So, I'm currently finishing the outline for my first fantasy installment of a trilogy. In this first story, the hero (let's call him Bob) has been through thick and thin with his best friend (let's call him Joe). They grew up together, Bob hasn't really been close to anyone else in his life. These two characters go through hell together in the first half of the story and the only thing keeping them from committing suicide is their friendship. Joe has served his purpose in the story, but I'm interested to see where else he may go. I'm afraid that I'm too attached to the character (and I think my readers will be too). By the end to the story, Bob has found new purpose, made some lasting and foundation relationships, and although losing his friend will take it's toll, I don't think he'll go crazy or descend into something less than he should be. I like the idea of him being a little darker in book 2. Do you think I should kill Joe in the climax of the book in order to prove Bob"s commitment to his new belief? If you need a little more info, let me know. Thanks
You said they would've committed suicide if they didn't have each other, but he's going to be okay if his best friend dies? I think what you're saying is that Bob has new purpose, a goal, a calling, whatever and so that's more important to him than Joe? I could buy that, as long as there's a reason for Joe to die. If he just falls off a cliff because you need to make Bob a little darker that would be irritating to me, personally. But of course that's not a reason to not do it. If you want him dead, kill him.
I think it is a good opportunity to start a fight and have a friendship break up. They go their separate ways and grow, only to reunite later in the series both better off going their own ways and learning.
I like it. It's not so much "His new calling is more important than Joe," so much as it's "Joe used to be more important than Bob's despair, and now Bob's calling is more important than his despair." He's still going to be messed up by his most important friend's death, just not messed up enough to want to go with him. And now I have Summertime Sadness stuck in my head. Again.
There are others ways to write a character out of the picture than killing them. How about the dark side, or a new love interest. The story can move away from him just like life does. Did I say that?....Oh well, you know what I mean.
I would suggest that at this stage it's too early to make that decision. Wait until you are actually writing and see where the story takes you. If you know that character must go, keep that in mind but how he goes should fit in with what you have written to that point. IMHO
It depends on you mostly. Killing a character that readers are attached to has way more impact than killing a non important character IMO. On the other hand, it's like Thundair said, you can kick Joe out of the story without killing him. Based on what you want, personally i suggest that the climax of the book will be Joe leaving Bob, probably because of feeling neglected or unwanted, which leads to Bob's character becoming darker, feeling betrayed by his best friend. That way, you can decide later in book 2 whether if you want to kill Joe or putting him back in the story somehow. Well...that's it. Good luck with your story.
Ok. Lots of great suggestions here. I'll keep all this in mind as I write. Thank you guys very much for the feedback
I can't tell you what will and won't work, but I will tell you that one of the reasons why Batman v Superman was a terrible movie was the lack of actions that were irrevocable. Moments in the narrative where there is "no going back" for any of the characters. These are moments either caused by the characters' own decisions or circumstances out of their control that can't be undone, and therefore the characters have to live with the consequences for the rest of the story. My current favorite story right now is the video game Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice and I will cite it a lot because of how brilliant the narrative is. It's quite frankly, one of the most perfectly told hero stories I have seen in recent memory. There are three distinct moments where the main character makes an "irrevocable decision." The first is in the beginning when she pushes her boat away after arriving at the shores of Hel, signaling that she now had nowhere to go but forward. The second is when she faces the goddess Hela for the first time and breaks her sword in the process. This is emphasized by her taking a part of the sword, heating it and burning the side of her own face, thus creating a permanent, physical scar. There's another scene where she crosses through a mirror, leaving behind herself to face Hela again. And this is just the main plot. I'm not even getting into the irrevocable decisions narrated in the form of flashbacks throughout the course of the game. In Hellblade these create tension in the story. It creates an additional challenges for the hero to overcome during the course of their journey. Without them, stories become kind of bland, by the numbers sort of affairs. Now, don't get me wrong, that can be fun, but only in stories meant to be fun. So it's up to you what to do, but just make sure you ask yourself one thing: Can I use this additional challenge for the character? Because there's nothing worst than having a character die, and no one seems to care. Or they care for about 5 minutes and then never care again.
If you want this character dead, go for it. Don't let yourself worry about what the readers think. If they like your story, his death shouldn't stop them from reading it. This, however, might be more difficult to get over. My advice on this is to just keep thinking about it. If this character's possible demise makes you less sad or upset the more you think about it, then go ahead and kill him off. If the thought of him dying keeps making you upset or sad, then just leave him alive and remove him from the story by other means. Maybe you can even bring him back later on if you keep him alive.
If his death is meaningful and helps propel the story, then I say go for it. Especially when he is a much beloved character. That's the best time for maximum impact. I would assume the bad guy is losing at the end and makes a 'hail mary' play, which Joe is positioned to stop but only at the expense of his life. Bad Guy gets away at the end, but now Bob feels the need to track him down and bring him in. Or kill him outright, which would be a moral dilemma for the hero.
