How to invest readers in a story that (initially) has no clear direction?

You need to focus on what is going on emotionally within your character. You are not correct in saying the first part of your story has no antagonist. You clearly do have an antagonist right from the beginning by starting with a character who is a fugitive. Essentially, it's your character versus "the world" and specifically the people out to get her. So don't think there's no plot there. Plenty of stories have been told about nothing but survival. Characters are stranded on an island or high in the mountains after a plane crash and need to survive. That is a perfectly good plot to drive even an entire novel, much less the first "act".

To get to your question; you really need to hone in on what is going on inside your character's head. This is the key to getting readers invested in the story. Think about S.E. Hinton's Outsiders. The main character is a teenager with very little control over the course of events in the story for most of it's duration. essentially, Ponyboy's goals are to be left to live in peace with his friends, but a fundamentally hostile world is not letting him do so. Right away, we are treated to an example of what he has to deal with as he exits a movie theater and gets jumped. What drives this story is not Ponyboy's brilliant plan to fix the world and make the Socs' and Greasers live together in harmony once he pulls off some clever heist. In fact, that's about as far from the plot as you can get. What draws a reader in with overwhelming force is the way you can identify with this mostly helpless character who is dealing with a lot of things outside his control as he also deals with the emotional upheaval and awkwardness of being a teenager.

Show us what is going on in your character's head. Whether or not she has any overall goal is totally unimportant. What is important is the way the events in the story change her as a person and how she feels and reacts to them. That is what will draw readers in.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

JBiggs‭

25 reputation 0 5 5 0

What I would personally do in this situation is a "How We Got Here" scenario.

Start off towards the climax of your story, with the protagonist facing down (or preparing to face down) whatever the final antagonist happens to be. This will solve your problem of introducing the antagonist and the long-term objective, and also provides an additional hook: how did the protagonist get into this situation, and how will they get out? Then, you flash back to the chronological beginning, with your character on the run from the law, and proceed from there.

A good example is the video game Persona 5. It takes a couple of hours of set-up and gameplay before you actually get into a Palace and start fighting Shadows, and quite a bit longer before the protagonists decide upon their long-term goal of forming the Phantom Thieves and reforming criminals.

So to signal immediately what the storyline actually is, the game starts off several months in the future, with the protagonist getting betrayed and captured during a Palace heist, and uses the framing device of the protagonist relaying the preceding events during an interrogation. Since you know from the beginning that the protagonist gets betrayed, this also adds the underlying driving question of who betrayed them, which isn't answered until the story catches up with itself towards the end.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

F1Krazy‭

195 reputation 4 73 38 0

My understanding is that most novels (specifically in the sci-fi/ fantasy genre that I'm writing in) introduce very early in the story at least some sort of notion of an antagonist, a plot or an overall theme of "something is wrong and needs to change" that the protagonist will confront in the climax of their journey.

Just because it happens in most, it doesn't mean it's mandatory.

This usually lets the reader know what to expect of the forthcoming story.

True, but there are other ways to do the same.

In the first quarter of the story, she doesn't really have any sort of "end goal" that she is working towards outside of trying to remain free.

Trying to remain free seems like a worthy 'end goal', if the character development is solid.

She is just sort of carrying on surviving on her own, angry at the world and devoid of any solutions to her situation.

If she is looking for solutions to her situation, independently of how she got there, then she knows what she wants. Her problem is not knowing how to get to her 'destination' and, I suppose, that's what makes her angry. I don't see how a strong character trying to find a way to improve her current situation would be described as

a character that doesn't really know what they want or where they are going.

From what you've previously said, I picture your MC as angry / fed up with where she is now and wanting to move on to a better place, while having no idea how to go about that change. Sounds like an interesting journey to me (for as long as the character development is solid).

She eventually gets captured by the government, and has to work for them to obtain her freedom, but up until this point she has no long-term ambitions or desires outside of evading the law.

It seems to me she had a hazy objetive she didn't know how to reach, maybe wasn't even fully motivated to focus on finding a way to reach it. Being captured will force her to find a concrete way to improve her situation, so that event turns out being the problem that opens the path to finding a solution.

I feel like the beginning of the book is quite balanced between world-building, character development and actual interesting events happening,

This is key, IMHO.

My concern is that it will be difficult for readers to invest in a story about a character that doesn't really know what they want or where they are going.

Do you want your readers to be invested in a story about a character, or do you want them to be invested in a character that is struggling to find happiness (eg., a good situation for herself, whether romantic, professional or whatever)?

If the beginning is indeed well-balanced, then the readers should be hooked not because there is a specific antagonist, but because they've come know a strong character who is unhappy with her life and is struggling to discover how to improve it.

On the other hand, I believe she has an antagonist of sorts from the get go: either a society which forces her to be a marginal or a history that forced her into her current situation. Both 'antagonists' are very difficult to defeat because they're so vague... it's like saying time is one's enemy. How do you go about fighting it?

Anyway, when the MC is captured she gets a more specific antagonist she can focus on and fight. Doing so will end up being the best way to fight the initial 'antagonist'.

The point, however, remains: is this about the MC's story or is it about the MC? I'll plow through even unsatisfactory chapters for the sake of a well-fleshed out character. If your beginning is balanced and solid, then most readers will follow her. Of course, some readers are all about action and prefer specific antagonists from the very beginning. I suggest, however, that you don't worry too much about the readers. You won't please everyone, but if your plot and characters are solid and balanced, you'll please enough.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

SC for reinstatement of Monica‭

350 reputation 5 43 66 0

What do you do during that time?

Worldbuilding.

Show us the world the character lives in. If it's different to ours, show us how it's different, and make us care about it. If the character is on the run, there must be an organisation she's on the run from. What's her understanding of that organisation, why do they want her, and how does this fit with the rest of society who (presumably) the organisation doesn't much care about? Who is this character, and why are they doing what they're doing? And why does this organisation have the powers it does?

A good example might be Skye (later Daisy Johnson) from Agents of SHIELD. We know that SHIELD are the good guys. However the first episode is largely seen from Skye's PoV, as she is actively running away from SHIELD. Of course the episode ends with her joining them, but that first episode sets up the lead characters, the organisations, and the nature of the world they're living in. The next few episodes carry this on. It isn't until much further into the series that the idea of a plot arc and a deeper threat starts to emerge - and by that point the viewers are already hooked.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Graham‭

45 reputation 0 8 9 0

You say "the first quarter of the story". That is close enough to ACT I, the setup, and it ends with a crisis that propels the character into ACT II, in your case, capture by the government. You are probably writing to the Three Act Structure instinctively; we absorb this by examples of the tens of thousands of commercial stories we listen to almost every night (TV, movies and books).

That's a good thing.

In the first Act, we establish the normal world of your hero; her day to day life. So it is okay if we begin with her normal world being on the run evading the law. You begin "in the middle" which is good, provides action, and makes your character reasonably competent and (hopefully) proactive in trying to escape.

The end of the first act ends in a turning point moment, when the characters life will never be the same, and a major failure is very common. It is not the only thing; a plane crash or other accident is common too, being victim of a crime is common. But her major failure of being captured, failing her goal of escape, is a good one.

And the rest of your story follows that: Eventually she does escape, by working for her freedom by completing her indentured servitude to the government. (Which I hope is very dangerous work.)

The solution to your problem is giving your character either false goals, or sub-goals, she is pursuing during Act I. Here is the synopsis of ACT I of Die Hard:

New York City policeman John McClane (Bruce Willis) is visiting his estranged wife (Bonnie Bedelia) and two daughters on Christmas Eve. He joins her at a holiday party in the headquarters of the Japanese-owned business she works for. But the festivities are interrupted by a group of terrorists who take over the exclusive high-rise, and everyone in it. Very soon McClane realizes that there's no one to save the hostages -- but him.

Note that McClane has a "false goal" in the beginning of his story, his marriage is on the rocks, he has daughters he has to go someplace to visit. This establishes he has something to lose if he doesn't fight, but otherwise has nothing to do with the main plot of the story, stopping ruthless terrorists. (Maybe we show them once in awhile to reinforce the stakes so he doesn't give up, I don't recall.) I believe in the end McClane's "false goal" of a better relationship with his wife and kids is achieved, by credit for his heroism.

Your fugitive does have a goal, a life of freedom, which seems interrupted but is ultimately achieved even though her life is changed. That is what you need to reinforce, that her goal is to escape and find a place where she won't be constantly on the run.

You do that with a series of Try-Fail cycles in the first Act.

• She tries one thing, it fails but she easily escapes. She learned something that leads her to another goal.
• She tries, it fails. The law has more men after her this time, and she narrowly escapes! That gave her a different idea.
• She tries. It fails, and the law has even more men and more competent in the bargain, and she narrowly misses escape. She is captured.

We escalate in these cycles; Escape was [Easy, Hard, Impossible]. The law men are [Few, Many, Overwhelming].

• Your villain in ACT I is The Government and law enforcement.
• Her goal is freedom, both from prison and pursuit.

You need to make her very good at something (which is why the government is willing to bend the rules and employ her instead of imprisoning her), and that needs to be on display in her exploits to escape and find some sanctuary. Being good at something is one component of a likable character; another is to not just be constantly reacting to problems, but find a way for her to initiate actions to solve them. She must have her own ideas and pursue them.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37