ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: Mickey Finn on July 11, 2006, 01:47:00 PM
-
That the protagonist is in danger in fantasy noir (and most books, really) is an illusion...sometimes, in rare cases, they die, but usually you're really looking to see how they get out of the mess they're in.
Based on acknowledgement of this as a conceptual truth...how would you guys feel about a protagonist who cannot die? There's never any mortal danger (to the main character), and you know this up front, but there are plenty of other ways to mess with said main character.
How would you guys react to such a situation?
(And yes, this is more than just theoretical. It involves a project I'm working on.)
-
I believe it could work out quite well. In fact, I've seen a similar concept work in the old PC game, Planescape: Torment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape:_Torment).
-
As a writer, I think that as long has the protagonist has something to lose (even if it isn't his life), then it could make for an good story. But the key would be to make the reader care about the consequences and maybe the fact that he is immortal (ie, has to live with himself and his choices forever) could be used very effectively.
I think it would be harder to hook the reader, but could be worth the effort.
As a reader, I would be fine with it, as long as I felt that he was vulnerable in other ways.
-paul
-
All powerful characters suck ;) Yep, the point is to make them (more than one character will be 'cursed' with this) human.
I'll try to avoid alot of angst in the protagonists, though.
-
The one thing that I don't like in any multiple book series is that even though the protagonist maybe in the worst danger imaginable by the author you know 99% unless it's the last book in the series that he or she will not die. Some how the protagonist will get out of the peril they are in.
I had the same feeling when Harry was going to Artis Tor thinking 'oh he is going to somehow manage to save Molly from Mab's winter strong hold' but was gladly surprised with the twist.
So a protagonist that cannot die is certainly interesting, but like the ubove post whatever interupts the equilibrium of his or her world we must feel for his situation. Case in point is my thread on worst book in Mac's. The book I said had no mortal danager for the protagonist but the situation the author had put him in didn't really make me connect with the story or the main charactor.
-
Hmmmm... since the illusion of mortal danger does little for me, I don't think that setting someone up who you KNOW can't die would make that much difference.
I'd love to have an author surprise me at some point.
"He stared me in the eye and said, 'I'll shoot you if I have to.' I reached for my gun, and..............."
-
I agree with Amber. Since we know the protagonist almost never dies, having someone who's immortal doesn't lessen the suspense any if the characters are compelling and it's a good plot.
Immortality can be pretty hellish, when you think about it. Most everyone around them will die, rather quickly from the immortal's perspective. Maybe some of them have deadened their emotions towards mortals, avoiding them. That might be a good hook for the protagonist; how he moves from indifference to caring, at least about one person. Other immortals maybe play with mortals or use them -- regard them as disposable.
And there are the problems immortals would have in dealing with each other. I suppose they can avoid each other, but if they can't be killed, each one knows he's stuck with running into the others throughout eternity. Grudges can get pretty intense.
-
I don't know, I could be leery. However, if handled right, maybe.... especially if it was something hinted at yet still uncertain or mysterious.... I'm trying to think of examples where similar things have worked, and what has come to mind was- of all things- the x-files. Specifically, scully, and the references to the fact that she has no death. And there was that one episode where her death was "stolen" from her by the photographer who had lived 150 years, because he lost his (chance to die). I guess the effective thing was that despite knowing that she was relatively safe as a main character, the viewer was never really sure...and scully believed she could be in mortal peril, as did others, so it never lessened the suspense. Just toyed with it a bit. Oh, I know I am rambling, but whatever.
-
"And there are the problems immortals would have in dealing with each other. I suppose they can avoid each other, but if they can't be killed, each one knows he's stuck with running into the others throughout eternity. Grudges can get pretty intense. "
Oh, yes. The name of the story is Chessmen. Said immortals like to come up with new ways to hinder each other.
-
which book was that?
Case in point is my thread on worst book in Mac's. The book I said had no mortal danager for the protagonist but the situation the author had put him in didn't really make me connect with the story or the main charactor.
-
I think my enjoyment would depend on the overall story. If done well, the fact that the character's immortal need not lessen any suspense in the story. The trick is to still provide the character with a risk of losing something important. If not his life, then another person, or an enterprise he's built, or a reputation... something that matters to him.
-
which book was that?
Case in point is my thread on worst book in Mac's. The book I said had no mortal danager for the protagonist but the situation the author had put him in didn't really make me connect with the story or the main charactor.
Rule Of Four (http://www.jim-butcher.com/bb/index.php/topic,377.0.html)
-
If the Protangonist doesn't die then it risks nothing unless it can possibly lose from the situation - like if you lose I kill your mortal friend, or a God who created a people and loved them and must fight to save them.
I guess the circumstances dictate if it could work or not.
-
There's nothing wrong with a main character who's immortal. The main character from one of my novels I'm working on is an immortal half-vampire. :) ('Course, I'm not saying he can't die; he's immortal, not invulnerable. :P)
Personally, as long as the character is interesting and three dimensional, someone I can really get invested in and actually care about, I have no qualms about an author having an immortal character(s).
Of course, the thing I love about fantasy novels/TV shows is that, even if the main character dies, that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to stay dead. *cough*Buffy*cough* :D
-
I'm curious....what if there was a long series where at the end the protagonist does become evil? Would that be a terrible disapointment? If it was timed right I think it would be really interesting to create a likable character and slowly have him/her be tempted...or have him/her become evil more by accident or anything else, like they get into a bad position for a heroic reason?
-
*looks at Danny. Looks at Dresden. Looks back at Danny.*
Hrm.
-
Honestly, I think I'd rather see a beloved character die than become corrupted by evil. I mean if the journey is Good Guy=>Fall From Grace=>Evil=>Redemption sure. But to end the story with "Mwah-ha-ha, now my death ray will destroy Metropolis!" is a much bigger let-down than having the character die.
I think the biggest, most important, thing is for the end to fit the character. There are some characters who by the end are so thoroughly broken (see Wesley on Angel) that as sad as it is, their death is in some ways a mercy. There also times when self-sacrifice is necessary.
As long as the death has a meaning or purpose, I'm fine with it. Hero saves the day only to get hit by a bus, not so cool.
-
I completely agree. :)
-
...except about the Wesley dying bit. ;)
-
Not to go off-topic (which inevitably means I will) Wesley's death worked for the story. (Whether he'd be stupid enough to try magic against a sorcerer is something else entirely, but that's not the point here.) His death and the "Shall I lie to you now?" and the turning blue as she knocks sorcerer-boy's block off and Illyria feeling grief all worked as part of the narrative.
Trip, on Enterprise, blowing himself up for no good reason other than "It's the last episode, someone has to die" is an example of how not to do it.
-
Oh, it was well done, but still unnecessary. ;) Whedon has this thing about killing off loved characters because he seems to think it adds to the story. While this is often true (Buffy's "The Body"), it doesn't quite feel right, other times. (Serenity, anyone?)
-
Oh, it was well done, but still unnecessary. ;) Whedon has this thing about killing off loved characters because he seems to think it adds to the story. While this is often true (Buffy's "The Body"), it doesn't quite feel right, other times. (Serenity, anyone?)
I understand. For me, Wesley's death hurt (and he was one of my favorite characters on the show at that point, so it hurt a lot) but I understood it.
With Serenity, while I understand Joss' reasoning "If no one died, the last 30 minutes are nothing but a bunch of noise" the actual execution left something to be desired. I also think it suffered from the fact that he was trying to write to both the fans and the general public. For the general public, without the death, there's no tension. The death brings home that any one of these characters could die at any moment. For the fans, the death feels like a horrible betrayal, because they're already invested. I've come to grips with it in later viewings, but walking out of that initial pre-screening, I was angry when I was expecting to be feeling elated (It was the Big Damn Movie, after all.)
-
If you can accept the concept that there are things that are much worse than death, then you can certainly have an immortal character and still have a great deal of tension in the story. Especially if the character is immortal, but not invincible. Horrors!
-
"Kid, don't threaten me. There are worse things than death, and uh, I can do all of them." --The Plague, Hackers
-
Well I know this is necromancy but I wanted to make a statement because it reflects my views on the topic of book writing. For me, the important thing about danger is that it isn't about whether the character will live or die but helping the reader identify with the main protagonist.
Highlander the series had characters whom were immortal but because they feared death at the hands of their enemies and had all the other mortal foibles, they were able to be identified with.
-
With an immortal character, you simply have to find something else that is their cause for continuing. Most people function every day to survive. If you don't HAVE to do that, why do you keep going? I have a main character in an as-yet unstarted novel who is an angel. His main concern isn't surviving day to day, or having enough to eat. His main concern is trying to FIND his purpose, when he thinks God has abandoned him, his kind, and the human race in general. He's on a search for faith. That can be just as compelling as a fight for survival.
-
There is a lot more ways of doing damage to a character than just physical. For example imagine what spending time in a concentration can do to one's mind? Or watching generations of loved ones die can change a person. Would they go mad with grief or would they distance themselves from society? What is one life to a person who has watch Rome rise and fall? Also, what happens when they lose a limb or get locked in a box that is dumped in the bottom of the ocean?