Play Book Tag discussion

This is a question that can be answered personally or philosophically.

Some comments were made recently about a story not being believable vs suspending your belief to enjoy the story.

Do you prefer a realistic story that you can envision happening or is having to suspend your belief okay? What does it take in a story for you to be able to suspend your belief, especially for those that prefer realism? How do you view science fiction which is a mixture of the suspended belief and realism? How do you view fantasy, which is pure suspended belief?

In some stories the suspended belief doesn't take away much from the story and other times it does. Why are some books given a pass and others not?

I'm very interested in each individuals take on realism vs suspended belief to see if everyone's view of suspended belief the same or similar? Is a book realistic to one but requires suspended belief to another?

Going deep on a Sunday afternoon :-D

I like both realistic and books where I have to suspend disbelief --- however, I do want to have some sense of logic within the suspended disbelief (hopefully that makes sense). This means that if reading fantasy or science fiction, I do like good world building which does have some sort of logic to it.

As I've gotten older, what I've found is that I don't really like absurdist fiction --- I did when I was younger though, but somehow it doesn't appeal to me any longer.

I know that I made a comment this week on the book A Gentleman in Moscow. I thoroughly enjoyed the book: great writing, great characters. However, for me, the suspension of disbelief was needed for two reasons. First, I don't think there is any way that a nobleman would be "sentenced to life at a hotel" in the post revolutionary world. Second, the count was a Russian nobleman, but really seemed to exhibit very American traits of optimism and "pulling himself up from his bootstraps". One member of my book club who studied a lot of Russian history and literature made the comment that the book was really a fantasy.

Both - it depends on what the author is trying to do. I love fantasy, so obviously I have no trouble suspending disbelief. But as JoLene said, it has to be logical within the parameters of that world. I don't like absurd fiction either.

However, if the point of a book is historical or real-world (like police procedurals), then I prefer it to be as realistic as possible.

If I'm reading a fantasy I of course don't mind suspending my disbelief as long as it's done well. If on the other hand I'm reading something historical even historical fiction I prefer it to be as real or close to the actual events as possible.

I agree w/others - internal consistency is necessary. I think I'm typical in not liking a deus ex machina, too. But otherwise I can readily suspend disbelief, whether or not the story is speculative fiction.

I put a little thought into this. It’s a very interesting question. I think I don’t mind a suspension of disbelief when it’s an uncanny synchronistic event, or the way magic is used to add to a story, as long as it’s somewhat realistic. I think that I really dislike suspension of disbelief when I gets to be wacky, outlandish, and out of my comfort zone. Like I don’t like sci-fi, or space opera, but I don’t mind a suspension of disbelief that makes the story pull together an interesting and beautiful way. Lots of times you see that what happens in the story is a convention or vehicle of writing to pull it together. I am all for that. Just never really loved the whole fantasy scene. I guess we’ll see how I respond to His Magesty’s Dragon in July.

I thought a bit more......I think that is actually another dimension to this. I can suspend disbelief around events and plot points, but I do prefer that relationships are realistic. So things like insta-love really bother me in a book.

Just got back from seeing Ready Player One and have to say that the special effects were incredible and I was happy to suspend disbelief for a couple hours.

I read tons of romance. I think that says about all you need to know about my ability to suspend belief ;)

I am happy to suspend my disbelief if like the book, but some types of suspending my disbelief I am only happy to do with film. As others have said, internal consistency is important. Like JoLene, I like relationships to be realistic, but unlike JoLene there are a few times where they don't have to be (those examples lie mostly in film), particularly in comedy.

But there are some types of fictional plots or stories where I prefer it to be more believable even if it is a bit larger than life. With nonfiction, I like things to be accurate (not always easy to be certain it is), but interesting, and usually the human interest is an important component of many nonfiction books that I read for leisure.

Nicole R wrote: "I read tons of romance. I think that says about all you need to know about my ability to suspend belief ;)"

LOL!

Thanks for laugh Nicole R!!

I am also in the camp of liking both. The one author that has had the most success in having me suspend belief is Stephen King. Those that know me well always seem surprised that I count King among my favorites. Reading him has help me appreciate the boundless possibilities of being creative. I am more a realist than anything in my day to day life but I have found reading that requires me to suspend belief has ultimately allowed me to broaden my mind to possibilities that I would have otherwise not thought available. Suspending belief also helps me see things from an angle (without any risk) and see the world in a way I wouldn't have considered possible by any other means.

I’m quite happy with both, although if something is so far fetched that it’s ridiculous then I struggle. A book that comes to mind is End of Watch. The idea was ludicrous to me and I was so disappointed because I really enjoyed the first two installments.

This is something I've thought about for a long time, way before Goodreads.

I love realism. I have to feel the possibility in the story line. This was my hang up with A Gentlemen in Moscow. But everything does not have to be realistic, but atleast within the real of possibilities, even though not likely. I do like some science fiction, such a dystopian novels, Enders Game, and Ringworld. They are all, this could happen if all this was true. Fantasy I have a problem with. It goes too far. It is too far removed from my own reality. Intelligent dragons...why don't they just eat everyone and take over the world. I mean they are dragons. But thats off point.

But I noticed, lack of realism does not bother in mystery. Its almost needed. You need the main character to act irrationally to make everything all muddled. Though I am not a horror reader, I would imagine you need the same thing. You need your main character to act irrationally and some how have the skills to defeat career criminals or world class assassins. These do not bother me much.

So why the disparity in feelings of suspending disbelief.

I think it has to do with expectations and what you are looking for in a story.

In mystery, you are looking for the trickery, the suspense, the ordinary person wins. The Woman in Cabin 10 got a lot of bad reviews because the trickery was unbelievable. Gone Girl, the unbelievable parts were not in the trickery or suspense. It was in the actions.

In sci-fi and space you are looking for exploration, the unknown, sense of lost and trying to find you way home. As long as the realism is in those parts, it becomes easier to suspend disbelief in other areas.

In fantasy, I haven't come up with a theory yet.

In present day stories, real world stories, even historical fiction, I am looking for people, for events, for feelings. Conflict and emotion and connections. I find this much harder to suspend disbelief. Your people, events, feelings, and conflict have to be much more real. That is what I'm connecting with in these books.

So this my theory. Its your expectations and what your look for in that particular type of story. Those particular things are are looking for, trying to connect with, can be beyond belief, but everything else can be.

I’m good with both. Although, like a few here, if it’s supposed to based in factually and realness then I don’t like for it to move out of that. If that’s not the case, it’s all fair game. Anything that someone can think up, I don’t mind reading about. If I’m enjoying it and I’m entertained, I probably won’t complain lol

I like authors that play with ideas and I love being transported to different worlds so I don’t mind if a story doesn’t fit my own reality. For instance I just read The Night Circus, and it’s become one of my favourite books ever! But a story has to say something genuine to me: about how people think or feel, or how that particular person/alien/dragon ;-) would act in that situation. As others have mentioned - if something is not internally consistent, or is gratuitous or purely self-serving, it annoys me. Massive plot holes are my pet peeve - ie bad writing ...

I have no problem suspending belief for science fiction or fantasy as long as the world building is consistent and the relationships are real.
I recently read a mystery where the main character touches the corpse and she has a vision of the murder scene - lo and behold: here’s the solution to the crime. That’s just plain lazy. This came on top of erratic behavior by main characters. I would have thrown the book out of the window at that point - but it was on my kindle...

Nicole R wrote: "I read tons of romance. I think that says about all you need to know about my ability to suspend belief ;)"

So true !

Jason wrote: "So this my theory. Its your expectations and what your look for in that particular type of story. Those particular things are are looking for, trying to connect with, can be beyond belief, but everything else can be...."

I think this is absolutely true. I have no problem suspending reality when I expect to do so. It is the books that I settle down for a healthy dose of reality and then get something super unrealistic that really throws me for a loop.