[hildea]

Originally Posted by issybird

One example of bad world building that’s stayed with me is in Jack Finney’s Time and Again.. I didn’t mind a few liberties with New York history. Egregious, however, was the denouement in the torch of the Statue of Liberty, which involved travel through time and space, which contradicted everything that had happened up until then. But the author obviously couldn’t resist the historical fact of the display of the torch in Madison Square; so many errors come from things the author couldn’t resist.

I haven't read that book, but I've read some books where the author seem to go out of their way to demonstrate how clever they are or how much research they've done -- and that is annoying.

There were far too many inconsistencies in the Harry Potter books for me to think them good; the overarching issue as with the map example is the way in later books a magical device or power was invented that would have entirely negated earlier events if it had been employed. But they were very readable for all that, until the last book where it was really impossible to tie up all the loose ends in a way that made sense.

The only way those books come even close to making sense to me is if Dumbledore's actions come out of a long term plan to indoctrinate Harry into becoming a willing child kamikaze soldier

Originally Posted by gmw

As I look back at the list I posted above I notice that I can be much more explicit about the failures than the successes. This, for me at least, is quite common. Give me a boring book and I'll pick it to pieces, giving you every little nit and grit that explains what went wrong, but give me something I enjoy and I simply don't notice the flaws.

In one of Elisabeth Moon's science fiction books, a huge military ship with 5000 crew is hijacked by thirty soldiers, just so that our heroine can save everybody by herself But the book is enjoyable, so I'll forgive her that absurdity.

I reread a lot. Often I'll read through fast at first, to find out what happens next, and later, when thinking about the book or re-reading I'll notice neat aspects of the world (or sometimes glaring flaws or outright nastiness that I didn't catch the first time).

Obviously there is a limit to how much benefit of the doubt any of us are going to extend an author, but considering the sort of fiction we are reading I think it's appropriate to offer some.

Absolutely, but some camels are easier to swallow than others. There's a quote by Chesterton:

It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand.

(From an article by KJ Charles about suspending disbelief.)