What do you do with minor plot holes?

[HareBrain]

I've realised one occurrence of a particular magic effect in my books behaves inconsistently with others, in that it lasts only hours rather than permanently.

I can see three options:

1, make it consistent even though this will mean having to majorly rework a scene and probably make it worse in other ways.
2, have a character speculate a fudge reason that risks drawing attention to it.
3, ignore it in the hope that no one will notice anyway, and if they do, it's far less egregious than some in other books.

Being lazy but particular about "magical physics", I'll probably end up with 2. I'm curious what other people do about similar situations.

 

[Mouse]

I would go the lazy route too. I would usually ponder it for a bit and then work out the simplest and easiest way to fix it without having to do a ton of rewriting.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'd fix it. Someone, somewhere will notice it and leave a review and I'd be furious at not fixing it.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I've realised one occurrence of a particular magic effect in my books behaves inconsistently with others, in that it lasts only hours rather than permanently.

I can see three options:

1, make it consistent even though this will mean having to majorly rework a scene and probably make it worse in other ways.
2, have a character speculate a fudge reason that risks drawing attention to it.
3, ignore it in the hope that no one will notice anyway, and if they do, it's far less egregious than some in other books.

Being lazy but particular about "magical physics", I'll probably end up with 2. I'm curious what other people do about similar situations.

In virtually all video game RPG's there are temporary and permanent boosts/magical effects. In Skyrim, you can down a potion for a quick boost or you can enchanted a weapon that stays with it forever, say. I have no idea if Skyrim's magic system is inconsistent. (I know you can 'break the game' in Morrowind using its magic system, so that suggests that Bethesda's ever evolving Elder Scrolls magic system is inconsistent!)

Thus, unless you have been evangelically promoting the magic system in the book, I would suggest that few will notice it, if you go along with (3).

 

[Bramandin]

I've realised one occurrence of a particular magic effect in my books behaves inconsistently with others, in that it lasts only hours rather than permanently.

I can see three options:

1, make it consistent even though this will mean having to majorly rework a scene and probably make it worse in other ways.
2, have a character speculate a fudge reason that risks drawing attention to it.
3, ignore it in the hope that no one will notice anyway, and if they do, it's far less egregious than some in other books.

Being lazy but particular about "magical physics", I'll probably end up with 2. I'm curious what other people do about similar situations.

Is it possible to say that it was just a different spell or that there could have been a programming glitch that caused it to fail? Is the character likely to go "huh, that's funny, a nargle must have caused a problem" and move on? Can someone deliberately cast the spell so it's limited instead of permanent?

I'd go with either hanging or lampshade or just leaving the bare bulb. I'd need more information to help you choose which one to do.

 

[Toby Frost]

Same here, I think. It's quite hard to know what to do out of context, but for me I think the context would require me to read the whole book. My instinct is to say "leave no loose threads" and suggest a rewrite, but it's very hard to know in the circumstances.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Unless it is raised by some early or beta readers, I'd lean towards #3 - Leave it be. If readers do identify this as troubling, I'd go with #1 - Rewrite. or exclude the whole subplot. I feel #2 - Highlight the issue is likely the worst option.

 

[HareBrain]

Thanks for the responses. Just to clarify for any future ones, I'm not really after advice about my particular plot-hole so much as just curious what other people tend to do when they come across similar in their own work.

 

[tinkerdan]

I take care of any inconsistencies that I know of.
I did--in fact--find some in my work and had to stop and ponder long on how to fix or if I would have to rewrite several portions.
The thing is, you--the author--are the only one qualified to understand just how it needs fixed or if it might somehow have an explanation that can be fitted into the narrative at its soonest.

Of course, mine is science and in some cases an inconsistency might pass, especially in light of the fact that one reviewer called my science 'inexplicable'. However; once more, I would still try to fix it once it is pointed out and confirmed in my mind.

As to the inexplicable--I've toyed with the idea of making the last trilogy group into the Cripple-Mode: Inexplicable Science Trilogy.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

Variant on 2: make a virtue of it. A magical system that is 100% understood and consistent can feel a bit, well, unmagical. It's good if there are situations where a spell doesn't behave quite as you might logically expect. Experienced wizards just shrug and say, "yeah, it does that sometimes. Who knows why?" Reasons could be that their theoretical understanding of magic is not the real fundamental laws (as in much of the history of physics); or particular kinds of magic drawing on an older or foreign tradition with different rules.

I think highly consistent worldbuilding runs the risk of feeling shallow and mechanistic. The real world is messy, complex and imperfectly understood. So, worldbuilding-related plot holes could be seized as an opportunity to show that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in Appendix 2.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Thanks for the responses. Just to clarify for any future ones, I'm not really after advice about my particular plot-hole so much as just curious what other people tend to do when they come across similar in their own work.

I have to fix it. I feel it will eat away at me like an invasive species on a coral reef until my entire ecosystem is buggered and I stop writing in a fit of self-loathing and imposter syndrome.

 

[Bramandin]

Variant on 2: make a virtue of it. A magical system that is 100% understood and consistent can feel a bit, well, unmagical. It's good if there are situations where a spell doesn't behave quite as you might logically expect. Experienced wizards just shrug and say, "yeah, it does that sometimes. Who knows why?" Reasons could be that their theoretical understanding of magic is not the real fundamental laws (as in much of the history of physics); or particular kinds of magic drawing on an older or foreign tradition with different rules.

I think highly consistent worldbuilding runs the risk of feeling shallow and mechanistic. The real world is messy, complex and imperfectly understood. So, worldbuilding-related plot holes could be seized as an opportunity to show that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in Appendix 2.

This is an approach I plan to favor if I harden my magic system. Magic isn't completely understood. Their understanding also isn't static. If there's a problem near the beginning of the story that magic can't solve, that doesn't mean a later similar problem can't be solved with magic.

An early idea with one of my characters is that she's the reincarnation of their attempts to make a sorcerer of war, but what they got was someone with a chaotic mismash of abilities where not even she's sure what all she can do. All because magic doesn't fit into neat categories and certainly not a category like destruction. I'm changing it to that they haven't figured out what she is or why she exists. (Well, she's a former human, but she's also an anomaly that's hard to explain.)

 

[Bramandin]

I have to fix it. I feel it will eat away at me like an invasive species on a coral reef until my entire ecosystem is buggered and I stop writing in a fit of self-loathing and imposter syndrome.

Just solve it like they solved the lionfish problem.... oh wait.

 

[Swank]

Have rhe character say right after: "The spell was quick - but it'll hold for awhile!"

Quick or sloppy or not quite the right one or muddled or a blend of spells.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm having a problem even thinking about this: I haven't encountered this in real life as I've not published anything, so changing things that have not been in the public eye is not an issue (so I'd fix the text... perhaps not by fixing the glitch but seeing it as an opportunity to add depth to the world/universe of the book). I also write SF, so a degree of consistency (above the level of "god playing with dice", that is ) is expected, so again, I'd change the text.

Setting that aside, there are so many variables to take into consideration when there isn't a glitch to sort out (or not):

• ones to do with the expectations (if any) of (some or all of) the characters present at the time of the glitch;
• ones to do with the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the characters present at the time;
• ones to do with how the characters present react (or not) to the change (including if they could or should have noticed the glitch);
• ones to do with how it affects the plot;
• etc.

These would necessarily affect what I would do, at least in how I might explain not only the glitch itself but the reactions (or lack of them) to the glitch (and how they** reacted when the glitch was not present).


** - If different characters are present for the glitch and for when the glitch isn't there, it might be easier to explain away, particularly if the glitch (or the lack of it) was not a bug but a feature that could be invoked or not as suited the requirements of the character/plot AND that one user of it was in the know and another was not. An opportunity to explain it away might be when those present at the two (different) occurrences meet.

 

[MaxRelaxman]

In my own writing, I'd probably try and see how I could work it in so it was consistent with the rules. Like maybe if the magic had to be focused on an object, have a limit on the amount of time the object could contain all the magical goodness before it melts, explodes or just stops working.

Well normally, I'd cast this on a tulip because the tulip's natural state makes it closer to the spell. But we only have this rock handy so it'll only be able to handle the magic for ten minutes before it turns into a pile of exploding grasshoppers.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Another option is build a whole sub plot (or plot) about explaining it after the fact. This is what Isaac Asimov did in his robot stories, set up an apparent violation of his three rules and then have the main character discover how it is not really a violation at all.

As I am not much of a planner, I usually lean more into this approach. I will find that I can create somewhat dissonant situations and then provide a solution later.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I've realised one occurrence of a particular magic effect in my books behaves inconsistently with others, in that it lasts only hours rather than permanently.

I can see three options:

1, make it consistent even though this will mean having to majorly rework a scene and probably make it worse in other ways.
2, have a character speculate a fudge reason that risks drawing attention to it.
3, ignore it in the hope that no one will notice anyway, and if they do, it's far less egregious than some in other books.

Being lazy but particular about "magical physics", I'll probably end up with 2. I'm curious what other people do about similar situations.

Ignore it but write a form letter saying, "Congratulations! You're the first person to have have spotted that!"

 

[THX1138]

If the inconsistency takes place in the same location, then explain it at some point as an addition or subtraction of a person or item.

If it is at a different location in the story, then explain it as being too far from one energy source (forest or mountain, etc.) or too close to another source. Or even due to some form of damage to a nearby natural feature.
You could even say at some point after the inconsistency that a disturbance in the magic was caused by and portal opening somewhere.

 

[Steve Harrison]

It's a tricky one. My first novel had a major historical plot hole that had to remain there for the story to work. I explained it in a few sentences of bullsh** early in the book - with considerable conviction - and prayed no one would notice. In the seven years since, none of the reviews have mentioned it.

In other words, I went for your option 2, as I figured that the explanation would be enough to stop a question popping up and distracting readers.