Clashing husband-and-wife inventors of a new process to design life-saving drugs need to settle their differences in time to fight off a global corporation using espionage tactics to bury an invention that will save millions of lives.
It’s a suspense thriller in a similar vein to Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious. So, the relationship plot is what makes the journey worthwhile and the action plot provides the framework to dramatize the relationship. Plus, trying to keep it relevant to the times by addressing a hot topic – greedy global corporations and why we like them just the way they are – despite all the criticism and condemnation.
Amidst a bitter divorce fight, husband and wife scientists must bury their hatchets to fight off a corporate conspiracy to block their invention that will save millions of lives.
Rather than “clashing”, why not ratchet up the conflict to bitterly divorcing (or even bitterly divorced) to complicate (which is to say make more interesting) the relationship they will need to build to fend off the conspiracy?
Thanks. I take your point. I say, clashing but they are actually scheming against each other – within the confines of office and home -which racks up the suspense. I only used ‘clashing’ to establish conflict without racking up the word count with additional detail.
The scheming – which involves deception and betrayal – allows the relationship plot elements to blend into the action plot – more deception and betrayal in the shape of espionage warfare waged between the husband and wife’s small start-up firm and the global corporation.