Hello, I have been working on the plot for my novel, and was wondering if there are too many things going on at the same time. In the beginning, a "virus" hits the town which means that people are killed randomly - they are no symptoms that the virus will hit you next, but you know once you have it (the explanation for this is rather long, so I've skipped it). So, the protagonist (at this point in time, accompanied by the antagonist) try to find a resolution and are thrown into different directions. However, halfway through, the protagonist realises the true identity of the antagonist and needs to leave immediately. Following this, the antagonist then is able to trick the majority of the rest of the town into following his orders. This doesn't work on the protagonist, etc. This then means that the virus in some way is another antagonist, although it was started by the human antagonist. I feel that due to this, the actual goals of the protagonist will become slightly confused. Whether she should try to get rid of the virus, or as soon as she realises what the antagonist is doing, to go for him. It would be stupid for her to only aim for one. Are there any solutions for this?
You could get rid of the virus at the end of Act2 and the antagonist proper in Act3. It's quite common - for some reason The Spy Who Loved Me comes to mind: Bond saved the world [from nuclear war] and then went after Stromberg.
This is not an uncommon occurrence, the problem, is that the antagonist has already done his super awful thing by releasing the virus, is he going to do something worse? Or, you could eliminate both threats at the same time somehow? I agree with last poster as well that by eliminating the threat of the virus to the rest of the population, you can focus on the person responsible.
