader I would immediately suspect that any such coincidence was of Great Significance and I'd be rather miffed if it turned out to be nothing of the kind. Such things are apparent in real life** but we're not writing real life, we're writing fiction, and we have to shape our plots accordingly. Though using coincidences as red herrings -- ie actively misleading the reader -- can be a good move!

I have regrettably read -- and *wince* written -- other types of coincidence, eg where the hero just happens to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, where it's clear it's clumsy plotting or the writer couldn't come up with a better way of resolving a problem. Those I certainly don't believe, and I would go all out to remove them from my own mss if there were any feasible alternative.


** my own minor -- but I find it amusing -- coincidence is that my best friend at junior school was named Christine, my best friend from my first year at grammar school (ie immediately after leaving junior school) was Krystyna, the Polish variant, and the Judicial Helpmeet, whom I met the summer I left school, is Christopher. So I've had successive Chrises in my life from the age of 8!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Nope. I had deus ex machina hammered into me by @HareBrain and wouldn't face his wrath by being la-dy-da about coincidence.

 

[Ursa major]

I'll admit to having things that are convenient (or very inconvenient) that may not be as random as they seem. I've gently hinted, in a general way (and one seemingly not related to the main events), that something odd may be afoot, but most of these things don't unravel in WiP1. (I have been making some of the events less inexplicable, though I try to show more of the mechanics -- the actions of those in the field, as it were -- than the thinking behind some of them.)

So in my case, the issue is more of delaying explanations than having actual coincidences.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Small coincidences are fine - little trivial things, which, perhaps, might add up to something. Or be illustrative of something bigger yet unseen happening.

But the big things - the plot resolutions - using coincidence would feel too much like weak writing.

 

[FibonacciEddie]

I agree with Brian.

perhaps I am even more stringent, I cannot include any coincidences in my writing
(albeit they may initially look like coincidences)

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Coincidences happen - why not include them? To have none in a story can sometimes feel more unreal than to have one or two.

 

[FibonacciEddie]

fair enough ...
on reflection, it's probably due to my lack of confidence as a writer
I worry about being accused of contrived writing
However, I agree ... coincidences do happen

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I just tell the story. As long as it is well written there are worse things in a story.

 

[J Riff]

Waitaminit.... The Rite was writ arownd then too .... much more reknowned clashiness of tritones, there....
I will wager Iggy knew from Franz's tune, somehow... or elset, the word Malediction was just more common then, tho not 'mongst the commoners, probably, except perhaps coincidentally. And one could easily work the whole mess into a story, because nobody would want to admit they dont know what tritones are.

 

[Dave]

Aren't many coincidences (just like dejavu) simply constructs of the way our mind and our memory work? We don't know why we feel they are coincidences because we don't know enough about the way the brain works yet, but if you could analyse the probabilities of it happening using proper scientific methodology then they wouldn't be beyond a statistical significance (even that OP example given.)

I once travelled all the way back through Europe on a coach sitting next to someone who I then saw a few hours later in a supermarket quite some distance from the coach station. I always thought that beyond a coincidence, but really was it? What I find most weird is when you think about someone who you haven't seen for months or years and then you immediately receive a phone call or text from them.

Such things do really happen, so I think you can put them in a story. If, as Brian says, the plot resolution hinges on such a coincidence, then it probably will not endear you to the reader.

 

[The Ace]

Well, look at Killiecrankie .

James Claverhouse, Earl of Dundee (Bonnie Dundee) raised a rebellion against the accession of William of Orange, and confronted government troops in a battle that lasted only 20 minutes.

As the routed government troops fled the field, one soldier realised he hadn't discharged his musket, so he fired wildly at the Jacobites pursuing him.

His ball sailed over the heads of the massed infantry, and took the mounted Dundee full in the chest, killing him instantly and leaving the leaderless rebellion to be mopped up at leisure.

No fiction writer would attempt such a storyline, but it's perfectly true.

 

[Toby Frost]

I've quite often nicked bits and bobs from history but have had to leave out the bits that were too crazy - the exploits of Ursula Graham-Bower or Jack Churchill, for instance, were so bizarre that nobody would believe it if you put them in fiction.

I remember The Great God Pan having almost no plot beyond a load of coincidences. As soon as I realised it - admittedly, after I'd finished reading it - it seemed pretty weak. Ok, Victorians liked coincidences, but to a modern reader (ie me) it feels like a huge flaw.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

To me it's not about whether or not coincidences happen in a story, it's about the effect they have on it. If the plot is resolved by an unlikely coincidence then it feels forced and unreal and you get a deus ex machina. If on the other hand they play a more minor role, or perhaps as in many books, even start the plot rolling by giving the MC an enemy to battle etc, that's fine. I mean when you think about Conan, the entire saga is begun on a coincidence where the bad guys kill his tribe / family. They could have hit any other village, or they could have killed him, or he might have been away at the time and not known who did what or been captured. But a string of unlikely events propel him to become Conan.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Ogma]

I think as well that coincidences are more acceptable if they are negative rather than positive, if they create more problems rather than actually solve them.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

No coincidences that help out the characters in any way. Only coincidences that will get the characters into more trouble. If the writer includes coincidences that get the characters out of trouble it will be read as the author having written themselves into a corner and being unable to think of a better way to extricate the characters.

 

[Toby Frost]

Thinking about this, I expect there to be a neatness to novels that there isn't to real life. People walk off the stage in real life for whatever reason, where in a book, even if they just dropped dead, they would usually do so in a way that affected the rest of the book and brought it closer to a proper conclusion - what I mean is that even the random things tend not to be random. So I would expect a far lower rate of random weirdness, and, where random weirdness occurred, it would be there to make a point.

 

[Sapheron]

I recently read David Copperfield, and found that the plot's reliance on coincidences to get a lot of things going was one of the things I didn't like about it. A lot of people happened to bump into each other because they just happened to be staying at the same inn. I couldn't help but consider that between the chances of those two people being in the same town, at the same time, and also choosing to stay at the same inn (even in somewhere like London) seemed a little far fetched. Of course, it could happen, but despite that it seems like Dickens took the easy way out. He wanted Mr A to talk to Mr B about topic C, but they didn't even know where the other was, let alone have the capability to communicate. So lets just have them happen to run into each other and everything will be fine!

Seems too easy for my liking.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Of course, it could happen

Could be worse.

The character could accidentally get into a star fighter, accidentally fly to the driod command ship, accidentally fly through its shields, accidentally destroy its main reactor, and then accidentally escape after having accidentally destroyed it - thus saving everybody. cf. Phantom Menace.