2) A base that is on Mars and is actively terraforming the planet gets into trouble when the enviroment changes rapidly and there is a need to make decisions to save the crews life
]]>The united states take the lead in the development of a mars base and are just testing out some new technologies including solar sails, scram jets and Gas core nuclear reactors. Meanwhile the Russians have been secretly building a massive Orion powered starship underground capable of lifting a city into space. Unknown to the Russians there is an internal military plot to prematurely launch the starship for the pride of Russia and claim Mars as a Russian state.
The united states intelligence gather inside information on this plot but cannot gather enough information without the help of a suspicions and proud Russian KGB. To complicate matters further some of members of the Russian intelligence agency are part of the secrete plot.
]]>Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2089AD
The Planetary Stores processing facility on Diemos, having issued ten barrels of Brandy be dispatched to this Colony station, for the use of Senior officers, Civil and Millitary, as a bonus beyond current duties paid in resource share, requires in return cargo, a series of core samples taken from sites six through twenty.
It has been decided for moral purposes that the Brandy is to be made available to core sample survey teams on extended runs beyond a week.
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2089AD
The Planetary Stores processing facility at Diemos has issued a warning that Colonists have been trading water for Alcohol beyond the control perimeter of Station Six Personnel.
Notice to All Personnel: It is now an offence to conduct unauthorised trade. Any one caught doing so will be subject to a loss of Citizenship.
-an exerpt from the Mars Station Six Mission Commanders Log
]]>I re posted these in their own section. Not realy grab bag stuff-more example type stuff.
]]>I showed the entire story to a friend and after she decided that There was something wrong about writing such a story, to the point she totaly freeked out over it. It questioned the reality she was living in to protect herself from what was happening in the real world. She stopped talking to me after that.
Isn't that interesting?
My favourite author L.E. Modesitt, Jr. writes storys that force you to think about what you would do, for example, would you kill millions of people in order to prevent a twisted regime from murdering billions if you were the only person who could make that decision - and there is a twist, you have been blessed/cursed with an extremely long life, so whatever decision you make, you will have to leave through the consequences.
Thus why he will never get on the Bestsellers list; He forces people to think, which many do their uttermost to avoid. But in saying that, he has many, many extremely dedicated fans.
]]>Our primary is a young astronaut draging a trolly of oxygen bottles across the bleak red landscape. She (or He) is now the lone survivor of a crashed colonization transport (there were twelve) occasional flashbacks to events on the ship lead you to darker aspects of the history of this individual.
]]>In this instance we have Stephan, a terrorist, who randomly destroys on a whim. And just like that, the story ends, in a random act of violence with little explanation. This can be an effective tool when developing “cliff-hanger” scenes within a larger piece, or when your direct interest is in ending a story sharply, and suddenly, to convey a certain feeling to the piece.
It’s like a beautiful symphony that builds slowly to an instantaneous crashing crescendo! The effect helps contrast your ending against the development of the story. I think you might be more successful if you keep the ending, but provide more context, and a slower development of the scene.
Since everything seems to be tied up to the final dénouement, you might try keeping the ending, but building up the readers investment and interest in the two characters. This way the sudden loss will be sharper, and more vivid. This also helps to provide some more subtext to the piece as you explore the ‘terrorism’ angle and how the female character’s world is turned around by meeting this male character.
]]>It was midnight when Cassie got to the Fannie Bay address. She had seen it in the paper. This was the Chief Minister’s house.
Stephan stepped out from behind a tree. He was wearing white overalls, gloves, and a mask.
“Quick. Put these on.” Stephan tossed her a bag. Cassie pulled her skirt off and slipped into the overalls. Stephan felt her up.
“Stop that. You’re distracting me.” Stephan smiled.
“That’s the point.”
“What are we doing here?” Cassie looked about with concern.
“There’s a curfew on with that boat that hit that mine.”
Stephan stared into her eyes.
“I know. We are just here to do some spray painting.” Stephan handed her a spray pack.
Stephan sprayed fluorescent yellow on the brick wall of the house.
“Go that way and I’ll meet you on the patio.” Cassie smiled and headed along the front of the house.
Stephan moved for the patio.Cassie took a while before she reached the patio.
Stephan timed it just right as he emerged onto the patio with the wine. Cassie watched as he exited the sliding door.
“What the hell are you doing?” Stephan licked his lips.
“Keep your voice down. You’ll wake the neighbors.” Cassie was horrified.
“Are you fucking insane?”
“Just getting us some drinks.” Stephan shook his head.
“Put them back.”
“You put them back.”
“Bastard.” Cassie was scared for the first time in her life.
“Fridge, Left hand side or they will know you were in the house.” Cassie clenched her teeth and swore inwardly.
“When you get done, I will be heading for the beach for a swim.” Stephan walked off.
This guy was a total bastard. She needed to ditch him as soon as possible. Cassie entered the house and moved slowly through the lounge. It had beautiful furniture. Certainly none of that cheap shit the rest lived with.
Cassie circled the small dining table and moved towards the open-plan kitchen. The fridge was a double door monster with stainless steel shell. Cassie opened the left door. The light was out. She saw the gun on the fridge shelf. There was light.
The explosion shredded the house. Brickwork tore through adjacent houses and rained roof tile across the suburb.
Is a wedge from a short story I did...Its not all that good but you get the drift. The Primary (Stephan) is a Terrorist. it isnt a 'good vs evil' tale, its more a 'wake of chaos' kind of tale. The villain blows through town , does what he does and leaves. You are left with a sense of horror at how easy it was for him to use and destroy others.
I showed the entire story to a friend and after she decided that There was something wrong about writing such a story, to the point she totaly freeked out over it. It questioned the reality she was living in to protect herself from what was happening in the real world. She stopped talking to me after that.
]]>Building on the thought of a villian winning; to move away from the good guys vs bad guys sorta thing, give the protagonist some kind of negative trait which impacts largely on how he relates to people (but not enough so that we aren't turned off the story), and also have the antagonist have some endearing traits as well. For example, a 'goody' who is a compulsive theif versus a 'baddy' who champions animal rights, or something like that.
You can go further, and make your otherwise moral character put in a situation where they have to make a very hard choice (eg in L.E. Modesitt, Jr's Ethos Effect), or make us see the antagonist's point of view, and make that point of view just in their eyes (For example a kind and moral tyrant, who is forced by whatever forces to be harsh on his/her kingdom).
Goody vs Baddy stories suck! It is the amount of grayness in between the extremes that makes a storyline interesting.
*I can think of one storyline where Good vs Bad (and each very markedly delineated) worked marvelously. But yeah...usually a "mix" is more believable and interesting. Give your "Bathless Bart" a daisy: Give an otherwise mostly odious character one admirable trait; give a "good guy/gal" an unpleasant habit or personality flaw.
My only gripe is when the lines of distinction become too blurred and skids off on some totally grayed-out amoral situation. That's not believable, is boring and etc.
In Dark Shadows, the main protagonist was Anqelique; an extremely cruel and merciless witch obssessed with Barnabas Collins. She will stop at literally nothing to win his heart and soul; an obssessive psycho if ever there were one (a genuine stalker by today's terms). Some fans of the show love Angelique. Besides disliking her methods and actions (reprehensible, IMO), the show's writers made her too negative. She has no redeeming qualities; none. That was a mistake, IMO -- basically because they painted her into a corner; she's a rigid, inflexible character who is oh-so predictable (will always do someone else as much harm as she possibly can); 1-dimensional. If she'd been giving one redeeming quality or a few glimmers of same, she'd have been multi-dimensional and therefore more interesting IMO.
Goody-two-shoes characters can be b-o-r-i-n-g, but so can entirely evil characters. Making characters at least somewhat UNpredictable is important, IMO. Of course there'd be variations in unpredictability, according to the character's personality and temperament, etc. And now I'm rambling...
--Cindy
]]>You can go further, and make your otherwise moral character put in a situation where they have to make a very hard choice (eg in L.E. Modesitt, Jr's Ethos Effect), or make us see the antagonist's point of view, and make that point of view just in their eyes (For example a kind and moral tyrant, who is forced by whatever forces to be harsh on his/her kingdom).
Goody vs Baddy stories suck! It is the amount of grayness in between the extremes that makes a storyline interesting.
]]>--Cindy
]]>Generally, there are two aspects working against an author who wishes to focus on the villain as a protagonist instead of as a traditional antagonist.
One is the predisposition that a villain winning is usually considered an "unhappy" ending. This is less of an issue in works outside of the United States, but inside, generally, the audience prefers for the good guys to win, and the bad guys to lose. One of the theories of the difference in appreciation between the audience is thought to be the historical experience of say, Europe, versus that of America. Europe, as an example, has experienced quite bit more range in terms of destruction and unhappy endings. This has an affect on the perception of the writers too, and influences a great many of their works to express their experience.
Only relatively recently has the American audience been more receptive to a reversal of the standard happy ending tale, and of course, different people have different tastes (I am of course speaking in generalities to give a basic background on the matter). Now this is relevant because many people are not so disposed to create "unhappy" endings for their creative work, but it can be rewarding as an artistic challenge, or yet another way to approach your story. The advantage to a writer in working on something like this is that it better prepares you when you wish to work on character creation, allowing you to feel more comfortable in creating a believable villain. How so?
Well this takes me to point number two, to write a villain piece effectively, you need to engage the reader so as they become attached to the villain. Examples include Darth Vader, Dr. Stragelove, the Vampire Lestat, and just about any memorable villain from James Bond. Now these are examples, and there are many others, and there are slight differences in how to successfully attach your audience to a villain.
In the case of Darth Vader, there is redemption. In the case of Strangelove, there is sheer and utter comical madness that is engaging. Or in the case of Lestat, you have an amoral character that wanders in and out of redemption, drawing the reader along to see what happens. The trick really is to write the villain in such a way that the audience doesn't mind that the villain winning is the cause of the unhappy ending.
An interesting read if any are predisposed is, "The Stranger," by Albert Camus. The story deals with amoral ambivalence and the fall of the main protagonist within a farce of circumstance. The reader is drawn in to the story of Meursault, a character with few redeeming qualities, and somehow by the end, feels empathy towards someone who really deserves none.
Our own resident Prophet (C.C.) in the Martian Settler threads is something of a villain, but he successfully portrays the villain by creating an atmosphere where you secretly want the character to succeed just to see what he will do next.
If any are interested, I might suggest that we consider developing villain pieces for a challenge. I think there is a great deal to lean by approaching your own work in non-traditional ways (as in ways you don't necessarily think about). It allows you to stretch, and tends to teach you something in the process.
]]>Recommended reading: Power without Glory by Frank Hardy
Despite what the Author said during the trial in which he was charged by a promentent Australian family with defamation, The story was infact a true story...