Six Days of the Condor is a thriller novel by American author James Grady, first published in 1974 by W.W. Norton. The story is a suspense drama set in contemporary Washington, D.C., and is considerably different from the 1975 film version, Three Days of the Condor Stop thinking "What can I get away with in a film?" Stop thinking "Would that make an exciting scene in a film?"
hmm okay, then, I will try to think of things that way. I can also write with the notion that I do not know how it's going to end and have the characters take me there, by their decisions, not planning for any ending in particular, if that's better. However, if I do not have an ending to build into, how do I know where to start? Even if I have a premise or an idea in mind, I still need to have a kick start point to get the ball rolling. If I have no particular ending to build into, then how do I know what my starting point should be, and why?
How about doing some research on criminal law? Disclaimer: Only read the first post (in an Uber -- not-a-lotta free time). If you're worried about the authenticity levels of your characters perhaps you should freshen up on the subject. Just a quick suggestion, maybe someone else already mentioned it.
Dear Ryan Elder. Just write your story and let the readers decide. Because this is paradox thinking right now taking place and I promise you... It leads nowhere. If you write a good story people will want to read it as unrealistic as it might be. No one knows all rules that apply in our system and seems no one gives a damn when they read about something that they are addicted to. I only sympathize because I tend to be a nip ticker myself until I understood, after reading a bunch of extreme, unrealistic stuff that it doesn't really matter. Themes can be addictive. I mean it! They give drive to the reader to the extend of forgiving huge irregularities. Maybe that's just it! They wanted to read something about irregularities. They wanted "fantasy". Something symbolic rather than a documentary. It seems from other post you've made that you are a researcher and I respect that. Knowledge is good and necessary when depicting social matters, but don't let yourself get carried away with it. You are writing a book. It is fiction. You probably have something personal to point out. Point it out. From a realistic point of view, I've never seen a realistic portrait of someones slice of life, without yawning to sleep. Raw realism is boring, illogical and repetitive. It has no meaning. It's just life. The system consists of strict rules. What's interesting is the interpretation and the meaning of them that one makes of. It's always different. What actions could one make? How to rebel against them? How do I perceive the punishment in comparison to you? It's all relative, depending on where you are standing. I've been writing for some time now a crime novel. Done my research. The outcome? Non of the crime tv series that have ever been aired are 100% realistic. (Don't let me start with the movies). Most of them are even waaaaayyy beyond realism. The most realistic one I've ever seen was "The Wire". Still, I endured only to watch some episodes. Really well done, but got bored in the end. "Mr. Robot" on the other hand, got me hooked. Hm. I wonder why?
I fervently disagree. You know World War II? That thing with heaps of drama and action and consequences and meaning? That happened. Life is full of interesting things, including the unusual and the dramatic. Including the unlikely, including rules with exceptions and complications. There are plenty of very realistic entertainment stories out there. The tv series Bletchley Circle is quite subtle and grounded. And the whole romance genre is mostly completely possible (though some inaccuracies of course occur) Yes, in a story are done for a reason. But reason is indistinguishable from no reason. We can see the reasons in stories but people just as easily invent destinies and high purposes for what's real and not invented for a story. The avoidance of realism is lazy. Grounded things can easily be interesting if you make people care about the characters and find the interest in that thing. Of course you don't write ten paragraphs (or film ten minutes, or put ten minutes of gameplay) of them on a toilet. Not unless something very interesting is going on there. (Maybe they're thinking some quite interesting, you could get away with that in a book at least). But it doesn't mean everything has to be James Bond. (huffs, rant over)
Lol. I didn't really meant to say that. Actually, I did but it seems it got misinterpreted. I meant that you don't have to have studied law in order to write about a lawyer and a plausible scenario. I hate James Bond movies! Don't give me a bad name! The esense is, don't ground you story so much to facts when they don't help your purpose. You don't even have to write bullshit. Just avoid them. As simple as that. Editing is what makes a masterpiece. Edit in and edit out. In my line of work (graphics, at least that's what I studied) the winner is the cheater. Just like a design, a story is an illustrious illusion. At least that's my P.O.V. when it comes to fiction. Never heard of Bletchley Circle. Might give it a shot.
After rewriting my own things so many times, I think it easier to just change the character if you want him/her to make the choices that would make sense for him/her to make. It doesn't mean you have to rewrite the entire thing from scratch (though I have a tedious predilection to do so), but that change usually brings with it necessary changes to the story in order for it to make sense. It's a puzzle, certainly, so you really need to think hard about what the MC wants, how they will get it, and the story should shoot off from that. Hope that helps. Also, Tenderiser had a good bit of advice. Don't compare yourself to other works. Pursue writing in your own way (and if you want to write for others, pursue that goal realistically. Know what the kids are into these days).
Even the dullest law procedures could become interesting depending on how you write it. In my POV, the thing about fiction is not about changing what is routine to create a story that is interesting to the reader; it is about giving your taste to the routine itself. @hawls mentioned something important, which is how the tiny descriptive details can change the entire approach of your reader to your story. I suggest you work with them too. Those details really paint the scene and add your flavor to it.
I think a good story revolves around ordinary, very real people to whom the reader can relate, doing extraordinary but perfectly plausible things when totally unexpected things happen to them. I strongly recommend you avoid focusing on themes when you are creating a story. My story's theme is sacrificial love, but that emerged as the story evolved, people risking everything for somebody else. But if I had started out with that as the intent, I would have continually tried to consciously reinforce that theme, and the story would have come out as sappy preaching. Instead, the theme is just part of how the characters are. Some of the characters understood sacrificial love to start with, the two soldiers for example, others learned it on the way, the senator, the pirate.
I wonder, @Ryan Elder, if you might be confusing "stereotype expectations" with real-life professional standards and expectations. The rogue cop has been a stereotype since Dirty Harry and before, especially in the movies. But citing cinema precedents really won't get you anywhere with your novel. Movies can get away with irregularities in professional behavior because they depend primarily on visuals. They can appeal directly to the gut via chase scenes, special effects, and so on, bypassing the brain. And the viewer accepts it with satisfaction, because it's exciting. But in a book, the reader has time to engage his mind and say, "Hey, wait a minute, that cop would never get away with that!" That said, though I've never seen The French Connection, I expect that the Doyle character isn't doing outrageous, transgressive things all through the movie. I mean, the kind of things that would get him stopped by his superiors. Maybe he's established that he might go to extraordinary lengths to capture the crooks, but he isn't routinely violating rules just to violate them. Am I right? The problem you're facing is not so much about the individual cop or lawyer himself; that is, whether he might or would do something that isn't by the book. The issue is, how long can he get away with it before his superiors, the legal system, advocacy groups, and general public opinion halt him in his tracks? If he's got to go rogue, your challenge is to show how he's able to thwart not only the criminals, but the system as well. Because reality is going to intrude somewhere, or your readers will never believe it.
One big difference between movies and books is that books can reveal internal dialogues, and take you inside one or more characters' heads, while that is difficult to do in film. Since the viewer cannot capture the internal dialogue as the reader can, the emotions of the characters must be exaggerated to be observable. As a result, don't use movies to guide your writing style. Many movies have been made from books, but very few movies into books: Star Trek, maybe. The only movie I recall having attempted to capture an internal monologue is "The Passion of the Christ" which it did very well in the case of Mary, his mother. She sees Jesus fall and be brutally whipped to get back up, him already dying from what had to be a fatal flogging, and she puts her hand to her mouth. There is a flashback to him as a little boy, falling and scraping his knee, her going to him as a mother, first worried he might have seriously hurt himself, then comforting him, trying to make the pain and fear go away. Then the focus returns to the present, and you know exactly her thoughts, and she knows the unspeakable worst is yet to come, a mile up that hill. Mel Gibson did as well with other characters, including Jesus, in several other scenes. There may be other movies that did as well, but I can't think of them.
Okay thanks. There are other movies that do that as well. The reason why I reference movies is that I am in fact writing a screenplay, I want to get into the movie business. I am an aspiring filmmaker, but I have to write my first independent breakthrough script to film attempts, myself. Which is fine, I enjoy the writing. I just have to get better at it. I could do what was suggested and not concentrate on theme so much, and just let the theme come out of whatever happens. However, this goes against what I was taught. I read books on fiction writing such as The Anatomy of Story, and writers emphasize on how you must make sure you know what your themes are in advance, so you know where your story is going to go when you write it. That's kind of my mindset, and if I take theme out of the equation, I do not know where the story is suppose to go. I feel I may end up at a random, arbitrary pay off, with an inconsistent meaning, or no meaning at all, but just random pay offs, if I do that.
There is no one formula for successful writing. My book started 25 years ago, as a fictional account of the first Roman diplomatic mission to China. Such a mission almost certainly did happen, because in 166AD they were on a relationship sufficiently mature for them to suggest an alliance against Parthia, and the Romans would not ally with strangers. But the actual record of the first mission is lost. So I got to wondering, how they would have got there, how would the two cultures interact? I imagined some cultural clash occurring in the court, and then they would have to escape back to Rome, but how? So that was the outline. Then I started writing, it's now finished, at a lengthy 242K words/798 pages. I have to say, I carefully visualized each scene in my mind, almost as though I were watching a movie, before I put words to paper. What would they see, hear, smell, think? A lot of threads, I began with five characters, which grew to about 15 or so major characters, but it all came together at the end. But then I never took a creative writing class where professors tell you how to write. I was a navy officer, aviator, and now an engineer. And engineers are famous for not being able to write!
