So I have thought of making a story that will approach the concept of living forever from a different perspective. It will focus on all the problems associated with it, like the loss of reproduction, childhood, growing up, the emotional importance of witnessing death, the halt of new creative minds into the world cultural and educational pool, etc. And I decided to approach it like this... Eternal life started off by being given to only the most important people with a new drug. And it follows an astronaut (let's call him Harvey to avoid confusion), who received the drug because he was chosen, but his family wasn't, so he had to watch all of his loved ones go before him. And for this he is fairly bitter. As the drug becomes more prominent, it is eventually distributed to everyone currently alive, along with the removal of their fertility. Now, in the rare cases where someone may die due to accidental causes, they are "replaced" in a factory-like building that houses embryo's and rapidly grows them in order to keep the population at an exact level. This is the case for Harvey's mission partner (Luther). He died during a mission, and is replaced by another grown person. Harvey grew up the natural way and understands the concepts of the normal way of life (and therefore hates this world of eternal life), and Luther knows nothing other than living forever, so they clash. But eventually, Luther's wife begins to die due to medical reasons, something that hasn't happen since the time of the early stages of the drug (thousands of years ago). So the two start to form a similar bond, and begin a mission to fix, or destroy this "perfect world", that they realize actually isn't so perfect. Now the question that I am looking for opinions on is this...do I make Harvey and Luther characters our for blood of the establishment? Or do I make them simply people trying to get help to save Luther's wife, in a time where the loss of a life seems thousands of times more devastating and heartbreaking? Any opinions are appreciated.
they both sound like valid story concepts, and you could probably make both work. you need to look at the characters. If they're well developed try and figure out what they would do. cause and effect. ultimately i think it comes down to what you want to write about.
It's just hard to say what direction you should go in. You have the idea, you know the minds of the characters, etc. You might just try writing two scenes, one for each direction and then submit those for review. Your post reminded me of the movie the Island. Clones are being made and when the real human experiences a problem in their body, say cancer, the clone is killed and it's parts harvested/transplanted. The company creating them keeps in perfectly healthy in the meantime. You may want to check that for some creativity
It's your story. Which way do you want the story to go? No one else can, or should, decide that for you. A story concept means nothing. I can tell you now, it has been done before. What matters is how you write it, the characterization, the flow, the imagery, all of it. There's no benefit in asking what other people think of the concept! They'll either say,"Sounds great," or, "it sounds like a ripoff of..." If the idea stirs you, write it. Then ask people what they think of the final story. After they tell you what they don't like about it, revise it, usually several times, until you're happy with it or until you throw up your hands and say the hell with it. Please read this thread about What is Plot Creation and Development?
it's an intriguing concept, but cog is right in that no one but you can tell which version you can write best... ask 100 people that question and you'll undoubtedly get close to a 50/50 response, so what good would that do you? write what YOU think will work best, based on what you 'feel' it should be, not what others think, or feel...
