: Re: Does everything have to be accurate? Do I have to make everything apply to logic, physics, science, etc? The Harry Potter series has been a major hit, and it is nowhere near to being scientifically

@Annie587

Vote Up Vote Down

As others have said, the simple answer is "no".

The only reason to explain something in a story is if the reader will care. If I am reading an action story and the hero and villain engage in a car chase, I don't expect the narrative to stop while the writer relates the history of the internal combustion engine. I don't even expect a discussion on the performance characteristics of the automobiles involved. Maybe you need to tell me that the villain got away because his car is faster. That's about as much as the reader is likely to want to know.

In any story, there must be a myriad of background details that you never mention. What did the hero have for breakfast this morning? What was his great-grandmother's blood type? Etc. Any story that literally told us everything there is to know about all the characters would take several lifetimes to read ... and would be immensely boring.

You are writing fiction. By definition, many things you say are not true. There isn't REALLY anyone named Harry Potter who did the things described in these books, nor a magic university named Hogwarts, etc. Even in stories more grounded in reality, British intelligence doesn't really have "double-oh" agents who have a "license to kill" -- authorizing assassinations in more complex than that. Real lawyers don't get only baffling murder cases with innocent clients. Etc. In any fiction story, you will depict many things that are blatantly false, or at least extremely unlikely. In a romance novel, the unreality may be that a man as rich and handsome and generally desirable as the hero would even notice this plain, poor girl. In a science fiction novel, the unreality may be that the invention you describe violates several dozen known laws of physics.

When that happens, you have two choices: (a) Bluff and hope the reader just accepts it for the sake of the story. Or (b) Give some explanation to make it sound plausible. Either way has its dangers. With (a), you are, of course, relying on the reader just accepting it. With (b), you may be able to introduce some story elements that make it sound more plausible, but then you create the danger that the reader will find your explanation unbelievable. The more detail you give, the more possible holes.

The trick is knowing what details to bring in and what to explain, and what to leave alone.

In general, explain what it is necessary for the reader to understand to make sense of the story.

I'd make one quibble about Michael Kjorling's comments about "Checkov's gun": A gun hanging on the wall could have many possible uses in a story other than someone firing it. The gun may turn out to be a valuable heirloom. You could say that there is a gun hanging on the wall to establish something about the personality of the person who owns this house. If this is a mystery story, it could be a red herring: the reader is supposed to think this gun was fired when really it never was. Etc.

I rather like stories where things are introduced without a complete explanation. If done well, it gives the impression that this is a real universe that existed before page 1 of the story.

On the other hand, I find "origin stories" that try to explain EVERYTHING often get tedious. Like, "and that's where Indiana Jones got his hat", okay, cute. If they had gone on to explain where he got his shoes and his belt and his jacket, that would likely have been very tedious.

(0)

Login to post a comment!