Apologies if this isn't the right section. So, I'm writing this Western, and just when I got 80 pages into it, I was very underwhelmed with the climax I was getting ready to right even though I had it all planned out. Then another plot popped in my head. I'm unsure of which one to go with. Plot A: With the help of a Bounty Hunter named Nathan, Natalie sets out to obtain enough money to buy back her ranch from the Government by teaming with him and collecting bounties. Along the way, the two of them hear about two men that stole caches of Gold they found in a Swamp -- one man keeps it at his house, the other man keeps it locked up in a safe in a Bank he owns guarded by Lawmen on his payroll. The Banker puts a bounty on his partner, which a woman named Tess picks up. She then teams up with some Bandits called the Wolves and formulate a Bank Heist to steal the other half. Both storylines end up intersecting towards the end as their paths cross at the bank during the heist. That's where I stopped. Plot B: The same as Plot A, except no Tess, no Wolves, and no Banker. Nathan and Natalie's journey remains the same. However, once the two of them hear about the Gold, Natalie ditches Nathan, tracks the man to his house, kills him in cold blood and takes the Gold for herself. I did this turn to show her desperation, willing to do whatever it took to save the ranch that her Father left her because the bounty hunting was taking too long. Eventually, I would have Natalie become a full on villain, leading to her being another bounty for Nathan to collect. Which one do you guys think sounds a little more compelling?
Whenever I've asked myself whether I should write A or B, the answer has almost always turned out to be "Both" Maybe Natalie killing the man over the first half makes her realize that she's A Criminal now, and this convinces her to join forces with the Wolves for stealing the second half?
Hands down, Plot B. I don't see how the two storylines in Plot A are related - and it seems you don't either or I assume you would've said. Plot A seems complicated for no apparent reason. Plot B is succinct and makes Natalie a way more interesting character. In Plot A, she's just a bounty hunter trying to get some cash to buy back a ranch. Ordinary enough - no different from someone taking 2 or 3 jobs to pay off debt or something similar. But Plot B - she goes out of her way to do something clearly immoral, due to her desperation. It speaks of her character far more, of how far she's actually willing to go, even ditching a partner who's been helping her, and not just killing criminals with a price tag on their head but just killing because she wants their money. I also love the face-off it will lead to at the end, how the relationship is put at odds, forcing them to make a choice. I love conflicts like this, where the choice is no choice at all. Plot B all the way
Thanks so much for the input, guys! I figured Plot A had way too much going on, but I thought I could bring it all together. Plot B it is!
Aww - I liked Plot A. Depends on what kind of tone you're going for. Plot B would be much darker, whereas Plot A could have a very intense, exciting it's-all-going-on, everybody-shooting-everybody-type scene. But I suppose if you want something dark, with no clear moral solution, Plot B is better. I don't know. I write for kids.
I Completely agree. (I'm a big fan of intricate plots.) Following Simpson's idea of weaving the two could make for some great action. BUT It sounds like the only difference is if there's going to be a heist or not. Can't Natalie and the Wolves pull a heist job and Nathan stops them as your climax?
I think Plot B has more possibility, and is certainly the one I'd choose to use, if this were my story. Plot A is just a series of heists and lots of action and running around, joining gangs, etc. Ho hum. Plot B, on the other hand, dishes up major personal conflict and a moral dilemma—one that won't be easily resolved (which is good.) I really dislike the word 'villain' outside of a comic strip, because it's such a black/white concept. Most people do bad things for good reasons, or reasons that seem good to them at the time. I'd play down the Black Hat White Hat scenario here, and go for personal conflict instead. When Natalie kills a man for his gold, no matter how 'desperate' she is (or how likeable or unlikeable the man she kills might be) that will put her on the other side of her partnership with Nathan. In fact, it would be interesting if she hasn't dumped him, and she and Nathan are still partners. This killing is something she does when he's not around, and maybe never intended to do at all. That will put Nathan in a very difficult situation. Does he bring her in for the bounty? Does he attempt to ignore or forgive her behaviour? And what about Natalie? How does she feel about what she's done? Remorse? Relief? Intense guilt? Glee? These are all realistic questions for this story, and exploring these issues will make for a intensely mature storyline. And the ending to this plot isn't obvious, is it? That's good.
I don't know, defining villain to mean "person who does evil for human reasons" (which exists) seems more useful to me than defining villain to mean "person who does evil because their human psychology has been replaced with BeingEvil™" (which doesn't exist). When we take a word that used to refer to something real, but redefine it to mean something that isn't real, we lose our ability to talk about something that is real. Absolutely
