I hear this particular logical misnomer so often these days that it's practically become a cliche'. I've heard it from stand-up comedians, radio hosts, and dozens of times in personal conversations. You've probably heard it yourself. You might have even been guilty of proliferating it. Here's what happens: You're talking to someone about a movie that contains science fiction or other fantastical elements in its concept. You point out an inconsistency in the plot, or some unrealistic detail of the story that bears no connection to the fantastic element involved in the story's basic concept, and what is the retort of the person you're debating this point with? It's usually some variant of "There's talking dogs in this movie, and you're complaining about...", etc. This is usually said with a tone so heavily laced with snarkiness that it even comes across in the tone-deaf world of internet communication, where we have to qualify even the mildly rudest jokes with smiley faces.
And yet, the person is completely wrong. Making a movie about talking dogs isn't a free pass to throw logic and sense out the window. Such a movie simply postulates the existence of another world, one in which dogs talk. Aside from this conceit, as ridiculous and scientifically untenable though it may be, the movie is still under an obligation to follow certain rules. 1.) It must establish the difference between its world and our own and follow this difference with consistency. If the dogs talk but behave otherwise like normal dogs in every other respect in the first act, they can't be performing brain surgery in the third. 2.) It can not break consistency with other details of its world that it shares in common with our own, without accounting for these differences. You can't move Christmas to April 15th without explaining why or how the change is a consequence of dogs talking. Suppose your story has a subplot about a secret society of mailmen. Without further explanation, this subplot would simply leave the audience perplexed. But if this development is explained by the fact that mailmen are the only ones who can hear the dogs talk, then everyone's on board. Of course, rule 1 comes into play here again. If you establish that only mailmen can hear the dogs talk, you can't have little Billy hear them talk later without accounting for it. 3.) The fantastical conceit of your story isn't a giant rug to sweep plot holes under. Just because your movie has talking dogs, that doesn't mean that Mr. Smith can break his leg in one scene and then be playing basketball in the next.
Of course, I'm using the talking dog example precisely because of the absurdity of it. A movie like that, you could cut it a certain amount of slack because it's clearly a comedy, but the leeway isn't unlimited. Besides, the "Talking Dog Defense" is used for all kinds of stories. It rears it's ugly head when discussing stories with elements that range from everything from aliens to zoos for dinosaurs. Pointing out the logical fallacy involved seems almost too obvious to be worthy of mentioning, but since so many people routinely resort to this argument, apparently it needs to be said. Most people are aware of the literary concept of suspension of disbelief, but they don't know how to discriminately apply it. They treat it like a magic screwdriver in their toolbox of artistic appreciation, and they think it can fix anything. You show them a loose tile that needs re-grouting, and up they pop with the screwdriver.
If you get what I'm saying, feel free to use the phrase. I'm hoping it catches on. The next time you're debating a plot hole in a sci-fi movie with your friend, and you point out that the corporate espionage sub-plot didn't make sense and they say, "You expect a movie about robot armies from the future to make sense?", tell them that they're using the "Talking Dog Defense." When they ask what that is, send them here. Tell them to click on the ads and order a few recommended Amazon products while they're here. I'd feel a lot better making money off of your belligerent friends.
Of course, my dream stories probably break those above rules all the time, but that's another matter entirely. In certain cases, surrealism itself can be a part of the over-arching concept of the story's world.
ReplyDeleteWhen people say flatly "that was stupid. It could never happen because dogs can't talk, therefore the whole thing was ridiculous and a waste of time", I remind them of the Royal Academy of Science's stance on the theory of meteorites when they said "I can see no rocks in the sky, ergo there are no rocks in the sky, ergo rocks cannot fall from the sky."
ReplyDeleteYes, and the implicit statement behind The Talking Dog Defense is usually, "The entire concept of the story is unrealistic, so I refuse to be drawn into any discussion that takes it seriously." First, that attitude does nothing to address the issue raised. Second, it grants fiction an unlimited latitude that's appallingly condensing to writers of any kind of story. It's the sort of sentiment usually expressed as "Well, it's just a movie.", as if movies are just a pointless waste of time that don't need to be held to any standards of quality what-so-ever.
ReplyDeleteI've used something like that before. A friend and I were disputing with another friend about whether or not Draco Malfoy is a sissy and if Tom Felton actually looks like a weasel, which he isn't and he doesn't. Anyway, when then I pointed out that the friend who was saying these things had a lot of facial similarities to Tom Felton and that must mean that he looked like a weasel, too, and then maybe I added something about "it takes one to know one, anyway." Then he said my argument was not adult or mature, to which I replied, "We're arguing about HARRY POTTER over here. There is nothing adult about this conversation to begin with."
ReplyDeleteBut I like to think I was right.
I think we've all been guilty of it at one time or another. It can be a tempting argument to resort to in moments of extreme frustration.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think you get a pass on this one. as you weren't making excuses for plot holes, but rather making an observation about the craziness of the conversation you were having. Fine line maybe, but I think you're in the clear.
Why is it the only movie I'm picturing after reading this is Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Maybe because I didn't watch it because I'm just sitting on my sofa watching the previews going "Stuuuuuupid" yet the Matrix was interesting and engaging and had a lot of the same unbelievable special effects. Personally I like to argue about anything, but this is one thing I tend to agree with you on. Fiction is fiction, it's not carte blanche to write anything you want without explaining WHY it's happening or HOW it's possible.
ReplyDeleteI've got a novel with an assassin that has more piercings than a stagehand at a Motley Crue concert, and people say that doesn't make sense! She's an assassin, she has to blend in! Well, my logic MIGHT be flawed (which is entirely possible even though I'll argue it isn't) but if you take someone like that, then REMOVE all those piercings, it's like having Marilyn Monroe die her hair brown, put on sweats and lose twenty pounds. Different person.
Or maybe I'm just being argumentative again. But that's my take on it. Being a writer doesn't give us free reign to do whatever the hell we want, despite what the Twilight series would have us believe.
Just my four cents and how awesome is that, you get double the bang for the buck.
I didn't see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon either, so I'm not to qualified to pass judgement on it. I would guess that you accepted the modified physics in The Matrix, because you accepted the explanation behind it better. Now, there's two of my cents.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your assassin, there was a movie a few years back called Hitman (based on a video game) where the title character had a shaved head with a bar code tattooed on the back of it. Yeah, not exactly subtle either. In both cases, I would accept artistic license or suspension of disbelief as an explanation. Where you draw that line can be a matter of opinion, though. Some people just aren't willing to look past it while others are. I respect their opinion in either case.
But, either way, as you point out, this latitude isn't unlimited. If you were to make a gross error elsewhere in the plot, one that doesn't result from artistic choices but rather from sloppy writing, then you can't fall back on the argument, "We're talking about a story with an assassin who has a bunch of piercings." THEN you're using The Talking Dog Defense.
There's my other two cents. Now we're even.
In addition to this, my dog Bella (Who is fluent in seventeen different languages)concurs with this thought process and recommends The White Stripes album you have suggested.
ReplyDeleteI was about to say, "When did I ever recommend a White Stripes album here?" I'm a little slow on the uptake.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points you have made in your post. I predict that The Talking Dog Defense term will be used as widely by entertainment moguls. They like these sort of terms. For example when a sitcom has run its course the term "Jumping The Shark".
ReplyDeleteThat would be awesome! "Jump the Shark" was a useful term in its day, but now it's so overused I'm dizzy from all the sharks flying over my head.
ReplyDeleteShall we start a whole new discussion line on overused and hackneyed phrases versus the ones you never hear any more? When was the last time you heard anyone who saw the elephant or smelled the smoke?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I've ever heard those. You may be dating yourself there. I've heard of "white elephants", like gag gifts.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure if, hypothetically speaking, "The Talking Dog Defense" ever got to be a popular phrase, it would end up quite frequently misapplied just like every other popular term currently in circulation through-out the internet and the world at large. I'm sure the nuances of the idea would be lost on some people.
For instance, let's say someone was complaining about the fiery horses in the movie Krull. If someone were to point out to this person the oddness of the fact that of all the magical elements in the story, they take issue with that one, then THAT would not be The Talking Dog Defense. Magic is part of the basic premise of the story, and the horses are just one aspect of it. Complaining about magical details in a magical movie or sci-fi elements in a sci-fi movie is not even remotely the same thing as pointing out a plot hole or a poorly researched detail that isn't accounted for by the fantastical nature of the story.
Do you really see those sharp wits that abound out there making that fine distinction?
Most of the people I interact with would say "That stuff could never happen at all. It was a stupid movie." If all entertainment was based soundly on pure reality, this would be one seriously boring world.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that. Some people get so uptight about "realism" to the point that they refuse to suspend their disbelief to any degree what-so-ever. Some people just like to nitpick a movie to death, just to be smart-asses. Fantasy has a value of its own, even if its only a sweet little vacation for the mind.
ReplyDeleteI know some people who refuse to even read or watch fiction at all, because "it didn't really happen." I don't see how the entertainment, catharsis, or enlightenment someone gets from a story is in any way affected by being qualified by that magic phrase "based on a true story."
I completely get what you are saying. I have had similar conversations with friends when watching movies.
ReplyDeleteThe kind of criticism that you are making could easily be applied to science fiction films or any which depend on an alternative world with rules of its own wherein the audience can collude with the director and suspend disbelief. In fact you could extend this and say that it applies to any movie. It’s the director’s task to establish the rules, and then to make sure that they are followed consistently; or if not, that the rule-breaking is intentional and significant - a new rule, if you will.
ReplyDeleteIn Monty Python and the Holy Grail, to take a random example, King Arthur and his knights go prancing about and doing their chivalrous stuff - except that when the camera pans back from a torso close-up you see they are on foot, not on horseback, but simulating the equestrian movements. Then you understand that the producers are not letting a low budget get in the way of comedy, but using it to advantage.
From this you could imagine the possibility of some incongruity that would break the rules: for example a hostile knight on a real horse. Except that might be within the rules - the goodies being poorly equipped and the baddies well equipped.
I think it comes down to aesthetic considerations, just as in a poem, whose use of metaphor might stretch the boundaries of anything that has previously been attempted. So there would be no rules in poetry Apart from any self-imposed metre and rhyme), only a collusion between poet and reader. A good poet facilitates this collusion.
And only pretentious readers (I suspect) would claim to enjoy reading Finnegan’s Wake.
Is that a European or African swallow?
ReplyDeleteWith something as insane as Monty Python it would be difficult to discern rules, but yes, even there they must still exist. Even if they wove rule-breaking itself into the story (as they and others often to), it's still determined by the rule of comic effect, and you still know what you're getting yourself into when you sit down to watch a Monty Python movie in the first place.
As far as Finnegan's Wake, the subject came up in the comments for a different post. I'm not sure the term "reading" even applies, maybe more "staring in bemused befuddlement at a lump of ink and dead tree".
There are two movies that immediately come to mind on this subject, one of which I have not seen. Wild Wild West and Face Off. A black man as a secret service agent in the immediate post civil war era is ludicrous. I can live with the giant steam driven spider machine and other ridiculous contrivances. I just can't get past Wil Smith as James West.
ReplyDeleteI didn't bother to see Face Off because;
1) It has Nicolas Cage
2) The idea that pealing off the face from one skull and putting on another will make you look just like the other guy regardless of bone structure is too much for me.
The first one is a good example of what I'm saying. Yes, even robot spiders don't grant unlimited latitude on historical details. Unforgiven was on the other night, and as much as I love that movie, Morgan Freeman's place in the plot seems a little far fetched. Of course, now we're on the shaky ground of the Huck Finn post above. I don't have a problem with Will Smith being a secret agent or Morgan Freeman being Clint Eastwood's friend, but historically accurate? No.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Face Off, I guess it all comes down to how willing you are to play along with the ridiculous premise, which is purely a matter of opinion. It's totally unbelievable for the reasons you mentioned and more, but if someone's willing to look past that...that's fine. If someone just can't accept it...that's fine too. I'm mostly with you on that one. That movie was a little too dumb for me. You weren't missing much.