Hey everyone! This is my very first post, I've been lurking on these forums for a while, but never felt comfortable enough yet to interact, but I figured at this point in my writing, I could use some advice on some things. I try not to talk too much about my writing in real life, mostly out of fear of motivation loss. I'm writing my first book, it's fantasy, I don't want to divulge too much but the story has evolved to the point where I know one book won't be enough anymore to cover everything I want to do without it becoming a convoluted mess, so I will have a set amount of sequels, but here is my problem: In the first book, a few friends go on an adventure. Unrelated to their original quest (even though something will link their stories together) they will eventually meet the villain who has a massive plan which will be the main plot thread from book to book going forward, however the first book won't see much of him, in fact, the main characters (and the reader) will only meet him once near the end. Most of the big story set-ups happen starting in the second book, and the encounters with the villain will be sparse even later on, but at least he will matter more and I do plan on sharing a lot of his motivations as well (because I do have all of this info). Certain events from the first book are why the main characters and villain keep meeting down the line. Now this is my question: Is this a dangerous set up that might not keep people hooked, if I don't explain anything of the villain's actions in this book? The villain's actions in the first book will have a big impact on the group, become a motivation for some, and it sets up a much bigger story, but you won't get to know his motives, how he can do what he does, nor will you get to know anything about him. In short, he is dimmed down to just a climactic event for the main characters for that first book, and I will leave a lot of questions about him unanswered, even very basic ones. Is this something I can get away with, or should I find a way to set up the villain more, even though he is unrelated to the main story of the first book? His presence at the end doesn't matter for the main characters, they don't chase him, aren't specifically looking for him, they don't know who he is and who they are doesn't matter to him either, at least not in the first book. The way they are linked is because the main characters end up at the villain's location through their quest, and he ends up having what they set out to find, but they actually also have something he needs for a much bigger long term plan, something a lot more dangerous and valuable (the villain learns it through their encounter), the main characters will remain unaware though about what the object is exactly and what it represents, and even the reader won't get the details of any of this either, because it is still unrelated to the main characters original quest. I know it's vague, but I don't feel comfortable sharing more just yet. So I want to know if it's feasible to leave the readers wonder who this villain is, why he is there and what was even the point of him? When I do have big plans for him, but that simply don't have any relevance to this first book, where it might seem I randomly just dumped a bad guy in at the end, even though it's not the case, but it's a set up for the rest of the story. Sorry if this was vague, I tried to give as many details as I felt comfortable sharing.
These days people are more and more expecting longer sequences and more time with the characters. While it is okay to introduce the main villain in the first book, it is often advised to make the first book as self contained as possible. For example, in the Hunger Games we are introduced to President Snow in the first book. But he is ultimately not really related to the main conflict, which is Katniss and Peta trying to survive the games. There is no thought of trying to overthrow the capital. No plot to oust President Snow. He's there. And you know that he will be the villain later, but that's not what happens in the first book. It's only in the second book that President Snow serves more his purpose as the figure to her antagonist, the Capital.
It really depends on how its handled. The biggest problem I could see with this approach is if the readers leave the first book not even realizing there's room for a sequel, and thus not being as excited for a sequel as they otherwise would be. If the first book's conflict is self contained and resolves itself nicely, readers might not realize there was a villain lurking in the shadows. Now if they fall in love with the characters and the world they will happily buy a sequel, but there's no guarantee that will happen. At the same time if he just pops up at the end to be all "Bwah, ha, ha, I'm the true villain" it will feel like bad sequel bait. If this villain could easily be dropped from the first book and the reader would be none the wiser, that's probably not a good place to be in. That said, if you're not an established writer you'd should probably think long and hard about writing a book that needs to be part of a series. A series from an unknown element is going to be a hard sell for any publisher you encounter (at least that's the sort of advice I see all over the place and it's made me rethink my story's plot structure to try and finish it in one book).
There has got to be enough conflict in the first book alone to make a gripping story. If you do that, I think you'll be okay. I'm not thinking 'book' here, but a TV series that worked this way. Farscape. One of the main antagonists wasn't introduced to the story at all till the penultimate episode in Season One. The main antagonist in Season One was the Peacekeeper Captain, Bialar Crais. But the REAL series antagonist—Scorpius—didn't appear till very near the end of Season One. Scorpius's first appearance left quite an impression, but Series One wound up with a different sort of resolution/cliffhanger. However, watchers always knew there was going to be another series, as the series ended with 'to be continued.' If you leave your first book in the series with your 'villain' (as you put it) making an appearance near the end that portends something coming, you'll be sure to entice your readers into the next book, etc. But make sure your first book leaves the reader satisfied that the main story issues raised in the first book have been fulfilled. That's a win-win. Satisfied readers, now curious about what happens next.
I don't think it's a dangerous thing, it can actually add to the interest of the readers who then may anticipate a sequel.
Thank you all so much for the advice, in a way, it makes me feel confident I am making the right decisions. I definitely plan on making the story self contained, the first book will round itself up nicely, making the reader feel the quest is over, but at the same time have that set up in place, letting people know there will be more, without feeling cheated on the ending. This is my one worry, unfortunately, the story I want to write simply has become what it is, and there is no way I could make it less than what I am planning. I don't need to become rich, haha! I just want to write this adventure, while making sure it makes sense as I put it out there. Either way, I'll definitely make sure the original story is self contained enough so people will be satisfied.
I would suggest having the main villain of the first book appear to be someone else besides the main villain. I say appear as you can have the main villain playing the Wizard of Oz(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). The 1st book villain can be a threat in his/her own right, but the events are being manipulated by the main villain for his own ends. You can drop hints of another player, but I would keep it vague. A good example of this is the 'Black Sun' trilogy by C.S. Friedman. Book 1 works as both a stand alone book or a start for the trilogy. You find out in book 2 that a apparently subservient character to the Book 1 villain is actually the main villain and they become the threat the heroes have to deal with in the next 2 books.
I see where you are coming from, but this is without a question impossible. I very well mean to make the character at the end of book 1 the actual villain, his story will go back far and his motives will run deep. I'm usually not a fan of the 'pulling the strings behind the curtains' trope.
People seem to expect sequels these days, especially in Fantasy but as an published author it's best to have your first novel as a stand alone book, unless of course this story is simple for yourself with no intention of trying to publish it for people to buy. I was once given the advice to "start with the cool stuff, don't save it for the second book." It's very hard to create a book that feels finished and satisfying but also create threads to work off. You could have the main villain appear without the first book pretending to be a helper. In the second book it's learned he's been pulling everyone's strings and that maybe the main villain from the first book was responsible for only half the crimes and worked for the real villain. It's hard to suggest anything without knowing the entire story. If we know your main villain IS a villain but only the other guy is defeated I'm going to be thinking: 'so she/he takes down one villain but lets the other walk?'.
Well, the question still remains - is book 1 interesting and engaging enough on its own without said villain's contribution? People read books expecting a payoff and conclusion at the end. If it ends inconclusively, some readers might not want to read any further. Every fantasy series I've ever read has a conclusion to whatever conflict is happening in that book, and a new conflict in the next.
@Kallisto covered this, but since I just finished rereading it, Hunger Games is the perfect example. Snow shows up exactly twice, once in the beginning as a one line, throw away mention and once at the end when it's revealed that he is unhappy about the outcome of the games. He has zero lines and no background. We have no inkling how major a part he'll play in the subsequent books. I can't think of any more book series off the top of my head that employ this technique, but this sort of thing is done frequently in television, when a the cliffhanger sets up a minor character as the next potential villain during the last minute of the season. Sometimes it's done to great effect. I would say go for it.
The Hunger Games example reminds me of another story that started off as stand alone but left room for more, Star Wars. In the first movie the Emperor is barely mentioned, the main antagonists are Grand Moff Tarkin and Darth Vader with the Death Star as a major antagonistic force. So when the movie ends with the destruction of the Death Star, Grand Moff Tarkin dying onboard, and Darth Vader blasting off into a Schrodinger's Cat state all the antagonistic forces are dealt with. Sure there is room for a sequel, but there isn't any need for one. The story is complete, the relevant conflict resolved.
I don't have anything to add to this conversation except to say that the concept of a series of books with a villain as the only common character intrigues me. That villain wouldn't be the main character, though. It would be like a book with Sherlock Holmes matching wits with Moriarity in the first book, and another detective tracking Moriarty in the second book, and a third detective up against Moriarty in the third one, and so on. Has that ever been done? The closest we've come, I think, is the Star Wars saga that was mentioned above. In a sense, Palpatine was the villain in the first one and reappeared in a cloned version of himself in the sequels, ending with him in person in the last one, while all the adversaries changed over the course of the saga. But I don't know if it's ever been attempted in book form.
I can't think of a book that did that, but 'Death Note', a manga/light novel did something similar. The main character is actually the villain, with multiple detectives playing the role of antagonist.
Alrighty, here's my two cents for what it's worth. I've always found setting up big bads, even if there's no climactic battle of good vs evil between them and the heroes right away, is best done with hints and other things leaving the reader to wonder. Foreshadow things. Even if they party doesn't see it, something should peak the readers interest. Maybe hint that there's more going on than the party realizes, or a bigger picture in play, but don't show it outright. Just sprinkle things in here and there, but it's also a good idea to give the big bad presence, even if it's not a malevolent one to begin with. Let the readers know he's important and someone to keep an eye on. If you show the reader just enough to interest them without answering everything right away, they'll most likely come back, eager for a sequel that finally reveals something.
Yes, it will 100% be its own encompassing story, with a beginning and an actual conclusion to the set up for the main characters.
This actually sounds extremely interesting, but fortunately I'm not going for something that intricate. I definitely have plans for all of my characters, main characters and villain.
Yes, that was a great example, where originally the villain didn't matter enough, and the story was self contained enough. Thanks for the advice. This definitely is more of what I was going for and definitely comforts me that it is not an inherently bad idea!
A couple of things: *The caveat against an unpublished author beginning with a series applies only if you're dedicated to being traditionally published. That's because if they buy the first book but not the others, there's a dozen ways you can end up with a broken series. On the other hand, if you go IndiePub, a series is practically required. It's the only way you'll make any money. *The example of President Snow from The Hunger Games sounds good in your circumstances. Like him, the villain you speak of is The Big Bad for your series. But there should be some other, lesser, villain, antagonist, opposing force for your protagonists to run up against during their journey. Or think about The Hobbit. The open villain there is the dragon Smaug. But the quest of the dwarves and Bilbo puts the hobbit in the position to find The One Ring, which will bring him and his nephew Frodo to Sauron's attention in the LOTR trilogy. I think it would be cool for you to leave clues earlier in the story that The Big Bad is pulling levers in your world. You could take advantage of it in future stories. ("Hey, remember when that weird thing happened on our journey last year? That must have been Big Bad!"). But if you spring him at the very end as the only antagonist in Book 1, I'd go "O rly?" and be tempted to wall the book. But if you get me wondering, "Hey, who's this dude here and what's he up to?" I'd be more interested in buying the next in series.
My original fantasy story is set up all along as a one-and-done story. My characters are chased by the ‘bad guys’ big fight at the end. Story complete. But ... throughout the story the characters meet several people that if there’s a follow-on story, will become antagonists. One is quite clearly a ‘bad person’, thoroughly awful, and one is kind of bad, kind of nice, kind of capable of destroying the entire world. But this all hinted at, right up to the very last chapter. And several other characters that could be antagonists, too. I leave it at hints and all ‘up in the air’ as to who the main antagonist turns out to be, or if several do. If there’s a sequel.
