Will killing off a character's dog alienate your readers forever? I was thinking of having the villain try to poison a certain character with botulism-tainted food, but I worry that that would mess up my plot. But if the character's dog eats it instead . . . that would keep the rumble of tension going for the reader, without tipping the hero off as to what the villain is up to. Or so I think. But I love dogs. And a lot of people love dogs. Passionately. And offing Fido might be the last taboo.
Make sure the dog's death is avenged, I think that will make your readers feel better. In the movie John Wick, the dog's death was avenged and it made me feel better, so I think as long as something bad happens to whoever killed the dog, you'll be okay.
Normally I'd say a villain killing an animal is pretty generic, since it's a cliche as hell way to show how "evil" someone is. But since that's not what's happening here, it being accidental, fine. Go for it. Even then, my only concern with "villain killing animal" is the generic/contrived way it usually happens to make the villain hated. Most people love dogs, sure. Most people also love another human being but fiction kills those off left and right. If it works for the story, do it. Not wanting to kill off an animal in a story where humans' lives are also at risk feels a bit "precious" to me.
I don't read doggie snuff. Won't touch it. That said... I think there's a difference between a dog who's been a character in the book getting killed and a dog who's just a plot device getting killed. If you haven't spent a lot of time on the dog, haven't given him much personality, I could probably handle the death. Although I'd be keeping an eye on you for future infractions....
Catrin Lewis, I think you are right in that killing a pet dog in a story can have implications that are often different than a human character getting killed. If it doesn't read as superfluous--such as advancing the plot--and, as been said above, is avenged or has severe repercussions for the offender, it should work out. However, readers can be fickle about animals suffering or dying, so while it may go off enhance reader interest, it could do the opposite. In the end it all depends on the story and how the event is relayed and followed up on. What you're doing right, I think, is not having the dog killed to simply have an 'impact on/shock' the reader or to 'keep things moving.'
I once broke off a movie I was watching because the protagonist got a kitten as a 'present', but it was pretty obvious that the kitten wouldn't stay around. That said: I agree with @BayView that, as long as the animal is 'generic' and the death was unintended, I'd be alright. If the protagonist went and intended the death of the dog, he'd have lost my sympathy. Says the one who writes/reads war with all its nasty collateral damage
You will absolutely lose a group of readers who wont stand for animal deaths. The size will probably vary based on your intended reader though. I'd do a cost analsys, how impactful would the death be to your readers vs. how many readers would you lose. Spoiler: I am Legend spoiler. Though, by reading this thread you've probably figured out that... oh well. The dog death in I am Legend had me messed up for a while, but I felt more for the main character because of it.
I'm about as animal crazy as it gets. I don't read animal deaths - as soon as it's clear one's coming, I'll skim until it's over - but it doesn't put me off the book (unless it happens more than once) or the author.
It amazing how attached people are to stupid pets; and seemingly as a result become detached to their fellow humans. That cheeseburger you ate yesterday, a cow was slaughtered so you could be fed. By proxy, you've slaughtered pigs, cows and chickens by the score. You shouldn't be so squeamish about such things. I say go ahead and off the dog.
You'll evoke emotion in me. Especially if you describe the dog prior, and I've grown fond of it. Even in stories, pets and kids are more sacred than bankers and housewives - something to do with natural selection, I suspect. I've written a few dog stories in my life, and one or two have met their demise. I won't discourage you from doing it, but I can't promise I'll like the story. It depends on the rest of the story and whether the dog's death has a means to an end.
There is not a person alive who loves animals (especially dogs) more than I do. And I would still read it, the way you've presented it. I shot an extremely loved dog in my first novel. Now, I couldn't kill him off, because I just couldn't, so he lived, but there was no other way for my character to be taken. The dog would have died for her, and that had been clearly shown, so he had to get hurt. *ETA - and, as one guy who read it said "Somebody randomly chopped onions in my living room when you let him get shot*
As @Walking Dog said, you'll evoke emotion in me if you kill off the dog, but I don't think it would automatically ruin the book for me, as long as the death wasn't pointless or particularly cruel.
It's a really good idea - if you feel your story is flagging. It gives you a whole sense of plot as a writer, and hook... The alternative is the tortoise and bonfire escape [in fiction].
I think it sounds like a good idea. I think it would work well as a plot device, and I've definitely seen it being done (albeit in different circumstances) before in a book. The dog belonged to a minor character and had never really been presented as anything much other than smelly by the narrator. The minor character, however, loved the dog, and so when her husband threw it off a cliff to make her think that she was going crazy, it both advanced the subplot it was attached to and also wasn't so depressing that it put me off the story. (The novel I'm referencing is A Leap of Faith by Trisha Ashley.)
It could be a good opportunity to give your villain some depth as a character. How they react to the death of the pet could give them that touch of relatability that most of my favourite villains seem to have.