Skip to main content

Stop Mocking Arbitrary Skepticism

Arbitrary Skepticism is a trope where a character believes something unbelievable, but not believing something less unbelievable. This is usually only pointed out when people or characters mock people or characters who have arbitrary skepticism.
This is usually valid, but there are 2 circumstances where it's not valid:
1) A character mocks another character for belief in something normal to their world but not believing in something abnormal to their world.
Here's TVTropes.org's main example. It's from Firefly.

Wash: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoe: We live in a spaceship, dear.
Wash: ...So?
Wash doesn't have any reason to disbelieve in space travel. After all, space travel is a normal part of their world. He does have reason to disbelieve in psychic people, since psychic people aren't a normal part of their world.
class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">This would be kind of like someone from our world saying "You can teleport?!" and the other person responding "You have an iPhone." Both those statements are true, and modern technology is pretty incredible, but having an iPhone has nothing to do with teleportation right now.


2) A real-world person is mocked for suspending disbelief for the premise of a story but not suspending their disbelief for other things.
i.e. Someone complaining about Star Wars breaking basic laws of physics or human nature, but believing in lightsabers and the force.
At first, it makes sense to criticize these, until we realize how exactly suspension of disbelief works.
The entire purpose of Act I of a story is to establish everything - characters, setting, rules, premise, etc. We will suspend our disbelief for whatever is established in Act I, whether it's a sponge living in a pineapple under the sea, a big red dog the size of a house, or an secret wizard school. We don't know anything else about this world, and we're just getting to know the world, so we'll accept whatever the world says about itself when we're in Act I.
Once we feel like we understand the world, we'll only believe things that support what's established in Act I or things that are given an in-universe justification.

We all assume that characters will engage in arbitrary skepticism. If we assumed that people would believe in or follow ANY rule once ANY rule of our world was broken, we would be asking things like "Why didn't Luke just travel back in time and convince Anakin to not go to the dark side?", "Why didn't The Doctor just use telekinesis to freeze the Weeping Angels?", and "Why didn't Captain America just teleport his team to Siberia instead of taking the Quinjet?" Those aren't established as rules, so we don't assume they'll happen immediately.
So when is arbitrary skepticism valid? When the character or audience member suspends their disbelief for something out of the ordinary for that world, but doesn't suspend their disbelief for something less out of the ordinary for that world.

Just because one fantastical rule is accepted doesn't mean all the fantastical rules are accepted.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should The Book of Mormon Be A Movie?

Over the last few years, my brother and I have been brainstorming about how to make an epic movie (or series of movies) out of The Book of Mormon. We didn't want something simple. We want something epic - a grand adventure for the ages, like we sometimes say the Book of Mormon itself is. I've heard a lot of people love the idea, and I've heard a lot of concerns. I'd like to address some of the concerns and see if I can help. Perhaps you could help me address my major concern with making the Book of Mormon into a movie. If you have any more concerns, let me know. I'd love to discuss them. Concern #1: "It would be rated R." This is the single most frequent concern I hear. I even heard this from someone who played in the Bible videos. To be fair, it's a legitimate concern. There are plenty of lots of R-rated ancient war movies - from Gladiator  (2000), to 300  (2006) to the extended edition of The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies  (2014/2015). Th...

Age of Ultron as a Hawkeye Movie

We sometimes say that Tony is the ultimate antagonist of the MCU. We sometimes say that Avengers: Age of Ultron is a movie more about Hawkeye than any other character. But it turns out: You could rewrite Age of Ultron in a way that takes out Cap, Thor, Hulk, and Nat and you would have effectively the same movie. The plot of Avengers: Age of Ultron  is pretty simple: When Tony Stark gets manipulated into creating a robot to protect the planet that goes awry, the rest of the Avengers try to stop the robot from destroying the earth. Cap, Thor, Hulk, and Nat don't actually help  Ultron or the Avengers to succeed in their goals. So let's re-imagine Age of Ultron  as a solo Hawkeye movie. In this version, Hawkeye becomes the main character, and b ecause of their traumatic experiences involving Stark, Wanda and Lame Quicksilver are still villains. Tony is rewritten as an obvious villain, giving us 4 major villains:  Tony, Wanda, Lame Quicksilver, and Ultron, ...

Chloe Bennet? Please?

Every time I see anything about Avengers: Infinity War , I feel bogged down, even though I should be really excited for it. I finally realized the reason: No Chloe Bennet. At this point, all I care about with the MCU is what the official title of Spider-Man: The Winter Formal will be (because what else do you call the sequel to Homecoming ?), what new genres they'll explore, and how they'll have the TV shows will affect the movies. Chloe Bennet's character from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. would be a fantastic addition to Avengers: Infinity  War . Her character is powerful enough to be helpful to the team, is from a show people already like, and is extremely easy to introduce to an audience that has never seen Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D . I would love to see Chloe Bennet in a Marvel movie. (The fact that she's extremely attractive doesn't hurt.)