Writing Death Scenes

Would you prefer a death scene of a character complete with final thoughts and words, and have it be really romanticized, for death at least? Or would you rather have it be more realistic where the character has no time to think up final thoughts and just write out their death plainly and simply? Because with one of my characters' deaths, I tough all the sad inner thoughts, and monologuing would be extremely cliche and instead killed them off like that, as if it were actually happening. Would you recommend this form of writing?

 

It depends on what you're going for. Are you going for a very sad death or a sudden shocking death that impacts all the other characters because it was unexpected. The hardest thing for a survivor is never getting to speak to the person before they died. Are you killing off your main character or a side character?

 

Go for the realistic, what ever you think would be a realistic death. If it's an essential character, you have to include thoughts unless it's the end of the book. That being said there are no absolutes in writing.
But to answer your question, I would want it to be realistic.

 

I have the reader tricked in the beginning that the character it follows for the first thirty pages is the protagonist, but then I kill him off and it switches to another point of view after he dies. If you've ever seen The Place Beyond The Pines, it's like that

 

Hmm, I don't know if I would do that. It's one thing to do it in a movie and another to do it in a book. Readers don't like being tricked (well I don't) I build a quick bond to the first - ish character I meet. If it's like a chapter then no problem but if it goes beyond a chapter I don't know if I would go there. But for all I know it's done a lot but I've never seen that.

Funnily enough I was just doing some research and came across this little article that covers this topic and thought of you so here is the link:
https://writersedit.com/fiction-writing/7-common-mistakes-to-avoid-in-your-first-chapter/

Number 6 is for you but it will all be helpful.

 

I'm always a little annoyed when people say they don't want to write a certain way because they don't want it to sound or look cliched. So the result is either for someone to avoid cliches and go for something that doesn't fit simply for the sake of "originality." Or, if they must use cliches, then they do it in a "self aware" sort of way. They figuratively "wink" at the audience, cracking a joke about the cliche they just used.

Now, don't get me wrong. Both can be done with great effect. Parody is all about making fun of tropes and originality gives a level of excitement. But most of the time these two tactics end up undermining sincerity either by trying too hard with the former or not trying hard enough with the latter.

Case in point: Wonder Woman is one of the best superhero films. Yet, it used every single cliche you can possibly use in a superhero film. Yet, it was a good film anyway because the director Patty Jenkins stated she doesn't like films that feel they have to wink at their audience. And we're all glad she does because what set Wonder Woman apart was its sincerity. It didn't go so far into the absurd that it was impossible to follow, like its predecessor Batman v Superman. Nor did it undermine its own tropes like a whole boat load of Marvel films. In other words, it was unapologetic with its use of tropes and cliches. It didn't care that it wasn't being 100% original. "So what?" It said. "It works."

And "It works" should be the key qualifier. Tangled relied very much on the old tropes of classic Disney films, while Frozen attempted to move away from them. The result? While Frozen is a good movie, its story also contained far more flaws then Tangled. There were some things they did very well (Anna and Elsa's relationship), a few things that were okay, but kind of pointless (Olaf) and many things that just didn't work at all (Hans.)

When it comes to deciding what works and what doesn't, that's the tricky part. Because what works in one type of story, doesn't work in others. Let's take the death of Bruce Wayne's parents in the Tim Burton film and the Christopher Nolan film. These are both playing out the exact same scene, but they are executed completely differently. Tim Burton's interpretation of the event was slow paced and drawn out. It's almost surreal in how its depicted with the camera angles. But Christopher Nolan, it's fast. So fast in fact, you barely had time to even comprehend what just happened.

So which is better? Which is worse? Well, neither. You see the Tim Burton film where the scene is shown is in a flashback. In other words, it's Bruce Wayne looking back. He's drawing on each and every detail of that horrific event to uncover a terrible truth about the evil he now faces today. Christopher Nolan's film is told in the moment. So it's quick. The details aren't that clear. It conveys confusion of the drastic change that can be brought in just a few seconds. A confusion that carried on for the rest of his life.

Both work for the point that each of these directors were trying to convey for their overall story.

 

Reminds me of the movie "My Girl" when the Macauly Culkin character dies after bee stings. Many parents were upset. The character just died, no thoughts from him and the MC just had to deal with it.

 

Like others have said, it really depends on the story you want to tell. I don't think either one is a wrong choice, but both will have their pros and cons. I tend to prefer the realistic death, just because it's more relatable to real life experiences, and makes a bigger emotional punch. Buuut, that doesn't mean I don't favor a rather drawn-out and dramatic death every now and then.

 

I really only write realistic deaths. No heartfelt soliloquies, no fond farewells to friends and family, no memorable last words, people that die suddenly die suddenly. Maybe if someone is dying slowly of cancer, as happens in my current WIP, they might have time to talk to friends and family, but since cancer is a really terrible way to go, even that isn't that realistic.

 

I think it boils down to what your readers will expect. If your character is a main character who just drops dead out of the blue, that might feel too abrupt. On the other hand, if the abruptness is shocking, and the shock is what you want the readers to experience, then go for it.

I think it also matters how the character dies. If a main character dies in bed after a lingering illness, then they'll have had time to think about it, come to terms with it. If they're walking down the street and somebody sneaks up behind them and blows their brains out, spending time with their lingering last thoughts doesn't make sense.

Keep in mind it's the 'effect' of the death that's important when you're writing about it. What effect are you trying to create in the reader? Do you want them to cry? Or get angry? Or blink in disbelief? Or want revenge? Do you want them to think, "Oh NOOO!" Or do you want them to feel the end was inevitable and for the best?

 

Death scenes should happen when it is least expected. When you give the audience such a self-assurance that things are going to be okay, then YOU STRIKE WITH YOUR PEN SCYTHE!!!!

You can play it both... either go for a romanticized way or just go harsh. Depending on what you're looking for. Many important deaths happen somewhere around the middle or almost at the end. A very effective way, especially, if you're writing a series or something, you STRIKE in the beginning. That'll set things in motion in a very shockingly matter.

 

The Departed is the best

 

In the book, "Member Of The Wedding", by Carson McCullers, Frankie just comes home and finds out that John Henry died (the reader knew he fell ill but didn't know what happened to him yet). She wasn't as emotional as you would think she would be (one of the critcisms McCullers got about that piece).

The point McCullers was making though was that Frankie had changed. John Henry was used as a mirror for Frankie, he represented her immaturity. So after she returned home after her ordeal she had "grown up", hence John Henry was dead.

 

I had two death scenes in my last.

One was unexpected, the villain turned hero kills his opponent, but not before suffering a knife wound to the chest. 2000 years ago, sucking chest wound, interior bleeding, collapsed lung, foregone conclusion. He has a friend put his hand on his chest so he can say a few last words, then takes his friend's hand away to let himself go to wherever it is that he may go.

The second is a woman, killing her former consort (NOT lover) in an unexpected confrontation. Wounded herself, she guts him, and he takes some time to die. It is the first person she has killed, and even though he was the worst thing in her life for ten years, for ten years he was the only thing in her life. She did not want to kill him, and tells him so. He doesn't return the favor, says some nasty things and dies.

 

The first death that happens in my fantasy novel happens like this:
A friend of the MC's is captured by an enemy army and manages to say a few things before he's shot by firing squad. Then he bleeds and drops dead on the floor. The MC is saved before the same happens to him.

In case I wasn't clear, the point is: you can have deaths with dialogue without them being unrealistic.

 

I think it comes down to the atmosphere you are trying to evoke. In one of my favourite novels, two of the main characters come home to find another two main characters dead, having been murdered, about two thirds of the way through the book. Definitely had the shock value for me. Remember though, even if they get last words in it doesn't mean it has to be romanticised with them making peace with friends and accepting their death (although scenes like that can have value). Their last words might be about how terrified they are and begging for help which never comes and feeling their desperation. It can be raw, and them being afraid to die or requesting something of a friend in their last moments that their friend knows is undoable can also leave an impact. It also depends how inevitable they perceive their death to be, whether they think they can fix it up until the last moment, whether they die trying to escape and convincing themselves they will, whether they realise the end is nigh and have no choice but to face it or if they don't see it coming at all.

So basically, I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way. Depending on how the character dies, the perspective you are writing the story from and whether you want sadness, frustration, shock, peace etc to be the most prominent emotion (I imagine any death scene will have a mix) will change the most effective way of writing it.

 

Personally I dislike overly long goodbyes or speeches in death scenes. If there's to be any talking, I like short the best, as in just a few words, not even complete sentences. Sometimes just a quick smile from the dying to their love/friend is enough for me. I have a few death scenes I'm working on in my book and they're all silent, one is just a shared look as one character is unable to save another from falling to their death and the others die in heated battle so there's no chance at all for looks or goodbyes of any kind.

 

What would be the purpose of the monologue? If it moves the plot; great. If it is just because you feel the character is owed some final words; nope.

 

I have a scene where one character comforts their dying spouse who has just been shot. There's time for a hand hold and one and a half sentences, then death. The death happens even before the "I love you." Just to make it more of a punch in the guts, and that's it.

For reference both these characters are main characters and this death happens at the end of the second book, and the character who dies is likely the one who seemed to have the strongest plot armour. The death alone will be impactful enough for the readers by that point, it would be undermined if it's dragged out.

 

I think you should consider if the injury gives time before death to have last words and thoughts and if they are relevant to the story going ahead. When an important character dies in anything during the middle of a story their death is always a motivator for the protagonist to do what they need, or the push to realise a situation needs to change.

If the death is for the sake or killing the character off because they now don't have a role further on or they have nothing useful for the protagonist to know then I would axe the finals thoughts and words.

However, the death can be a character building moment.

Overall, the death has to add something to the plot, be a motivator, set up for a dominant character trait, be a reveal for information for the protagonist. It has to offer something to be worth final thoughts and last words.

But still also consider that if they are gushing blood, you've got like two pints, I think it is, before the person loses consciousness or just dies. So they won't have very long for final words, especially is your character isn't right next to them when they get the injury. If it's a blunt force trauma based death, like they fall off a building or a cliff or something, they'll almost definitely be unconscious and thus be unable to talk or think.

 

I would appreciate if death scene had even some realism in it.

Have you ever seen a dead person? Have you touched him/her? Have you kept company to someone important to you while he/she is dying?

Have you seen an animal dying? Been there?

Have you been there when someone or something has been born?

Birth and dying are ultimate experiences. There is something very total that does not exist in "lesser" events. That should be respected.

Go... Find someone who is dying, lonely, without anyone to support him/her in his/her last days. Keep him/her company for his/her last days. Do it at least 4-5 hours a day. Do it with love and respect.

After that you know how to write about dying because you have been there, you have seen that, you have lived those physical and emotional phases.

And you know what is the difference between death and movie death. You don't know it only intellectually but you have lived moments near it.

And if you give your time, respect and company to someone in his/her last days, it makes you better person. It sets your priorities a bit.

In the society of this day, there are many old and lonely persons dying in palliative care places. Ask the crew if you can support any of them.

My mother died because of cancers.

In the end there was no talking, not much thinking. Pain and breathing and comfort of nearest and dearest people... That's what there was.

Breathing was very loud in the last days. If you are in the same room, you start to breath a bit same way. It makes you physically and mentally tired.

You never see in Olympic Games or MMA -combats a fight or combat that is even close to the intensiveness of the last days of fighting against cancer(s).


(My tears make it hard to write this. Hard to see what I write.)

 

Yes, what you say is true. I supported my mother-in-law who died of cancer many years ago (at home here), and it was exactly as you describe.

I remember one of the last things she said to me, before she went into a semi-coma, from which she never emerged. She said: "I can't believe the things I used to worry about."

I was determined then, that those will not be my own last words. That statement put lots of things in perspective for me.

 

No it does not.

It boils down to what your readers don't expect but can't ignore either.

 

My respect to you about being there and supporting.

One must never leave nearest people alone when they have something hard and difficult in their life. Never. You are there if you are needed there.

Dying is a hard and difficult thing.

No matter what you have planned. No matter if it costs you money, time, energy, career possibilities... You keep company and put lesser things aside. And you pay the price it costs you with respect and honour.

Life is about life, not things, not achievements.