How early does the main character's goal need to become clear? Is it possible to keep the reader interested with lesser goals and perhaps a little bit of danger until the true goal is revealed later on in the story? (In this case, about 2/3 through.)

If you've ever seen an example of something like this done well, I'd love a reference.
 

Then again, the best writers are those who not only disobey conventions, but end up making new paths through the annals of literature.

So I say, don't worry about the plot mechanics. Write it as best and as organically as you know how, and you'll end up with the best story in the end. If you attempt to engineer the plot too much, it will show.

Ignore the formula!
 

But it better be a pretty doggone strong hook.
 

You might see if the conflict can begin before we fully understand it. Consider _Homebody_, the main plot begins right off even though we don't understand it until most of the way through. That could be a good model.

If not, see how much you can condense your exposition. Using a perspective character who doesn't understand the background can help, though be careful with that.

The basic rule is that the reader should understand enough to find what's happening interesting at any time. Of course, they don't need to understand it all -- wondering what you're missing can be fun!
 

If, however, you can get your sub-plot to ties into your main story, then it can be done. Herman Melville's MOBY DICK and Leo Tolstoy's ANNA KARENINA both have main characters who don't show up until 75 or 100 pages into the story. Of course, both of those novels are very long, and both Melville and Tolstoy were at the height of their artistic abilites when they penned those novels.
 

My main reason for concern was that, after reading some of the discussions here, I saw that protagonists who aren't proactive are not liked by the readers. My main character becomes proactive, but not until she's just about hit rock bottom. So will people bear with me that long? I'd really like to show what makes her snap.
 

As with any writing, it all depends on how you handle the plot/characters up to the point in which you get "to the point". Will your story carry interest for that long?

Perhaps I could use The Thomas Covenant series as an example. Donaldson developed Covenant as an anti-hero who doesn't even CONSIDER proactivity until the third (!) novel. I'm not sure, at least in the first trilogy, if Covenant ever has a goal. He completly destroys lives because of his emotional impotence--but it works. Although most h-a-t-e the protag because of this, it kept us reading for six novels.

[This message has been edited by ALH (edited May 30, 2003).]
 

Those are honest questions. Maybe you do.

If so, what *does* your protagonist think of doing? Is she getting beaten down so hard that she's fighting to survive? If so, then you can probably look at it as one conflict that starts early. Does she try peaceful means to get the antagonist to stop? Again, one conflict, multiple methods.

If she gets beaten down for that long and doesn't do *anything* about it, I (and probably most readers) will lose respect for her and that will kill the emotional effect of the novel. It doesn't have to be something really major, and she certainly doesn't have to strike at the villian, but so long as she's doing something, it's one conflict.

One exception to that -- she can spend the beginning of the novel fighting the voice in her head telling her that she deserves this for whatever reason, and only when she wins that fight does she go on to the external one. I wouldn't recommend this approach, because it divides the climax and because it's very difficult to make the first part interesting, but it is an option.
 

There's an entire genre of sweeping epics that run for generations or centuries. In these, the characters and goals at the beginning can be completely different from the characters and goals at the end. Yet these books are still very popular.

It's not uncommon for a character to hit rock bottom before he/she turns into a hero. The Great Gatsby doesn't become a hero until he is spurned by Daisy. This is shown in a flashback.

If you haven't read Gatsby, look at the first Batman movie. Young Bruce Wayne became Batman because his parents were murdered. But this rock bottom scene was also handled in a flashback. That's probably the best use for flashbacks, a technique that's easy to overuse.

Popular Non-flashback examples of characters who become heroes when they hit rock bottom:

The Fugitive doesn't become a hero until he's convicted of murdering his own wife!

Luke Skywalker doesn't become a hero until his aunt and uncle are killed.

Spiderman.

The Lion King.

I'm no expert, but I believe I see a pattern in these examples. If the "rock bottom" scene is in a flashback you can put it anyplace in the story. But if it's part of a continuous plotline, it needs to happen early. Good luck.
 

My protagonist is about six in the first chapter...then it almost immediately skips a bunch of years. The reason she doesn't fight back right away is she's a child. When it skips ahead (not very far in at all) she tries to rebel a couple times and keeps getting pushed back down. She's fighting BOTH the voices in her head telling her she's not good enough or smart enough or pretty enough AND the antagonist, an authority figure who keeps asking her to do things she knows are wrong. Not until about 2/3 through does she come to understand (in a scene that I hope is pretty dramatic) that the antagonist is a bad person and she needs to fight back whatever the cost.

I hadn't thought of the possibility that my scene 2/3 in might take away from my climax...I'll have to keep that in check.

Tough to take/give advice this way. I'm not sure how to give people to full picture in a few paragraphs. But I think your last comments have rung true and I appreciate the help.