Starting Big and Working Down?

[Ireth]

In my latest WIP, the villain, Eydis, begins her assault on the land of Faerie by mustering an army of black-elves and attacking one of its strongholds. Later on she decides it would be better to take matters into her own hands, and sneaks into said stronghold to spread strife and chaos from within, targeting people one at a time and counting on the ripple effect to spread the fear of her. This makes for a very small-scale, intimate climax involving a handful of people rather than a huge sprawling battle scene (the latter happens closer to the middle of the story, as said above). I'm wondering, what are people's thoughts on this sort of setup?

 

[CupofJoe]

It is a sound standard military tactic; make lots of noise [full frontal assaults count as making noise], tie up the other side's forces and keep their attention, then change tack and go for the surgical strike...

 

[Ireth]

Well, the more personal attacks don't start until well after the armies have dissipated. Eydis is wounded badly in the interim, and she needs to recover her strength before going to Faerie herself. It's really a matter of "if you want something done right, do it yourself, because everybody else will muck it up."

 

[TWErvin2]

If one tactic doesn't work, and overt forceful one, then it seems logical a different tactic to achieve a goal, a more subtle directed one makes sense. I believe readers would buy into it.

 

[skip.knox]

I like it. The approach also gives you the opportunity for her to do it herself but to botch the job--a little or a lot. Otherwise, if she can just waltz in and defeat an enemy single-handed, she may be over-powered. Your call, of course.

 

[TheokinsJ]

It is certainly an idea that can be more appealing to readers and has been done quite often before. Personally, I think that it would make for a much better climax in itself than to have a full-scale siege and battle. It would bring much more suspense, the prospect of the character sneaking into the stronghold herself, the possibilities of being discovered, the risks she takes. I think it's a great idea.

 

[pskelding]

I think you've got a good idea. If you ramp the tension of her solo attack up by using mini try-fail cycles it should make for an exciting climax.

 

[Mara Edgerton]

Oh, I like the idea! For me, the more personal and intimate the climax, the better. In fairness, I think some authors can make sprawling battle scenes personal and intimate--Michael Shaara succeeds in Killer Angels, with the battle of Gettysburg--but I'm even more intrigued by the notion of this solo infiltration on the part of your villain. So much opportunity for tension! Especially if you bring us inside her head. We won't want her to be successful, and yet, while we're looking at it from her point of view, maybe a tiny part of us will root for her, lol.

 

[Tyrant]

I like that idea. Most stories put the infiltration part at the beginning and the huge battle at the end, so you know once they break out the siege towers it almost over. I think your approach will throw people for a loop.

 

[Addison]

I know I've written this several times, and I'm not the only one to have written it in some format. It's your story, your call. If you want your story to end with a character-character-character-character....character blowout with the antagonist hiding in the shadows with a stupid evil grin, then do it. There are four levels of conflict: external, internal, interpersonal, and antagonist. From the chapters I've read they've been mostly internal and interpersonal driven. Not so much battles and fights. I've never read or heard of a book that was a best seller just because of the fights and gore. No character, no story.

Another piece of advice: Just because you make a car blow up doesn't make the stakes go up. Action is not conflict, is an effect of conflict and conflict is the cause of action. So if the climax is the characters chewing the others out and laying out problems they've set aside throughout the story in the process, all for them to realize they've been played and catch the $%#$ at the end, then go for it. Heck it sounds great to me. Go for it!

 

[Ireth]

I know I've written this several times, and I'm not the only one to have written it in some format. It's your story, your call. If you want your story to end with a character-character-character-character....character blowout with the antagonist hiding in the shadows with a stupid evil grin, then do it. There are four levels of conflict: external, internal, interpersonal, and antagonist. From the chapters I've read they've been mostly internal and interpersonal driven. Not so much battles and fights. I've never read or heard of a book that was a best seller just because of the fights and gore. No character, no story.

Another piece of advice: Just because you make a car blow up doesn't make the stakes go up. Action is not conflict, is an effect of conflict and conflict is the cause of action. So if the climax is the characters chewing the others out and laying out problems they've set aside throughout the story in the process, all for them to realize they've been played and catch the $%#$ at the end, then go for it. Heck it sounds great to me. Go for it!

Well, the antagonist does a fair bit more than hide in the shadows. She strikes against them one time too many, and it's that strike which drives the heroes to realize "hey, this is our chance to corner her and drive her off for good! Let's mobilize and do this sh*t!" By that point in the story, there's not really a conflict or issue left to work out besides getting the villain out of the picture for good. The MC has had his personal character arc, and seeing the villain to her doom is his reward.

 

[Addison]

Sounds like you have it all worked out in your head. Go for it, and I'm jealous.