A key point in the plot of one of my current WIPs involves the funding for an ethically dubious experiment/research project getting cut. At the moment I've got one of the key scientists dying as both one of the nails in the coffin of funding ever being restored and a cause of the result of the aforementioned ethically dubious research project becoming more isolated due to the scientist in question being the only one with an major emotional involvement. Problem is that I'm entirely not sure if that actually makes sense and suspect that it may be kind of cliche. My second problem is if I am going to bump them off, how to go about it? It has to be something sudden and I don't really want to use the usual option of a car accident, partly because the story is set in the future where self driving cars are very much a thing and partly because it is the usual option, but I'm not sure what would be better.
If its necessary or not has to be left to you, this is your story! I am not sure I follow this part, how can the project continue without funding, and why would it continue in any way, even isolated, if the only scientist with a major emotional involvement dies? Maybe your story already has the answers! It was just something that caught my eye As for your question... 1. Something could go wrong (if its this kind of experiment) that leads to this persons death on the clock, also works as a second a reason for funding to be cut. 2. How old is the scientist? Could die suddenly of natural causes or a hidden sickness, even as a young person - maybe give a few hints of a possible heart / stress problem over the course of the story, but make it something the scientist ignores and pushes through until it eventually gets the best of them. 3. If you still want to go ahead with the car crash, maybe someone has been tampering (that wants the person gone, wants the funding to get cut etc) with the car or it has a mechanical breakdown of some sort. Hope this helps, keep it up!
You don't have to kill him off. That's up to you, and whatever you think works best for the story. As for how to do it? Since it's an ethically dubious project, I'd suggest either have him die as a result of the experiments (radiation poisoning if they've been working with radiation for example, if they were engineering a disease he gets the disease, etc.) or have him try to come forward about the experiments and be "silenced" by the higher-ups. It is, of course, also up to you, but that would be my thought on it.
I'd be very careful with sudden, unexpected deaths. You're basically telling the reader that you wrote yourself into a corner and took a shortcut to get out. It also seems like in this case you could accomplish the same thing without the character dying; really all you need is for the scientist to suddenly sour on the project and decide to abandon it. That could happen for all sorts of non-fatal reasons. Maybe they're going through a messy divorce, maybe they find a conscience and decide they don't like the ethical dubiousness. Or you could set up the death a bit more, so it isn't so sudden and/or it fulfills some other purpose and becomes a necessary and logical part of the story. Maybe it's meant to hit some emotional beat, pull some heartstrings, etc. Or it's a big surprise, like it upends some expectations about who the main character is. But right now, based on what you've told us and all else being equal, I'd lean toward no death. I don't want to tell you you absolutely can't, but if you're just using it to solve other problems it seems like a bit of a stretch.
Maybe he is having the whole ordeal of getting exposed or for exposing the experiment, that it is too stressful for him to handle the pressure. So he relieves himself with a 9mm aspirin. It would show how he can't cope with the fear and the implications of his actions of what he has done from either directing. Though you will have to build up the toll it is taking on his guilty conscience so it doesn't feel like he is just jumping straight to the conclusion.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure. It's an old idea I first came up with when I was much younger and I was a bit prone to not thinking things through properly back then. So I'm kind of doing the "what to keep and what to throw away" thing at the moment. As for why it wouldn't stop completely, the reason it's ethically dubious is that it involves human experimentation of the sort that's probably very close to being illegal and only avoids being so because no one's thought to ban it yet. By the time the funding issue arises it has produced one semi-successful subject who can't be just let go and the people involved still have enough morals for killing him to be a last resort (plus getting a suitable test subject to begin with was a nightmare and they've put a lot of time, effort and money into him that they don't want to waste). So in the version of the story that younger me came up with they basically stick him in storage and continue with his basic upkeep while they try to sort things out. This may be subject to change.
Killing off a character falls into one of two categories. The first one, where you did no or little character development, readers just go "Meh, don't care." The second category, where characters have been developed, creates reader attachment. Killing them off must shunt the story forward. If offhanded, the death destroys your story flow and readers will either become emotionally disengaged or view it as sloppy. Done well, the death of a character is a very poignant highlight in a story.
I would agree with the above. If you want to go for category 2: where readers are invested then work hard to endear readers to that character before you 'off' them. Think of it like this... The more time you spend developing that characters arc and making him sympathetic, the greater the impact when he dies. Be careful though! If you want to know whether killing them will be impactful, then a clue is how you feel about them dying as the author. If you're upset at the thought of him dying because he's a stand up guy and doesn't deserve it - then you're probably onto something. Write the death for the character, not the character for the death. One last thing, you could add eulogies within the text before they die, alluding to what it would mean to others if that character died. Consider the below... 'Derek took control of the situation then, with a lethal efficency and a can-do-attitude that made even the slackers in the corner perk up and take notice. Not for the first time Debbie, was glad that he'd agreed to join them despite having been asked last minute. How could they have missed him on the invite?!' Its poorly written but you get the point! Hope it helps.
Okay, I'm going to go on a bit of a rant about the mainstream perception of cliches, so I hope you don't Mind. Cliches are okay to use. There, I said it. I will stand by that statement until the end of time. It really sticks in my teeth when people bash cliches like they inherently make a story worse and often provide little to no other reasons for why it's bad. Cliches are used for a good reason. A long time ago, someone came up with the idea that the hero's wife/girlfriend/important family member gets kidnapped and the hero has to go out and save them, and people loved it! It stuck so well because it's a good way to show the innermost themes of your story. A long time ago, someone came up with "the hero is an underdog that'll be protected by plot armor until they can stand on their own", and people loved it! (For reference to this cliche, please look to quite a few of the old world texts, as they created most of them). In your case, the scientist being killed by their own experiment (Tell me if I misinterpreted what you were saying) can perfectly convey the folly of man's hubris (If that's what you're going for when this scientist dies). But, on to my main point: Cliches aren't inherently bad. Contrary to popular belief, cliches do not make a story worse simply by existing. Cliches only make a story worse if they have no reason to exist in the story. (For example, if the scientist is saved by their super hot significant other, then the other disappears forever, you might have to ax it). In fact, I would argue that cliches have no effect on the story whatsoever, at least not solely by existing. The only two ways I would concede that cliches effect writing is: A: When cliches are put in solely for the purpose of adding cliches. (See previous point) and B: When cliches are deliberately subverted solely so that you don't have any cliches. (This often leads to some comically inane scenarios where the heroes are saved by some rando without a name. Or it can lead to some really unsatisfying conclusions, where there is no romantic subplot despite there being so much chemistry simply because a lot of other stories have romantic subplots.) TLDR: It's just the stuff in bold. Sorry if this was a bit aggravated, but I'm just really upset with how much I see cliches get bashed among the mainstream consumers. If you couldn't tell, Anyways, good luck with it!
