I’ve written before about how realism doesn’t guarantee your writing is good; in other words, just because you’re writing about something that actually happened doesn’t mean the end result will be persuasive. You can base stories and plot twists on actual events that you actually witnessed and still get pushback from readers and editors who just don’t buy what you’re selling.
When this happens, there’s a tendency to outrage because it actually happened. How can someone tell you that plot twist doesn’t work when it actually worked in the real world? I understand, and have experienced, that precise flavor of outrage, but it does you no good. Arguing about it does you no good. You just have to write better.
Reality <> Good Writin’
Just because something actually happened doesn’t mean you get to ignore the usual rules of storytelling, after all, and one of those rules is this: If your reader doesn’t get something in your story, it’s your fault. If something doesn’t seem realistic or plausible in your story, even if it’s based on a real event, you have to go back and revise it until you’ve sold it properly. Getting defensive just because you’re working from memory is no excuse.
The craziest part of this, of course, is the fact that sometimes the more you deviate from the reality of the event, the more readily your reader accepts the scenario. It can be super counter-intuitive, and occasionally frustrating. And while one reader who doesn’t get what you’re doing can be an outlier, if all of your readers complain about the same thing you have to stop assuming the reality basis of the bit will sell itself, and start looking into doing a better job of selling.
This is complicated when you base your stories off of hair-raising moments you experience after drinking two bottles of ripple and eating $50 worth of Taco Bell. Those visions are vivid.