# Does this come across as a plot hole, like one readers said?



## ironpony (Dec 24, 2015)

For my story, a witness has been subpoenaed to testify in a criminal case, and the witness is a member of the gang.  Her house is being watched by the police while she is in it.  In my story, I wrote it so that the gang becomes concerned about this, and they decide to take the surveying police hostage at gunpoint, and break into her house to coerce her into telling what she told the police, since she has been subpoenaed.

But I was told by a writer that this is a plot hole, because the gang would never turn on their loyalty to a fellow member, just because they were subpoenaed, and are being watched.  They would trust the fellow member not to say anything and lie in court of need be.  Plus just because she has been subpoenaed, it's because she is an uncooperative witness, and they are doing it to get her to talk.  Since she hasn't said anything yet, there is no cause to even go to her house, and they would just let her screw up the case in court, since gangs are all about trust.

The reader says they wouldn't turn on her, where as other readers are not sure.  But is it a plot hole, like he said, from the sounds of it?


----------



## dale (Dec 24, 2015)

it's not a plot-hole.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 24, 2015)

How do I see it the reader then?  Like he says that the gang's trust would come apart if they decided to turn on one of their own, so can I write it so that the reader can suspend disbelief?


----------



## dale (Dec 24, 2015)

ironpony said:


> How do I see it the reader then?  Like he says that the gang's trust would come apart if they decided to turn on one of their own, so can I write it so that the reader can suspend disbelief?



lol. ahve you ever seen the godfather? goodfellas? almost any gangster movie ever made? they turn on eachother all
the time. they kill eachother over crap like this all the time. i don't even know how your reader even thought they didn't.


----------



## J Anfinson (Dec 24, 2015)

Give them a history of ratting so that the rest of the gang has doubts.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 24, 2015)

Well the reader also said that taking the cops hostage while they are watching her, will create more trouble than a subpoenaed witness, who is loyal to keep her mouth shut anyway.  If it came to the cops drawing their guns, or having to kill the cops, the gang would be in MORE trouble he said, so it doesn't make sense how they would try to resolve their problem, by creating a much bigger problem.

Later on in when she testifies, she lies and her testimony taints the case, and the evidence cannot be used against the gang later, so the case is gone cold after.  The gang is then relieved and proud of her and welcom her back into the gang, but she has to lie low for long while.

Could this be why the reader didn't by it, that they would be grateful that she ruined the case against them, and let her back in?


----------



## Jill (Dec 24, 2015)

Well, it kinda sounds like it doesn't it from all we hear about gangs, but then the head of the IRA ordered a hit on one of his own, a single mom, thinking she MIGHT have talked to the police, so doesn't it all depend on the execution of the plot, i.e., how well you draw the characters, their motivation, what's going on in their head.  IF you use it to illustrate group think:  The group values loyalty, but only as they define it and it doesn't put them at risk.......


----------



## Sam (Dec 24, 2015)

Ironpony, I say this without any malice whatsoever, but you need to hear it: you have a habit of worrying too much. 

Just because one person said it was a plot hole, it doesn't make it so. Besides, even if it were a plot hole, it's easily fixed. Plot holes aren't the end of the world. 

All they need is a little bit of imagination, creativity, and today's plot hole becomes tomorrow's twist.


----------



## aj47 (Dec 24, 2015)

Beware of the One Reader.  I had a beta who said I gave something away too early and I redid the whole story.  I took it to a workshop and they said they never saw it coming and that I assumed the reader knew too much.  >boing<  I learned my lesson.  One reader can be wrong.  It's when you have a consensus that you need to be concerned.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 25, 2015)

astroannie said:


> Beware of the One Reader.  I had a beta who said I gave something away too early and I redid the whole story.  I took it to a workshop and they said they never saw it coming and that I assumed the reader knew too much.  >boing<  I learned my lesson.  One reader can be wrong.  It's when you have a consensus that you need to be concerned.



Well I was told by two people that they are plot holes, but they disagree about how.  One said that the gang would trust her to not testify, and they wouldn't have to coerce her.  The other said that they wouldn't coerce her and that they would kill her and the cops that are watching her immediately, without warning.

This is why I wanted other opinions to see what they would do, and try to come up with a consensus for whether it makes sense or not.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Dec 25, 2015)

I, along with Sam, intend no malice with my statement but....

Along with worrying too much, you have a bad habit of parsing out information in small doses. You ask us for our opinion on this particular plot line because "one reader" saw it as a hole.

When told that it's not a hole, you then bring up another reader who said it's a hole.

There are times when you come off as being contrary for the sake of it. 

If you really want our opinions, you really need to give us the information (ALL of it) that is causing you to make the inquiry on the first place.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 25, 2015)

Okay thanks, yes I should explain more.

Well in the story, a gang of crooks wants to recruit a crooked cop.  They figure it's good having a cop on in their gang, cause he could act as a mole, and he could also come in handy in other police situations when called for.

In order to find out if the crooked cop has the chops to be in their gang, they put him through a test to see if he is loyal enough to be a member, by giving him a 'blood in'.  It's a police term meaning when a gang recruits someone, they test him by having him spill the blood of another person.

The woman character, agrees to be a fake target of the blood in, and the blood in is going to be staged, but it will appear real to the crooked cop they want to recruit.  They want the cop to kill her but it will be faked.  The reason why is, if the crooked cop, tries to bust the gang in any way or try to arrest them, the police cannot use the victim as evidence, because since she is part of the gang, she will act as if she doesn't want to press charges and not give the police any information as to her being a hostage.  She will just remain silent and say she does not wish to press charges and that's all she will say, nothing more, so no other words she speaks can be used against her.

During the blood in, as the crooked cop is deciding whether or not to kill an innocent hostage woman, another cop who is on patrol, comes across the suspicious activity and follows up on it.  He discovers that there is gang activity in progress, and they have a hostage, who they look like they are about to kill, so the he stops it.  He manages to save the fake victim, thinking she is a real victim, and he arrests one of the gang members.  But the other gang members and the crooked cop get away and the honest cop does not see their faces since they wore masks.  They also wore gloves and left no prints or DNA at the scene.  And even if any DNA was left, none of the members are on file anyway at this point.

The fake victim remains silent so the cops will have no testimony to support that any kidnapping and hostage crime occurred.  But instead of letting the arrested suspect go, and dropping the case, like the gang was hoping for if a bust were to occur, the prosecutor decides to subpoena her to testify, whether she wants to press charges or not.  The prosecutor can still press charges of course.

So the gang becomes concerned with the fact that she is subpoenaed and her house is under police watch, so the gang figures she very well could have said something therefore.  The reason why her house is under watch is because they believe that if she was a kidnap victim, the gang might come back for her and could know where she lives.

But I was told that the gang would not go after her. Since they chose her to be a fake victim to ruin the bust, if one was to occur, they would trust that she would do that and not turn on her.  Or another reader says they would kill her immediately, and not coerce her to find out what she told the cops, like how I wrote it.

But what do you think?  Does this help?  Thanks for the input, I really appreciate it.


----------



## Sam (Dec 25, 2015)

That's a question that can be answered either/or, depending on the gang, their proclivities, and whether or not they can trust that the women can maintain her loyalty and keep silent under the long thumb of the law. Equally, that's a question that you must answer, derived from the way _you _[the author] wrote this gang in the first place. Have they killed fellow members in the past, for any reason, or do they have a zero tolerance approach to snitches? 

Those are questions that can only be answered by the creator of the gang. They're good questions, and they need to be answered, but what they amount to overall is demonstrably not a plot hole. 

A plot hole is Skynet, a ruthless organisation that has created countless terminators, choosing only to send one back in time to kill a target. They have multiple terminators. Why wouldn't they just send a hundred? A thousand? Game over. 

A plot hole is Daniel beating Jonny, in _The Karate Kid, _to win the tournament. All throughout the movie, we're told that kicks to the head are illegal and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. How does Daniel win? By kicking Jonny in the head. 

Those are plot holes. A plot hole would be you creating a gang that kills snitches without compunction and then having them let the woman go after she's been seen with the cops. A plot hole would be you creating a gang that trusts no one, not even members, and then having them trust that the woman won't turn against them. 

Those are plot holes. What you have is an unanswered question as to what this gang's _modus operandi _is. Figure that out, and you'll figure out the answer as to what they'll do to a suspected snitch.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 26, 2015)

Sam said:


> That's a question that can be answered either/or, depending on the gang, their proclivities, and whether or not they can trust that the women can maintain her loyalty and keep silent under the long thumb of the law. Equally, that's a question that you must answer, derived from the way _you _[the author] wrote this gang in the first place. Have they killed fellow members in the past, for any reason, or do they have a zero tolerance approach to snitches?
> 
> Those are questions that can only be answered by the creator of the gang. They're good questions, and they need to be answered, but what they amount to overall is demonstrably not a plot hole.
> 
> ...



Okay thanks.  This helps.  Well the gang hasn't had to a kill a snitch before in the plot, so this would be their first, although the woman never snitched, and they cannot be positive, since she was subpoenaed against her will, even though she hasn't said anything yet.

I could write it so that the gang is concerned and they are surveying her home to observe her behavior and observe the police watching her.  But I was told by the same reader, that even this was a plot hole, as the gang does not have a reason to observe her unless they are going to kill her.


----------



## BobtailCon (Dec 26, 2015)

dale said:


> it's not a plot-hole.




I agree, it's not a plot hole, just character development. Whoever said that obviously didn't take desperation into account. We are human, we don't always follow our own code.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 26, 2015)

Well I understand how a if a character can contradict his own motivation, that would be a plot hole.  However, in my story this scenario is the opening, and no prior motivation of the gang has been established when it comes to loyalty so this would be the first scenario given to the reader.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 26, 2015)

ironpony said:
			
		

> But I was told that the gang would not go after her. Since they chose her to be a fake victim to ruin the bust, if one was to occur, they would trust that she would do that and not turn on her. Or another reader says they would kill her immediately, and not coerce her to find out what she told the cops, like how I wrote it.
> 
> But what do you think?


I think you need to stop letting other people tell you how to write your story.

When I get feedback on my writing? I don't look for corrections with my plot, or adjustments with my character motivations. Those are my creations and they exist because that's the story I wanted to write.

These days, the only thing I really seek feedback on is my prose. Otherwise, everyone and their neighbor will have plot suggestions that'll keep me rewriting until the end of time. And who has time for that? :encouragement:


----------



## ironpony (Dec 26, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I think you need to stop letting other people tell you how to write your story.
> 
> When I get feedback on my writing? I don't look for corrections with my plot, or adjustments with my character motivations. Those are my creations and they exist because that's the story I wanted to write.
> 
> These days, the only thing I really seek feedback on is my prose. Otherwise, everyone and their neighbor will have plot suggestions that'll keep me rewriting until the end of time. And who has time for that? :encouragement:




Yeah I guess. But at the same time, I want readers to understand it.


----------



## Sam (Dec 26, 2015)

Who says readers won't understand it? 

Just because _one _person says something is a plot hole, it doesn't mean that every reader will feel that way. Stop thinking that way. 

It's almost as bad as holding your readers' hands.


----------



## dale (Dec 26, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Yeah I guess. But at the same time, I want readers to understand it.



you wouldn't happen to be oriental, would you? or...i guess they say "asian", nowadays. so i don't mean to offend.
but you kind of remind me of a few orientals i've talked to about things who really tend to overthink shit.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Dec 26, 2015)

dale said:


> you wouldn't happen to be oriental, would you? or...i guess they say "asian", nowadays. so i don't mean to offend.
> but you kind of remind me of a few orientals i've talked to about things who really tend to overthink shit.



I over think everything when it comes to my writing. That's one reason I haven't gotten much a complied over the last few months. 

But I am as Caucasian as it gets.


----------



## dale (Dec 26, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I over think everything when it comes to my writing. That's one reason I haven't gotten much a complied over the last few months.
> 
> But I am as Caucasian as it gets.



well...maybe you're a closet buddhist, then.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Dec 26, 2015)

dale said:


> well...maybe you're a closet buddhist, then.



Perhaps. But it could just be that I am a Virgo and, according to my brother, "The single most analytical man I have ever met."


----------



## Aquilo (Dec 26, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Perhaps. But it could just be that I am a Virgo and, according to my brother, "The single most analytical man I have ever met."



There's nothing wrong with being analytical or cautious. This is your work, and when it goes out into the public, it has your name on it. You'll be up for crit, not anyone else, so don't be afraid to question what you're doing, because, trust me, readers will. 

Beta readers are fantastic, and I usually run with: if more than one spots the same issue, then it's an issue.

When it moves away from betas onto my editor, if he says there's an issue, I trust him implicitly.

Good writers forget ego and remember that what they write isn't perfect. But there's also that cut-off point, where a writer has to say "This has my name on the cover; it comes back to me with what's between the pages, so let me decide."

It's a hard balance to find, unfortunately.


----------



## dale (Dec 26, 2015)

Aquilo said:


> There's nothing wrong with being analytical or cautious. This is your work, and when it goes out into the public, it has your name on it. You'll be up for crit, not anyone else, so don't be afraid to question what you're doing, because, trust me, readers will.
> 
> Beta readers are fantastic, and I usually run with: if more than one spots the same issue, then it's an issue.
> 
> ...



the "balance" is based upon how much you believe in yourself over others. i have found critiques useful.
when i 1st came to this forum and i put my 1st shorts up in the workshop? i was getting a lot of the same
criticisms. but none of it was really related to what made my story MY STORY. the critiques were about how
i was PRESENTING my story in a way that wasn't clear, or came across as "elusive". i never once had ANY
useful criticism or critique that even attempted to change my plot or change my story. because that kind of
criticism is really just someone else ego-trippin on your own ego wanting to tell you what to write from their
own perspective. and if i wanted that shit? i'd just get married again.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 27, 2015)

Okay thanks.  Well actually some of the beta-readers advice has helped quite a bit and I think the story is better.  I mean I still have parts that people say are plot holes, or that they do not understand, which is a problem, but I feel it is still less complicated and more simplified than before too.  But eventually I have to say I am done, otherwise it will take forever, so I guess I just have to assume it will make sense to enough readers that it's good enough to be done?


----------



## BobtailCon (Dec 27, 2015)

dale said:


> i never once had ANY useful criticism or critique that even attempted to change my plot or change my story. because that kind of
> criticism is really just someone else ego-trippin on your own ego wanting to tell you what to write from their
> own perspective.



Unless it's a plot hole or a major missing link in the story, of course. I wouldn't say you should completely overlook any of those criticisms, but I do agree that someone trying to change the direction of your story is not helping.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 28, 2015)

dale said:


> you wouldn't happen to be oriental, would you?



What country does an oriental come from? Orient? Orienta? Orientalia?

LOL!


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 28, 2015)

it's a plothole only if you gave the impression that the gang is tight and won't rat either other out.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 28, 2015)

Tettsuo said:


> it's a plothole only if you gave the impression that the gang is tight and won't rat either other out.



Well the way I see it is that the gang is tight but they also want to be smart, so they still want to coerce her into saying whether or not she talked, just so they know.  But they are tight enough that they do not want to kill one of their fellow members, which is why they aim to coerce her instead.

Does that make sense?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Dec 28, 2015)

For that to really work, you may want to insinuate that, at some point in the recent past, the gang had someone ready to turn on them. They found out about it (you really don't have to get into the how of it) and took the person out before they could snitch.

That way, their suspicion of the member in your story would be at least somewhat justified.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 1, 2016)

Well I could do that but then I feel I would be creating a unnecessary character who has to be killed, just to make a point.  The person who snitched on them in the past means that they would have to get rid of the body so no one can find it, and it just feels like it's forced in their just so the reader can see the gang's point.  Does the reader need a forced subplot, just so they can understand something?  Can they not relate, just out of pure human psychology, on it's own?

I would like to take the advice, and do something for the reader to understand, but do I have to make more characters and more subplots just to do so?  Cause I would like to cut down, and have less be more, if possible.


----------



## dale (Jan 1, 2016)

[video=youtube;glma2zR9-fo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glma2zR9-fo[/video]


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 1, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Well I could do that but then I feel I would be creating a unnecessary character who has to be killed, just to make a point.  The person who snitched on them in the past means that they would have to get rid of the body so no one can find it, and it just feels like it's forced in their just so the reader can see the gang's point.  Does the reader need a forced subplot, just so they can understand something?  Can they not relate, just out of pure human psychology, on it's own?
> 
> I would like to take the advice, and do something for the reader to understand, but do I have to make more characters and more subplots just to do so?  Cause I would like to cut down, and have less be more, if possible.



Wow. Think about what you just said. You said you would have to create a character just to kill them.

Where the heck did I say anything like that?

This kind of thing is a big part of the problems you have. What I suggested would take nothing more than  a couple of paragraphs  to tell. There wouldn't need to be any character created. No big scenario. No long detailed background story.

Stop the complicated thinking. Simplify. A couple hundred words could easily do what I suggested. But you wanted to complicate it by creating more than there needs to be.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 1, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Wow. Think about what you just said. You said you would have to create a character just to kill them.
> 
> Where the heck did I say anything like that?
> 
> ...



You said before to create a past subplot where the gang had to kill one of their own before that person snitched.  The person they would have killed before, would be the new character I meant.  I can write it that way. It's just that why is that whenever the reader does not believe a character decision, I have to write something in the character's past, that makes the current decision justifiable?  Why can't the reader just buy the character decision on other terms?  Like for example, the reader does not believe that a gang would kill one of their members to keep them from talking, unless they have already done so in the past.  But why can't I have this current gang member be the first one they kill?  Why can't their be a first time for the villain's doing something, rather than having to have already done it before?

I wanted this to be the gang's first time killing one of their own, which makes it harder on them, should they decide they have to do it.  But if I write it so that they have already done it before, it just doesn't feel the same way.  Why does the reader not want to be believe that it's their first time?  Why does it have to be a second, for it to be believed?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 2, 2016)

ironpony said:


> You said before to create a past subplot where the gang had to kill one of their own before that person snitched.  The person they would have killed before, would be the new character I meant.  I can write it that way. It's just that why is that whenever the reader does not believe a character decision, I have to write something in the character's past, that makes the current decision justifiable?  Why can't the reader just buy the character decision on other terms?  Like for example, the reader does not believe that a gang would kill one of their members to keep them from talking, unless they have already done so in the past.  But why can't I have this current gang member be the first one they kill?  Why can't their be a first time for the villain's doing something, rather than having to have already done it before?
> 
> I wanted this to be the gang's first time killing one of their own, which makes it harder on them, should they decide they have to do it.  But if I write it so that they have already done it before, it just doesn't feel the same way.  Why does the reader not want to be believe that it's their first time?  Why does it have to be a second, for it to be believed?



Ugh. You can write it any way you want. If you think you can convince the reader that they should "just buy" what you want them to, then have t it. You have been asking for suggestions and you have been getting them. You seem to want to argue every single suggestion, so at this point, I find myself thinking that I no longer have the time nor energy to continue my discussions with you. I have writing to do and I can no longer afford to waste my time and energy in an effort to give an opinion or offer help when  there is a seemingly severe lack of appreciation for it.

My last word toward any and all questions from you is this...WRITE THE DAMN STORY. Stop asking us how and just write it.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 3, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Ugh. You can write it any way you want. If you think you can convince the reader that they should "just buy" what you want them to, then have t it. You have been asking for suggestions and you have been getting them. You seem to want to argue every single suggestion, so at this point, I find myself thinking that I no longer have the time nor energy to continue my discussions with you. I have writing to do and I can no longer afford to waste my time and energy in an effort to give an opinion or offer help when  there is a seemingly severe lack of appreciation for it.
> 
> My last word toward any and all questions from you is this...WRITE THE DAMN STORY. Stop asking us how and just write it.



Sorry I don't mean to reject or not accept advice.  It's just a lot of advice that has been given, I am only getting a small part of the picture.  If a person suggests that I should do this because of this reason, then that reason alone creates a lot more questions that have to be answered, because I am given a new reason, and there are a lot more questions that come with the new reason, that now have to be discussed.  I guess I just feel that maybe some of the suggestions are quite complicated, when something simpler could perhaps happen instead.  Or if I should go with the complicated reason, there are several factors that have to be addressed first, in order to make it hold together.  That's all.

I don't mean to reject advice, I just want to understand and address it so it will hold together in the end.


----------

