1
Critics' Lounge / Re: Thoughts on Storytelling and Puzzle
« on: 09 Feb 2018, 14:38 »
I think finding plot holes has become a popular way of criticizing narrative works because it feels like objective criteria, and we are always on the lookout for 'objective' means of rationalizing how we feel about art and culture. Which makes sense - how do you even talk about something, if it all just boils down to subjective perceptions? We can't help but like things that are this cut and dried - having plot holes = bad, not having plot holes = good.
But the problem with objective criticisms is that they tend to be (almost by definition) surface-deep, and as such - largely useless when it comes to explaining why we respond positively or negatively to a work as a whole.
So my suggestion in this matter is to treat plot holes as any other element, and to mostly consider how they contribute to the story as a whole. Does having those plot holes detract from the main goals you were setting out to achieve with your story? Does not having them makes a meaningful difference? If you take a David Lynch film (or a show) - it's quite clear that explaining everything neatly and 'fixing' the many, many plot holes would not just be inadvisable - it would simply be impossible while maintaining the same surreal tone and feel.
I think most creators are very familiar with the desire to explain and justify questionable details of their scripts - you don't want to hear people complain about a problem you were aware of, after all. But over-explaining has become one of my pet peeves over the years. Games are particularly bad at this, since, unlike films, they have the time and space to do a lot of over-explaining. Resist that urge, though - in most cases you'll only be drawing attention to something unimportant. Going on unnecessary tangents can be fun and worthwhile, but you should not do that to the detriment of the natural flow of your story.
Of course, my opinions on the matter come from my subjective experiences, and I have to admit that I can't recall ever being truly bothered by a plot hole in a story (except for in the stories I've tried to write myself, naturally
). I'm sure there are many people much more sensitive to that sort of thing, but my main point here is rather simple - you don't have to care about it. There is no right or wrong in art.
But the problem with objective criticisms is that they tend to be (almost by definition) surface-deep, and as such - largely useless when it comes to explaining why we respond positively or negatively to a work as a whole.
So my suggestion in this matter is to treat plot holes as any other element, and to mostly consider how they contribute to the story as a whole. Does having those plot holes detract from the main goals you were setting out to achieve with your story? Does not having them makes a meaningful difference? If you take a David Lynch film (or a show) - it's quite clear that explaining everything neatly and 'fixing' the many, many plot holes would not just be inadvisable - it would simply be impossible while maintaining the same surreal tone and feel.
I think most creators are very familiar with the desire to explain and justify questionable details of their scripts - you don't want to hear people complain about a problem you were aware of, after all. But over-explaining has become one of my pet peeves over the years. Games are particularly bad at this, since, unlike films, they have the time and space to do a lot of over-explaining. Resist that urge, though - in most cases you'll only be drawing attention to something unimportant. Going on unnecessary tangents can be fun and worthwhile, but you should not do that to the detriment of the natural flow of your story.
Of course, my opinions on the matter come from my subjective experiences, and I have to admit that I can't recall ever being truly bothered by a plot hole in a story (except for in the stories I've tried to write myself, naturally
