Gaping Plot Holes Continued

Quick change to blog formats: I’ve decided blogs are better with graphics. But I don’t have anything useful or relevant to my demented rants, so I’ll just upload random pictures I’ve taken of my cats and dog over the years. I have thousands.

Animals!

Another reason that “gaping plot hole” gets thrown around so often is that people use the term when they don’t understand something, and haven’t considered the possibility of off-screen events. I have been surprised – and frankly a little embarrassed for the parties involved – when I see “plot hole!” dropped on a story, and the answer is obvious, and sitting right in front of every one.

Let’s look at the Lord of the Rings Eagle Plot Hole concept, which goes “If they had giant eagles, why didn’t they just fly Frodo to Mount Doom? Done!” I’d never considered that, because Sauron has that giant eye, right? “The eye of Sauron” is often used in our nerdy circles to mean, “you have attracted unwanted attention.” Flying eagles into Mordor would be noticed pretty quickly. And the moment they were seen, it was over. Even if they had distracted the eye somehow, it is well established that Sauron had agents everywhere, an intelligence network – and many armies. Clearly, their only viable option was stealth.

That seems like a pretty easy leap, and Tolkein put all the pieces into the mix to allow you to figure that out. So why didn’t he just explain it? Because he can’t explain everything. He cannot tell you about every single time Frodo went off to take a shit. But… by the end of the story, Frodo should be sick and dying, because in all that time, he rarely if ever shat! Plot hole!

Storytellers have to make choices about what to include and what to leave out. When something seems like an obvious jump, and has no drama attached (e.g., a conversation about why they didn’t use eagles,) then it’s best to leave it out. Would you really want to read/watch/play a story that covered every possible objection anyone could ever have about how and why events played out the way they did? I wouldn’t.

So, we’re back to the question “are we forced to accept anything in a story, so long as we can construct any kind of chain of events to explain it?” I don’t think so – if the only way to make sense of a story is to imagine entirely new plot lines, or characters who are never referenced, then you’re working too hard. But if you only need to think about the story as presented, perhaps imagine one off-screen conversation, one unstated motive, then yes, you should be able to accept that.

The core question is: do you want to sit back, not engage with the story at all, have it all make perfect sense, and scream plot hole if it doesn’t? Or are you reading/watching/playing to take part in a story and world that can be rewarding?

I loved Lord of the Rings. I wanted it to make sense, and the eagle problem never even occurred to me, because the entire story is infused with the idea that they needed to be stealthy. It only would have occurred to me if I had read Lord of the Rings with the attitude that Tolkein had to explain everything to me, and that I only needed to sit back and passively wait for him to cover all the salient points, potential misunderstandings, and “gotcha!” moments. I don’t enjoy fiction that way, and I’d hope you don’t either.

Tune in next week for the conclusion of my plot hole rant. Thank heavens, eh?

-BTK