Plot problem

Axelle · Mar 25, 2008

So, hum, I've just finished my first novel - well, I've finished the first draft. I know I've been a little frantic about it on these boards, but hey, it's my first.

Problem is, now it's time to work out all these little details that go shuffled aside as I went on with the writing. And I've realized that I might have to ditch three or four chapters, unless I manage to fill in a plot hole. My beta told me these chapters are good enough and that it would be a pity to throw them away, but I'm kinda stuck on that plot problem.

Here's the equation (so to speak) :

A peace treaty is being negotiated between two powerful nations that have been at war for the past few months. We'll call them A and B for simplicity's sake. But there's a political leader from nation B who is none too happy about the peace treaty thing, he thinks war is the only way (nation B is bound on revenge for its defeat against nation A in a prior conflict, a little like Germany after WW1). That political leader is nicknamed EMB (Evil Manipulative Bastard), I'll find him a name later.

To stop the peace treaty from being signed, EMB has tried to order the assassination of the guy who led the peace negotiations. But he has failed.

So my problem is : what else can he do to stop the peace process, without himself being exposed ? Preferably, that would be something involving pirates, but for the life of me, my brain feels as empty as my moneybox, and that's saying something.

mscelina · Mar 25, 2008

diversionary tactics. let him get another country antagonized against country A. he can use his diplomatic skills to create a second conflict and use that to break off the peace negotiations.

bluntforcetrauma · Mar 25, 2008

Pirate A says 'Arrhh!"
Pirate B says "Arrh!"

Then it all hits the fan.

Axelle · Mar 25, 2008

Pirate A says 'Arrhh!"
Pirate B says "Arrh!"

What, a "Aarrh" contest ? ;D

The diversionary tactics sound interesting, but what I don't understand is how an attack from a third force would break off the peace agreements ? Wouldn't it be an incentive to make peace so they can better focus on this new threat ?

mscelina · Mar 25, 2008

because country A would then have to divide its attention. If country C, for example, starts making aggressive moves against it, country B would have a viable reason to back out of the negotiation. ("We're not the only ones who think this way--country C does too.") I'm not sure from your example if this is a modern world scenario or if we're talking spec fic or alternate history, but you can look at recent American diplomacy for examples. We divert attention all the time.

For example: look at how neatly our foreign affairs shifted from the war in Iraq when its popularity plummeted to the threat that Iran offers to peace in the Middle East? It was a diversionary tactic, one that captured international attention and suppressed (temporarily) the pressure on our government to end the conflict in Iraq.

elguapo · Mar 25, 2008

Perhaps he should overthrow the ruler of A and break off the treaty himself

After all, if you want a job done right ....

[edit] Or he could overthrow his own political leader, blame it on the "enemy" and use it as an excuse to go back to war!

mscelina · Mar 25, 2008

assassinations do work well. he could arrange the assassination of the leader of country c and leave big honking clues that the assassination came from country a. then he could sit back and watch the conflict blow up around him and THEN come in with his country to the aid of country c and look like a big ol' hero.

Think Borgias. They did this type of thing a LOT.

Oasilhael · Mar 25, 2008

EMB should stage a mock terror attack, ostensibly from Nation A, on his own country and use that as an excuse to sever negotiations and declare war again (a little like what Hitler did to the Reichstag in the '30s). That way, he can galvanize the people's hate into a desire for revenge...and we all know how much Evil Manipulative B******s like hatred and revenge.

wayndom · Mar 26, 2008

Don't know how serious you are about the pirates, but if the story takes place in the era of sailing ships, the actions of privateers have pushed countries toward war.

Privateers were independent ships who were given permission by their government to act as pirates, but only toward enemy ships. England was very big on privateers. It would be fairly easy for EMB to commission some privateers with specific instructions to do something really provocative.

Shweta · Mar 26, 2008

There's a wide range of things EMB can do (taking a hostage, setting fire to a city, unleashing pirates on a hapless city, leading to its being set on fire and hostages being taken...) but I think what matters most for the rest of your story is who he does them to.

He could do them to country A, and make it look like country B was double-crossing them, thus setting country A off to break the treaty (then B can respond)
Or he could do them to country B and frame country A.
Or he could do something to country A and frame his own ruler, make it look like country A reponded, thus framing country A, and set everything up so that everybody hates everybody else and nobody's going "Waitaminute I never!"

Each of these sets up a different set of challenges.

Mr Flibble · Mar 26, 2008

EMB can make sure the leader of A is caught in a compromising postion ( in bed with a ship load of pirates?) that means he will lose leadership of A. EMB can then take the moral high ground ( I'm sorry I can't negotiate with a nation of degenerates) while country A gets its knickers in a twist about who they're going to get to lead them now -- hopefully being plunged into civil war, whereupon EMB waits till they are nice and weak and walks in and takes over.

EMB should stage a mock terror attack, ostensibly from Nation A, on his own country and use that as an excuse

EMB engineers mock terror attack from country Z on country A. EMB then says, oh of course we'll help, and makes lots of money selling them weapons without endangering any of his own men. Sadly there are no pirates in this -- unless they are the gun runners.

EMB sends his wife to seduce leader of country A, therefore having the perfect excuse to challenge him to a duel when he is discovered ( moral high ground again). EMB chops up leader A, and declares war.

EMb secretly negotiates with pirates, offers a fifty-fifty split of everything they can loot from country A. Country A asks for help against the pirates -- EMB says sure, and takes over.

HeronW · Mar 26, 2008

Then there's the Princess Bride gambit: Have EMB kidnap the wife or daughter of the ruler of A or B and leave clues to blame B or A and no one will want peace with the First lady/ First daughter lost and parts coming back in baggies to show that the kidnappers are serious.

JJ Cooper · Mar 26, 2008

A peace treaty is being negotiated between two powerful nations that have been at war for the past few months. We'll call them A and B for simplicity's sake. But there's a political leader from nation B who is none too happy about the peace treaty thing, he thinks war is the only way (nation B is bound on revenge for its defeat against nation A in a prior conflict, a little like Germany after WW1). That political leader is nicknamed EMB (Evil Manipulative Bastard), I'll find him a name later.

To stop the peace treaty from being signed, EMB has tried to order the assassination of the guy who led the peace negotiations. But he has failed.

So my problem is : what else can he do to stop the peace process, without himself being exposed ? Preferably, that would be something involving pirates, but for the life of me, my brain feels as empty as my moneybox, and that's saying something.

Maybe the target was right but the execution poor. Would your EMB just give up on his goal of getting rid of the negotiator? Does he have it in him to continue with this tagret until he achieves his objective? Perhaps you can stay on this tact and come up with a different method of targetting the negotiator. Can he still achieve his aim by compromising the integrity of the negotiator? A dark past that can be manipulated? Maybe a 'honey trap'.

JJ

James D. Macdonald · Mar 26, 2008

EMB leaks manufactured "evidence" that the negotiator for the other side is really his secret agent.

Plus photos of the leader of Country A with a call girl, to distract him.

Garpy · Mar 26, 2008

fake an 'atrocity' on his own soil. Kind of reichstag fire type of thing. Or...if you buy the 9/11 conspiracy stuff....a 9/11 atrocity designed to implicate nation A and galvanise his people to go to war.

Recent history is full of such inspirational stuff as this.

Sarpedon · Mar 26, 2008

Maybe he has friends in a small, allied and obnoxious country, nicknamed C. People in country C are in a dispute with country D, and EMB tells leaders of country C that country B will back them no matter what they do. So Country C makes unreasonable demands to country D, and then invades regardless. (do you see where I am going here?) of course, Country A and Country D are longstanding friends.

kimb68 · Mar 26, 2008

Prisoners of war. If they've been at war for a while, part of the negotiation will be prisoner exchange. To stall the negotiations EMB manufactures evidence that the other country has been horribly mistreating prisoners and violating international conventions. This should set up all sorts of in-fighting among the political powers since some will use the issue to grandstand and dredge up old grudges and others will use it as license to commit atrocities of their own.

Basically, anything that makes the other side look like they can't be trusted to uphold a treaty would be good.

Sonneillon · Mar 26, 2008

If I were EMB, I'd poison Nation B's own peace delegates. When they dropped dead during negotiations, the public outrage would practically force the leaders of Nation B to turn hostile toward Nation A. Nation A would, of course, protest that they didn't do it, which I would spin in the news as "they claim innocence, who knows what other lies they were telling us as we were trying to work out trade agreements? They would have bled us dry if we'd gone through with it!"

Axelle · Mar 26, 2008

Wow ! Thanks for all these suggestions. I've been thinking about my problem all day, and I was beginning to believe I should do the simple thing and ditch the chapters, but with everything you've suggested there might still be hope ! (Plus, if I did ditch the chapters, the novel would have this "unfinished" feel to it).

My MC is not a diplomat (far from it, actually) and he's not taking part in the negotiations. I'm not sure about how much influence EMB really has, either, but I'll have a closer look at all you've suggested. I'll need a day or two to explore all the possibilities now opened (hey, I prefer to have too many rather than not enough !) and I'll let you know what I can make of it. Feel free to keep suggesting more ideas, though ! And thanks again for all your help and support.

Plot problem

Axelle

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

bluntforcetrauma

Esquire

Axelle

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

elguapo

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Oasilhael

wayndom

Shweta

gone

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

HeronW

Down Under Fan

JJ Cooper

.

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

Garpy

keyboard monkey

Sarpedon

kimb68

Sonneillon

Autophobic Misanthrope

Axelle