As a novel reader, what is your reaction to the following proposed story outline (see details)

First: assume that I do not see this story the way you see it. Consider my remarks with that caution in mind.

I think every successful story, from a 100-word flash story to a monumental series, makes promises to the reader and must deliver on them. There has to be a payoff. Why did we stay with you through 900,000 pages? For the payoff. Endings don’t have to be happy, but they do have to satisfy.

> Ultimately, though, the organization is toppled by opposition from a third-party unrelated to the protagonists.

This sounds to me as if the efforts of the protagonists are ultimately moot and change comes about through some outside entity in which we have no investment and against which we have done no battle. The good guys and the bad guys struggle to control the town, and in the last scene an earthquake destroys the town. What? We trusted you, and you did this to us?

You can kill off the second lead, make it sad, and still produce growth for the protagonist or have something important result—desire for revenge, reward of the sacrifice (something bought with his life), I-can-do-it-alone strength arising in the survivor, whatever.

If the youngsters can’t defeat the monster, what other kind of victory is in it for them? Why are you telling the story? Is it a tragedy? Are we learning about hubris, the invincibility of fate, heroism in the face of doom, what? Again, there has to be a payoff, even if it’s that we experience a sense of loss and are fired with fervor to defeat injustice and monolithic takeovers. We have to end up somewhere that makes the journey worthwhile.

Do we need the prequels at all?

Ultimately…toppled by opposition from a third-party unrelated to the protagonists.
Make sure said third party is fully integrated into the plot line, as to avoid utilizing deux ex machina.

@Jeruba @Nimis

Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate your help.

1) Re: the unrelated party
The protagonists are peaceful. The unrelated third-party, however, is a group that uses violence to combat the organization. Although the third-party is successful to a large extent to hinder the organization’s takeover efforts, the ending of the story will strongly imply that the organization is gearing up for a counteroffensive. Thus, the violence seemingly won the day, but in reality it just created more problems.

2) Point of the story
The story is in fact a tragedy. It covers hubris (of the organization, the third-party, etc.), heroism in the face of doom, and other topics. I probably needs to give more thought as to what payoff I am trying to give the audience. I assume that this payoff would include the theme of the story, as well as the emotions the story will invoke.

@weeveeship Wait… I don’t think you covered @Jeruba‘s and @Nimis‘s concerns. It’s great that you have two different kinds of “good guys” that use different methodologies, but the question is where this third party came from at all. Are you just introducing the third party in the last 20 pages of the book? Does the story follow their actions throughout the book? Are you dropping hints about its existence the entire time?

Personally, I’m fine with the bad guys winning in fiction. It happens in real life and I don’t go to fiction to “get away” from my life in the sense of wanting a good feeling, I go to fiction to read about things that will never happen to me. But, I’m probably not representative of this. I do think there is a group of people (in which I’d include myself) who actually enjoys it when the bad guy wins in fiction because its unexpected.

I think that it is okay for the bad guys to win…if and only if even in a small way, there is a glimmer for the “vanquished good.” or something at the end that gives us a bit of light even in the seeming darkness. But then, my thoughts are guided by my belief that we have enough hopelessness in the world and that artists and writers are in a position to inspire and foster hope and basically uplift the collective during these challenging times. I don’t go to “dark films” or “horror flicks” because I can turn on the news and watch those things for free. (Call me Pollyanna.) Besides, I’m extremely sensitive and the images flashed on those screens and the subliminal messages often are imprinted in ways that stay with me too long.

That being said…rather than recommend anything to you regarding your interwoven plotlines, I do recommend that you read The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers by Vogler which deals with the idea of “the quest” and the basic heroic journey that makes up most of literature from the ancient (The Odyssey) to Grimm’s Fairy Tales to “Star Wars”. I am not saying that you need to follow something that is that pat, but you can read this, inform yourself and then being to re-work the journey to inject that element of surprise and different ending. This book is based on Jungian thought and the work of Joseph Campbell. It is used a lot in many writing classes. It may give you some inspiration. Just a thought.

Your idea reminds me a lot of Stepford Wives. Be careful.

I like the part of your story where a third party defeats the nemesis through fighting fire with fire. I know I’ve seen and read characters like that that serves to be the alter-ego of another character, the warrior inside a shaman, the hothead, the gun-toting anti-hero…
As long as the main protagonist’s efforts are not for naught and they actually laid the foundation for the third party to overcome the bad guys, that to me would be enough payoff as @DarlingRhadamanthus discussed above.

Killing off the second protagonist in the second story. Personally, that would make my blood boil and would want to read faster so “I” could get “revenge” for him or her. I need that payoff. I get hooked when a lovable character gets destroyed.

Don’t kill off the second protagonist…leave the possibility that he could be still alive and helpful to the main protagonist.
Always keep your readers learning and worrying what happened to…?