Posted by Adam Quinan on December 17, 2000 at 21:20:03 from 24.112.158.236:
In Reply to: Coincidences posted by John Lambert on December 17, 2000 at 20:37:06:
Coincidence is obviously a major assistance to plot development. However, the skill of the author surely lies in part in the suspension of disbelief necessary to accept the coincidences as they occur in the book without you stopping to say "But that is just too much".
In the cases you cite. The point about the pending robbery of the Houseboat and Captain Flint's absence had been well foreshadowed, Titty's presence in the Amazon at the right place at the right time is quite within the bounds of reason. Ergo I have no difficulty with the coincidence.
In Peter Duck, the location of the tree was known approximately so the presence of the children at the site was acceptable coincidence. The weather and earthquake were obviously coincidental and the final bringing down of the exact tree was another. However, all trees are vulnerable to extremes of weather and older larger trees may be more so. So Peter Duck's tree may have been reaching its end of life anyway. I am not an expert on palm trees! As for the weather and earthquake, well why not? It is a fictional story within a fictional setting!
In Great Northern? without the villainous Mr Jemerling, Captain Flint would not have allowed a return to the lochs, so his presence was not coincidence, without him there would have been no book!