How can the antagonist mislead the readers?
I am writing a story from a 3rd person perspective as the omniscient narrator. When my antagonist is revealed first, people believe him to be a certain person - X, not that any one says that to him or confirms with him but they believe it amongst themselves. This is a major plot point in the novel and serves a major twist later on. I would like to make my readers believe that he in fact is X and not Y.
Writing this is well and good from other character's POV but when I'm writing from the antagonist's POV, I find it hard. In fact, even introducing him at beginning of the chapter presents a difficulty. I'm trying to retain the illusion when writing from the antagonist's POV, what are some of the tips that you can suggest ?
E.g. - A cool wind blew, ruffling his hair as he moved forward towards his destination. The target had eluded him, for so long but finally, vengeance was his, X of the elvish clan. He was the foremost of the Forsworn and he would not be denied his revenge.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/23328. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Don't mislead the reader. It is a cheap trick that will leave the reader unsatisfied and disinclined to trust you as an author. This does not mean you cannot have surprise, but the surprise should be produced by the logical progress of the story, not by artificially withholding information.
Ask yourself, whose story is this. There may be surprises in the course of unfolding that person's story. They may be as surprising to the reader as they are to the character. But if you are telling a person's story and withholding information to create an artificial surprise for the reader alone, that is dishonest storytelling and the reader will not thank you for it.
0 comment threads
Don't name him in his own thoughts. (I'm going to add names here for ease of discussion.)
You have:
vengeance was his, Garth of the Bill clan. He was the Foremost of the Forsworn
But he's not actually Garth of the Bill clan. That's what he wants his enemy Dave to think. He's actually Wayne of the Ted clan. While Garth and Wayne are both Dave's enemies, Dave thinks it's Garth after him (because Wayne has framed him). Wayne wants to get rid of Dave and Garth, and he's doing it by setting Dave and Garth against each other.
So you use generic terms, and reference what Dave is thinking:
but finally, vengeance was his. He moved forward. The last thing Dave would see was Garth looming over him with the axe, ready to split his skull. And Debbie would run shrieking to the elders of the Carlin tribe that the Bill clan had begun their long-heralded attack at last.
Revenge would be cool and sweet, like fresh juice at the end of a long day's stalk. The man [or the hunter, the warrior, etc.] slipped forward through the long grass, barely parting the stalks.
The "revenge" is not just against Dave, but against Garth, because Dave's people, the Carlin tribe, will be going after Garth's people, the Bill clan. Neither will suspect Wayne. You can reveal that later. And you always refer to the antagonist in this scene with generic terms: the man, the hunter, etc.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads