When Does the Villainess Appear

[Lafayette]

In my story the villainess doesn't show up until about half way through the story. Along the way the heroine and her companion encounter dangers that can be instigated by the bad woman or just be happenstance. I'm not sure which is the better idea. I'm also kicking around the idea of having the villainess spying on the companions via a crystal ball, but not showing the reader who the villainess is. Or would it work not showing the villainess at all?

I will appreciate any opinions and/or questions you may have.

 

[Harpo]

When her minions have failed for the last time and she says “must I do everything myself!”

 

[Wayne Mack]

I don't see anything wrong with having the antagonist show up late in the story. The important thing is to ensure that the reader stays engaged with the story up to (and after!) the reveal point.

 

[paranoid marvin]

In LOTR Sauron doesn't appear at all, and we only see his 2nd in command quite a way into the story.

Saruman has a type of crystal ball to see what is happening elsewhere, and the companions are forced off their mountain path by an unexpected bout of bad weather. They assume that it was caused by Saruman, but we never actually know for sure.

Have some of the dangers caused by your villainess, and some be mere chance. You may let the reader - along with your protagonists - decide which is which.

 

[The Judge]

To my mind there's a difference between seeing the antagonist and knowing there's an antagonist.

If the characters know someone evil is behind everything and know who it is, then it doesn't matter if we don't see her or even any lackeys until well into the story. If they know there is someone evil, but you as author want to keep that person's identity secret, then you do need to show that person, or at least refer to her consistently, even if the identity reveal is delayed until the end -- just as in a murder mystery the murderer has to be one of the characters we've seen, otherwise the reader will feel cheated.

If, though, the characters have no idea someone evil if out to get them and you as author give no hint of that person, then it's likely to be harder to pull off a belated reveal, not least as there's less sense of conflict or higher stakes up until then if they always appear just battling chance or life in general.

HareBrain's Firestealer series gets around that unknown antagonist problem by having the evil characters appear in scenes (or, rather, be heard in scenes) where it's not always easy to understand what's going on, because we're not initially sure who they are and what their goal is, but it is made clear that there's malevolence behind things, driving not only particular incidents but also the plot. I've actually copied that idea into one of my books, where it's helped give depth to the story.

In another book I've also played around with giving my characters a supposed antagonist, so there's a focus for their anger, only in the very last pages of book one to show that there's someone else in fact pulling a lot more strings than they realised, and though we've not met him he has been talked about earlier in the story. That then pushes a greater conflict into the sequel -- if the reveal had been made earlier, meaning the characters weren't manipulated in the same way, the first book wouldn't have worked.

So, yes, delaying the villain's entrance is possible, and might be in context the better idea, but I think you need to pin down exactly what advantages stem from that, if any, or whether conversely the feel of the novel is impaired by doing that and if so what you can do to get around the problem. Basically, either way it's up to you to make it work.

 

[HareBrain]

The important thing is to ensure that the reader stays engaged

The only reason writing guides contain more than these 11 words is that otherwise no one would make any money from them.

 

[Lafayette]

To my mind there's a difference between seeing the antagonist and knowing there's an antagonist.

Haven't thought of that and it's a good point to ponder.

If, though, the characters have no idea someone evil if out to get them

They (the good guys) have no idea until after they have arrived at their destination.

and you as author give no hint of that person,

I've been thinking of giving hints to the readers (the reason for the crystal ball) and maybe the protagonist.

if they always appear just battling chance or life in general.

I was thinking of that, however after reading what you said that on second thought doesn't appear to be a good idea.

So, yes, delaying the villain's entrance is possible, and might be in context the better idea, but I think you need to pin down exactly what advantages stem from that, if any, or whether conversely the feel of the novel is impaired by doing that and if so what you can do to get around the problem. Basically, either way it's up to you to make it work.

Thank you and I will think about what you have written.

 

[Lafayette]

In LOTR Sauron doesn't appear at all, and we only see his 2nd in command quite a way into the story.

I have forgotten about that.

Saruman has a type of crystal ball

I like the crystal ball technique.

Have some of the dangers caused by your villainess, and some be mere chance. You may let the reader - along with your protagonists - decide which is which.

I like this idea and thank you.

 

[Lafayette]

I don't see anything wrong with having the antagonist show up late in the story. The important thing is to ensure that the reader stays engaged with the story up to (and after!) the reveal point.

That may be the real challenge. Thank you.

 

[sknox]

I have something like this in my WIP. The villain isn't really revealed until late in the story. What I'm doing, and what you might consider, is to have the heroes have theories about the source of the trouble, and their theories are wrong.

You can take that and still follow two paths. In one, the reader is there along with the heroes, though the reader might make other guesses. In the other path, which I'm doing in mine, the *reader* knows who the bad guy is and so knows the heroes are guessing wrong. It's the equivalent of where the viewer in a movie knows there's a monster in the basement.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

In my own writing, the villainess (and it usually is a villainess) generally appears early. She has viewpoint scenes with her henchmen or accomplices wherein she discusses her plans. Since it is by no means certain that she will succeed, I don't think this gives too much away, and I hope it builds anticipation and apprehension. But the reason I do it that way, is because these characters capture my imagination and I like to show how their minds work and explore their personalities in a certain amount of depth. (Or, to put it another way, talkative villainesses are just a quirk of my own writing.)

On the other hand, as a reader, I am perfectly happy if the individual who is the source of the threat is not revealed until much, much later. So long as it is handled well (and it doesn't seem like the writer is unfairly withholding information to make themselves look smarter and readers dumber, which is the impression I do sometimes get in badly-written stories) ... then it doesn't matter at all.

So do what feels right, what you believe serves the story best. How boring it would be if all writers handled these things in exactly the same way.

 

[Lafayette]

I have something like this in my WIP. The villain isn't really revealed until late in the story. What I'm doing, and what you might consider, is to have the heroes have theories about the source of the trouble, and their theories are wrong.

That is a very good idea, but I don't think it'll work in my story. It's not in my characters to do so.

the *reader* knows who the bad guy is

In my story the reader doesn't know who the villainess is until half way through.

 

[ColGray]

It's good to think about what the antagonist adds to the story--that then informs the value of revealing their existence, name and motivation (which can be three different scenes/reveals). Consistently, IMO, the best villains have believable, real motivations and at least one of those three reveals (existence, name, motivation) is a red herring.

examples include (and, sorry, genre's here are gonna be all over the place just due to, it's what I've been reading)

1. Point towards one character but then flip it to be another
   1. Sanderson's Elantris where the real antagonist is shown to be the subordinate of the presumed antagonist
      1. Accomplished via escalation of antagonist's goals
2. Provide one name and then have that be a fake or previous name
   1. Crais' L A Requiem, where they find a name for the antagonist but it was tied to a juvenile record
3. Provide a motivation and then change it and thereby the story
   1. GRRM's Jaime Lannister. What starts as pride and familial piety becomes love, then jealousy, then self-loathing. He may not be the series antagonist, but he is AN antagonist and has a complex shift in his motivations where each is believable
4. When the "revealed" antagonist isn't the antagonist
   1. If you've seen Oppenheimer, there's a lot of question about who the real antagonist is, with obvious names and villains out there from the jump. By the end, you know that they were all just working for one person and that they were the real antagonist.

 

[Lafayette]

In my own writing, the villainess (and it usually is a villainess) generally appears early. She has viewpoint scenes with her henchmen or accomplices wherein she discusses her plans.

My villainess doesn't discusses her plan with her flunkies (they're not very bright) she likes to keep things to herself. The exception may be her parrot..

 

[Lafayette]

It's good to think about what the antagonist adds to the story--

I believe the antagonist helps the protagonist grow as a character. As an example the antagonist sets traps and protagonist figures a way out of them thus becoming more resourceful and careful.

Consistently, IMO, the best villains have believable, real motivations

My villainess wants revenge and to be worshipped. If she wasn't so dangerous others would think her spiteful

1. Point towards one character but then flip it to be another
   1. Sanderson's Elantris where the real antagonist is shown to be the subordinate of the presumed antagonist
      1. Accomplished via escalation of antagonist's goals
2. Provide one name and then have that be a fake or previous name
   1. Crais' L A Requiem, where they find a name for the antagonist but it was tied to a juvenile record
3. Provide a motivation and then change it and thereby the story
   1. GRRM's Jaime Lannister. What starts as pride and familial piety becomes love, then jealousy, then self-loathing. He may not be the series antagonist, but he is AN antagonist and has a complex shift in his motivations where each is believable
4. When the "revealed" antagonist isn't the antagonist
   1. If you've seen Oppenheimer, there's a lot of question about who the real antagonist is, with obvious names and villains out there from the jump. By the end, you know that they were all just working for one person and that they were the real antagonist.

These are all good ideas and examples, but they don't apply for my story.

Thanks for sharing and keep the ideas flowing.

 

[ColGray]

I believe the antagonist helps the protagonist grow as a character.

I see what you're doing there and yes, they absolutely do, but I'd suggest that the protagonist might see it that way (might!) but the antagonist DEFINTELY does not see it that way.

Harry Potter might see Voldemort as giving him motivation to grow, get stronger/better/more powerful. Voldemort is a fantastic villain because he sees Harry as an impediment and annoyance.

Capt America might see the Winter Soldier or Cross Bones as a reason to keep training and being a super hero. Bucky sees Cap as a his mission and task: not his pupil.

Clarice Starling thinks Dr. Lecter is dangerous, but helpful, in furthering her ambition. Lecter is manipulating Starling as surely as he manipulated Miggs, Chilton or Jack Crawford.

Oppenheimer thinks Strauss is an ambitious politician who he can manipulate. Strauss view Oppenheimer as tool to be used and a pawn to be discarded.

Minibosses teach lessons. Villains--antagonists--act. The villains wants something. The protagonist is in their way. The villain does something. The protagonist reacts. They duel--often with the protagonist not knowing they are dueling until the reveal. It's believable motivation on both sides. But when the protagonist realizes they have a specific enemy, a specific target, they change the relationship. The protagonist acts. The change in power dynamics -- order of the Phoenix, Civil War, Clarice manipulating Lecter by turning his assumptions against him, Oppenheimer ending Strauss' political ambitions as the first failed cabinet nominee in a generation -- is heady stuff.

The WHY matters.

Great villains make great stories.

If you're interested in specific feedback, I'm happy to read.