Does a thriller thrill because of the stakes, or are the stakes just an elaborate Macguffin that could be replaced by any plot device? Aren't all thrillers character driven, in the sense that we really care more about the main characters than any abstract threat to the world?
In concrete terms, if you read a thriller about terrorists about to set a bomb off in New York City, do you care more about the potential bombing, and its devastating effects, or the actions, perils, and efforts of the protags in stopping it?
Personally, I don't care much about the raise-the-stakes consequences. It's somewhat satisfying to have a threat that threatens the world, but it's also more of an abstract concept. How do you really feel the threat to a few million people you don't know? An immediate threat to one character that you know generates a stronger reaction than an abstract threat to a million people you don't.
A good writer makes the main character come alive. In a thriller, they're constantly facing very real and intimate dangers. Personal choices. We get to know them. In my opinion, this is where the suspense comes from; the conflicts facing your protag as he/she tries to save the world.
My position (and I could be very wrong; that's why I'm posting) is that a good thriller is part mystery (how are the bad guys going to smuggle in the bombs?) and suspense/action (the protag is constantly being threatened.) The threat itself is somewhat inconsequential. Sometimes I actually forget what the stakes are when reading - I'm more concerned with how our character escapes the current chapter's dilemma.
You may love or hate The Da Vinci Code, but it did sell. I think it was sucessful because it was driven by mystery (the puzzles), and the constant danger to the protag. Not because of the stakes. Each chapter ended with a new mystery, and a new threat.
Now, there are a few high-concept novels where the threat defines the book. Jurassic Park wouldn't be Jurassic Park without the dinosaurs. But in most thrillers the stakes could be replaces with anything (a bombing in New York could be replaces by a plague in London) with no impact. A few years after reading a thriller I've usually forgotten the stakes. What were the stakes of the DaVinci Code? I honestly can't remember, but the albino monk killer dude is stuck in my brain (for better or worse!)
If you agree with me, then when marketing, querying or writing a blurb about your novel, you'd want to concentrate on personal stakes, characterization, and plot twists, with only a brief mention of the high-level stakes:
"Policeman John Strong has been given one week to live by his doctors, and must battle his own addictions, corrupt management, a transsexual nun, and his cross-dressing dog in stopping a sinister plot of some type."
So, what drives a successful thriller?
In concrete terms, if you read a thriller about terrorists about to set a bomb off in New York City, do you care more about the potential bombing, and its devastating effects, or the actions, perils, and efforts of the protags in stopping it?
Personally, I don't care much about the raise-the-stakes consequences. It's somewhat satisfying to have a threat that threatens the world, but it's also more of an abstract concept. How do you really feel the threat to a few million people you don't know? An immediate threat to one character that you know generates a stronger reaction than an abstract threat to a million people you don't.
A good writer makes the main character come alive. In a thriller, they're constantly facing very real and intimate dangers. Personal choices. We get to know them. In my opinion, this is where the suspense comes from; the conflicts facing your protag as he/she tries to save the world.
My position (and I could be very wrong; that's why I'm posting) is that a good thriller is part mystery (how are the bad guys going to smuggle in the bombs?) and suspense/action (the protag is constantly being threatened.) The threat itself is somewhat inconsequential. Sometimes I actually forget what the stakes are when reading - I'm more concerned with how our character escapes the current chapter's dilemma.
You may love or hate The Da Vinci Code, but it did sell. I think it was sucessful because it was driven by mystery (the puzzles), and the constant danger to the protag. Not because of the stakes. Each chapter ended with a new mystery, and a new threat.
Now, there are a few high-concept novels where the threat defines the book. Jurassic Park wouldn't be Jurassic Park without the dinosaurs. But in most thrillers the stakes could be replaces with anything (a bombing in New York could be replaces by a plague in London) with no impact. A few years after reading a thriller I've usually forgotten the stakes. What were the stakes of the DaVinci Code? I honestly can't remember, but the albino monk killer dude is stuck in my brain (for better or worse!)
If you agree with me, then when marketing, querying or writing a blurb about your novel, you'd want to concentrate on personal stakes, characterization, and plot twists, with only a brief mention of the high-level stakes:
"Policeman John Strong has been given one week to live by his doctors, and must battle his own addictions, corrupt management, a transsexual nun, and his cross-dressing dog in stopping a sinister plot of some type."
So, what drives a successful thriller?
