Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48491
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48491
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

> how can one effectively ruin an arc for dramatic effect and to subvert expectations

If you want to sell something, you can't. In older fiction, maybe, but in modern fiction, forget it. The MC and antagonist are introduced (or at least referenced) in the first Act, as is the central problem the story will be about, and you can't switch either one out.

It will look like a Deus Ex Machina, it won't get published, it won't be a movie, it sounds like you just want a stunt to try and make the story more interesting. It doesn't make it more interesting, it just makes it confusing, and that makes people put it down. Beginning with agents, publishers, and movie studio readers.

You won't succeed with stunts. You need a character people like that feels compelled to confront a difficult problem, and you have to make THAT interesting. You need obstacles, setbacks brought on by weaknesses, victories brought by skill, character growth and an arc. That is what makes the story interesting, not stunts.

Changing the game in the middle of the story, because it would bore you to continue, means you aren't ready to write a story that long. You are misapplying your imagination and subverting the wrong expectations.

If you want a more ruthless antagonist, write one from the beginning, don't give your hero half a book competing against an incompetent dolt and then suddenly have to beat a genius that makes no mistakes. Give your MC some skill they need to compete against the ruthless antagonist.

And please, don't write an _"It was all a_ **DREAM!**" ending.

Original score: 3