When does plausible become laughable?

[scribbler1382]

Hey, guys. Okay, I'm trying to figure out where the line between a plausible concept and a laughable one lies.

For instance, I just read a synopsis where one of the main characters is first an interpol agent and then an FBI agent through her 20 year career, all the time chasing a mysterious art thief. She becomes so obsessed with this guy that she actually falls in love with him without ever meeting him or even knowing what he looks like exactly. So much so, that when the thief retires, she'll do anything to get him stealing again to rekindle their "romance".

Okay, part of me says "pretty cool", and another part says "Hah!?"

So, how do you draw the line? And how do you know when you've crossed it?

[Richard]

I think I saw that movie when it was called Entrapment.

But really, it's not so much what happens so much as how it's handled. Most novels wouldn't happen without a pretty damn heavy number of co-incidences conveniently coming together - that one really doesn't sound that bad. To use another example, the Lupin series of comics/movies sees bumbling cop Zenigata constantly chasing and being internationally humiliated by his arch-nemesis, gentleman thief Lupin III, but there's all too often a connection between them that sees them working together to take on 'real' criminals, to the extent that Zenigata ends up exiling himself as a monk when he thinks Lupin's been killed - only to ecstatically break out the handcuffs again when he realises his mistake.

[PattiTheWicked]

Stranger things have happened, really. Look at some of the things people do for love. Better yet, look at some of the weird relationships that you see in movies and books -- Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling have a bizarre, symbiotic thing going on in Silence of the Lambs, Eve Dallas is head over heels for Roarke even though he always pops up as a murder suspect in the JD Robb novels.

As to coincidences being strange and unbelievable, it works if it's done well. Case in point, Holes by Louis Sachar. The entire premise of the book is based upon a series of coincidences -- or maybe twists of fate, depending on what you beleive -- that, had they not occurred, would lead to absolutely no story. Stanley Yelnats befriends Zero, the great-something descendant of Madame Zeroni, who placed a curse upon Stanley's own great-ancestor. Stanley himself is at Camp Greenlake after being falsely accused of stealing a pair of shoes -- which were actually stolen by Zero. While at the camp, they encounter the Warden, who is searching for a treasure hidden by Kissin' Kate Barlow... who robbed Stanley's grandfather. Nothing BUT coincidences.

And it works magnificently.

[oswann]

I read the title and thought this was a political thread.

Os.

[Marcusthefish]

I think most readers are willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt when it comes to plot implausibilities--extraordinary events and characters are at the heart of popular entertainment, after all. If something is particularly unlikely, though, I think you need to build a case--by providing more concrete details--to help the reader suspend their disbelief.

Prison escapes and other plot-intensive crime stories are good examples. No one's going to buy that a prisoner could hop the wall and make a successful break unless you explain why the guard towers are unmanned, the foot patrol is behind schedule, the guard dogs are in their kennel, etc. If you explain it, we're more likely to stay with you.

MTF

[Lisamer]

Once I moved to Summit County CO., the real life events of my day to day life became so outrageous that in fiction, they would seem implausible! My challenge as a fiction writer is to create a consistent logic within my plot that allows the reader to suspend disbelief.

Of course, my other challenge is to sufficiently disguise real characters in order to protect the innocent and not so innocent! ;)