The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Yes my first idea was the gang itself and what their views were. I came up with that before I came up with the cop character. But I do not want to get into that because I think it's best to concentrate on the problems at hand, without getting side tracked into other sections of the story. Basically they wanted a mole to help them out within the department. Sure, the police have had no success so far, but it still doesn't hurt to have one, in case the tables turn. You see this all the time in other fiction, where a gang will have a mole in the police department to help them out on the other side.

Every season of 24 has done this actually, for the exact same motivations. They take the risk.

But if the mole doesn't work then nothing in the plot works that goes into the third act since the mole is the reason why things start up in the first place, and so many things come out of that. I would have to rework a lot of it, which I don't mind but how come I cannot have the same reason for mole like 24 does in every season? I understand that making changes is in my own best interest, but when others tell me that even though other writers can use it but you're characters cannot, I feel like I need a reason as to why I am an exception to the rule.

Alright you say it's the PLOT that is the reason. Now in order to have the ending I want, a member of the gang must go against them and use his police powers within the department, to help bring them down. This was the ending I wanted.

You say it's too big of a risk for the gang to allow in a cop. However, I created the gang leader character. I believe he would take the risk, partially out of ego, but partially because he respects the man, and thinks he can be of use. Since I created the villain am I not allowed to have him take risks? Perhaps risks, that lead to his own demise later? Does he have to so smart that he cannot make any mistakes or foolish decisions out of ego?

 

24 was dealing with federal anti-terrorism officials, not city police. Why would these criminals, who hide their identity so thoroughly, care about the city police? Why not just move after each crime? "Help them out within the department" isn't meaningful. What SPECIFIC benefit does a police mole give them, that outweighs the risk of exposing their entire operation to the police?

 

What if they had a mole in the federal anti-terrorism officials then? Would that be better? What if I also wrote it so that they had some collateral on the mole in case he turned in order to possibly outweigh the risk? Plus before when I wrote it, the mole knows the leader only. He has only seen the others in masks, and does not know anything about them. So he doesn't have anything on them accept the leader, but all he has is his word that the leader is bad, since the leader made sure none of their conversations were recorded.

It would be his word against the leaders, and the leader would not talk. These were the precautions I wrote for the gang to take before. Since he has no proof on them he has nothing when he wants to turn good, and has to go out and get it by other means.

Does any of this make a difference? You said 24 had a reason that made it work, so what if I used the same reason and made him a federal anti-terrorism agent?

 

No. They're doing just fine, hiding their activities, so they actively recruit a police contact to learn about them and capture them. No.

 

How do they know they are doing fine though? What if they aren't? Wouldn't they want some reassurance in case something goes wrong, or if the police found out something and are following up on it? You said that before that they are doing fine and have nothing to worry about, but you didn't say how they know that, since they have no one to confirm it for them. You are making a decision for them based on confirmation which they do not have.

 

You want a mole. You twist your fictional reality to get a mole. This is how your fictional reality gets in impossible tangles.

You're not willing to sacrifice any part of your plot in order to have a plausible plot. I see no hope here.

 

Okay thanks. I think part of my problem might be this when creating characters. When I create characters, I give them thoughts and motivations that I think would make them interesting for this particular story. But you see two of my characters as very different and cannot see them as anything else personality wise. But the reader like the customer is always right. When I create characters, how do I know if the reader will accept their personalities as relate-able and not too off the wall?

Also do you think that after coming up with the premise and a couple of characters, that it's okay to come up with the ending next? I read a book on fiction writing and also asked for other writer's opinions. Both the book and the others told me that, it is a good idea to come up with the third act, first then build into it from there. Perhaps the reason why I keep coming up with dead ends is because this information is wrong?

What if I created a first act first, then built into a third act, but not knowing what it is. I will just keep building and seeing what happens, and whatever happens, is the most natural as a result, because it was created out of sheer consequence, without being able to see the future. What do you think?

 

I don't see that this has anything at all to do with your characters' thoughts and motivations. That's part of the problem. Your characters are doing completely illogical things, things that their thoughts and motivations should tell them to refrain from doing, because you want those things.

You want a mole, so you create a cop who is OK with murder until the plot doesn't want him to be OK with murder any more. You want a mole, so you have your very very careful master criminal expose his operation to a cop. You want your criminals to get caught, so you have them stupidly expose themselves with a wifi connection. You want that mole and you will tear apart all logic and character motivation to get that mole, and when I point those things out, you tear them apart in a different way, because you are determined to have that mole, no matter how much damage it does to your story.

 

Okay thanks. When coming up with a new idea, you say not to twist it to make it work, obviously. How does one tell if the idea is twisted though? I honestly thought the gang might want a mole in the department to keep them upraised since they going down a dangerous road, and things will very likely get ugly. I honestly thought that was a legitimate reason. So how do I tell if an idea is twisted, when I start from scratch, in order to avoid those?

I used the wifi connection thing, cause a cop told that that's the way to upload a video and not be traced. He said they can only trace the area. I will stop listening to cops, because maybe they are to use to dealing with stupid criminals.

 

I have an idea for a story and would like to know if it gels.

Basically their is a gang that has a mole in the police department. The mole begins to have moral qualms about what he is doing and towards the gang in general, when they take things to far.

The mole wants to leave the gang, and the gang can see it, even when the mole fails to perform a certain crime for them that involves hurting someone. So the mole leaves and hides out from them, leaving home, out of fear of them.

The gang figures that the best way for him to leave the gang without him being a threat is for him to kill or at least do a really nasty deed, so they have collateral on him to use against him if he turns. Otherwise he just leaves, with the collateral on him and will not tell anyone of his association with them.

Now the gang tells him this, by phone, but cannot find out where he is. They tell him that when the time comes he will have to do whatever they ask, if he is to leave the gang. He agrees to it but only to give them some sort of assurance and to buy himself time.

But the gang telling him that is just a ruze to lure him out of hiding, since he is not spending any time at his home. The gang actually intends to kill him, and their plan is just a ruze.

A few days to weeks later in the plot, the gang has someone else that is a threat to them. The gang gets a threatening phone call from someone this person, and then moments later, a silent alarm to one of their facilities goes off, and warns them that there is a break in, in progress. A facility with evidence in that will incriminate them, if the evidence is stolen from there.

The gang then decides to rush to the place to stop him before he can finish breaking in and take it. On the way, they also call the mole to tell him that this is his chance to get out, if he kills the guy, who is breaking into their place.

But this still just a ruze. The gang figures now they can kill both characters, and kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. But would they? Would they actually think of calling the other to come meet them, when they are preoccupied with dealing with the other one? Plus they would be inviting the mole to the place where they keep their evidence so they would have to be confident enough that it's worth the risk to kill two birds with one stone.

What do you think?

 

Questions about whether someone would do something, or how they would react in certain situations, are really character questions. You're the only one who can answer those questions. As the writer, you have created these characters - the mole, the gang members, and everyone else. I don't know how'd they would react in a given situation, only you do. Humans have a wide range of reactions to a given situation, and any reaction you choose is viable so long as it is consistent with the characters or, if inconsistent, is an inconsistency that makes sense to the reader.

 

Hi

I agree with the above poster- what your characters do is up to you. You need to establish this gang within your story, give them their own characteristics and gang rituals and then see if the plot flows as you write it. Personally, I could see this working. Maybe have a look at some documentaries about prisons and gangs to really see gang culture in the real world. I think that would really help you imagine that sort of scenario as you've not experience it yourself.

 

It's plausible, if that's what you're asking (disregarding whether the personalities of the gang members would allow them to do what you say). I think it's an engaging plot.

 

I have John Truby's book on screenwriting The Anatomy of Story, and in this video of his at 6:50:



He talks about how there has to be enough time give to the love subplot in order for the main character to really be felt with by the audience. At the same time though, when you want to keep your script at a good length and not go overlong, you don't want to spend too much time on it either, especially if it's just a subplot and not the main premise, if that makes sense.

He says in the video, you cannot montage love but there have been movies that have done it. The best example I can think of is The Godfather. Michael and Appolonia go on one date, and then the next scene you see them in they are married. This was enough for audiences to be satisfied before Appolonia's death, so I am wondering if it's okay to break a rule, what should I keep in mind?

 

I may be way off base, but...

I think it's not so much the amount of time given to the love story, it's the structure of the scenes wherein the love story lives. At the end of any scene where you're concentrating on the love angle, leave the reader anticipating what might come next in the love story. That way, you'll keep the reader on 'tender hooks' until the next love story scene.

I followed this pattern in my current novel and I think it works. Perhaps the love story isn't as 'up front' as some might like, but I guess I'll find that out when it gets into the hands of a publisher.

 

The phrase is actually "on tenterhook" or "on tenterhooks".

 

EdFromNY I see you are a man of the cloth. I had no idea of what tenterhooks were until I looked it up, such a common phrase and no idea that I had misunderstood it for so long. I stretched this out long enough.

 

Bless you, my son.

 

Ah! Thanks. I'd never seen it written down before. It's a phrase I learned at my mother's knee, as it were, and she were a hillbilly like me.

 

A lot of times when I ask other writers for advice since I am not advanced, a lot will tell me if there is a plot hole, or an implausibility here or there, and they will give suggestions on how to fix it. But I find that a lot of the suggestions can get in the way of the theme. If a character makes a different decision or if something else happens in a section of the story that alone can change themes about feelings you are trying to engage in the reader.

One writer I had a conversation with suggested that I change the ending of a story, because he said that the villain's downfall means he would have to make a mistake that perhaps he wouldn't normally make and the his downfall as a result of his 'weakness'. But I was told by another writer that him making decisions based on his weakness causes problems in the plot, and he suggested a new way that was more likely and plausible to happen. He said that the hero should just shoot the villain in the head because then it gets rid of implausibilities.

Yes it does, but anyone can be defeated by being shot in the head, and the villain is not brought to his downfall by his weakness therefore. The theme is gone, but the plot may be more plausible as a result.

That is just one example, but if you had to pick between what's more important, the plot holding together better, or stronger themes for the reader to get wrapped up in, what is more important if you had to pick one, and could not have both?

 

It's best to have both, but if you want people to like your work theme. People feel better when your work has consistency and identity to it and are willing to overlook implausibilities.

You haven't given much details on your story, so I don't know what you were aiming for.

 

I am just asking in general with no particular story in mind right now. Another example would be a few weeks ago, I talked about on here actually, a story I had where a cop is after a serial rapist/killer, who he himself is raped by the villain and escapes. He then wants revenge on the villain and sets a plan in motion.

But I was told by one writer that the revenge plan causes problems in the plot because he relies on things to happen that wouldn't perfectly happen that way likely and things like so, and it was implausible that he would break the law so much when it's not in his best interest. His advice was take the revenge plan out since it's creates too many complications and just have the character catch the crooks within the law, by completely honest means.

But then I asked myself would that best for the theme? Is their a point to having the cop be raped, if he is just going to catch the villain by completely honest means, since it was his job anyway? Would he still be able to be on the case, with such a thing happening to him? It just seems to me that the theme is lost, even if the plot has a better chance of making sense.

But that is just another example, and I am only asking now as a general guideline, if that makes sense.

 

Well getting raped can mess people up, so after the incident, he could care less about his own interests and just want to get back at the guy on his own terms. So it's not terribly unrealistic, and there are dozens of rape&revenge stories so people are reading them.

 

A too-implausible plot is unacceptable. The fact that it may support your theme doesn't make it any more acceptable. That doesn't make plot more important than theme, it just means that an implausible plot is unacceptable, period.

An analogy: Let's say that you want a birthday cake to have pink frosting. You decide that the pinkness is more important than the flavor, so you color the frosting with tomato soup. But that's not acceptable; the frosting has to have the right color AND at least an acceptable flavor. "Pinkness is more important than flavor" might explain why the frosting flavor isn't your preferred flavor of chocolate, but it does NOT excuse a salty-tomato-flavored frosting.

An implausible plot is like salty-tomato frosting: It's just not acceptable.

 

I am mildly tired. So correct me if I am wrong but you are asking if given a choice between theme and plot which is more important to keep? The issue I take with this is the following.

They work together so a clash will cause the other to be weaker.

Imagine it like clothing. Theme being bottoms and plot being the top. Well It is not better to have a nice top and ripped pants than it is to have ripped top and nice pants. If either is ripped then the style is ruined. Assuming the style was nice.

At that point I would argue it is better to have ripped pants and a ripped shirt because at least then you can argue that the point was to have a unique style.

Also remember in fiction the laws of the universe sort of are different. A good case I think is Alice and Wonderland. Not from personal expeirence I havent read the book but I hear this argument before and I consider it fitting.

Alice and Wonderland as I understand it makes no logical sense. It is random. But the thing is the point is to be random. The theme is random. So in context it makes sense. It doesn't make sense in our world but it makes sense in its world which is the ultimate goal.

Now I know in your world it is meant to be our world but it is still a movie version of our world which means the rules can be slghtly off and we can accept that. If that makes sense?