When is a plot inconsistency too much
There's been lots of debate about the most recent episode of Veronica Mars, Donut Run. Much of it around the idea that the whole "kidnapping the baby" plotline was silly since Duncan, as the father, would have basically automatically had custody under California law. And the smart Veronica we know wouldn't have betrayed friends and family, risked her safety, the baby's, and Duncan's, and broken so many laws if there was an easier solution.
The response that many -- including myself -- have offered is that maybe custody laws in RT's fictitious world are different. As long as we're making up Type IV epilepsy for the show anyway, maybe there's also a law that, due to uncontrollable violent outbursts, parents with this condition are automatically unfit. Or, even better, maybe Veronica and Duncan just got some bad legal advice and followed it. That would be very consistent that Veronica, while very smart, isn't quite as smart as she thinks she is and often has bad judgment.
The show didn't tell us any of this though. We have to guess. So, it's fair to say that there's something of an inconsistency since, on the surface, the kidnapping plan seems unnecessary, and we're not told what led Veronica to think they "had to do it." I say it's a minor problem though, because the solutions to this problem are fairly straightforward, and which one actually happened falls into the set of stuff leading up to the kidnapping that we weren't told to maintain the twist. Any of that stuff which is irrelevant to future plotline is, well, irrelevant, and any of it which matters will surely be revealed as we go along.
This led me to a broader question. Where's the line between plot inconsistencies that matter and those that don't? My classic example of either side of this line is characters speaking English in movies. Many movies show, say, officers on a Russian sub speaking English. That's wrong. But it doesn't matter -- they'd be speaking Russian to each other, but they'd understand each other, and the English just lets the audience hear the dialog. English with Russian accents seems silly, but it's no big deal really. Contrast that with Planet of the Apes. They crash land on this foreign planet, and discover some Apes who speak English. What??? This matters because much of the plot depends on the people speaking with the apes, which shouldn't be possible. But it matters even more because it ruins the whole twist of the movie -- surely the fact that the apes are speaking English is a bigger clue that you might be on Earth than the Statue of Liberty you stumble on at the end. It makes no sense.
So, I think it's about internal consistency. Fictional shows can create their own world. The rules have to be consistent. And the characters have to behave consistently. If so, we're OK. Good fantasy and Sci Fi can be great because they know they have to make the rules consistent. But this is true on lots of shows. CSI regularly uses crime scene techniques that are not really feasible. Pisses people off to no end. But the show is pretty consistent from week to week, so it works as a piece of fiction. It's not about matching some real world analog, it's about creating a fictional world that is logical and entertaining, and that hopefully speaks to the real world at least via metaphor. No city in America has as much "haves vs. have-nots" tension as Neptune, but that doesn't stop the message from working.
So, does it come down to the fact that Donut Run didn't explicitly tell us that the custody laws are different or that Veronica and Duncan consulted a lawyer? Because that seems pretty nitpicky to me. If it's a major thing, they should tell us. Buffy wouldn't work so well if they didn't tell us that, by the way, vampires and demons exist in this world. But I don't think they need to tell us that some lines of the custody code are different. The story makes sense with one assumption. So, we make that assumption.
In fairness, it's more than this. It's also about how much we like the show. Shows I love have plot inconsistencies that violate my rule. No one can ever convince me that everyone wouldn't have moved out of Sunnydale sometime in S1. Scully was still a skeptic after everything she saw week in and week out?? If I love a show, I'm willing to give it leeway. For VM, that means I'll give them that Veronica was in love with Duncan, even though I never saw it on my screen (as long as she quickly stops being in love with him now!!). But I don't feel like such leeway is needed for the kidnapping plot.
The response that many -- including myself -- have offered is that maybe custody laws in RT's fictitious world are different. As long as we're making up Type IV epilepsy for the show anyway, maybe there's also a law that, due to uncontrollable violent outbursts, parents with this condition are automatically unfit. Or, even better, maybe Veronica and Duncan just got some bad legal advice and followed it. That would be very consistent that Veronica, while very smart, isn't quite as smart as she thinks she is and often has bad judgment.
The show didn't tell us any of this though. We have to guess. So, it's fair to say that there's something of an inconsistency since, on the surface, the kidnapping plan seems unnecessary, and we're not told what led Veronica to think they "had to do it." I say it's a minor problem though, because the solutions to this problem are fairly straightforward, and which one actually happened falls into the set of stuff leading up to the kidnapping that we weren't told to maintain the twist. Any of that stuff which is irrelevant to future plotline is, well, irrelevant, and any of it which matters will surely be revealed as we go along.
This led me to a broader question. Where's the line between plot inconsistencies that matter and those that don't? My classic example of either side of this line is characters speaking English in movies. Many movies show, say, officers on a Russian sub speaking English. That's wrong. But it doesn't matter -- they'd be speaking Russian to each other, but they'd understand each other, and the English just lets the audience hear the dialog. English with Russian accents seems silly, but it's no big deal really. Contrast that with Planet of the Apes. They crash land on this foreign planet, and discover some Apes who speak English. What??? This matters because much of the plot depends on the people speaking with the apes, which shouldn't be possible. But it matters even more because it ruins the whole twist of the movie -- surely the fact that the apes are speaking English is a bigger clue that you might be on Earth than the Statue of Liberty you stumble on at the end. It makes no sense.
So, I think it's about internal consistency. Fictional shows can create their own world. The rules have to be consistent. And the characters have to behave consistently. If so, we're OK. Good fantasy and Sci Fi can be great because they know they have to make the rules consistent. But this is true on lots of shows. CSI regularly uses crime scene techniques that are not really feasible. Pisses people off to no end. But the show is pretty consistent from week to week, so it works as a piece of fiction. It's not about matching some real world analog, it's about creating a fictional world that is logical and entertaining, and that hopefully speaks to the real world at least via metaphor. No city in America has as much "haves vs. have-nots" tension as Neptune, but that doesn't stop the message from working.
So, does it come down to the fact that Donut Run didn't explicitly tell us that the custody laws are different or that Veronica and Duncan consulted a lawyer? Because that seems pretty nitpicky to me. If it's a major thing, they should tell us. Buffy wouldn't work so well if they didn't tell us that, by the way, vampires and demons exist in this world. But I don't think they need to tell us that some lines of the custody code are different. The story makes sense with one assumption. So, we make that assumption.
In fairness, it's more than this. It's also about how much we like the show. Shows I love have plot inconsistencies that violate my rule. No one can ever convince me that everyone wouldn't have moved out of Sunnydale sometime in S1. Scully was still a skeptic after everything she saw week in and week out?? If I love a show, I'm willing to give it leeway. For VM, that means I'll give them that Veronica was in love with Duncan, even though I never saw it on my screen (as long as she quickly stops being in love with him now!!). But I don't feel like such leeway is needed for the kidnapping plot.