Killing the Protagonist: Pros and Cons

"I can't think of many books I've read where the main character dies."
~Quote


The Lovely Bones is a novel in which the main character dies, and the whole story is from thier perspective. It was interesting!! Thats just one off the top of my head.

 

Atma,

What about The Notebook? Granted I can't bring myself to actually read the book, because Sparks writing bores the ever living tears out of me, but the movie wasn't half bad, and both characters died. Tearjerker yes.

I think sometimes a story demands a bitter-sweet ending. It can't all be happily ever after, that's what Disney is for.

I wrote my end scene yesterday, because I came up with a perfect, memorable line for my dying character to say. I built the reader up to prepare for his possible death, foreshadowing what is to come, but still making the reader root for him to survive. In the end he doesn't die like the reader might have envisioned. In fact, he was out of danger of dying from the original threat to his life.

It makes me think of an episode of Charmed. Yes, I know, I'm a geek for saying this. Lucky people were able to escape things miraculously, like burning buildings, only to be killed twenty seconds later by being hit by a bus. My character escaped the main threat to his life, only to be killed in the end by another now bigger threat.

My point was, I cried after I wrote the scene. I've become so attached to my character that I was sad that he was now dead. I hope when I am finished it will read that way, but I have to finish first.

 

I haven't seen nor read the notebook.
But one thing is for sure, for me, it's different in movies. It takes an hour and a half to watch, rather than 12 hours to read (or however long you spend on a book).
There is also a middle ground between "happily ever after" and "death to the protag". He doesn't have to get the girl, or slay the dragon, or become head of his firm for me to like the story - he simply has to survive, so I don't feel cheated, and don't feel as if I grew attached to this made up human being for him just to kick the bucket with no significant reason to it.

There was a good reason for Dumbledore's death. There was no good reason for Snape's death. I know they're not the main character, but the difference in the excuse for just killing off those characters is remarkable. Rowling killed Dumbledore, because it made 70% of the plot come together, she killed Snape so that it would bring more sadness and reality and dramatic effects to it - that's not good.
I guess what I'm saying is that if there really, really is a good reason for it, and you give it all justice, then the MC's death can be alright. But in all the books I've read where the main character dies, there is simply no good reason for it, and it has NO re-read value for me. I'd never read it again, and considering I've read my favourite books at least 7 times each, that is a big issue.

My two pennies

 

Pros: You make the reader feel bad.

Cons: He's DEAD.

 

Keep in mind that just because a main character dies, it doesn't mean that it's not a happy ending. It may not be the happiest ending, but sometimes 'they lived happily ever after' is just boring. I'm juggling a few endings to a story i'm writing as well, and killing my MC is a definite possibility.

 

I often take the approach of not necessarily having a main character so to speak but between 2 - 5 that hold an equally high weight in the story. I know this doesn't work for everyone, but this way I can kill off one, perhaps even two of them and afterwards still making sure there is someone strong to keep the story going Hope that helps.

 

Why does everyone think there is no middle ground between "happily ever after" and "death of MC" ?!?! It's simply appaling that so many people think that if the MC does not die then there must be a "boring happily ever after".
If you have your MC's best friend die, then it pretty much is a bitter-sweet ending without having the MC die.
Imo, though. Unless your MC was Hitler then having the MC dying almost definitely qualifies for sad ending, to me.

He/she should suffer. But, die...? Leave that for the supporting mains.

 

Not only is there middle ground, but there are worse fates than death, and there is every sort of ground, stories where death of the MC is not such a bad thing, stories where... well, they are stories, so depending on the story, anything you can imagine could be the case.

I'm going to talk about a few stories as examples...

SPOILER WARNING on all.

The MC of "The Five People You Meet In Heaven" died at the very beginning of the story, and the death of the main character didn't make for a sad ending in that case. There was sadness and joy in the ending, but not because of the MC's death.

The MC of "The Sixth Sense" died before the beginning of the story, which did make for a tad bit of sadness, but more for shock and a surprise twist.

The MC of Stephen King's (Richard Bachman's) "Rage" died, and you kind of expected it. The whole story, though, you were more rooting for the MC's child victim to survive.

The MC of Stephen King's (Richard Bachman's) "The Long Walk" was the ONLY character to survive, and you got the feeling that his fate was worse than that of everyone else!

Not the MC, but a sidekick named Jake, died in Stephen King's "Dark Tower the Gunslinger," only to come back to life in the third book. Then again, he died from his very introduction, and it's his death that brought him to Rolland's world. (I'm on book 6, I still don't know who might or might not die in book 7.)

Naturally, Stephen King being all about death, examples in his work abound. The Shining is another great example, and I think the death of the MC there was the logical conclusion, with more of a "Fall of the House of Usher" feeling than sadness.

The MC of "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy died. The death was expected for quite a while. The story, overall, was very moving, but I think the sadness of the death was offset by hope for the son of the MC. In fact, I don't recall being very sad for the MC, not nearly as much as I was cautiously hopeful for the boy.

Again, as others said, it all depends on the story. I don't think it's about pros and cons, but rather, what your story is, what it's intended to tell. I think stories come to logical conclusions, and sometimes that logical conclusion is a death. The logical conclusion of the above stories were the deaths in each story. The logical conclusion of the Da Vinci Code was for Sophie to find out that she's the descendant of Mary Madgaline, for Leigh Teabanks to get arrested and finally, for Robert Langdon to go back to the Louvre and have a revelation. It would have made as little sense for Robert Langdon to die at the end of the Da Vinci Code as it would have made for the characters in "The Road," "The Sixth Sense," "The Shining" or "The Five People you Meet in Heaven" to go to the Louvre museum at the conclusion of their stories.

So, obviously, I agree with those who say "depends on the story." Your story should determine whether the main character should die. Is the death the logical conclusion of your story?

Whether that death brings sadness, solace, anger, sentimentality, hope, or even joy, also depends on the story.