It's for the MC to drag someone else down his path and the consequences of that action. That's what I wanted for my climax anyway.
OK. Again, I suggest that you make a list of what you want: MC facing his own dark impulses and past. MC facing that he has those impulses in common with a villain. MC making morally doubtful or morally wrong choices. MC dragging someone else down his own morally wrong path. MC dragging a crowd of people (that angry mob) down that path. Etc. Etc. You can get those emotional situations with a thousand different plots. Your current plot is riddled with implausibilities. I strongly recommend, again, that you treat that plot as a learning experience that helped you to learn what you want in terms of those emotional situations, and that you start over with a new plot.
"So, he makes the wrong choice at the climax? Okay. Now you've got something to work with." Yep this was the original plan, I am just stuck on how to get there, since everything I come up with is either something the police would pursue, or if it isn't, it relies on too many implausibilities to make it not legally pursuable. Another thing is, is that I want the villains downfall to be of his own theme. He has a reason for going around doing what he is doing. The MC has an idea to flush the villain out and lure him into a trap. His idea is that he uses personal adds and create a person to make contact with the villain, who shares the villains problems. This will get the villain to make contact after a while. This is the method of operation I wanted the MC to use, because it goes with the villain's theme. However, is there a plausible reason for the police captain to reject this idea, before having to be manipulated, or maybe I could add something to it for a reason? Cause I want this to be the villain's downfall cause of theme, if that makes sense?
Hi, You want cops to form a mob? That's going to be difficult since they should be people of good moral character to begin with and experienced in the law. In my view you need something to bring this home to where these people live. What is going to drive them utterly nuts? My thought would be that one of his victims is either a cop or perhaps the young child of a cop. You need to give them that personal involvement. Then why a mob and not hard policing with a bit of thuggery on the side? Because they can't. The boss not wanting to hunt him is one thing. But go further. Because the criminal is cunning. So cunning that he's escaped trial or kept repeatedly winning trials, leaving the police feeling helpless. The lawyers get him off on technicalities etc? Threatened law suits for police harrassment? And perhaps just to make things even more personal he's promised to go after more cops and their families. And it wouldn't hurt if he's been on the idiot box mocking the cops. You need to have him push their buttons to make this convincing. Cheers, Greg.
I don't think there's a harden rule with respect to character or plot first. I always start with the backstory, then try my best to outline the climax and end -- so it seems I begin developing the plot well before I delve into character. I suspect when you stated your characters are illogical, you may be referring to infallible. I say this because of your reference to Die Hard. A good way to avoid those 'perfect' characters is to include faults. For 'good guys', have a fault for every two 'positive' traits. For 'bad guys', have two faults for every one 'positive' trait. Lastly, let your characters get roughed up, beaten down, to the point that they need help.
If you can make the characters go through the worst possible situations- -That is plot. What the characters go through, everything they've done, it should lead up to a dramatic ending that tops it all. It just makes sense that if characters are going through a zombie apocalypse that they have to face a thousand zombies in the end. Here let me make an example. Our hero's flaws and goals: Scared of water and heights. Wants a million dollars. How does it end? He has to jump off a waterfall for a million dollars. Plot twist? He doesn't get the million dollars. Someone stole it from him. Or something more believable. So worry about character development and plot will make itself.
Imo it depends on the nature of the book. Stories like Song for Fire and Ice the characters are much more central than the plot itself. It feels like a story where the characters are put in a setting with certain rules and he works out how they will all interact together. Although in most books the plot comes first, especially if there is some kind of moral or underlying message to the piece. For me personally I ususally start with the plot, sometimes I get an idea of a setting and characters though. However when that happens I sometimes struggle to come up with a coherent story.
I think more than what is logical or illogical, one question you have to ask yourself is whether your characters act according to their personality or not? For me when I read a book that's what matter most. Of course their action has to make sense but if someone does something that doesn't match their personality, that's a huge turn off. Also, I think before writing you need to have a strong idea of how your character behaves. And then fit their personality to the plot you have. The two have to work together. One shouldn't overtake the other. That's my two cents
Okay thanks. Well when it comes to choosing whether or not plot should come first, and then should I create characters to fit it, or vice versa, I think it depends on the type of character. In my opinion there are plot based characters, and theme based characters. A theme based character is one you want to create very specifically who has rules as to what you want them to do, and where you want them to go. Because they carry some of the themes of the story. A plot based character is one created that does not have as stong of themes, but is there to function in bringing a section of the plot together, or to bring together multiple sections of the plot. Would I be right in categorizing these two types? If I am, then the main characters should probably be more theme based, even in an overall plot driven story, would you say?
I wouldn't use either of those categories. To me, characters need to be people first. If they don't make sense as people, then they don't work.
Okay thanks. Well I find that the more I try to make the characters behave naturally, the more unlikelies and coincidences have to be in the plot to get the character where they need to be. A lot of times it works out fine, but a lot of times, such as if you want multiple characters to end up in the same place, at the same time, you have to have unlikely occurrences and coincidences to make it happen. Is their anything I can do to approach that differently?
And that's why...you need to start over with the plot. You need to build a plot that works with the characters. I keep saying it, and I don't think that you've heard me, even once.
I started over four times though and still there are coincidences. Perhaps it's just a matter of doing it till you find one that works, or am I still approaching it wrong? Another thing, is is that I find the reader often knows my characters more than I do. For example, for last idea, I had it so that the villain got away with murder by making it look like self defense and then calling the police. But I was told by other readers that the villain would not do this. He has kept all his murders a secret and has been a mystery killer for years, and now he finally comes forth, reporting the last one to be a self defense killing. He would give himself away I was told, because now the cops know who to investigate, and he will have to look over his shoulder. I figured since the character was desperate to cover this new killing up this is what he would do. But I was told by the reader that it's a dumb move, and that's not what he would do. So if I create the characters and decide what they do, how do I know what they will do, as well as the reader?
How "over" have you started? Completely and totally from scratch? Changing the crimes, the criminal, everything? Or have you just changed the trimmings?
The whole last half. Like I said I think the first half can stand out where it is, after the criminal gets away with the first murders. After that the cops have nothing and have to restart from scratch, and the villain is free to do whatever he wants. So I feel that this is as good point to start from scratch since the police don't have anything on the villain and need new ideas and the villain is free and clear.
But why can't the cops do some of the work AS cops? Why do you have to add the complexity of the cops all being incompetent bunglers? Your plot elements keep being incredibly complicated things to accomplish some perfectly simple plot goal. As an example, let's say that I want John and Jane to meet, when they have no obvious reason to do so. I could decide that 1) They both walk into a busy coffeehouse at the same time, and one accidentally picks up the other's order. 2) An identity thief has stolen John's identity, John is furious, Jane has a name that's almost the same as the identity thief, and that John shows up at Jane's house to beat her up. But then I have to figure out a way for John to realize that Jane isn't the thief after he kicks her door in. But then I have to figure out a reason for Jane to forgive John for kicking her door in. But then... Wouldn't it be a LOT easier to just go with the coffee confusion? The most unlikely and complex reason for something to happen is not necessarily the best reason.
@Ryan Elder: I seriously recommend you read some Dwight V. Swain. He talks extensively about this very thing, making character that not only serve the story, but behave like real people. Seriously. Dwight V. Swain, dude. You'll get a lot of answers.
"I seriously recommend you read some Dwight V. Swain. He talks extensively about this very thing, making character that not only serve the story, but behave like real people. Seriously. Dwight V. Swain, dude. You'll get a lot of answers." Okay thanks, I will check him out. I have nothing against using the cops working as honest cops. It's just I that since it's a revenge story for the main character, I thought it would be best if the cops couldn't legally do anything. Because one of the basis reasons for revenge is justice not being served. If justice is served, and they can solve the case, then the revenge may come off as cheap or not as compelling to the reader. Unless I am wrong? I am open to ways of the police catching him honestly, but just so long as the reader feels that his revenge is justified or at least compelling enough, when the other cops can solve the case, without legal conflict, and it doesn't go against the theme therefore.
I think you've almost answered your own question here. If you start with the plot and an ending, you'll need to create characters to fit. That's fine, if you're good at this sort of thing, but if you're not, you're right. The characters end up behaving in a way that doesn't quite fit. I often wonder if character 'head transplants' usually originate from this kind of storytelling method. Myself? I ALWAYS begin with a character or two. Usually a scenario as well ...someplace they live, or something they're involved with. Something they like to do, or something they hate to do. This kind of thing. Then I build the story. I think this method takes longer than the plot-fueled story, which is maybe why people who churn out books for a living prefer the outline/plot method of writing, and simply construct characters to fit. I think this is probably easier to do, in theory anyway. The challenge there is to make the characters believable and their actions make sense within the kinds of characters they are. I think if you get good at this, you can probably do it to a very high standard. But for me ...no. Where are the surprises? The little eureka moments that make the whole story suddenly seem real and exciting to me, the writer? Where are the dilemmas that take on new perspectives as the characters grow? Where are the themes that emerge as the story takes shape? For me, these kinds of unknown prospects are what makes writing so much fun. In the end, if you stay true to your characters and plug any plot holes you discover along the way, this kind of story-making should work.
But what good is a revenge story for a character if the character isn't believable and the reader doesn't care about them?
You know, the police can catch a criminal honestly - that doesn't mean the proof is sufficient for conviction, particularly in a jury trial.
Okay thanks. I find that making it about the characters first though is more difficult. If I had the characters do whatever I thought was best for the character, well then they will all do what is best for them and end up at random destinations, some tied in to the remainder of the story some not. I feel there has to be some sort of driving plot force to get them all where they need to be, but at the same time, plausible of course. You can still have surprises in a plot fueled story though, no? Well I would like to keep the same premise when it comes to starting again from scratch, if I can. The premise is, is that a cop is tracking a villain who enventually rapes him like he did his other victims. The cop wants justice for what happened to him after the villain gets away with his crimes again. Now if I take the revenge element out of that, then let's say the cop wants to catch the villain while working within the limits of the law. Wouldn't he be taken off the case if he was raped by the suspect? Is their any way for him to be on it, to the point where he can do a lot and have a lot of control for a main character? If not, then he will just have to sit back and wait for other police to solve it. Would it still work as well? Yep this what happens in the first half. He is caught by honest means, but the courts let him off cause they don't have sufficient proof.
I think I made that sound too vague, didn't I? I didn't mean you let your characters roam around aimlessly when you build a character-driven story. I meant you start with a clear idea of at least one of your characters and put them into a scenario. What sort of setting would you like to write about? Are there other characters you can also envision? A love interest? An antagonist? Once you have these characters in your mind, to where you can see them pretty clearly, then you can start playing what-if games: Well, what if my main character is blind? Okay, was he blind from birth, or recently blinded? Okay, if he's been blind from birth, he probably is quite adept at getting around and doing things for himself. If he's just been blinded, he's probably scared, resentful, and feeling very helpless—which is very unlike him, because he was a determined, cool individual beforehand, who was a bit of a control freak—who maybe didn't have many friends or any lovers who truly cared about him. Was his blinding a result of an illness. An accident? Who caused the accident ...oh, eureka moment, it was deliberately caused by a dangerous criminal. Why? Because the main character is a police officer who was determined to catch him. So now the police officer has lost his job, and is feeling helpless ...and really IS in danger from the criminal who still wants to kill him. And he doesn't have a wife or friends around to look after him, because before this accident, he never cultivated them. So he really is on his own. And ...another eureka moment ...his erstwhile partners on the police force never did believe this criminal even existed. So they aren't going to be much help here at all. So now the blind police officer has even more motive to catch this guy, but is less able to do so—and more vulnerable than he was before. So then what happens? You don't do your preliminary speculation on paper, but inside your head before you start writing. When the moment comes to start writing, you'll know. I didn't mean you wouldn't engineer surprises in a plot-driven story ...of course you would. We're talking about plot twists, aren't we? However, that's not exactly what I meant when I said 'surprise.' I meant the delight you feel as a writer when you suddenly realise something new about your character as you write about them. You thought he was a good guy whom everybody loves, but you suddenly realise that his behaviour is actually pretty selfish, which puts another slant on the story entirely. That doesn't mean his behaviour has changed, or that people don't still love him anyway, but it means you're seeing the story in a different light, which will impact on how the rest of it may go. Or that OMG moment when you realise that certain things CAN happen if you only bring these two guys together earlier.... These kinds of surprises can open up many doors to what happens next in the story, and can solve many story problems. If you write this way, though, it's incredibly important that you actually finish your story before you start tinkering too much with specific parts of it. As you can probably tell, this organic method of story growth means you'll write stuff you will decide later doesn't fit. Or there will be gaps you'll need to fill. You won't know if all these parts fit until you've got the whole story done. Then you reshape the story until it flows the right way. The trade-off for all this 'extra work' (or wasted effort, if you see it that way) is how fresh your story will be. It's like the difference between a painting done directly from a landscape, and a studio painting made using photographs and sketches you collected beforehand. When you're working outdoors the light will change, the horse will turn in the other direction or leave the pasture, etc ...and you'll need to adapt to these changes. If you're working in a studio, you can plan it out beforehand, but you'll be dependent on your memory and the quality of the photos. You won't be working directly with what you actually see. Both methods produce perfectly fine works of art, but the methods are different, and can show in the results. I had several art teachers who said they could always tell if a student's work was done directly from a scene or from photos ...and they were usually right.
