: How can the antagonist mislead the readers? I am writing a story from a 3rd person perspective as the omniscient narrator. When my antagonist is revealed first, people believe him to be a certain

Vote Up Vote Down

I would avoid using the antagonist's POV if you want him to remain a mystery. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, one of the main characters is referred to throughout as person X, but is eventually revealed as person Y in disguise. This only works (to the extent that it actually does) because the series sticks closely to Harry's POV.

If you're really dedicated to including significant amounts of the antagonist's POV, the only ways I see to do it well is for him to either actually be convinced he's X, or for him to be such a dedicated method actor that he habitually thinks of himself as X. It's tricky, but possible to pull off a scenario like that.

Other than that, you're limited to using brief sections of the antagonist POV that could work as well for X as for Y. The one good side of that is you could use those sections to drop subtle clues about the antagonist's true identity.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

This comes from a novice author, so take it with a pinch of salt, but here goes:

I'm not 100% clear which perspective you're writing from (you've mentioned omniscient as well as individual characters' POVs), but it sounds like you're using what's often called 'third-person limited'. The narrative says 'he/she', but follows the viewpoint and experiences of one character at a time. While you're with a given character, you're inside his/her head.

When you're writing from the antagonist's perspective, he needs to be called by the name he uses for himself. Inside my head, I don't think of myself as 'the man', 'the skinny writer', 'the gormless manchild'. I think of myself as 'Andrew'.
Therefore: whatever the antagonist calls himself inside his own head, that's what you have to call him, while the narrative is in his head. If you do anything else, you're cheating your readers and they'll ditch you.
Say the antagonist's name is Lord Evildeeds. For simplicity's sake, say that's also how he thinks of himself. In the narrative, while you're in his perspective, you call him Lord Evildeeds.
You want your readers to believe that Lord Evildeeds is Person X.
Introduce them to the idea that a person X exists. Somewhere. Who could it be? They want to know! The mystery is driving your plot forward.
Give them new information which suggests Lord Evildeeds is Person X. Don't say it outright! If you lie to them, you've cheated. The twist won't be satisfying. Give them just enough that they jump to the conclusion you want. However you do it, be clever. Be interesting. Make them piece multiple things together to work it out. Make it so good this itself feels like the twist. Never have Lord Evildeeds think 'I am Person X,' because he knows he's not, and you can't lie to them - you have to let your readers jump to that conclusion.
Once you're back inside other characters' heads, you can say outright that Lord Evildeeds is Person X, if that's what they believe.
When it's time for the reveal, give your readers new information. Something that shows, at last, that they jumped to conclusions. Lord Evildeeds was never Person X, he was Person Y! Your readers are flabbergasted. They are impressed with your cunning. They suspect you, the author, highly attractive to your chosen sex. Because you didn't lie to them, you just outsmarted them. They realise, in retrospect, that Lord Evildeeds never actually said he was Person X. Of course he didn't! He knew all along.
However you set up the reveal at 8, it has to be even more clever and interesting than the reveal at 6. This is why they like your book.
All of that: easier said than done? Erm... yes, probably. But that's why you want to be a writer, right?

Good luck!

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Don't name him in his own thoughts. (I'm going to add names here for ease of discussion.)
You have:

vengeance was his, Garth of the Bill clan. He was the Foremost of the Forsworn

But he's not actually Garth of the Bill clan. That's what he wants his enemy Dave to think. He's actually Wayne of the Ted clan. While Garth and Wayne are both Dave's enemies, Dave thinks it's Garth after him (because Wayne has framed him). Wayne wants to get rid of Dave and Garth, and he's doing it by setting Dave and Garth against each other.
So you use generic terms, and reference what Dave is thinking:

but finally, vengeance was his. He moved forward. The last thing Dave would see was Garth looming over him with the axe, ready to split his skull. And Debbie would run shrieking to the elders of the Carlin tribe that the Bill clan had begun their long-heralded attack at last.
Revenge would be cool and sweet, like fresh juice at the end of a long day's stalk. The man [or the hunter, the warrior, etc.] slipped forward through the long grass, barely parting the stalks.

The "revenge" is not just against Dave, but against Garth, because Dave's people, the Carlin tribe, will be going after Garth's people, the Bill clan. Neither will suspect Wayne. You can reveal that later. And you always refer to the antagonist in this scene with generic terms: the man, the hunter, etc.

(0)