Killing Characters

[Quantus]

This is something that has been nagging me for a while now.  I don't really understand his need I seeing that readers seem to have for random character death.  Its a complaint I keep seeing about the Codex Alera, and in other places.  People seem to be pissed off that more of the named characters didn't get killed off by the end.  I argue that plenty did, or that more would have been needless, or that when the guy they thought was dead didn't stay dead it had good logical and thematic justification, but they don't seem satisfied unless they get slapped in the face by the death.   Normally I would just dismiss it as just stylistic differences and a person who is expecting more horror genre survival rates than what you normally find in sword and steed fantasy.  But I keep seeing the same thing pop up, and I just cant figure out its source.  Usually I am able to understand someones point of view, even if I don't share it, but I can't seem to get my brain around this one. 

I understand killing a character for plot progression, for the death itself or the lack of that character, and how it affects the remaining characters/story.  I understand killing a character to raise the tension and a sense of uncertainty and mortality.  I understand the value of slapping the reader with a sudden death for the shock value of it after they have become invested.  I think a properly crafted (self)sacrifice can be a truly beautiful thing.  But I don't really like it when a named character, one Ive spent time on, gets whacked simply because the opportunity was there, or because they were no longer vital to the shape of the story or whatever.  And just because the world has faced a war that killed off a large majority of the population does not mean my knot of heroes has to receive the same mortality rate.  If they are going to end in death I want there to be some sort of purpose to it, be it plot, reading experience, or otherwise.  Maybe its not purely realistic if the whole party survives, but then again its all really just a statistical argument; somebody has to live through it, and usually the named characters are more formidable than average, and so have a better chance.



So I ask you, from a writers point of view, what do you think of character death?  When and how do you do it, and most importantly why?
   

[Gruud]

I'm not really in a position to help you, at least not at this time, becase I basically share your predicament.

I'm building a cast of chracters that yes, will turn ino "the Hero's party" so obviously, I can't kill any of them off just yet.

And, depite the oft quoted advce to "kill your darlings" I'm going to need these folks to be around for quite some time ... through several books, if things go as planned.

But, folks have to die, somewhere along the way, right? Otherwise, the evil isn't evil enough, the bad isn't bad enough, etc.

So, for now, I'm casting about for some minor characters that I can add, just so I can kill them. 

I've already killed a few nameless townsfolk, a few evil minions, and of course some critters, but before too long I'll need some more folks to kill ...

So, as an addendum to the previous question, who do you kill?

PS. esp. if you're doing long form fiction *coughneurovorecough*

[Starbeam]

I think the complaint with CA is in comparison to other contemporary novels, like SoIaF, where it's grittier and based more in realism.  I'd say you could probably compare CA to the Star Wars novels in that you pretty much expect all the major characters to survive and get through, no matter what happens, and I think some people dislike this because it takes away tension from the story.  I've seen people say this about some of the episodes of Castle, since the show got renewed for another season--you expect Castle to survive no matter the situation.  The other side is GRRMartin, where you get attached to a character, and you have no idea what his fate is going to be.  But at least with Martin, you know that the decisions are plot/story based, and they aren't trivial.

[Snowleopard]

I don't like killing off my lead characters but if I must then it will be for a good reason not just because
I can or I think I should. 

[comprex]

But I don't really like it when a named character, one Ive spent time on, gets whacked simply because the opportunity was there, or because they were no longer vital to the shape of the story or whatever.  

Every character in a narrative has, almost by definition spent time on himself, caring for himself, no?   The reader's sympathy losspainhurt is only a reflection, a shadow, a ghost, of the in-narrative losspainhurt the characters themselves undergo.  

Let's say that reader losspainhurt  is in some proportion to in-narrative character losspainhurt.

And just because the world has faced a war that killed off a large majority of the population does not mean my knot of heroes has to receive the same mortality rate.  If they are going to end in death I want there to be some sort of purpose to it, be it plot, reading experience, or otherwise.  Maybe its not purely realistic if the whole party survives, but then again its all really just a statistical argument; somebody has to live through it, and usually the named characters are more formidable than average, and so have a better chance.

But it's still chance, meaning there's a chance your most formidable character is going to be the only one of the group to die, or there is a chance that none of the knot of heroes will survive (they, after all, encounter more danger than the less formidable characters unless they are formidable evaders and are we really interested in reading about those?)

Going back to the reader sympathy losspainhurt vs. the in-narrative losspainhurt, what you're really asking for is that the author should artificially lower the proportion of what the reader feels  for what an average INC feels.

Then, I ask you, why bother setting up a major losspainhurt narrative scenario in the first place?   Why write about a societal cataclysm and then insulate the reader from it?    When writing about a mere upheaval and keeping the proportion of losspainhurt accurate can create just as much emotion in the reader?

IMO, setting up major losspainhurt narratives and then emotionally insulating the reader is just indirect MarySueing of the knot of heroes.

[Snowleopard]

What I hate is when a character is set up just to be killed and it's very obvious.
A sacrificial lamb. 

[OZ]

I have mixed feelings on the killing off of characters. I will try to list my arguments for both sides.

The Pros of killing off characters:

 It gives the readers genuine worry about the fate of the characters they love. If they know that none of the major characters is ever going to die, it can lessen the dramatic
 tension in times of danger.

  It shows that there are real consequences to poor choices. This is the classic approach where in a trajedy, the main characters must die else their actions would be seen to have
  no consequence.

  It's more realistic. Especially in stories where there are massive battles many feel that to allow the main characters to survive over and over again paints an unrealistically rosy
  picture of the horrors of war or mass violence.

   It avoids the trope of the hero who survives everything.

The Cons of killing off characters:

  You may anger or disappoint readers who are emotionally attached to the character that is killed. This may lead to them no longer being emotionally invested in the story.

  It does not allow for hope. Redemptive themes which allow a character to overcome the poor choices of thier past can make very powerful stories.

  It is not unrealistic to have the heroes of your story survive if their survival is part of the reason you chose them to tell the story. If they didn't survive, they wouldn't
  have been able to accomplish their goal and there would have been no story. Sometimes some people do survive amssive battles or there would be no victor.

  IMHO the anti trope has become the greatest trope of all in much modern writing and theater.
   

[Nickeris86]

I plan on killing several of my character's, some of them will be slaughtered senselessly to motivate the main character and demonize the antagonist. There is another that i plan on killing in a truly heroic fashion. However there are other characters who have the potential for death but whether or not they will die depends on how the story will progress.

The main reason i think so many people want more characters to die because it makes the story more realistic. I was rather annoyed with CA because the main characters kept getting into unwinable situations and most got out of them without even a scratch let alone horrible death. It seemed like an over abundant use of luck.

[OZ]

I will admit that I tire of stories where the characters suvive time and time again because of blind luck. I don't have a problem, however, when the characters for the most part "make their own luck" because of their surperior skills, intelligence, or friends. I thought CA fell into the latter category.

[LizW65]

Depends why the character is killed off.  If the death serves some kind of narrative purpose, I'm all for it.  Killing a character simply for shock value or because you, the author, tires of him/her, is not a valid narrative purpose, IMO.

@ Gruud:  I think the "kill your darlings" quote actually refers to ruthless editing and revision, rather than literal character death; at least Stephen King seemed to use it that way in On Writing.

[Wordmaker]

It's a tricky balance. If there's no sense of loss, then the reader may feel that the characters have gotten through the story without any real risk. But if you kill off too many, or hurt the characters too often and too hard, then it will desensitize the audience, kind of like how everyone expects Joss Whedon to kill off the characters people like the most now.

[comprex]

But if you kill off too many, or hurt the characters too often and too hard, then it will desensitize the audience, kind of like how everyone expects Joss Whedon to kill off the characters people like the most now.

But it does sharpen and whet the per-episode sense of risk, doesn't it? 

[Wordmaker]

Only if they enjoy seeing characters suffer and watch eager to see who'll die next. If not, they can lose empathy with the characters and setting if they think there's no point because the characters are likely to die.

[comprex]

Only if they enjoy seeing characters suffer and watch eager to see who'll die next.
If not, they can lose empathy with the characters and setting if they think there's no point because the characters are likely to die.

I see both schadenfreude and loss of empathy as being completely independent of the readers' evaluation of in-narrative risk.   

It is possible to have a quite accurate assessment of risk even if one doesn't care about the character surviving, no?

[meg_evonne]

I have mixed feelings on the killing off of characters. I will try to list my arguments for both sides.

The Pros of killing off characters:  ...It shows that there are real consequences to poor choices. This is the classic approach where in a tragedy, the main characters must die else their actions would be seen to have no consequence.

...  IMHO the anti trope has become the greatest trope of all in much modern writing and theater.

 Applauding this.

Having a death without literary reason seems pointless to me. Writing Survivor Island based on popularity seems pointless also. Killing sprees to whittle down too many plot lines seems pointless.  In all these, hasn't the author lost control, and thus a sign of weakness?

I agree with Starbeam. We suspend belief when we pick up a book and enter the author's world. Just as we do, when we sit in a theater. We accept that these actors are real, when they are not.

It is crucial that an author never break their reader's contract.  I suspect that someday Ebenezer is going to die and I will weep, because I love him. What I won't know is how he leaves the Dresden World, how it will impact Harry, what emotional loose ends that death leaves behind. And I have complete and absolute confidence in Jim to know that I will know those things as a result of the action.

Then there is the true blind sided death--but I'm not sure it should ever be truly blind sided. In particular, I think of Lord

(click to show/hide)

Stark

in Game of Thrones.  That death was the hook and the logical, when you looked back, action for the series. It has tremendous meaning and motivation. I feel the same way about the wolf Lady. Some would say this is not a main character, but why do I hold out hope that Lady will reappear in some fashion--either as the first potent of a trend to come or as a spiritual affirmation of her mistress' maturity? See, it had it's logical place and reason, but as a reader I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on that one.  Perhaps it did in the death of Lord

(click to show/hide)

Stark

anyway.  I'm reading the 2nd book now, so don't blow me up without spoilers. :-)

We aren't supposed to know everything or we'd be bored, but we need to have complete confidence in the author.  Otherwise, we'd just be reading horror movie kill zones, and those are not on my list to be read.

Quantus felt burned, badly burned, or he wouldn't have posted his concern. A sign that an author went without thought and against the contract the author had with Quantus specifically. Perhaps it was fine for most, but for Quantus (and any of us who find ourselves in that position) and fatal failure on the author's part. We invest in characters, because we are drawn to them. Death without logic is killing something inside the reader that was intimately tied to that character.  

*Oops, off the soap box and back to work now.*

edited because I had an either without the or.... now back to work.