Which third act to my story is better or should I use both?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ironpony

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
685
Reaction score
4
I could use both for a 3rd and 4th act, and just have one follow as a consequence of another.

In my story, a cop is on the trail of a serial rapist killer type villain, and he himself is raped by the villain eventually, but escapes and wants revenge. The other cops cannot catch the villain because they have to play by the rules, and the villain is always too good at slipping through the legal and forensic cracks, if that makes sense.

Here's the old third act which was discussed in a previous thread:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/sho...of-a-new-ending-for-my-story-(moved-from-MST)

The second third act is this:

So the main character grows impatient and wants to manipulate the police department into bending the rules and stepping outside the box to catch them. The story also uses the old cliche that the main character cop, cannot get his captain to take him seriously and is criticized by him failing, so he does not get much support.


In my case though, he decides that the best way is to take samples of the captain's DNA, fingerprints, etc, and plant them at the next crime scene, when the next crime happens. He thinks that this will insure that the captain will want to take down the villain really seriously and urgently, if there is evidence of him, implicating him in the next murder.

The main character, hot on the trail, fails to stop the next murder from happening, but manages to get there before any other cops are called to the scene. He then plants the captains DNA and prints there, before other officers arrive.

The captain is then facing possible murder charges, implicated in the crime. He has a small window to escape arrest and convince his officers below him to follow his orders and go take the killer down, by executing a plan by the main character, that was not taking seriously before. But now with the captain's life on the line, he is okay with using unorthodox methods to get the villain, and hopefully get him to confess and clear the captain's name.

This is what the main character was counting on. Manipulating them captain into doing whatever it takes, letting the ends justify the means, and thereby getting others on the force to help him as well.

Does this sound like the idea is perhaps too illogical, even if the main character is desperate for revenge and is not thinking the most clearly, or fairly?

Out of these two endings should I just pick one?
 
Last edited:

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Yes, that's illogical. A department that finds evidence a cop is involved in a murder isn't letting the cop stay at work commanding people, even for a window of time, and especially isn't letting said cop anyplace near that case.

I also don't know how someone plants DNA and fingerprints at a scene to make it seem like the person may have committed a crime.
 

ironpony

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
685
Reaction score
4
Okay thanks. I got a book on forensic investigation and hopefully that can be of more help to fill in the details.

When I say the captain is still commanding people, he is not doing it officially. The cops are choosing to obey his orders even though he is not in command anymore. They choose to cause they believe he was framed, since they know him. This is what the main character was counting on, is that he manipulates the captain into creating a group of rogue cops to go after the villain, rather than him taking on the villain all by himself with no assistance.
 
Last edited:

krinaphobia

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
121
Reaction score
10
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Cornflake is right, legally the captain would not be in charge once he was found to be connected with the murder. But I think the big question is how realistic you want the story to be. Because if you were going more pulp fiction route (which is a genre with a glorious history, I don't mean that word to be insulting) you have a lot more freedom. Realistically, the other cops' loyalty to the captain doesn't mean anything, once he's associated with a crime he cannot be in command anymore. I'd assume paid leave at that point, going off recent investigations into police involvement in murder. But if you're going the old film noir route, I think it would make sense that if the other cops really are loyal to the captain, they'll all agree to keep it quiet for a week. Unless there's a snitch in the department, of course.

I have tried to write police procedure by the book, and it was such a pain. I don't know how anyone does it, and I have major respect for them.

I actually like your new 3rd act. I think it's a clever way to get the captain motivated to solve the crime. Not sure how you plant finger prints, other than to have an idem there that the captain himself touched. Dropping a hari or two on the body is an easy way to plant some DNA. But this plot only works in a world where the cops are consistently allowed more leeway than they are in reality. You can write your story in a world like that, it just has to be 100% or not at all.
 

ironpony

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
685
Reaction score
4
Okay thanks. Well the approach I was going to take was that word got about the captains' DNA and prints being there, and the prosecutor knows, and has charged him. However, I wanted the captain escape arrest and the other cops are following his orders, but they are doing so illegally, out of loyalty to him, because they believe he was framed, since the killer has been 5 steps ahead of the police at every turn. They are just convinced this is him. This is what the protagonist was counting, to get everyone's asses in gear.

However, I was told by others that there is a plot hole in this. They say that since the protagonist knows who the killer is, can't prove it since he got off in court before, why doesn't the protagonist just frame the killer for one of his own murders, or go kill the killer out of revenge, instead of framing the captain. There is a huge hole in character motivation here. What do you think?

As far as writing my story in a plot where cops have more leeway, the story is about a serial rapist/killer. It deals with his past and is a tragedy in tone. So with a story that deals with that kind of controversial subject matter, is going a far fetched, out of realism route, the best way to go, depth wise?
 
Last edited:

krinaphobia

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
121
Reaction score
10
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
I see what you mean, why does the cop go in such a roundabout way when there is an easier solution? I'm really digging this idea of the protagonist putting the captain on the line, so here's my suggestion for filling that plot hole (make of it what you will): If the killer has been ahead of the cops the whole time, he's got to have some sort of connections. Maybe he's even bribed or is otherwise working with people on the police force, at a much higher pay grade than the protagonist, and possibly even the captain. If this story is happening in a world with more leeway (more on that below), it could be that evidence showing the identity of the killer would be ignored or even destroyed by people higher up in the police department. Now, let's say that the protagonist is pretty well aware of this corruption within the police department, and he knows the captain is involved, at least in helping to cover it up. So by framing the captain, that would accomplish two things 1) putting the captain under threat of his involvement being discovered if he doesn't help solve the case fast and 2) he'd obviously stop helping cover things up.

I don't know, it's messy, and I just rewrote that paragraph three times while trying to sort it all out. I really believe it is a plot hole you can fill, by some method or another.

I think it's possible to go outside the bounds of realism while still covering intense content. The first example that comes to mind is the show House. It's a very heavy show that covers many serious topics, but House gets away with all sorts of things that a real doctor couldn't simply because he's belligerent and, more importantly, fictional. Still, like I said before, I suck at writing police procedurals.
 

ironpony

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
685
Reaction score
4
Okay thanks. I still haven't seen House yet. I think that if I made the captain in colusion with the killer though, then that will make the scenario less thematic in a way. One of the themes I was going for is how rape is often not taken as seriously as it should be, especially by the police department in a lot of cases. The captain is suppose to be a thematic representation of that kind of cop, who has better or easier crimes to solve in his mind.

So by making him in collusion with the villain, he is not taught the same lesson, theme wise, if that makes sense? It just feels like the theme I was going for is lessened that way.

I could do what some people say and write the easier solution and just have the main character gather evidence on the villain himself, or just kill him out of revenge, but it feels like such a shorter, simpler, anticlimatic third act in comparison. In fact it wouldn't even need a third act to do that, cause it's so short and simple that he could probably do it all in the second act, which doesn't work therefore.
 
Last edited:

krinaphobia

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
121
Reaction score
10
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Hm, I see what you mean, and I think it's very important to tackle a theme like that. Especially since you almost never see rape of male characters, especially those in traditionally "masculine" roles, like being a cop. So yeah, you want to stay focused on that theme.
Okay, so addressing the plot hole without the captain having anything to do with the killer...
Could it be that the cop is taken off the case because he's gotten too personally involved but he wants to be the guy to take the killer down? Because then he wouldn't be happy with just placing evidence that exposed the killer, because he wouldn't be the one directly bringing the guy to justice. But by pinning it on the captain, there's a more immediate need to catch the killer, and the cop can demand to be put back on the case and the captain will give in because he's desperate?
 

ironpony

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
685
Reaction score
4
Possibly, but again is that still logically worth framing the captain to most readers, especially when he can just frame the villain instead?
 
Last edited:

krinaphobia

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
121
Reaction score
10
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Possibly, but again is that still logically worth framing the captain to most readers, especially when he can just frame the villain instead?

At that point, it's all in how you write it, and how you depict the protagonist. I really think you can make it work, but it's your choice. Either way, best of luck!
 

krinaphobia

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
121
Reaction score
10
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Cornflake, Jamesaritchie, I think you are both right. It is easy to plant DNA and fingerprints on the scene of a crime. All you need to do is drop a few hairs and an item the person is touched. It is far more difficult to make sure those things are found and that they add up to evidence that someone committed a murder.
 

ironpony

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
685
Reaction score
4
Okay thanks. Other writers who are more familiar with my drafts of the screenplay though, tell me that it doesn't work because of a big plot hole. Why plant evidence of the captain at a murder scene to get him motivated into catching the villain, when the main character can just plant evidence of the real killer instead. They got a point, I suppose that is a sufficient plot hole. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.