: Re: Is there such a thing as too inconvenient? I find myself often being irritated at elements in situations that help characters succeed, elements which are also highly unlikely or even illogical.

@Berumen699

Vote Up Vote Down

Oppositely, if the characters are winning the fight, but that same dragon swoops down and makes them lose, that would be too inconvenient, at least in my opinion.

It depends where in the story you are. If you're in the climax, yes it is bad writing.

But if this fight happens in the early exposition stage of the story, where the purpose of the scene is to introduce the existence of the dragon, it's not bad writing.

Surprises happen, and are often a source of plot (e.g. the otherwise experienced hero encounters a new hurdle to cross), but the climax of the story should only use known or established components in order to feel like an actual climax to the story.

Take the example of Lord of the Rings, how Frodo and Sam are rescued by the giant eagles in the end. If Gandalf had not previously been rescued by an eagle, the eagles would have been a bad resolution to the story as they would have been a lampshaded deus ex machina.
As it currently stands, the eagle resolution is still questioned by some fans, but it does tick the boxes for good (or at least not bad) writing: they were introduced in an earlier scene, and they weren't a plot hole (they couldn't fly in on the eagles because they would've been shot down by Sauron).

Then you have inconveniences that are just very unlikely. Imagine our hero is chasing the villain, and he is close to catching him, and then he is struck by lightening.

If lightning does not otherwise factor into the story, it's an unsatisfying resolution to the scene. If however it is e.g. used to then explain that on this planet you cannot wear metal armor for exactly that reason; then it's reasonable exposition.

Is there narrative-wise an inherent difference between convenience and inconvenience, making it so that the same rules don't apply to the latter?

The exact same good/bad writing argument can be made for lightning hitting the hero or the villain. Good writing isn't about who benefits from the ex machina; but rather about the existence/overreliance on an ex machina.

Though I must admit, I am very unsure in this "theory", as I have witnessed inconvenience and liked it, like in Whiplash, where the main character is hit by a car before attending the concert he was supposed to play at.

In this case, serendipity (or bad luck) is part of the story setting, which makes this a fitting case of exposition/theme building. Some stories very much focus on life being an unpredictable sequence of events where there is clear causality but it's mostly impossible to accurately predict it.

If everyone suffers from the same unpredictability (both positive and negative), then it's not bad writing and it is simply a matter of theme/setting.

(0)

Login to post a comment!