Impossible events are listed as criteria in the definition of
plot hole given in the
Wikipedia article. As I cited above, this definition reads:
A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
If you take that definition literally, then, most fantasy and science fiction stories are nothing but "plot holes."
The Lord Of The Rings and
Plan 9 From Outer Space are equally unsalvagable as stories - as is all of
Star Trek.
Fortunately for the world of literature and film, the passing use of the phrase "impossible events" in a Wikipedia article, without elaboration and more specific definition, doesn't mean a thing.
In fact, if one eliminates the phrase "illogical or impossible events" from the Wikipedia definition, it's a workable definition for purposes of discussion - and clearly eliminates most of
Saquist's complaints from consideration as legitimate plot holes.
That three paragraph stub of an article, BTW, clumsy as it is, has generated a
discussion page several times the length of the article itself which pretty much dismantles it. One remark is particularly germane here:
This entire page is rather dodgy. The entire definition of "plot hole" given here is flat out wrong. There is a big difference between an inconsistency and a hole. A plot inconsistency is something like... a character acting out of character (note that an unlikely event isn't automatically an inconsistency, even though it can be bad writing under certain circumstances). A plot hole on the other hand is something that causes the story to break down.
The TV Tropes definition better delineates the sense in which "impossible" is relevant to plot: an event which is not
logically possible within the context of the work itself given other established "facts" within the story. Using those qualifiers once again most all complaints about science and continuity with other Star Trek are eliminated from consideration as "plot holes" within Abrams's
Star Trek (the behavior and physics of real black holes are as irrelevant here as the behavior and physics of real cyclones are to
The Wizard Of Oz), and
Saquist is mistaken in claiming them as such.
However, the narrative structure of the film cleanly delineates the "real world" from Oz, by knocking Dorothy unconscious, switching to color, and then reverting back to black and white, allowing us to suppose that the events in Oz might have been a dream. I believe this delineation assists in the suspension of disbelief quite brilliantly.
That you find the movie more plausible if you consider it possibly a dream has nothing whatever to do with the integrity of the narrative itself. Baum's books treat the events as literal. Ditto
The Lord Of The Rings,
Dracula,
Stranger In A Strange Land and any number of other successful and beloved works of science fiction and fantasy. Then, of course, there are fairy tales and superhero comic books (and movies, and TV shows) all of which hinge substantially upon impossible events and yet are successfully plotted.
There is only one respect in which "possible or impossible" impinges upon successful plotting, and that is the cited issue of what is
logically possible given the context of the rest of the narrative.
