Nefarious Scheming: And Then What? A thought experiment on plots and plans.

[Samuel , Director]

Nefarious schemes. The genre has always been a race to outdo each other. Who has the better, more ingenious plan? Who has the more impressive end goal?

Well, today I'm here to discuss a "stress test" of sorts for the epic threats and grand designs that spy/military/geopolitical thriller antagonists conduct.
The easiest way to cause a nefarious scheme to collapse is by asking a question.

[Samuel , Director]

"I'm going to hold the world to ransom!" "And Then What?"

All plans do not survive first contact with the enemy (the badass government assassin in this case). However, they should at least have a certain tolerance limit which allows them to whether set backs and prevent the villain from finding himself up the creek without a paddle and realizing that he hasn't thought things through before that suppressed 9mm hollowpoint smashes through their cranial vault.

[Samuel , Director]

This is where "And then what?" comes in. What separates a standard nefarious scheme from the truly well planned is if a writer or their fictional antagonist can give multiple, satisfactory answers to the question and not be left flustered and faffing about.

[Samuel , Director]

A excellent example of a character who failed the "and then what" stress test in the political thriller anti - hero Frank Underwood.
In the first two seasons of HOUSE OF CARDS USA, he suffers from tunnel vision as he works his fingers to the bone to become POTUS. Throughout season 1 and 2, he waxes lyrical about his own genius and how he's a magnificent son of a gun for screwing over those that left him in a job he no longer wants.

However, all that time he does not mention WHAT HE WILL DO UPON BECOMING PRESIDENT.

[Samuel , Director]

Samuel wrote: "A excellent example of a character who failed the "and then what" stress test in the political thriller anti - hero Frank Underwood.
In the first two seasons of HOUSE OF CARDS USA, he suffers from..."

When he finally gets into office, that tunnel vision has prevented him from seeing the bigger picture and allows reality to beat Underwood black and blue with a baseball bat.

Season 3 has him scrambling to do something significant in office, namely the America Works program, something so awfully thought out, so horrifically planned that it is inevitably destroyed and a complete failure.

This setback and others like it eventually cause Frank's marriage with Claire to combust more violently than Mount Vesuvius

[Samuel , Director]

Samuel wrote: "Samuel wrote: "A excellent example of a character who failed the "and then what" stress test in the political thriller anti - hero Frank Underwood.
In the first two seasons of HOUSE OF CARDS USA, ..."

Eventually in Season 4, Frank finally managers to give an answer to "and then what?" Namely consolidating his and Claire's power and killing any man or woman who seeks to destroy them.

However, if he had been able to have answered the question in Season 3, things would have gone much more differently than the fiasco which ensured.

[Samuel , Director]

One series where the antagonist has successfully answer the "and then what" question and whose nefarious (but highly well intentioned) scheme has easily weathered the "and then what" test can be found in Jousha Hood's Mason Kane books.

The antagonist's plan is to end the war on terror with a clear and total triumph against the Islamist Extremists. In the first book, his plot is to initiate a false flag operation that would draw on the extremist groups into Syria and allow them to kill each other to their hearts content while the rest of the world gets on with their lives. This fails but by preparing a secondary backup plan, the antagonist gets into a position of greater influence and stays out of the firing line.

In the second book, with the failure of the original project, he decides on a different tactic. A false flag operation that will provoke a honest to god boots on the ground response from the United States armed services, that does not faff about with trying to find some kind of balance and has the resources to wipe out the Islamist extremist groups.

In this case he succeeds with execution. However, he's not out of the deep water yet. If I were to ask the man "and then what" now, he would probably answer "I intend to see the project come to fruition right to the end and kill whoever is trying to bring me down before it can be completed".

"And then what?"

[Samuel , Director]

Another excellent example of a plan which holds up against the "and then what" nefarious scheme stress test is found in this book by one of our group members.

We have an enigmatic agent provocateur who when we first meet him, is trying to set off a regional war. Over the course of the story, that is found to be the tip of the iceberg with the man revealing more apocalyptic designs.

In that sense, he's got an advantage over other nefarious schemes whose planners need to worry about getting caught. In the agent provocateur's plan, that won't be a problem considering there won't be anyone left to arrest him once he's finished............

[Samuel , Director]

The "and then what" question is particularly useful when deciding on the end game of a nefarious scheme. A writer can make up an epic threat that would change the world and kill a lot of people but then screw up the getaway.

"And then what happens after you receive the ransom for kidnapping Vladimir Putin?"

Three possible answers for the end game.

1) Antagonist kills themselves to prevent those hunting them from apprehending them.

2) Antagonist fakes their death or finds a way to evade those hunting them and go off to a retirement of some kind with cash they've made.

3) Antagonist falls back into the shadows, doesn't retire and continues to plot more nefarious schemes.

[Samuel , Director]

Note, no plan survives first contact with the enemy as mentioned above, but a writer is the God of the fictional universe they've built and as such can decide where the set backs for the bad guys occur.

The "and then what" question should be used to test how well the plan holds up in the scenario that you envision and whether it falls to pieces at the wrong moment due to some missing steps.

[Samuel , Director]

It's impossible to have a grand, nefarious scheme with few moving parts right? So the best approach when writing one is to make it look adaptable to the plot set backs that are thrown the antagonist's way. ....

[Samuel , Director]

Samuel wrote: "


Another excellent example of a plan which holds up against the "and then what" nefarious scheme stress test is fou..."

Talking with one of our group members recently, I reflected on the "and then what", stress test.

Only a long term scheme can withstand it. A big picture goal which is a constant like "defend a dictatorship in a chaotic geopolitical environment from destruction" or "begin the apocalypse".

The first type of long term scheme will prevent its creator from being left hanging like a fictional terrorist who uses a Mumbai type scenario on a city. This is because it will force them to keep working through every single option.

The second type of long term scheme breaks the "and then what" test. Simply because there will be very few people left to force the nefarious scheme's creator to consider the question.

[Samuel , Director]

Samuel wrote: "Samuel wrote: "


Another excellent example of a plan which holds up against the "and then what" nefarious scheme str..."

The type of scheme that fails is something "short term" scheme. This is where the big bad puts his eggs in one basket and then suffers from tunnel vision. Frank Underwood's get to the presidency shenanigans are a good example but there are others out there.....think back and see if you can think of a couple.

Executive Orders by Tom Clancy. The psychotic Iranian cleric who is the big bad decides its a good idea to conduct a large scale terrorist incident against the USA. His actions put Jack Ryan's daughter in peril and make his angry. He then tries to invade Saudi Arabia and is then blindsided by the USA turning his army into burned metal slag.

He made a gamble. A calculated one, but a gamble nonetheless. He underestimated the American Law Enforcement getting its act together and working to prevent the spread of the ebola and also didn't plan for the possibility that the US would send superior tanks and firepower to Saudi Arabia. If he had done so, he might have survived, beaten but not down and out.

[Samuel , Director]

Another example of someone who utterly failed the "And Then What" test is the secondary antagonist of this book. He's the son of a Yakuza Syndicate leader and wishes to increase the fortunes of his family. So when the big bad comes along and gives him some financial advice, he puts a lot of the syndicate's financial eggs in one basket and then tries to take over the Syndicate by committing patricide.

This angers the main character who is a badass former CIA officer and the secondary antagonist's brother who stages a counter - coup. In the end, due to not thinking things through and preparing an escape plan or something that would have redeemed himself, the secondary antagonist gets nothing.

He's flat out broke, his brother loathes him and the other Yakuza syndicates put a shoot on sight contract out on him, preventing the secondary antagonist from returning to Japan and dooming him to wander the earth till he blows his brains out from despair.

[Samuel , Director]

Samuel wrote: "



Another example of someone who utterly failed the "And Then What" test is the secondary antagonist of this book. He's the so..."

The actual antagonist on the other hand did have a answer to "and then what" when his scheme failed. It's just that he was cut off by a bullet fired from a Beretta PX4 Storm before he could give the "answer".

[Samuel , Director]

Samuel wrote: "Samuel wrote: "



Another example of someone who utterly failed the "And Then What" test is the secondary antagonist of this bo..."

It's always stage 3 and 4 where a nefarious scheme gets screwed up. Endgame and getaway.