general limit for bringing in the antagonist?

Trauntj · Dec 4, 2009

was curious when you guys felt the appropriate time to bring in the antagonist in a novel...or should I say, when it too late to bring one so the central conflict gets moving along? I know there are many forms of doing this (some are on the first page, quarter in, half, or even on the last page) bt perhaps there is a general rule to abstain from bad/dull writing.

does it really matter if the plot is riding along? is there a general limit to when the antagonist (or at least his/her/its influence) is felt, or does it really depend on the story itself?

Anahid21 · Dec 4, 2009

I'm reading a writing guide that says one should bring out the antagonist in the first quarter of the story. If not fully out at least a mention is necessary. I'm sure these rules are not set in stone. There are stories where the protagonist (and the reader) don't meet the bad guy until the very end, yet get affected by the results of his evil deeds. This very much depends on the nature of the story. Stories like Saw or Se7en don't show the killer off the bat, similar to many other thrillers and horrors. Even in the novel I'm writing (which is fantasy) the protagonist meets the main bad guy near the beginning of the third act. That is because in the beginning, the antagonist is socially at a much higher level than the protagonist. A series of event allow the protagonist to climb up the social ladder and he eventually meets his match. However he is able to witness the effects of the antagonist's influence and evil intentions throughout the story.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you can bring your bad guy out at any time, but make sure his effect is felt soon enough otherwise there would be no conflict, or he wouldn't be your villain.

katiemac · Dec 5, 2009

It's going to depend on the story.

Lots of mysteries, for example, don't highlight the antagonist until the climax. That doesn't mean the character hasn't been around the whole time, but he or she may not be revealed as the antagonist until much later.

In terms of getting the antagonist's influence on the page, that's a bit different, and it does depend on the novel's main conflict. In all likelihood, if the plot is moving forward, the antagonist's influence is already there, even if not explicitly so.

ChaosTitan · Dec 5, 2009

katiemac said:
In terms of getting the antagonist's influence on the page, that's a bit different, and it does depend on the novel's main conflict. In all likelihood, if the plot is moving forward, the antagonist's influence is already there, even if not explicitly so.

What Katie said. Even if we don't meet the actual antagonist until later in the novel, their influence and machinations must be there in order to help drive the conflict in the novel.

My main antagonist didn't actually appear on the page until the third-to-last chapter in the book, but his own goals, in direction conflict with the protagonist, were felt even before the events of Chapter One.

Lady Ice · Dec 5, 2009

Trauntj said:
was curious when you guys felt the appropriate time to bring in the antagonist in a novel...or should I say, when it too late to bring one so the central conflict gets moving along? I know there are many forms of doing this (some are on the first page, quarter in, half, or even on the last page) bt perhaps there is a general rule to abstain from bad/dull writing.

does it really matter if the plot is riding along? is there a general limit to when the antagonist (or at least his/her/its influence) is felt, or does it really depend on the story itself?

Bring them in too fast and you risk not having the protagonist fleshed out enough for it to have any impact. Once the reader's got a good measureof the protagonist, then bring in the antagonist.

gothicangel · Dec 5, 2009

My anatagonist makes his appearance within the first few paragraphs of chapter one.

Chris P · Dec 5, 2009

katiemac said:
In terms of getting the antagonist's influence on the page, that's a bit different, and it does depend on the novel's main conflict. In all likelihood, if the plot is moving forward, the antagonist's influence is already there, even if not explicitly so.

That's reassuring. The bad guy in my novel represents an extreme example of people who appear throughout the story but he himself doesn't appear until much later. Of course, the book's not published so there is no proof it will work in my case.

Maxinquaye · Dec 5, 2009

I usually try to give the MC(s) maybe 10-20k words to get setup before bringing in the antagonistic force (which can be something else than a person, of course). In Council Brats I bring in the antagonistic force in chapter two, but the conduit for that force appears (as foreshadow) almost at once. Hard to describe, really.

Rhoda Nightingale · Dec 5, 2009

Well, in "Dragon House," the conflict incited by the antagonist is there on page one, and he's talked about a lot, but he isn't actually brought on-page until about halfway through the manuscript.

In "The Carrion Girl," she's my title character, and she's there three pages in.

It depends on the story. (And I can't say whether either of my examples "works," but I'd like to think so.) In general, I think that as soon as you have a conflict, you need to have your antagonist as a "presence" if not as a fully fleshed-out character.

Kalyke · Dec 5, 2009

It depends on the genre, seriously. I personally think that there are a lot of antagonists for each character. I would say you need to bring in at least one antagonist in as soon as possible. The first part of the novel is to set up the initial incedent. The initial incedent starts the story. The characters who have been introduced go on the story. The antagonist can be anything-- man against man, or some mountain the MC will climb, or an internal deamon. The relationship between this antagonist and the story needs to be established. I don't think there is a "page number" by which you need to get this out. There is no rule about it anyway.

ChaosTitan · Dec 5, 2009

Maxinquaye said:
I usually try to give the MC(s) maybe 10-20k words to get setup before bringing in the antagonistic force (which can be something else than a person, of course).

10-20k is an awful lot of words to get through before the antagonistic force shows up and the plot kicks in.

mscelina · Dec 5, 2009

It depends on how closely tied your antagonist is to the conflict. This goes back to what Kelly said about influence and machinations. If the MC doesn't have a conflict early on in the book, there's no reason for the plot to progress. If the conflict is tied to the antagonist, then even before your introduce the character formally the antagonist is impacting both the plot and your main character. I'm from the school of thought that think it essential to introduce the conflict ASAP.

Maxinquaye · Dec 5, 2009

ChaosTitan said:
10-20k is an awful lot of words to get through before the antagonistic force shows up and the plot kicks in.

Not really. I follow the 3-arc structure, and the plot get's in gear at the end of act one. I would say, in a 100k novel I should - if I wrote exactly according to formula wait until 20-25k before the main plot point kicks in.

Then there's a difference between "when it shows up" and "when it kicks in".

Anahid21 · Dec 5, 2009

I was also wondering, can't there be more than one antagonistic force?

Imagine a story about a boy who goes on a journey and ends up slaying an evil king. At first his goal is to get to the kingdom, and he does so by crossing a hazardous terrain. He knows nothing about the king yet. In this part the antagonist is the terrain and its natural hazards, the chasms and traps, the winds and dark storms that blow constantly. When he finally arrives there the antagonist changes into the evil king. So can you argue that the antagonist, or his influence, has been brought in too late?

Maxinquaye · Dec 5, 2009

Anahid21 said:
I was also wondering, can't there be more than one antagonistic force?

Imagine a story about a boy who goes on a journey and ends up slaying an evil king. At first his goal is to get to the kingdom, and he does so by crossing a hazardous terrain. He knows nothing about the king yet. In this part the antagonist is the terrain and its natural hazards, the chasms and traps, the winds and dark storms that blow constantly. When he finally arrives there the antagonist changes into the evil king. So can you argue that the antagonist, or his influence, has been brought in too late?

Your novel is about something, right? If you boil it down to one thing: your MCs main problem. That's the conflict you put in the 3-act structure. It may be that you have a MC that is mortally afraid of water, but then finds the love of his/her life in an underwater accident where s/he will die if s/he doesn't get help from him.

Trite example. But most novels has 1 central conflict.

But then you have subplots and stuff that aren't really covered in the 3-act structure.

Lady Ice · Dec 5, 2009

Anahid21 said:
I was also wondering, can't there be more than one antagonistic force?

Imagine a story about a boy who goes on a journey and ends up slaying an evil king. At first his goal is to get to the kingdom, and he does so by crossing a hazardous terrain. He knows nothing about the king yet. In this part the antagonist is the terrain and its natural hazards, the chasms and traps, the winds and dark storms that blow constantly. When he finally arrives there the antagonist changes into the evil king. So can you argue that the antagonist, or his influence, has been brought in too late?

I would say that it's too late. To build the evil king up to become a stronger antagonist than the land was would be hard. It also changes the focus of the story from being about a man's struggle through hazardous terrian, man vs. nature to being one about man versus another man. I would say that the evil king is an obstacle, not an antagonist, unless you set him up as an antagonistic force. This could be by including scenes with him, or scenes about him.

James D. Macdonald · Dec 5, 2009

You kinda want to (usually) have everyone on-stage by page 100, but the demands of the story trump all.

ChaosTitan · Dec 5, 2009

Maxinquaye said:
Not really. I follow the 3-arc structure, and the plot get's in gear at the end of act one. I would say, in a 100k novel I should - if I wrote exactly according to formula wait until 20-25k before the main plot point kicks in.

Then there's a difference between "when it shows up" and "when it kicks in".

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but it sounds as if you're saying that because you've applied a screenwriting technique to novel writing, then it's okay to wait a quarter-way into your novel before the main plot points kick in?

If waited that long for my plot to kick in, my editor would have a fit.

mscelina · Dec 5, 2009

Actually, if you waited that long for the plot to kick in you probably wouldn't have an editor. JMHO, of course.

Anahid21 · Dec 5, 2009

Lady Ice said:
I would say that the evil king is an obstacle, not an antagonist, unless you set him up as an antagonistic force. This could be by including scenes with him, or scenes about him.

What if the evil king (who also has magical powers) is mentioned in earlier chapters by, say, a psychic or a wise man, and you later find out some of the natural hazards the boy faced on his way weren't natural at all?

I can't help but to think about The Wizard of Oz. Was the Wicked Witch of the West the antagonist or just an obstacle? Can we critique that story for bringing in the conflict too late?

ChaosTitan · Dec 5, 2009

mscelina said:
Actually, if you waited that long for the plot to kick in you probably wouldn't have an editor. JMHO, of course.

I like your HO.

Maxinquaye · Dec 5, 2009

The Honourable Roy Foltrigg, attorney for the Southern District of Louisiana at New Orleans, makes his first appearance in the book The Client at around page 40. By that time, Mark (the client) has found a body, met his lawyer, and so on, and the plot doesn't actually kick in until Mark meets Foltrigg. The conflict is between Foltrigg and Mark when Foltrigg tries to trick, seduce, threaten Mark to reveal what the dead man said to him in the car, and which may lead him to the buried body of Senator Boyette.

Everything before that is foreshadowing the conflict.

I disagree that the 3-act structure is a screen writing technique. It's a story telling technique.

Maxinquaye · Dec 5, 2009

Translated to my own novels, say Council Brat, the conflict starts when my MC Michael is formally charged with assault, but by that time he's fought a big fight, been miserable because he's lonely, because he has a hard time making contact with other people, and so on.

First you make the reader care, and then you knife the character that the reader cares about in the back where it hurts most.

Just in MY humble opinion, of course.

ChaosTitan · Dec 5, 2009

Maxinquaye said:
The Honourable Roy Foltrigg, attorney for the Southern District of Louisiana at New Orleans, makes his first appearance in the book The Client at around page 40. By that time, Mark (the client) has found a body, met his lawyer, and so on, and the plot doesn't actually kick in until Mark meets Foltrigg. The conflict is between Foltrigg and Mark when Foltrigg tries to trick, seduce, threaten Mark to reveal what the dead man said to him in the car, and which may lead him to the buried body of Senator Boyette.

Everything before that is foreshadowing the conflict.

The Client, in paperback, is 496 pages long, according to Amazon.com. Page 40 is nowhere near the end of the "first act" of that book. It's still the first 10% or so of the narrative, which is just about when the plot ought to kick in. Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb is to have the plot kicking in no later than the first 50 pages. Heck, in most of the books I've read recently the plot kicks in sooner.

So the example doesn't support you.

I disagree that the 3-act structure is a screen writing technique. It's a story telling technique.

No problem. But from personal experience, I've read books on screenwriting and taken a screenwriting course in college. Most of them taught the 3-act structure. I can't recall a book on novel writing that taught the same structure, and none of my college writing courses did.

I've applied elements of the 3-act structure to my own novels, sure. But not so much as to break it down by the method taught for screenplays. *shrug*

Maxinquaye · Dec 5, 2009

ChaosTitan said:
Page 40 is nowhere near the end of the "third act" of that book. It's still the first 10% or so of the narrative, which is just about when the plot ought to kick in. Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb is to have the plot kicking in no later than the first 50 pages. Heck, in most of the books I've read recently the plot kicks in sooner.

I haven't said anything about the third act. I've said that I try to get the plot kicking in between 10-20k words, which you reacted to. Heck, that's not even at the end of the first act, if the 3-act paradigm should be followed.

general limit for bringing in the antagonist?

Five by Five

Around

Makes useful distinctions

Toughen up.

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

That cheeky buggerer

Vampire Junkie

Around

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

That cheeky buggerer

That cheeky buggerer

Makes useful distinctions

Your Genial Uncle

Around

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Around

That cheeky buggerer

That cheeky buggerer

Around

That cheeky buggerer