# Killing off a character.



## Endymion (Jun 6, 2012)

What purposes does a characters death serve in your story? 
Do you ever create a character with the thought that you will kill him off?
Have you ever made a character likable only so that his death would have an impact on the reader?


----------



## Ophiucha (Jun 6, 2012)

Varies from character to character. The only (important) I've killed in the first draft of my current project is the antagonist. His death is rather somber, with him realizing the extent of his actions and accepting to take on the same curse that plagues the protagonist (werewolfism). Because he's an old and frail man, however, he dies within a few full moons, the transformation basically breaking him. Also, he's a historical character - Pope Urban V - so his death was something of a foregone conclusion if you're well informed on your holy potentates.

I certainly create characters with the intent to kill them. Characters and plot develop rather simultaneously for me, and I don't really write about pointless death. Truthfully, in spite of my generally dark and gritty plots, I often only have one character die, and it is often in a sacrifice sort of way that gives the protagonist (or if it's the protagonist doing the sacrificing, then their loved ones) a victory. It borders on a recurring theme in my works.

Do I make characters likeable so they'll be mourned by the readers? Eh, not really. I mean, some of the characters who die are meant to be liked by the audience, but given my tendency to kill people at the climax of a novel, I make them likeable because they are one of the protagonists and likely a major recurring character, not because I want the audience to care when I kill them off. That's sort of incidental, rather than the intention.

There is one sort of exception, from a piece I did a lot of work on in high school, where instead of playing up a character as particularly likeable, I played up a relationship between the protagonist and his love interest as particularly likeable. The character who "died" (he comes back) is the love interest, and the protagonist works with the antagonists to get him killed during the final battle. It's a gambit: the protagonist knows his love interest will be resurrected as the God of Death (don't ask) and they'll win in the end, but the fact that he neither told his lover about this plan _and _was willing to watch him bleed to death to accomplish it is meant to be the final hint that the protagonist has basically been playing his lover, the antagonists, and even the audience (he narrates the novel) this whole time.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 6, 2012)

I used to plan to kill good characters, but they always, _always_ developed sufficient personality and will to overcome the flaws that would lead to their deaths. At this point, I assume from the start that they'll survive, so the only question is what method they'll use.


----------



## Chilari (Jun 6, 2012)

Generally I don't start out knowing which characters will die, and those who do die do so because the plot demands it. For example, for my current WIP I need one side of the conflict to be at an all-time low, and for my protagonist also to be at a low point. Now, her first husband (believed dead in a war that happened before the story starts, hence the remarriage, but recently returned having spent ages recovering hundreds of miles away), fits the bill perfectly - he is a leader of the resistance, and my main character cares deeply for him. So when he dies it seems like the final nail in the resistance's coffin, and to the protagonist (sort of a fence-sitter in the whole conflict) begins to move towards the resistance's side.

On one of the stories I've got on the backburner, I created a character with a particular actor I like in mind. The character is pretty badass, and becomes something of a leader. This is inconvenient for those who he would have thought would be his allies, and they kill him. This event changes everything. The main characters turn against that faction, where before they were vaguely in favour of them; one character is forced to see to her own safety, where before he protected her; and in terms of the immediate future, since the person who killed my character was a major, and another main character who was a captain serving under the major subsequently shot and killed the major, the main character group involved now have to get past an army to escape, where before they were expecting a smooth rescue.

I avoid creating characters for the sole purpose of killing them. They must have a part to play in the story - even if their death is the part they play. By that I mean, I don't create characters and develop their personalities if they are simply going to be a casualty of war. I will if by their death, others are spurred to action. So in my WIP one character is pretty much a background character for most of the story, but important in society, involved in the resistance and a thorn in the antagonist's side. His death looks accidental - he is found dead outside, surrounded by bottles of alcohol, one winter morning - but many suspect he was poisoned by the antagonist. The resistance suddenly gain quite a lot of support from those in the town who don't think the death was accidental.


----------



## Ireth (Jun 6, 2012)

I've started stories believing that no one will die, only to find out partway through planning that sometimes a death is both inevitable and necessary. Such is the case with one of the protagonists in _Summer's Blood_; originally the death was going to be a fake, but I think it would be that much more powerful if it were real and irreversible. An important character also dies in _Low Road_, but comes back almost immediately due to a clause in his curse that he didn't know about. It has a huge impact on the main character.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 6, 2012)

*What purposes does a characters death serve in your story?*

Purpose? I usually don't know someone's going to die until I begin his death scene. While I'm writing, I don't step outside of the story and become analytical about it. I just roll with it.

*Do you ever create a character with the thought that you will kill him off?*

Sure. It doesn't happen as often, but sometimes the whole story is leading up to a character's death. When I'm certain someone is going to die, there's a good chance it's the main character himself or that the main character causes the death. More often a death occurred before the start of the story and it's still influencing my characters.

*Have you ever made a character likable only so that his death would have an impact on the reader?*

No. I don't try to have an impact on the reader. Rather, I make the events have an impact on the characters and hope the reader relates to what the characters are going through. It's similar but done in a roundabout way. Trying to make a character likeable just to make his end tragic or poignant isn't my style. I need it to be more organic and genuine. Besides, I'd need to make a new character because I don't change their personalities on a whim.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jun 6, 2012)

Endymion said:


> What purposes does a characters death serve in your story?



Oh, lots of things. It really depends on the story.

I think the important thing is that the character's death _does_ serve a purpose in the story. If there is something I can't stand, it's random character death.



> Do you ever create a character with the thought that you will kill him off?



Frankly, the _only _characters I kill are the ones I invented for that exact purpose.



> Have you ever made a character likable only so that his death would have an impact on the reader?



Nah. I try to make my characters likable so that their deaths will have an impact on my _other _characters.


----------



## Kreigsbane (Jun 7, 2012)

I love the dramas that Shakespeare wrote, so indeed I have created several important characters that I did or intended to kill off. The death is what moves me lol


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 10, 2012)

I have one charactor that I have killed off quite a few times but I keep sending an agent back in time to save him time after time because important people like him.  He is young and brave and foolish.


----------



## Tasha (Jun 10, 2012)

I've killed one character so far who was minor..ish but yeah. Also have one of my mains (I have 3 POV characters) dying at the end of book one. They were supposed to live but yeah.... not gonna happen it seems lol


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Jun 10, 2012)

I absolutely hate it when I read something and can tell that certain characters were just there to die. It makes their existence and deaths have almost no significance and it makes the author look lazy.I also can't stand it when people are dying left and right. I can understand it if it is a violent novel but it gets old and the dying looses it's "effect"

I don't believe that the main good characters have to die either. Sometimes I'll be reading and a character randomly does and I am like, "wait what?" You know what I mean; when a character dies and there was no real reason for them to? I can't stand that.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 10, 2012)

I take Joss Whedon's view of character death: Give a well-liked character a traumatic story arc, and then just when things are getting back to normal, kill them off. (See: Tara, Wash.)


----------



## Tasha (Jun 11, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> I don't believe that the main good characters have to die either. Sometimes I'll be reading and a character randomly does and I am like, "wait what?" You know what I mean; when a character dies and there was no real reason for them to? I can't stand that.



If that was aimed at me killing off one of my MC's believe me it was no easy feat letting such a character go. The character is my favourite. It just naturally happened and felt needed which made the story all that much better and believable in a sense.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 11, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I take Joss Whedon's view of character death: Give a well-liked character a traumatic story arc, and then just when things are getting back to normal, kill them off. (See: Tara, Wash.)



Since I haven't read your work, I can't comment on exactly how you approach this, but I'm not fond of how Whedon uses character death (or at least how he used it before I gave up watching his work.)

[Lecture]You could make a lot of categories for deaths, but two of the most satisfying are the tragic (a term I know) and the triumphant (a term I'm making up because I don't know the formal one.) In the tragic death, a character is brought low because of his or her flaws. In the triumphant death, a character passes on as the price of their success in a worthy goal. These terms can easily be muddled (what do you call it if a cowardly character eventually becomes brave enough to sacrifice himself for the group?), but both imply death as a fitting conclusion to an arc.

In what I watched of _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_, none of the heroes died tragically, and few died triumphantly. Rather, their deaths seem to be because Whedon didn't have any more plots for them, and he decided they were expendable. Now, _this could still work_ in a series with an overarching goal, but in _Buffy_, it was obvious from the start that the world could never be permanently saved, and any interest the viewers could take in the series was rooted in the character development. If a character's death is not a result of his or her development, then death renders all of that development moot, and since there was no goal for the characters to die triumphantly for, death rapidly became meaningless. (_This could also work_ in a story about futility and purposelessness, like _All Quiet on the Western Front_, but let's face it--a show about a teenage girl tossing off snarky one-liners while killing big ugly monsters can't be justified in terms of high art. Alternately, we could talk about the use of character death to move the arcs of other characters, but the only time I can remember that happening was with Willow and Tara--even Jenny Calendar was forgotten after just a few episodes.)[/Lecture]

Again, I haven't read your writing, and you may well approach character death better than Whedon, but I don't think he's a good reference point to use--he basically utilizes the smaller-scale equivalent of "The dog wasn't _that_ shaggy."


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> Again, I haven't read your writing, and you may well approach character death better than Whedon, but I don't think he's a good reference point to use--he basically utilizes the smaller-scale equivalent of "The dog wasn't _that_ shaggy."



I don't have a problem with other forms of character death (triumphant/tragic as you describe), it's just that I've seen that so many times that other mechanisms are refreshing. It's also part of why I like A Song of Ice and Fire; GRRM kills off characters because _that's what would logically happen_, rather than because the character has Achieved A Story Point. Ned dies neither tragically nor heroically; in fact he wasn't even _supposed_ to die, except Joffrey's a twit. The Red Wedding happens _because_ of a certain person's impulsive decision, but it still could have been avoided.

Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate a good tragic/triumphant death, I just don't think there's any requirement that important characters always die in one of those two ways. Anya dies (in the Buffy finale) semi-triumphantly and semi-tragically; she's fighting to defend the world, but she's not any good at it (she has no special powers). Jenny Calendar dies in the Joss way (and man, was that traumatic). Actually, I think Joss's approach to death is similar to GRRM's in some cases; Jenny Calendar died in a way that would fit perfectly into a GRRM story.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 11, 2012)

Like I said, the "what would logically happen" sort of death fits really well with stories like _All Quiet on the Western Front_, so if you're writing that sort of story, it makes sense. I guess it fits with Joss Whedon's style if Whedon is much, much more serious than I give him credit for. (I always took _Buffy_ as inherently ridiculous, but that might be a mistake on my part.)


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 11, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> Like I said, the "what would logically happen" sort of death fits really well with stories like _All Quiet on the Western Front_, so if you're writing that sort of story, it makes sense. I guess it fits with Joss Whedon's style if Whedon is much, much more serious than I give him credit for. (I always took _Buffy_ as inherently ridiculous, but that might be a mistake on my part.)



Interesting question. Joss's work deals with serious issues in a typically lighthearted way, but there are plenty of dark, serious moments. The whole idea behind Buffy was to subvert the "brainless blonde fleeing from monsters" trope found in horror. She's a brainless blonde who is more powerful than the monsters; they flee from _her_.

The show, at least in its first three seasons, was a pretty straightforward metaphor for the monstrous things we face in high school. Pairing that with really sharp writing and good performances was what made it such a beloved show. It of course has the limitations of its format: Can't kill off characters all the time, needs to be fairly episodic (but with some serialized drama -- moreso in later seasons), limited by the S&P of being on network TV, and so on. But it gave us great characters and a lot of really good drama. The window dressing was kind of silly (vampires! demons! high school!) but the stories were not.


----------



## Chilari (Jun 12, 2012)

Indeed; the musical episode in season 6 was one of the silliest episodes, but it dealt with some pretty serious issues, like trust and people doing what they think is best for a loved one when actually it isn't.


----------



## topazfire (Jun 12, 2012)

Endymion said:


> What purposes does a characters death serve in your story?
> Do you ever create a character with the thought that you will kill him off?
> Have you ever made a character likable only so that his death would have an impact on the reader?



Since death is a natural part of life (unless your characters are immortal and that is another issue), the death of certain characters, for me, lends to the realism of the story. There is a curse in my story that causes a certain group of people to die (one at a time, so the society is only seeing the pattern many years later) and the death of these people creates a fear, as well as many superstitions to ward off the curse. Death plays a very prominent role in the story, but death from the curse is treated very differently from death in battle, or death in old age and accidents. 

Due to the curse, I have had to create characters with the purpose of killing them off. I have other characters (one who dies in battle) that I created as an awesome big brother kind of character and then realized later that he would die and his death would have a big impact on the main character. 

Since I am still in the first draft of the story, I have not thought about making characters (of any kind) for the reader. I am writing it for myself (and a couple of friends) right now. The most important thing for me right now is the relationship between the characters and how the death of one would impact the others.


----------



## Alva (Jun 29, 2012)

Ghost said:


> *Have you ever made a character likable only so that his death would have an impact on the reader?*
> 
> No. I don't try to have an impact on the reader. Rather, I make the events have an impact on the characters and hope the reader relates to what the characters are going through. It's similar but done in a roundabout way. Trying to make a character likeable just to make his end tragic or poignant isn't my style. I need it to be more organic and genuine. Besides, I'd need to make a new character because I don't change their personalities on a whim.



Well said.



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> _that's what would logically happen_
> [...]rather than because the character has Achieved A Story Point.



And I also agree.

Of course pure incidents do happen - even in fiction! - but in many stories character deaths take place because of some "human" reasoning or motivations. In other words, the characters are making choices and these choices affect their (or somebody else's) life. For example somebody might wish for their death (or they themselves do) or then they could realize that in certain situation only through their death they can they achieve something truly meaningful for them. To save someone's life, for instance.

The choices they make are likely to be affected by imperfect reasoning (emotions often times cause such thing), but the outcomes of their action should at least appear logical.

What comes to tragic or heroic "special" deaths as plot devices, I'm not personally a fan of those in my own writing. Many of my characters have died due to natural reasons: old age, illness or by an accident. If there is a tragic tone to be found, it is mostly in these cases caused by the people they leave behind, not added there mechanically only to create tension. No one’s (life and) death should be regarded as unimportant, and even the loss of a complete foreigner should awake some kinds of feelings in another sentient being.

Different thing is _what_ kinds of feelings death raises.
Even inside my written work I hope to achieve the sense that different persons may have extremely different perspectives towards death and dying. When one person considers dying as a scary or even unfair curse of life, another person may view nearly all kinds of death being simply part of the natural cycle of life. Unpleasant, even saddening... but inevitable.



Feo Takahari said:


> [Lecture]You could make a lot of categories for deaths, but two of the most satisfying are the tragic (a term I know) and the triumphant (a term I'm making up because I don't know the formal one.) In the tragic death, a character is brought low because of his or her flaws. In the triumphant death, a character passes on as the price of their success in a worthy goal. These terms can easily be muddled (what do you call it if a cowardly character eventually becomes brave enough to sacrifice himself for the group?), but both imply death as a fitting conclusion to an arc.



Hm. I personally think that the type of tragedy _"character [being] brought low because of his or her flaws"_ is far from the only type of tragedy there is. Losing a parent or both in a sudden car accident is usually considered tragic, for instance. I'm meaning that at times the character flaws have nothing to do with the birth of tragedy.

Instead, deep emotions like tragedy and sadness could be left for the reader's "own responsibility". An alert reader who has spent time to learn to know the character, and who has been given enough information on the character's motivations and previous incidents in life to understand the character, also should be able to detect a tragedy on their own. For instance the reader might instantly realize that due to the unexpected car crash, the character has now forever lost their change to fulfill a longtime dream of theirs (or something).

In comparision to the Aristotelian tragedy and its study of harmony, unsatisfactory tragedy can be made truly unsatisfactory. And striking.


----------



## Ireth (Jun 29, 2012)

Alva said:


> No one’s (life and) death should be regarded as unimportant, and even the loss of a complete foreigner should awake some kinds of feelings in another sentient being.



Makes me think of a scene in the _Lord of the Rings_ novel when Sam Gamgee sees the dead body of an Easterling soldier, long-time enemies of Gondor and Rohan, and wonders who he was and where he came from, whether he wanted to be part of the war or if he was being forced into it.


----------



## Alva (Jun 29, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Makes me think of a scene in the _Lord of the Rings_ novel when Sam Gamgee sees the dead body of an Easterling soldier, long-time enemies of Gondor and Rohan, and wonders who he was and where he came from, whether he wanted to be part of the war or if he was being forced into it.



I find these kinds of scenes incredibly humane. : ) Especially when considering the war and the endless battles going on... all the faceless deaths the violence produces.

Sam was one of my favourite characters in _The Lord of the Rings_, by the way.


----------



## ProfessorBrainfever (Jun 29, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Makes me think of a scene in the _Lord of the Rings_ novel when Sam Gamgee sees the dead body of an Easterling soldier, long-time enemies of Gondor and Rohan, and wonders who he was and where he came from, whether he wanted to be part of the war or if he was being forced into it.



This might have already been touched upon, but it might say something about your characters or their culture if they don't respond in the way Sam does.

It's hard when writing my NiP, because death is quite different to the Ancient Romans. Much more commonplace, and in many ways much more honorable than other possible fates.


----------



## Alva (Jun 29, 2012)

ProfessorBrainfever said:


> This might have already been touched upon, but it might say something about your characters or their culture if they don't respond in the way Sam does.
> 
> It's hard when writing my NiP, because death is quite different to the Ancient Romans. Much more commonplace, and in many ways much more honorable than other possible fates.



Very true.

Cultural contexts matter a great deal on the general perspective and opinion of the population. Or let's say: _culturally acquired perspective_ and _generally accepted opinion_. Even in the times of Ancient Rome I doubt everyone felt the same way about sacrificing human lives for the sake of great spectacle, fame, politics and money (if we consider for instance gladiator fights). There always seems to be found nonconformists in any given human population. : )

The short, personal observation Sam makes, tells a great deal about his character. It adds not only depth to the story but also (and especially) to the character. I believe the important word here is "contrast".

And yes, one of the interesting parts of fantasy writing is to explore new cultural concepts and thus for instance ethical and moral codes, customs related to death and beliefs people shared concerning on death and dying. Amongst other things.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 29, 2012)

Taking off from what Ben said earlier, killing off characters indiscriminately (especially a really likable character) can go a long way towards making a reader attach themselves emotionally to the surviving characters.

As a reader, if I know that any character could die at any time, it not only makes the story seem more real to me but it also can really increase the tension of the entire story. I can't sit back, content with the knowledge that this character or that one will survive based on their role as a protagonist or supporting character. Any of them can die at any time. If done well, that always hooks me. I try to aspire to the same in my writing.


----------



## Struddles (Jun 29, 2012)

Personally I love killing off characters but it has to fit the situation.  One character I have created at the moment because I know where his story arc will finish and he will die because his ending fits the situation.  It's something I'm still internally debating as he is not the main character but one of the characters I love.

The thought of killing people is horrid and I can see how a reader dislikes people dying but if their deaths fit in the situations then it is what it is.  Every character is capable of dying it is a fact of life and if your character is constantly at risk they will not only face death but most likely face severe injuries.  What annoys me more than anything else are characters in some books I've read appear invulnerable never getting hurt never being harmed other then emotionally and it's bothersome.  Yes it sucks to write a story and have your main character in the hospital but for the love of all things good people break and get injured.

Killing people off is not always necessary but don't make them invulnerable.  That's my gripe on the topic.  Killing a character is doable but if you don't want to kill a character they can sustain extreme injuries.  Remember the body is exceptionally resilient it is meant to keep you alive every way it possibly can.  Everything inside your body is geared to keeping your heart pumping and keeping you alive.  Also sometimes there is nothing better then putting a character in a situation that feels absolutely hopeless and then pulling them back from the brink of that hopelessness in a grace or manner that whilst reading books I've literally stood up and cheered.

I think my favorite thing is putting people in a book/movie that you just look at them and say damn I love them so much I know they aren't going to make it though and then at the end of it they are standing shoulder to shoulder with the main character and I just can't help but say, "**** Ya!"


----------

