The collected musings of Ryan Elder

While waiting, the cops are taken off the case for "wasting time". They're deployed to a crime in progress, and when they return to the station, they're told the criminals they were following before have struck again. Now they have to chase the criminals down before they can do whatever it is they plan to do with their victim.

 

Yeah but if they stop following the villains, then they will not know where the villains went with the victim, so it doesn't do any good, or how will they find the villains again really if they take their eyes off them?

In the other endings I have come with, the cops loose track of them and then find them again, but I was told that those lead to plot holes. By writing it so that they never loose sight of them the whole time, it eliminates any holes I had before. However, it may be possible to write it so that they find them again without a plot, that I have missed.

 

It could be that another, less experienced (and lower paid) officer was assigned to watch the criminals.
He alerts the main characters and gives chase while his colleagues catch up.
The younger officer is also captured and taken hostage, but the others are able to track his radio.

Just one possibility.

 

Vide the case of Julian Assange...police are no longer "blockading" him inside the embassy, as we've spent £12 million on it already.

 

How about letting the cops set up a trap to catch the villains? I don't know what kind of crimes your villains commit, but for example if they kidnap kids of rich people for ransom, the cops could set up a fake tv report about a rich mogul visiting town or something like that.

 

Okay thanks. But my other endings had ideas like that though, where they set a trap, but I was told that there were too far fetched, as it relies on the police having the ability to predict what the villain will do, and then the villain will conveniently do it, much to the luck of the police. It's too convenient that it would work, since the cops are not mindreaders I was told. That's why they said they like this ending because catching them in the act is more believable, then predicting what a person will do so correctly.

 

You obviously must not get out much. The FBI has people specialized in doing just that. If worse comes to worse the FBI will step in and help them out. Also the police will most likely put out a call to other police stations... well I guess it depends on where or when the story takes place.

 

I could write it that way, so the police find them just by putting out calls and looking around, if that's what you mean. But doesn't that come off as too easy and not challenging enough? I mean if the police just look around and spots one of them on the street, and decides to follow him around? It just seems kind of convenient, unless you mean something else.

 

Remember how I suggested that you just sit down and brainstorm dozens and dozens and dozens of ideas? Did you ever do that? Why not?

 

Yes I did do that. I wasn't able to come up with dozens and dozens but I was able to come up with a few. And this was the best one according to others.

 

Keep coming up with more. "A few" apparently isn't enough. Your big problem, as I see it, is getting focused on one idea that simply doesn't work. To me, that means that you need to work on producing more ideas.

 

Okay thanks. A lot of the ideas I come up with I quickly realize they will not work, so I abandon them and only concentrate on the few that might. Is that the wrong approach and I should concentrate on all ideas, even if I instincts tell me they are dead ends?

 

Come up with a lot of ideas, a LOT of ideas. I recommend at least one hundred for whichever plot element you're trying to figure out. Just write each one as one line, one after the other. Don't analyze them and try to fit them into the plot before you write them down, just write them down. As you write them, ideas will spark other ideas and other thoughts, and those will spark more ideas and more thoughts. That's never going to happen if you stop after just a few.

 

Okay thanks. I already have the first half of my outline, up to the midpoint climax. I don't know if I cam come up with a hundred resolutions that could come out of that first half, but maybe there is. I will write them down and see what happens. Thanks.

 

If an idea looks good but conflicts with part of what's already written, what's already written can be changed.

 

Yeah but I was told before by other writers to keep the first half as is, and I think I should do that. It's not until after the midpoint climax that the MC needs a change of plan so all I have to do is come up witha new plan at that point. I mean the MC needs a way to catch the villains, and even with the first half as it stands right now, it is still possible to catch the villain in the end, and I just need to come up with a new method, after the midpoint climax.

 

To be honest. Some stories aren't meant to have a compelling ending. Good example of this is No Country for Old Men. Main protagonist is abruptly killed off, and the antagonist gets away. Sure it doesn't have the most compelling ending, but I can still enjoy it for it's more realistic ending. Instead of having everyone live happily ever after the antagonist wins for once.

 

You don't have an ending. You can't judge the first half until you have an ending that the first half can support.

 

Okay thanks. I thought I would try to take the new approach I wrote about here:

https://www.writingforums.org/threa...efore-knowing-the-ending.142027/#post-1382266

The approach of writing half the story first, and then deciding on an ending after. That way I can build into an ending naturally. I think my problem is, is that every ending I come up with I do not know how to build into, once it's invented. Characters have to make illogical decisions or the plot becomes too complicated. So I thought I would try the new approach that was recommended, and come up with a premise first, where the character's decisions determine the ending instead. Should I still come up with the ending first and build into that?

 

It's possible that I imagined writing my suggestion that you come up with 100 brainstormed endings. Maybe it was all a dream.

Edited to add: There was also your thread where you asked about rewriting it from the beginning and having your character do logical, in-character things. That was a good idea. You seem to have abandoned it.

Absolutely every idea seems to be abandoned, and you return to the implausible plot that you have so far. And the implausible plot is implausible.

 

I came up with three new endings so far, and coming up with more. Isn't that the thread I posted it, where I said, in your quote? That's what I was planning in doing, have the character do logical things, unless you are talking about a different thread.

This one here.

https://www.writingforums.org/thread...efore-knowing-the-ending.142027/#post-1382266

However, if I take that approach, I cannot come up with hundred new endings, because I would have to come up with a hundred different beginnings instead, right?

Every ending I have come up with so far, there is one thing they all have in common. The MC catches the villains in all of them. It's pretty much the approach that is taken in each that is different. Should I stay away from endings where the MC catches them all on his own? Perhaps this is one my problems and that the MC needs help from other characters.

Perhaps the main villain can turn good and turn on his associates and I can come up with a hundred endings for that. But then would people think that the MC has too much help and it's not challenging enough, if I use that idea, for several different endings, to pick from?

I read once from an article on fiction writing, and it said that a lot of authors when it comes to thrillers, make the mistake of giving the hero too much help from other characters, rather than the hero being forced to do things on his own. However, do you think that help from characters who are close to the villains help sometimes, and it's worth it?

When it comes to characters making in character decision, how do you know that that character would do that, as oppose to someone else telling you that that character would not, and he would do something else entirely instead?

 

Let's look at this logically - do the police know who the villain plans to kidnap, or are they an opportunist, going after anyone who takes their fancy?

What are the motives - ransom, sex or something else?

Looks like the kidnapper is also a killer - does he kill all of his victims differently if there's nothing to link him to the previous crimes?

 

It's about a gang of serial killer types that have been going around committing murders for months and getting away with it, careful not leave any forensic evidence at the crime scenes, and not leaving any scents for the police dogs to pick up on.

Basically the killers were traumatized by bullies while in school growing up, and their targets are those who are bullies to general people in their lives. They also are very lonely in their personal lives, causing a lot of hate, and go after a lot of members of the opposite sex, they feel deserve it.

So those are the targets. For the police to predict the next target, a lot of people are fit that profile, so the range is quite broad, if that makes sense. I can go with the police predicting the next victim per say, but not sure how they would do it since almost all of the members of the gang are unknown. The police know that the crimes are link because the villains have been sending message to the media and public, stating why they are doing what they are doing, as a way to put fear into society and punish them, or at least that is what they hope to gain of course.

However, even if the police predict the next victim, the police would still have to arrest the gang, before the gang can kill the victim, and thus, they are still only charged with an attempt, of a felony, and therefore still do not do near as much jail time for the ending, unless they can somehow link the evidence of the new attempted crime to the previous ones.

 

As much as criminals try to hide their tracks, this is a gang. They'll have different personalities. One of the gang members could have a habit of using the same weapon each time - power tools, knives and blunt objects all leave different, distinctive markings on bodies.

Assuming this gang member is involved in some or most of the murders, he'll leave his tell-tale marks. Even guns aren't immune - each gun, even those of the same model, leaves distinctive markings on every bullet they fire. It's possible to take two bullets from two bodies and say if they came from the same gun or not.

Also, as good as police are supposed to be, everybody has a past. It could be that one of the officers used to be a bully. The gang could target her while she appears to be off duty, when really she's undercover on a different assignment. Given the sheer number of murders, this is bound to happen eventually, rather than being a happy coincidence.

Now let's say our police officer is wearing a "wire" for the assignment she was on - she might try to give her supporting officers clues as to what's going on and where she's been taken without alerting the gang right away.

If they find her before the gang kills her, and a gang member has the gun, distinctive knife or other weapons used in earlier murders, they can link them to the gang.

This is one scenario which would give you the race against time you need for a climactic ending.

 

Yep that could work, if the gang is not smart enough to search her for a wire though. It works, and this ending was recommended to me by others as well, but it just feels kind of cliche. There are so many thrillers where an undercover cop will go in and create a scenario for the crooks to incriminate themselves in committing a crime or something like that.

I wanted the villains to be brought down by their own theme originally, used against them. By theme I mean the villains own weakness, or his own goal used against him. Usually in stories, when the villains downfall is of the result of his own weakness, I just find it more powerful then bringing him down by evidence only, if that makes sense.

But I was told by other writers, that it's not possible for the police to bring down a villain by his theme, and that evidence is the best way. But in that case, I feel it makes for a less dramatic climax.

Plus I thought it would be more of a challenge for the MC, if he had think of a way to get the gang to incriminate himself, without the gang going to commit a crime in the first place. Like if they were going to kidnap and kill someone anyway, it feels like the gang is just giving a freebee to the cops for the finally. But if the gang was not going to commit another crime anytime soon, that the police were aware of at all, then the police would have to create one for them and make them commit, it to catch them, which is much more of a challenge then the gang throwing them a bone, if that makes sense.

What do you think?