Plot Pet Peeves and Plot Sins

I think it is bad writing/setup if you have initially explained a setting and then contradict it immediately/with your initial characters. The big element here is the contradiction. When the setting is explained to the audience, they expect the land of fire elementalists to use fire magic. If the first character here isn't a fire elementalist and it is 1) not explained/not explained well and/or 2) it is not a main character where the difference is a key part of their identity/struggle it feels contradictory and confusing.

It is kind of ridiculous how often I have run into plots with background characters contradicting the stated setting for no discernable reason. Most recently it lead to one of the most frustrating and prolonged miscommunication plots I have seen (in an otherwise interesting concept in settings and characters).

I suspect in these cases the creators want their background or supporting characters to feel nuanced and they want to do it with contradiction like main characters usually get. However, during an intro this just makes the setting confusing. You do not understand why the characters are acting against the stated narrative elements, and no matter how interesting these supporting characters can be in the creators' heads they need proper development to pull this off. If this contradiction is not going to be the essence of the character, you just will not have the development to do it right unless it is a main proper.

I think most probably understand what I mean, but I think I still should alliterate it properly. So obviously in Harry Potter the three true mains are Harry, Ron, and Hermione, right? And the Weasleys are a bunch of supporting characters in general, right? Now imagine Jenny Weasley (the love interest of Harry that gets little to no development in the movies). Her family is known for being pure blooded, poor, red headed wizards in Gryffindor.

Now imagine the narrator says all that, but Harry meets Jenny as the first Weasley in the first movie; and she is a brunette rich girl in Slytherin. Then, because she is a minor character who isn't in the main plot until the 3rd movie, this goes unexplained or is dismissed with a summer job or that-one-random-relative-was-also-a-Slytherin-brunette claims. And then everyone moves on. Worse yet, even later on we find out there is no struggle or distinction here. No one acknowledges her contradictory appearance; she doesn't have a complex or struggle because of it; her parents and siblings and anyone else treats her like any other Weasley. Nothing about her contradiction is used to make her interesting, even after costing initial confusion. What was even the point of making her stand out if you don't develop it?

What do you think? This always frustrates me because it causes immediate dissonance when you are trying to understand and connect with a concept. I would consider this a genuine plot sin because it can easily kill possible connections. What is a plot pet peeve or plot sin to you?

@Calico45 Oooh, interesting topic! Don't mind if I join! ?

Having side characters that are contradictive with the narrative that you’ve woven is always risky. It’s easier with main characters because, as you say, you can only pull it off if you go into detail about why they are different and how the world reacts to them. For side characters, who already get less screen time than main characters, this can be difficult to do properly. You also run the risk of their “otherness” becoming their only defining characteristic, and the character reading flat and one-dimensional as a result.

A personal pet peeve of mine is when the character is altered to fit the plot, specifically after their personality has already been established. I understand where this comes from – sometimes a writer gets an idea for a great scene, and fiddles with the characters so that scene can happen. But if you set up a character as a coward who runs at the first sign of trouble, then it’s very jarring to see them suddenly put themselves in harm’s way. Luckily, most of the time this is easy to fix. In the coward example it’s as simple as bringing the danger to the character - having it happen to them instead of making them actively seek it out.

Edit: a word.

Just to be clear, all art is subjective and nothing I’m about to say is the ‘last word’ on how writers should do things. I don’t want to sound like I’m acting like the queen of writing because I am far from it XD I’m not picky about plot at all and will happily read any story that at least has interesting characters, but some things I’m not keen on in plots are:

. Poorly-handled sensitive topics are my main biggest plot pet peeve in any story. There are plenty of resources online and in books about mental health/psychological sites, and people writing personal accounts of their experiences- I don’t know why people don’t think to do a little research first before dealing with such topics. I look into any topic, sensitive or otherwise, I don’t know much about before I write it. Also when people throw in very traumatic scenes just for momentary story drama, and it never affects the characters or the plot later on down the line. Or they make a side character go through a traumatic event so the main character can swoop in and save them and guys, look, look at how amazing the main character is! And then the side character is swept under the carpet and we never see how these events affected them.
. Out of character moments that make no sense in context. For example if you had a character who was a bully, being nice in the next chapter for no reason.
. Ties in to my first point but I’ve seen so many plots of stories in the past that glorify abusive relationships. Really do not want anything to do with that.
. This is a flaw I have seen in my own work and I am working to change: no consequences for characters’ actions can be an issue. For example, no-one calling out characters’ awful behaviour or actions can sometimes be a bit of a weird one for me. It makes sense if there’s a reason (maybe people are afraid of the character) but I have read stories in the past where the main character is just downright awful to everyone and even goes around committing awful acts, but there’s no consequence as a result of any of their actions at all. Nothing ever happens to them, no-one ever comes after them wanting revenge or something, nothing.
. Constant drama is also something I’m not keen on. When it’s constant it loses its strength in the plot. I think there ought to be moments of downtime amongst all of the scary or dark bits of a story, to not take away the dramatic effect.

Also it’s interesting to see a discussive style thread this side of the forum. It’s always fun to discuss this kind of stuff.