The collected musings of Ryan Elder

My thoughts exactly. I'm not going to cry foul if your character is running for dear life across a forest and a trapper appears out of nowhere to save him/her from, say, a bloodthirsty outlaw. The person's a trapper, I would think this is where s/he'd normally be to trap wild game for food and pelt. He may be unnamed, may only be showing up for a bit to help the protagonist get rid of the killer clown and give him/her supplies, but he's supposed to be there so it'd make sense.

As far as the Edna thing, she was introduced earlier and the movies made it clear she had a close relationship with all the superheroes (remember the "No capes!" speech where she ticked off the names of all the caped heroes who died over the years?) So when Helen (a superhero) came to her asking for her husbands whereabouts, it felt natural. It made logical sense that Edna would be the first person she'd go to, not some random woman we've never even met. Plus, it was made clear the Edna also mends superhero costumes so the whole 'Look at the new stuff I made!' scene didn't even feel like it came out of the blue and totally random.

The basic gist of it is:

- If you're going to have an 'extra' appear out of the blue, have them be in a place where it'd be logical otherwise you're going to have to come up with an explanation of why instead of a trapper, we have a rich person of the elite upper class wearing fancy clothing in the middle of the dense woods.

- For named 'extras', make it clear how he/she relates to your main character. Let's say there's a bar fight between your protagonist and a drunken prospector. Protagonist is getting the shit clobbered out of him/her until their best friend, Fredrick the Bartender arrives and pistol whips the prospector with the butt end of a rifle. If it was made clear beforehand that Fredrick and your protagonist were at least good friends, something other than 'that guy who gives me beer at the end of the day', it wouldn't be too coincidental for Fredrick to jump in and play hero.

Hell, even if you established that Fredrick is (a) a hunter and (b) won't tolerate violence in his bar, then regardless of whether or not he was friends with the protagonist, it'd make sense that he'd swoop in and establish order again. Point is, these 'extras' would have had an established reason of being there, and an established reason of why they suddenly are swooping in to aide the hero in any way they can.

 

Okay thanks. I have rethought the plot and am coming up with new ways it can go. It's been agreed that the villain will not go to his safe since he knows he cannot get rid of the evidence in case the cops see him. However, what would he do instead? Would he just leave the evidence there, and risk the cops possibly finding later? Once I figure out his motive for what he would do as a result, then I can figure out where to go. But my instincts tell me that my character, would want to get rid of it somehow, instead of just hoping the police never find out about it.

 

In my story, a cop (let's call him cop A) wants revenge on the villain because he thinks that the villain killed another cop (let's call him Cop B). The villain hears on the news that Cop A is on the loose and that he is likely out to kill the villain, and that other police are looking for him.

The villain and Cop B, were actually working together, but no one else knows that. So the villain thinks in order to get Cop A from coming after him out of revenge, he has to prove to him, that he was working with Cop B, and that he was not responsible for his death. The villain also hopes to prove to Cop A, that since Cop B was crooked and working with him, it's not worth avenging him, and getting charged with murder, especially when he is going after the wrong guy, over a corrupt cop anyway.

Now the villain has to contact Cop A to get proof of Cop B's corruption to him. However, would the villain logically do something like that to get Cop A off his back?

Mainly for the way I want the plot to go, I need Cop A and the villain to meet up in the same place and time, so is this a reason for the villain to make contact with Cop A, saying he needs to talk and show him proof as to why it's not worth avenging Cop B, and that he wasn't directly involved in his death?

Or what would the villain logically do if this were the case, in order to stop Cop A from getting revenge on him?

Thanks for the advice, I greatly appreciate it.

 

Logically, the villain would kill cop A.

Why would he feel the need to prove anything to him?

 

Well, I feel like if the villain would send anything to the cop to prove his innocence - it would be the actual evidence - not a sweet letter from him.

If the cop recieved a letter or any forms of actual communication, he won't believe it. So maybe the villain can send him videos/actual letters/texts etc to the cop. The cop can then piece together the actual truth. OR, the villain can then wait about a week for the cop to look into it more, then send him a letter arranging to meet. Or whatever it takes to get them together.

 

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the villain sends a letter. He would send a video and some other evidence in a package. As for the villain killing Cop A, he would be going up against an officer who has more training and resources, so it would be a dangerous headache the villain would probably want to avoid if possible. Would the villain actually meet with Cop A, after giving him the package of evidence though? I thought he would meet him to get the package to him. Meet in a public place that is, without the cop showing himself. He would make the villain drop the package off for him, but then maybe he can ambush him and take him captive by surprise, while he looks over the evidence.

Mainly I just need the villain to want to give the cop proof, and for the cop to take him captive later somehow.

 

Can you confirm: Cop B is actually dead, it's just that the Villain didn't do it despite Cop A's notion? Or Cop B is still alive, but crooked so avoiding the limelight?

I assume the former, but on the off-chance it's the latter, Villain only needs to prove that Cop B is still alive (presumably a betrayal of Cop B, which would lead to fallout for both of them).

If Cop B is dead, hmm... the package thing would be unbelievable in this day and age (or in the future). No villain with half a brain would make physical contact. Depending on what attention he's already garnered and Cop A's position to track/follow, Villain might just run for the hills.

If he really has to quell Cop A's wrath (rather than just avoid it), I doubt he'd need to provide explicit evidence; just sow seeds of doubt. Perhaps he'd anonymously post a video online, suggesting that Cop B was dirty (need details to guess at content). Police have a strong internet presence, so it would make its way to Cop A pretty quickly. A lot of departments even have social media profiles that the video could be directly posted to.

But maybe Villain slips up. They can track IP addresses (/other computer wizardry), or his apparently fake social media profile actually has an identifying detail, or the video itself offers a clue by which Cop A can track him.

 

You're putting the villain in the role of good guy, like an undercover cop, and that's doesn't exactly work. His motives would differ from an undercover cop.

It'll work if you pay attention to motive.

He wants cop A to not kill him. He needs to show cop A that cop B wasn't who cop A thought he was (a tall order given cop A is not going to easily believe that). In addition he needs to show cop A that he, the villain, was not the killer.

Unless the villain has a reason to want to trash the reputation of cop B (revenge maybe?) it would seem the villain has no stake in that action.

So, I'd say, the villain would need to inevitably expose cop B in order to show cop A that he, the villain was not the killer. In other words the exposing would be collateral to showing cop A the villain wasn't the killer, but the motive would be letting cop A know the villain was not the killer.

 

Sorry. Yes Cop B, is dead and the body has already been investigated and is buried at this point.

Mainly what happened is, is that the villain gets into a shootout with the cops, but Cop B is with him, while off duty. Cop B is accidentally killed by friendly fire, in the shootout.

The Cops did not know Cop B was with the villain though. They thought that Cop B, just came to the scene while off duty, possibly responding to a radio call for back up. The villain of course never tells anyone cause he does not want anyone to know. But when Cop A wants to kill the villain out of revenge cause he blames him for Cop A's death, things change for the villain's motivation.

The villain is just trying to prove to Cop A, that Cop B was a crooked cop, complicit in all the felonies, that the villain is, in an effort to get Cop A, to loose respect for Cop B, thus taking away Cop A's motivation for revenge. Since Cop B was working with the villain at the time of the shootout, he wants Cop A to believe that it was the other officers' friendly fire that killed Cop B, but since Cop B was working with the villain, he should not be blamed with murder.

If the villain's plan is to just run for the hills, then he will have to be in hiding for the rest of his life or for many months or years. So wouldn't it be in the villain's best interest to give Cop A proof on Cop B's corruption, so then Cop A would not go after the villain?

I could write it so that the villain uploads a video of evidence, to prove it to Cop A. However, I would like to get Cop A and the villain into the same place for the climax I want to happen. They just need to be in the same place unfortunately, but I am not sure how to get them both there. The situation is, that Cop A wants revenge on the villain and is looking for him. The villain is in hiding from Cop A, and wants to show him proof that it's not worth avenging his friend, cause his friend is dirty and on the villain's side, and was not murdered by the villain, like Cop A believes he was.

So with these two characters, and those motivations, how can I get them to arrive in the same place and time for the third act, if you have any thoughts?

As for putting the villain in the role of the good guy, my intention was to put him in the role of a desperate man trying to talk his way out of being killed. A criminal no less, but still a man who wishes to live. It's not the villains intention to trash Cop B, just because he can. He has to prove that he had no motive to kill Cop B, but in order to do that, he has to show that he was in collusion with Cop B all along, thus the trashing will have to come out anyway, in order to show that he had no reason to kill him.

Now even though the villain would not logically want to meet with Cop A directly, would it make sense to write it so that maybe he somehow gets Cop A's email, emails him, and tells him to go to a certain place to pick up the package? Of course Cop A could smell a trap, but if I could write it so that the villain can get the package of evidence to Cop A, but then somehow, Cop A tricks him and confronts him in person instead, then it will solve the problem, and I can get them both in the same place together. Or if it's more logical for the villain to upload a video, Cop A will see that Cop B was dirty and in on it with the villain, the whole time, but he will not be able to find the villain, so the story ends without him finding the villain.

Mainly I need him to find the villain and take him captive, just before he finds out the truth. If I can make it happen so that Cop A finds out the truth, while he is in the same place as the villain, then the ending I want will come together, but they have to be in the same place during, if that's logically possible.

You say no villain would make physical contact, even if they are far away, not seen and done over the phone or anything? If not, then the villain will have to choose to be on the run indefinitely and have the proof with him, but only show Cop A, if Cop A finds him, is that right?

So Cop A would have to find the villain who would be in hiding, by completely other means then? I create more plot and characters to try to get Cop A to the villain, but is that really necessary to create more? If so, then I will.

 

Why does the villain care what cop A thinks of cop B?

 

The villain cares, because if Cop A thinks bad of Cop B, then he will not go after the villain out of revenge. He is trying to take away, the revenge motivation, if that makes sense. Cop A blames the villain for Cop B being killed, but if knows that Cop B was complicit with the villain, then he will loose respect him, and therefore not want to avenge him, thereby the villain saving himself from being killed out of revenge hopefully. That's why he cares, to take away the motive for revenge.

 

So you don't think much of my opinion why that wouldn't work then?

 

Oh no, I want to hear your opinion, but I am not sure why wouldn't work. Are you saying that Cop A would want to get revenge for Cop B, no matter how much of a scumbag he found out that Cop B was? Wouldn't his opinion of what he thought of Cop B, matter? For example, most people who want to avenge someone, respect the person they are avenging. But if he looses respect for the victim, would he still want revenge anyway? It's just that Cop A is the kind of character that only will seek revenge, if he respects the victim, so what he thinks of the victim is everything. I just don't see why taking away his motivation for revenge wouldn't work.

Would you be able to explain it more for me, when it comes to Cop A, if that's okay?

 

But the villain is still a criminal, right? It's not as if the cop is going to say, "Well, he committed a bagful of crimes, but he didn't kill my friend, so I'm just going to let him go and convince the whole law enforcement infrastructure to let him go, too."

The police will be after the villain if they think he killed Cop B. The police will be after the villain if they don't think he killed Cop B. Yes, Cop A might be more likely to kill the villain if he thinks he killed Cop B, and more likely to just arrest him if he didt, n't isn't the villain going to run either way, whether he's running from death or prison?

I see no reason for the villain to do this.

 

But since Cop A is out to kill the villain and has already committed some felonies at this point, any evidence he brings would be considered tainted, at least that's what a cop told me who I asked out of research for the story. So if the villain goes to the cop and gives him the bag of evidence, a lawyer can just tear it apart saying that since the cop already committed crimes and almost killed the villain, the evidence cannot be trusted, because of how he collected it.

The villain knows this, and is willing to risk being arrested and then likely getting away later, as alternative to being murdered out of revenge.

 

The villain wouldn't have any reason to care what cop A thought of cop B. He would only care that cop A didn't blame him for cop B's death.

See also what @ChickenFreak said and re-read my earlier post.

 

So the villain is going to provide Cop A with evidence that Cop B was complicit in a bunch of crimes...that supposedly never happened? How does this evidence implicate Cop B while still leaving the villain un-implicated?

 

As a side note, I find it wildly unlikely that the news would ever report any such thing.

 

But since Cop A is out to kill the villain and has already committed some felonies at this point, any evidence he brings would be considered tainted, at least that's what a cop told me who I asked out of research for the story. So if the villain goes to the cop and gives him the bag of evidence, a lawyer can just tear it apart saying that since the cop already committed crimes and almost killed the villain, the evidence cannot be trusted, because of how he collected it.

The villain knows this, and is willing to risk being arrested and then likely getting away later, as alternative to being murdered out of revenge. Even if he is arrested, isn't giving yourself and being arrested better than being on the run for the rest of your life? I mean in real life a lot of criminals have turned themselves in because they hate being on the run, so I thought it might be more realistic.

Also, if the public found out that the police department knew that one of their own cops, was on the loose to murder someone, and has already committed felonies and escaped arrest, wouldn't it look bad for the police if they never informed the public of an outlaw cop on the loose, suspected of going to murder a suspect?

 

No. This doesn't work. It's much too elaborate and fragile.

 

Okay thanks. This is about the six climax I have tried to come up with for my story. I mean basically in the premise we have a killer on the loose, getting away with his crimes and the main cop wants to nab him. Is their any way, for the cop and the killer to arrive in the same place and time, for the climax? Every way I have come up with so far seems implausible or too elaborate, so is their any way they can arrive at the same place and time, that works or something?
When you say it's too elaborate and fragile, what do you mean by that exactly?

I mean just because a situation is fragile, how does that make it bad?

 

Because there's point after point after point where the scheme could--where it should--fail. When it never fails at any of those points, it's just too implausible.

 

Okay thanks. Can you specify at what points exactly, and how it would fail exactly at those points? This could help me figure out what direction go instead perhaps.

 

The way I see it, the villain should (wild suggestion) kill Cop A. Maybe you have something different planned, but as the villain, he shouldn't be trying to escape revenge. If Cop A thinks that the Villain killed Cop B, then why doesn't A get the rest of the police force after him? If that was so, then villain is screwed anyways. I don't know, maybe I'm forgetting some details.

 

Actually Cop A does get the rest of the force after him, so he not only has to prove to Cop A, that Cop Be was working with him and the time of the death and he did not cause it, but he also has to prove to the other cops after him as well.

So wouldn't it make sense for the villain to try to get the evidence to the most pissed off cop, who is the most likely the one to want to kill him out of all of them? Even if turning over the evidence can mean that the villain will be arrested, he is willing to risk it, since he would rather that happen, then Cop A killing him?

If the villain kills Cop A, killing a cop is especially hard to do though. Especially one who is on guard and currently after you with a thirst for blood. I mean as a civilian I bet I couldn't kill a cop who was after me out of revenge if I tried. So he figures that maybe he should try to get the cop to change his mind, and risk being arrested, rather than trying and possibly failing killing the cop, plus all the other cops that will likely follow.