Hey Veeky Forums, what are your thoughts on plot-holes or inconsistencies in plot? To what extent do they weaken a work?

Hey Veeky Forums, what are your thoughts on plot-holes or inconsistencies in plot? To what extent do they weaken a work?
I presume given the >reading for plot meme that plot consistency is taken by most of this board to be secondary in importance to things like thematic development, prose stylism, etc. I kinda agree, but still there seems something wrong about 100% forgiving a prose stylist for not being able to craft an airtight story.
Any examples of notable plot holes in masterpieces that come to mind?
Pic semi-related. It has all the artistic qualities described above, yet (the version that didn't include the epilogue) was criticized for what audiences viewed as one massive plot hole concerning the ending: without the epilogue, Ishmael appears to die. But then, if everyone's dead, who escaped to tell thee?

How the fuck is that a plothole though? We know that he didn't die. Therefore we can make the assumption that even though he appears to die at the end, he actually survived. I legitimately don't understand why this is an issue.

>yes, I am such an understanding open minded appreciator of fine literature, yes, I definitely understand that it is possible that the themes, yes, the themes are most important, how intellectual and understanding of me!
>entertaining the idea of the concept of a plothole in a literary novel whatsoever

kill yourself you stupid pleb, I can see you hiding behind your empty rhetoric

Could be an unreliable narrator, in which case the plot hole *adds* to the story.

Yeah, it might not be a plot hole in the conventional sense. But I think victorian readers who were used to Dickens-style "I'm your comfy narrator who is your friend; let me hold your hand and I'll tell you everything that happened from start to finish" would've found that kind of leap, however minor it is, to be a bit of an unreasonable/unusual demand on the reader. Not to mention the other unusual meta-narratological demands that Moby made at the time.

>kys
>pleb

People who care about 'plotholes' in literature should kys or fuck off to sffg.

Maybe this board is too preoccupied with the subversive schticks of postmodernism to realize that the things that happen to a character and the things that character does are important features of the thematic development of the novel.

Don't believe that plot is important? What if I make the following claim: Mersault never gives a concrete reason for why he shoots the Arab. This is a plot-hole at best and at worst a lazy plot device employed by a writer who can't create a realistic character arc. You would (rightfully) disagree with me, wouldn't you? And argue it ISN'T a lazy plot device or a plot hole, that this particular action is actually crucial for The Stranger's thematic development, and also consistent with Mersault's character as he's been portrayed to the reader so far. And wouldn't the fact that you're making that argument suggest that you're actually quite sensitive to plot developments, and that you actually don't want there to be plot holes in the literature you love?

This, in the chapter that Pip falls overboard Ishmael says that the same thing later happens to him, and that he's not going to go into the circumstances right that minute because it isn't the right time in the novel. Then at the end Melville makes a point to include someone falling out of Ahab's boat.
English people are just brainlets desu

underage

THE
SUN
WAS
IRRITATING

The most brain-dead argumentative inconsistency i have ever experienced on this board.

Hm? I never claimed that a reader being sensitive to flawed plot-based critiques of a book necessarily compels him to elevate plot consistency to the same aesthetic level as thematic development. That's the only possible inconsistency I can see you getting at.

I'm pointing out that this board can't possibly claim to disregard the import of plot holes when it regularly refutes faulty analyses and critiques of the key plot device of The Stranger. You can say that the event is more important thematically than as a plot device, but that's exactly what I was getting at here
>the things that happen to a character and the things that character does are important features of the thematic development of the novel
And I may be moving into a slightly different line of thought, but what is ALWAYS neglected when discussing The Stranger is that there actually was a bit of exposition prior to the murder. It's not like the chapter began "Mersault walked into the street and shot an Arab". There was actually a (minimum of) exposition prior to that point, as if Camus himself was aware that even in his existentialist novel he still needed to provide the reader with a modicum of plot to justify the scene.

*You can say that these refutations come from a position that the event...

Seriously, fuck you. Get the fuck off my board.

Seriously why. What's wrong?

No you idiot, 'muh consistency' has no relevance to plot. Holy shit has modernism ruined you

halo new friend

>without the epilogue.....

There's a chapter early in the book where Melville flashes forward to Ishmael telling a story about his trip in some bar in Peru

>No you idiot, 'muh consistency' has no relevance to plot
Not really sure what you're getting at here. Based on the context of the thread so far I assume you're talking about consistency of a character's actions (which ABSOLUTELY has to do with plot).
>Holy shit has modernism ruined you
Has it? What do you mean? I've only read the basic sampling of modernism: a handful of Joyce, Faulkner, Woolfe, and Hemingway. I'm actually interested in this topic because a lot of what I read falls within the broad postmodern category, and when I occasionally read older authors (not modernists) I experience a bit of a "culture shock" regarding how attuned they are to logical, chronological plot development.

What's your favorite book?

No it doesn't, you are just a ridiculous modernist that doesn't actually understand how a story functions.
Modernism is an ideology, you turd. You fall deep into it.

Novels are a terrible medium, I don't care for reading fiction. Rather, I view it.

Ah, okay. So you're just here to shitpost. Whatever, I guess we can both bump my thread.

>ANYBODY WHO HOLDS CONTRARY OPINIONS TO ME IS JUST SHITPOSTING REEEEE

Are you having a stroke what the fuck are you even saying