I got this final arc scenario of a chain story concept of mine where there are two protagonists from two different stories. The former desires to break a particular system that defines the very structure of the world while latter desires to protect and maintain it. The former is driven to create a new system where the previous system administrators would lose authority and power while the latter is driven to keep the system as it is, and improve it for the better of all kind in the world. The thing is, both want the better bargain for their own future, and so their ideals clash in the forefront of everything. Technically, the former becomes the antagonist of the latter protagonist but the order can be done either way. I'm currently in dilemma which protagonist's story I should start first. I can't focus on either one with my mind telling me to pay attention to the other story! I need a strict line on whose story I should start with, and I need you, my fellow procrastinating comrade-in-arms to assist my final decision!
Multiple povs... Divide chapter into two, alternate chapters.... Write minor part 1.1 followed by 2.1 followed by 1.2 and so on Get a third person view and write for both of them together Go durararararararararaa baccano mode Write in a diary format Write for one but pepper it with foreshadowing of other..... Write the one which you think you would be, as in, would you destroy or create or as per plot convenience Do lore mode like the two brothers from pokemon black and white..... As in someone in future tells myths of them
That depends, is the current system suck balls to the point that it need to be slain and a new monarch need to be in place? If yes, go for former, if no, the current system just a little wonked and can be straightened, got for latter. Former, to me, represents the need to fix a problem by replacing it with something better as the current is irreparable. Latter, to me, represents that the current is still worth to be saved and preserved by fixing the issue. So the former is more of an oppressed by the system while the latter is more on being benefit by it, as how I see it. If you want to write this kind of a story, I rather you go for the former. We all like underdogs.
I think that if the stpry is fleshed out well and the paticular system detailed, then the stpry of the person breaking the system might be the better one to start with. Why the person wants it broken in the first, how will it change in their vision and obstacles makes it more interesting than about the one who wants to maintain order, in my opinion .
Coincidentally, both protagonists aren't that fond of heaven or destiny. Thanks, but I already got an idea on how to separate their timelines. It's more of a short story book for this protagonist and after I'm done with that, I can start writing the second book (not volume/arc), since everything is finalize in the latter protagonist's story (should be). Bingo! Except there is racism in this novel, particularly biblical racism between hybrid descendants and mortal descendants. So it really can't be said to be monarch vs subject scenario but more on minority vs majority.
So are you going to tell one story with two POVs? Or are you going to tell two stories? One where the former protagonist gets his way and another "what if" where the latter protagonist gets his way?
.....why can I already envision how the story goes before you even post it? Anywho, good luck with the writing! So one is a rebel and another is more of a punch clock villain (thanks to job scope)?
Write two different novels but former's story is a prequel to the latter's story. Both novels aren't that deeply connected in terms of world building, since both protagonist live in two different yet similar worlds due to the system. Oh! I see, but it doesn't really indicate much since the majority is not in the same world as the minority. You see, the minority already have this sheep/slave mentality and the former protagonist doesn't like how his people live under falsities of a crime past done by his ancestors. Do tell me how you envision it. It might help me with some previous conclusions I find unsettling. One is a rebel and another is an enforcer with a mastermind scheming behind the scenes of everything.
I kinda just envision the scenes from most work actually, big finale with the hot blooded MC screaming out his justice and about how corrupted the system and other "protag" is. While the other protag just smirk cynically and laughs at how childish MC is... anywho, so the schemer is related to the MC or how he knows about the MC (forget I say that as Hot Bloods tend to scream their existance to the world.) As for the finales, I cannot actually help you, who do you want to win? Either way victories often come with a cost. There is no such thing as absolute victory, there will be losses.
Yes, you did. I assumed you meant for me to make Right of the Majority vs the Minority Problem. It seems my initial concern was true, you meant write not right. Well... either way, it seems I'm going for the former now. Yep. The cliche final battle between ideals, but that's not best part of the novel, since the final battle is only attractive if the build up to the final battle was executed properly. This would mean I would have to properly build up each protagonist story so it can transition itself with the other's story for the final battle. So its their life story which makes the novel worth reading rather than the conclusion. Thanks for the finale advice.
Everything is subjective but the rights to be upheld shall only belong to the victor of the finale (conclusion of two novels and a side story). I'm going to write the former protagonist's story.