So the project I am currently working on follows two main characters, one in the north and one in the south. In the first book, they will never interact with one another, but they will become aware of events that are happening to the other protagonist. One example is the elven woman in the south becoming aware that a dragon attacked a settlement in the north, which in turn leads to her learning more about her ancestors' connection with the dragons. Another example is my northern protagonist learning about elven riots in the south from some hopeful elven surfs. The problem I am finding with my format is while the two stories take place in the same kingdom and during the same timeframe I feel like I have too little time to write for each character. I feel like the book will get too long if I write a story with both protagonists in it. Since the two main characters would an equal amount of chapters I get the feeling I will need something akin to sixty chapters to do both their storylines justice. What do you think I should do?
I'd think about the structure of each story. To split the work into two, you'll need two distinct stories to tell. Would there be a defined issue in each book that's resolved at the end of each book? Would each book resemble an established story structure (such as the hero's journey) or something similar? Also, I'd be mindful of allowing your worldbuilding to overwhelm your story. Does the elven woman's increased knowledge of her ancestors' connection with the dragons lead on to her making decisions that affect the plot?
You can't just hack a book in half, each book has to be self-contained and tell a complete story, which will be, in turn, part of a larger story. The characters have to go through arcs, they have to grow and change and readers need to be able to put down that first book satisfied. If you can do that, then sure, write two books.
I would suggest you not worry about finishing and format until you have written the story. I know much of the time we are trained to do our best work right off the bat and organize things from the start but that's not how writing works. Just write, write badly, write well, write all over, and when you are done, you can chop it up and decorate it like a platter of fine dining. In this stage the most important thing is just to write. Everything else will happen during the revision stage. You got this!
Well, Lord of the Rings was so long it was famously whacked into three separate works. Granted, that happened in another publishing universe (1953?), but if you remember, the second and third books were written from two unbroken POVs (Frodo/Sam, Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli) that each filled half the pages without interrupting each other. You'll notice too that when they made the movies, they (smartly) cut the two POVs together in smaller chunks to make the story flow better. This isn't the greatest example, as LoTR might as well have been written in the Stone Age compared to the modern publishing world and attention span. But it's still doable. How much have you actually written? If you haven't gotten that far you don't need to worry about any of this yet.
my thought when reading the OP is that I like the idea but that also seems that I will have to read one book + some of a second book to begin seeing that there are two protagonists and how/why their stories are entangled. It seems fairly long when the premise plays on having two protagonists. If you separate them, is the story in your first book strong enough to stand on its own? I imagine in such cases it would be more intriguing, at least to me, to see each of the two separate stories develop in the 1/2 to 2/3 of the book, and then they come together. Another would be the first 2/3 for one protagonist, then for the rest of the first book comes in the second, but you have to think how you will persuade the reader to keep reading on to a second book. These are just rumblings on how I would feel as reader facing such prospects. Most importantly, I think you first need to start writing to see where it goes, because along the way things might not turn out like you had them in your mind, for instance one option might simply not work while another might unexpectedly do so.
I'd split them up, if you think you have enough. The problem, though, is that you should make sure the reader knows they take place at the same time (see this thread). Instead of giving each MC their own book, you could just split the story itself into two (a duology) and alternate the POVs, slipping in references to keep the reader oriented as to the passage of time and who's doing what when. That might be the better way to go, if it's not part of a larger series.
I was given this advice when I wanted to write two books of the same story. The person I got this advice off was published and I wasn't so she suggested putting it all into one book. Your first novel needs to be a stand alone with sequel potential if that's the way you want to go. If this is for your own enjoyment then you can do as you please.
This is something I asked myself frequently when I began plotting out my series. It boils down to a single question. Is the plot of each thread self-contained enough that they can be split into two books without any real changes? Or, this can be rephrased to is there enough interconnectivity between the plot threads that the reader's understanding of the overall plot or characters will suffer without reading both perspectives at the same time? If there is no pressing need to have the reader understand both perspectives at once, then you should split the books. Some examples of interconnectivity: 1. One character is discussing the other in-depth. You don't want the subject of the discussion to just be an empty name. 2. A side character who receives development in one thread travels into the other. You don't want characters to just appear if their development takes place in the other thread. 3. An event takes place but one perspective is insufficient to convey necessary information to the reader. In this case, the second perspective is used to fill in the blanks. Game of Thrones handled this well. Daenerys is on a different continent from all of the other POV characters, but she specifically is discussed at length, actions like assassination attempts travel between the threads, side characters travel between the threads, and events in one thread significantly alter the events of the other. So far what you've posted here makes it sound like the extent of interaction between your threads is a couple of news stories. It doesn't seem like either character matters to the other, they just hear of the events they were involved in. I don't think that is sufficient to justify those threads remaining in the same novel. Multiple POVs is harder on the reader and makes the book longer, so I suggest using it only when it really is necessary to do so.
