How many worldbuilding plotholes can be covered by an unreliable narrator?

[Bramandin]

And how do you reinforce that?

There's a story that used to be called Vigor Mortis and the MC narrated that they lived on floating islands above the body of a giant tentacle-monster. She ended up at the edge of the island and it's true, but the story could have just as easily been that since few braved going outside the city walls because it was filled with fantasy monsters, she was believing a wild tale. (I know, in that particular story, everyone could see the islands that were passing overhead, but still.)

Or maybe if Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was told in close third and it was just Arthur going along with the story that the Earth was blown up... but instead Ford just tricked him because Arthur wouldn't have left the planet without a push and Ford is well-intentioned with the trick.

Is this rarely-used, or have I just missed reading a story where this actually happened?

In Legacy of Kain, we take it at face value that the Elder God and Moebius are saying anything that's true when it makes a lot more sense to assume that they're both lying unless the truth serves their narrative.

 

[Wayne Mack]

None. Unreliable narrator, worldbuilding, and plot holes are three separate topcis.

 

[Bramandin]

None. Unreliable narrator, worldbuilding, and plot holes are three separate topcis.

Okay, I don't understand.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Unreliable narrators have to have some important motivation for lying or for believing untruths, reasons that are relevant to the story and not just a convenience for the author as a slick way of explaining away plot holes or sloppy world building.

And beyond that, in a well-written story I believe that by the end (if not a long time before the end) readers should become aware of the truth, or at least suspect what it is (even if the narrator was still choosing willful ignorance), and therefore plot holes and world building glitches would ultimately be exposed—thus, the unreliable narrator would not be a way to conceal them forever.

So, while my reasoning may be a little different than Wayne's, my answer is the same: none.

 

[tinkerdan]

I would have to go with none also in respect to how the question is framed.

The examples that OP gives seem more like what would be planned twists at the end of the story that would be revealed and basically would be considered a greater part of the plot. Usually there would be some breadcrumb indicators within the story that the reader could reflect on to say, 'oh yeah now it makes sense."

Also most of Philip K. Dicks stories could be considered like this in the sense that he relies on the reader to be coming from a normal reality frame of mind into a story that is slowly twisting reality out of shape. However as I mentioned above, it is all in the plot of the story for it to be this way.

Trying to fill plot holes with a newly contrived story would require a huge amount of rewriting to make it right and then it would likely become plot rather than hole.

 

[Bramandin]

Unreliable narrators have to have some important motivation for lying or for believing untruths, reasons that are relevant to the story and not just a convenience for the author as a slick way of explaining away plot holes or sloppy world building.

And beyond that, in a well-written story I believe that by the end (if not a long time before the end) readers should become aware of the truth, or at least suspect what it is (even if the narrator was still choosing willful ignorance), and therefore plot holes and world building glitches would ultimately be exposed—thus, the unreliable narrator would not be a way to conceal them forever.

So, while my reasoning may be a little different than Wayne's, my answer is the same: none.

Isn't it possible for a character to just believe the propaganda until given a reason not to? I don't think I had a motivation to believe my teachers when they said that Columbus was a brave and heroic explorer who wanted to prove that the world is round. (Or maybe my motivation was that I'd never earn the privilege of interacting with my classmates if I didn't do what I was told.)

There was a part in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality where a magical rule was that you couldn't transfigure just part of an object. Then he did it because he stubbornly changed his belief about what an object was. My magical system is half-baked so that some of their rules are just as valid as miasma theory. Is that really story-breaking?

Even if there is some sort of glitch exposed, could it be okay to not have the truth revealed, and instead just point out instances where they don't have a real explanation? Or is realistic important more in a storytelling sense than a real world sense? Could there be a gun hanging over the fireplace, but it doesn't go off because someone had the good sense to not load it?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I assume your motivation as a child was to believe that the adults around you were telling the truth because that increased your sense of security. That is a pretty strong motivation. And as a matter of fact, your teachers almost certainly believed what they were teaching you, so your trust was not misplaced.

And if it is necessary to what your character does in a story for them to believe the current propaganda for similar reasons that's a feature of the worldbuilding, not a plot hole. A plot hole is something else entirely, like a lapse in continuity, or something contrary to the logic of the story and setting.

 

[Bramandin]

Philip K. Dick

Interesting. I've seen some of the film adaptations but I don't think I've read a single one of his books.

I got the sense that maybe I had a language-failure when asking my question and have trouble with examples.

This came out of a discussion in the seamstress thread about details that break immersion. One thing I mentioned required a lot of explanation. Another thing might have the same amount of taking someone out of the story, but even if I come up with an explanation, it might be difficult to put it in.

that's a feature of the worldbuilding, not a plot hole. A plot hole is something else entirely, like a lapse in continuity, or something contrary to the logic of the story and setting.

How does one tell the difference? Do I need to stop and point out anything that could look like a plothole or glitch and point out that it's a feature?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Readers will accept it as a feature until such time as it impacts the plot in such a way as to create the impression of a plot hole. If it never does then you do not need to explain anything (fantasy readers understand that imaginary worlds, just like ours does, have legends and histories and beliefs that are not necessarily true). If it does create a plot hole that readers notice, then trying to explain it will just get you in deeper. Better to create a plot without such holes, even if that means going back, rethinking, and revising.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Readers will accept it as a feature until such time as it impacts the plot in such a way as to create the impression of a plot hole. If it never does then you do not need to explain anything (fantasy readers understand that imaginary worlds, just like ours does, have legends and histories and beliefs that are not necessarily true). If it does create a plot hole that readers notice, then trying to explain it will just get you in deeper. Better to create a plot without such holes, even if that means going back, rethinking, and revising.

Create the plot first, then choose to use the unreliable narrator as you choose to. But, as the late, great Steve Covey said ‘begin with the end in mind’. Don’t use it to cheat on worldbuilding but by all means play with the narrator - if you are sure of your rules the rest will feel correct too

 

[Bramandin]

If it does create a plot hole that readers notice, then trying to explain it will just get you in deeper.

So this is a case of the reader deciding what is a plot hole and I should correct it even if I think it isn't? Like I saw a critique of Hunger Games where it was dumb that each district was in charge of one resource only and if the food district went down everyone was up a creek. Granted, it pretty much needs to be looked at as a power fantasy.

if you are sure of your rules the rest will feel correct too

I haven't quite nailed down the rules, but I'm playing with the idea of having a structure that looks a lot like the Eiffel Tower just being somewhere at random when the technology level might be late colonial America. (I have a vague idea of what I'm going for, it's just hard to describe the tech-level when it's all over the place instead of aligned with our history.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

So this is a case of the reader deciding what is a plot hole and I should correct it even if I think it isn't?

No, I didn't say that.

I said if there is a plot hole* then it is better to fix it than try to cover it up, because it it's unlikely that readers who spot the weakness in the fabric of your story will be fooled by efforts at disguise.

*Ultimately it is up to the writer to decide if there is or is not a plot hole, but if, for instance, you have several beta readers and two or three of them independently point out the same problem, there is probably something there that you do need to look at with an open mind, even if the problem is not immediately apparent to you.

 

[Wayne Mack]

So this is a case of the reader deciding what is a plot hole and I should correct it even if I think it isn't? Like I saw a critique of Hunger Games where it was dumb that each district was in charge of one resource only and if the food district went down everyone was up a creek. Granted, it pretty much needs to be looked at as a power fantasy.

The purpose of the districts in the Hunger Games is part of the worldbuilding. Disagreeing about the practicality is not a plot hole; it is a detail that is superfluous to the plot. And making Kat an unreliable narrator to address this would simply highlight the issue in the reader's mind. There would be no reason to have Kat mislead the reader as to how the districts operated and no benefit in doing so.

 

[Bramandin]

There would be no reason to have Kat mislead the reader as to how the districts operated and no benefit in doing so.

That one would probably being more of a case where Kat thinks that's how it works and doesn't have a reason to question it, I guess. This is all so confusing and I'm thinking I should just run with what I got even if I risk falling on my face. How many people did Hunger Games have to get past before publishing only for people to point it out now.

 

[DLCroix]

You don't need to have a high level of technology for your stories to include monumental temples or structures like the Eiffel Tower. After all, if the Egyptians could, why not you? Also, if you were a comic artist you wouldn't even consider the reason for so many things, you draw them and that's it, and the landscape is more beautiful with something monumental in the background, eh?

Basically, what I'm saying is that we accept these things as initial cards with which creators of both stories and comics in general are allowed to play, and I don't know if Robert E. Howard considered this monumental imagery in his novels. , but in the comics of the Conan series it began to be seen and then it was replicated in the movies and the same thing happened later with The Lord of the Rings and many others. Therefore, it has become a custom and the important thing is that no one questions where it came from or why it is there. At best, assuming your characters are going to wander around there, they might comment on those structures, but unless they're of real importance to the plot, then don't worry.

Lastly, you can't have everything covered at the level of plot and detail for the simple reason that the plot ALWAYS evolves; therefore, something that you have not contemplated now will not appear to you in 2 weeks; chances are that next year many aspects of your story will change. I tell you this from experience. For example, of the first book of my series there were at least half a dozen previous drafts that I wrote in a span of 4 years due to all series of questions that arose during the writing of these and were completing the plot forwards and backwards; but often when you create a new world and civilization this is what it takes, at least a couple of years and the problem is that if you don't start typing these questions they won't appear let alone their answers. In addition, along the way you must find not only your own narrative voice (something that will be difficult if you do not start writing now) but also details such as the type of narrator you will use. All this is evolution, both for you, as a writer, and for the story you are doing. And be patient, but I repeat that it would be good if you started once and for all.

 

[Wayne Mack]

That one would probably being more of a case where Kat thinks that's how it works and doesn't have a reason to question it, I guess. This is all so confusing and I'm thinking I should just run with what I got even if I risk falling on my face. How many people did Hunger Games have to get past before publishing only for people to point it out now.

First, let me repeat that this is not a plot issue; it is a (very minor) worldbuilding concern.

One of the things writers do in a story is ask the reader to suspend disbelief. A made-up world, by definition, will differ from reality; there will be discrepancies. Given interesting characters and plot lines, readers will generally accept real-world absurdities: that dragons exist, that spaceships can travel in excess of the speed of light, that children can cast magic spells by waving wooden sticks. It is up to the individual reader to decide what disbeliefs to put aside and which ruin the story.

A PoV character that has an incorrect belief about his or her made-up world is not an unreliable narrator. There are entire plots about characters discovering the reality behind their world. An unreliable narrator is one technique for an author to use to misdirect readers concerning the plot. As the characters within a story would be extremely unlikely to question their own world, an unreliable narrator would not be able to explain a worldbuilding concern. From the example, it would not be realistic for Katniss, a rural girl literally fighting for her life to ponder the trade realities of her world nor try to better understand them.

The primary constraint of worldbuilding is that must be be somewhat self-consistent, but it doesn't need to be explained. The world is what it is. In the Hunger Games example, given the number of incredible worldbuilding elements that the reader is asked to accept, focusing on district capabilities seems more like an individual's pet idea got trampled rather than a broad concern. Given the success of the series, I do not feel that the individual complaint has any mainstream acceptance.

Plot, worldbuilding, characterization, etc., are separate issues. Do not use one to fix an issue in another.

 

[Bramandin]

You don't need to have a high level of technology for your stories to include monumental temples or structures like the Eiffel Tower. After all, if the Egyptians could, why not you?

I do question why there are giant statues in LOTR, even though the ability to do that is pretty old as long as there is enough food to do non-survival stuff. Furthermore, I meant Eiffel Tower as if someone was shooting a new Conan flick and didn't bother to digitally remove a microwave tower from the top of the mountain in the background. I did come up with an explanation.

when you create a new world and civilization this is what it takes, at least a couple of years

Maybe this is why many books happen in a medieval stasis with anything else tacked-on? Luckily I'm recycling from my fanfiction world so half of the work should be done already.

And be patient, but I repeat that it would be good if you started once and for all.

Believe it or not, I am writing. I didn't get very far today and I had to rip it all out after doing some necessary research, but I think I solved it by condensing it down to a paragraph of "this happened" and then his emotional reaction. Yeah I should have tried skipping it and then going back, but that doesn't work well for me. I know that it looks like I can't possibly have time to write, but that's probably because you also have Real Life stuff like cooking, cleaning, and bathing at regular intervals.

 

[tinkerdan]

I have to agree with those who mention the need to define plot-holes properly.
From Wikipedia

Plot hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In fiction, a plot hole, plothole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot.[1]

Plot holes are usually created unintentionally, often as a result of editing or the writers simply forgetting that a new event would contradict previous events. However, the term is also frequently applied incorrectly—for example, a character intentionally written to take irrational action would not constitute a plot hole, nor would "loose ends" or unexplained aspects of the story.

Then this one which I don't entirely agree with.

Do You Know the Five Different Types of Plot Holes? - ScreenCraft

Ken Miyamoto explains the five types of plot holes that screenwriters should know, understand, and be able to spot.

screencraft.org

Some of the elements in the first group could be considered plot devices which are a different problem from plot holes.

 

[Bramandin]

I have to agree with those who mention the need to define plot-holes properly.
From Wikipedia

Plot hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then this one which I don't entirely agree with.

Do You Know the Five Different Types of Plot Holes? - ScreenCraft

Ken Miyamoto explains the five types of plot holes that screenwriters should know, understand, and be able to spot.

screencraft.org

Some of the elements in the first group could be considered plot devices which are a different problem from plot holes.

I think you've solved the bulk of my problem. Just making a reader confused might be a problem, but it's not necessarily a plot hole. I guess the next step is how much to worry about readers getting confused.

 

[dneuschulz]

I'd add that a character that is lying is a different thing altogether than a narrator who is unreliable. Unreliability can be many more things than just lying. And, as mentioned above, revealing a character as having lied is a twist. An unreliable narrator is seldom explicitly posited as unreliable. I'd even go so far as to say the best writers who employ the technique of unreliable narration do so with a profound subtlety.