The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Why can't the villain be at fault? The trouble is if you delegate it out it will look convenient. If the villain had been watching a cop's routine for months and the cop's child is ill and he diverts from his routine then yeah, the reader might not buy it. But if the villain has a family and his child gets ill upsetting his plans then it doesn't become so convenient as compelling.

 

You may be overthinking this, Ryan.

 

I would say one of possibly three things.
A- something the villain does not know about. a good example of this.... yeah drawing a blank. but let's say the villain wants ancient power artifact magic but he doesn't know that, artifact B cancels artifact A, artifact A is cursed etc, Artifact A is a trap by evil.
B- an impossible yet somehow plausible solution. See most every episode of star treck. they always needed to write themselves out of a bind in these things, so what they would do was have smart guy A come up with an ingenious plan. Smart guy B who is not as smart as smart guy A will thus re explain it. we overload him with the posatronic energy of the field dirsupters until he reaches critical mass and implodes upon his own energy. "Like a balloon when you put too much air in it."
C- the villains common flaw. humanity, love, friendship, common bullshit. you have stories littered with this shit. The villain has the hero cornered, trapped, outwitted, overpowered. but damn that love and friendship. the hero pulls a magic spell for the win out their ass.

 

Okay thanks for the input. I actually wanted a villain who had a chance to kill the hero at one point but does not, but others told me he wouldn't do that if he was so smart.

And yes the villain can be at fault.

 

Even the most well layout plans still can fail due to unseen forces.

 

Fun fact, no plan is flawless. Humans are not capable of accounting for every possible variable that may mess something up. There is a certain amount of luck that will be involved in the success of every plan, and certain amount of bad luck that may doom the whole thing. In the real world the most successful people are not successful because their plans are perfect, they are successful because they are adaptable and fluid.

 

Your villain's success relies on him needing to perfectly predict human action, that right there will give you enough chances for slip ups. Even the best people at predicting human action are never 100% accurate, and human intent and action depends on so many factors that its insane. A police officer going through a divorce at the end of a long shift will be more distracted and easier to slip past than one who is well rested and just starting his shift. In court cases you are more likely to get a sympathetic judge if your hearing is scheduled in the morning, when the judge is just getting started vs at the end of the day when he is tired.

Stupid things like this screw people over on a regular basis. They would have similar negative effects on your villain.

 

Okay thanks. I understand that but how do you apply that without a character having to do something that feels forced? For example, one idea I have is for the prosecutor to charge the villain anyway, even though the villain was not counting on there being enough evidence. But I asked some reader's opinions and they asked, why would a prosecutor go ahead if there wasn't enough evidence? Isn't that illogical? How do you have a character be unpredictable, but at the same time, be logical?

 

I like the overlooked detail.

My villain and his swordsmen raid the yurt where my party of eight are sleeping and roust them out, march them off at swordpoint to be cut down at a prepared disposal ditch. Checked everyone for weapons... except the girl, who had a dagger in a neck lanyard, and knew how to use it. Eight to one odds? No, she was last in line, started crying and moaning about dying, most uncharacteristic for her so everyone knew something was up. Only one on one between her and the guy behind her in the dark, spin around fast away from the sword in her back, dagger to the kidney, take his sword, take down the man in front covering her husband as he turns around to see what just happened, take his sword, give to her husband and back to back with him to cover his blind side. Now its two pros against six thugs with the advantage of surprise and confusion in the dark of night.

Ends badly for the villain.

 

@Ryan Elder I've got a bunch of really cynical answers to this, but the basic gist is that it sounds like you're good.

 

Because it's not PC and considered offensive. However, it has been used in film and literature before. Personally, I never conform to what is currently considered PC.

 

I want to write a thriller where the main character is on his own, and not able to rely on the police for most of the story. However, I am setting it in modern times, and in the days of cellphones, it's difficult to put the MC in this situation.

I was thinking that the villain could maybe put a radio jamming device on the MC's car, so that the MC can never use his cellphone, as long as he is always within a certain proximity of the car. However, how long can I keep this going before he figures it out. And there is always the solution of driving to a pay phone, which cannot be jammed, cause it's a land line.

So I am wondering is that a good idea to keep on using for the plot, or what is the best way to keep the MC from not calling and being forced to take on the villains without help?

 

I haven't seen a pay phone in a decade.

But you could stop and find someone with a phone. If he was still near his car though it could jam all the phones around.

The 911 system can crash.

The police could be non-responsive for various reasons. The cops don't like him. Or don't believe him (he's called wolf before). They could be overwhelmed with a terrorist shooting or other disaster.

It could take place in a remote area but you'd have to change your story.

 

Okay thanks. I wanted to set it in a city for various reasons. Aside from him calling wolf before I think that might come on as perhaps forced. Like the only reason why you have him call wolf before, is just for that to happen. Plus a 911 operator does not know who cried wolf and who did not. They would despatch units to wherever the call came from. Is everyone on the force going to know about this person who cried wolf before and choose not to respond, even though it's a risk of their jobs?

 

How about villain knows who is trying to catch him, threatens his family, protagonist decides to do it in secret.

 

But usually in those situations when a person's family is threatened, the person will call the police especially, since they feel they could use the help, no? Even in situations where the person says do not call the police, the person will still call.

 

In Castle Kate Beckett leaves her marriage because the people who killed her mother will kill anyone she has involvement with if they find out she is trying to arrest them. Maybe it is just protection.

 

Okay thanks. But in my story, it is far fetched that the villain would know if the police are called. He is more of a serial killer type, and it is not likely that he would have friends in the 911 call operating department. It just seems that the hero may be too gullible to believe that.

 

Have him call the police, but is thwarted anyways, write on through this dilemma, then edit. Or maybe, say the first policeman to arrive is shot dead on the door step - at the hand's of your hero's gun/his penknife/biro, supposedly...

 

Okay thanks. But wouldn't having cops be killed just get other police more anxiously involved and draw attention?

 

Well, your hero thinks the police are now chasing after him, and so do we, throughout the bulk of story. I would not expect him to give those chaps a call. Murderers are not popular in the force, detective or uniformed. Then later on we discover goodly cops are actually shadowing this entire grubby affair, ready to pounce, save the day, maybe.

More ideas for your stew.

 

For my story a cop is on patrol, and while on doing so, he comes across what looks like to be a kidnapping in progress. He stops the kidnapping from happening. He rescues the victim and arrests one of them, but the rest get away.

The victim does not want to testify though and wishes to not press charges.

Because of this, the prosecutor feels that without her testimony, he can either subpoena her although she is very uncooperative, or he can drop the case. I wanted to write it so that he doesn't have enough of a case, but I was told by a reader so far that it's a plot hole.

He says that the prosecutor does not need the victim's testimony, and they would go ahead with a case, using the cop's testimony only. But is one cop's testimony enough, to convict someone for attempted kidnapping, even though the victim is willing to come forth? Wouldn't the court, or a jury, want to hear from the victim, rather than just saying she was, without any claims from her to support it?

Is it really a plot hole, and there still is enough of a case from the cop's testimony alone?

 

Okay thanks. I suggested this idea to readers before, but they said it was plot hole, because if cops are in on it, that doesn't mean that the whole force is on it. He said that the hero could still pick a phone and call internal affairs or the FBI, or higher ups. Or he would just to go the police station for protection, and not stay out in hiding. And for the way I want my story to go, I do not want him going to a police station.

There is no needs to disregard the entire government of police just because a small percentage may be bad, the reader said. I guess the reader has a point maybe?

 

I wouldn't approach it this way - agonizing over holes in my work.

Remember - reading something and shouting at the character CALL THE POLICE or TELL YOUR DAD. So. feel strong about your writing, believe that you can make the leap, bring these people to life, and then 'folk' might ask 'why didn't Johnny call the police,' rather then the 'why didn't you write him calling the police.' Don't worry about logical sequence so much, 'dice man' a little...

And recall I've only read the thread once, I don't know everything.

 

Is the serial killer known to the police? I seem to be giving a few TV examples here but in Gotham there is a serial killer that murders the loved ones of anyone who tries to investigate him, leaving him to freely commit murder every so often. He does it every so often that the police don't bother going after him as he is not committing murder all the time. However, you may just end up basing an entire novel off one episode of Gotham, so maybe not.

I really can't think of anything else, it's a pretty tricky situation but I would recommend doing what matwoolf said about having people ask why the character didn't call the police, not why you didn't write him calling the police. The only other thing I can think of is having it as a personal grudge or something. Maybe he wants to bring the killer down himself?