The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Well the whole point is to make an ending that works and make sense. Do what feels more natural. Just don't refrain from killing the guy so that he can bail out your MC.

 

Okay then. I think killing the guy would create more drama. But doing so puts the MC in a situation that as far as I can tell is un-bailable, for the MC to do so himself. So in such a case, is it better for someone else to bail the MC out?

Mainly in my story the MC cannot legally get warrant to obtain certain evidence, he would need to put the villains away. I did research and there is no way a judge would grant such a warrant in these circumstances.

But if this other supporting character lives and brings in the evidence himself voluntarily, it gets around the lack of warrant technicality.

But it also means that the MC does not have to do as much himself, since a more minor supporting character saves the day primarily.

 

For my screenplay, basically it's a thriller and one of the main characters, who the reader or audience, is thought to have been innocent the entire time, all of a sudden pulls out a gun, takes the protagonist hostage, and starts a sinister plan in the works.

However, the audience has no idea that she is bad up to this point, and they are going to be wondering WTF is going on, why is doing this all of a sudden?

So I am wondering how I can explain it to the audience without it coming off as a corny James Bond way. By that I mean, where the villain will hold Bond hostage and explain the entire plan to him, like Red Grant did in From Russia with Love, as well as others.

I could also not have the villain explain anything at all, and just show flashbacks. But there may be two disadvantages to doing this.

1. The main character doesn't know the reason, only the audience... If the MC hypothesizes as to why she was bad the whole time, it will just be a theory, and he will not be totally sure, if that's okay.

2. The flashbacks sort of break away from the suspense, cause the rest of the story has to be put on hold in favor of a visual recap, if that's okay. Before in the script, I described a hand with a glove on, breaking a window and unlocking the door to a house, while sneaking in. So if I show the flashback, the audience will then see that that hand, is that of the newly revealed villain, which they did not know. But could doing it that way come off as cheesy?

What do you think? The hostage taker has a reason to keep the MC alive as part of her plan to set him up and all, but I don't know if she has a reason to bother to explain WHY to him, even if out of ego. So therefore, maybe it doesn't count as the talking killer cliche if the villain does not want to kill the MC but just use him as a hostage for the time being?

Or I can do the flashback recap method. What do you think?

 

I've seen your other posts on this initiation scenario, and I don't think your idea will work. If the action isn't really a crime (murder), it won't be useful for blackmail or control purposes over a real criminal. If it appears to be a crime, a (not-crooked) cop won't do it, which will either reveal him as a cop, or show that he doesn't have what it takes to join the gang. It's possible that an undercover cop might be allowed to take part in some lesser crimes, like dealing drugs, but there's just no way he's going to shoot someone in the head to gain their trust.

 

Okay thanks.

When I asked a real cop about this in my research, he said that even if the murder is fake, the corrupt cop still being on video, in conspiracy with a gang would be enough to discredit the cop as a witness.

If he turns on the gang, no court is going to believe him, if a video shows him in conspiracy, and his reputation as a cop will be ruined, and therefore not believable.

So would it make sense that way, according to what I was told?

 

For my story, a character fakes his death as part of his plan, and I can either let the reader in on it right away, or wait till the climax where he will show up alive by surprise, not just to the other characters but to the reader as well.

However, in order to hide the false death so it can be a surprise, I would have to skip ahead in the story. I would have to skip from the character's last scene, before he plans his false death, and skip to where he is already dead and it's in the news, for the other characters to hear about, with scorched body found from the morgue or something like that.

But the reader will find this is odd, that this character's death was never shown, especially since he is a supporting character and not that minor at all.

So in order to hide the twist without the reader being jarred with an odd skip ahead, is there anything I can do? Or should I not hide it, if I cannot avoid an odd skip ahead, do you think?

 

I think, and don't take this the wrong way, but it's your story. if you get 10 answers on here 5 going one way and 5 going another does it help you. The only person who knows your story is you mate. No one here knows the pace and tone of your book so it's down to you to see what fits sorry to be blunt.

 

There really isn't an answer to this. What is the best for the reader--the best way to relay the story to the reader? Will the reader feel cheated or lied to?

My guess is that a lot of the question as to the viability of keeping the 'surprise' for the reader until the end/climax depends on POV and consistency.

Another question to consider is, what's the purpose for choosing the unforeseeable surprise? And if it is used, maybe there should be hints that it's going to happen.

That's my two cents (sort of vague, I know) but really only the author knows enough details of the storyline to be able to fully answer the question.

 

Well I think the purpose is, if any, is that readers like surprises. It seems that the reason who most writers to choose to hide a lot of what actually happens, and hides characters' true plans and motives, and does not spring it out till the plan is completed in order for it to be a bigger surprise. That is at least why most writers seem to do it, isn't it?

 

There need to be little clues planted earlier on in the story. It's okay if they're very subtle (of course you don't want to be obvious), but at the moment where the villain is revealed, the detective/readers need to have the dots explained- they can look back and be like "oh, that's how those things tied together."

If that isn't there, and if the reveal is totally out of left field, you have a Deux Ex Machina, which can cheapen a story just as badly as saying "it was all just a dream." Do some Google research on Deux Ex Machina and other alternatives.

And you're right, that the villian would NOT just explain the whole plan to the protag. This would probably be counter-productive and stupid from the villain's perspective, because he'd be putting knowledge and power into the protag's hands. It would be better if the protag finds out the reasons another way. I.e. maybe he hears/witnesses something he wasn't supposed to, finds some correspondence that gives it away, or otherwise does the work to discover the information on his own.

 

I guess what concerns me is the way you're saying 'hide' from the reader.

It's the difference between a reader looking back and thinking:
I didn't expect that, but should've saw it coming
vs.
What the heck? That was cheap. (or something along those lines)

If it comes across as part of the storyline and not a 'gimmick,' it'll definitely work. But if the writer has to twist the story, really maneuver to keep the slight of hand going--like skipping parts of the story that otherwise wouldn't normally be.

I guess I see it like a murder mystery. If there are clues along the way...maybe not major ones, but it all makes sense upon being revealed, that's one thing. But if it's simply that the author ignored or omitted content and clues up until the end, to surprise the reader with the actual guilty party...that doesn't make sense so much.

If the return from apparent death is just a surprise, vs. something that is integral to the plot...that makes a difference too, I think. Readers do like to be entertained, and surprise can be part of that. But readers don't like the feeling that they were cheated, or have things come out of left field at them for no reason other than to change up the story.

Or that is how I see it.

 

Okay thanks. Well in my story by the time the villain explains her plan to him, it's too late for him to do anything about it. So would she explain it out of ego, if it's too late for him?

Also I am not sure how to plant clues along the way. Earlier in the story, a thug breaks into her house looking for her. I wrote it so that some commotion is heard by other characters, nearby and that hands with gloves on breaks into the door and ransack the place, not revealing who the person wearing the gloves is.

Then later on in the story, she pulls a gun and starts taking hostages, in a different situation. How is the reader suppose to know that she staged her own break in, without some sort of recap? Will they figure out that the hands with gloves on, that broke into the house and ransacked it were hers?

 

Okay thanks. Well I don't think this comes out of left field since the character has motive to do it. But if the character has motive to do it, will it still make sense to the reader if I have to omit content to keep the surprise, even with motive?

 

I don't think bringing in another character to save the day would help, until he/she was previously involved heavily with the process or you have hinted somewhere earlier in your story that this particular character has a big role to play in it.

Try and find a way with your MC. There must be something, as someone amazing once said that "There's always another secret". Find it. May be teach your MC a skill through the story that will help here or something. It will help in finding the solution to get your MC out of the corner and also help in developing him/her.

 

Try coming up with about a dozen different endings for the book. This forces you to go through the cliche ones and dig into more original territory. Write the one that feels right.

 

Well perhaps the premise to my story is flawed, and that's why the MC cannot get out of a jam. Basically it's one of those thrillers were a detective is compelled to investigate a series of crimes on his own, cause the department let the villains go. You know that kind of premise...

But since the detective is acting on his own, without legal authorization, any evidence he comes up with, would be inadmissible in charging the real villains, after he discovers who they are. He cannot search for any evidence from any place without violating fourth amendment laws. And he cannot legally record any conversations that the villains may be having to use as evidence, or to legally use as clues at all. Basically the fourth amendment is the corner he has painted himself into.

Where as if another character who is not a state agent comes forth with evidence and helps the MC, he would be helping him out of that corner. No matter how great of skill the MC learns there is no beating the fourth amendment it seems in my research.

So is it okay for another character to come in, even if it means that character will be doing a lot of the work, and the reader might not have that feeling of the lone cop, having to do things on his own, since he is getting help conveniently?

 

That is impossible for me to say, or probably anyone else who hasn't read the script or story in its entirety.

 

You could mention a news story of his death without making it into a huge scene of its own.

For example, maybe your protagonists is somewhere where there's a TV (a sports bar, waiting room, someone's house) and is discussing something or doing something else, and catches flashes of the news of the death. Then thinks "huh, weird, I met that guy" and moves on.

 

The "villain explaining herself at the end" thing does seem a little corny. But, to help avoid that feeling, you should set up your villain as the type of person who would be in-character to do that. Maybe there are smaller things where after they've ripped someone off, they brag about it to boost their ego. This way, when they do it at the end, it's fitting and not "cheesy comic book villain move."

 

Yes, it's believable that he wouldn't turn on them if the incentive is that, if he does, he would be "outed" as being part of the conspiracy and would have his reputation ruined.

 

Okay then. Even though he doesn't actually kill anyone in the video, they still have him on video going through the blood in, thinking he is going to kill someone, surrounded by men in masks and gloves, with a tied up hostage.

So he will still be discredited as a witness if outed. Do you think all the videos of the blood ins would be kept in the same place for the police to find though?

 

They can arrange a whole fake murder scene (movie-style) using blank ammunition and red paint filled cartridge under the fake victim's clothes. On video it would seem like the real deal, but if the police rush in and arrest everyone they find that no crime was performed (only the undercover cop will be in trouble IF he's pulled the trigger).

In reality a gang won't care too much that they kill someone just to prove that a new recruit is not a cop. In most cases a video about someone shooting another person does not worth too much without the dead body. They just kill someone as they do during their "normal business" and make sure that the body's location is added to the evidence file of that gang member.

+ If the supposed victim shows up in the city several times after she was supposed to be buried in the forest the whole video tape thing becomes useless. In addition to that the new recruit needs only one person to cooperate with if he wants to turn against the gang : the victim. In fact it is enough to leave the victim alive and arrange that the cops are aware that she lives (having a video showing that you kill X and in the other hand having X arrested is weird but it is sure that you won't go to jail).

Possible locations for the collateral :
- bank safe(s) (some banks allow you to determine in advance what would happen with the content of the safe if you die)
- attorney
- an old friend
- in a modern setting : a web server

I won't make the gang leader put the evidence to many places. One place or two places are easy to remember and manage. He can also keep all files in one place but tell the others that these are kept in different places, or do not tell them how many places are there. Uncertainty is an effective weapon.

 

Yep, they could do that whole paint filled cartridge thing. As long as the new recruit bought it cause those paint cartridges sometimes splat weird and do not look right, from what I gather. But the new recruit probably could by it. He is not an undercover cop though. Just a crooked cop being recruited. The gang just does the fake blood in, in case he is one and they do not want an undercover cop relying on a real hostage to back up his testimony later, should something happen.

What if the fake victim had a hood over her head, while she was being held hostage? That way, her face will not be as recognizable on the video, and she can still live in the city, if that works?

As for the victim cooperating with the new recruit, the victim is working with the gang and is only posing as a hostage for the blood in. So the victim will be on the gang's side and not that of the new recruit.

Since I am writing a screenplay, and wanting to budget it, to locations I have available, what if the gang leader kept the videos in a self storage facility unit? Would that be plausible, or no? Basically I also want it to be a place the police can find them more easily and a bank or a lawyer would make that a lot more difficult probably as well.

But would it make less sense to hide it in something like a self storage unit?

 

Could your not dead character be secretly helping your MC? Maybe there are little blurbs about your MC missing his friend, or floundering without his guidance. Yet as they run down the alley, they see a car stopped at the end, engine running, driver door wide open, not a person to be seen. So they hop in and speed away, narrowly escaping the 5 gunmen chasing them. Perhaps MC receives a text from a blocked number telling him how interesting the bus station will be at 4 pm. And MC arrives in time to see the two great enemies exchanging a vital clue. Or some such.

Then, when you're ready to reveal him, Mr. Not Dead could be found to be the ghost behind the MC's bits of luck.

Often it's much easier to move around the world when you're dead to it. But this way he's there without being there. Maybe that will help.

Either way, good luck!

 

Depends on how your story goes I recall an old 90s movie called Deceived in which this played a big part. Though some idiot cutting the trailer showed John Heard walking away from the car crash so the 'surprise' was nil. His wife was informed of his death and the story took over from her pov. And she didn't learn about him still being alive until clues popped up, leading to the final showdown.
Is there anyway you can cut to another character?