Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Letting a (secondary) antagonist leave mid story - Should it be avoided?

Parent

Letting a (secondary) antagonist leave mid story - Should it be avoided?

+4
−0

I have a powerful antagonist perform important functions within my story. At the midpoint, he just leaves. Several Plot developments depend on this character.

I tried replacing him with other character(s) or causes within my world, but I am getting into extremly convoluted territory with it and I am really uneasy and not satisfied with those solutions.

There is still a main antagonist and another secondary antagonist in the story, so conflict is not the issue.

Do you think letting a major player leave mid-story should be avoided at all costs?

Is there a way to mitigate potential maleffects?

NOTE: We witness his departure by ship mid story from the point of view of another character.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/48401. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

0 comment threads

Post
+3
−0

One way to make the leaving of that secondary antagonist satisfying could be if it gives a problem for the protagonist. Now how could an antagonist leaving be a problem? Well, it is a problem if the protagonist's plans against the other antagonists required the presence of that antagonist.

Maybe the plan of the protagonist was to plot a clever scheme against the antagonists, causing the two secondary antagonists to go against the main antagonist together (not knowing that they themselves have been manipulated, of course). With the main antagonist gone and the secondary antagonists weakened by the fight, it would be much easier to win against them.

But now as the intrigue begins to work out, the one secondary antagonist gets too afraid of the main antagonist and leaves. The other antagonist, seeing that he has no chance alone, now decides to side with the main antagonist, making it look like all that already happened was solely the fault of the now gone secondary antagonist.

In other words, not only did the protagonist's original plan fail, but in addition the problem got even worse, since now the remaining antagonists are united instead of fighting each other.

In short, if the secondary antagonist leaving mid-story makes things worse for the protagonist, it is a good thing for the story.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
General comments
Amadeus‭ wrote about 4 years ago

+1, that's clever. With that idea, we can make the MC's plan to GET something from the 2ndary antagonist with which to fight the others. So when 2ndary leaves with his stuff out of fear, MC's plan is useless, and on top of that 3rd Ant joins with 1st Ant. That would be a good middle-of-book crisis: MC's plans are dead and the stakes just doubled.