# "The Flying Snowman" -- John Scalzi gives us terminology that we really need



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

In short, a Flying Snowman is the one unbelievable thing among many that takes us out of a story.

In long...

So, since we stumble around the concept so frequently here, we should adopt the phrase. And if you use it to describe your own thoughts on a show, then you're hanging a lantern on it!


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> In short, a Flying Snowman is the one unbelievable thing among many that takes us out of a story.
> 
> In long...
> 
> So, since we stumble around the concept so frequently here, we should adopt the phrase. And if you use it to describe your own thoughts on a show, then you're hanging a lantern on it!


Heh, I myself wondered when that particular Metafilter thread was going to end up over here....


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> In short, a Flying Snowman is the one unbelievable thing among many that takes us out of a story.
> 
> In long...
> 
> So, since we stumble around the concept so frequently here, we should adopt the phrase. And if you use it to describe your own thoughts on a show, then you're hanging a lantern on it!


lol

This is gonna apply to so many discussions here in TV talk.

Most every SciFi show
Glee
and on and on


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I think Terra Nova is a giant flying snowman.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

I think in some cases, a Flying Snowman is an absolutely valid thing to question. When something in a fantastical book/movie doesn't make sense even within the world in which it exists, it could and should be questioned.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> I think in some cases, a Flying Snowman is an absolutely valid thing to question. When something in a fantastical book/movie doesn't make sense even within the world in which it exists, it could and should be questioned.


Oh, absolutely. But that's not really a Flying Snowman. That's just bad writing.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Oh, absolutely. But that's not really a Flying Snowman. That's just bad writing.


Ah - ok. I misunderstood the definition then.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> Ah - ok. I misunderstood the definition then.


Scalzi explains it better (and at greater length) than I did. You should read his article. It's not that long, and he's a funny writer who makes a lot of sense.

[edit] By the way, here's an important quote from Scalzi in the comments of the cited post, which I think we need to bear in mind when discussing Flying Snowmen in the future:


> Bear in mind, by the way, that having a Flying Snowman moment doesn't mean there's something wrong with _you _- if you're thrown out of a story, you're thrown out of a story. That is what it is. What I'm asking is whether what's throwing you out of the story is because of your own personal biases about what is "realistic," or whether it's actually poor worldbuilding on the part of the creators of the work you're engaged in.


There are three different things at play here: Flying Snowmen, which is one element out of many that just throws you out of a story (which is your fault, but not a flaw in you; just the way you're wired); crappy writing (there's something wrong with the story); and you being an idiot (there's nothing wrong with the story; you just can't understand it).

I'm sure much of the fun will be in determining which case applies in a given situation.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There are three different things at play here: Flying Snowmen, which is one element out of many that just throws you out of a story (which is your fault, but not a flaw in you; just the way you're wired); crappy writing (there's something wrong with the story); and you being an idiot (there's nothing wrong with the story; you just can't understand it).


Examples?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Not liking Lost because of the time travel is a Flying Snowman.

Not liking Lost because of the ending is crappy writing.

Not liking Lost because it's weird is you being an idiot.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

So which one applies to "It's a Unix system!"


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> So which one applies to "It's a Unix system!"


Crappy Writing and You're an Idiot. It was a unix system, but that doesn't mean the girl would know what to do with it.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not liking Lost because of the time travel is a Flying Snowman.
> 
> Not liking Lost because of the ending is crappy writing.
> 
> Not liking Lost because it's weird is you being an idiot.


Alas your examples are (pardon the pun) lost on me. Never watched that show. 

But I think I get it anyway.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Re-reading the article, I can't say that I really agree with the concept. So the Flying Snowman is not something that is a flaw in the story, but it is a flaw in the viewer that notices it? I would say that both of his examples were flaws in the story (flaws introduced for artistic purposes, but flaws none the less).

A writer must understand the universe in which he is writing. In the same vein, a director must understand the universe in which he is directing. While neither of the examples in the article would probably take me out of a story, I can see why they do:

The Gollum example: Yes, the world of Tolkien is filled with crazy stuff. But physics is still physics (unless it's being acted upon by magic). If I pick up a rock in the Hobbit world and drop it, it falls. If someone is riding a giant eagle and they fall off, they plummet to their death. So why shouldn't someone hitting lava act in the same way? Apparently lava is pretty thick and you don't sink into it.

The Flying Snowman himself: the story sounds like a story about a snowman coming to life and acting like a human. Eating, playing, running, etc. The physics of a snowman being able to do any of those things is not a facet of the story. What is a facet of the story is the humanness of the snowman. Should the snowman fly? Not if the purpose of the story is to make him seem human.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> The Gollum example: Yes, the world of Tolkien is filled with crazy stuff. But physics is still physics (unless it's being acted upon by magic). If I pick up a rock in the Hobbit world and drop it, it falls. If someone is riding a giant eagle and they fall off, they plummet to their death. So why shouldn't someone hitting lava act in the same way? Apparently lava is pretty thick and you don't sink into it.


But the point is, why is it THAT violation of the laws of physics that makes somebody object, and not the countless other violations of the laws of physics that are scattered throughout Lord of the Rings? If you accept giant spiders (whose weight in reality would snap their own legs), then why can't you accept that Gollum can sink into magic lava (and it is established that the lava of Mount Doom has magical properties)?

It's not that the Magic Snowman isn't "wrong" somehow; it's that it exists in a story where other things are equally "wrong" but don't draw the same disbelief.

And as I quoted earlier, Scalzi takes pain to point out this doesn't mean something is "wrong" with the reader. We all have different levels of what we can accept. It's just that sometimes the contradictions between what we can and cannot accept are, when viewed objectively, a little strange.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But the point is, why is it THAT violation of the laws of physics that makes somebody object, and not the countless other violations of the laws of physics that are scattered throughout Lord of the Rings? If you accept giant spiders (whose weight in reality would snap their own legs), then why can't you accept that Gollum can sink into magic lava (and it is established that the lava of Mount Doom has magical properties)?


Probably because the magical lava isn't magical enough. There's nothing that says "This lava should physically react differently than other lava".

All that said, this one didn't ever raise a red flag with me--I had no idea that you aren't supposed to be able to sink into lava as you burn to death. And that's why it's in the story, too--the writers and director didn't think about it in that way either. No one put the movies together thinking "This lava is magic, so Gollum should sink into it."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And I think again you're missing the point.

The lava raised a red flag with somebody (who complained about it in the post that Scalzi referred to). But given all the other physical impossibilities in LotR, Scalzi asks why is THAT the one that makes the guy complain?

Which is an interesting question. LotR is FILLED with physical impossibilities, yet this reader got thrown out of the story by one that would not make you, me, nor Scalzi blink. And I'm sure you, I, and Scalzi have all been thrown out of stories by elements that would not make other people blink, despite the presence of other equally "wrong" elements. And THAT'S what the FLying Snowman is all about.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

If I'm understanding the point correctly, each of us will have our own Flying Snowman moments and they may not be ones we can even explain to each other very well.

Technical people have that all the time. For me, I can't watch "The Hunt for Red October" because I know how to track that submarine and could do it in my sleep. For someone who doesn't know anything about anti-submarine warfare, they won't have that Flying Snowman and can enjoy the movie.

How many movies do we complain about that get computers wrong? "Over-ride security protocol". "OK. Access Granted". Hollywood OS throws many geeks out of movies, but average moviegoers won't care.

I vaguely remember a bit on a movie about special forces where the advisor told the director that what he was showing was wrong and the director said "How many people would know that?" and since the answer was "several hundred" he left it in. It wasn't enough people to bother him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> If I'm understanding the point correctly, each of us will have our own Flying Snowman moments and they may not be ones we can even explain to each other very well.


And you go on to explain some, but I think your point here is key...sometimes, we can't accept the Flying Snowman just because. But we know there must be a logical reason, because we're logical people, so we come up with an explanation for why it's OK for a snowman to drink hot liquids but not to fly...and end up sounding kind of silly in the process.

That's exactly the kind of discussion that goes on here all the time, which I thought of when I read Scalzi's article. We all do it, but I don't think most of the time we realize we're doing it.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

This is a perfect description for a lot of TV shows. I basically gave up on Glee because while I could accept the premise that the characters will break out into song all the time (that's the whole point of the show) but some of the things the characters do or say was just too far off from how a real person would act. Too many Flying Snowmen for me.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I try not to let that stuff bother me. I could not watch Black Sheep, the show about WW II pilots in the Pacific Theater because the costuming was so bad. No one wore cutoffs. No one wore Farrah Faucet hairdoes. All of us have our pet peeves and since I love WW II movies that was one of mine. Not sinking in lava, I could have though a little bit and said yes, molten hot lava can carry a lot of weight but seeing a person sink in it would not bother me unless the movie was actually about lava and volcanoes not about a lot of other stuff as LOTR was. Most computer stuff is wrong on TV. People get the internet with a startling rapidity on their iPads and smart phones.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I watched Tintin yesterday and I can't tell you exactly where it happened but somewhere along the way the thought "this is ridiculous" crossed my mind and from that point on it just got more ridiculous. Once you've seen the Flying Snowman you can't go back.


----------



## Tivortex (Feb 29, 2004)

They can TOO fly!!


----------

