婆罗门
精华
|
战斗力 鹅
|
回帖 0
注册时间 2007-4-27
|
Willing Suspension of Disbelief
自愿暂停怀疑
"An eagle-eyed viewer might be able to see the wires. A pedant might be able to see the wires. But I think if you're looking at the wires you're ignoring the story. If you go to a puppet show you can see the wires. But it's about the puppets, it's not about the string. If you go to a Punch and Judy show and you're only watching the wires, you're a freak."
“眼尖的观众可能会看到电线。一个学究也许能看到电线。但我认为，如果你看电线，你就忽略了这个故事。如果你去看木偶戏，你可以看到电线。但这是关于木偶的，而不是关于琴弦的。如果你去看 Punch and Judy 的演出，而你只是在看电线，那你就是个怪胎。
— Dean Learner，Garth Marenghis Darkplace
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the poet and author, called drama "that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith ..."
诗人兼作家塞缪尔·泰勒·柯勒律治（Samuel Taylor Coleridge）称戏剧是“自愿暂时暂停怀疑，这构成了诗意的信仰......”
Any creative endeavor — certainly any written creative endeavor — is only successful to the extent that the audience offers this willing suspension as they read, listen, or watch. It's part of an unspoken contract: The writer provides the reader/viewer/player with a good story, and in return, they accept the reality of the story as presented, and accept that characters in the fictional universe act on their own accord.
任何创造性的努力——当然任何书面的创造性努力——只有在观众在阅读、聆听或观看时自愿提供这种自愿的暂停时才能成功。这是潜规则的一部分：作家为读者/观众/玩家提供了一个好故事，作为回报，他们接受了所呈现的故事的真实性，并接受了虚构宇宙中的角色是自愿行动的。
In other words, an author's work does not have to be realistic. It only has to be believable and internally consistent (and even the last requirement can be relieved to some extent). When the author pushes an audience beyond what they're willing to accept, the work fails in the eyes of that particular audience. Viewers are usually willing to go along with creative explanations for things, which is why people don't criticize your faster-than-light wormhole travel system or wonder how a shrinking potion doesn't violate the laws of matter conservation, but even in the more fantastical genres, suspension of disbelief can be broken when a work breaks its own established laws or asks the audience to put up with too many things that come off as contrived. A common way of putting this is "You can ask an audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable." For example, people will accept that the Grand Mage can use a magic spell to teleport across the world, or that the spaceship has technology that makes it completely invisible without rendering its own sensors blind. But the audience won't accept that the ferocious carnivore just happened to have a heart attack and die right before it would have killed the main character, or that the hacker guessed his enemy's password on the first try just by typing random letters. Without some prior detail justifying it or one of the Rules listed below coming into play, an audience is going to cry foul, and their suspended disbelief is now at the forefront of their mind. What is impossible in Real Life just has to be made the norm in the setting and kept consistent for an audience to accept it.
换句话说，作者的作品不一定是现实的。它只需要可信且内部一致（甚至最后一个要求也可以在一定程度上得到缓解）。当作者将观众推向他们愿意接受的范围时，作品在该特定观众眼中就失败了。观众通常愿意对事物进行创造性的解释，这就是为什么人们不会批评你的超光速虫洞旅行系统，也不会想知道缩小的药水怎么不违反物质守恒定律，但即使是在更奇幻的类型中，当一部作品打破了自己既定的规律或要求观众忍受太多做作的东西时，就可以打破怀疑的悬念。一种常见的表达方式是“你可以要求观众相信不可能的事情，但不能相信不可能的事情。例如，人们会接受大法师可以使用魔法穿越世界，或者宇宙飞船拥有使其完全隐形而不会使自己的传感器失明的技术。但观众不会接受这只凶猛的食肉动物恰好心脏病发作并在杀死主角之前死去，或者黑客在第一次尝试时仅通过输入随机字母就猜出了敌人的密码。如果没有一些事先的细节来证明它或下面列出的规则之一发挥作用，观众会大喊大叫，他们暂停的怀疑现在正处于他们脑海中的首要位置。在现实生活中不可能的事情必须成为设置中的常态，并保持一致，以便观众接受它。
To put the above in layman's terms: all stories are contrived by their very nature (since the writer has to move characters from plot point A to plot points B, C, D, and so on), but stories can only retain viewers' suspension of disbelief insofar as the contrivances feel justified in-universe. Stories break viewers' suspension of disbelief when the contrivances start to feel forced onto the story by the writer.
通俗地说：所有的故事都是由其本质设计的（因为作者必须将角色从情节点 A 移动到情节点 B、C、D 等），但故事只能保持观众的怀疑悬念，只要这些人为在宇宙中感觉是合理的。当人们开始觉得编剧强行将人为故事所施加时，故事打破了观众的怀疑。
There are two major factors that decide how much the audience is willing to suspend their disbelief. One is the very premise of the work that lets the audience know what to expect from the work. The other is the introduction that sets the tone for the work and establishes the rules on how the world works. In more grounded works, the audience's suspension of disbelief can break much more easily. In the other end, if the work establishes itself to be very wacky and surrealist, then the audience may not even question the unfolding events and even the character's motives.
有两个主要因素决定了观众愿意在多大程度上暂停他们的怀疑。一个是作品的前提，让观众知道对作品的期望。另一个是为作品定下基调并建立世界如何运作的规则的引言。在更接地气的作品中，观众的怀疑悬而未决会更容易被打破。另一方面，如果作品将自己定位为非常古怪和超现实主义的，那么观众甚至可能不会质疑正在发生的事件，甚至角色的动机。
Of course, different people will have different thresholds for what they're willing to accept in a work, and what may break one person's willing suspension of disbelief may not necessarily have the same effect on another.
当然，不同的人对于他们愿意在作品中接受的东西会有不同的阈值，而可能打破一个人自愿暂停怀疑的东西不一定对另一个人产生相同的影响。
Most action movies push this trope almost to the breaking point; for the sake of action, the heroes can do virtually anything, given enough Phlebotinum.
大多数动作片几乎将这个比喻推向了临界点;为了行动，只要有足够的 Phlebotinum，英雄们几乎可以做任何事情。
As always, the various Rules override nearly all other considerations. When the audience's disbelief, which was suspended during the show, gets reinstated some time afterward, what you get is Fridge Logic. When the means of "fixing" the Plot Hole just end up making it worse and/or opening up a new one, that's a phenomenon known as the Voodoo Shark.
与往常一样，各种规则几乎凌驾于所有其他考虑因素之上。当观众在演出期间暂停的怀疑在一段时间后恢复时，你得到的是 Fridge Logic。当“修复”情节漏洞的方法最终使它变得更糟和/或打开一个新的漏洞时，这就是一种被称为巫毒鲨的现象。
This trope dates back at least as far as William Shakespeare and Henry V, in which the narrator directly asks the audience to "on your imaginary forces work" in order to accept a few actors running around a stage as kings and princes and the battle of Agincourt. The MST3K Mantra is an exhortation to reinstate your Willing Suspension of Disbelief even if it's been broken, because "it's just a show". Similarly, Bellisario's Maxim calls the audience to reinstate their WSOD by ignoring whatever Plot Holes or other inconsistencies broke it, or that those things really aren't as important as the audience member(s) may think.
这个比喻至少可以追溯到威廉·莎士比亚和亨利五世，其中叙述者直接要求观众“发挥你的想象力量”，以便接受几个演员在舞台上跑来跑去扮演国王和王子以及阿金库尔战役。MST3K 咒语是一个劝诫，即使它已经被打破了，也要恢复你的自愿暂停怀疑，因为 “这只是一场表演”。同样，Bellisario 的 Maxim 呼吁观众通过忽略任何情节漏洞或其他不一致之处来恢复他们的 WSOD，或者这些事情真的没有观众想象的那么重要。
Incidentally this is one of the more controversial elements of, believe it or not, Professional Wrestling, and is heavily tied to Kayfabe.
顺便说一句，信不信由你，这是职业摔跤最具争议的元素之一，并且与 Kayfabe 密切相关。
When a true story is so bizarre and/or over-the-top that only its veracity enables this, that's Reality Is Unrealistic.
当一个真实的故事如此离奇和/或夸张，以至于只有它的真实性才能做到这一点时，这就是现实是不现实的。
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
沪公网安备 31010702007642号 )
发表于 2024-12-30 17:10
发表于 2024-12-30 17:15
我受不了浪费水的段落，为什么不关水龙头！
当你看到数码第四部的时候，你就会发现整个数码世界的悲剧都源于三位天使没有政权合法性。十英雄打下来江山，但因为他们在建国后迅速沉眠政权移交并未出大力，互相之间也磨合不够的三天使，使得政权并不稳固！所以四代的整个故事就是十英雄回归，重掌数码界
