On "coincidences" in a story
Jun. 6th, 2017 10:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rainwatersparkI got this feedback on my own manuscript recently, which I've been thinking about a lot, and I also read (or re-read?) pulpklatura's eloquent defense of the "Martha" scene from Batman v Superman, which touched on the topic as well.
So, here's the thing.
"The plot is too coincidental" is getting at a valid criticism, but using the word "coincidence" is not precise enough to really explain the problem—because if someone is using "coincidence" in the literal sense, it can lead to overly broad and even nonsensical conclusions.
What the valid real critique is, is this plot point felt random and/or contrived because it wasn't set up properly.
For example, in Throne of Glass, protagonist Celaena only discovering a secret passage because on day 60 or so (that's a very vague estimate) of staying in a particular room, one night, she just happened to notice a tapestry was fluttering, indicating there was a doorway there. That's random and contrived and was clearly written just because the author suddenly realized Celaena needed to discover that secret passage at that precise moment. Such errors are often easy to fix—just introduce or hint at the plot point much earlier. Instead of having it "come out of nowhere," make it come from somewhere.
The problem with saying plot points are "too coincidental" is that, technically speaking, every story is based on "coincidences." Hamlet meeting the ghost of his dead father and accidentally killing Polonius are coincidences. Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream accidentally making Lysander fall in love with Helena is a coincidence (as obvious from the word "accidentally"). Romeo and Juliet having a communication SNAFU that resulted in their suicides? Total coincidence! The fact that none of the students in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets died because they all just *happened* to see the basilisk through a reflection? Coincidence!! Yet, if you remove the "coincidences," there is no story. (Or you have a lot of dead bodies in a story for which that kind of tone isn't appropriate.)
Furthermore, if you read a story with an eye for "does this plot rely on coincidences or not," your reading experience will quickly become ruined. Because every story relies on coincidences.
The idea isn't (or shouldn't be) "is this plot point 'coincidental' or not," it's "does this make sense within the logic/context of this story?" and/or "has this plot point been set up properly so it doesn't feel completely random?"
Otherwise, if your criteria for a good story is "no coincidences," then you will be tearing apart every single story that has ever existed in human history.
So, here's the thing.
"The plot is too coincidental" is getting at a valid criticism, but using the word "coincidence" is not precise enough to really explain the problem—because if someone is using "coincidence" in the literal sense, it can lead to overly broad and even nonsensical conclusions.
What the valid real critique is, is this plot point felt random and/or contrived because it wasn't set up properly.
For example, in Throne of Glass, protagonist Celaena only discovering a secret passage because on day 60 or so (that's a very vague estimate) of staying in a particular room, one night, she just happened to notice a tapestry was fluttering, indicating there was a doorway there. That's random and contrived and was clearly written just because the author suddenly realized Celaena needed to discover that secret passage at that precise moment. Such errors are often easy to fix—just introduce or hint at the plot point much earlier. Instead of having it "come out of nowhere," make it come from somewhere.
The problem with saying plot points are "too coincidental" is that, technically speaking, every story is based on "coincidences." Hamlet meeting the ghost of his dead father and accidentally killing Polonius are coincidences. Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream accidentally making Lysander fall in love with Helena is a coincidence (as obvious from the word "accidentally"). Romeo and Juliet having a communication SNAFU that resulted in their suicides? Total coincidence! The fact that none of the students in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets died because they all just *happened* to see the basilisk through a reflection? Coincidence!! Yet, if you remove the "coincidences," there is no story. (Or you have a lot of dead bodies in a story for which that kind of tone isn't appropriate.)
Furthermore, if you read a story with an eye for "does this plot rely on coincidences or not," your reading experience will quickly become ruined. Because every story relies on coincidences.
The idea isn't (or shouldn't be) "is this plot point 'coincidental' or not," it's "does this make sense within the logic/context of this story?" and/or "has this plot point been set up properly so it doesn't feel completely random?"
Otherwise, if your criteria for a good story is "no coincidences," then you will be tearing apart every single story that has ever existed in human history.
