Everything is Perfect

[Spectre]

Isn't it weird that stories are perfect? Not perfect like everything is good and ends up okay; perfect as in everything is resolved (unless it's a series .

I mean it. I've noticed that readers, moviegoers, TV show followers- we all say we want our stories to be more 'real', but I'm not so sure that would be a good thing.

If stories were more realistic, I don't think they would necessarily be more dark and gritty (besides, we've beaten 'gritty realism' to death with a shovel in the last few years). They would be... well, less perfect.

Wow, I've rambled for a while without actually explaining what I mean by perfect, haven't I? So here we go.

If a character glances around nervously during a conversation, the reason why is revealed later. Almost always. Isn't that a little odd? If someone is mysteriously missing for any amount of time, you find out why. If a fantasy book talks about a legendary hero or whatever, you find out that- spoiler- he was one of the characters you knew the whole time.

It works for bad guys, too. "ZOINKS! It was the professor all along, Scoob!"

Even when a story is strictly first-person, that person ends up discovering EVERY bit of information in the universe. Well, everything they need to know, anyway.

Did you ever see one of those 3-D models that's like a bunch of rings, all circling the same bit so it kind of looks like a galaxy? That's what I'm thinking of with this; every detail, every plot point (again, only if it's important to the story) is all interconnected and moving around. Hypothetically, I mean. In a, I don't know, metaphysical way. Metaphorically. I really have no idea what I'm saying here.

Back to reality- let's look at genres. Obviously mysteries are built on this; and my reading experience is mostly fantasy, so that's what I'm thinking of. For example, if your main character's father gives him a sword with strange runes on it, you KNOW you'll know what they mean in a few hundred pages.
But maybe I'm being too critical? After all, I don't know if this idea of 'perfect' holds true in other areas, like romance or comedies.


I can only think of one book series that threw perfection on its head: the Series of Unfortunate Events. I guess this is kind of a spoiler, if you're still planning to read these books, so don't read the rest of this paragraph. The author builds up this grand conspiracy, complete with dueling organizations of spies and agents, and even a certain object that holds incredible power, and then... that's it. The series ended a few years ago; my mom, little brother, and myself were all shocked to learn that the last book gave no explanation for those mysteries. It just... ended.

And I can't help thinking that's how a more 'realistic' story would go.

But we don't really want that, do we? I think we're kinda hoping our stories unpack a giant mess, then clean it all up before the last page. If anything isn't explicitly spelled out- anything left even a little bit underexplained- it's actually seen as a plot hole. Isn't that a little weird?

I'm not trying to be cynical; in fact, I think it's a great thing to have a story that doesn't parallel the real world. That's the same reason I'd sometimes rather watch cartoons than something more serious. But the point remains.

Fiction, be it movies or books- from the readers' perspective, I mean- is usually considered entertainment, right? Aren't we sort of trying to escape the real world for 300 pages or 2 hours? So why on earth are we demanding 'realism' but also asking for the things that real life can't do: satisfy every problem and explain every mystery?

I have no idea. But it works. That's the strangest of all, in my opinion. It works, and I kind of think it's awesome. The fact is- and you can take this however you want- I can go into any movie, any book, any show with all these qualms and objections about how it's all too 'perfect'; but by the end, I won't care at all.

I'll be having way too much fun. And I think, paradoxically, that's a good thing.

Incidentally, I loved the Unfortunate Events. Some of the most interesting, funny books I've ever read, including the last one. So there's that.

I know this kind of seems more like a rant/diatribe/SERMON than a discussion, but I've been musing over this stuff for a while.

What do you guys think? And maybe to ask a more interesting question, have you read or watched anything that was 'perfect' or deliberately wasn't?

[Genesis]

...you've been drinking too much cactus juice again haven't you spectre?

As a nerd, there are aspects of realism that drive me bonkers if they're not there (like, basic laws of physics in a real world setting going missing, like sinking blocks of ice in GI Joe), but I typically like stories that can't happen (Spiderman would be a much less interesting comic book series if it was actually real...).
True, peaceful realism makes no money in the entertainment business. Why? Because I can go play outside if i want that. The one genre exception I can think of would be some romances and memoirs.

[sapphire]

Hmm... I understand what you're saying, I think. That that's why we read and write, though, isn't it? To see something that actually comes together in a way that life never will? To give us some hope (if false) that everything works out in the end?

I think they come out perfectly, also, because we're deliberately telling stories - we have to choose which moments in the characters' lives to depict on the page, and so we never see the less important things, the things that don't work out neatly in the end. No one wants to read about a random encounter with a stranger that goes nowhere, after all.

I think people who ask for "realistic" stories are asking for realistic characters more than situations. Like, a character who reacts as a person would - no ridiculous calm in the face of a shocking revelation, for example - but who is strong and smart and determined enough to work through their problems anyway. Our characters are made up of qualities we want to have, and if we don't add faults to make them more real, they'll be flat and empty on the page.

Basically, I think that no matter how we clamor for something "real," what we truly want to see is a happy ending. Sad stories can be satisfying, but it's just not the same.


I watched this film in my Art of Cinema class last year - I don't remember what it was called, but it certainly didn't wrap things up nicely. It left me feeling really weird, actually. I couldn't decide if I'd liked it or not.
It's about this girl who wants to be a dancer, but her family life is just messed up. Her mom constantly has new boyfriends and yells at her all the time, and her little sister is just a brat. When mom's newest boyfriend comes on the scene and starts encouraging her dancing - telling her she's really good, helping her put together a video to apply to this dancing position she really wants, giving her money when she asks for it, pretty much acting like a dad should - she really puts all her trust in him. He takes advantage of her, sleeps with her, and then it turns out he's married and has a young daughter. She kidnaps the kid for a day, then the kid nearly drowns, which freaks her out and gets her to take the kid home. The dad slaps her, but nothing else comes of that. Last we see of this girl, she's hooked up with a complete deadbeat type boyfriend and moves in with him, even though at the beginning of the movie we see his friends scaring her and nearly beating her up. No happy, tied-up ending there. It was an "artsy" film, though, not the feature films we get in theaters.
(And that was a really long explanation. I hadn't realized I remembered so much of it.)

[Raphael]

To add to Genisis' point, Napolean Dinomight was a movie about a normal person, and his normal life. And as a suprise to everyone, it was a hit.

[Spectre]

Hee hee... hey Genesis, you brought up sinking ice in GI Joe... and your side quote is about looking through a glacier at stars. Funny.

Interesting. So we need/want stories to be a little fantastic; otherwise, I completely agree, they'd be downright uninteresting. I like the point about characters, Sapphire.

But I guess what I'm wondering is this: how do you know when coincidence is okay, and when it's not? Dang, I should have put that in my original post.

For the record, I can't explain whatsoever why I like Napoleon Dynamite. I've tried. It makes no sense.

[sapphire]

Hmm... How do you know when coincidence is okay? I don't know...
There are some things that are just too obviously convenient, like a friend's cousin coming to town who just happens to have grown up with the school bully and understands his issues and can talk him out of being a bully.
I think the key to getting away with coincidences is to back them up. If you're worried that something is too convenient and isn't backed up enough in the text, it probably isn't. Drop hints before something comes up, so that when it does, it's more of a "duh, of course!" moment than a "wait, what?" moment. That sounded better in my head.

[Genesis]

poetry spectre, poetry... big difference between poetry and bad sci-fi. my ice floats

I agree, it depends on how well the coincidence is backed. When you think of it thuogh, millions of coincidences occur everyday in our lives and we don't give any of them a second thought, if we even notice them. Coincidences also span between people (for an over-dramatic example, a guy getting called before leaving work made him late for work which coincidentally would have been the guy to run you over as you crossed the street.) and interconnected beyond imagination... just depends on how deep ya wanna dig and at what point you have no shits left to give.

[Endovia]

Hmm, The Grapes of Wrath isn't particularly perfect. I liked it, but you have no idea what is going to happen to the characters (well, okay, I suppose you can come up with probable scenarios, but still) nothing is tied up neatly together. I don't think Kristen Britain's books are particularly perfect. There's a lot of questions simply not answered and/or that the characters cannot find answers to. The end of the fourth book was terrible. Such a cliffhanger! Dead or not dead? Dead or not dead? You'll have to wait another 3-4 years! Rawr. -.- Anyway, there is a character in her books that seems kind of random. He's the king's cousin, I don't remember his name (that's how important he is ), but you just get snippets of his life. He's quite annoying...and really weird, especially in the fourth book. I am not seeing how he is important to the story. Sure, he interacts with the main character some, but chapters devoted to this guy? Not perfect.
I guess none of that made sense since you guys probably haven't read those books. My point is there are some non-perfect books. There's just incredibly few of them. The Catcher in the Rye is sad and heart warming, but nothing is tied up in a cute (phony! ) package at the end. You're left wondering what he will make of his life.

Perhaps we are scared to see the perfectness of our lives? (What the heck? My life? Perfect?!) Okay, hear me out. Perfect that you have this teacher who gives fresh ideas and helps you grow. Perfect that you are exhausted from work, able to feel the ache in your muscles, so sore. Perfect that a phone call inspires a poem. Perfect that you are bullied and so writing becomes your outlet. Perfect that you are loved by your parents and you are able to follow your dreams.
The perfectness of the world in that we are able to feel, to act, to think.
(Though in light of Genesis' sig, I may take back that last word. )


Please tell me you guys have seen The Dark Knight Rises!?!?!
"You're not allowed to believe in coincidences anymore." — Jim Gordon

Have you guys seen Fringe? Genesis, your example of coincidences makes me think of how Walter (alright, there is a huge backstory, but I will try my best for this to make sense) crosses into a parallel universe to save his son that is alive in that universe (because his own son has just died). He initially intends to return Peter, his son, to the parallel universe, but ends up not (insert all emotional details and mother) and then there all of these repercussions. Peter catches a firefly. A little girl wanders farther from home to catch a firefly. Her father goes searching for her and hits a man. The man dies and is the son of a keyboardist from a band that Walter loves. (Walter's really into music.) All of this would not have happened if this Peter was not here in this universe. Infinite possibilities. Strings intertwined.
You guys should watch Fringe. I think you'd love it. (Resist! 24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcvzl1kQvc1qct676o1_1280.jpg vancityfilming.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/fringe-2-october-2012/dsc_0038.jpg )

[lucia]

if you've ever read The Lady or the Tiger it leaves you hanging and you have to guess how it ends. but i personally liked the ending because it makes you think about peoples' motivations and how their emotions affect their lives and other peoples' lives

[Spectre]

Wow... I haven't thought of any examples like that. Not when I was writing this idea, anyway.

[Raphael]

She definatly told him to pick the tiger

[lucia]

not all women are cruel, jealous, and heartless

[Raphael]

But she was.

[lucia]

okay, yeah she was

[sapphire]

So I recently read another book that didn't end in a neat package.
Ripley Underground, by Patricia Highsmith. Simplest explanation is that it's about a sociopath named Tom Ripley, heh. He murders a man to protect an art forgery conspiracy, then has to hide the evidence while dealing with the artist who is actually painting the forgeries, who alternates trying to kill himself and trying to kill Ripley. The ending is sort of a cliffhanger. There are other books about Ripley, but they don't tie up what happens in this one.