Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33933
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

> 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.

Original score: 4