Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackWriters/status/216343589175828480
5 Rollback to Revision 3
source | link

I've read books where weather is used to create another form of opposition to the heroes, something else they must overcomeI see lazy plot devices as anything that does not relate to the main dilemma; thus it would standis too coincidental. Person One just so happened to reason that it could also do the exact opposite, hamperbe in the villain's quest.'area' when Person Two was attacked (or both, in my case.)

I'm considering using this device to "improve"then they end up running into each other a sectionbunch of my plot that really doesn't worktimes afterwards--really?). Time is a big part of this plotThose nicks-failure,of-time rescues. Some random thing distracting a villain right before they are victorious and I'm thinking mother nature's devastating handiwork might be just what I needgiving the hero enough time to fix this problemgain the upper hand.

I'm reluctant to move forward with anything, however, because I'm concerned that this will be perceived as a lazy plot device. Something done as a wayI'd also like to avoid a more complicated solution. Which, I suppose, is in part true. Everything I've come up with have beenthink happenstance/luck/fortune has a failureplace in my mind at accomplishing what need to be donesustaining tension, while this cards solves allsuch as bad weather preventing the problems and atvillain from reaching the same time adds a bit more interestheroes or certain people's paths so happening to cross at the "slower" partsright time.

I see lazyHow do you draw the line between a plot devices as anythingdevice that is too-coincidental contrived and I'm not sure if this is, or isn't.

Is weather a "lazy plot device?" Or am I just being overly critical that propels the story forward without breaking the suspension of disbelief?

Thanks for any advice.

I've read books where weather is used to create another form of opposition to the heroes, something else they must overcome that does not relate to the main dilemma; thus it would stand to reason that it could also do the exact opposite, hamper the villain's quest. (or both, in my case.)

I'm considering using this device to "improve" a section of my plot that really doesn't work. Time is a big part of this plot-failure, and I'm thinking mother nature's devastating handiwork might be just what I need to fix this problem.

I'm reluctant to move forward with anything, however, because I'm concerned that this will be perceived as a lazy plot device. Something done as a way to avoid a more complicated solution. Which, I suppose, is in part true. Everything I've come up with have been a failure in my mind at accomplishing what need to be done, while this cards solves all the problems and at the same time adds a bit more interest to the "slower" parts.

I see lazy plot devices as anything that is too-coincidental and I'm not sure if this is, or isn't.

Is weather a "lazy plot device?" Or am I just being overly critical?

Thanks for any advice.

I see lazy plot devices as anything that is too coincidental. Person One just so happened to be in the 'area' when Person Two was attacked (then they end up running into each other a bunch of times afterwards--really?). Those nicks-of-time rescues. Some random thing distracting a villain right before they are victorious and giving the hero enough time to gain the upper hand.

I'd also like to think happenstance/luck/fortune has a place in sustaining tension, such as bad weather preventing the villain from reaching the heroes or certain people's paths so happening to cross at the right time.

How do you draw the line between a plot device that is too contrived and a plot device that propels the story forward without breaking the suspension of disbelief?

4 added 404 characters in body
source | link

I see lazy plot devices as anything thatI've read books where weather is too coincidental. Person One just so happenedused to be increate another form of opposition to the 'area' when Person Two was attackedheroes, something else they must overcome that does not relate to the main dilemma; thus it would stand to reason that it could also do the exact opposite, hamper the villain's quest. (then they end up running into each otheror both, in my case.)

I'm considering using this device to "improve" a bunchsection of times afterwards--really?). Those nicks-of-time rescuesmy plot that really doesn't work. Some random thing distractingTime is a villain right before they are victoriousbig part of this plot-failure, and giving the hero enough timeI'm thinking mother nature's devastating handiwork might be just what I need to gain the upper handfix this problem.

I'd also likeI'm reluctant to think happenstance/luck/fortune hasmove forward with anything, however, because I'm concerned that this will be perceived as a placelazy plot device. Something done as a way to avoid a more complicated solution. Which, I suppose, is in sustaining tensionpart true. Everything I've come up with have been a failure in my mind at accomplishing what need to be done, such as bad weather preventing the villain from reachingwhile this cards solves all the heroes or certain people's paths so happening to crossproblems and at the rightsame time adds a bit more interest to the "slower" parts.

How do you draw the line between aI see lazy plot devicedevices as anything that is too contrived-coincidental and I'm not sure if this is, or isn't.

Is weather a "lazy plot device that propels the story forward without breaking the suspension of disbelief?" Or am I just being overly critical?

Thanks for any advice.

I see lazy plot devices as anything that is too coincidental. Person One just so happened to be in the 'area' when Person Two was attacked (then they end up running into each other a bunch of times afterwards--really?). Those nicks-of-time rescues. Some random thing distracting a villain right before they are victorious and giving the hero enough time to gain the upper hand.

I'd also like to think happenstance/luck/fortune has a place in sustaining tension, such as bad weather preventing the villain from reaching the heroes or certain people's paths so happening to cross at the right time.

How do you draw the line between a plot device that is too contrived and a plot device that propels the story forward without breaking the suspension of disbelief?

I've read books where weather is used to create another form of opposition to the heroes, something else they must overcome that does not relate to the main dilemma; thus it would stand to reason that it could also do the exact opposite, hamper the villain's quest. (or both, in my case.)

I'm considering using this device to "improve" a section of my plot that really doesn't work. Time is a big part of this plot-failure, and I'm thinking mother nature's devastating handiwork might be just what I need to fix this problem.

I'm reluctant to move forward with anything, however, because I'm concerned that this will be perceived as a lazy plot device. Something done as a way to avoid a more complicated solution. Which, I suppose, is in part true. Everything I've come up with have been a failure in my mind at accomplishing what need to be done, while this cards solves all the problems and at the same time adds a bit more interest to the "slower" parts.

I see lazy plot devices as anything that is too-coincidental and I'm not sure if this is, or isn't.

Is weather a "lazy plot device?" Or am I just being overly critical?

Thanks for any advice.

3 added 22 characters in body
source | link

I see lazy plot devices as anything that is too coincidental. Person One just so happened to be in the 'area' when Person Two was attacked (then they end up running into each other a bunch of times afterwards--really?). Those nicks-of-time rescues. Some random thing distracting a villain right before they are victorious and giving the hero enough time to gain the upper hand.

I'd also like to think happenstance/luck/fortune has a place in sustaining tension, such as bad weather preventing the villain from reaching the heroes or certain people's paths so happening to cross at the right time.

How do you draw the line between a plot device that is too contrived and a plot device that propels the story forward without breaking the suspension of disbelief?

I see lazy plot devices as anything that is too coincidental. Person One just so happened to be in the 'area' when Person Two was attacked (then they end up running into each other a bunch of times afterwards--really?). Those nicks-of-time rescues. Some random thing distracting a villain right before they are victorious and giving the hero enough time to gain the upper hand.

I'd also like to think happenstance/luck/fortune has a place, such as bad weather preventing the villain from reaching the heroes or certain people's paths so happening to cross at the right time.

How do you draw the line between a plot device that is too contrived and a plot device that propels the story forward without breaking the suspension of disbelief?

I see lazy plot devices as anything that is too coincidental. Person One just so happened to be in the 'area' when Person Two was attacked (then they end up running into each other a bunch of times afterwards--really?). Those nicks-of-time rescues. Some random thing distracting a villain right before they are victorious and giving the hero enough time to gain the upper hand.

I'd also like to think happenstance/luck/fortune has a place in sustaining tension, such as bad weather preventing the villain from reaching the heroes or certain people's paths so happening to cross at the right time.

How do you draw the line between a plot device that is too contrived and a plot device that propels the story forward without breaking the suspension of disbelief?

2 Refined question to the bare bones, generalised it.
source | link
1
source | link