The collected musings of Ryan Elder

You're right, thank you for point out the hole. My original idea was that they do not make this test public. The reason why I changed it was on the advice of the cop who helped me write it. He said it would give the cops reason to trace the video to the proximity and go look for them. I changed it based on his that, but I will change it back to my original idea, and not have them broadcast this one.

The reason why they get someone to play a fake hostage, is because they suspect that their man may be an informer to the cops, which is he is not, but they believe he may be since he is a cop and they want to eliminate all risks, as their crimes get deeper and deeper. Plus the cops is showing signs of qualms lately. They have the fake hostage, in case he is undercover, because if he goes and tells the cops later, or if some cop is monitoring him while he is there, and is surveying the place let's say, then they want to have a fake hostage, so they can lie and get out of it, if the suspected informant gets them arrested for this particular kidnapping. They will just lie and say it was all acting.

Now this has been done before in other stories and movies I have seen. In In The Line of Fire for example the crooks in the opening suspect Eastwood of being an undercover agent. They set up a scenario were Eastwood is to fake kill someone. His partner actually. The gun is not loaded, but Eastwood manages to save his partner and arrest them. Now they are charged with attempted murder or something along those lines, along with hostage taking.

But in my idea, I take it a step further because by getting a fake hostage, no hostage will then testify against them, if they are caught, if the suspected informer is working for the cops and gets them arrested at the scene, or afterwards. If they give him a gun without bullets get him to pull the trigger on a real hostage, but then all of a sudden the cop's bust in and it turns out he was working with them, well now they have a real hostage who is a witness and is now a problem. By getting a fake hostage, the potential witness problem that could arise if caught, is eliminated, because the fake hostage will lie for them. Does this make sense at all?

 

If they don't broadcast, then how do they get caught?

And, no, it doesn't make sense. You have the huge, huge coincidence of the police arresting them at the time that it's most convenient for the police to rescue them, and then you're trying to minimize the other issues. The other issues are smaller, but they are still quite large. You have overloaded your implausibility/coincidence quota.

If your goal is just to write specific scenes that start with specific emotions, and you don't actually care about any continuity of plot, or doing anything with this work, then your strategy is fine. I would do best to assume that that is your goal.

 

Well let's forget about the police and worry about them later. Let's start from scratch. What are the problems with the fake kidnapping and the suspected informant, themselves. I should fix those before bringing the police in. But we have been discussing the police issues a lot more so I am having trouble determining what the problems are with the kidnappers. I want to start from the bottom as to what the problem, because we are getting sidetracked with all of these other things such as the police and what not, when we can start from the root problem.

 

Okay thanks. Can you be more specific of how it doesn't work? Every reason I am told has a lot left out of it, so I feel I have to ask more questions or explain more because of it. Okay I will restart from scratch.

I showed the notes to some other writers. Some say they did not understand it or that it didn't hold together, and others said they got it completely. I asked those ones who got it why do the villains use a fake hostage? They answered by saying that if the suspected informant turns out to be real, and they are caught and arrested, the fake hostage can get them off later by not testifying against them, and lie that they were all making a short film, cause she would have the same story as them to tell, if caught.

Does the very concept of using a fake hostage for a test make sense though? Can I still use that if I restart a lot of the rest from scratch?

I would rather change the restriction than the outcome but what is the restriction exactly?

 

Restarting from scratch means that you're not trying to use anything. You're restarting from scratch.

 

Okay thanks, but I feel there is a lot left out. Why do they have to kill a real hostage, if they are trying to get test someone to see if they are working with the police. Where is the benefit in that? I know you say what they would do otherwise, but I am not told the benefits.

And if I restart from scratch no one has told me why they gang cannot test one of their members. I was not told why that is unusable, especially since in real life, gangs do this all the time, my research shows me, and you see it all the time in fiction as well. If something cannot be used, I think I should determine why, rather than just saying it can't without any reason and then throwing it out.

 

Okay thanks. How can I do it conceptually? You say it's a solid idea. We have an informer that needs to be outed, and we have a fake hostage to do it. How would they go about doing it?

 

Okay thanks. What about the idea of the 'blood in'? A lot of gangs use this in real life to accept new members. They have them spill the blood of another person. Since the suspected informant, is a mole in the police department, he hasn't spent as much time with the gang and their violent acts. He hasn't killed any of the hostages, yet, so they want to test him by ordering him to do it for once.

Do you think that this is implausible, since it happens in real life gangs? I can them see if a piece of information turns up as well possibly.

The outcome I want to reach is, is that later on in the story, the witness who the police are watching over and protecting, is actually one of them, which they do not know. She is put in a position where she can use being a witness against the gang, as an advantage to lead the cops on a fake goose chase, while under their protection.

Is it plausible to be able to reach this fake witness leading cops on fake goose chase, and I just need to build into it differently? However, in order for the cops to have a witness to testify against the gang, one of them needs to get caught.

 

Why is this guy being tested? I don't mean "what part of the plot mechanism requires it," I mean WHY? You say that you have an informer, but you say that the traitor isn't a traitor. So why does anyone think there's an informer?

This is about a relationship, not about clockwork plot gears going round and round. This was presumably a relationship of trust. Fear-based trust? Friendship-based? Based in mutual goals? Based in greed, but with a confidence that the best interest of one was also the best interest of the other?

Why did that change? Did Possible Traitor change? Has he been less enthusiastic? Less ruthless? Was there a moment of softness? Did he show too little fear or too little respect for Leader?

Did Leader change? Has he been growing increasingly paranoid, increasingly irrational? Has he always been paranoid? Is this a usual thing, to periodically pick someone and test them, to keep everyone else frightened? Or is he starting to lose it, break down from the stress of the situation. Is there a physical reason behind his villainy? Has he recently started using dangerous drugs? Had a stroke or a series of mini-strokes?

Or was this never a relationship of trust? If so, if the leader can't really trust his people, how does he keep them in line?

You say that the hostage is embedded with the cops, causing them trouble. If that wasn't the goal, that's an awfully handy situation to happen by coincidence. If that was the goal, why would the crime that that hostage was involved in be different in so many ways? Isn't that going to clue in the cops that something may be going on? Why would the hostage-actress do this? Why is she in the gang? Is it greed? Friendship? Dedication to a cause?

How does the fake hostage manage to lead the cops on a wild goose chase while she's under protection and presumably out of communication? They're not going to make her an honorary cop. They're unlikely to let her go out and about meeting people, planting evidence, whatsoever. Wouldn't the villains do much better to turn a cop than a protected witness.

I'm not asking you to answer any of these questions. I'm saying that your plot needs to be about characters, not clockwork gears, and it needs to make sense.

 

At the very beginning in the suspected informer's background, the gang wants a cop on their team so they take him. The want a cop because the feel it's good to have a mole in the department. The original kidnapping way back a few months ago was a bluff. They were suppose to return the hostage alive, even if their demands were not met. The hostage wears a blindfold the whole time, and has acoustic earmuffs taped too his head, so he cannot see or hear anything. So he never knew anything. But the gang killed the hostage since they knew they had to take it a step further to be taken seriously. The cop did not agree with going this far, and after it happens over and over again for months, he is having real issues with it and the gang can see it. They fear him of betrayal more than the other members, since he is a cop and has a position of power because of that.

Does this make enough sense? This is it from what I have so far.

The hostage is dedicated to the gang's cause. The reason why she is leading the cop's on a fake goose chase is to throw them off the sent, and lead one of them into a trap later on. The cops are not suspicious of the crime being different in so many ways because it's not. They found a room full of men in ski masks with a tied up hostage. As far as they can tell, the crime is similar enough to believe they have the right people. Is this what you mean?

She is not in communication with the gang. She is leading them on a fake goose chase on her own accord, but she feels she is doing it out of the gang's best interest cause it throws the sent off of them. But yes, it is her own accord, and her own judgment.

I know you did not as me to answer of these questions. But I came up with all of these reasons for the characters first. This opening with the fake kidnapping is actually the LAST section of the plot I thought of. I thought of the characters, who they are, their reasons, and what they do to get to the climax I want all first. Even the suspected informant character, I came up with and his role in the story, long before I came up with this fake hostage situation he is tested in.

The opening fake kidnapping here, is the last thing I thought of to try to get to point B. I had a point C, which I wanted for my ending, and in order to get there, and I had to go back, and come up with a point B, and from there, I had to go back and try to come up with a Point A. I mean obviously there is a lot more points, but I just narrowed it down to three letters, to make my point, if that makes sense.

This fake kidnapping I have come up with is my point A to get everything else started. If it doesn't work, then I need another Point A to build into the Point B I want. I could throw out points B and C completely, if they do not work. But since point A was the last point I came up with perhaps that is the problem that's causing all these other problems.

 

Okay thanks, but does it create any problems though? Does it solve the current problem at hand with their gang's logic? How can they use this fake hostage to create the blood in? The reason why I want them to use a fake hostage is so when the police catch them and the fake hostage, they can say 'These must be the kidnappers who have been causing so much pain, and we caught then in act". But can I use the fake hostage logically to do that for a blood in?

I also need the suspected informant character to have a reason to fail the test. My reason being was that for the first kidnapping months ago, he didn't like that they lead to killing when the original was suppose to live. He needs to have not only a moral qualm but a change of mind.

He needs to change his mind about what he is doing or he needs to have a reason to fail the test. Any thoughts on what would work, since it's a blood in he has come to? They suspect him of a moral qualm, but if he is a newcomer, coming for a blood in and knows it, how does he get the qualm?

 

Okay thanks. Later I need a witness who is actually a member of the gang to lead the police on a fake goose chase though. What can I do to get a fake witness to fool the cops? How does the fake witness originate and fit in?

You say that having a fake hostage is a huge problem but you didn't say why. I am okay with getting rid of concepts, and throwing them out completely, but I feel I should at least get a why, so I know what the problem is. When you say the hostage situation does not work that way, WHAT way is that?

What if I wrote it so that the police did not come at this time and came later. Would having a fake hostage work for fooling the suspected informant. Is that logical enough motivation to have one for the gang leader?

Well if I have to throw them out completely can you help give some suggestions as to how to put two plot points together?

For my story I want three things to get into the third act.

1. I want a witness to be testifying against her victimizer, but I want her to actually be working with the victimizer and leading the cops on a fake goose chase to trick them and lead them into a trap.

2. I need there to be a character in the group who they do not trust and this character has moral qualms and ends up turning good later on, and using his police power against the gang.

3. Part of the reason why he turns good is because he blames himself for putting the witness in the position of leading the other cops into at trap. So he has have an origin story, where the witness being put in that position, he feels is his fault.

Do you have any suggestions as to how I can bring these three things together for the first act?

 

You have the gang repeatedly killing people, and the cop just putting up with it.

Now, suddenly, after all those murders, the cop develops qualms and the killers get shy about killing? And at the same time, by sheer coincidence, the cops catch them? And by sheer coincidence, there just happens to be a fake witness handy to mislead the cops?

Four things--qualms, murder shyness, arrest, and handy dandy fake witness--all happen at precisely the same time, but you have no common reason for them. You just have a quadruple coincidence.

 

Okay thanks. What if I wrote it to that the new cop member looking to join the gang is completely new? No past with them at all, and they give him the blood in as a sign of trust? Does help change anything for the better, if he is completely new and the gang wants to recruit him cause they think he would make a good mole in the police department?

Do I have to scrap this cop character and the gang leader completely? Do their motivations towards one another have no place in a story with the ending I chose? Can I keep the characters?

 

And why would they believe that the cop is going to be loyal to their side?

It doesn't work.

You need to start over. The witness pulling the police's strings may not be possible. The cop may not be possible. Deciding that X is true, and then twisting reality and logic to make it true, and then twisting reality and logic to try to make the twisting of reality and logic sound sensible, isn't the way to go. It's quite likely that the vast, vast majority of your plot will need to be thrown out.

 

Okay thanks. Well how would a gang recruit a police mole into their group exactly then, if they wanted one? I thought that by setting him up to commit a fake crime would be good, because then if he isn't for real, he has nothing on you, because the crime you tried to get him to commit was fake and there is no evidence of it ever happening. But if that doesn't work, then how do you get a mole into the group?

There have been several works of fictions where a gang will have a police mole, so it's not unusable.

 

Why do they want a mole? What, exactly, would a mole do for them? What is THEIR motivation for this action, as opposed to your motivation for wanting it as one of the moving parts of your plot? Does it make sense for them to want a mole?

Evaluate that, and ignore the fact that you want it to make sense. To me, it does not make sense. If no one is having any success in finding the criminals, then a police mole is not useful. It will give information to someone associated with the police, someone who may well be loyal to the police, and the information coming from the police is not useful. They take on a risk, with no benefit in exchange.

Therefore, if this were my plot, I would throw away the mole idea. It doesn't make sense, therefore don't do it. It doesn't matter how cool it sounds; if it doesn't make sense, search for something that does make sense.

The rule should not be, "If it sounds cool, twist things until it works!" the rule should be, "Does it work? OK. Now let's think about whether it's cool."

 

Okay thanks. I wanted him to be a cop for other reasons later in the story. What if they recruited him because he is a cop but with bit of a violently history and some radicalistic views that he shares with them. Plus the leader could already know him from his past, and thinks he would want to be part of it. So he's not recruiting him because he is a cop, but because he thinks he would make a good addition because of his beliefs, and perhaps something from his past that caused those beliefs? That way he is not a mole but one of them for the same reason. But he just so happens to be a cop as well, which they are a bit weary of which they factor into their decision of whether to recruit him or not. Does that have more potential?

 

That's why the PLOT wants him to be a cop. It doesn't make it plausible. This is the point that I'm making. If it doesn't make sense, if it isn't plausible, it doesn't matter that you want it. The practice of saying, "I want this! Now, let's twist the limits of my fictional reality to make it happen," is not a practice that is working for you.

Not really. He's still a cop. He's still a huge danger to them. It still doesn't make sense.

By the way, you mention "beliefs". Do you even know what the gang's beliefs are, or are they generic terrorists?