Talk:Plot device

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Additional plot devices

Maybe those are plot devices, I'm not sure:

Amnesia
Unescapable Location
Chase
Hostage situation
Fight
Internal crisis
Dispute
Trial

Could somebody comment on them? Peter S. 12:32, 23 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to Mary Sue and the Evil Overlord and "Overused Science Fiction Plot Devices" websites.

Who in their right mind would consider evil overlords overused? Just imagine how much better TV would be if more were used. Pat Sajak- Uh oh, looks like Baron von Chaos has replaced the all-expenses-paid trip to Hawaii space on the wheel with another bankrupt, and the free spin now has some poison arrow launcher rigged up to it. Good luck contestants!

Most of these are not plot devices. A plot device is something that serves to advance the story towards where the author wants it to go without playing any other part. A fight, for example, may or may not be a plot device. A case where the protagonist is attacked for no reason, but the attacker leaves something behind that allows him to move to the next part of the story, that would be a plot device. But the climactic fight where the hero battles the villain on the edge of the cliff is not a plot device - it's the point of the story. Likewise a chase is usually an element of the story, not a device to advance it. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Sue isn't a plot device because her purpose isn't to advance the plot. The purpose of the story is to have the character in the story, so really the plot is a "character device" if you like. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Overlord is rarely a plot device either, unless he's not the chief bad guy. We mustn't confuse a plot device with a trope. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not plot devices

As the article says, a plot device is a thing or event introduces solely for advancing the plot(or story). That means stuff like the sword you have to collect to save the world, or the sudden appearance of pirates who capture the hreoine. Anything that doesn't serve that purpose isn't a plot device, including stock characters, literary cliches etc. I've removed a whole load of stuff that doesn't qualify. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to clarify what distinguishes a plot device from any element that advances a plot. Is it that plot devices are irritating? Colin McLarty (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Hi 69.169.152.49. I've taken note of your edits and tried to reintegrate the things you removed. I disagree that the quote from Nick Lowe is out of context. Nick does indeed say that the term is flexible, but that's because it comes in many forms - he is in fact going on to describe several varieties of it. I think the issue probably comes from a slightly different working definition of the term. I'm working with a definition where if the construct in question arises naturally from the story and the characters then it ceases to be a plot device at all. In almost all cases the construct is serving some other function than plot advancement. My understanding is that you accept the idea of an 'elegant plot device', that blends with the story and is barely noticeable by the audience. If that is the case I would be interested to see examples of your usage; I don't doubt they exist but I think mine is the majority. However let's see if we can come to an agreement here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sentence that I have issue with: "Appearance of a plot device in a work is usually considered a sign of poor writing." It is widely considered that Hitchcock used MacGuffins in many of his films. An example would be the $40,000 stolen by Marion Crane to kick off the plot of Psycho. But few people would consider Psycho an example of poor writing. Yes, it is a plot device, but it's not as if Hitchcock was stuck in a tough place; the film was not really supposed to be about that. Along those lines, Ebert uses the phrase MacGuffin in a positive manner in his four-star review of Children of Men. [1] Again, he states that the MacGuffin is used to get to what the film is really about without getting bogged down in distractions.

Perhaps you would not define a MacGuffin as a plot device? On the MacGuffin page there is a quote from Lucas that the MacGuffin should be powerful and that "the audience should care about it almost as much as the dueling heroes and villains on-screen." In your definition, wouldn't that cease to become a plot device at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.152.49 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I would have to concede that neither Psycho not Children of Men are "poor writing". OK, you've convinced me of the existence of the 'elegant plot device'. I'll take the sentence out. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your open mind. 69.169.152.49 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An if you want to edit what I wrote, feel free. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the article's reliance on Nick Lowe. I'm open to a wider variety of references, but they are surprisingly hard to come by. It's one of those things where little enough is written that Wikipedia has poisoned the Google space - almost everything that shows up with a high Google ranking is a Wikipedia clone. If you can find other high quality references I'll be very happy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. There isn't much. Maybe I'll be able to find something when I have some more time to search. 69.169.152.49 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Fallout 3 as the only example????

and a rather strange one, by the way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.89.178 (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. It was unsourced and there was no clear indication of which type of plot device was supposedly in evidence. IMO, examples go in the subarticles with, at most, 1 or 2 well sourced, very clear examples for each here. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing people back to life!

Anyone know any terms used for this?

Is it worth a section of its own... or is it just a twist?

212.69.48.150 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrived plot device

The lead states, "A contrived or arbitrary plot device may annoy or confuse the reader, ..." I could find no Wikipedia article defining what is meant by "contrived," so I created such an article as a stub. I think it is important to make this concept clear to writers, editors and critics. Unfortunately, "contrived" is not defined in any of my books either, so I would like to encourage any editors who know of reliable sources (i.e., books or journal papers), which define "contrived," to expand and cite the article, contrived plot device. — Anita5192 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article I created has been deleted. Evidently, the concept does not merit a separate article. Nonetheless, I still think it should be made clear, just what "contrived" means in literature. I think some examples of contrived plot and good quality non-contrived plot should be given. Perhaps it should be a section in this article. In any case, I would like to know of some sources that treat the concept specifically. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death trap

The section should be gender neutral should it not? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which section? There is no § Death trap. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you mean the list item under § Other devices, yeah? The whole presentation there seems a little sloppy, so I’ll go rewrite that. And you’re right (though I personally favor the generic he because English is stupid that way). Edit: Actually I’ll just delete it, since it’s unsourced. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Armor

Why does 'plot armor' redirect to this article? It's not mentioned, even tangentially. Sure, it kind of counts as an example, but someone searching for the term will be no closer to understanding by just linking here willy-nilly. 68.60.202.174 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See below.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects, Plot armor, Plot armour, and Character shield have now been deleted.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Plot armor" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Plot armor. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Plot armor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Anita5192 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Stories using plot devices" are all MacGuffins

The section "Stories using plot devices" seems to have been written by someone under the impression that plot devices are literal devices, i.e. objects, rather than story-telling techniques or tropes. This confuses plot devices with MacGuffins. The section should be edited to represent different kinds of plot device. And maybe we should add a line on the page somewhere explaining that plot devices are not literal devices? Mtjh (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]