Including Plotline #3 would change the effectiveness of putting Plotlines #1 and #2 together in the same story by providing a reason for the characters to be close together, making interaction more likely. The murder at the convention could bring River and Trent into the same setting, where they could connect over their respective challenges and possibly collaborate to address their concerns about business practices and ethical implications related to their industries. This shared circumstance could also drive character development and plot progression.
Use the plot descriptions to answer the question.
Plotline #1: River owns a fishing boat in Alaska. She worries about the effects local corporations are having on the fish. She hopes to stop them, but also must keep her business afloat.
Plotline #2: Trent has just inherited a business in Texas. He is perplexed by some of what he finds when he reviews the business’s financial records. His top priority is proving to his parents that he can keep the business strong.
Plotline #3: A major business convention is happening in Las Vegas. During the convention, a high-powered lawyer is murdered. The detective investigating requires the convention attendees to stay in town for a week for questioning.
How would including Plotline #3 change the effectiveness of putting Plotlines #1 and #2 together in the same story?
Responses
It would create a reason for the two characters to care about each other, which they otherwise lack.
It would give the characters a shared characteristic, which they otherwise lack.
It would give the characters a reason to be close together, making interaction more likely.
The first two plot lines would still be unrelated, even if the third plot line brought the characters together.
1 answer