Should I Continue?

[Lafayette]

I think, in terms of reader satisfaction, we want our protagonist to actively overcome the antagonist.

The hero does the villain in indirectly. The hero hurls the magic sword skyward at the bad dragon (who is fighting the good dragon). The bad dragon falls to his death with the sword embedded. The villain pulls the sword from the dead dragon and is engulf in a fire and dies.

Sit on it, think about it,

I have been.
and work out how you can get the protagonist involved in the fiery flame scenario.

Is the above scenario satisfactory

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

Interesting topic! I'm in camp "this could work if you play your cards carefully." I like the Indiana Jones comparisions, and the distinction between "quest" and "adventure." One idea that occurred to me is setting up a misunderstood prophecy concerning the sword. The hero has been carefully trying not to let Villain no. 1 ever get his hands on it, fearing the consequences. Villain no 1 is well aware of this and really wants the sword now.

 

[Lafayette]

You may have to rewrite the story and tie in the sword and deity to the MP and 2ndMP.

I've been doing that for the past few months it's just that I don't want to mess it up by making it too complicate or losing the elements I like.

Or make the sword a common goal for both MP and MA,

The crux is: the hero came across the sword by accident. All the hero knows is the sword is magical (and he doesn't want it for he is a pacifist) and doesn't know its importance, but the villains do.

What is their drive and what caries them to the end other than defeating the MA/2ndA?

The hero's goal is to save the elves from a plague, get the magicwood for a guitar (the original goal)) and go home.

 

[Lafayette]

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.

Although, I have funny scenes in the story it's not satirical.

 

[Lafayette]

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

Villain One is Villain Two is not.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

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.

While this is the ending to the primary and secondary villains, does this have to be the end of the story? I can see that being the beginning of the story. Or perhaps end of the second act. In an interesting world there are a lot more challenges than a couple specific people actively working to rain on the parade.

Good luck.

 

[Swank]

It sounds cool.

I think ending climaxes are overrated. It isnt what sticks with you. Its just the place where the story you've been immersed in runs out of pages. I can barely remember the climax of many of my favorite bools.

 

[THX1138]

So, wouldn't the plague be the third and biggest antagonist? Or more likely the main antagonist and the other two (MA, 2ndA) be the ever-present thorn in the hero's and 2ndP's sides?

Sorry, what I should ask is how much of a part does the plague play in the story?

 

[Wayne Mack]

The hero does the villain in indirectly. The hero hurls the magic sword skyward at the bad dragon (who is fighting the good dragon). The bad dragon falls to his death with the sword embedded. The villain pulls the sword from the dead dragon and is engulf in a fire and dies.

To me, this sounds like it would be a rewarding conclusion. It is often a common ending to a fight scene for the villain to be done in by his or her own mistake rather than a direct action by hero. The end to this fight scene has the right combination of being a logical result and of being unexpected.

The key is not in the actual conclusion, but in the level of tension and drama created leading up to the conclusion.

 

[Lafayette]

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

I didn't choose anything, it just happened that way. Originally, I had an outline, but the scenarios and the characters kept changing it.

 

[Lafayette]

So, wouldn't the plague be the third and biggest antagonist? Or more likely the main antagonist and the other two (MA, 2ndA) be the ever-present thorn in the hero's and 2ndP's sides?

Sorry, what I should ask is how much of a part does the plague play in the story?

The plague is causing the Elves to die out as a race. Using the word plague may not be the correct way to explain what is really going on. What really is going on is: Villain A stole a gem that filters or enhances the sun's ray for Elven crops to grow properly. Bad crops = bad diet = bad diet = sickly Elves = dying Elves. The Elves cannot enter Villain A's domain to retrieve gem because of Elven sensitive air pollution created by Villain B.

 

[Lafayette]

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.

The sword appears toward the beginning of the middle? The angry god is related in a story toward the last of the middle and makes his intervention at the last to beat the crap out of Villain B.

 

[Lafayette]

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.

I read Tigana, but don't remember all the ending, but it does give me another reason that Guy Gavriel Kay is one of my literary heroes.

 

[Lafayette]

What is their drive and what caries them to the end other than defeating the MA/2ndA?

For Hero A the most urgent goal is saving the lives of his friends. For Hero B it is basically pleasing his father by retrieving the gem and getting the daughter of one the members back from Villain A.

 

[Lafayette]

To me, this sounds like it would be a rewarding conclusion. It is often a common ending to a fight scene for the villain to be done in by his or her own mistake rather than a direct action by hero. The end to this fight scene has the right combination of being a logical result and of being unexpected.

The key is not in the actual conclusion, but in the level of tension and drama created leading up to the conclusion.

Glad to hear that the ending is satisfying. I'll have to look again, but I believe the confrontation(s) have plenty of tension.

 

[sknox]

I didn't choose anything, it just happened that way. Originally, I had an outline, but the scenarios and the characters kept changing it.

Ok. I don't mean to be flip here. But if you aren't the one making the choices, advice seems off point. This is a world that has always been alien to me.

Trying to be helpful, maybe you could try out scenes - think them through our write them out, whatever works for you. The aim would be to find a way to let the story speak up for itself?

 

[Brian G Turner]

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.

I think this is a very fair point - while there are writing ideals, so many writers successfully get away with ignoring them that it's a definite consideration as to whether those ideals (ie, antagonist vs protagonist) really are worth following through with.

Additionally, the GGK reference is a good one, because something in the themes Lafayette has posted over the years reminds me a lot of GGK. I mean, how many people write a fantasy novel with a musical instrument at the heart of it?