Should I Continue?

[Lafayette]

Recently, it has dawn on me that I have done something non-traditional and I’m wondering if it is good thing.

In the story I have one protagonist and one semi-protagonist and one main antagonist and a secondary antagonist. In the story the hero does not go toe-to-toe with the main villain, but instead has a short run in with the secondary villain and ends up on the short end of the stick.

The secondary hero meets the main villain, but nothing is decided for in the battle they get separated by the other combatants.

The main villain dies by grabbing a magical sword that engulfs him with magic fire. The other villain dies by the intervention of an angry god.

Have there been any successful novels with this type of ending?

I am trying to rewrite it, but am wondering if I should.

 

[Harpo]

If it ain’t broke....

 

[Brian G Turner]

Naming conventions tell you that an antagonist is going to be an active adversary to the protagonist, and the protagonist is expected to overcome this antagonism.

Having your antagonist and his deputy die the way you describe makes the point of having a protagonist sound somewhat pointless.

 

[paranoid marvin]

So are the two antagonists defeated without any intervention from the protagonists?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think, in terms of reader satisfaction, we want our protagonist to actively overcome the antagonist. Having said that, it doesn't feel like there's a huge amount to do. Sit on it, think about it, and work out how you can get the protagonist involved in the fiery flame scenario. Could he do something tricky so that they go for the sword? Or can he wield it? The satisfaction of a nice twist can play well.

 

[Wayne Mack]

The key is not necessarily the quality of the ending, but how well the writer sells it to the reader. I have read several popular novels where the resolution was underwhelming, but I cared enough about the characters that the conclusion was still satisfying.

I can't tell from your description how satisfying this particular conclusion might be. Having an evil character be destroyed by getting too much power is a fairly common ending, so the death by grabbing a magical sword seems okay to me. Having a character being killed or sentenced to eternal suffering by awaking a too powerful god also seems pretty common. I feel both of these scenarios could work.

Until you get some actual reader feedback, you will need to rely on your own writer's intuition. Do you like the conclusion? Does it feel logical and not rely on last-minute plot developments? Does it leave the main characters in an acceptable state (even if there are now openings for a follow-on story)? Don't worry whether the conclusion is 'traditional,' just be concerned with how it makes the reader feel during and after the final events.

If the story ends the best way that you currently can write, accept it, celebrate finishing the story, and move on to what's next. Perhaps come back after a brek and then analyze how well the ending works.

 

[paranoid marvin]

'Raiders of the Lost Ark' pretty much follows this type of story. The protagonists come off worst in one-to-ones with the bad guys, the secondary character (Marion) has more interaction with the antagonists than protagonist does, and the antagonists are defeated by a powerful weapon/angry God.

The story would play out exactly the same whether Indy and Marion were there or not, so it could be argued that all of the actions of the protagonists are meaningless. It's still a great story though.

 

[msstice]

The main villain dies by grabbing a magical sword that engulfs him with magic fire. The other villain dies by the intervention of an angry god.

At what point in the story are the magical sword and the angry god introduced? If they are introduced only at the end, it would be an unsatisfactory ending for me. If these two elements have visibility during the story, it could be fine.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

'Raiders of the Lost Ark' pretty much follows this type of story. The protagonists come off worst in one-to-ones with the bad guys, the secondary character (Marion) has more interaction with the antagonists than protagonist does, and the antagonists are defeated by a powerful weapon/angry God.

The story would play out exactly the same whether Indy and Marion were there or not, so it could be argued that all of the actions of the protagonists are meaningless. It's still a great story though.

I'm not sure. Indy finds the ark for them, which is what actively destroys them. Without him, there is no ark. And without him, would they want to show it off? I think what you're saying is correct in terms of they don't need Indy and Marion in the last scene for it to work, but they did need them to get to the place of the last scene.

 

[OuttaInc]

I'm not sure. Indy finds the ark for them, which is what actively destroys them. Without him, there is no ark. And without him, would they want to show it off? I think what you're saying is correct in terms of they don't need Indy and Marion in the last scene for it to work, but they did need them to get to the place of the last scene.

I think you're both right.

It's not just Raiders, it's also The Last Crusade- Indy leads the villains to the climax, but ultimately it's the villain's decision to open the box/drink from the cup that results in their own demise.

 

[sknox]

Why did you make this decision? Why did you choose not to have main characters confront each other directly?

 

[The Big Peat]

1. Great art is often great precisely because it break the rules
2. What about this change in the normal order of things makes the story great?

I can think of stories with something like this. In Tigana, the protagonists see the first villain for perhaps a few minutes and the second villain never face to face. Neither villain is killed directly by the protagonists. I consider it at an all time great. The ending is part of that.

So what about that story is great for lack of direct confrontation? I... actually can't tell you right now. I can say their actions do definitely weigh on the villains. I can tell you that the major villain's death is incredibly perfect.

So it can be done but I think you do maybe need to have a little think about is it dramatically satisfying and why.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'm not sure. Indy finds the ark for them, which is what actively destroys them. Without him, there is no ark. And without him, would they want to show it off? I think what you're saying is correct in terms of they don't need Indy and Marion in the last scene for it to work, but they did need them to get to the place of the last scene.

True, but either they don't find the Ark or they do and are destroyed by it. Either way the Nazis don't get their super weapon. If memory serves they wanted to try it out before bringing it in front of Hitler. I'm assuming Indy and Marion are tied to stakes so that the Ark can be tested out on them?

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think you're both right.

It's not just Raiders, it's also The Last Crusade- Indy leads the villains to the climax, but ultimately it's the villain's decision to open the box/drink from the cup that results in their own demise.

Yeah, Donovan probably does get to the Grail with or without Indy being involved, but he can't remove it from it's resting place.

Obviously had to be done for plot reasons, but there's no way that Donovan would have drunk from the Grail first; he definitely would have tested out on Indy or one of the Nazi soldiers.

 

[msstice]

Obviously had to be done for plot reasons, but there's no way that Donovan would have drunk from the Grail first; he definitely would have tested out on Indy or one of the Nazi soldiers.

This "forbidden knowledge" theme is common across all the Indy movies and fits with the biblical backstory. And part of this theme is greed: the villain will let minions die in the traps, but the forbidden knowledge they have to taste for themselves.

This now will send me on a hunt to see if the "forbidden knowledge" trope exists in Hindu mythology or is a very biblical invention.

 

[Yozh]

I think you're both right.

It's not just Raiders, it's also The Last Crusade- Indy leads the villains to the climax, but ultimately it's the villain's decision to open the box/drink from the cup that results in their own demise.

Interesting I had never thought much about it, but our “hero” Indy is really just a spoiler in someone else’s saga in both those movies. Even the title reflects this.

Spoiler

It’s the Nazis, not Indy who are the “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” It’s again the Nazis and Henry who want to find the grail in “Last Crusade.” Indy just gets dragged into it because of Henry.

Also in Lord of the Rings, our main protagonist, Frodo,

Spoiler

is not the one who truly destroys the ring OR defeats Saruman.

So maybe not so strange for ending to work out in protagonist’s favor, but not actually through their actions.

 

[OuttaInc]

Interesting I had never thought much about it, but our “hero” Indy is really just a spoiler in someone else’s saga...

LOL, well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

To bring this back to Lafayette's OP, I think it really depends on what kind of story you're writing. If you're writing an adventure, then you can probably get away with what you’re suggesting because the focus of an adventure is less on character movement and more on the actual, physical journey.

But if you're writing a story about a quest or a revenge (where the MC has to find a Golden Fleece or defeat a romantic rival who imprisoned him long ago) then I think the reader would feel cheated if the main antagonist were somehow defeated by anything other than the hero.

 

[Flaviosky]

So it can be done but I think you do maybe need to have a little think about is it dramatically satisfying and why.

This is the first thing that comes to my mind: The possibility of a non-satisfying ending.

Although, if the tone of the story is somewhat satyrical and light, it might work if the story revolves a bit around the random and absurd.

 

[THX1138]

You may have to rewrite the story and tie in the sword and deity to the MP and 2ndMP. Or make the sword a common goal for both MP and MA, and have the 2ndP and 2ndA making their pleas to the deity and have the deity favor the MP/2ndP.
What is their drive and what caries them to the end other than defeating the MA/2ndA?

 

[Lafayette]

The key is not necessarily the quality of the ending, but how well the writer sells it to the reader. I have read several

I keep thinking of Frodo and Golum. Frodo didn't exactly win the one-on-one with Golum. Also wouldn't Golum be considered a number two antagonist?

Until you get some actual reader feedback, you will need to rely on your own writer's intuition.

Unfortunately, I have no beta readers.

Do you like the conclusion?

Yes, I do.

Does it feel logical and not rely on last-minute plot developments?

It does to me, but I'm not if the reader will agree since (I'm assuming) most readers like the traditional hero vs. villain ending. The other thing is: I'm not sure if the reader will believe the idea of the hero going toe-to-toe with the villain considering how I wrote him.

Does it leave the main characters in an acceptable state

Yes. At the end of the story the hero is sitting before a fireplace, sipping wine and playing his new guitar.

Don't worry whether the conclusion is 'traditional,' just be concerned with how it makes the reader feel during and after the final events.

I'm more concern about the reader than tradition.

If the story ends the best way that you currently can write, accept it, celebrate finishing the story, and move on to what's next.

I'll keep that in mind.