Some issues with my current story

Hello everyone, first time writer here.

I've got three significant issues for which I need some advice:

1- The MC is undead, essentially an skeleton. This means he can't feel any physical sensations (Heartbeat, sweat, chest pressure, etc...), and this, of course, means that I'm having some real trouble conveying how he feels in any given moment. It also limits how much body language I can use for him, because... Well, he has no face to speak of. I may have shot myself in the knee with his undeadness, but it's an essential part of the character, so I'm wondering how can I express his feelings without physical sensations or facial expressions.

2- I'm writing in third limited (past tense), and I'm realizing how much it limits the way I can express what's going on. Should I start rewriting from the start right now or should I finish the novel first, and then rewrite it?.

2.2-Given the low fantasy setting and rather simple story, what type of narration would be preferable?. It's got quite a bit of drama and plenty of conversation. Could first person in past tense work well (Like he's thinking about his past)?.

3-The antagonist, because of his role in the story, basically only appears twice, once early and then at the end when the MC faces him. Thing is, he's basically won already, he's the ultimate ruler, so there is no way the MC could face him in any other way than a suicide mission, which means I can't have them meet before the final confrontation. The antagonist doesn't even know that the MC is still alive until the confrontation happens. Another shot in the knee, maybe?.

3.2-I wrote a prologue with an "Antagonist: Origins" theme to it, where he does something horrible for the first time, and it's a pivotal moment of his life. Thing is, my two test readers thought that the lack of context completely destroyed the scene and made it incomprehensible. It did have a completely different tone to the start of chapter one, and there is no direct connection to the story until the antagonist shows up in episode 3, at which point you realize that he was the POV character from the prologue. Should I rework it and keep it, or forget the whole prologue deal?. I just really liked the first line in the prologue...


Any advice will do, I'm all ears.

 

Depending on your tone, things like "Joe assumed that ti he still had a heart, it would be thundering" could work. "Joe wanted to raise his eyebrow, but, well." You could explore the character's frustration at his lack of ability to emote, and that can be played for laughs or treated with more gravity,

I don't actually think this limits you at all. You're good in limited third and past. If you want to switch it up, go for it, but I'm not clear on how you're limited as it.

Could work, I think. But it makes me wonder what adversity the MC is facing that's not related to the antag. You want to build up the antag so that the actual confrontation with him is meaningful, but if he can't know the MC's even alive, then what's your MC dealing with? That needs to be interesting and important as well, still without detracting from the oomph of that final encounter.

You gotta be careful with prologues. Especially around here You'll find a lot of different opinions on whether you should have prologue, or what they should contain, but my personal thought is that if it doesn't make sense out of context, you shouldn't have it -- because there is no context at the beginning of your novel. And when it's about different characters, set in a different time, has a different tone, etc, then your prologue is just teasing/setting up a story that you're going to go on to not tell with the ensuing novel. Your prologue should fit with the story it precedes, IMO, and I think the impulse to attach something to the front of the story that informs something later on, but is only disorienting and cryptic at the time, gets a lot of prologues in trouble.

So, for my money: scrap it.

 

1- Yeah, I kind of did that for an episode after he gets brought back (For example, he solved a minor problem regarding a jewel from his wife and I said something like "he sported an invisible smile"). It's just that you can only say that kind of thing so many times until it starts getting repetitive, right?. I'm thinking maybe I can modify the lore behind undead people in this world, by having a character explain that you still feel as if you had a body (Like a phantom pain), with all the normal physical sensations, but you end up losing those sensations as times goes by and you get used to being dead. I already introduced that moving the mandible isn't neccesary to talk, but recently revived characters still do it. The antagonist, on the other hand, has been dead for centuries,and he doesn't move his jaw when he talks.

2- Maybe my perception on this topic has been twisted because of point 1.

3-I've had a character speak about how the antagonist has been ruling, and two mayor scenes have revolved around the consequences of his laws (Potentially more scenes in future chapters, I'm still at 7). It's just that the story I've thought isn't really about the antagonist, he's just the reason things are going down, it's more about the themes and character development (Like the central father-daughter relation, and the nature of justice and guilt). Could I maybe introduce a few chapters with the antagonist as the POV to show what he's dealing with?, maybe small chapters with around 2000-2500 words.

3.2-Just what I thought. My test readers sugested that I use a prologue to set the world and lore, infodumping the whole thing, which I think is absolutely boring to read. I've been introducing that kind of worldbuilding into the narration itself, piece by piece, instead of just dumping it on a prologue or chapter 1. Following the final thought from topic 3, if I introduced a seconday POV with the antagonist, I guess I could make a chapter about the story that I first wrote as the prologue.

 

Can you clarify how this limits you? I regard third limited as the most flexible option. You can get pretty much everything you get in first person, but you can, if you choose, get more distance.

 

He can still sigh, puff out his chest, tilt his head back, hunch forward, tap on things, have his head loll, jump for joy, clap, chatter his teeth, laugh ( or at least expand and contract his ribs rapidly as if laughing)...

Remember that he basically has invisible flesh, so his skeleton can move in all the ways a living persons can.

 

I think it's mostly because of the difficulty to express what's on the MC's mind. As said, the lack of physical sensations and facial expressions leaves me with only thoughts to let the character express himself (other than talking, of which I have a lot already), and it feels kind of forced to express thoughts in third person. In first, you can say "That's it, then", which goes right to the point, while in third you'd say "That's it, then" he thought", and it's the "he thought" thing that rubs me the wrong way.

 

Yeah, some body language is always there, but it feels very limited as the main option to convey his feelings. I may just do what I said in the first response and have undead people feel their bodies as a sort of phantom pain, as that would give me almost the full arrange of options to express feelings, minus the facial expressions, of course.

 

Phantom/residual pains might be a good idea! Or you could just refer to them as metaphors or similes!

 

I kept telling them about this when they first gave me feedback on the prologue. They're absolutely sure that a prologue can only be used in such a manner, but I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

In third, I'd say, "That was it, then." with no thought tag. Others might say, "That's it, then," with italics and no thought tag. But third person can definitely have internal thoughts and feelings.

Joe stood in the doorway and stared at the living room. The couch pillows were in pieces. His shoes were scattered around the room, some of them apparently eaten. That was it, then. Cynthia might weep, might howl, might call him a beast with that expression that always made him feel obligated to rush out and buy her another pint of ice cream. It was always comforting, watching her eat ice cream; it meant that she wasn't angry at him. But whatever she did, he was determined, the dog had to go. Had to. No question. No weakening.

....or maybe he could find a stronger crate?​

 

I'll think about it. It can definetely work that way. I'll have to go through what's already written and try to weave some thoughts to spice it up, see how that turns out.

 

to No. 1: How was it done in "Skulduggery Pleasant"? Maybe you can take an example from there.

 

I'll take a look, but it seems like those books have a very light tone to them. My story is more on the depressing side of things.

It looks like those books have the girl as the POV, do you know if the skeleton is the MC in any of them?.

 

1-heartbeat, sweat, hest pressure etc are often overused by new writers, so actually it's a good thing when they are not available to you Same with rising eyebrows and similar body activities which are not that often used in reality. You don't need to resort to cliches or exagerrations to make the reader understand what's happening.
2-What's your example? First person narration has to be in the voice of the character. There are no limitations in third person. Tense is a matter of taste.
2.2-what do you mean "type of narration"? Any. See which narration you can do best and go with that one.
3-you can have your antagonist appear at the very end, like the End Level Boss in a computer game. But he has to have some sort of influence over the rest of the story, otherwise he won't be the antagonist. Anyways, don't overthink it. If you have an evil king who spoils MC's childhood and then forgets about him for the rest of the book, until the final chapter where the MC chops his head off on the last page - that's fine.
3.2-think if you need this. Then think again. Why do we need to know how the Antagonist became bad? How is that connected to the rest of the story? Does it matter if he was born evil, or there was something that broke him at some point and made him change his ways? Is the Star Wars saga better because of the prequels? No. Did we need to know Snoke's origins? Definitely It varies. Prologues can be useful, they can set the tone. They can also bore the reader. That varies, too.

 

I think Snoke is old darth maul

 

Plenty to think about, for sure. I'm in the process of adding the whole "phantom pain" aspect to the MC's undead status and rewriting some scenes to better reflect his feelings.