By the way, hubby and I watch a British TV murder mystery series where some of the actions is sooooo contrived as to be totally implausible. Yet the show is very popular and still in production. We just set aside such things and enjoy the detectives catch the killer(s). Sigh.
Well, the reader can suspend disbelief. Or, possibly, can't. But it's not a credit to someone re-writing a fairy tale to not make the tale coherent when it could be.
At that, the oral style of fairy tales lets the tale get away with things that will throw the reader out in other formats. Like, oh, having the hero ride on the talking fox's tail.
Absolutely agree. I hate having to suspend disbelief to get through something. And hubby is my reader/editor. He never lets such holes slip through (or should I say he never lets me slip through such holes?). Good writing needs to be tight, even if it’s a children’s book. I just read the Howl books by Diana Wynne Jones. No holes there.
Two words: suspend disbelief.
And I gag while saying them.
By the way, hubby and I watch a British TV murder mystery series where some of the actions is sooooo contrived as to be totally implausible. Yet the show is very popular and still in production. We just set aside such things and enjoy the detectives catch the killer(s). Sigh.
Well, the reader can suspend disbelief. Or, possibly, can't. But it's not a credit to someone re-writing a fairy tale to not make the tale coherent when it could be.
At that, the oral style of fairy tales lets the tale get away with things that will throw the reader out in other formats. Like, oh, having the hero ride on the talking fox's tail.
Absolutely agree. I hate having to suspend disbelief to get through something. And hubby is my reader/editor. He never lets such holes slip through (or should I say he never lets me slip through such holes?). Good writing needs to be tight, even if it’s a children’s book. I just read the Howl books by Diana Wynne Jones. No holes there.