So, I'm writing a plot out and it's all going great. I've got the main ideas worked out and I thought I had the ending worked out as well, but I've realised, the situation I've left it on leaves it open for a sequel. I mean, it'd work without a sequel, but it's definitely open for a sequel. So, I was thinking I'd do it, but I've got a rather big problem... It ends with the death of the main character whom you get very attached to. Now, the story still flows nice like this, and i could quite easily continue it with one of the support character who was the only survivor of the group of protagonists. However, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to switch character positions from a support to a main, so I'm wondering, if I referenced back to the main character, would it be possible to have an Absent Main Character? A character who even in death is causing the events to unfold (due to outrage at his death). Would it be a good idea to do this?
You will end up writing someone as the main focus of events just because it's easy to carry a narration on one person's back rather than dozens. Even if you have several different groups each will have one person you naturally favour to tell it, and maybe you'll start to make them into the next main character as they develop. Maybe that would be a way to approach it without instantly just making the reader assume they're the new main character - if you start with outrage and scattered storytelling, then slowly draw it into one person you can have a quite natural process of re-assuming control, I guess? *shrugs*
So... gradually give the other character control? That sounds good, but it's all first person, so I don't know if that'd work well. Thanks for the help anyway.
Ah, you didn't mention that. Pick an impartial outside observer narrator to watch the same thing? Then if you write a third book, the new guy can be the next narrator?
Yeah, sorry, I probably should have. As for the narrator,I was thinking of doing that, but due to the circumstances, that wouldn't work. It's all about these people trying to clear their name for a (large) crime they didn't do. The public hate them, and nobody but them and the major antagonist knows the truth... I was thinking of having the main antagonist narrate, but he's not the best character for that. Thanks for all the help! I'll think a bit more about narrating.
The most minor of the good guys who do know? Maybe not impartial, but creating a distance from the lead will be good, and also, bonus character development on an overlooked guy.
Actually, I disagree with you, NRG. You said having the antagonist narrate might not be a good idea. Well, why not? Unless he's insane, or hopelessly biased, I really can't think of a good reason. Something like,"I had triumphed! _____ was dead, and I...." then at the end,"I couldn't believe everything had gone so hopelessly wrong! Not in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that..." This would create an interesting POV to your book.
