Question about writing a thriller

[Gregg Bell]

I've got an idea for writing a thriller. The idea would be for the protagonist to stop the antagonist from doing a dastardly deed (with huge implications for humanity). So yeah, my protagonist tries to stop the antagonist, but I'm kind of stuck for how to do it. I mean, does my protagonist just keep coming up with ways to thwart the antagonist's plan? And how is my protagonist going to do that sort of thing with a sense of logical progression to it?

Thanks.

[crich70]

I think it depends on what sort of dastardly deed the antagonist is trying to do. And whether or not it's straightforward or a convoluted path that the pursuit takes place on.

[gmw]

I am wondering if your idea is waiting for another before it is ready. Various writers speak of not being able to create a story until two or more ideas intersect - and it is at that intersection that the story takes off. You have your dastardly deed, but to make the story interesting you may need one or other (or both) of your protagonists to have some particular peculiarity, or be experiencing some difficulty, or maybe that it's some external situation (event or coincidence of events) that bring the spark that a story needs.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by gmw

I am wondering if your idea is waiting for another before it is ready. Various writers speak of not being able to create a story until two or more ideas intersect - and it is at that intersection that the story takes off. You have your dastardly deed, but to make the story interesting you may need one or other (or both) of your protagonists to have some particular peculiarity, or be experiencing some difficulty, or maybe that it's some external situation (event or coincidence of events) that bring the spark that a story needs.

Good point. You not only need the protagonist to be involved, but to have a good reason for them to become involved. For them to just become involved for no reason and be just the right person to stop the antagonist's evil plans sounds artificial to me. Miss Marple is a good example. She isn't just an older woman who has seen a lot and happens to have the solution to the murder in that lifetime of experience. She is either going somewhere and encounters the situation or is a guest of the cousin of her best girlhood friend or some other person so that she has a reason for being there that makes sense.

[VydorScope]

So start with the bad guy kills good guy, err wait.. that makes is a short story...never mind.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I've got an idea for writing a thriller. The idea would be for the protagonist to stop the antagonist from doing a dastardly deed (with huge implications for humanity). So yeah, my protagonist tries to stop the antagonist, but I'm kind of stuck for how to do it. I mean, does my protagonist just keep coming up with ways to thwart the antagonist's plan? And how is my protagonist going to do that sort of thing with a sense of logical progression to it?

Thanks.

Gregg:

Try Jodie Renner's book, "How to Write a Killer Thriller." It's affordable and it should be very helpful to you.

Hitch

[Nancy Fulda]

In my opinion, the best thrillers involve a spiraling series of actions and reactions which put the protagonist (and the world) in increasingly perilous situations until -- BAM! -- the whole mess finally gets resolved.

The scenario "Plan A fails, Plan B fails, Plan C fails, and then Plan D succeeds" is far less intriguing to me than "Plan A has an unintended side-effect, necessitating Plan B, which results in changed behavior from the antagonist. Plan C thwarts the antagonist's latest nefarious scheme, but with complications that force the hero to improvise Plan D."

It's the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" trope. Thrillers involve steadily rising tension and increasingly higher stakes, often with a firm time limit on how long the hero has to get the world straightened out.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think it depends on what sort of dastardly deed the antagonist is trying to do. And whether or not it's straightforward or a convoluted path that the pursuit takes place on.

Thanks crich. Yeah, I'm still in the rudimentary stages of figuring all this out. Thanks for the feedback.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by gmw

I am wondering if your idea is waiting for another before it is ready. Various writers speak of not being able to create a story until two or more ideas intersect - and it is at that intersection that the story takes off. You have your dastardly deed, but to make the story interesting you may need one or other (or both) of your protagonists to have some particular peculiarity, or be experiencing some difficulty, or maybe that it's some external situation (event or coincidence of events) that bring the spark that a story needs.

Hey G.M. Now that I finally understand styles I'm ready to do some writing. Agree. Ideas are still percolating so I'll be patient and wait for them to surface and intersect. Thanks for the advice.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Gregg:

Try Jodie Renner's book, "How to Write a Killer Thriller." It's affordable and it should be very helpful to you.

Hitch

It was either this or make e-books! Picked up a copy of Renner's book. Will read it forthwith. Appreciate the rec.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

In my opinion, the best thrillers involve a spiraling series of actions and reactions which put the protagonist (and the world) in increasingly perilous situations until -- BAM! -- the whole mess finally gets resolved.

The scenario "Plan A fails, Plan B fails, Plan C fails, and then Plan D succeeds" is far less intriguing to me than "Plan A has an unintended side-effect, necessitating Plan B, which results in changed behavior from the antagonist. Plan C thwarts the antagonist's latest nefarious scheme, but with complications that force the hero to improvise Plan D."

It's the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" trope. Thrillers involve steadily rising tension and increasingly higher stakes, often with a firm time limit on how long the hero has to get the world straightened out.

Thanks Nancy. I'm with you on this. Really appreciate the advice.

[Gregg Bell]

More questions about Thrillers.

#1) How do you feel about using A LOT of humor in them? Opinions on this?
(I'm planning on using so much zany stuff that it will not be "real"istic at all.)

#2) Can I mention celebrities, have stuff happen to them? (eg. Have my protagonist interact with Lindsey Lohan?)

#3) With the dastardly evil deed that my antagonist is planning (and which my protagonist will fight to foil), is it best to have my protagonist get on to this evil deed pretty much right away, or would it be better if she only became aware of it slowly? And if it's the latter, how slowly? Within the first 5% of the book? The first 10%? Whatever?

Thank you!

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

More questions about Thrillers.

#1) How do you feel about using A LOT of humor in them? Opinions on this?
(I'm planning on using so much zany stuff that it will not be "real"istic at all.)

I put this in the Janet Evanovich category, which to me, removes it entirely from the "Thriller" category. That in and of itself is not bad...but I think a thriller is a thriller, not a comedy. Can a thriller have comedic relief, or elements? Yes, but once it turns into slapstick, like the Stephanie Plums, they are a different type of reading. I feel that a thriller should be suspenseful, not making me LOL. Hunt for Red October, not One for the Money. I also think that the moment you lose the suspension of disbelief--the "reality"--for a thriller, the book kicks the bucket. If the whole point of a thriller is to be thrilled, how thrilled can we be if there's no goal? No devastation? No fear? Nothing hanging in the balance? Are you sure it's a thriller you want to write?

#2) Can I mention celebrities, have stuff happen to them? (eg. Have my protagonist interact with Lindsey Lohan?)

That's a question for a lawyer. If you say your protagonist walks past Lindsay Lohan, no one will care. If you say she trips over her, while Lindsay is laying passed out on the floor of a bathroom in a nightclub, I suspect you'll have difficulties. You'd be far better off using made-up celebrities; if for no other reason than, ten years down the road, the "hot celeb du jour" will date your novel.

#3) With the dastardly evil deed that my antagonist is planning (and which my protagonist will fight to foil), is it best to have my protagonist get on to this evil deed pretty much right away, or would it be better if she only became aware of it slowly? And if it's the latter, how slowly? Within the first 5% of the book? The first 10%? Whatever?

I think that this is a question for either your writing coach or your critique group, or a writing class. I mean...this is kind of what your plotting the book is all about, right? Creating the suspense? How you do it is the trick that makes everyone want to read it. If we get to dictate the terms, it won't be very suspenseful, will it? At least, not for us! ;-) FWIW, I don't think anyone cares how rapidly or slowly your heroine learns all the details of the plot, as long as the ride along the way is brisk.

Thank you!

You betcha.

Hitch

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

More questions about Thrillers.

#1) How do you feel about using A LOT of humor in them? Opinions on this?
(I'm planning on using so much zany stuff that it will not be "real"istic at all.)

I'd say use humor sparingly to break tension if it gets too high. If you use it too much then the story becomes slapstick.

#2) Can I mention celebrities, have stuff happen to them? (eg. Have my protagonist interact with Lindsey Lohan?)

To a certain extent real people do sometimes appear in fictional stories but you have to be very careful especially when you have living people involved. Otherwise you can find yourself the defendant in a lawsuit.

#3) With the dastardly evil deed that my antagonist is planning (and which my protagonist will fight to foil), is it best to have my protagonist get on to this evil deed pretty much right away, or would it be better if she only became aware of it slowly? And if it's the latter, how slowly? Within the first 5% of the book? The first 10%? Whatever?

I think it would make a story more intense and full of tension if the hero slowly builds up to what the baddie is doing. You see it all the time in TV shows like "Criminal Minds." Someone is missing or a body is found and the team investigates it. Then it turns out that what was thought to be one crime is actually multiple crimes and then the race is on to find clues that point to who the killer is before he/she can kill their next victim.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Are you sure it's a thriller you want to write?

FWIW, I don't think anyone cares how rapidly or slowly your heroine learns all the details of the plot, as long as the ride along the way is brisk.

Hitch

Read the Renner book. Thanks. It gave me a real good grounding in the basics.

And yeah, it's going to be even zanier than Evanovich. WAY zanier. But it will be in the guise of a thriller. So what's the genre? Faux thriller? And the goal of the book will be to make you LOL. It will be uber violent but cartoon violence. And the fate of the world (lol) will hang in the balance but it will be a joking fate.

Good advice on Lindsay. (Don't want her lawyers after me! lol)

And you're right about the revelation of the dastardly deed. I want it to be suspenseful FOR YOU! (And it will be brisker than an ice cold glass of Lipton tea. PROMISE!!!!!!!!!)