Why Critics & General Audiences Are Literally Having Different Experiences; Suspension of Disbelief

Main ideas / concepts

• Uncanny valley framing (audience “suspension”)

  • The video argues that storytelling is risky when audiences perceive “danger” or something off—before they can mentally process it.
  • This idea motivates a deeper look at how audiences “stay in” a story and ignore implausibilities.

• Suspension of disbelief as a core storytelling technique

  • Storytellers use suspension of disbelief to prevent audiences from “looking down” (noticing gaps, questions, and plot/world issues that would ruin immersion).
  • The video contrasts how real-world plausibility expectations differ by genre and audience type.

• Key claim: it’s largely on the audience, not just the writer

  • The ability to suspend disbelief depends mostly on the audience’s shoulders, not solely on author skill.
  • The same storytelling choices can work for some viewers and fail for others.

• Two audience groups experience stories differently

  • The video identifies two historically contentious groups:
    • General audience
    • Critics and analysts
  • This divide is framed as not mainly about expertise, ignorance, or “being out of touch,” but about different expectations for what suspension of disbelief should feel like.

Methodology / “how to” instructions (writer-focused)

A) How to write for the general audience (to keep them immersed)

• Goal: make the audience feel like storytelling is an experience/magic, not a puzzle.

• Primary job: never bump them out of the story

  • Avoid reminding them about the “cliff” (the plausibility gap or questions they might notice).

• Use “promises” set early in the story

  • In the first act, establish promises about:
    • Tone
    • Genre
    • Premise (what the story is about)

• Example (The Mandalorian / “Mandalo rian”)

  • Promise: “space western bounty hunter story”
  • Focus: the bond/relationship between the Mandalorian and Baby Yoda, with character change as a result.

• Rule of deviation

  • You can deviate from promises, but only if you do it carefully.
  • Deviating purely to surprise the audience will “bump them out.”

• Thematic deviation option

  • If promises are intentionally unfulfilled (e.g., tragedy), do so for a thematic reason.
  • Examples cited:
    • Hamlet: revenge doesn’t happen due to flaws (wrath/indecision).
    • Romeo and Juliet: life together fails due to blind young desire.

• Payoff principle

  • Unique and compelling payoffs to early promises create lasting fulfillment and joy—and can make stories stick.

B) How to write for critics and analysts (to earn their suspension)

• Goal: provide something they can “chew on” and deliberate about—craft, theme, technical decisions, and human insight.

• Their stance toward spectacle

  • They’re less impressed by spectacle and more impressed by:
    • technical skill
    • thematic depth
    • what the story teaches

• How they “monitor the cliff”

  • Critics and analysts are described as actively searching for reasons the suspension should fail.

• Writer’s challenge: distract them from the cliff

  • Make them forget to nitpick implausibilities by engaging them with:
    • meaningful thematic conflict
    • discussion-worthy ideas
    • intricate craft choices

• Example (The Dark Knight)

  • Even though the Joker’s plan could be dissected for absurdity, critics respond because the film offers a more compelling discussion about:
    • Batman’s view of humanity vs. Joker’s view (“one bad day from becoming him,” secretly evil)
    • how the film handles that theme/conflict
  • Core idea: thematic and craft engagement can “override” the impulse to jump off the plausibility cliff.

Overall lesson / conclusion

• Both groups can be satisfied by the same story, but typically through different engagement mechanisms:
  • General audiences seek emotional immersion and “magic.”
  • Critics and analysts seek meaning, craft analysis, and thematic resonance.

• Stories often fail to satisfy both simultaneously because they are built for one side’s expectations—making it feel like the groups are “talking past each other.”

• The video analogizes this with a “wizard vs non-wizard” story:

  • The non-wizard enjoys wonder without explanation.
  • The wizard understands mechanics and loses some whimsy—suggesting a “cost” to learning craft.

Speakers / sources featured

• Michael Kaboose (named in the video; provided the comment that sparked the discussion)
• The video creator / narrator (unnamed speaker; the primary storyteller)
• Christopher Nolan (referenced as the creator of Inception and The Dark Knight)
• Shakespeare (referenced for tragedy examples)
• Procoipets (referenced as the source of the wizard/non-wizard post/analogy)

Frequently referenced works / examples: Inception, Interstellar, The Dark Knight, The Mandalorian, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Shrek, How to Train Your Dragon, The Lion King, The Hunger Games, The Lord of the Rings, The Wizard of (wizard/non-wizard analogy), and others listed as examples of “classic” balance.