# Does a thriller have to be 'climatic'?



## ironpony (Dec 19, 2015)

I was told before on a story by readers that they felt that certain plot twists and turns were implausible. Personally I am use to that happening in a story, and I can often see implausibilities in stories. Not that that's necessarily bad for me. A lot of times I do not mind characters behaving implausibly, as long as they are not behaving impossibly.


I rewrote a whole new story outline, where the characters behave much more plausibly I think, but I feel it builds towards an anticlimax as a result. Since everyone behaves in the most plausible way possible, I feel that nothing crazy or shocking really happens. It feels too predictable, because the more plausible a person behaves, the more predictable it can be, and everyone has to stay in their own boxes and not be able to come out and take the story in climatic directions because of it.


I also feel that since it's a thriller, most thrillers as they build more and more towards the end, the pacing becomes faster and faster traditionally, because the steaks are raised and the race against time is running out and closing in.


But when I wrote my new outline so that everyone behaves much more plausibly, the pacing actually slows down, because since it gets more complicated, it actually takes longer for characters to resolve their problems and it kind of slows down, instead of building faster, as traditionally thrillers do.


What do you think? Should I go against my instincts, and write the story with an outline where characters behave the most plausibly, even if it builds towards an anticlimax? If plausibility is more important to the reader than I can, but will a lot of people still find an anticlimax disappointing for thriller genre expectations?


----------



## Riis Marshall (Dec 19, 2015)

Hello Pony

Yours is a very good question and at the heart of great story telling. I sincerely hope this thread just keeps growing and growing.

Where you use the word 'plausible' I use the word 'credible' but I think we're talking about the same concept. As I've posted on other threads, my mentor, Ian Mitchell, says when you're reading or, more importantly, writing, you have to keep asking yourself a question: 'If things were as described in this work, would the behaviour of the characters make sense?'

So when we read a work by Colin Dexter or Isaac Asimov, even though the situation is not one we typically experience in everyday life, the behaviour of the characters, _within the context of that situation_, makes sense.

On the other hand, when we watch a Steven Segal or Jason Statham film, the behaviour of the characters often doesn't make much sense. For example, ten minutes before our hero is going out for a showdown with about a dozen extremely bad bad guys, he brings the girl to screaming climax then goes off to take about eighteen kung fu kicks to the head before saving the day with an UZI that fires hundreds of bullets without needing re-loading. Plausible? I think not.

So, it's fine when your characters get into situations that look really scary and where your reader isn't sure if they're going to get out alive and intact, but whatever happens must 'make sense'.

As far as pacing is concerned I think this is one of the elements that makes your writing you and it is unique to each of us. Compare Robert Harris' pacing with Robert Ludlum's, for example. Although both are great story tellers, their pacing is totally different.

Maybe the thing to do is not to place too much emphasis on your outline: draft a general outline but without too much detail then start writing. If you've set up a plausible situation and if you've created plausible characters, then just write and let your characters get on with saving the world.

Well, this works for me, anyhow.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## ironpony (Dec 19, 2015)

Okay thanks.  Perhaps I put too much emphasis on the outline.  However, if you let the characters make the decisions as they go along, how do you prevent them from painting themselves into a corner?  It seems like the more the characters decisions make sense, the story doesn't go anywhere climatic, because the characters are smart enough to fix the problem before it can build to any sort of dramatic predicament.


----------



## Sam (Dec 19, 2015)

First question: Have you read any thrillers, ironpony, and if so by whom? 

Second question: Does a thriller have to be climactic? Generally every story has to be climactic, unless you're consciously going for anti-climax because it suits the book/plot/etcetera, but I've read only a handful (literally one hand) of anti-climactic thrillers in my life and they all missed the mark. 

Thrillers, by their very definition, thrill. But I disagree entirely with Riis. The thriller that pervades the silver screen, i.e. the Hollywood blockbuster, is a mile apart from the type of thriller written by Clancy, Ludlum, and Forsyth. Those three authors, and a few others like Jack Higgins and John Le Carre, wrote and still write thrillers that are plausible, realistic, and not contrived like a Hollywood blockbuster. It can be done and it has been done. 

If you haven't read any of their work, I suggest you do.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Dec 19, 2015)

Hello Pony

Another good question and the answer is: 'You don't.' The down side is you sometimes, indeed, find your character backed into a literary corner and it takes some truly creative effort for you to save her or him. The upside is you sometimes find your story going off in unexpected but exciting directions you hadn't planned.

Similarly with dialogue. If you've developed truly plausible characters they often start saying things you never thought about in advance.

Your story still can build to a climax because that's what good storytelling is all about: your heroine or hero is faced with a problem and your readers have absolutely no idea how she or he is going to solve it. So as the story evolves, action takes place and eventually everything turns out just fine (well maybe not _all_ just fine. After all, you must leave them with some broken bits that will form the basis for the sequel).

If we're thinking about behaving plausibly, we as human beings are never smart enough to fix all the problems we face and thus we're always looking at the potential for 'dramatic predicaments'.

Fascinating stuff - this thing we call writing.

All the best with yours.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Riis Marshall (Dec 19, 2015)

@Sam

I thought that's what I said: great story tellers like those we've both cited, create plausible characters behaving in plausible ways in situations that are plausible although typically far removed from most of what we encounter in our daily lives.

What often happens on the silver screen is thoroughly implausible - although admittedly sometimes fun to watch - but I merely used that for comparison. Here we're talking about fiction writing not screenplays.

By the way, if you're interested in real-life adventures that border on the implausible, check out Hermann Buhl's solo ascent of Nanga Parbat, Reinhold Messner's exploits, or Shackleton's _Endurance_.

No contradiction, as I see it.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 19, 2015)

Basically agreeing with the above comments. One must bear in mind there is a difference between plausibility and logic in fiction. Just because something is plausible does not mean it has to be logical. Plausibility is a matter of "_Could _this happen?". The lower the probability, the more you have to work to make it believable, and sometimes it's just not possible to do so. On the other hand, humans do not always act logically - they often react emotionally. That's where the "predictability" flies out the window, and gives one the leeway needed to keep the reader on their toes.

As to the outline/paint-into-corner issue, look up the myriad discussions on plotting versus "pantsing" and you'll see the many methods open to you.


----------



## Plasticweld (Dec 19, 2015)

Sam said:


> The Hollywood blockbuster, is a mile apart from the type of thriller written by Clancy, Ludlum, and Forsyth. Those three authors, and a few others like Jack Higgins and John Le Carre, wrote and still write thrillers that are plausible, realistic, and not contrived like a Hollywood blockbuster. It can be done and it has been done.
> 
> If you haven't read any of their work, I suggest you do.



I am frequently disgusted as a reader and movie viewer when the story line slips into the realm of the ridiculous, please give the reader some credibility and make any dilemma plausible.  The minute I find myself questioning what I am reading or watching as pure BS I lose interest in what's going on.   




ironpony said:


> It seems like the more the characters decisions make sense, the story doesn't go anywhere climatic, because the characters are smart enough to fix the problem before it can build to any sort of dramatic predicament.



You need to read more biographies life if full of brilliant people dealing with every day life that have real drama, life and death consequences.   I am one of the smartest guys I know :} and there has been plenty of drama in my life... You gotta get out from behind the key board more.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 19, 2015)

ironpony said:
			
		

> Does a thriller have to be 'climatic'?



Your story doesn't _have to_ be anything, other than what _you_ want it to be.

This is one of my favorite things about being a writer. You have the freedom to make your own creative decisions. :encouragement:


----------



## Jeko (Dec 19, 2015)

> Your story doesn't _have to be anything, other than what you want it to be._



This is one of the most important things I learnt, and one of the first. The only thing a story 'needs' is a character. Everything else is what you, the story and the reader want.


----------



## Riptide (Dec 19, 2015)

Cadence said:


> Everything else is what you, the story and the reader want.



I don't know about that... What if I want a cell phone, but the story's set in the middle ages? Or a robotic chicken from space when I'm writing a fantasy with dragons? OR, and this is the important one, I want to say: I said... the reader only wants the associated action... and the story calls for a fight, not words.

So... abide by your rules if you don't want others to read it. If you want a chance in the big bad world try to follow traditional conventions. Climaxes are nice, pretty, but your question... Look, even if everything is a one way street where you can see the ending from point A, the climax is how climatic as you make it. Raise the stakes. Make it climatic, even if you could see it a mile away. To those character, if you were in their place, it would be great. It would be jarring. It would be BIG BANG huge. So... you make it climatic, even if you already know what'll happen.

Like seriously, do you see Superman dying when he enters a battle? You know the goodguy will win. You know the badies will lose. They just make it seem life or death, uncertainty around every corner, and that niggling doubt of: am I doing the right thing? Will he win? Will they change it up at the end?


----------



## Jeko (Dec 19, 2015)

> What if I want a cell phone, but the story's set in the middle ages?



Then you want it, but the story's setting doesn't, and the reader won't if they've had their expectations fixed by that setting. You're outvoted unless you convince the others that they want it too.

The second element of each issue you raise is stated like it's fixed and only the first is variable. That's not a productive or creative way to go about storytelling. A story written in the middle ages can be rewritten out of it if you want it to be - the story's pre-existing features can be reconfigured so that they end up wanting what you want to introduce.


----------



## Riptide (Dec 19, 2015)

Cadence said:


> Then you want it, but the story's setting doesn't, and the reader won't if they've had their expectations fixed by that setting. You're outvoted unless you convince the others that they want it too.
> 
> The second element of each issue you raise is stated like it's fixed and only the first is variable. That's not a productive or creative way to go about storytelling. A story written in the middle ages can be rewritten out of it if you want it to be - the story's pre-existing features can be reconfigured so that they end up wanting what you want to introduce.



Then that goes against what you wrote about how it's what you, the story, and the reader want, because those are three different things you're trying to accommodate for. So really, those other two don't matter as long as you write for yourself.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 19, 2015)

I think you want some actions and events to be unexpected yet plausible.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Okay thanks.  It's just hard to write them as unexpected because the more plausible an outcome is, the more predictable it becomes.  What about a story having coincidences?  I was told I shouldn't have those in my story, and I should eliminate them.  But lots of fictional stories, have coincidences as well.

Like for example, in the movie Planet of the Apes, when Taylor crash lands on planet Earth in the future, and does not realize that it's Earth, out of the entire planet, a few miles away from the where he crashes, he comes across Dr. Zaius.  Out of the entire planet of apes Zaius is the only one who knows the truth about what humans were in the past.  What are the odds that Taylor would land in the right spot, to come across the one ape on the planet to tell him that?

That's just an example, but how do I know the difference between a plausible coincidence as oppose to implausible, since that example is a big coincidence?


----------



## Jeko (Dec 20, 2015)

> Then that goes against what you wrote about how it's what you, the story, and the reader want, because those are three different things you're trying to accommodate for.



You're losing me very quickly. My post was about not only writing for yourself, but weighing up what you want, what the story so far 'wants', and what readers want and trying to satisfy all of them, which is what great storytellers do.

Accommodating for all three is the great act that storytelling is. If it's not what you want, how are you going to write it well? If it's not what the story wants, how is it going to make sense? If it's not what the reader wants, how are you going to keep your audience? You can always prioritise one over the other at different times (drafting is often 'me me me', while revising is often what the story/reader wants instead), but you have to juggle all three in the end.

You can only effectively 'write for yourself' if you make the story you're writing and the reader you're writing for want what you want too. Else your self-centred work won't sell.


----------



## Riptide (Dec 20, 2015)

Cadence said:


> You're losing me very quickly. My post was about not only writing for yourself, but weighing up what you want, what the story so far 'wants', and what readers want and trying to satisfy all of them, which is what great storytellers do.
> 
> Accommodating for all three is the great act that storytelling is. If it's not what you want, how are you going to write it well? If it's not what the story wants, how is it going to make sense? If it's not what the reader wants, how are you going to keep your audience? You can always prioritise one over the other at different times (drafting is often 'me me me', while revising is often what the story/reader wants instead), but you have to juggle all three in the end.
> 
> You can only effectively 'write for yourself' if you make the story you're writing and the reader you're writing for want what you want too. Else your self-centred work won't sell.



Oh, okay, I get what confused me. I thought you meant all at the same time you should be writing for yourself, the reader, and the story, but you meant in levels. That at the heart you should enjoy it, but you have to keep in mind these other components, like making sense, and being an overall enjoyable read for people.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Okay thanks.  One thing it comes down to is plot vs. theme.  I have always been big on strong, deep themes in stories, more than the plot itself.

A lot of times when I ask other writers for advice since I am not advanced, a lot will tell me if there is a plot hole, or an implausibility here or there, and they will give suggestions on how to fix it. But I find that a lot of the suggestions can get in the way of the theme. If a character makes a different decision or if something else happens in a section of the story that alone can change themes about feelings you are trying to engage in the reader.

One writer I had a conversation with suggested that I change the ending of a story, because he said that the villain's downfall means he would have to make a mistake that perhaps he wouldn't normally make and the his downfall as a result of his 'weakness'. But I was told by another writer that him making decisions based on his weakness causes problems in the plot, and he suggested a new way that was more likely and plausible to happen. He said that the hero should just shoot the villain in the head because then it gets rid of implausibilities.

Yes it does, but anyone can be defeated by being shot in the head, and the villain is not brought to his downfall by his weakness therefore. The theme is gone, but the plot may be more plausible as a result.

That is just one example, but if you had to pick between what's more important, the plot holding together better, or stronger themes for the reader to get wrapped up in, what is more important if you had to pick one, and could not have both?


----------



## Jeko (Dec 20, 2015)

> I have always been big on strong, deep themes in stories, more than the plot itself.



Theme comes from plot, among other things. You can think of plot as one of the supports that keeps the reader interested in musing about the theme. If the plot falls apart, the reader won't have much of a reason to care about the theme, as *it will feel like the author is prioritising themselves over the reader*.


----------



## dale (Dec 20, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  One thing it comes down to is plot vs. theme.  I have always been big on strong, deep themes in stories, more than the plot itself.



i think a "thriller" almost demands a plot. i think i "thriller" demands a climax, too. how can a person be thrilled without a climax?


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Yeah that's true. Well what should I come up with for a story first?  Should I decide on a theme first, and then come up with the best plot fit that theme?  Or should I come up with the plot first, and then whatever theme comes out of it, is whatever comes out of it, and maybe that will not destroy the story?


----------



## dale (Dec 20, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Yeah that's true. Well what should I come up with for a story first?  Should I decide on a theme first, and then come up with the best plot fit that theme?  Or should I come up with the plot first, and then whatever theme comes out of it, is whatever comes out of it, and maybe that will not destroy the story?



do you want me or someone else to ghost-write it for you, too? YOU are the creator. this is YOUR creation.
you have to believe in yourself and pull the rabbit out of the hat with your own hand.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Yeah that's true.  I just don't know what the correct approach is, if I should come up with theme, characters or plot first.


----------



## dale (Dec 20, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Yeah that's true.  I just don't know what the correct approach is, if I should come up with theme, characters or plot first.



i write "dark literature". so i don't really deal with "plot" much. i don't have to. literature really doesn't
demand a plot. for your genre, you really do have to think about things like plot more. i guess if you are
trying to make some kind of political or artistic statement? i'd go with theme 1st and then develop a plot
around it. but if you're just more interested in telling a story for the story's sake? i'd go with plot 1st.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Oh okay, well I would say I am more interested in making statements, but that's my problem.  I want to make a statement, but not sure how to develop a logical plot around that, since the characters have to actually behave in ways that feel forced just to get that.  Like for example (this is just a random example to make my point), the MC accidentally kills an innocent person in the heat of the moment in a gun fight.  He did not know the innocent person was going to be there, and it just happens, and bad consequences arise from that, which is a theme I wanted to get across, that revenge and breaking the law can lead to bad things happening such as that.

But one reader told me that it was completely forced and that a trained police officer would not shoot an innocent person, even if he was out for revenge, and that it was out of character, and was only forced to drive theme and the rest of the story towards the ending I wanted.

So I find it difficult to present themes without the characters going out of character to do so, or without the plot having to go out of it's way a little just to do so.


----------



## dale (Dec 20, 2015)

dude...it sounds like you need to make an outline. i don't use them myself, but many writers do.
i guess just sit down and make an intense, condensed version of what you want your story to be.
and then go from there.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Oh I have, I have made several different ones, but always seem to run into a plot hole or character inconsistency somewhere.  I just haven't made a perfect one yet.


----------



## dale (Dec 20, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Oh I have, I have made several different ones, but always seem to run into a plot hole or character inconsistency somewhere.  I just haven't made a perfect one yet.



don't worry about being "perfect". no writer is. i read my 1st novel now and cringe at certain parts of it.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Okay thanks, I know what you mean.  I don't care about being perfect, it's just that everyone else cares.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 20, 2015)

Write your story. Finish it. Write your next story. Finish it. Rinse and repeat. Do this a bunch of times.

Once you get to this point, you won't have to ask anyone for advice on how to write a story. You'll already know from experience. :encouragement:


----------



## ironpony (Dec 20, 2015)

Okay then.  So if I am told that a character is behaving illogically, should I just go with it, the best I can then?


----------



## dale (Dec 21, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay then.  So if I am told that a character is behaving illogically, should I just go with it, the best I can then?



don't all human beings think illogically? at least from time to time? you're overthinking this thing. write your damn story. it's begging you to write it.


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 21, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks, I know what you mean.  I don't care about being perfect, it's just that everyone else cares.



Stop showing your first novel to people.

No one in the history of ever wrote a 'good' first novel. It won't be published. 6 months after you've finished it you'll read it again and wonder what you were smoking.

The only way to move forward is to move forward. You're spinning your wheels on this same story and it's going to cause you to stagnate sooner rather than later. Finish it. Write the next one. Look back later and shake your head at how bad it is.

Your first novel is practice and nothing more.


----------



## dale (Dec 21, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> No one in the history of ever wrote a 'good' first novel.



are you sure about that? i think the bible was a 1st draft.


----------



## Sam (Dec 21, 2015)

Most people's first attempt at anything is almost universally bad. 

I remember the first time I tried to buy booze with a fake ID. I thought I was Captain Cool. Sauntered into the off licence like a pimp. Slapped my ID and twenty quid down on the counter and said something cheesy like, "My man, gimme a six-pack of Carlsberg and keep the change!" 

The guy called the cops. I thought he was bluffing, trying to see if I would crumble and confess to having a fake ID, but I stood there like a goon until the cops were almost into the store. I took off out the back entrance, climbed over an eight-foot palisade fence, and butchered myself on the spikes at the top. I ran all the way to my friend's house, shirt matted in blood, and collapsed on his kitchen floor. 

When I regained consciousness, I was in the back of an ambulance, my father sitting beside me and glaring daggers at me. A few days later, he marched me into the police station and made me hand over my fake IDs. I got to spend that night in a cell. 

That was my first time in a cell -- and I sucked at that as well.


----------



## dale (Dec 21, 2015)

Sam said:


> Most people's first attempt at anything is almost universally bad.
> 
> I remember the first time I tried to buy booze with a fake ID. I thought I was Captain Cool. Sauntered into the off licence like a pimp. Slapped my ID and twenty quid down on the counter and said something cheesy like, "My man, gimme a six-pack of Carlsberg and keep the change!"
> 
> ...



ya see? i'm kind of the opposite. my 1st time trying something? i'm generally so self-conscience and vain that i make it work no matter what. take the 1st time i got laid. inside? i'm scared to death. i'm so afraid i'm gonna fuck this up and look like a fool. so i just have a few drinks off a bottle of cherry vodka (how's that for irony)...and then i tell the girl i like it with her on top. so i just get to lay back and not have to do a damn thing that proves i'm inexperienced. yeah. that's the way i roll.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 21, 2015)

Oh I didn't mean to imply this was my first.  It's my fourth, although the first one I didn't finish.  So I wanted to make this one a lot better in comparison.


----------



## patskywriter (Dec 21, 2015)

dale said:


> are you sure about that? i think the bible was a 1st draft.



If I'm not mistaken, the qur’an was a first draft—it “revealed itself” over a period of a couple decades and no one has been allowed to make changes to it. 

The bible, on the other hand, has been edited, reworked, had parts taken out and other parts added, translated, and edited and reworked ad nauseum. My grandmother once told me that “everyone” was instructed to turn in their bibles for new ones, and that she kept hers because she wanted to figure out what the changes were to the new editions.


----------



## dale (Dec 21, 2015)

patskywriter said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the qur’an was a first draft—it “revealed itself” over a period of a couple decades and no one has been allowed to make changes to it.
> 
> The bible, on the other hand, has been edited, reworked, had parts taken out and other parts added, translated, and edited and reworked ad nauseum. My grandmother once told me that “everyone” was instructed to turn in their bibles for new ones, and that she kept hers because she wanted to figure out what the changes were to the new editions.



i know. that was a joke.


----------



## dale (Dec 21, 2015)

there have been some successful "1st novels" though. "to kill a mockingbird" is one of many.


----------



## patskywriter (Dec 21, 2015)

dale said:


> i know. that was a joke.



And a good one it was, too. <snicker>  :cookie:


----------



## ironpony (Dec 22, 2015)

Okay, thanks for the input people.  One thing I need to learn about writing is to be able to tell the difference as to what counts as an acceptable plot hole compared to unacceptable.  I asked other writers' opinions and one said that no amount of plot holes is acceptable, not even one, and the other said that every thriller story has a plot hole in here or there.  It seems true.  Since I write screenplays, I tend to use movies as examples, but every thriller movie I watch where I study the writing and break it down, there is always something in their that does not make sense, or is a plot hole in some way.  So I fail to see the distinction as to what counts as an acceptable or unacceptable one.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 22, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay, thanks for the input people.  One thing I need to learn about writing is to be able to tell the difference as to what counts as an acceptable plot hole compared to unacceptable.  I asked other writers' opinions and one said that no amount of plot holes is acceptable, not even one, and the other said that every thriller story has a plot hole in here or there.  It seems true.  Since I write screenplays, I tend to use movies as examples, but every thriller movie I watch where I study the writing and break it down, there is always something in their that does not make sense, or is a plot hole in some way.  So I fail to see the distinction as to what counts as an acceptable or unacceptable one.



There's no magic number or line in the sand that dictates how many plot holes are "acceptable". There is ONLY the suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. If they enjoy or are engrossed in your work enough that they are willing to suspend any doubt for the sake of the story's integrity and their enjoyment, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Newman (Dec 22, 2015)

ironpony said:


> I rewrote a whole new story outline, where the characters behave much more plausibly I think, but I feel it builds towards an anticlimax as a result. Since everyone behaves in the most plausible way possible, I feel that nothing crazy or shocking really happens. It feels too predictable, because the more plausible a person behaves, the more predictable it can be, and everyone has to stay in their own boxes and not be able to come out and take the story in climatic directions because of it.
> 
> 
> I also feel that since it's a thriller, most thrillers as they build more and more towards the end, the pacing becomes faster and faster traditionally, because the steaks are raised and the race against time is running out and closing in.
> ...



I don't think you should go against your instincts.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about plausibility. There's a fine line between that and artistic license.

Rather than get into a debate about climax vs anticlimax, why not just make it climax. My instinct tells me that's likely to be a better story.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 22, 2015)

I could make it a climax, it's just tough since I may have some character implausibilites or plot holes to get to one, as oppose to not.  My instincts tell me I should try to make a compromise.  It's just if oyu want the characters to do plausible things with not plot holes, the big mindblowing showdown type of climax, does not seem possible, unless the story can have it's cake and eat it too, and I am missing the concept somehow?


----------



## dale (Dec 22, 2015)

ironpony said:


> I could make it a climax, it's just tough since I may have some character implausibilites or plot holes to get to one, as oppose to not.  My instincts tell me I should try to make a compromise.  It's just if oyu want the characters to do plausible things with not plot holes, the big mindblowing showdown type of climax, does not seem possible, unless the story can have it's cake and eat it too, and I am missing the concept somehow?



i don't really worry much about "implausibilities" in my fiction. i see all kinds of implausibilities on the evening news...
...but that crap sells, too.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 22, 2015)

Yeah that's what I thought too.  I watched the movie Compliance, which is based on a true story, and it's the most implausible story I've ever heard, yet it's true.


----------

