Re: How does this sound?
Originally posted by Lestov16
Years ago, a corrupt senator and his oil cabal had a cia team assassinate a prime minister who was going to nationalize his oil fields. now, years later, one of the team members threatens to sell info about the op to a rival politician. the corrupt senator and his cia henchmen kill him and go to kill every other team member to be safe. one retired team member's family is killed in an attempt on his life, and he goes for revenge[B]POINT OUT AS MANY PLOT HOLES AS YOU CAN FIND
[/B]
man, Thoren actually hit the big points I was thinking of. Mainly, as a sympathetic character, the agent who loses his family hardly works. He not only was involved in, but was entirely complicit to, the killing of the foreign leader and other members of his unit. That you want to make him a secondary character is probably a good choice, but it is someone who the reader wont, or at least shouldn't, be able to personally identify with. Off the top of my head, this almost sounds like it would be better if you made these individuals mercenaries for a company like Blackwater rather than CIA operatives, as I have a lot of trouble believing that a soldier would be totally cool with members of his former unit being killed, and would only be motivated once his own family was harmed. However, a soldier of fortune is, by definition almost, much more personally and egocentrically driven.
This also makes it easier to tie the senator into the unit. Maybe the mercenary corporation pays him lots in campaign contributions, maybe he sits on their board, whatever, the connection can be much more familiar rather than bureaucratic, as again like Thoren pointed out, a single senator wouldn't have one CIA hit squad, let alone a second years later willing to kill the first (again, using the CIA or army brings up the issue of "would soldiers really turn against their own for no good reason"😉.
I think there is also a big issue with the "clean up". In order to keep a lid on his activities, the senator decides that it is best if he kills not only the person who was going to leak the information, but individuals who have been loyal to him for years? Not only would this be the option that attracts the most attention (ie: not a cover up at all), it is also the one most likely to motivate retaliation or get a different member of the team to want to leak. It can work if you fit it into his character, like, make the senator impulsive and short sighted, but logically, it is a terrible idea. These other team members have been loyal, its not hard to think they would still be loyal and might see the leaking individual as a traitor. Its like using a sledge hammer to drive a small nail into soft wood. Sure, the senator looks evil, impulsive, and it shows he has the power to cause great violence, etc. But it also makes him look very weak and not very tactical, like he only has one tool in his arsenal, and if violence doesn't work, WTF is he going to do? It can work, but only if that is the character you want him to be.
LOL, I'll use a comic book reference. Who works better as a villain, Lex Luthor or Doomsday? With no doubt, Doomsday has more physical power, he can do more violence, he can kill more individuals in terrible ways, and you fear him because you understand viscerally what he is about. He threatens you on that basic animal level, where you fear death, but thats it. He has one trick, he does it exceptionally well, but he is limited to how well that violence works in a given context. Luthor is different. When written well (**** this techno suit BS), any competent MMA or whatever should be able to beat him physically, and therefore, he doesn't really threaten you in that way. Your basic animal instincts aren't terrified by him as a physical being. But, his cunning and planning make him able to contend with those who would otherwise be Gods. The terror is cognitive. Like, if you were trapped in a room with Doomsday, you know what to expect, quick violent death. With Luthor, you have no idea. His motives, his mechanisms, all of this are essentially impenetrable. It is the unknown essentially. He might not have omnipotent levels of violence, but there is no scenario in which he isn't a threat.
Doomsday works when you want to fill 17 pages with splash art of Superman getting punched in the face. Luthor works when you want a cerebral enemy and a plot driven read. If your story is going to be about guns and bombs and killing and explosions, perfect, go with the senator who is impulsive and kills on a whim "just-in-case". That villain will work, people will understand his power instantly and know why they are afraid. If you want to get the villain under people's skin though, if you want people to question him, to question their own interpretation of the story, his actions can't be so blunt. I remember you talking earlier about wanting to make people question if what the senator was doing was right (ie: killing the agent might be pragmatic to prevent something worse), the only way you can do that is if your senator isn't just ham-fistedly killing anyone he perceives as being even a potential threat. jesus... this turned into another TLDR way too fast... sorry 🙁
anyways, about why the one agent might sell the info, make him get depressed after the assassination or for some other reason, turn to gambling and think this is a way to pay off his debts. Or drug addiction, etc. Hell, make him question the American government and want to sell the information to a foreign government.
Re: Re: How does this sound?
[QUOTE=13724353]Originally posted by inimalist
[B]man, Thoren actually hit the big points I was thinking of. Mainly, as a sympathetic character, the agent who loses his family hardly works. He not only was involved in, but was entirely complicit to, the killing of the foreign leader and other members of his unit. That you want to make him a secondary character is probably a good choice, but it is someone who the reader wont, or at least shouldn't, be able to personally identify with. Off the top of my head, this almost sounds like it would be better if you made these individuals mercenaries for a company like Blackwater rather than CIA operatives, as I have a lot of trouble believing that a soldier would be totally cool with members of his former unit being killed, and would only be motivated once his own family was harmed. However, a soldier of fortune is, by definition almost, much more personally and egocentrically driven.
This also makes it easier to tie the senator into the unit. Maybe the mercenary corporation pays him lots in campaign contributions, maybe he sits on their board, whatever, the connection can be much more familiar rather than bureaucratic, as again like Thoren pointed out, a single senator wouldn't have one CIA hit squad, let alone a second years later willing to kill the first (again, using the CIA or army brings up the issue of "would soldiers really turn against their own for no good reason"😉.
I think there is also a big issue with the "clean up". In order to keep a lid on his activities, the senator decides that it is best if he kills not only the person who was going to leak the information, but individuals who have been loyal to him for years? Not only would this be the option that attracts the most attention (ie: not a cover up at all), it is also the one most likely to motivate retaliation or get a different member of the team to want to leak. It can work if you fit it into his character, like, make the senator impulsive and short sighted, but logically, it is a terrible idea. These other team members have been loyal, its not hard to think they would still be loyal and might see the leaking individual as a traitor. Its like using a sledge hammer to drive a small nail into soft wood. Sure, the senator looks evil, impulsive, and it shows he has the power to cause great violence, etc. But it also makes him look very weak and not very tactical, like he only has one tool in his arsenal, and if violence doesn't work, WTF is he going to do? It can work, but only if that is the character you want him to be.
This is why I added the "rival politician" angle in Would a politician use something like this for leverage? If so, The senator could be running for president or vice president in a fierce political campaign, which would give him incentive to cover his tracks
LOL, I'll use a comic book reference. Who works better as a villain, Lex Luthor or Doomsday? With no doubt, Doomsday has more physical power, he can do more violence, he can kill more individuals in terrible ways, and you fear him because you understand viscerally what he is about. He threatens you on that basic animal level, where you fear death, but thats it. He has one trick, he does it exceptionally well, but he is limited to how well that violence works in a given context. Luthor is different. When written well (**** this techno suit BS), any competent MMA or whatever should be able to beat him physically, and therefore, he doesn't really threaten you in that way. Your basic animal instincts aren't terrified by him as a physical being. But, his cunning and planning make him able to contend with those who would otherwise be Gods. The terror is cognitive. Like, if you were trapped in a room with Doomsday, you know what to expect, quick violent death. With Luthor, you have no idea. His motives, his mechanisms, all of this are essentially impenetrable. It is the unknown essentially. He might not have omnipotent levels of violence, but there is no scenario in which he isn't a threat.
Doomsday works when you want to fill 17 pages with splash art of Superman getting punched in the face. Luthor works when you want a cerebral enemy and a plot driven read. If your story is going to be about guns and bombs and killing and explosions, perfect, go with the senator who is impulsive and kills on a whim "just-in-case". That villain will work, people will understand his power instantly and know why they are afraid. If you want to get the villain under people's skin though, if you want people to question him, to question their own interpretation of the story, his actions can't be so blunt. I remember you talking earlier about wanting to make people question if what the senator was doing was right (ie: killing the agent might be pragmatic to prevent something worse), the only way you can do that is if your senator isn't just ham-fistedly killing anyone he perceives as being even a potential threat. jesus... this turned into another TLDR way too fast... sorry 🙁
anyways, about why the one agent might sell the info, make him get depressed after the assassination or for some other reason, turn to gambling and think this is a way to pay off his debts. Or drug addiction, etc. Hell, make him question the American government and want to sell the information to a foreign government.
Ignore that other post
Originally posted by inimalist
man, Thoren actually hit the big points I was thinking of. Mainly, as a sympathetic character, the agent who loses his family hardly works. He not only was involved in, but was entirely complicit to, the killing of the foreign leader and other members of his unit. That you want to make him a secondary character is probably a good choice, but it is someone who the reader wont, or at least shouldn't, be able to personally identify with. Off the top of my head, this almost sounds like it would be better if you made these individuals mercenaries for a company like Blackwater rather than CIA operatives, as I have a lot of trouble believing that a soldier would be totally cool with members of his former unit being killed, and would only be motivated once his own family was harmed. However, a soldier of fortune is, by definition almost, much more personally and egocentrically driven.
Does the CIA freelance?
Originally posted by inimalist
I think there is also a big issue with the "clean up". In order to keep a lid on his activities, the senator decides that it is best if he kills not only the person who was going to leak the information, but individuals who have been loyal to him for years? Not only would this be the option that attracts the most attention (ie: not a cover up at all), it is also the one most likely to motivate retaliation or get a different member of the team to want to leak. It can work if you fit it into his character, like, make the senator impulsive and short sighted, but logically, it is a terrible idea. These other team members have been loyal, its not hard to think they would still be loyal and might see the leaking individual as a traitor. Its like using a sledge hammer to drive a small nail into soft wood. Sure, the senator looks evil, impulsive, and it shows he has the power to cause great violence, etc. But it also makes him look very weak and not very tactical, like he only has one tool in his arsenal, and if violence doesn't work, WTF is he going to do? It can work, but only if that is the character you want him to be.anyways, about why the one agent might sell the info, make him get depressed after the assassination or for some other reason, turn to gambling and think this is a way to pay off his debts. Or drug addiction, etc. Hell, make him question the American government and want to sell the information to a foreign government.
This is why I added the "rival politician" angle in Would a politician use something like this for leverage? If so, The senator could be running for president or vice president in a fierce political campaign, which would give him incentive and urgency to cover his tracks thoroughly.
Re: Ignore that other post
What if he was assigned to rescue senator (then a major
board member ) from an oil platform taken hostage by terrorists who opposed the oil consortium. Years later, a team member attempts to sell this info to a political rival in a fierce campaign for Vice Presidency. the Senator uses his CIA contacts to kill the original member, and to be safe, kill the other 3 members. The (anti-hero) protagonist just happened to be the only survivor. Note I do not want the audience to feel sympathy. This is the story of a how a man takes a final leap into the abyss, past a certain moral boundary that make shim unforgivable. He role to the (main) story is similar to Riddick's role in Pitch Black. Evil vs. Evil. Or even better, he is something of a Byronic Hero. He knows he is irredeemable and solves this be distancing himself from humanity, knowing he is damned.
Re: How does this sound?
Originally posted by Lestov16
Years ago, a corrupt senator and his oil cabal had a cia team assassinate a prime minister who was going to nationalize his oil fields. now, years later, one of the team members threatens to sell info about the op to a rival politician. the corrupt senator and his cia henchmen kill him and go to kill every other team member to be safe. one retired team member's family is killed in an attempt on his life, and he goes for revenge[B]POINT OUT AS MANY PLOT HOLES AS YOU CAN FIND
[/B]
Not sure if it's a plot hole (depending on how you see it) but if the protagonist did do this secret operation for the CIA and knew why then he might not be held in a sympathetic light by the reader afterwards.
Plus the repetition of sending a CIA hit team to kill the original CIA team might not sound too plausible because then the corrupt senator is just making the situation worse and leaving a bigger trail for his political enemies to follow. You also have to allow for the possibility that the protagonist might be suspicious with all his former team-mates (is he friends with any?) being bumped off in succession.
I mean these are things you could flesh out as you go of course.
Edit - I see my points have already been made, jumped the gun a bit.
Re: Re: Ignore that other post
Originally posted by Lestov16
What if he was assigned to rescue senator (then a major
board member ) from an oil platform taken hostage by terrorists who opposed the oil consortium. Years later, a team member attempts to sell this info to a political rival in a fierce campaign for Vice Presidency. the Senator uses his CIA contacts to kill the original member, and to be safe, kill the other 3 members. The (anti-hero) protagonist just happened to be the only survivor. Note I do not want the audience to feel sympathy. This is the story of a how a man takes a final leap into the abyss, past a certain moral boundary that make shim unforgivable. He role to the (main) story is similar to Riddick's role in Pitch Black. Evil vs. Evil. Or even better, he is something of a Byronic Hero. He knows he is irredeemable and solves this be distancing himself from humanity, knowing he is damned.
What information would this senator want repressing anyway? I can't see how being rescued from a terrorist incident would lead him to kill a team member who saved him from being killed.
You could of course work into that scenario that when the senator was a board member of the oil company, he was actually behind the terrorist incident for some sort of financial gain against his own company. Maybe certain other board members were killed during this incident which paved the way for himself. That could work. Then the team member discovers this somehow , threatens to go public, resorts to blackmail and is killed. The senator, suspicious and afraid decides to wipe the slate clean and take them all out.
Just a little note, it might be better to have the protagonist ex-special forces because it might be a lot more plausible for special forces and not the CIA to defuse a hostage situation like that. I hope I've helped with my comments, it is your story after all
what if he retired from special forces, but was a specialist in infiltration, and the cia use him to help plan out an attack on the official residence of the prime minister, who wants to nationalize oil fields, even though his death would allow a coup by a brutal dictator (even though protagonist is told he is aiding Islamist terrorists)
Let's say a Senator is running for vice President. His oil company, which he was on the board, is funding his campaign, and as a favor to them and himself, he orders the CIA to kill the prime minister of a country who wants to nationalize their oil, replacing him with a dictator. They tell the assets that the prime minister is colluding with jihadist terrorists.
Now, 3 years later, the VP's re-election campaign is coming up, and one of the operatives of the operation, horrified by the genocide of political dissents following the assassination, digs and finds out that the intel about the PM was false. he goes to give the info the a reporter, but is killed. the election is fierce, and the VP and oil company can't afford any risks, so they order the hit of the other 2 operatives on that operation