So basically a good story, as long as the illogical parts are small, the readers will not care as long as they are drawn into the story. But what makes the readers draw into your stories so they won't notice the plot holes? This is for your suggestion.
A big enough plot hole or implausibility will always drop a reader/watcher/listener out of their suspension of disbelief, no matter how well crafted the characters, settings or situations are. To some extent that's dependent on 'the eye of the beholder' and what baggage they bring to their viewing experience, some can tolerate bigger holes than others. How to build and maintain suspension of disbelief is perhaps a wider subject for different thread.
A plot hole can be the size of the Grand Canyon and still be viable. Often the best way is to not even try to justify it. We accept John Carter cavorting about on Mars without freezing to death ar asphyxiating from trying to breathe an extremely rarified, nearly oxygen-free atmosphere; it's not the real Mars, it's a fantasy Mars imagined in a time before we knew what we know now. We accept that S.P.E.C.T.E.R. goes to tremendous expense and impossible engineering to capture manned space capsules intact instead of simply blowing them out of the sky because it provides an excuse for a fantastic launch base hidden in a dormant volcano. If the story is sufficiently compelling, the reader is often willing to suspend even elephantine disbelief.
Oh, I agree, but must reiterate that the such things are in the 'eye of the beholder'. What drops one person out doesn't bother some others two hoots. The novels that I'm working on now have a premise that in purely scientific terms is outlandish and some readers will never get it. The suspension of disbelief, if I can get the novels sorted, comes from keeping many other things familiar in an unfamiliar way, and unfamiliar in a familiar way.
This is probably worth noting because it's usually where poorly written story become "illogical." When a writer fills a story with unlikable or unrelatable characters who behave in inconsistent, illogical ways, it tends to be more of a deal breaker than other logical inconsistencies.
But how come some movies, books, and cartoon shows fail even if people don't care if those media don't make any sense? Does it deeply depend on the characters?
Also, I think we suspend disbelief more freely about people and ideas that we want to believe or happen. I want to believe that Indiana Jones can survive a nuclear explosion in a refridgerator. I'm not gonna say, 'He should have died! I want him to die!'. I don't want him to die, I want him to live. So I'm okay with every bad guy having ZERO aiming abilites with their guns and every mob of bad guys taking him on one at a time. I'm okay with all of this.
For me, that was less of a stretch than a Scotsman getting a fake tan, a wig, and plastic strips on his eyes and passing as a Japanese person in japan. Hee hee hee. As far as logic goes, it is very important in writing anything. HOWEVER, logic is not equal to realism. Logic itself isn't based in a necessarily realistic world. It could be perfectly logical for something unrealistic to happen in your story. What's important is your internal logical consistency. The logic within your story must be consistent so as to provide acceptable suspension of disbelief for the reader. As has already been said, if you're going to get hung up on things being unrealistic you're not going to enjoy movies or books or video games or television shows. Their purpose isn't to show you what the real world is, but to help you escape from the real world. The success or failure of a show, book or movie isn't based on the logic or realism of the feature either. It's not even necessarily based on the strength of the writer. There are some truly terrible, unrealistic, illogical, smelly books written that have seen immense popularity.
Absolutely not! Case in point, No Country for Old Men. The entire movie is over if Lewellyn Moss doesn't go back to the desert at 4am to give the dying Mexican drug dealer a drink of water. Please tell me, who in their right mind would actually do that? That being said, it's one of my favorite films and novels of all time. It has an intoxicating ambience that I find irresistible.
I would. I wouldn't let some poor guy die of thirst in the desert. That's a horrific thing to do. His compassion was is downfall. That's fascinating, not illogical.
Funny you should mention this. I was watching Prometheus last night, and I said to my friend when the guy was getting up close to that cobra-like organism: "Who would do that!?" Perhaps his hubristic love for xeno-biology engendered a fatalistic need to be devoured by the beast; to truly know what it is to be devoured by something of which we have no racial memory. People like to point out errors in Prometheus, but it functions most crucially as piece of 'alchemical cinema,' perhaps at the expense of a tight linear narrative. As far as the mentioned novel/film is concerned: Moss' reason for going back is a huge can of anacondas you'll have to open late at night, when you can't sleep.
Please don't spoil Prometheus. I haven't seen it yet. The one movie that really pissed me off is Starship Troopers. What kind of space marines would run up close to deadly alien bugs and shoot them in the face, when they can easily get rip a part? And would it be logical to use bigger guns against a creature as big as a car? Those Marines are stupid!
Logic in an almost illogical universe has always stumped me, I don't really think it's too important, but sometimes it can come in handy I guess... particularly when a character's crossing the street, you can't be superman then big boy.
If something is logical or not depends on the universe. If it doesn't make logical sense in real life but it does in that universe, it's fine. However, if something doesn't make sense to our logic, I feel like the story should try to explain why it makes sense. This explanation, for me(and depending on the type of story), doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be there. Example: There is a tv show called the Sparticle Project. An event happens that cause everyone 15 and older to go to a different dimension. They explain it with heart chakras. In the real world, the explanation they give doesn't make a lick of sense. Heart chakras don't exist in the way they do in the show. But, I'm okay with it working like that in the tv show universe. I actually think it it's one of the few No Parents stories that gives an in-universe explanation that isn't absolutely ridiculous by any standards. (However it does leave to question what happens to fetuses...)
It doesn't have to be possible. It has to be plausible. You never want your reader to go: 'WTF? that makes no sense!' but you don't need to get tied down to brutal scientific reality. It depends on how you treat illogical situations. Make it plausible within the rules of the story. Even scientific reality can come across as illogical if the reader isn't aware of the scientific explanation.
Thanks for the laugh. You reminded me of a buddy of mine after we watched the movie. I still remember his rant. "What idiot military force would only cover the low-ground? If your marching in the valley, OF COURSE you expect an attack from the air from over the mountains." A decade and a half later I just mention the movie and it winds him up something fierce. ______ BTW - a book that has something that is not plausible from the setup, can thus be called a plothole. Plot-holes are bad. It has to be plausible from the character's prospective. So, taking what I wrote above . . . a boyscout troop would have no idea to watch for an aerial attack - but Marines? that's implausible.
But these were Mobile Infantry (not marines ) that were trained in a facility that chooses to hold a live fire exercise in the middle of a parade ground with no protective barriers on the sides, or even behind, and then act surprised that someone got shot.