Against Coincidence in Dramatic Storytelling

If you’re a dramatic writer, you’ve likely come across this piece of advice from from Pixar’s oft-circulated rules for storytelling:

Coincidences to get characters into trouble are great; coincidences to get them out of it are cheating.

We can all agree that getting characters out of trouble using coincidences that (aka, deus ex machina) results in cliche and unsatisfying resolutions.

However: I would argue that the other half of Pixar’s statement is wrong—particularly for realistic dramas with serious tones.

Coincidences that get characters into trouble are also cheating.

Example: Top of the Lake

There’s plenty to admire in Top of the Lake, but (SPOILERS, BARELY) I rolled my eyes as soon as I realized that the daughter of Detective Robin Griffin (Elisabeth Moss) just so happens to be dating one of the primary suspects in season two.

I think I understand the motive behind this choice. The coincidence is an easy way to integrate storylines, to generate conflict, to raise stakes, to make problems personal. That’s exactly what happens throughout the season.

These are good results, but the rationale behind the method of getting these results — via coincidence, rather than causality —is weak. And it’s everywhere. (I’m only picking on Top of the Lake because it happened to be on the top of my head.)

I’d like to suggest that writers tend to use coincidence to get characters into trouble not because it’s good or satisfying, but because it’s easy.

Conflict and narrative integrations that result from believable causality, on the other hand, are difficult.

If we reject coincidences that get characters out of trouble, then why should we accept coincidences that spare writers the trouble of creating authentic conflict that’s rooted in causality?