Antagonist Gets Away

DanMorrison · Apr 5, 2018

Just wanted to get the thoughts of others on this. I'll try to keep it pretty general for better discussion.

At the end of a novel where say the protagonist has to choose between two things, say saving someone or stopping the bad guy, and the hero chooses to save the person, thus letting the Antagonist get away. Assuming that the choice makes sense and completes some sort of character arc or discovery for the hero, do you think this would be satisfactory to the reader or would they expect a sequel to continue the story?

Does it make sense if the hero of this story feels no need to go after the antagonist at this point (for his own reasons, right or wrong, but understandable to the reader)? And thus the end of this story is the beginning of another that may or may not ever get written. As a reader (or publisher), is the continuation expected even if the hero is no longer involved?

Thanks

Marissa D · Apr 5, 2018

I think part of it depends on the nature of the Antagonist and what Bad Things they've done (or are likely to do in the future), whether there's a secondary character for whom it makes sense to step up and become the hero in the sequel...and whether or not you want to write that sequel.

SKara · Apr 5, 2018

I haven't read many stories like this, but I assume I'd want to know what happens to the antagonist (because usually antagonists are a pretty integral part of stories - and personally I do like them to be defeated in the end), and without that knowledge the story wouldn't seem complete to me. So yeah, I would expect a sequel.

Something like this happened in City of Bones by Cassandra Clare (if I remember correctly) and obviously the book has sequels (and the main characters would still be dealing with the antagonist in the next books I assume).

benbenberi · Apr 5, 2018

It all depends on how you handle it, of course, but it's certainly something that CAN work.

For instance, I can think of a number of ways in which a protagonist choosing to pursue a positive/morally superior course (like saving someone) over a destructive/vengeful/unproductive pursuit of an already-defeated (and no longer dangerous) antagonist could be a very effective conclusion.

If the escape of the antagonist is merely a dangling plot thread that leaves an unresolved threat knowingly ignored by the protagonist, that's probably not going to satisfy readers. (Though if you're guaranteed a sequel, it's an obvious set-up.)

If the antagonist has done things that are really heinous and horrible, letting them get away scot-free is probably going to disturb a lot of readers unless you set it up carefully.

Dennis E. Taylor · Apr 5, 2018

A very common trope is where the antagonist is not actually a bad person, merely forced into an antagonistic role, or the antagonist has a sympathetic streak. The protagonist 'chooses' to let the antagonist go with a wink and a nod once the situation is resolved.

DanMorrison · Apr 5, 2018

Thanks for the responses. I think everything you've all said makes sense and has given me a lot to think about.

Ari Meermans · Apr 5, 2018

It can work provided that the STORY goal is met. Your protag's goals can change and sometimes should be thwarted (particularly if what they want isn't what they need). If your story is written in such a way that catching or stopping the antagonist is THE story goal, letting them get away will be unsatisfying to your reader(s). Just make sure you know what your story goal is.

BethS · Apr 5, 2018

DanMorrison said:
Does it make sense if the hero of this story feels no need to go after the antagonist at this point (for his own reasons, right or wrong, but understandable to the reader)? And thus the end of this story is the beginning of another that may or may not ever get written. As a reader (or publisher), is the continuation expected even if the hero is no longer involved?

I don't see a problem. It's a legitimate choice for the character to make and he makes it. As a reader, I might hope to see a sequel where the antagonist is dealt with. But that also depends on just how nasty the antagonist is and how badly I crave his demise. And I don't have a problem with someone else being the one to get him, though once again, that may depend on how you've set up the conflict in the first story.

Will Collins · Apr 5, 2018

Yes, I think this would work, providing the villain is one readers want to see more of. There's many villains in shows/movies that I've felt have been killed off too soon.

Harlequin · Apr 5, 2018

A story doesn't require an antagonist at all--so yes, anything flies if it fits your narrative.

cbenoi1 · Apr 5, 2018

It depends on the selling genre. In M/T/S defeating the Villain is expected. Defeated doesn't always mean killed. Or put behind bars. It means the Heroine has won over the Villain - about what the Heroine and the Villain fought over.

The movie Swordfish ( link ) is a typical example of the Villain losing, yet still very much alive to continue his dirty work (which was CIA wetwork in disguise, so he was a 'good guy' after all). There never was a sequel to this movie nor was one expected.

In La Femme Nikita ( link ) the Heroine is recruited by the French Secret Services; She manages to escape to a better life after a major screw-up, but can one claim to escape the spy world forever?

-cb

blacbird · Apr 5, 2018

Absolutely no reason this can't work, and work well. Darth Vader got away at the end of the first Star Wars movie.

caw

DanMorrison · Apr 5, 2018

Thanks for the responses. I think I have my answer for my specific story (I don't think it works and the Villain would need to be addressed) but it's interesting to see that it could work in certain situations.

frimble3 · Apr 5, 2018

And Flambeau always seemed to get away in the Father Brown stories. But he was generally stealing stuff, not killing people or trying to destroy things.

DanMorrison · Apr 5, 2018

blacbird said:
Absolutely no reason this can't work, and work well. Darth Vader got away at the end of the first Star Wars movie.

caw

Yeah, but then it's followed up with a sequel. I was asking, is the sequel expected? Would the first movie been the same if we don't have the following movies to tell us what happens next.

frimble3 · Apr 5, 2018

DanMorrison said:
Yeah, but then it's followed up with a sequel. I was asking, is the sequel expected? Would the first movie been the same if we don't have the following movies to tell us what happens next.

IMHO, there'd be no need for a sequel to explain Vader's fate, if the movie had made clear that the Emperor did not forgive failure, and that Vader would be 'taken care of' that way. End tied up, but if you did want a sequel, there could be a little wiggle room.

blacbird · Apr 5, 2018

DanMorrison said:
Yeah, but then it's followed up with a sequel. I was asking, is the sequel expected? Would the first movie been the same if we don't have the following movies to tell us what happens next.

I had the impression that just about everybody who posts here (except maybe me) is aiming to write a series of some sort.

caw

Brightdreamer · Apr 5, 2018

And nobody yet has mentioned Prince Humperdink from The Princess Bride? He lives - but doesn't get the girl, and is humiliated and revealed to be the coward at heart he always was, and his plans are thwarted. But the goal of the story was True Love conquering, and it does; the villain becomes superfluous and powerless once he can no longer keep them apart. No sequel, either.

And the Goblin King survives at the end of Labyrinth... again, once he's been confronted and his power over Sarah broken. (Though there is a manga sequel, Return to Labyrinth, it's unnecessary to Sarah's story.)

BethS · Apr 6, 2018

Harlequin said:
A story doesn't require an antagonist at all

If by antagonist you mean "villain," then yes. But the antagonist in its truest and literary sense is the force against which the protagonist struggles. The antagonist can be anyone or anything, including the protagonist (man vs himself). But without an antagonist there is no struggle, and without struggle there is no story.

Harlequin · Apr 6, 2018

I mean a set antagonist that is clearly defined. Struggle can be a series of shifting problems, or a background force, or move between different people.

In relation to the OP that would be a villain in this case.

ikennedy · Apr 7, 2018

Keep in mind the reader wants to be satisfied. If the antagonist/villain gets away it might annoy your readers who have struggled through the book with your hero and then BAM...it's all for nothing. If you're planning on a sequel then sure, but if it's a one off story then the story goal needs to be met and the reader should be satisfied.

If you're going for realism (as we all know, in real life, the bad guy often gets away) then again, sure, but it will probably annoy the reader.
It all depends on the way the rest of the book is written.

indianroads · Apr 8, 2018

ikennedy said:
Keep in mind the reader wants to be satisfied. If the antagonist/villain gets away it might annoy your readers who have struggled through the book with your hero and then BAM...it's all for nothing. If you're planning on a sequel then sure, but if it's a one off story then the story goal needs to be met and the reader should be satisfied.

If you're going for realism (as we all know, in real life, the bad guy often gets away) then again, sure, but it will probably annoy the reader.
It all depends on the way the rest of the book is written.

In my darker hours, I think that if novels accurately reflected real life they would probably be too depressing to read. Evil seems to be more often rewarded than good.

In my WIP the antagonist does get away - but the protagonist has tricked her... she sort of gets what she wanted, but is screaming in rage and despair in the last sentence of the book. Consequences can be a bi$ch you know.

owlion · Apr 9, 2018

DanMorrison said:
At the end of a novel where say the protagonist has to choose between two things, say saving someone or stopping the bad guy, and the hero chooses to save the person, thus letting the Antagonist get away. Assuming that the choice makes sense and completes some sort of character arc or discovery for the hero, do you think this would be satisfactory to the reader or would they expect a sequel to continue the story?

From what you've said, it sounds like it sound be fine. For example, if the main focus of the story was taking down the antagonist and nothing changed (i.e. no revelations the antagonist is actually not pure evil or something) then I'd be expecting some kind of resolution in regards to the antagonist. On the other hand, if the focus was on something else (i.e. saving that person, preventing the antagonist from doing something else bad, or something else entirely) then it should be fine if that main focus is resolved.

Inti1996 · Apr 9, 2018

Yes it can work if done properly. There are so many time where I think the antagonist was killded off early before I got to know he/she more and it depends if the choose would lead to a life/death situation or disaster for your stories world.

Gateway · Apr 12, 2018

DanMorrison said:
Just wanted to get the thoughts of others on this. I'll try to keep it pretty general for better discussion.

At the end of a novel where say the protagonist has to choose between two things, say saving someone or stopping the bad guy, and the hero chooses to save the person, thus letting the Antagonist get away. Assuming that the choice makes sense and completes some sort of character arc or discovery for the hero, do you think this would be satisfactory to the reader or would they expect a sequel to continue the story?

Does it make sense if the hero of this story feels no need to go after the antagonist at this point (for his own reasons, right or wrong, but understandable to the reader)? And thus the end of this story is the beginning of another that may or may not ever get written. As a reader (or publisher), is the continuation expected even if the hero is no longer involved?

Thanks

I don't think a continuation is necessarily expected.

Plenty of antagonists get away. The trick is ensuring that they have been proved thematically wrong. They lose the argument and there's less of a need to kill the bugger.

Antagonist Gets Away

DanMorrison

Marissa D

Scribe of the girls in the basement

SKara

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!

DanMorrison

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter

BethS

Will Collins

Will Collins

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!

cbenoi1

blacbird

DanMorrison

frimble3

Heckuva good sport

DanMorrison

frimble3

Heckuva good sport

blacbird

Brightdreamer

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist

BethS

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!

ikennedy

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.

owlion

Absorbing inspiration from the moon

Inti1996

Gateway

You Are My Density