What's your opinion of the whole “check your brain” thing?

The major exception to this general rule is, I think, stories where the caprice of the deity and/or the natural world is a major theme of the story – but even stories like this have to abide by their own internal logic to work. Scott Sigler employs this device heavily in his books — nobody's safe, his hero might get killed at any moment and derail the plot — because the caprice of nature and human nature is a major theme in his work. Similarly, the book of Job and The Odyssey both have the caprice of a God as their major theme, and because of this it is the actions of the respective Gods that move the story — however, in both cases, the Gods themselves are characters with discernable motivations, so even though you don't know what's coming, as a reader you subconsciously expect the unexepected.

So, this is a long-winded way of saying that I think the writer's job is to furnish a universe that is so internally consistent that it requires the minimum suspension of disbelief. Like walking into Disneyland, the rules should be apparent and they should not be changed without significantly prepping the reader (Ambrose Bierce was a master at changing the rules without cheating the audience).

I would also say that mundane characters can help with suspension of disbelief. For example, my current favourite movie, Donnie Darko. Here's a movie that's about as messed up as you get, with a surreal plot and quirky black humour, and I can still find it compelling because the protagonist (Darko) is easy to relate to. He has mental issues, and hes rather blunt, but hes human, and recognizably so.

I think authors can write about, oh, three kinds of books: Drivel with entertainment value, Deep, albeit dry novels, and then gems, where both elements merge nicely.

Just my opinion.

I think the burden for suspension of disbelief is mostly on the writer. But it's a two-way street… if the reader decides to “engage” with the author, then they agree to at least open the door to suspend their disbelief. Then the author has to do the hard work to invite the reader in, get them to cross over the threshold and keep them inside the author's world. It's hard, hard work, as you well know.

And I love it when I'm caught up in the world of a master storyteller. Gene Wolfe does it for me, in terms of a richness in his worlds and the lavish, oozing details in his words. Lois McMaster Bujold does it for me by engaging my interest in her characters, even in the most bizarre of circumstances. Once I truly care for one of her characters, she can throw a lot at me in her worlds that other authors could never get away with.

I'm always amazed when I get sucked into a massive alternate reality of a great storyteller, and it sticks with me long after the story is done. For me, it does have to resonate on a certain level, and appeal to my sense of truth. Truth of character, human nature, “metaphorical physics” of life, the world, etc… I do try to be forgiving when they screw up here and there, but I do expect a certain level of consistency. And all the while, I'm trying to learn how those amazing writers do it, so I can attempt to do it too.

At the same time, every reader is totally unique, so it's impossible to know all their triggers, social paradigms, expectations, needs… and basic profile. I guess that's why publishers often say things like “know your target market.”

Personally, I just want to tell a good story (try that I might) and I attempt to keep in mind this general issue, and I'm still learning about my audience, and hope they're forgiving enough to stick around. At first, I started writing just for the audience of one — me — and I'm a pretty harsh critic. But I'm trying to understand and learn how to better reach the audience, to throw such a great party in that proverbial “room of suspension of disbelief,” that they won't want to leave.

I also think there are a lot of people out there for whom “turning their brains off” is second nature… Perhaps some even live in a perpetual state of suspension of disbelief. What scares me are the brilliant writers who totally understand that state of mind, and know the triggers to manipulate those people, leading them deep into a paper-thin story or worse-yet, propaganda. Indeed, there is so much power in words.

Guilty pleasures? I used to think Alan Dean Foster was a guilty pleasure… until I re-read some of his early work and was blown away by how good of a writer he really is, even in the most basic of his stories. So I'm not sure any more. I thought Peter Beagle was a guilty pleasure until I re-read The Last Unicorn and was stunned at how profound it is. Now that I'm writing more and more, and understand with each new paragraph how damned hard it is, I have a lot more respect for any writer who puts his heart and soul on the page.