Killing Characters

[trboturtle]

The question is: Does the character's death serve a purpose?

In murder mysteries, the death of a character is the main plot. The death of a villian? sastifying the need for the hero to win. Death of supporting character? a major or minor plot point.

In the stories I'm currently working on, death is part of the background (A universe where war is common) WHile I've written stories in which no one dies, most of my stories had a dead character. Purposes I've had when killing a character have included:

* To show how ruthless a character can be.
* To deepen the sorrow of the main character.
* To push a character into doing something.


I hate the mass killing of "Slasher films" (AKA, dead teenager films). It that case, its more style than substance. A character dying must have some purpose to the story beyond being a dead body.

Craig

[Vash the white]

The question is: Does the character's death serve a purpose?

Sometimes when your an atuhor, you just stop and think,"absolutely everybody has to die"
Its kinda weird that people are mad about people not dying, normally people are mad because people die

[arianne]

I'm kind of struggling with the concept of character death in my plot right now...so here's how far I've gotten in my own thought process:

*presumably if you're using death as a “plot device”, such as to show the ruthlessness of the evil guy, or to make the hero do deeds he would otherwise not do, it is better to kill off an important side character (aka Dumbledore) rather than a main character (aka Ron). I know some of the people who have commented above have talked about the possiblity of alienating readers by killing off a loved character, but I can't really think of anyone who went, okay, that's it, no more Harry Potter for me, Dumbledore's dead.

*this is really unprofessional, but I'm torn by the thought of killing my characters *wail*

*but yet it feels like in a huge huge war that takes out half the world, SOME of the characters should at least be maimed. I mean, no matter how good they are, you can't be alert and lucky and all that FOREVER. Of course, there is plenty of internal strife to be found, but death does give more ”shock” when making the point

[comprex]

@arianne, imo making the internal strife stronger to the point of making the reader face palm or scream at the side character or even outright hate them (see: Susan threads) is just as emotionally turbulent as "Bones dies" and far better than "red-shirt death". 

Especially if you can put the main characters emotional reaction to the side character in opposition to that of the reader without the characters seeming trivially stupid or trivially soap opera ignorant.

[meg_evonne]

also, make sure that you have established a believable way for the character to die if it is one of your chief characters. Everyone has to accept that a dwarf that continually storms out in front of everyone else is eventually going to bite it.

That's extreme, but I do think that the author should always leave an opening in their writing that vaguely hints this person might not be around, or establishes that fatal flaw in gentle ways through out.

Yet, the unexplained death itself can be the impetus for the plot to go forward--in which case, you have to let it happen and make sure you deal with the fall out to the other characters (and thus your readers) and don't just continue the story without them.

There was a famous daytime drama where they loaded everyone on a bus and had it crash. Next day--all new cast dealing with the deaths.  Gotta admit, that makes actors nervous near contract signing time.

I never forgave Whedon for killing Buffy's mom, not because he did it, but the following episodes were so... boring!

[Glorificus]

I never forgave Whedon for killing Buffy's mom, not because he did it, but the following episodes were so... boring!

An interesting perspective. Not that I share it, I don't; I believe Joyce's death allowed Buffy to go dark. SpikeSex would not have occurred with Joyce in the picture.

I truly believe my life was changed by the DoubleMeat Palace epidode(s), which Joss said were the only episodes to receive protests. No protests from the the anti-supernatural folks about the witches or demons or vampires, but from big fast food companies. If it's all about the values, I'm annoyed.

[arianne]

That's extreme, but I do think that the author should always leave an opening in their writing that vaguely hints this person might not be around, or establishes that fatal flaw in gentle ways through out.

I don't know about that; seems to me it might be a bit too easy to fall into the trap where the author basically waves a big flag saying "She is going to die" at the reader

I once read a book where the author obviously knew that one of characters was going to die, so he made her such a good character that I'm sure most readers went "oh, good, she's gone" when he finally dealt the blow.

Death is usually (especially in fantasy or sci-fi terms) somewhat unexpected and shocking, so I don't think that foreshadowing the death is really all that necessary. I mean, when there's a big baddie out there all set to destroy the world, will readers find it unbelievable that said baddie killed one of the characters?

[Snowleopard]

I agree with Arianne - foreshadowing that a character is gonna die just doesn't work for me.
You lose the element of surprise and shock - which is what the death of a character should give you.
That or - thank goodness that twit/villain/idiot is gone!

[Wordmaker]

I think the only time I'd enjoy a foretelling of a character's death would be if the story was primarily about the events that lead to the death.

[jeno]

I agree with Arianne - foreshadowing that a character is gonna die just doesn't work for me.
You lose the element of surprise and shock - which is what the death of a character should give you.
That or - thank goodness that twit/villain/idiot is gone!

I dunno, The Book Thief handled it very well. Then again, that was The Book Thief.

[OZ]

I think it depends on the story and on how subtle the foreshadowing is. I have read authors where certain characters might as well have been wearing red shirts. On the other hand, some authors are clever enough and subtle enough that after the death you realize that it was foreshadowed but not before. In some stories ( King Lear comes to mind again ) you know the character is doomed to die by their foolish actions but ( to use an old cliche ) it's the journey rather than the destination that makes the story.

The best way that I can think of to describe my feelings about the death of a major character (minor characters are a whole different story ) is that I don't like it if it feels frivolous. If you are going to kill off someone that I have grown to know, it better be for important plot or character development not just because someone thought that it would make the story more "realistic".

[comprex]

it's the journey rather than the destination that makes the story.

My contention is that ^this^ is always the case, and that whether any character dies (or not) should be totally transparent to the reader so that they see the story and not the death (or lack thereof).   

[OZ]

I would agree on the importance of the journey but it is rare that the journey is so great that I don't care about the destination.

[Glorificus]

The best way that I can think of to describe my feelings about the death of a major character (minor characters are a whole different story ) is that I don't like it if it feels frivolous. If you are going to kill off someone that I have grown to know, it better be for important plot or character development not just because someone thought that it would make the story more "realistic".

The only time I really considered this was when listening to Joss Whedon on the Serenity commentary talking about killing Wash. The only foreshadowing WAS no foreshadowing. I think it was done just to shake up the audience. While the loss of Wash allows new paths for Zoe and the crew, it was a downer for me.

[Quantus]

The only time I really considered this was when listening to Joss Whedon on the Serenity commentary talking about killing Wash. The only foreshadowing WAS no foreshadowing. I think it was done just to shake up the audience. While the loss of Wash allows new paths for Zoe and the crew, it was a downer for me.

I read in an interview that he says he did it for the "Heightening the suspense" reason.  Unlike Book's death, which was to push Mal into character development, with Wash he said he wanted to set a tone that the entire cast might and likely would die during that final battle.  Not sure how much I agree with that, but I do recall it working the first time I saw the movie, so I cant argue with the results I guess.