Definition of SoD

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 09:20pm

People on another board are saying our definition of Suspension of Disbelief (that you should treat a work of fiction as if it's real) is wrong. Do you know where I can find a reference that supports our definition?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-26 09:28pm

OmegaGuy wrote:People on another board are saying our definition of Suspension of Disbelief (that you should treat a work of fiction as if it's real) is wrong. Do you know where I can find a reference that supports our definition?

It's an arbitrary rule of the game, and we use it to rationally analyze the universes. It's necessary to be rational about analysis; you should be able to construct an a priori case for it, if analysis is your purpose.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 09:32pm

They're saying that suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with analysis, it has to do with enjoying the story.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-26 09:55pm

That's bullshit. While suspension of disbelief is associated with enjoyment, it is also a requirement for rational analysis. It should be trivial to reduce an argument that suspension of disbelief is not a requirement for analysis to absurdity: simply examine the nature of rational analysis, and then show that if you don't suspend disbelief, some basic tenets of analysis are not met.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-03-26 10:00pm

If you don't suspend disbelief insofar as deciding to accept that everything shown really happened, analysis is almost impossible. That way lies 'zomg lucas sez' and 'Juggernaut is unstoppable lolz' arguments: suspending disbelief basically eliminates out-of-universe arguments when comparing in-universe phenomena.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 10:01pm

What I'm asking for is a book reference that supports the definition of SoD that we use.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-26 10:04pm

OmegaGuy wrote:What I'm asking for is a book reference that supports the definition of SoD that we use.

I know; and I'm telling you that there's no need for one. Why do you need a book reference to which to appeal?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-26 10:05pm

OmegaGuy wrote:What I'm asking for is a book reference that supports the definition of SoD that we use.

The definition of suspension of disbelief is precisely what the term says: you voluntarily choose to tempoarily believe that this is happening, ie- you temporarily suspend your disbelief and pretend that this is real, not just a movie production.

That's how you can become emotionally involved in a story; if you are watching a movie and analyzing the cinematography techniques, special effects methods, looking for foreshadowing techniques or literary cliches etc., you are acting like a literary analyst and you are not suspending disbelief. You also won't be watching the movie the way it was meant to be watched.

Christ, didn't your teachers ever tell you what "suspension of disbelief" is when you were in school?

And let's get something straight here: all of the "author's intent" whores can just suck my ass, because every movie producer wants you suspend disbelief while watching the film. He wants you to be swept away by the story, feel empathy for the characters as if they're real people, etc. He does not want you to be sitting around analyzing his special effects methods or trying to figure out what literary inspiration he was using for the dialogue in one particular scene or wondering whether the director knows anything about physics or any of that other bullshit that the "literary analysis" assholes want you to do.

Anyone who says "author's intent" and who simultaneously rejects suspension of disbelief is an idiot and a liar. Every author wants you to suspend disbelief when you're reading his books or watching his movies.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 10:08pm

Yes, but the people I'm debating demand that I provide a reference for this definition of it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-26 10:10pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Yes, but the people I'm debating demand that I provide a reference for this definition of it.

Tell them to try this. Seriously, they're being a bunch of assholes for pretending that there's any controversy about this; suspension of disbelief is a widely recognized term and everyone except for these assholes agrees on what it is. Even the most cursory half-assed search would reveal that it's exactly what we say it is: you're supposed to temporarily suspend your knowledge that this is a movie rather than a real event.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 10:17pm

They actually agreed with that, but they said you couldn't apply real physics to a fictional universe because there were so many exceptions to the laws of physics in a fictional universe.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-03-26 10:19pm

1. Your answer

Seriously this is a basic literary device and the people you're debating are fucking morons if they've never heard of it. The way Wong and versus debators use it is they do anaylsis from it. But the term SoD?

Somehow Mike didn't create that particular bit.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-03-26 10:21pm

OmegaGuy wrote:They actually agreed with that, but they said you couldn't apply real physics to a fictional universe because there were so many exceptions to the laws of physics in a fictional universe.

Then there is nothing to debate. It becomes a bullshit subjective nonsense, and moved because fucking A, this is not even to begin with SLAM related, excepted demonstrating the retardness of others wanting their fave jack off to win.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 10:22pm

Sorry, I wasn't sure where to put it. I thought it fell under logic so I put it in SLAM. Sorry.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-26 10:23pm

OmegaGuy wrote:They actually agreed with that, but they said you couldn't apply real physics to a fictional universe because there were so many exceptions to the laws of physics in a fictional universe.

If they're claiming that, then either they don't agree with the definition of suspension of disbelief and are simply being dishonest about it, or they don't understand the nature of science, in which case they are probably pretentious assholes who are trying to subjectively analyze some piece of literature. In this case, you merely need to point out the contradiction between suspension of disbelief and the inability to apply science to fiction.

EDIT: typodemons

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 10:27pm

They said this:

some moron wrote:Author's intent means absolutely everything when analysing fiction. Thats where the whole SoD comes from.

When novels are released, readers muse over what the author meant by certain scenes. Often they e-mail or ask them in person. What they don't, or shouldn't, do is try to pass off their own half baked theories as fact, or believe that they are. Thats just absurd.

Rational analysis will never carry as much weight in a fictional universe as occurrence or author's intent.

Eframepilot · Post by **Eframepilot** » 2006-03-26 10:31pm

Well, suspension of disbelief can also refer to the deliberate ignoring of obvious plot holes or physical impossibilities for the sake of the story. Example 1: the Universal Translator. There is no way that it could ever work the way it actually does, with the real-time perfect lip-synching dubbing over alien languages that works before the targets even complete their sentences. But we suspend our disbelief and assume that the UT just works in the way it does without worrying about it, for the sake of the story.

This is probably what OmegaGuy's opponents are referring to: the acceptance that the story is not actually real and that it shouldn't be over-analyzed as if it were.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-26 10:33pm

In other words, he's paying lip service to suspension of disbelief, and then dismissing it outright; when he claims the author's intention carries as much weight as what the author actually wrote, he denies suspension of disbelief.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-03-26 10:33pm

Out of curiosity, what is this debate in relation to? It might be easier from them to understand if you addressed the relevant point instead of dancing around a definition that they are likely to reject anyways.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-26 10:35pm

It doesn't really matter. The original debate was phased out the thread about 12 pages ago.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2006-03-26 10:40pm

OmegaGuy wrote:They actually agreed with that, but they said you couldn't apply real physics to a fictional universe because there were so many exceptions to the laws of physics in a fictional universe.

Yes you can. If tomorrow in real life a scientist witnessed an occurrence that defied general relativity he wouldn't cover his eyes and chant "it's not real, it's not real", he'd investigate to find out what is happening. If he finds an exception to relativity then damnit he found an exception to relativity. That's the same attitude you use in SoD, pretend it happened, and try your best to explain. I recognize that some movies make this harder then others, but if you want consistency then that's the way you do it. Tell the guys you're debating that they're a bunch of slackasses.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-03-26 11:19pm

I come from the point of view that an authors intent shouldn't be ignored. However, if an author was incredibly lazy and his fiction flat out disagrees with his claims, the author is being a fucknut.

Anyway, those people you are debating are moving the goalposts. They accept the definition when they see fit, but move the definition when they don't like it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-03-26 11:39pm

Authors intent isn't even particularly useful for subjective, literary analysis: a piece of poetry is deeply subjective, and I don't smoke a donkey what the author *wanted* it to mean, only what it meant to me. Fuck them.

However, if they want to talk like turtlenecked latte drinkers, fine. They can't then attempt to compare universes like we do, since there's no ground rules and no common ground. Fuck them.

What are you debating anyway? If someone says 'lolz I'm a beret wearing literary fuckass' then that's up to them - they can enjoy fiction how ever they like. If they're saying they should use authors intent to inflate power figures, or reject in-universe events, they're being dishonest little wankers.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-03-26 11:43pm

OmegaGuy wrote:They said this:

some moron wrote:Author's intent means absolutely everything when analysing fiction. Thats where the whole SoD comes from.

When novels are released, readers muse over what the author meant by certain scenes. Often they e-mail or ask them in person. What they don't, or shouldn't, do is try to pass off their own half baked theories as fact, or believe that they are. Thats just absurd.

Rational analysis will never carry as much weight in a fictional universe as occurrence or author's intent.

Their own quote shows that they don't know what it means.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2006-03-27 03:22am

OmegaGuy wrote:They said this:

some moron wrote:Author's intent means absolutely everything when analysing fiction. Thats where the whole SoD comes from.

When novels are released, readers muse over what the author meant by certain scenes. Often they e-mail or ask them in person. What they don't, or shouldn't, do is try to pass off their own half baked theories as fact, or believe that they are. Thats just absurd.

Rational analysis will never carry as much weight in a fictional universe as occurrence or author's intent.

Ask them what to do if the author doesn't reply.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Definition of SoD

Definition of SoD

Re: Definition of SoD