S1E9A8N5

I've posted my plot before but now I have a better idea of what I would like to happen. Any advice would be appriciated.

The story is about the future of health. Taking place around (maybe 2027), where disease and illness has plagued the country. The conspiracy is that, there are natural cures for virtually every disease but they are being suppressed by the FDA, AMA, drug companies, the media, and government agencies all for money, power, and control.

The plot is typical. A young man (with a hard past) develops a severe heart problem that almost kills him. He is told by doctors that he was born with a deformed heart which would cause him major problems for the rest of his life. He has no choice but to undergo surgery and experimental drugs. In the future, doctors can override patient’s medical wishes etc. He discovers the truth and does everything he can to help expose it but first, he meets someone in the hospital that will help him escape. etc. The country will be under mass surveillance (because of terrorists and all that) and the country will somewhat be under a police state. There will be agents and police officers who go after those who resist conventional medicine. Etc. They also refer to those who resist conventional medicine "Health Resisters" and depending on the situation also consider them terrorists. I haven't figured out how severe I want to make it yet. But that is the basic premise.

I posted this at WF.org but haven't gotten a response yet. It's been like 20 hours. Does that make me impatient? I should have posted it here in the first place.

The thing I’m not sure of is if the agents (those who know) should be the only major antagonist. I know there will be one major agent that will be after the protagonist but it’s not like these guys are the only ones who know the truth. There will be those who think there doing the right thing but then there are those who know the truth but do it out of greed. Know what I mean? What do you think?

spider8

I like the sound of it. Yes, I would make it as severe as you can. It sounds 1984-ish by George Orwell (in a good way) and if I could suggest you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressel it could show you what's possible as far as certain people going along with things for reasons of greed.

dwellerofthedeep

Looks pretty good to me, I think it would work especially if the setting was developed extremely well along logical lines. What I mean is this: If you decide you want a widespread conspiracy, try to show more than just the direct repercussions of it or the setting tends to fall flat (I had this problem with the movie Equillibrium, for example). The other thing I think is essential in the best dystopias is a truly great antagonist (Like Agent Smith from the Matrix, though he's not exactly the best of examples. Or like the Operative from Serenity, though that wasn't strictly a dystopic movie). Rationalize everything, this is very important.

Good luck writing this.

__________________
"It's Amazing..."

S1E9A8N5

I'll keep that in mind.

Can you elaborate on that?

dwellerofthedeep

Well in my example (Equillibrium) we don't see anything major about people who either don't disobey the law or enforce it. You're either with us or against us as it is. If a story is to be more complex it should show the third dimension without treating them as worthless fodder (As the Matrix does). In short, what do people do all day? On second thought this might not be the most relevant thing to mention if society in your story hasn't undergone radical changes.

If that didn't help, I'm sorry.

__________________
"It's Amazing..."

S1E9A8N5

No. I understand.

Thanks

Dawnstorm

Nice idea. Could work well.

I don't much like the term "Health Resisters", though. Don't know why; it doesn't really have a ring to it, I feel (but others might disagree; I like the meaning, just not the sound of it).

"Terrorists" is a current "threat word". I wouldn't abuse it in the novel. Instead talk about good things like "epidemic control" or "disease containment" ("health resisters" is a nice step in the direction. Doctors overriding individual wishes, too - all in the name of public health. Imagine a world where people aren't afraid of other people because they're violent, but because they might carry a lethal germ, something much harder to check up on, if you're not an expert).

Also, how does disease research work? On the one hand they have to research (it's what people expect to happen), but on the other hand they can't be allowed to stumble upon such a cure and publish it. How does the government deal with this dilemma? And what about "real" research (germs, and especially viruses, mutate all the time, so the cures that secretly exist might not stay cures forever)?

Thirdly, who are the priviledged people? The ones who profit from the cures? It's hard to believe that people who know about a cure won't use it, if they're affected themselves.

You've got a very interesting concept to explore, there.

S1E9A8N5

I’m not the kind of person that would back down on something because it’s the current “threat word”. I know where you’re coming from though. I just don’t believe in the war on terror. I personally think it’s a bunch of crap. But that’s just my opinion and a totally different subject. However, I do like your suggestions on epidemic control and disease containment. Also in the movie "Children of Men" that just came out a little while ago, they refered the "rebels" as terrorists. And if it is a touchy word. All the more reason to use it

It's hard to explain how those things work. Basically anything natural… natural remedies such as herbs... anything earth made can not be patented. Therefore you can't make a profit which is where the conflict is and They know this. Plus selling a patented product, you have no competition with other companies because you are the only company that can sell it. You could sell it for a real high price and gain profit. For a natural remedy, other companies can sell the same product. There wouldn't be a monopoly and profits would be low. Those that do discover cures are either paid off or discredited by the media as wacko. Or in some cases there homes or companies are raided, confiscated there research, and jailed for practicing medicine without a license. This is all taking place now. My story has a lot of truth and facts behind it with a future take on it.

The privileged people who profit from the cures are those who don't make it a public (media) issue, go along with there everyday life, and if it’s not affecting the profits of the drug companies.

Dawnstorm

I don't want to tell you what to do, of course, but I think I didn't quite explain myself. I didn't mean it as a political statement; I just consider the word "terrorism" fashionable, or worse, a cliché.

There's always a dominant "threat word"; often it has some relevance (like "nuclear war" during the cold war period), and often it's just something that's always been there but gets blown out of proportion like "psycho killer" (ironically, also applied to terrorists late eighties/early nineties, if my memory serves correctly), or "child molestation", or "terrorism". I read a lot of SF, and, while it certainly won't put me off the story, if I read a current catch word in a future setting I tend to roll my eyes. (It may be just me; I'm a bit of a cynic.)

Interesting. So the cures that do work in your story are natural remedies? Like: "What if homeopathics were the solution to all our illnesses"? Is it a conflict between differing medical systems as well, then?

S1E9A8N5

Oh okay. Sorry lol.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's basically over money and power. Having people taking drugs for the rest of there lives. Keeping people sick because sick people need drugs and healthy people don't. But it does actually harm than good in the long run but that's another subject for debate.

marcuslee

This is probably a little too cliché as well. The main character could come across an underground movement of people who either have his problem or who sympathize with it.

Mark

Dawnstorm

Well, you talked about herbs etc. in your other post. Today, these things aren't researched as widely as pharmaceutics. Still, there are alternate treatments available: traditional Chinese, homeopathics, and "faith healers" being the most common (at least in Europe). These don't have the scientific backing that is expected from the "accepted" medical theories.

Because of social dynamics, your story would be slightly different if the "cures" the powers that be are holding back are pharmaceutical in nature (i.e. research compatible with the meds the power elite propagates) or if their "alternate" in nature (i.e. incompatible with what they preach).

In the first case, they would have workable cures that are similar in kind to the less effective ones they're selling. They're corrupt, but they're not hypocrites. However, they run risk of accidental discovery by scientists (secret projects; foreign projects; etc.). Controlling research would be mostly an internal affair, of monitoring the scientists they employ (and preventing illegal science).

In the second case, they're hypocrites as well as corrupt. If the cures they're holding back are some version of, say, traditional Chinese medicine, they wouldn't have to worry about scientists discovering it by accident, as the very direction of research is incompatible with the medical system. The problem would be more likely one of suppressing subcultures and/or controllong information influx from neighbouring countries.

Different societies/different control mechanisms.

Does this make any sense?

S1E9A8N5

I guess that makes sense but it's more than just traditional Chinese, homeopathics, and "faith healers". It's hard to explain without getting into a debate about it.

Dawnstorm

No need to. The time is better spent writing the book, anyway.

S1E9A8N5

The summary may make it sound cliché but it's the journey within the story that makes it unique.