![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
This could be construed as a spoiler, though I don't think it will tell anyone what happens. All the same, it does give some hints and might spoil bits of the story after you recognize some piece of information as what I am grumpy about.
Right, one lj-cut.
ARGH. You could drive a truck through that plot hole. Right. Through. It hit me as I was going to sleep that there were two major issues, not the one I'd already seen.
The one I'd seen was a certain device that triggers a subplot. The subplot is not, strictly speaking, necessary; but it is helpful, in its own way, at moving things forward. In any case, the fact that the device required is present is actually quite out-of-keeping with what I'd expect of the people involved.
That could be worked around. The other one is an informational issue: one of the characters knows something where she shouldn't. There's an underlying thread/trick to how one problem is handled, that relies on two things, neither of which is ever adequately explained. Indeed, one of them is not even explained at all. The other one is inherent, but has a problem that is explicitly discussed, that requires someone who might otherwise handle the situation alone to get help from others.
But only in one set of circumstances; not in another that's identical. It does not make sense. She should not have had the knowledge to say what she did....
Blargh.
Right, one lj-cut.
ARGH. You could drive a truck through that plot hole. Right. Through. It hit me as I was going to sleep that there were two major issues, not the one I'd already seen.
The one I'd seen was a certain device that triggers a subplot. The subplot is not, strictly speaking, necessary; but it is helpful, in its own way, at moving things forward. In any case, the fact that the device required is present is actually quite out-of-keeping with what I'd expect of the people involved.
That could be worked around. The other one is an informational issue: one of the characters knows something where she shouldn't. There's an underlying thread/trick to how one problem is handled, that relies on two things, neither of which is ever adequately explained. Indeed, one of them is not even explained at all. The other one is inherent, but has a problem that is explicitly discussed, that requires someone who might otherwise handle the situation alone to get help from others.
But only in one set of circumstances; not in another that's identical. It does not make sense. She should not have had the knowledge to say what she did....
Blargh.
no subject