Some Thoughts On Writing
A writing-related question for anyone on my FL who has an interest in it, even if only from a reader's perspective: at what point does it become acceptable for a story to sacrifice or ignore internal logic in the name of style? Is it ever okay for a story to contain a few plot holes/illogical moments in the name of making the story more interesting, or should a good author have to include explanations in-text for why the simple solution, [x], was not possible and thus the much more complicated [y] was the only solution? I'm talking about the kind of moments that TV Tropes would refer to as 'Fridge Logic', the sort of the thing that the reader/viewer may not even notice at the time but hours later the inconsistency suddenly dawns on them.
I ask because, although I'm definitely not going back to the days of fan fiction, I've found over the past few months that every now and then I get an idea for a story that occupies my head for at least a couple of days, occasionally weeks. The trouble is that I never actually write them because in the process of planning them out and working in the details and so on, I start stumbling across problems with internal consistency and eventually become so bogged down with making sure everything 'makes sense' (in order to avoid Fridge Logic) that I lose sight of the actual intent of the story and eventually grow so frustrated with the whole thing that I don't want to think about it any more.
As a rather vague example: the latest idea I've had is set in space and involves the characters waking up to discover that they don't remember anything about themselves or anyone else, being informed of their identities by the ship computer, and working towards a common goal only to discover that a lot what they've been told about their situation is completely untrue. (As an aside, having read over that blurb it sounds like the single most cliché story ever, to which I can only say that it sounded much better in my head when I include more details. Honest!) The main 'purpose' of the story is mostly to explore themes relating to identity, group relations, how someone's self-perspective influences their behaviour, nature vs. nurture and so on (all psychological concepts that came up at some point or another while I was at university, and that I'm still interested in). The trouble is that coming up with a reason for the mass amnesia that makes sense in the context of [x], what they believe is the case, that ALSO makes sense in the context of [y], what is actually the case, is incredibly difficult. It gets to the stage where there are so many caveats added to the explanations that the whole thing becomes absurdly convoluted and distracts from the actual point of the story.
So, returning to my original question: is it acceptable, in this case, to just gloss over the cause of the amnesia or finish the story after the reveal in the knowledge that earlier parts of the story suddenly make no sense? My instinct here is that the answer is 'no', since the amnesia plays such a major role in the story (being the lead cause of conflict) that to ignore the problem and hope it goes away is inexcusable.
But what about lesser story problems, such as the provisions/equipment available on the ship? Another issue I've been wrangling with is that the equipment you'd expect to find on board for [x], the mission the characters believe they are on, is inconsistent with the equipment you'd expect to find on board for [y], the mission the characters are actually on. A third issue is the existence of provisions, bathrooms and everything else necessary for sustaining human life on a spaceship - since the occupants were expected to be in stasis for the entire duration of the trip, the ship ought not to have been provided with these things, and if you want to start making the argument that the government/organising body put them on 'just in case' then immediately one should argue that they should have been rather better prepared for the disaster that actually occurs.
I suppose what this really all leads to is: is it possible for a story to be so lacking in internal consistency, or to require so much explanation and back-story for it to make any kind of sense to the reader, that it eventually becomes impossible to write? My instinctive response to that question is 'of course', since throwing together two incredibly different and unrelated concepts must surely result in that kind of problem, but then I struggle to actually think of an example that doesn't seem in some way salvageable. The closet I can get is the story of a Hawaiian dragon that wants to play ice hockey for the Canucks, in a world that otherwise requires strict adherence to physics and reality as we know it today, but even then you could claim the dragon slipped through from an alternate reality and never mention it again. Sure, it would be a bit stupid, but at least it's not an explanation that raises even more questions than it answers and it's unlikely to clash with other events in the story.
The silly thing is that since typing all this stuff out, I've actually had a few ideas that might at least ease the problems I just discussed even if not solving them entirely. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in hearing what people think.
I ask because, although I'm definitely not going back to the days of fan fiction, I've found over the past few months that every now and then I get an idea for a story that occupies my head for at least a couple of days, occasionally weeks. The trouble is that I never actually write them because in the process of planning them out and working in the details and so on, I start stumbling across problems with internal consistency and eventually become so bogged down with making sure everything 'makes sense' (in order to avoid Fridge Logic) that I lose sight of the actual intent of the story and eventually grow so frustrated with the whole thing that I don't want to think about it any more.
As a rather vague example: the latest idea I've had is set in space and involves the characters waking up to discover that they don't remember anything about themselves or anyone else, being informed of their identities by the ship computer, and working towards a common goal only to discover that a lot what they've been told about their situation is completely untrue. (As an aside, having read over that blurb it sounds like the single most cliché story ever, to which I can only say that it sounded much better in my head when I include more details. Honest!) The main 'purpose' of the story is mostly to explore themes relating to identity, group relations, how someone's self-perspective influences their behaviour, nature vs. nurture and so on (all psychological concepts that came up at some point or another while I was at university, and that I'm still interested in). The trouble is that coming up with a reason for the mass amnesia that makes sense in the context of [x], what they believe is the case, that ALSO makes sense in the context of [y], what is actually the case, is incredibly difficult. It gets to the stage where there are so many caveats added to the explanations that the whole thing becomes absurdly convoluted and distracts from the actual point of the story.
So, returning to my original question: is it acceptable, in this case, to just gloss over the cause of the amnesia or finish the story after the reveal in the knowledge that earlier parts of the story suddenly make no sense? My instinct here is that the answer is 'no', since the amnesia plays such a major role in the story (being the lead cause of conflict) that to ignore the problem and hope it goes away is inexcusable.
But what about lesser story problems, such as the provisions/equipment available on the ship? Another issue I've been wrangling with is that the equipment you'd expect to find on board for [x], the mission the characters believe they are on, is inconsistent with the equipment you'd expect to find on board for [y], the mission the characters are actually on. A third issue is the existence of provisions, bathrooms and everything else necessary for sustaining human life on a spaceship - since the occupants were expected to be in stasis for the entire duration of the trip, the ship ought not to have been provided with these things, and if you want to start making the argument that the government/organising body put them on 'just in case' then immediately one should argue that they should have been rather better prepared for the disaster that actually occurs.
I suppose what this really all leads to is: is it possible for a story to be so lacking in internal consistency, or to require so much explanation and back-story for it to make any kind of sense to the reader, that it eventually becomes impossible to write? My instinctive response to that question is 'of course', since throwing together two incredibly different and unrelated concepts must surely result in that kind of problem, but then I struggle to actually think of an example that doesn't seem in some way salvageable. The closet I can get is the story of a Hawaiian dragon that wants to play ice hockey for the Canucks, in a world that otherwise requires strict adherence to physics and reality as we know it today, but even then you could claim the dragon slipped through from an alternate reality and never mention it again. Sure, it would be a bit stupid, but at least it's not an explanation that raises even more questions than it answers and it's unlikely to clash with other events in the story.
The silly thing is that since typing all this stuff out, I've actually had a few ideas that might at least ease the problems I just discussed even if not solving them entirely. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in hearing what people think.