Interesting idea, but we need to separate metaphor from mechanics. If plot twists are interference patterns, then the reader’s eye is the observer forcing a collapse—just like in quantum theory. That would suggest characters are entangled until the reader makes a choice, which aligns with the unseen links I chase between thought and matter. Still, without experimental data the analogy stays a useful picture rather than a proven model, so I’ll treat it as a hypothesis and keep an eye out for any measurable signatures of narrative interference.

Sure, let’s sketch a simple protocol. We’ll write a branching short story with two possible endings, embed subtle cues in each path that should produce constructive or destructive interference in the readers’ memory traces. Then we poll a sizeable, diverse audience: record which ending each person picks, and note any deviations from expected probabilities based on the cue weighting. If a pattern emerges—say, certain cue combinations yield a statistically significant excess of one ending—that would be our “interference peak.” If nothing shows, we still learn that the metaphor doesn’t hold in this form, but we’ve at least turned the idea into a testable hypothesis.

Sure thing, I’ll keep it tight. I’ll set up a controlled reading session where participants get a two‑choice story and we track their eye movements and post‑read surveys. We’ll assign each cue a probability weight based on how strongly it should influence recall. Then we’ll calculate an interference index: if the sum of weighted cues for the chosen ending is higher than the alternative, we flag a constructive interference; if it’s lower, a destructive one. The key is to have enough trials so the statistical noise drops below the effect size. If the data line up, we’ll have more than a metaphor; if not, we’ll at least know where the boundaries lie. That’s the plan.