|
Another ?
My latest question about how to write a thriller. A knowledgeable friend said that in a thriller:
In the actual novel, you'd refer to the effect of the antagonist’s actions like you would changes in the weather or symptoms of a disease. Agents of the villain could be revealing plot points to the protag, not the villain directly. If the protag doesn't know who is causing the problems, this could be difficult and confusing and that makes the plot more like a mystery--finding out who done it plus saving the day.
This underlined part made me wonder, because in the book I’m writing, the protag IS very uncertain as to who the antagonist is. I mean, she knows IN GENERAL who the antagonist is. But the antagonist is a shadowy evil mastermind, who is very elusive and reclusive. So when something bad happens, the protag says: ‘oh, this is the work of the antagonist.’ But as the novel progresses, she starts wondering if this character, (who say, did something seemingly sympathetic to the antagonist’s evil goal) or that character might be the antagonist. (And I am having fun writing it that way—and I think it adds to the tension and suspense.) To me, although my book is NOT a spy thriller, it’s like a spy thriller, where the protag doesn’t know who is the bad guy (and the guy she thought was a good guy can turn out to be the bad guy, which can also be a part of a big twist) at first and only slowly comes to know more surely who he is. And then only at the very end is she really sure, and then maybe not even entirely because her not being completely sure can set up a hook for the next book.
So my question is: am I going to be “causing problems” as my friend said, turning my thriller into more of a “who done it” mystery by doing it the way I’m doing it, or am I okay?
THANK YOU!
|