On Plot Holes

Lincoln Alpern

Active Member
In preparation for tomorrow's episode, I've been re-listening to the one from last week, and I feel compelled to stand up in support of those who point out plot holes. Granted, I'm sure there are people who obsess over plot holes in a snobbish "look at me being more clever than the author" kind of way, but Corey here seems to imply that these are the majority of people who bring up plot holes in their criticism - an implication I find overly dismissive.

I'm both a writer and a critic of fiction, and as a critic, my aim is to explain why a given story or some aspect thereof does or doesn't work for me; or why it will or won't work for other people who are interested in the story. In this light, plot holes are a problem because the break the audience's Secondary Belief, to use Tolkien's phrase. It shatters the illusion of a self-consistent series of events and reminds the audience that the things which happen in the story happen at the author's whim, not out of any sort of internal logic. I remember an older podcast where Corey remarked "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" is what an audience has to resort to when Secondary Belief fails. That's the best case scenario when one spots a plot hole. Worst case, it can actually undermine one's enjoyment of the story in question.

There's a book by Paul Levison, The Plot to Save Socrates. It's an above average time travel romp, though a bit over preoccupied with getting its female protagonist naked; it also has an amazing ending twist and a second, massively predictable ending twist. Anyway, the book has two major plot holes I remember from when I read it a couple years ago. First: the characters bounce around Ancient Greece and Roman Britain and the like and are instantly able to adapt both linguistically and culturally. I let this slide because the book presents a fun adventure which isn't taking itself too seriously. The second plot hole is a minor spoiler, be aware.

Second plot hole: early in the novel, we see the protagonist in the midst of the "save Socrates" scheme, and only later on see how she's drawn into said scheme. However, she's on her own in the former scene, whereas when she gets started, she has her boyfriend with her. Sure enough, her boyfriend gets killed shortly in. Inexplicably, the protagonist goes right ahead with trying to save Socrates after this event, rather than saying "the heck with a sexagenarian philosopher who would be thousands of years dead by now in any case, I'm going to find a way to save my boyfriend!" She feels sad at the guy's death, but we never get an explanation of how and why the fate of Socrates becomes a higher priority to her than dealing with the loss of her romantic partner, and my enjoyment of the book suffers for it.

I can't think of any examples off hand, but I'm sure I've run into plot holes where the next logical step would have taken the story in a fresh, original, and interesting direction, and the authorial intervention put the story on a much more familiar and oft-traveled route, which is even more frustrating for me as an audience.

Or take the example of the Eagles, since that was the context Corey introduced the discussion with. It's true that "Gandalf has Radagast summon the Eagles to take the company to Mount Doom and drop the Ring into the fire" would not be a particularly good story. But "the company go through my trials and losses, experiencing much suffering and torment, and nearly failing in their quest numerous times, when there was a much simpler and less perilous answer staring them right in face the entire time" isn't a good story either. I find the "because that wouldn't make for a good story" answer accurate but completely unhelpful.

"Because they would have been spotted instantly, and Sauron has an air force," which Corey brings up almost in passing, is too me, a much better answer to the "why didn't they just whistle up the Eagles" question.
 
Back
Top