bad guy and cops...

[jeninflorida]

Im working on the outline and summary for a story....this is a genre I normally do not read.

What I was thinking was to have the first half of the story being the cop...then the second half being the bad guy ... what he did...how...and what he wad thinking.

Can this work? Or is it best to alternate between good and bad chapters?
(Good being even chapters and bad boy being the odd chapters)

 

[sr71plt]

Yep. My coauthor and I use this approach a lot. And I've used it in my own stories--working a couple that way now.

 

[SamScribble]

For what it’s worth, I think this approach works best when each character sees each of the main events differently – in other words, when both characters are ‘unreliable witnesses’.

 

[Bramblethorn]

For what it’s worth, I think this approach works best when each character sees each of the main events differently – in other words, when both characters are ‘unreliable witnesses’.

Agreed. If it's just hearing the same story with different pronouns, why bother?

 

[sr71plt]

I think the OP pretty much said it would be from the different perspectives (e.g., "what he was thinking").

 

[SamScribble]

I think the OP pretty much said it would be from the different perspectives (e.g., "what he was thinking").

My point was that both of the characters - the 'good' guy and the 'bad' guy - should probably be 'unreliable'.

 

[sr71plt]

My point was that both of the characters - the 'good' guy and the 'bad' guy - should probably be 'unreliable'.

Isn't everyone looking at anything from just the one perspective if the observation gets any more complex than "Yep, that body is dead"?

 

[patientlee]

It's fiction. You can do what you want with it.

 

[SamScribble]

It's fiction. You can do what you want with it.

Exactly

 

[sr71plt]

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. It seemed quite evident to me that the OP was saying the perspectives would be different--and so I think, as happens frequently on the forum, that the thread went to answering a question that wasn't asked.

 

[Acktion]

Im working on the outline and summary for a story....this is a genre I normally do not read.

What I was thinking was to have the first half of the story being the cop...then the second half being the bad guy ... what he did...how...and what he wad thinking.

Can this work? Or is it best to alternate between good and bad chapters?
(Good being even chapters and bad boy being the odd chapters)

Food for thought... On most personality indices, cops and criminals tend to score almost perfectly in synch with the exception of the one attributed to "duty".

Just thought I'd toss that out there.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. It seemed quite evident to me that the OP was saying the perspectives would be different--and so I think, as happens frequently on the forum, that the thread went to answering a question that wasn't asked.

I understood that the OP was going to tell it from different perspectives, but I wanted to establish what they meant by "different".

I've read stories here where the author retold the same story from a different character's POV without adding anything of interest: Bob describes how much Jane loves his mighty peen, then Jane describes how much she loves his huge schlong, sort of thing. Technically that's "different perspectives" - Bob's and Jane's, but I don't think it's a very interesting way to tell the story.

If they mean two different POVs that suggest different interpretations of the same events, then great, that's what I was recommending - but it wasn't clear whether that was what they had in mind.

 

[R. Richard]

What you want is two entirely different personalities. It's not so much a matter of criminal and scumbag, but of characters A or B. You should immediately know which character it is by just the personality of the protagonist, even without names. JMHO.

The average scumbag is just a criminal type who lacks the drive and guts to become a full fledged criminal. A scumbag will try to justify what he's doing, by references to law. However, the scumbag doesn't consider himself personally bound by law.

 

[jomar]

RR raises an interesting point. What about an ethical criminal (Reynolds and Wahlberg have played such) and a corrupt cop? Might add another layer and such to the story.