I'm writing a series of episodic stories over the next few months, and I wondered if anyone had thoughts on the development of the Antagonist during the story. I want this man, named Isaiah to begin as a friend of the Protagonist, Ben, serving on his crew. Is it a bad idea to have the story build toward the plot with no major Antagonist until the middle or end of the stories? It occurred to me that not having conflict early might feel boring to the reader, especially in episodic format. What do you think?
Sometimes it depends on how you're writing your story arc. In B5, the shadows were hinted at, and one time their ships were shown in the first year, without being named. My overall antagonists, the ones who'll be major arc driving ones haven't been really mentioned beyond one event (which seems random) in the first book, and one man who's their "face" through the first two novels. It can built up the suspense as to who's doing what. However, if you're using person to person tension like you say, then bits and pieces of Isaiah's "badness" should probably be dropped to foreshadow his change. Or you can leave it as it is, and blindside the reader with it, which isn't a bad thing either.
Not having conflict WILL bore the reader. But you don't need the identity of the antagonist to be known in order to have conflict. "Twist" antagonists can still have a presence before their reveal. Don't wait to bring us conflict. Just save that specific development in the conflict for a particular point, if that's what you want to do.
So build that conflict in with other minor sources, then reveal the primary antagonist toward the end like I was planning? That sounds effective. Thanks for the feeback!
