Semi-coherent rambling to follow...

Thinking about various movies and books and their endings, and reading through comments on those, I've come to realize that what I'm generally looking for in a story, including the ending, is something that is emotionally engaging and satisfying, rather than something that is intellectually satisfying. By that, I mean that I generally don't give a lot of thought to plot holes, or if all the questions are answered, or if they're answered completely. If I'm enjoying a story, I'm engaging with the characters, more than anything else, and what I'm hoping for is a resolution to whatever their particular arc is that feels right.

Three examples - Battlestar Galactica, Lost, and Y the Last Man.

Battlestar Galactica


Lost - Basically, see BSG. Same reasoning applies.

Y the Last Man


Skyfall, Iron Man 3, Nolan's Batman trilogy, Abrams' Star Trek - all of these fall under the same umbrella. I don't think about the plot holes, not because they aren't there or because they're unimportant, but simply because they're unimportant to me.

The flip side of all of that, is that if I'm not invested in the characters or their arc, then the plot becomes as important as everything else, and I'll judge it fairly harshly. Walking Dead being the perfect example. I'm not drawn to any of the characters (mainly because I feel they aren't especially interesting), so the ridiculousness of the plots throws me out of the story completely.

Finally, to go all Steven Clubb, I'll tie this in to Doctor Who. It's the perfect example (particularly in Moffat's run) of the emotionally satisfying story. In "Vincent and the Doctor", for example


So, bloggy-type rambling aside, thoughts?

I agree. If I care about the characters, I'm more forgiving of inconsistencies and errors. If not, then it has to make sense or I lose interest.

I don't process things in terms of an emotional/intellectual divide. But there is a certain poetic truth to a good piece of fiction. Tolstoy spoke of it, in his writings about the story he wanted to tell in War and Peace. He had something important on his mind about war, but he struggled with it. Because language is inherently limited. He said that once you reduce an idea to words, you become a liar, because the words don't convey the truth you have in mind. And so he said that a truth-teller must become a poet -- that in order to tell the truth, you must sneak up on it. You must tell it in a roundabout way. "Poetry" here does not mean composing a poem in the literal sense -- it means that the words on the page (or the images on a screen) are representations of a more fundamental truth that they don't say directly.

And so, if I had to describe the sensation that I am looking for in only one word, it is "truth." It's a sensation, when something rings true. It can be something simple and fleeting, like "That is exactly what that character would do!!" or it can be something that echoes to my own experience of life.

Good writing, good story creation (whether in print or moving pictures) is the weaving of a spell, those parts that punch through to you and feel true. And I tend to judge a work by whether it has any of those moments, and how powerfully that comes through.

When a creator does a bad job, it comes across like "This is something a creator created .. . . I can see his footprints there, and there." I suppose "plot holes" is one phrase people use to describe that, an experience where they see backstage and can't really stay in the work, because they see the cracks. But by the same token, you can have a work that makes very little sense as a "plot," but nevertheless hits you over and over as being "real" or "true" by some reference to the human experience.

So in other words, most people are morons and only I know how to properly enjoy things. Thanks.

I'm pretty much the same. If I'm engaged in the story &/or the characters, plot holes/lapses in logic don't affect me too much - unless they're so glaring that they take me completely out of the movie.

I feel like one would say that they can see the creator's fingerprints, not his footprints.

Your post rings untrue to me.

Ahem. Reading comprehension issues?

Good points. It's definitely not always an either/or thing for me most of the time. "Truth" is a good word for it. Star Trek Into Darkness is a good example of where 99% of it worked for me on that level, with only one scene in particular feeling off and taking me out of the movie. Not enough for me to dislike it - more of an emotional pothole.

That part was directed at you, not me.

That is a more common metaphor, but oddly one almost never actually sees fingerprints. Whereas, if you stage a scene in dirt or snow, you leave footprints as you set it up, and some little flunkies have to go out there and smooth out the footprints, to simulate a "real" scene.

So what I'm saying is, there should be a novel written about those flunkies, and what it is like to smooth out footprints for a living.

Example of truth:

Tony Stark: "I've finally figured out what it is I am supposed to do."

Example of herpa-derp, doesn't matter:

"Why did he have the empty armor suits come instead of calling the Avengers?"

Example of truth:

Bruce Banner: "That's my secret, Cap..."

Kind of doesn't make a bit of sense, but just feels perfect.

I think it does make a kind of sense. It's shorthand for "I've grown to control it and can unleash it any time I want."

I rather like the way Jay puts it there. Does the story truly get through to the reader or viewer? It can do this emotionally or intellectually, or at both levels.

Besides "plot holes" a creator can also blow it by being too obviously derivative of something else, i.e. not really having anything original to say. Also by simple lack of skill and ham-fistedness.

Also by trying too hard to impress in some way, which to me is perhaps the most annoying. I'm thinking in particular of styles of writing that call too much attention to themselves--I've learned to run the other way any time a work's prose is described as "lyrical". I can accept a distinctive voice if the story is told by a vivid narrator who comes across as a believable person, but let's have none of that self-consciously "literary" stuff. Just tell the story! In film and television the equivalent of this is excessive use of formal experimentation and devices like slow motion, split screen, etc. All have their place, but they have to be used sparingly and in ways that make a point that no other way could make it.

Being emotionally moved by a work of fiction is an intellectual process.You evaluate what you like about a story and what you don't like and judge it by how much the pros outweigh the cons.
It also depends on the genre of the story;I'm less forgiving of plot holes in a mystery novel,where plot is more important than in a superhero story,which is more of a visceral experience.

Let's get real though: I think we can all agree who the morons are, and they are the people who think they are the only ones know how to properly enjoy things.

I agree with this, pretty much. I like some resolution but I'm willing to ignore things I don't like if I'm otherwise satisfied with a story. Where both Lost and Y fail me is the endings were not satisfying to me on either an emotional or intellectual level.

I think you need more Who examples.

I don't know if this is entirely true. For me it's not necessarily a case of evaluation until after the fact. During the story, if it's working for me, I'm just reacting on a gut level to what's going on.

Probably.

Shelby and I agreed that Doctor Who is pretty much the perfect example overall of what I'm talking about.

I call that evaluation still, but not analytical evaluation. You're still thinking it over as you watch/read.

True. I just don't think of it as an intellectual process.