This is a very serious question that I am curious about. My "cowriter"/"editor" (who has been slacking) has wanted me to kill off characters and we are planning a sequel to the first book. At least two to three characters that are important to the book die (not going to mention whom) and they are good. One "bad" guy if you will dies. Should there be like a balance of how many people are killed? Or should it not matter as long as i have it evenly space out?

I'm probably not the best person to answer this question because I typically avoid series novels BECAUSE they always kill off the characters that I am interested in. (e.g. Dune books, Wheel of Time, etc). I'm down with people dying as part of the story, even the hero/heroine of the novel, but as novels move to children of heros or unknown characters I usually lose interest. HOWEVER, like I said, I think I'm an exception to the rule here - most series do very well with this process.

The one instance where this isn't true for me is if there is a creative twist in the same world that moves the story to a different character (e.g. Ender's Shadow).

So, when you're editor is asking you to kill characters - that's dandy - but make sure it's for a reason and not just for the sake of killing people off. A great example of an effective killing of a character is Boromir in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Yes, people will die - but why develop them to just leave them in the dust? It has to accomplish something IMHO. The death of Boromir is pivitol to the madness of Denethor, the growth of Faramir, and the breaking of the fellowship. You can kill not-so-main characters if you need to show that your world is real - again, in LoTR the death of King Theoden.

ZB

There is reasons why at least two die. And it affects the turnout of the second novel. That was a good explanation.

I loved Theoden, he was my favorite

I can't help it. Several of my characters die over the course of my planned series, and I have to say, sometimes it really works well. I would examine it carefully though. Once a book is published, you're not going to be able to change it.

That is true.I know two definite characters that will die, I am hesitant on the others at the moment. Their roles can turn the story either way for me.

In life people die. In war soldiers are killed off. So you can imagine a story will have these same themes. Death follows us through time like a predator you can't escape death because eventually time will sneak up on you like a predator.
So if your writing a story and it comes to the point where a charactor will die/be killed off then so be it.

Sometimes a death of a charactor doesn't have to have an added depth to the story. Yeah Boromir is pivotal to the LOTRs story.
However in other stories series charactors have been killed off for meaningless reasons. And in reality that does happen.

In my own dark series which I named the Crimson Fist saga I kill charactors off in each story a different charactor will die. But a new charactor will emerge it happens even in sequel movies. My story is based far into the future and the charactors are in a constant universal war meaning they are always fighting. So in that scenario it is pivitol that charactors die/get killed off. Otherwise it'd be pretty pointless writing about soldiers at war.

I also think its important to kill of charators because it spices things up in some instances brings a tear to the eye which keeps the reader still reading. Then you can introduce new charators in the next story then the reader isn't going to become bored with the same old, same old. You get the drift.




~Raven.

I love it when main character's die. It makes me all giddy inside. :P

If it's a serious book in which there's danger and no one dies, it makes it less believable.

Just as there is a reason to have a character in a story, the death of a character should have a purpose. It should propel the plot, solve a problem, create problems, raise the stakes for those surviving characters, support the theme, add mystery.

As has been said previously, if there is war, if there is danger, it is very likely that characters in the novel will suffer, be maimed, or perish.

I don't know if there is a reason, if you're planning a sequel that you should have to balance the number of "good" characters that die with the number of "bad" ones. Maybe with the plot line/theme you've developed, it is necessary.

Just a few thoughts.

Terry

First off I wouldn't like to have a co-writer at all, but I've never published **** nor will I ever most likely, but still. I write because I love it and it's what makes me who I am, and I don't change my plot because someone thinks I should. If you feel that a character's death would make the story better, by all means kill away. However, if you are killing characters to oppease your co-writer, that's ****. Just like Zero said, character deaths aren't just people dying. A character's death is a trigger for an event, which in turn triggers another event. Oh and sometimes it makes a book more interesting to have more bad than good characters. It adds a certain spice to the good character, making him, her or them go up against overwhelming odds, but having an even number or more good than bad is no worse of a choice. Personally I don't like having more good than bad unless there is a few bad characters commanding much more power or respect, because then it becomes rather obvious that the good guys will win. I always said that you don't read a book to see if the good guy win, you read a book to see HOW the good guy wins. Dunno if that helped any but there you go.:-P Good luck with the book.

When people kill off characters to show that the world is "Real" or whatever, like to show that there's a danger, I think that's dumb.

The only reason you should kill a character (I think) is if it means something. Of course, if that's just where the story has led you to then go nuts and follow the story's direction. But I think that a death has to mean something, it shouldn't be just because you want to kill them. It has to have weight, you know?

That makes sense right?

Here is the best explanation I can give:

All people eventually die. Sometimes they can die immediately with no purpose fulfilled, or simply nothing accomplished. It is realistic. It happens everyday.

Not everybody has to die with meaning behind it.

But the death has to make sense. The motives behind their death must be logical. A person can't just be killed because the killer felt like it. They should have motives. Now if someone dies in a battle, that is also realistic. People are not invincible.

Now if the death is a method to advance the story, and you see no other way for the plot to unfold, then go through with it.

Don't create a character unless you know how their fate. Otherwise there is no point in making the reader invest feelings into this person that you don't have a plan for.

I hope this advice helps.

All deaths should have relevance to the plot... just because death is a fact of life, doesn't mean it is a fact of good literature. Everything that happens in a story should evolve the plot, make it more complex, and develop the characters. If killing off a character makes a huge leap in the plot, go for it.

A character of mine dies at the end of what I'm writing, except I'm not sure which one to kill!
I've tried ways of getting around the death and make the ending just as hard-hitting without it, but doesn't quite work.

This may be strange but I'm very close to my characters, I (obiviously) understand them very well and don't want either to die, nor do I want the other to have such guilt (basically one is going to kill the other, it's a gangster-type story)
Ahh, I'll work it out!


If a main character dies half-way through, then you try and pick the rest up with a different character it's hard for the reader, especially if the original character is a good one. Personally I think if anyone really important has to die make sure you have another character who is just as strong to continue with.

Agreed. I remember reading of these C.S Forrester books Horatio Hornblower and there was a particular character I grew fond of. He was in every book except the very last one. He was killed off, and it wasn't explained in the book how exactly he died, and WHERE he died, if he survived for a short period of time etc etc. As a reader I never got closure, so i actually grieved and had to force my way through the final book with the character not there. I liked the fact the author kept the entire death a mystery and let us guess as to what might of happened. All we knew as readers is that the character was going off to blow up a train with a bunch of other officers. They returned, and he did not.
Anyways, when I kill off any of my characters in a story I make sure i've built up enough 'life' in him/her so that the reader understands why the person had to die. Sometimes, the character deserved it, sometimes it was an accident, and sometimes it was so sudden that it even astonished the author. Of course we cry but novels are just as real as life.

I've lot track of my mind....I don't know really what point i was building up to now... ah oh well :rolleyes:

Look at Halle Berry's Catwoman - the main character was killed off at the beginning!

You know what I mean - concepts like killing off charcaters need not be one-dimensional.

(If you were thinking of killing off one Good Guy and one Bad Guy in strict alternation, please don't. Not unless what you're writing is a chessboard :)


Otherwise, let the demands of the story kill characters off as necessary. If you want someone dead and the story doesn't call for it, change the story until it does (or else let him live).

A deceased main character can come back in a sequel as a secondary character - in the form of a ghost or haunting, some specially created legacy (e.g. letters to be opened on certain dates, etc.), or in a series of intercalary flashbacks.
(All of these need to be handled quite carefully to avoid coming out trite, cliche, or just plain horrid.)

I have one story in progress with a character whom I'm not sure whether to kill off or not. It's not a story framed in terms of Good Guys & Bad Guys, but the character is a murderous psychopath.

(OTOH, two out of the other three main characters aren't all that much better, and to imply that murderous psychopaths always get what they deserve is not in keeping with the story's theme.

(OTOOH, the story development among the other three main characters becomes a lot easier if there's not always a murderous psychopath to take into account.))

I have about five more chapters to write before I get to the point where I might kill him off, so I'll just have to see what happens between now and then.


Just my thoughts,

- Evelyn

On the thought of bringing a character to life back through flashbacks, that is a GREAT example. One could even use the flashbacks to add backstory to a character that has an early death in a story

my say is why kill them off, just make them hide in a closet when they are not wanted, lol.
no, seriosly i hate it when they kill off a good charector in a book, example Dumbledore in Harry Potter 6, i cried for ages, lol. but if you have to then you have to i suppose.

and no, i don't think you have to keep a balance between "good" and "bad" charectors dying, to me that sounds a bit too coincidential that three from each "side" dies.

Heather

dumbledore...died? *wells up*

Or read "Hamlet" it's probably the best example of killing off characters with meaning.

They threw a really big party and everyone lived happily ever after.

a secondary character - in the form of a ghost or haunting If only Bush came back to haunt Hornblower's ship and its crew. I'd be happy with even that!
:(
*suddenly runs away crying*

If only Bush came back to haunt Hornblower's ship and its crew. I'd be happy with even that!
:(
*suddenly runs away crying*(At the risk of veering into the political...)

I've thought of many worse places for George W. to go, but perhaps none better....
:cool:

Indeed.

As for killing off charactors I aklways found killing off a main charactor was always good and gives new depths.






~Raven.

Aha the joys of the 40k universe, we can:
A- Ork Nob uses Choppa to de-limb charachter.
B- Chaos Lord uses bolter to remove chunks of charachter.
C- Tyranid uses claws/bio-gun/teeth to gore charachter.
D- Tau decides to plasma-rape the charachter.
E- Necron decides to de-skin charachter.
F- Eldar Ranger shoots charachter.

The list goes on, don't even get me started with what can happen when a commissarr or inquisitor is around...

Good advice here. I was thinking of killing off my main-character the heroine or at least her coming close to the brink of death or something. I'll find something tramatic. After all...I AM the writer of the dead :p

Reading this just gave me a few ideas and bits and pieces of advice that I will use. I must say, when good triumphs over evil (you know what I'm talking about) EVERY SINGLE TIME it can get dull. You need a little end-of-the-life excitement don't cha?



Killing is good...in doses.

I must say, this thread is wonderful! It has given me quite a few ideas on how to kill off my main character in a KOTOR story. Great thread!

This is a very serious question that I am curious about. My "cowriter"/"editor" (who has been slacking) has wanted me to kill off characters and we are planning a sequel to the first book. At least two to three characters that are important to the book die (not going to mention whom) and they are good. One "bad" guy if you will dies. Should there be like a balance of how many people are killed? Or should it not matter as long as i have it evenly space out?

the best part of creating characters, is killing them! but leave some alive, even if it's just to say 'THE END' as long as the characters you have created are real enough for the reader to care, it's a great way of messing with their heads.

I love it when a character gets killed, but only if it's 1) unexpected or 2) a creative death or 3) unexpected and creative.

You can't go wrong with #3. :D

Creative deaths are the best. Something really obscure that no one will see coming. It really shouldn't be this much fun to kill someone...:confused: :D

I think it depends on the type of story, the nature of the character, and the reasonyou need the character to die.

For example, in a story about a couple on a downward spiral into drugs and other self destructibve behavior, having one find the other dead with a needle in his arm is hardly unespected, but may be the precipitating event that makes her start turning her life around.

On the other hand, a truly bizarre death in a science fiction story can be the focus of thw entire plot; and if the victim is a character the reader has come to know well, the impact of the death will be profound.

Another question is, how dead is dead?

Don't make a habit of killing major characters and then resurrecting them later. Sure, once in a while can be sensational, but it can quickly become a bad joke.

Gandalf's death with the Balrog was a mythic transformation,yet with all the emotional impact of a permanent demise.

At the other end of the spectrum, Kenny in South Park is played for total absurdity.

The original Star Trek series, and its extension into the movies, left people wondering how long the death would last before he "got better", and whose turn was next.

Patricia Cornwell killed off Kay Scarpetta's long time love, Benton Wesley. then a couple novels later changed her mind. She wrote it that he had to fake his own death to take down an international crime cartel. It worked fairly well as a plot device. However, there were some inconsistencies that made it clear his return to life was an afterthought, not something planned at the time she killed him off.

In that respect, Cogito, I treat my characters like real people. I have power over them, but once I kill them (unless I have already decided that they will 'come back' later, and have planned out how) they stay dead.

How hard is it to write a come-back for a character the readers presume to be dead?

How hard is it to write a come-back for a character the readers presume to be dead?


Well, that depends on how the character is presumed to be dead, the circumstances rather.

The death should be long, emotionally painful and very dramatic or short like a gun shot.

I think killing off characters is important to writing. I have a death for some of my main characters in the series I am starting, but they shall die for reasons and their death will effect the outcome of other characters and events. I don't think there needs to be a balance just think of the way you want the story to go. Killing off certain characters however may change the story and feel of it completely. Hope I helped.

for me a character can be killed off for a few reasons

-to really screw up the readers perception. e.g. she loved him...but he killed her! how nasty is that!?! thus creating a hatred for a character, or a change in feeling toward a character
-when their death was for a reason. if they died for a brave cause, or they died to change the course, then there ya go. e.g. albus dumbledores death in the 6th harry potter book irrevocably changed the course of the last book.

those are the two i can think of at the mo, but then it half 3 in the morning. i would say that

I've heard ppl say that killing characters off to prove your story is real is dumb. in a sence they are right. maybe it wasnt phrased right, for me killing off characters to prove that it's real just makes the story more unstable (in a good way) ppl arnt sure who will die next. if someone so important could die for no reason then why not "this guy" or "that girl" or "those fellows over there that you rather liked"
I think it makes it unpredictable.
nevertheless killing off too many characters can be wasteful. You still need a few ppl left living for the story to have enough twists.

Well, in my book I'm on the verge of killing off main group characters. This will create anger, revenge and hate in the main character. And you don't always have to have good guys win and live... you know what I'm saying?

In my book (either calling it XIII Samurai: Recreate or Darkest Dreams), all my characters die and in the end in the final battle between evil and pure evil both the good and bad die. You have to think of something different to make your readers sit on the edge of their seats, doing stuff that's already been done is just a stupid way of writing. Explore your imagination and find a good ending... but I'm going very off topic here.

If you kill characters it does have to mean something, but not all the time. You could kill one of your main characters just to kill them if you want, it makes us wonder why and try and figure something out for ourselves. The best books are the books that make you think. Remember that.

In a sort of sub-novel I'm fiddling around with what death means, since it is possible for highly prepared people to have their souls "brought back" after they die. They have to have a special device made for them in order to do this, and there is a time limit involved - for a fair number of people, you have less than five minutes, although it may be far longer depending on circumstance. So to have someone risk his life might not be as brave an action as we might normally call it, since he could be brought back - but there are other things that you can explore.

So you can use death to explore differences in thought, opinion, culture, and suchlike. If country A burns bodies and country B preserves them in concentrated saltwater, you can explore the reasons behind those beliefs.

Also, death is probably going to have to be mentioned in any story in which a huge disaster occurs or some Great Evil (whether environmental, political, personal, or whatever) comes about. Any story about terribly frightened people will probably have to involve death, at least in the background; otherwise they'd act to remove whatever caused that fear in the first place. (That is, people would probably be willing to throw the local Evil Dictator in jail; if you make him into a truly evil guy who kills people who oppose him, then the inaction on the part of the people makes more sense.)

*sigh* This has been on my mind. I'm trying to kill off Os for NaNoWriMo, and it hurts to do so. I like that fellow. He's a decent guy.

I don't think it's dumb if characters die to show the world is real. I believe that's smart and shows that the writer has guts and is in control of the story. If a character must die he must die, period.

It also makes the reader afraid for the sake of the other characters. Books where characters don't die but are constantly put in life-threatening situations won't generate any suspense because the reader will know that the writer isn't willing to kill his/her characters, and thus it creates a false sense of peril when any of the characters are "close" to dieing.

I dont know what to do with mine- he is a rebel captured by the Romans in the Jewish revolt. I don't know whether he should he be crucified or fight for freedom.