@mavnn Yes, exactly. Whereas it's much harder to break out of the Abilene Paradox, to which groups or committees are susceptible, so it makes for *great* widescreen tragedy in fiction:
1
@cstross The key aspect of Merchant Prices which hooked me in was the *absence* of a tired, cliche of misunderstanding:
OMG! A portal fantasy where the person in the portal *works it out* and *tests the boundaries* like a real human being! Hook, line and sinker.
#WritersCoffeeClub 17 Apr (contd)
We had a PERFECT example of this in the news headlines thanks to Israel/USA/Iran last month: Iran isn't just a theocracy it's a constitutional republic, like the USA in a funhouse mirror.
Foolish/ignorant western war-focussed policy-makers thought whacking the Supreme Leader would shatter the regime in Tehran. Instead, it triggered a prepared succession mechanism that installed a hard-liner, strengthening the determination of the regime to resist USA/Israel.
2
@cstross Charlie, the supreme leader is an Islamic cleric. Of course it's a theocracy. Don't be silly.
1
@ravenonthill Yes, and the USA is any less of a theocracy how, exactly? (Look at all the flag shagging, prayer of alegience, etc: it *reeks* of theocracy, only the unadmitted faith is Mammonism. The dominionists would like to replace that with Christianity-In-Name-Only but are facing an uphill struggle ...)
1
@cstross The US does not have an established religion and constitutional religious governing council and high priest with final authority. That's whataboutism.
That the US is behaving very badly does not make Iran good; they were awful before the US-Israeli attack and likely have only gotten worse. I fear what they will do with the tolls collected at the Strait of Hormuz.
#WritersCoffeeClub 17 Apr (3/3)
THAT sort of misunderstanding happens in real life and works fine in fiction.
The sort of misunderstanding that doesn't work in fiction is one that relies on individual protagonists being idiots, or failing to have the thirty second discussion that would clear the air instantly. Which is all too common!
4
I like that description.
I just finished reading a 400 page fantasy novel where the female MC hated a male character for an undisclosed reason until the last 50 pages when she explains to him - and the reader - and he apologizes.
For 350 pages I was muttering, "What's the issue here? Get it out in the open".
@cstross I'm not sure of that last point.
My impression of the rom-com genre is that it largely depends on a misunderstanding that could be cleared up by a 30-second discussion, which the protagonists steadfastly refuse to have until forced into it near the end of the story.
1
I think it makes sense to talk about "load bearing misunderstandings." To work in a story, a misunderstanding must be solid enough to carry the weight of plot placed upon it. In the archetypical badly written rom-com, you end up with so much extra scaffoldingput in to precent the plot from collapsing that you can barely even see the supposedly central misunderstanding any more.
1
@cstross You've just described 90% of the episodes of the tv show 7th Heaven. They all depended on one member of the family concealing important information from another member for no good reason.
@[email protected] I think these 'stupidity dependent' misunderstandings are tempting partly because they are easy, but also because they are easy to justify as 'realistic' because we have all seen people being stupid in relationships. But they fundamentally aren't satisfying because we can see how easily the conflict could be resolved from the outside, sort of a deus ex machina in reverse.
1
@mavnn Yes, exactly. Whereas it's much harder to break out of the Abilene Paradox, to which groups or committees are susceptible, so it makes for *great* widescreen tragedy in fiction:
1
