[Bethelamon]

For a long time I have been working on the background to the story I am going to write.

In a nutshell, its about discovering the truths behind the mythologies and religions of the past.

I know exactly what the story is going to be about, but what I am now working on is how exactly it works, the mechanics of it.

One thing Im going for is my main characters really are NORMAL people, they are no-one special, and they are just drawn into the plot through various accidents.

This is the tricky part, working out how these normal people become involved, and not only that but why they actively take part rather than just walking away.

-----------------------------------------

So we have character A and character B.

B's father/uncle/grandfather/etc is a bit of a historian. He has recently acquired a historical document. It is of real importance as it reveals something shocking about the history of the world, and more importantly, about the truth behind the religions people have been living by for 1500 years.

'Shadowy organisation' gets wind of this document, and that it has something in it that will be VERY interesting for them. They go to get hold of it. One thing leads to another, and the historian is killed in the process. Character B witnesses it.

The 'organisation' need to wipe out any witnesses.... they think B might know who they are, what the document was, etc... He is a wild card and they can't let him go. In reality B doesn't know what the document was, and hasn't a clue whats going on.

The organisation hunt him down. He is on the run from who knows who, his father/uncle/whatever is dead, and he doesn't know why.

Eventually he makes his way into the city of Antirol, where he meets character A. Somehow or another they become friends and A takes B in.

Then the organisation turn up. Lots of exciting things happen, blah blah blah.....

------------------------------------

Anyway, this is where I have a good idea of how A gets involved, but it seem odd. Here it is.

------------------------------------

A has a friend.... C. C becomes involved with whats going on. Basically, the organisation kill who they think is B. But its actually C. They go off home, happy that their secret has been kept.

So now A is involved. He has lost his best friend.

B wants to know what the document was and why his father/whatever died. Thats his motivation for getting involved in the story. A needs a motivation to help him out. Having C killed is my idea. He wants to know what is going on too, and revenge and the truth both seem like nice ideas.

------------------------------------

So this idea will get both characters A and B into the story, entirely accidently, but gives them strong enough motivation to become my protagonists.

But this way, they both have the same motivation - they both lose someone close to them.

Does this seem silly, having both characters suffer personal grief?

[James Carmack]

Does this seem silly, having both characters suffer personal grief?

It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Two people sharing grief, forming some sort of deep bond through mutual tragedy, thrown together by Fate to perform deeds beyond their wildest imagination. You're crazy, man. If you don't have the decency to commit yourself, I'm going to call the authorities so you won't pose any further threat to yourself or society at large.

Or perhaps that's a perfectly acceptable setup. Who knows? :P

[Michael B]

It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Two people sharing grief, forming some sort of deep bond through mutual tragedy, thrown together by Fate to perform deeds beyond their wildest imagination. You're crazy, man. If you don't have the decency to commit yourself, I'm going to call the authorities so you won't pose any further threat to yourself or society at large.

Or perhaps that's a perfectly acceptable setup. Who knows? :P
Sounds a lot like a certain Sidney Sheldon novel I read a year back. Mind you I was not convinced that the weather machine was as plausible as the book tried to make out but that's another issue.

I would say go with it.

[Holbrook]

But this way, they both have the same motivation - they both lose someone close to them.


This is the part that strikes a off note to me. Grief takes people in various ways, their reactions are different, feelings concerning death vary. To have both characters react the same and agree about a course of action seems not quite right. Having them deciding to work together to find out why, yes, I can see that, but I feel the driving force behind each doing so should/could be different.

You said C was killed in mistake for B. Now consider the affect on A when he/she finds that out. A friend you love is killed because their offsping/relation has gotten involved in something rather shady. A lot of anger/blame there. B is also going to carrying around a lot of guilt about the death. I somehow don't think it would be a friendly relationship between C and A for the most part.

[Optimutt]

This is the part that strikes a off note to me. Grief takes people in various ways, their reactions are different, feelings concerning death vary. To have both characters react the same and agree about a course of action seems not quite right. Having them deciding to work together to find out why, yes, I can see that, but I feel the driving force behind each doing so should/could be different.

You said C was killed in mistake for B. Now consider the affect on A when he/she finds that out. A friend you love is killed because their offsping/relation has gotten involved in something rather shady. A lot of anger/blame there. B is also going to carrying around a lot of guilt about the death. I somehow don't think it would be a friendly relationship between C and A for the most part.


And in a butshell, Holbrook, that animosity could possibly add a very cool schism in the story, if handled well. It would be a tricky thread to weave, because B would need to offer A something worthwhile enough that B isn't willing to turn A in. If A is an historian like B's murdered uncle/grad/father, then maybe A is in it for the scroll/document/relic. That could be A's reason to put up with this little leech of a person who was the cause of A's best friend. Two people who loathe/blame each other have had successful runs in stories, when forced to work together toward a common goal.

[Bethelamon]

It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Two people sharing grief, forming some sort of deep bond through mutual tragedy, thrown together by Fate to perform deeds beyond their wildest imagination.

Ha, guess it could be a rather nice idea. I'll have to be careful not to get tied down with the 'two people thrown together through their shared grief' idea thoguh, simply because I don't want it to get too depresssing or the characters too serious.

Having them deciding to work together to find out why, yes, I can see that, but I feel the driving force behind each doing so should/could be different.

Why yes of course, their motivations won't be the same, in fact they will be quite different... but they will both be triggered by the loss of a loved one.

You said C was killed in mistake for B. Now consider the affect on A when he/she finds that out. A friend you love is killed because their offsping/relation has gotten involved in something rather shady. (Well actually not quite, its a friend being killed simply because you've just met some random guy. Your friend had nothing to do with it, nor did you until you met this guy.)
A lot of anger/blame there. B is also going to carrying around a lot of guilt about the death. I somehow don't think it would be a friendly relationship between C and A for the most part.

Thats true. Well that can be great fun, making the relationship between them less than simple. Feelings of guilt, anger and blame between A and B is all good, Im willing to involve this in the narrative. They can even come to blows at some point. Good bit of tension will be fun!

And in a butshell (nutshell?), Holbrook, that animosity could possibly add a very cool schism in the story, if handled well. It would be a tricky thread to weave, because B would need to offer A something worthwhile enough that B isn't willing to turn A in. If A is an historian like B's murdered uncle/grad/father, then maybe A is in it for the scroll/document/relic. That could be A's reason to put up with this little leech of a person who was the cause of A's best friend. Two people who loathe/blame each other have had successful runs in stories, when forced to work together toward a common goal.

Hey thats an idea, thanks! A can be interested in 'history' and that can build on his motivation - he has a genuine interest as a historian in 'the document'.
My characters aren't going to be perfect, they are gonna be full of faults and such. Perhaps one of A's faults is he is a bit of a hopeless glory hunter. Who says heroes have to be humble? Perhaps he wants to find out about 'the document' simply so that he can become famous as a historian, presenting his find to the universities and museums and such...
So B is off to find out why his father/uncle/grandparent died, with ideas of justice (perhaps even revenge) on his mind. A is along too, as he wants to know why C had to die so young and unfairly, he cannot let B simply walk off and expect him to get on with his life - he wants answers! And at rumours of some historical find that men are willing to kill for, well that just sparks his curiosity... perhaps this tragedy can actually lead to his big break?

Another thing I don't want in my story is the idea that the characters are on the run... or wanted by the authorities... or hunted.... etc etc... you get what I mean? They initiate this by themselves. As they both have vague ideas of revenge, they are gonna perhaps get on the wrong side of the law along the way. I.e. they are gonna pack swords with them when they go, and no doubt there will be trouble along the way. But its not because of who they are and that they can't help it, its just their personal tragedies have driven them to slightly more desperate measures, which could get them into sticky situations.
Do you know what I mean? Too often in fantasy I see the characters being thrown into a big dramatic plot where their lives are changed, and they have no choice... In my story, it is ENTIRELY their choice. Any trouble they get into is going to be their own doing.

Anyway guys, thanks for taking part in this thread so far, this brainstorming of ideas is a great help to me!

[Optimutt]

Ah yes... Nutshell. Great song by Alice in Chains. Strange that my spellcheck failed to catch that one.

Butshell - n. 1. of or relating to the shell of a counterpoint. his butshell totally marginalized what I was trying to say. syn. rebuttal

[James Carmack]

Well, Beth, if you want A and B to get on the wrong side of the law via their sword-wielding, one easy step is to take a page from Japanese history. After the Meiji Restoration, they passed a law known as the Haitourei, a ban on carrying swords, one of many moves to strip the shizoku of the vestiges of their status as samurai. Before that, during the Edo Jidai, no one outside the samurai class was permitted to wear a sword. A weapon ban to one degree or another is a quick way to get in trouble. (Shoot, for that matter, most Old West towns had ordinances against having a piece on you, despite what the movies show, and trouble would start when cowboys fresh off the range would roll into town and remain visibly armed.)

The conscious decision to bear arms in violation of the ban would fit in nicely with your principle of the characters choosing the rocky path they tread.