Implausibility makes the story

Jane Smiley stopped me cold when I read this line in

Jane Smiley

Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Novel: "Every form of the novel contains some basic implausibility."

Can she be right? Isn't plausibility something we look for in a novel? Don't we want a story we can believe? Don't we criticize novels that seem implausible? I know I do.

And yet the more I thought about it the more I realized that it is implausibility that, in some sense, makes the story. There can be too much implausibility, but there can also be too little. This is true of any story, not just a novel.

If you go to the grocery story to buy a dozen eggs, it doesn't make much of a story. It is entirely plausible. But if, while at the grocery story, you encounter someone you haven't seen in 20 years and whom you didn't know was within 500 miles of that grocery store, you would have a story you would want to tell somebody. The two of you being in the same grocery store at the same time was implausible, but that is what makes it a story worth sharing.

Just the fact that a boy would get on a raft with a runaway slave and float downriver seems implausible. And why would a runaway slave want to go south, not north? And yet here we have the basic plot of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, one of America's greatest novels.

What are the chances that an escaped prisoner encountered by a boy would one day become that boy's benefactor? Yet there, in that implausibility, you have the plot of Great Expectations, the notable Charles Dickens novel.

Implausibility makes a story. Too much of it can destroy it.