McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft

Killing Characters

<< < (7/9) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: trboturtle on May 07, 2011, 06:32:28 PM ---The question is: Does the character's death serve a purpose?

--- End quote ---
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 :D

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!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page