HomeWritersLiterary AgentsEditorsPublishersResourcesDiscussion
Forum Login | Join the discussion
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91

    Does this count as a plot hole in my story?

    I was going over my story points with someone with writing experience, and he suggested this idea, for an ending, for the villains to get caught. In my story the villains are a gang that is making all of its' new recruits go through 'blood ins', to prove if the are worthy to be in the gang, but also mainly to prove that they are not undercover cops, since that's what blood ins are for. A blood in means that the new member has to spill the blood of another person, or at least think he is going to, as part of a test to get in.

    So the writer suggested that I have the gang record all the blood ins on video, and use them as collateral against the gang members, in case the members were to betray the gang. This gives me some great ideas to build towards some ending that will be good.

    However, I think I may have come across a plot hole in this new idea possibly, unless me and him are wrong, but I would like some other opinions if that is alright.

    I have written about two thirds of the story so far, and when the gang has a new recruit do a blood in, they do not have the new recruit kill someone. They have him point a gun at a kidnapped hostage, the gun being loaded with a dummy round (a bullet that will not fire), and then the new recruit is to put the gun to the hostages head and pull the trigger. This makes the gang see that he has what it takes to get in and is not an undercover cop, and it also is a safe precaution, cause if it is an undercover cop, they are not giving him a real bullet he can use, in case he wanted to attempt to save the hostage.

    Now the hostage is the second main character of the story pretty much, and plays that large of a role. But if the hostage is kept alive, and not actually harmed, would the gang logically record the blood in on video to be used as collateral against the member, if the member betrays him... if the hostage is not actually harmed in the video? Would it still be enough to blackmail the gang member with? Or does this new idea, count as a plot hole and will not work does it seem like?

    Or mainly the goal of the story is for the police to find evidence on the new recruit being part of the blood in. But in order to know who the new recruit is at all, they would first have to investigate the gang. Would the gang have any reason to keep proof of the new recruit at all, such as a recording used as collateral, or some sort of proof?



  2. #2
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Your whole story is a giant sucking sound of a plot hole.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    hmm okay...

  4. #4
    Member K.S. Crooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    40
    Two quick options: 1) make the new recruit use a gun with blanks first and then when they prove they are willing to kill they are given another gun with one real bullet to do the job.
    2) Make the initiation less traumatic than having to point blank murder someone. Something like setting off a small bomb in a crowded area is easier because there isn't the guarantee of death and the person doesn't need to witness the results first hand.
    If you make the act of the "blood-in" something public then the evidence of its occurrence will be all over the news. All the gang needs to film is the person's involvement with the preparations and the planting.
    K.S. Crooks - Dreamer and Author
    http://www.kscrooks.com

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    Okay thanks. Here's what I had so far:

    Basically for my story, which is a thriller set in modern times, a gang of villains are recruiting a new member, and they give him a 'blood in', which is a term used for when a gang tests a new recruit, by having him/her spill the blood of another person, or at least see if they will do it.

    The gang in my story, wants to make sure that the new recruit is not be an undercover cop. So they put him through the blood in, but they do not want to put the man in a situation where he has to harm a real hostage. The reason is, is because if he is an undercover cop, and there could be other cops nearby, they would be up on kidnapping related charges, if they had a real hostage for the new recruit to harm.

    So the gang decides to use one of it's own members, posing as a hostage, for the new recruit to pull the trigger on. But the gun will not be loaded. It will be loaded with a dummy round, that won't fire, in case the new recruit is an undercover cop. That way, if he is, and he tries to bust the gang, the hostage, will not testify against them, if she is rescued.

    During the blood in test though, a real cop is patrolling the streets, and he gets a glimpse of two of the gang members search the new recruit for weapons and a wire. He sees that the new recruits are hiding their faces with sunglasses and hats, as well, to hide their faces from the new recruit.

    After seeing that the new recruit is clean, the gang takes him to the place where they are holding one of their own members, who is posing as a hostage for the new recruit.

    The cop follows them, sneaks around to see what is going on, and spots the blood in, in progress. He stops it and manages to arrest one of the gang members, and rescue the fake hostage, thinking she is real. The other gang members as well as the new recruit, escape as the cop rescues her and arrests the one.

    Now the fake hostage and the one gang member who was caught, now have to come up with some sort of alibi to get out of the situation. They have to come up with a lie to make it appear to the court that they are two innocent people and that no crime happened. They can say that they were roleplaying, and that no one was actually going to shoot anyone, and it was all acting among themselves.

    However, if they do this, they need a reason as to why the other gang members resisted arrest, and fled with the gun.

    They could say that they do not know who the others really are, and they met them while drunk. But if you meet a group of people at a party for example the party host will still know who they are. And if you say you met them in a night club, well there are security cameras, and ID computer records of people who go into the night club.

    So because of this, how would they come up with an alibi that would legally work? Or is it better for the witness to take the fifth? But if she does that, the cop witness, will still testify that he saw the defendant in collusion with the other kidnappers. So is more needed to exonerate the defendant? Basically I want the defendant to be exonerated. But how could a defendant and a witness, who is secretly on his side, do this, in a way that would legally work?

  6. #6
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Yeah, gangs are really known for being squeamish about killing people. (Hahaha, no.) Traditionally a blood-in would be done to someone on a rival gang or a traitor in the gang. Your whole scenario sounds like a big steaming pile of BS.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    What troubles me about your synopsis is its many, many interlocking parts: Somebody does this while somebody else does that, but they don't really, because of such-and-such, etc., etc. I foresee a narrative embedded with great stretches of exposition--lots of talking heads explaining to each other (but really to the reader) what's going on.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    Okay thanks. What is wrong with interlocking parts exactly though? Why is it necessarily a bad thing. What makes you think there is lots of exposition? The scenario is quite simple and wouldn't take long to get through, at least that is not what I intended. Do you think it will take a long time to cover?

    And yes the gang doesn't have a problem with killing people when they have to, but why do it for a blood in, when they do not have to, to get someone's trust? All they have to do is know that the new recruit would do it, but they don't actually have to have the new recruit go through with it, do they?

    I saw a movie where a gang gives a new recruit a gun, has him pull the trigger on someone to prove he can do it, and the gun was empty. They just wanted to see if he could do it. I saw it again in a TV show as well, same thing. The gang has no problem killing people when they have to, but the you say the gang should kill someone in a rival gang, or the should kill a traitor.

    The gang has no rival gang at this point, and they have no traitors. The gang has been going around committing a series of kidnapping crimes. But they are not kidnapping anyone who has connections to other gangs. So other gangs don't care. The other gangs' attitude is, 'if you want to kidnap average joe citizen who has nothing to do with us, go ahead'. So there are no other gangs in the story. Plus killing people just means having to get rid of more dead bodies, and hope they are never found. Why go through the trouble if it's not necessary? I know what you mean, if a gang had a rival or a traitor, they would kill him, but at this point in the story, no such gang or traitor exists. And they have not currently kidnapped anyone at this time either. Cause if they did, and the new recruit turns out to be an undercover cop, then the undercover will attempt to call in that there is a kidnap victim that needs rescuing.
    Last edited by ironpony; 09-10-2016 at 08:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    What is wrong with interlocking parts exactly though?
    I said "many, many" interlocking parts, which I fear could lead to overly much exposition. I hope it doesn't, so accept this as cautionary advice.

  10. #10
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    Okay thanks. What is wrong with interlocking parts exactly though? Why is it necessarily a bad thing. What makes you think there is lots of exposition? The scenario is quite simple and wouldn't take long to get through, at least that is not what I intended. Do you think it will take a long time to cover?

    And yes the gang doesn't have a problem with killing people when they have to, but why do it for a blood in, when they do not have to, to get someone's trust? All they have to do is know that the new recruit would do it, but they don't actually have to have the new recruit go through with it, do they?

    I saw a movie where a gang gives a new recruit a gun, has him pull the trigger on someone to prove he can do it, and the gun was empty. They just wanted to see if he could do it. I saw it again in a TV show as well, same thing. The gang has no problem killing people when they have to, but the you say the gang should kill someone in a rival gang, or the should kill a traitor.

    The gang has no rival gang at this point, and they have no traitors. The gang has been going around committing a series of kidnapping crimes. But they are not kidnapping anyone who has connections to other gangs. So other gangs don't care. The other gangs' attitude is, 'if you want to kidnap average joe citizen who has nothing to do with us, go ahead'. So there are no other gangs in the story. Plus killing people just means having to get rid of more dead bodies, and hope they are never found. Why go through the trouble if it's not necessary? I know what you mean, if a gang had a rival or a traitor, they would kill him, but at this point in the story, no such gang or traitor exists. And they have not currently kidnapped anyone at this time either. Cause if they did, and the new recruit turns out to be an undercover cop, then the undercover will attempt to call in that there is a kidnap victim that needs rescuing.
    Of course the gang has no rivals or traitors. [eye roll] Ridiculous.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts