Okay, i have a scenario i want to be part of something i am writing and here it is: There was a village or town or whatever in some third world place, Burma is what came to mind, that was wiped out. Meaning all of the people in the village were killed. They were killed as part of a testing program for some new army field chemical weapon. The type of weapon does not really matter, just that the village was basically used as a testing ground for this chemical. A special forces unit was sent in later to do clean up and take care of anyone or anything that might have survived. There is, of course, a sole survivor -a woman. The soldier who finds her can't kill her as he has an attack of conscience. So he ends up sneaking her out of the country and keeping her alive and under the radar in the States. Now, she has disappeared, vanished. She is kidnapped by a radical terrorist group who found out who she is and intends to use her to indict the United States as a terrorist country. They intend to do this on the internet and then when she is done they intend to kill her for being na traitor and not speaking out immediately. Of course, the Government has happened to find out about her and they want her dead. So the person looking to find her is racing against the clock and the government who is trying to kill her. It is tricky because by rescuing her, he keeps the secret but h will also need to find a way to keep her alive.
How does this sound?
Plausible scenario?
Re: Plausible scenario?
The "attack of conscience" might make me roll my eyes a bit, but it's enough of a trope that it would probably only cause a minor hiccup in my suspension of disbelief. All in all sounds like a solid standard modern thriller - notes of John Case perhaps...
The only implausible thing to me is the terrorist's motives for wanting to kill her...."Here, we have evidence she was being used as part of a US chemical weapons plot. But now we must kill her for treason!" - doesn't really wash with me, I'm afraid. I guess if you can sell it well in context with everything that's going on, then fine. But as a raw concept it sticks a bit. Isn't the US government wanting her "silenced" enough?
The only implausible thing to me is the terrorist's motives for wanting to kill her...."Here, we have evidence she was being used as part of a US chemical weapons plot. But now we must kill her for treason!" - doesn't really wash with me, I'm afraid. I guess if you can sell it well in context with everything that's going on, then fine. But as a raw concept it sticks a bit. Isn't the US government wanting her "silenced" enough?
Re: Plausible scenario?
The treason part is easily removed from the scenario, leaving me with her being kidnapped to use her to prove what the United States is doing. The attack of conscience thing i am not sure of any other way to have him remove her from te situation. Maybe she has a kid and that is what does it? But it seems the part about her being kidnapped to use her as evidence against the United States works well enough. The guy searching for her has to battle and avoid the agents now out to find her and silence her.
Re: Plausible scenario?
Could be a questioner himself who has medical contacts: He makes a habit of smuggling 1 survivor from one of these ops to a friend who runs his own research to ascertain the bredth of the consequences to appease his conscience. Could be less heroic than that - sells the medical information (or just the survivor) to Russia or China for profit. That way he has a reason to be on these missions and a reason to find/save the survivor (in other words make her survival not a special thing)
Re: Plausible scenario?
i dont want the smuggling soldier to be a "bad" guy. I want him to be a good and decent soldier who smuggles the survivor out to keep her safe and alive. So maybe your first scenario works and during the cause of the research and testing her whereabouts had become know to both the government and the people who eventually kidnap her.
Re: Plausible scenario?
I'm taking off for a long day away from the boards, but will respond with more detail later, In the meantime, the premise of an open though secret government weapons test on a foreign and sovereign nation's citizens stretches my credibility. Consider an alternative which has plausible deniability. For example, not so long ago, an ally provided military advice to one of two nations engaged in war at the prompting of the ally. Chemical weapons were deployed, thus testing them out in real-world, live-fire scenarios and gauging international opinion. There was plausible deniability. Since then, the combatant countries have respectively; one, had the government toppled; and two, accelerated as a global enemy state.
From rethinking the inciting premise, I think other areas of concern might fall into line. Causation is by steps accelerated, as are tension and antagonism, to a climactic peak. Begin at the beginning and see if there's a narrower and more credible way to unravel the drama.
From rethinking the inciting premise, I think other areas of concern might fall into line. Causation is by steps accelerated, as are tension and antagonism, to a climactic peak. Begin at the beginning and see if there's a narrower and more credible way to unravel the drama.
Spread the love of written word.
Re: Plausible scenario?
This is very out of my genre, so I'm kinda shooting from the hip here.
In regards to why he smuggles her out, you could always have the soldier to be either superstitious or religious:
It's karma, if I kill her then bad things will happen to me. I must save her life.
It's fate that she survived the first time, if I kill her then I'm messing with fate. I must save her life.
It's the will of God that kept her alive, if I kill her then I'm imposing my will over God's. I must save her life.
This could also be a rich ground for deepening the character and giving the story some kind of resonance with people. Also, it would provide ample reasonings for this soldier to stay in the picture and continually trying to save this woman. If he feels some connection with her, believes that the universe has brought them together, or that he'd been chosen by God to protect her, then he won't easily be able to walk away from the situation.
In regards to why he smuggles her out, you could always have the soldier to be either superstitious or religious:
It's karma, if I kill her then bad things will happen to me. I must save her life.
It's fate that she survived the first time, if I kill her then I'm messing with fate. I must save her life.
It's the will of God that kept her alive, if I kill her then I'm imposing my will over God's. I must save her life.
This could also be a rich ground for deepening the character and giving the story some kind of resonance with people. Also, it would provide ample reasonings for this soldier to stay in the picture and continually trying to save this woman. If he feels some connection with her, believes that the universe has brought them together, or that he'd been chosen by God to protect her, then he won't easily be able to walk away from the situation.
Brenda :)
Inspiration isn't about the muse. Inspiration is working until something clicks. ~Brandon Sanderson
Inspiration isn't about the muse. Inspiration is working until something clicks. ~Brandon Sanderson
Re: Plausible scenario?
I think causation is on on point here. A chemical weapons test is backstory that leads to the inciting or first cause. From there, a cleanup team is sent in. A sole survivor is discovered. That's a major discovery and a major reversal. It's a major dramatic pivot that compels the protagonist to act. Call it the inciting crisis. It compels the protagonist to realize a great want. What does the protagonist most want is one of several main questions to answer about a main dramatic complication and what appeals to readers' empathy and curiosity such that it drives tension and thus plot.
The protagonist nobly and heroically most wants to rescue the survivor, for example. Maybe that needs more development. What else is going on that she matters? Does she become a love interest? Is she a complication at the center of a larger scale deployment of the chemical weapons? Perhaps she's immune and that's why she's wanted by nemesis forces.
Second question, what's the protagonist going to do about the want? Surreptitiously carry away to sanctuary the survivor.
Third question, what keeps the protagonist from achieving the want. Nemesis forces discover the survivor's existence and cause another major dramatic pivot, discovery and reversal. She's taken to one of the nemeses' retreats. They want to use her for propoganda purposes. Another nemesis force wants her dead so she can't be used for propoganda purposes.
That second dramatic pivot seems to me a tragic crisis, which conventionally falls at the beginning of a falling action act or as the fourth major dramtic pivot where all seems lost. Before that there should be a climax crisis that resolves at first blush the dramatic complication.
A rising action act conventionally ends with a realization crisis or second major dramatic pivot. The protagonist realizes sufficient discoveries and reversals to succeed in achieving the want, again, to all appearances. Then comes the tragic crisis and falling action, and final crisis, and denuement.
A catasrophe crisis is for tragedy endings where all is lost, or final crisis that is another major discovery and reversal. Or if a comedy ending, an eucatastrophe crisis where all is won in the end, still as a consequence of a major discovery and reversal. Though for either a tragedy or a comedy ending there is no new information discovered. Something prepositioned in the first half is seen in a new light, for example.
Sample outline sketch;
Exposition act: opening act, protagonist sent to clean up the weapons test fallout.
First crisis: inciting crisis. discovery of the sole survivor.
Three minor pivots that complicate the protagonist's efforts, though adding up discoveries which will come into play for later major crises.
Second crisis: realization crisis, from what's given I'd guess that's the protagonist realizing there are nemesis forces who have their own agendas for the survivor.
Third crisis: climax crisis, the survivor is about to be caught, though, from earlier realizations, the protagonist finds a way to deliver the survivor to sanctuary.
Fourth crisis: tragic crisis, one of the nemesis forces captures the survivor anyway.
Three minor pivots that confirm the protagonist's failure but hold out hope for a reversal.
Fifth crisis: final crisis or eucatastrophe, the protagnist rescues the survivor from the nemesis forces.
Denoument act, the final outcome of the main dramatic complication. I'd guess that's the protagonist defusing the nemesis forces and delivering the survivor to an unequivcal, irrevocable sanctuary.
If this is an entire subplot of a larger work, adjust accordingly to mesh with the larger work. I think it's a complete drama in itself, though.
The protagonist nobly and heroically most wants to rescue the survivor, for example. Maybe that needs more development. What else is going on that she matters? Does she become a love interest? Is she a complication at the center of a larger scale deployment of the chemical weapons? Perhaps she's immune and that's why she's wanted by nemesis forces.
Second question, what's the protagonist going to do about the want? Surreptitiously carry away to sanctuary the survivor.
Third question, what keeps the protagonist from achieving the want. Nemesis forces discover the survivor's existence and cause another major dramatic pivot, discovery and reversal. She's taken to one of the nemeses' retreats. They want to use her for propoganda purposes. Another nemesis force wants her dead so she can't be used for propoganda purposes.
That second dramatic pivot seems to me a tragic crisis, which conventionally falls at the beginning of a falling action act or as the fourth major dramtic pivot where all seems lost. Before that there should be a climax crisis that resolves at first blush the dramatic complication.
A rising action act conventionally ends with a realization crisis or second major dramatic pivot. The protagonist realizes sufficient discoveries and reversals to succeed in achieving the want, again, to all appearances. Then comes the tragic crisis and falling action, and final crisis, and denuement.
A catasrophe crisis is for tragedy endings where all is lost, or final crisis that is another major discovery and reversal. Or if a comedy ending, an eucatastrophe crisis where all is won in the end, still as a consequence of a major discovery and reversal. Though for either a tragedy or a comedy ending there is no new information discovered. Something prepositioned in the first half is seen in a new light, for example.
Sample outline sketch;
Exposition act: opening act, protagonist sent to clean up the weapons test fallout.
First crisis: inciting crisis. discovery of the sole survivor.
Three minor pivots that complicate the protagonist's efforts, though adding up discoveries which will come into play for later major crises.
Second crisis: realization crisis, from what's given I'd guess that's the protagonist realizing there are nemesis forces who have their own agendas for the survivor.
Third crisis: climax crisis, the survivor is about to be caught, though, from earlier realizations, the protagonist finds a way to deliver the survivor to sanctuary.
Fourth crisis: tragic crisis, one of the nemesis forces captures the survivor anyway.
Three minor pivots that confirm the protagonist's failure but hold out hope for a reversal.
Fifth crisis: final crisis or eucatastrophe, the protagnist rescues the survivor from the nemesis forces.
Denoument act, the final outcome of the main dramatic complication. I'd guess that's the protagonist defusing the nemesis forces and delivering the survivor to an unequivcal, irrevocable sanctuary.
If this is an entire subplot of a larger work, adjust accordingly to mesh with the larger work. I think it's a complete drama in itself, though.
Spread the love of written word.
Re: Plausible scenario?
Having an "attack of conscience" wouldn't work for me when everyone else was killed in cold blood. A more plausible reason (for me) would be that the woman has information or skills that the soldier needs, so killing her is not an option. Or maybe he is a rebel against this attack and needs her as proof of what's going on.
Re: Plausible scenario?
The earlier actions are past events -the chemical tests have already been done, the survivor had been discovered, and the soldier has given her sanctuary in the United States.
In the present -opposing nemesis forces have discovered the identity of the survivor. 1 opposition force wishes to use her as propaganda. A 2nd forces wishes her dead so she can not be used as such. Group 1 has successfully abducted survivor, prompting my soldier to act to find her. Here is where i run into a bit of my problem. I want the story to have the soldier as more of a secondary character. I want to have him enlist the aid of a friend who specializes in finding missing persons. I want to have this friend unravel the mystery of exactly who this person is and then it can create a conflict between the soldier and friend. Or, if i want to have the character who specializes in finding people as the main focus is it best to remove the friend/soldier from the equation and have him come upon the case another way? Is there a way to pull it off having the soldier contact his friend and put him on the case? I am shooting to have this as a story where the character has to unravel the mystery of exactly who this woman is and why she is being abducted. If i keep the soldier and put him on the case then they mystery goes because he will already know who she is. Suggestions?
In the present -opposing nemesis forces have discovered the identity of the survivor. 1 opposition force wishes to use her as propaganda. A 2nd forces wishes her dead so she can not be used as such. Group 1 has successfully abducted survivor, prompting my soldier to act to find her. Here is where i run into a bit of my problem. I want the story to have the soldier as more of a secondary character. I want to have him enlist the aid of a friend who specializes in finding missing persons. I want to have this friend unravel the mystery of exactly who this person is and then it can create a conflict between the soldier and friend. Or, if i want to have the character who specializes in finding people as the main focus is it best to remove the friend/soldier from the equation and have him come upon the case another way? Is there a way to pull it off having the soldier contact his friend and put him on the case? I am shooting to have this as a story where the character has to unravel the mystery of exactly who this woman is and why she is being abducted. If i keep the soldier and put him on the case then they mystery goes because he will already know who she is. Suggestions?
Re: Plausible scenario?
Consider approaching the questions from a plot purpose direction. This is a dividing-line point between a writer's creative vision and a reader's creative vision. It is one of the main areas that separate advanced writers from intermediates: write for the readers: the audience and their capacity to follow the drama.
In what way does a second party seeking anwers to the survivor's circumstances make the plot more dramatic than one party? One, the second party is the main narrative's central character. Two, the main dramatic complication revolves around the second party, who seems to me at the current state of the creative vision the protagonist, and the first party is a supporting or auxiliiary character primed for a minor contributing role. Three, the protagonist comes on the scene unaware of the survivor's circumstances, so readers should as well. That way the protagonist makes the discoveries and readers experience them through the protagonist, begininng with learning the circumstances of the closely-related protagonist's wants, then the survivor's situation: taken by a nemesis for nefarious purposes, a competing nemesis with different nefarious agendas is also on the hunt, the survivor survived a clandestine chemical weapons attack, etc.
As the protagonist uncovers the circumstances, actions can be taken to act upon the discoveries and oppositions arise to impede progress in achieving the goal. Begin with introducing the protagonist's greatest want or desire or need or goal. What does the protagonist most want at the beginning of the drama? What is his, or hers, want that includes all the other players and objects?
Seems to me the story shape, so to speak, is an object quest in one regard: rescuing the survivor. What overlying objective is the protagonist's goal? Knowing that will shape the narrative.
In what way does a second party seeking anwers to the survivor's circumstances make the plot more dramatic than one party? One, the second party is the main narrative's central character. Two, the main dramatic complication revolves around the second party, who seems to me at the current state of the creative vision the protagonist, and the first party is a supporting or auxiliiary character primed for a minor contributing role. Three, the protagonist comes on the scene unaware of the survivor's circumstances, so readers should as well. That way the protagonist makes the discoveries and readers experience them through the protagonist, begininng with learning the circumstances of the closely-related protagonist's wants, then the survivor's situation: taken by a nemesis for nefarious purposes, a competing nemesis with different nefarious agendas is also on the hunt, the survivor survived a clandestine chemical weapons attack, etc.
As the protagonist uncovers the circumstances, actions can be taken to act upon the discoveries and oppositions arise to impede progress in achieving the goal. Begin with introducing the protagonist's greatest want or desire or need or goal. What does the protagonist most want at the beginning of the drama? What is his, or hers, want that includes all the other players and objects?
Seems to me the story shape, so to speak, is an object quest in one regard: rescuing the survivor. What overlying objective is the protagonist's goal? Knowing that will shape the narrative.
Spread the love of written word.
Re: Plausible scenario?
The question i am having is creating a logical bridge from the soldier to the protagonist. The protagonist is the character who finds missing people. If the soldier who rescued the survivor and protagonist are friends how do you justify having the soldier pass the case off to the protagonist? The best i could come up with was the soldier worrying nthat if he surfaces to find the woman he will identify himself as the person who took her to sanctuary in the states. I just wonder if that holds up logically. The soldier will give little info and just ask his friend to find her and bring her back to safety. This way, as the protagonist begins to unravel the mystery ofexactly who the woman is he has reason to go back and question the soldier as to exactly what is going on. Does this make sense? Does it hold up story wise? Feels to me like it does but i am not sure.
Re: Plausible scenario?
The scenario seems plausible to me. Line it out and see if the timeline is linear and causal-logical, meaning A causes B; and A and B cause C; and A. B, and C cause D; and so on.
Bridging the protagonist and soldier connection is a matter of treading choices between too pat and plausible enough that fits the theme or idea of the piece. Past acquaintances, family relation, chance strangers, for hire, force majeur coercion (Maybe the soldier holds a get out of jail card or go directly to jail don't pass go card from the protagonist), or a common cause.
Maybe the soldier hires the protagonist from a mercenary employment agency. I'm inclined toward that one for its dramatic pontential. Maybe he's a private investigator who used to be special forces but hated the life and lost his edge. That one has dramatic potential too. An old millitary friend might be a little too pat, Same with family. Maybe all of the above. Also consider they might know each other but hadn't seen eye-to-eye; maybe they are each other's private enemies.
Common cause is a shared outcome, mutual, reciprocal, or coordinated or contentious with plenty of opportunities for dramatic clashes. Knowing the dramatic complication should give a best choice. Regardless, the protagonist probably must have a degree of facility with military and espionage tactics and strategies.
Bridging the protagonist and soldier connection is a matter of treading choices between too pat and plausible enough that fits the theme or idea of the piece. Past acquaintances, family relation, chance strangers, for hire, force majeur coercion (Maybe the soldier holds a get out of jail card or go directly to jail don't pass go card from the protagonist), or a common cause.
Maybe the soldier hires the protagonist from a mercenary employment agency. I'm inclined toward that one for its dramatic pontential. Maybe he's a private investigator who used to be special forces but hated the life and lost his edge. That one has dramatic potential too. An old millitary friend might be a little too pat, Same with family. Maybe all of the above. Also consider they might know each other but hadn't seen eye-to-eye; maybe they are each other's private enemies.
Common cause is a shared outcome, mutual, reciprocal, or coordinated or contentious with plenty of opportunities for dramatic clashes. Knowing the dramatic complication should give a best choice. Regardless, the protagonist probably must have a degree of facility with military and espionage tactics and strategies.
Spread the love of written word.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 26 guests