Author Topic: Killing Characters  (Read 7618 times)

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2011, 04:20:14 PM »
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?

It is, but I find it difficult to stay interested in a book or movie if I don't care about the characters. As a writer, it's my goal to make the reader care about what happens because they're emotionally invested in the characters' fate.

Offline comprex

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2011, 04:21:25 PM »
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.

Do it wrong and you get horror movie kill zones.     Do it right and you get Antigone, Romeo & Juliet,  Hamlet,  Glory, The Magnificent Seven...

Offline Quantus

  • Special Collections Division
  • Needs A Life
  • ****
  • Posts: 25216
  • He Who Lurks Around
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2011, 05:28:48 PM »

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.
oh No, not at all.  Thats just my point; I was very pleased with CA (which is what spawned the conversation).  Characters we had known for several books of the series were killed, permanently maimed, etc, but in each case I thought it was done well, with proper literary justification (be it plot, theme, or even just a personal sacrifice for someone who arguably did not deserve it).  What has me so baffled is the seemingly widespread comment that there should have been more death, and I just don't see any good ways to do that without it becoming just character death for its own sake.  However Im far from an experienced writer and not much of a horror reader (which typically has a much higher death toll), so I wanted to see what you all thought of its use as a literary device.

The more I think about it, the more I think the root of that "more death" outcry may have just been that one particular "near-death experience" (Trying my best to avoid spoilers, so hopefully you know what Im talking about).  As I said I personally don' t gravitate to heavy death stories or like writing lots of death without a particular need, but it does bug me when a character seems to die, with all the proper form and justification and whatnot, only to have a line at the very end to the affect of, "oh ya btw character X wasnt hurt as badly as we thought, he's going to pull through" despite the six bullet wounds, three stabbings, two story fall, and inspirational deathbed speech (in a pear tree).  In those cases it seems like the writer needed a death but basically chickened out at the end, so they just put a mickey mouse band-aid on it at the end.  I did not think this was the case in CA, but I was a big fan of that particular character and so maybe I was just paying more attention to the motives/explanation/justification...? 

But even that can be done well at times.  Ill take a film example because I dont mind spoiling it:  In the old flick SWAT (not great but entertaining) one character of the team gets shot, and we get the casual "looks like he is going to pull through" line at the end.  But in that case it had purpose:  it showed that Sam Jackson's character didnt know he was going to survive, even though he just said same thing to the traitor in the team (who got said partner shot).  The traitor asked how shot-guy was, just before blowing his own brains out.  It showed that despite the treachery he cared about his team/regretted his choices; it also showed that despite the treachery Jackson's character cared enough to try and make him feel better.

Its all about getting the circumstances to support it; not just from a logical standpoint, but from a thematic, emotional, or storytelling stance.  It made me start wondering what circumstances would compel you guys to reach for the CharacterDeath tool?
<(o)> <(o)>
        / \
      (o o)
   \==-==/


“We’re all imaginary friends to one another."

"An entire life, an entire personality, can be permanently altered by just one sentence." -An Accidental Villain

Offline Glorificus

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2011, 05:42:37 PM »
What I hate is when a character is set up just to be killed and it's very obvious.
A sacrificial lamb. 

aka Red Shirts?
What if pigs flew around on the backs of sparkly vampires?

The best thing about my faerie godmother is that the creepy just keeps on coming. p. 273

Offline comprex

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2011, 05:48:53 PM »
It is, but I find it difficult to stay interested in a book or movie if I don't care about the characters.

As a counterpart to this, I find it difficult to stay interested in a story if there is -no way- for the protagonist to lose, and lose big.     More than just "temporary setback for the space of 20 minutes movie time".    


Offline Beefstew

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2011, 05:51:18 PM »
First off let me say I like the CA series.  I really didn't notice that all of the Important Characters survived.  But having thought about it I think I see where the complaints about ALL of them surviving come from:

People are human.  Humans make mistakes.  Normal mistakes are so common that most people don't even notice.  Oops, dropped my pen, now I have to bend over and pick it up.  99% of the time when you buckle your seat belt you get it right the first time.  But occasionally it takes a second, or third, or twelfth time, depending on how much you've had to drink (just kidding, don't drive drunk!)  Ever bite your tongue while you're eating?  And how many times have you chewed?

Adrenaline and high stress situations make mistakes more common, and costly.  I'm an excellent shot.  Put any gun in my hands and I can hit any target at any distance that the gun is capable of shooting.  It's one of the few things I'm really, really good at, partially through training and partially through natural skill.  During one of my initial training events (after boot camp and all of that) in the Marines we were using training rounds (basically modified paintballs made to fit an M-16) to clear a house. It was fun, exciting, and the adrenaline was pumping.  There was 13 of us against 4 of them.  A couple of mistakes led to the slow whittling down of the 13/4 to 1/1.  We were about 6 feet away from each other, both firing, and both missing like crazy.  It wasn't a lack of skill that was making us miss, or the weapons, it was the adrenaline.  Had it been a real situation, me and my entire squad would be dead.  Oops.

The people of CA are just that.  People.  Humans.  They're capable of making mistakes.  And yet they don't.  At least not ones that lead to realistic consequences.  They go through a series of high-stakes world altering events in which they're always outnumbered.  Where any single mistake would lead not just to the death of that character, but possibly the death of their entire civilization.  And despite all the chaos and pressure, they make the exact right decision that leads to the ideal result.

As readers/viewers we suspend our disbelief until the situation becomes unbelievable.  And when it becomes unbelievable it Violently Ejects you from the world that you've pleasantly immersed yourself in.  That's the biggest complaint I've heard about the CA series.  Tavi was raised as a freak, and has had to think quickly his entire life.  In a very real way he's been trained to make something out of nothing.  It's a logical extension that his ability to think quickly might translate into a combat environment, making his survival believable.  But what about the others?  They're supposed to be just normal, average people.  Lot's of normal, average people are dying, why do these guys get to survive?  Is it because they're Important Characters?  That's a good enough reason I suppose, but it's not very realistic.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think you should be running around all willy-nilly lopping the heads off of Important Characters just because.  That would be, as someone pointed out earlier, too Whedonesque.  There should be a reason for their death.  To not have a reason can lead to the Violent Ejection as well.  At the same time, you can't run around all willy-nilly having all your Important Characters survive for no good reason, else, Violent Ejection.

So to me, that's what it all boils down to.  People are human.  Humans make mistakes.  Even, especially, when it counts.  Those mistakes in high pressure situations can result in death, even to loved Important Characters.  To take away those mistakes takes away a portion of their humanity, which makes them harder to identify with.

And if anyone actually read all of that, here's a cookie <cookie>
My opinion is so valuable, that when I give someone my two cents, I usually get back change.

Offline meg_evonne

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5264
  • With an eye made quiet by the power of harmony
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2011, 07:20:44 PM »
Do it wrong and you get horror movie kill zones.     Do it right and you get Antigone, Romeo & Juliet,  Hamlet,  Glory, The Magnificent Seven...
Hamlet---is it possible? I'm working on a YA of Hamlet. Sure it can be done, but by me? Well, I'll find out.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 07:24:26 PM by meg_evonne »
"Calypso was offerin' Odysseus immortality, darlin'. Penelope offered him endurin' love. I myself just wanted some company." John Henry (Doc) Holliday from "Doc" by Mary Dorla Russell
Photo from Avatar.com by the Domestic Goddess

Offline comprex

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2011, 07:56:21 PM »
Hamlet---is it possible? I'm working on a YA of Hamlet. Sure it can be done, but by me? Well, I'll find out.

 ;D

Quote from: Richard Dreyfuss
Eh we're more of the love,
blood and rhetoric school.
                   
Well, we can do you blood
and love without the rhetoric
or blood and rhetoric
without the love...
                   
and we can do you all three
concurrent or consecutive.
                   
But we can't do you love
and rhetoric without the blood.
                   
Blood is compulsory.
They're all blood, you see.

Offline OZ

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 4129
  • Great and Terrible
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2011, 08:13:12 PM »
Quote
But it does sharpen and whet the per-episode sense of risk, doesn't it?

No. There is no sense of risk when I have quit watching.
 I don't know if I was clear in my earlier post but I am on the fence when it comes to killing off characters. I am in agreement with the several posters who talked of death that pushes the plot. I think meaningful death is a good thing in a story. King Lear is still my favorite of Shakespeare's plays and there is no shortage of death in that play. David Drake is one of my favorite authors and he is not afraid to kill characters. Other than the Bard who is outside the rules, I don't like bad endings. I know some consider them more realistic but if I want bad, realistic endings, I will pick up a newspaper. I want stories that lift me out of the ordinary not smother me in it.


How do you know you have a good book?  It's 3am and you think "Just one more chapter!"

Offline comprex

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2011, 09:01:08 PM »
No. There is no sense of risk when I have quit watching.


Nor is there any if we do not start watching because we know beforehand who wins without risk.   

Quote
I don't know if I was clear in my earlier post but I am on the fence when it comes to killing off characters.

If this is directed to me, I am confused, thus: I don't think I could have given you an impression that you weren't clear?  You quote a response I made to Wordmaker?    ???


Quote
Other than the Bard who is outside the rules, I don't like bad endings. I know some consider them more realistic but if I want bad, realistic endings, I will pick up a newspaper. I want stories that lift me out of the ordinary not smother me in it.

The customer is always right... only which one?   ;)

I can rewrite my my point above, phrasing it as:  I think A Tale of Another Day At The Office for SuperHeroMan _is_  a tale of the ordinary. 

« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 09:11:24 PM by comprex »

Offline jeno

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1357
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2011, 10:29:26 PM »
^I agree with everything Beefstew said.  :D
You think you know how this story is going to end, but you don't. -Christopher Moore

The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. -Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman

Offline Snowleopard

  • Needs A Life
  • ***
  • Posts: 27961
  • Small but sneaky.
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2011, 12:16:46 AM »
aka Red Shirts?

LOL - Aka RED SHIRTS you got that right Mary Sue.

Offline OZ

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 4129
  • Great and Terrible
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2011, 02:46:54 AM »
Quote
If this is directed to me, I am confused, thus: I don't think I could have given you an impression that you weren't clear?  You quote a response I made to Wordmaker?   


Only the first line was directed at you. The rest was was not directed at anyone in particular.

Quote
The customer is always right... only which one?   


Whoever buys the book. I am not trying to establish right or wrong as far as character death or things that make me become disconnected from a story are concerned. I am only stating my personal likes and dislikes. If unlikable (to me) characters caused books not to sell or be enjoyed, Michael Crichton and John Grisham would not have sold millions of books. ( I don't mean this as an insult to either author or their works. Again these are just my personal likes and dislikes.)  If dismal and depressing endings weren't enjoyed by many, many readers Dennis Lehane would not be having so many of his books made into movies, many of the horror stories would not sell, and there would be little or no market for 'true crime'.

I do feel however that many critics have become enamored with gloom, doom, and death and think it is more valid or better written than stories with less pain. This I strongly reject. Each has its merits but the superiority of one over the other is only a matter of personal preference.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 02:20:32 PM by OZ »
How do you know you have a good book?  It's 3am and you think "Just one more chapter!"

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2011, 08:40:17 AM »
I think it's some kind of human condition. For whatever reason, society generally expects that sad endings are more high brow than happy ones. You can even trace this back to Shakespeare, where aside from his histories, he wrote two kinds of plays. The happy-ending comedies, and the far more serious and highly-regarded tragedies, with their sad endings. This has been a common format for theatre even going back to ancient Greece.

Offline Glorificus

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
Re: Killing Characters
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2011, 05:05:06 PM »
I think it's some kind of human condition. For whatever reason, society generally expects that sad endings are more high brow than happy ones. You can even trace this back to Shakespeare, where aside from his histories, he wrote two kinds of plays. The happy-ending comedies, and the far more serious and highly-regarded tragedies, with their sad endings. This has been a common format for theatre even going back to ancient Greece.

This makes a good point - sad, meandering films by Swedish directors or Woody Allen are considered sophisticated and important while films more easily accessible (comedies, etc.) are considered light weight. Iirc, this switch occurred in the Oscars around 1977 when Saturday Night Fever received only one nomination - not that SNF is high art, but before then the Oscars went to popular movies, not movies very few had heard of. It's somewhat of a cultural shift, and I am sure cultural anthropologists have done many studies on it.
What if pigs flew around on the backs of sparkly vampires?

The best thing about my faerie godmother is that the creepy just keeps on coming. p. 273