![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Continuity and suspension of disbelief
Jan. 18th, 2014 02:05 pmI don't have an assigned topic for today, but I thought of two things to talk about anyway. :)
So we were watching "Breaking Bad" last night (up through 4x11 - !!!!) and it occurred to me that there must have been someone on the production staff whose assigned task it was to keep track of exactly how much money Walt possesses at any one point. This was extremely plot-relevant at that particular moment, but really all the time (I mean, "having enough" is his motivation from the beginning, and he never does). The show's good at continuity in general, so I'm sure they thought that part out very well.
I don't necessarily notice continuity errors while I'm watching a show for fun, but I think I could pick them out when more emotionally detached (being a continuity supervisor would be a great job). The Person of Interest Wikia lists errors of various types for each episode, and I happened to be looking at the "God Mode" entry the other day and saw a note about ( spoiler )
I think it would be fun to have a fandom fest in which people write wild and wacky rationalizations for continuity errors and other oddities. For the above one, I offer: ( and again, spoilers )
On another topic, I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance at the MG meeting I mentioned where I was being showered with book praise. She took one of my cards, saying that her husband might be interested in reading my book, but that she wouldn't, because she has great trouble with suspension of disbelief and can't read anything that's "unlikely" - including, I guess, all fantasy, science fiction, other speculative fiction, spy novels, and works with too many coincidences in them. She says she enjoys Jonathan Franzen. I am all for people being upfront about what they like and don't like, and it's usually hard to change minds about that kind of thing, especially among older readers, though I always hold out a smidgen of hope.
Anyway, I personally have no trouble with suspension of disbelief within reason, meaning that as both a reader and a writer I allow for at least one major coincidence and/or seemingly impossible technology per book, as long as everything else falls into place logically. But it's interesting to think that some people just lack that ability, in the same way that they can't curl their tongues or deal with brussels sprouts. I've been thinking this as I watch my two cats, one of which adores chasing the little red light of the laser pointer, and clearly has a vendetta against it ("curse you, little red light! curse you forever!") while not suffering any apparent emotional distress over never ever being able to catch and eat it. While the other one watches the light for a moment, and then looks at your hand. If they were bookstore cats, you know which would end up in the mystery novels and which in the nonfiction section.
So we were watching "Breaking Bad" last night (up through 4x11 - !!!!) and it occurred to me that there must have been someone on the production staff whose assigned task it was to keep track of exactly how much money Walt possesses at any one point. This was extremely plot-relevant at that particular moment, but really all the time (I mean, "having enough" is his motivation from the beginning, and he never does). The show's good at continuity in general, so I'm sure they thought that part out very well.
I don't necessarily notice continuity errors while I'm watching a show for fun, but I think I could pick them out when more emotionally detached (being a continuity supervisor would be a great job). The Person of Interest Wikia lists errors of various types for each episode, and I happened to be looking at the "God Mode" entry the other day and saw a note about ( spoiler )
I think it would be fun to have a fandom fest in which people write wild and wacky rationalizations for continuity errors and other oddities. For the above one, I offer: ( and again, spoilers )
On another topic, I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance at the MG meeting I mentioned where I was being showered with book praise. She took one of my cards, saying that her husband might be interested in reading my book, but that she wouldn't, because she has great trouble with suspension of disbelief and can't read anything that's "unlikely" - including, I guess, all fantasy, science fiction, other speculative fiction, spy novels, and works with too many coincidences in them. She says she enjoys Jonathan Franzen. I am all for people being upfront about what they like and don't like, and it's usually hard to change minds about that kind of thing, especially among older readers, though I always hold out a smidgen of hope.
Anyway, I personally have no trouble with suspension of disbelief within reason, meaning that as both a reader and a writer I allow for at least one major coincidence and/or seemingly impossible technology per book, as long as everything else falls into place logically. But it's interesting to think that some people just lack that ability, in the same way that they can't curl their tongues or deal with brussels sprouts. I've been thinking this as I watch my two cats, one of which adores chasing the little red light of the laser pointer, and clearly has a vendetta against it ("curse you, little red light! curse you forever!") while not suffering any apparent emotional distress over never ever being able to catch and eat it. While the other one watches the light for a moment, and then looks at your hand. If they were bookstore cats, you know which would end up in the mystery novels and which in the nonfiction section.
