# Main Character Dies in the End:  OK?



## Philip Overby (Mar 14, 2013)

I just got finished watching a kind of silly movie.  It doesn't matter what it is, but basically the main character dies in the end.  I want to pose a question:  is this a truly acceptable way to end a story?

I wonder the same thing in fantasy fiction.  I'm not sure how often this happens as I don't think I've read any where the main character died for sure.  What are your opinions about this?  

My thoughts are what is really the point of the story if the main character just dies in the end?  It makes sense if he is sacrificing himself for some great good or something, but this type of ending just seems like a lazy way to end a story (for the most part).  I'm sure there are really awesome stories that end with the main character dying.  Maybe none are coming to mind for me at the moment.


----------



## Sparkie (Mar 14, 2013)

*BIG TIME SPOILERS HERE!!!*




Spoiler: undefined



_Cowboy Bebop._

_The Sandman_ by Neil Gaiman.

While neither one of these stories are presented in prose, both of these stories show something noteworthy.  Both of these tales feature main protagonists that die in the end, and I would argue that these deaths are not frivolous, nonsensical, or meaningless.  In both cases the characters essentially *choose* death because their own nature compels it.  It's a matter of character, not just melodramatic tragedy.

Here's another example:  Rorschach from _Watchmen._  His refusal to compromise leads to his demise.  (Is the rhyme too much?  Whatever.)  Alan Moore has stated that he didn't know Rorschach was going to die until he was halfway done writing the story.  Then it hit him:  If Rorschach would not budge, his death would be the only option.

If a given protagonist's personality traits concievably lead him to to die, I can accept it.  When a main character is killed needlessly, however, it cheapens the story as a whole.

Just my opinion.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Mar 14, 2013)

Sparkie said:


> When a main character is killed needlessly, however, it cheapens the story as a whole.



I would say: if ANY character is killed needlessly, it cheapens the story as a whole.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 14, 2013)

Let me give a story that I think does this well:

The protagonist is a former political prisoner who's arguably been driven mad by the torture he's undergone. He wants to destroy the government, and to do so he's more than willing to kill and torture anyone who gets in his way. He dies fighting, but his actions lead to the creation of a new society. It's strongly implied that he _has_ to die, because his violent methods have rendered him incapable of living in the utopia he wishes to create.

And a story that does this badly:

The protagonist is a monster with razor-sharp claws, living alone in the sewers. "Rats were her only friends." *Slash* *Gulp* "Rats were her only food."  One day, she finds a badly wounded boy unconscious in the sewers, and nurses him back to health. When he wakes up, he sees that she's a monster, and he tries to run away. She tries to grab him and stop him, and her claws tear him to pieces. In shock and horror, she claws herself apart.

To my view, the reason the first story succeeds and the second story fails is that in the first, something actually changes. In the second, no one will know or remember this monster that tried to be human. In the first, the rebel is similarly not remembered--his real name has long since been lost--but his actions make a difference.

(There's an alternate lens to this--tragedy is typically considered meaningful if the protagonist's failure springs from his own flaws. This also applies to the first example more than the second, since the second story's protagonist doesn't have an obvious "flaw." However, I'm not fond of tragedy, so I don't look at it like that.)


----------



## Sparkie (Mar 14, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> To my view, the reason the first story succeeds and the second story fails is that in the first, something actually changes. In the second, no one will know or remember this monster that tried to be human. In the first, the rebel is similarly not remembered--his real name has long since been lost--but his actions make a difference.



Change has something to do with it.

*MORE SPOILERS!!!*



Spoiler: undefined



In _The Sandman,_ for instance, Morpheus begins to feel himself beginning to change after his experiences in the beginning of the story.  He doesn't care for it.  In fact, he dislikes the notion to the point of engaging in a course of action that he knows can only lead to his death as a consequence.


----------



## Rob P (Mar 14, 2013)

IMO the need for a main character or protagonist to die has to serve not just any old purpose but a central element of the story. Would the story be altered at an intrinsic level if he/she didn't die? If the answer to that is no or not really then their death is not suitable.

One of my main characters gets killed off about halfway through my story. He was a really strong character but the need to drive another's character towards betrayal was even stronger and so he had to go. That betrayal was the catalyst for a pivotal moment in the story.


----------



## wordwalker (Mar 14, 2013)

I think the theme we're seeing here is theme, that is, a character's purpose. Someone sacrificing himself for a cause is good, if the story makes any effort to make the cause interesting. (It doesn't even have to be the main cause in the story; one of Sparkie's examples is of someone who'd rather destroy world peace than let it be built on a lie, so the reader's partly relieved when the guy's shut down.)

Or the classic tragedy does the same thing with a negative: by clearly showing MacBeth causes all that carnage through ambition (or Oedipus by believing he could have a life when the oracles were out to get him, sigh), you make the statement that if people would control their (whichever) more the world would be a better place.

Like Feo says about his "accidental clawing" monster: her death doesn't change anything, except the wasted lives of her and the boy. People have written stories like that and called them tragedies, but they don't lead to anything more than "sometimes life is that awful, and so people suffer." Now if she'd been _made_ a monster by her own evil experiments and this was her final comeuppance, or she survived and her victim's brother learned to forgive her, that would mean something.

But without that purpose, or meaning, or change, it doesn't feel like a complete story. Just life.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Mar 14, 2013)

Since this thread is inspired by you watching a movie, I'll just come right out and say it: the main character dying seems to be a norm in Asian film. I think all of the films I have in mind fall under the You've-Seen-It or You'll-Never-See-It categories, so the spoiler tags are purely for decorum.



Spoiler: Lust.Caution



Ang Lee's _Lust.Caution_ is probably an example of an ending where the hero dies because that's the "realistic" outcome. No good comes out of her death, so you just walk away with this empty feeling that she was a fool to fall in love with China's Benedict Arnold and that Ang Lee tricked you into taking your wife to a pornographic film.





Spoiler: Akira



My brother just started art school (1990s) and was told that anime was awesome. I knew nothing about anime other than Golgo 13 thanks to the NES game. (I'm 40.) So we watched and this _Akira_ eventually swallowed his girlfriend, crushing her in what I consider to this day to be one of the most disturbing animations I've ever seen, but he spared his other friends before destroying the rest of Japan. Thanks to _Akira,_ I hated anime until I found out they're not all like that.

The raised question that can never be satisfactorily answered: why the hell did I waste two hours of my life watching an unstoppable protagonist not be stopped? Sparing his friends was no consolation since they were unrelatable idiots. The girlfriend who died horribly (and maybe naked) was the only endearing character. Sorry... I don't know if _Akira_ is still famous, but it pissed me off.





Spoiler: Cowboy Bebop



Ths is the tragic hero-dies ending that did it for me. Spike didn't have to die to shut down the Red Dragon syndicate. He just didn't care about living now that Julia was dead. He went out in a blaze of glory, and after watching that last episode for the first time, I restarted the second half so I could see that battle again. _Cowboy Bebop_ has, by far, the best ending of any anime that I know of!





Spoiler: Watchmen



The rare American film in which the hero (it's Rorschach--no arguing!) and 15 million or so innocent people die. And Rorschach's secret does not die with him thanks to the journal, so Earth is doomed. But, dammit, Rorschach stuck to his principles, and if Dr. Manhattan wasn't running around naked being "lawful neutral," everything would have been fine.

I liked this story though I suppose Rorschach and several major cities not getting blown to bits would have been happier.



So on film, I think I can enjoy any tragic ending as long as I get satisfaction out of what the hero died for or died doing. I think that's the key, there has to be something satisfying and true to the character.

I can't think of a novel that ended with a hero death--not the main character anyway, but I think the same rule applies. If I'm going to spend several hours--or days*--with a main character, I better get some satisfaction out of the ending if s/he dies! Short Stories, you can "make me think" about the horrible tragedy I just read. Novels, I demand satisfaction!

[SUB]*Of course, days! I have three kids, so the days of finishing novels in one sitting are limited, MAYBE, to those I spend on a plane.[/SUB]


----------



## Chilari (Mar 14, 2013)

I agree that a character death which results in nothing changing is empty. There's a bleakness to it which is depressing, which I think is why we don't like reading it. But I don't think change resulting from the death - be it in the direction the plot is heading or in the characters left to pick up the pieces - is the be all and end all. If the character's death is right at the end, we won't see the changes that follow, necessarily, so there needs to be something else to it to prevent it being unsatisfying. If what precedes it in the story makes the death inevitable, then it works even if nothing changes. By which I mean, the character arc or plotline needs to be such that there can be no option but death by the end, whether through the character's flaws or the inescapability of their fate.

For example, if Frodo and Sam had died on Mount Doom as the volcano erupted at the end of Lord of the Rings, I don't think that would have been a bad ending, because really, they shouldn't have a way out. They both sort of know they won't be coming back. And they physically wouldn't have been able to escape if it weren't for Gandalf and those blasted eagles Tolkein likes to much (worst part of Middle Earth, those eagles - to the point where, since the Hobbit movie, my fiance has been refering to incidents of Deus Ex Machina as Eagles instead).


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 14, 2013)

Sometimes, the meaningless of death, and ultimately the death of the main character, is a significant and powerful point of the story.

I can't even mention the title of the work without making the prior statement a spoiler for it. It's a classic - click below and take your chances 



Spoiler: unnamed



Anyone read All Quiet on the Western Front? Great book.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Mar 14, 2013)

It happens with reasonable frequency in non-genre books & movies (e.g. Leaving Las Vegas, Sunset Boulevard) so it seems like it should be okay in genre as well if done right.  

Every time I've seen it in non-genre stories, the main character's death only occasionally solves a plot problem ("he sacrifices himself to save the world"); it's more common that it advances the development of another character who is also important to the story ("his death helps her realize something meaningful about herself").  In most cases the death is telegraphed from a long way off as at least a possible or plausible outcome for the character, so it fits naturally into the story the author is telling and doesn't outrage the reader as a cheap/easy out.

In terms of fantasy & sci-fi, Stephen R. Donaldson wrote a series where the MC gets killed in the end; the MC's death both resolves a plot problem and advances the development of another character.  I can't think of any others except Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series (but revivification is common in Brust's world so it's not a big deal that the MC gets killed occasionally).  I don't count GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire -- until he kills Tyrion, Dany or Jon Snow, I'm taking the position that he hasn't killed his main character.

There are some very good works in the apocalyptic disaster genre where everybody dies in the end.  I'd say these are special cases trying to explore specific themes and not necessarily an example of "MC dies at the end" as you have framed it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 14, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> Every time I've seen it in non-genre stories, the main character's death only occasionally solves a plot problem ("he sacrifices himself to save the world"); it's more common that it advances the development of another character who is also important to the story ("his death helps her realize something meaningful about herself").  In most cases the death is telegraphed from a long way off as at least a possible or plausible outcome for the character, so it fits naturally into the story the author is telling and doesn't outrage the reader as a cheap/easy out.



I've read way too many of these stories, and I'm starting to find them kind of sickening. They keep setting it up like some kind of blood sacrifice--this person needs to die to make everyone else's lives better--and that feels way too _The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas_ for me. (This is particularly common in Christian fiction, either to mimic Christ on the cross, or because "everything happens for a reason"--but Christ sacrificed himself so others wouldn't have to, and some things happen for no discernible reason at all.)


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Mar 14, 2013)

> I've read way too many of these stories, and I'm starting to find them kind of sickening. They keep setting it up like some kind of blood sacrifice--this person needs to die to make everyone else's lives better--and that feels way too The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas for me. (This is particularly common in Christian fiction, either to mimic Christ on the cross, or because "everything happens for a reason"--but Christ sacrificed himself so others wouldn't have to, and some things happen for no discernible reason at all.)



A fair point and I can appreciate that this kind of setup can be a cliche in itself.  I will note that the "development" of the surviving character doesn't necessarily have to be positive.  William Holden's death in Sunset Boulevard isn't exactly uplifting or life affirming for anyone.  Leaving Las Vegas is in my mind about two losers finding a little bit of grace in each other; the MC's death is a natural part of the story progression and its impact on the other character is somewhat ambiguous (though it has hopeful notes).

I agree that clearly setting it up like a blood sacrifice can be obnoxious and if it's coming across that way it's probably been handled poorly.


----------



## Filk (Mar 14, 2013)

I don't see why not. If it fits and if that is where your story leads you, then do it. Don't be afraid to kill your characters; if you want the reader feeling a bad taste in their mouth at the unfairness of the world, then do it. Reality is a gritty, nasty place and I do not read books to be lulled into complacency; I don't like to be cheated by a sappy ending. I like putting a book down and saying "what the f!" at some nasty hook thrown in the end. Sometimes happy endings are boring and the fact that everyone is okay bothers me. Other times it seems fitting. Take your story where it leads you.


----------



## Jamber (Mar 14, 2013)

In the end is fine once in a while. There are some points you can't make without it.
In the middle is problematic.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 14, 2013)

I think it's fine as long as you follow certain guidelines:

1. The death has to fit the story.
2. The death has to be meaningful.
3. The author needs to seriously consider the impact on the reading experience/enjoyment.


----------



## Nihal (Mar 14, 2013)

As a reader, it doesn't bother me if the character dies a death that won't change the world, solve the plot, etc. It's tragic, yeah, sometimes s**t happens.


----------



## The_Everlasting (Mar 14, 2013)

I think as long as the main character's death is preceded by a damn good story it's alright. There's been several books and movies I've read that the main character dies in the end- hell, there's even been books and movies I've seen where I've said "that would have been better if he/she would have died in the end." It's all about the story leading up to it. I'll openly admit it, I like it when the main character dies in the end. Even thought about ending my novel like that, but it has to fit. Timing is everything, even when you're the one creating it....


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Mar 14, 2013)

It will work if it has a purpose and relates to the theme and tone of the story. Doing it just to do it is not advisable.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 14, 2013)

I think the reason this particular movie annoyed me was because it was one of those "we've trapped ourselves like rats and now we have to just kill as many people as we can before we die."  The characters weren't noble or sacrificing themselves for the greater good, they were just killing people "they didn't like."  That's why the movie kind of rang hollow for me.  It was just kind of like, "Oh...OK..."


----------



## Chime85 (Mar 14, 2013)

I have written three endings to my story (before I have written the full story!) One of those endings, involves killing off the MC. I admit, it is by no stretch of the imagination, an easy choice. However, It does serve its purpose. In the simplest form, it reminds the readers that the MC is not invincible, that he or she can fail in their task. 
While personally, they may not reach their goal, others in the story may succeed.


----------



## psychotick (Mar 16, 2013)

Hi,

I've dealt with this in my writing. In Dragon I had to write three endings. I wrote the first one, the glorious death (well not really so glorious but the inevitable consequence of his struggles) because it was the right ending. He had achieved his goals, his life from that point on would have been meaningless.

Then I couldn't do it because I loved the MC too much by then. It seemed heartbreaking. And a very long time ago I had read Shipwreck by Charles Logan, and I remember absolutely hating that ending. I didn't want my readers to feel the same wrath. 

So I wrote the second ending, the happy ending. Parades, happy people, families reunited, universe at peace, all that sort of stuff. And I couldn't do it. It was just so sickening. Besides, it was wrong. The guy had literally destroyed himself to get to the end, he had nothing left. So survival just didn't work.

So in desperation I wrote the third ending, the cliffhanger (except that if he lives or dies it doesn't really matter.) What matters is that he had achieved his goals. So he ends up lying on the foot of the battleship having open heart surgery performed on him by a mech, his life in the balance, but accepting of whatever fate befalls him. And that's what went in the book.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 16, 2013)

Do people's opinions change if the death comes at the end of a series instead of a novel?

Does it cross over into, "I'm really really really involved in this person and have been for 3/7/10+ novels and YOU KILLED HIM/HER/OTHER!"


----------



## Ankari (Mar 16, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Do people's opinions change if the death comes at the end of a series instead of a novel?
> 
> Does it cross over into, "I'm really really really involved in this person and have been for 3/7/10+ novels and YOU KILLED HIM/HER/OTHER!"



I don't think it matters the placement of the character so much as how emotionally invested readers are into that character.  Good examples are:



Spoiler: I give away two deaths



Eddard Stark (ASOIF) and Coltaine (Malazan Book of the Fallen).  Eddard Stark died halfway through the first novel and Coltaine died at the end of the novel he's featured in.



You can have characters that are present for 7 novels.  If the reader isn't invested into them, it doesn't matter when they die.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 16, 2013)

Ankari said:


> You can have characters that are present for 7 novels.  If the reader isn't invested into them, it doesn't matter when they die.



But does the investment grow if you've watched the character develop over the course of 7 novels and the author is effective? 

I've never shied away from killing off main characters, and I hope I avoid any comic book temptations of bringing them back to life unless that was the plan all along, although I do bring back two people in Book 2 that died in Book 1 – one as undead and one that never really died.

Not really a spoiler since like a BUNCH of people died in Book 1...unless that's a spoiler?


----------



## Ankari (Mar 16, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> But does the investment grow if you've watched the character develop over the course of 7 novels and the author is effective?



_If_ the author is effective, then yes.  You're giving them a great character to consume, and giving them more of it.  But it's all about the effective writing.  It'll trump any amount of time (past a base exposure) you dedicate to your character.


----------



## TheokinsJ (Mar 19, 2013)

I've been pondering this question for a while in my own fantasy story, I have two alternate endings in my mind, one where the main character 'lives happily ever after', and another ending where he dies whilst 'saving the world'. Pretty clichÃ© I know, but none the less I believe that killing off your main character at the end of the book, if executed well I think could work. The fact that not many books do this is just one reason, seeing as it is fairly original and especially if it is unexpected. However a lot depends on how the character meets his/her end and how well it is executed.


----------



## wordwalker (Mar 19, 2013)

Don't assume MC death is original; people have heard of it before.

The trick is how you build the mood, so the reader is ready to see that he has to die (worthy sacrifice, penance, believably blindsided, ?) when it's revealed. At the same time, until then you probably want the reader convincing himself there's a way out; most deaths (not all) do rely on some surprise.

But if the reader doesn't feel in the end that the death had a good enough reason, it can come off as a cheap stunt.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

I've read plenty of MC death.

Just finished one, in fact, where the MC, who is also a first person sometimes-intrusive narrator, dies at the end. I saw it coming, because even though the MC is still alive a couple of chapters before the end, the story switches to a secondary character as narrator. I figured the reason for that would be that the MC doesn't live to finish telling his story, and that turned out to be right. The author handled it well, however. It was a good read.


----------



## DSCroxford (Mar 19, 2013)

If we are talking of a lone MC then an unexpected death can kill the story outright, if you have related to the character through his journey and then it falls short it can be a bit jarring. Though if you see it coming for example; He only has a certain amount of time to complete his journey or He is grievously wounded then it can be a thrilling insight into mortality and how the character reacts and how the MC faces his own mortality.

If the MC is part of a group, maybe 2 or 3 companions travelling with a central figure, could the story evolve and promote the companions to have their own central roles and then the death of the MC could affect or completely redesign the path that they were on. This could work when you have the choice of ending a book, do you want to continue the world using the death of your MC as a focus point for the next stage in an adventure or has the death of the MC shaped your world. 

On another note, if you kill off your MC at the end of the book in a way that was unexpected could you push the reader away from future works?


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 20, 2013)

I guess this is a case by case basis.  I typically think killing off the MC at the end is an easy way to get an ending.  If all signs seem to be pointing to that, then I'm OK with it if it's satisfying.  If it's just "the MC is dead because I couldn't figure out another way to the end story" then that's sort of lazy writing.


----------



## Ty Crawford (Mar 20, 2013)

I'm currently writing a Tragic Story of a samurai who travels to china, but only to be carried away in a supernatural storm, and land in the crusades. Where he dies saving the life of the king.
I dont mind feedback, but this is my question to you: Would you accept the Protagonist of this story to die?


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 20, 2013)

If you're making it clear that this is a tragedy, yeah, sure.  Heroes die.  As long as it makes sense that he die, then there is no reason why not.

We have a protagonist in a series that is prequel to our urban fantasy series that we're killing off at the end of the trilogy.  Great deeds require great sacrifices.

My only thing with killing off the protagonist is it makes sequels... difficult.


----------

