Offing the leader/mentor

[Ireth]

Nothing wrong with upsetting the reader. If they care about the protagonist, then they should be upset when he/she dies. If they aren't, you've failed to create an emotional connection between the reader and the character. You want them to care about the character; that makes the death all the more powerful.

Thanks for this, Steerpike, even though it isn't directed at me. XD Makes me feel a lot better abut killing off one or two of the protagonists in a WIP. It's really the best ending possible for those left alive, and for those who die as well, since they otherwise would suffer a worse fate (at least in their eyes).

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, there are plenty of series where beloved characters are killed. Maybe some readers will stop reading, but most of them won't if you give them something else to hold on to. Look at Dumbledore, for example, in the Harry Potter series. By the time he's killed, I think it is fair to say he is a beloved character. I know people who were upset by his death, but I don't know anyone who quit reading the series. Why? Because they also care about Harry, or Ron, or Hermione, or Hagrid, or Ginny, or (insert favorite character here), and they care about the story and the resolution to the story.

If the only thing your story has going for it is that the reader cares about that one character, and couldn't care less about anything else, then you're going to have a problem. But if you give the reader other things to care about, and make the death meaningful in story terms as well, then you have a powerful event that may upset the reader but isn't going to stop them reading. In the end, it may make for a more powerful reading experience.

 

[Anders Ämting]

What if, say for instance, in my first fantasy book, I have two protagonists in love who share the same mentor. Instead of killing off my mentor as she cannot die, I am toying with the idea of killing off the lesser of the two protagonists. How can I go about this without upsetting the readers?

What worries me about this question is that you are wording it as if it doesn't matter which of these two characters you kill. It makes it sound like you just want to kill someone, nevermind who, like you have a kill quota or something.

If you're going to kill characters you should have real solid reasons for doing so. It has to be important somehow, not just a way to make the main character sad or create cheap suspense. Killing a character should be a pivotal point that changes the course of the entire plot and has a profound effect on the people close to them, otherwise you are admitting that your characters just aren't important.

If you have no particular reason to kill the mentor, then don't kill the mentor. If you have no particular reason to kill the secondary MC, then don't kill the secondary MC. Or, for that matter, go ahead and kill both of them. But only if you have a very good reason.

 

[Shockley]

I wonder if the trope namer, Mentor from the Odyssey, died in that story. I'll have to look it up.

Spoiler/answer: The figure guiding Telemachus is not Mentor, it just looks like Mentor. It's actually Athena.

Which is a pretty neat twist on this idea in its own right.

 

[ChristielleKeenan]

What worries me about this question is that you are wording it as if it doesn't matter which of these two characters you kill. It makes it sound like you just want to kill someone, nevermind who, like you have a kill quota or something.

If you're going to kill characters you should have real solid reasons for doing so. It has to be important somehow, not just a way to make the main character sad or create cheap suspense. Killing a character should be a pivotal point that changes the course of the entire plot and has a profound effect on the people close to them, otherwise you are admitting that your characters just aren't important.

If you have no particular reason to kill the mentor, then don't kill the mentor. If you have no particular reason to kill the secondary MC, then don't kill the secondary MC. Or, for that matter, go ahead and kill both of them. But only if you have a very good reason.

Hello! thank you for your comment. Yes, I do have a good reason that I have been toying with. The death of the lesser of the two will have a profound effect on the remaining protagonist. Since they are soulmates, it will cause him to go a bit mad, which is right where I want him.

 

[Aidan of the tavern]

I'm now tempted by the idea of the good guys winning in the end, but then shortly after the mentor dies from wounds or illness or something. It would still be a hard earned victory, and the mentor would be out of the way for parts of it, but I can see it as being a bittersweet bit of closure. The last thing that happens is a powerful tool.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think I've figured out part of why I don't like the pattern of the mentor dying--I don't like the implications for when the protagonist grows to become mentor to a new hero. If each hero's ultimate fate is to become a mentor and die, never able to settle down and live in peace, is there even a reason for your hero to get out of bed in the morning?

 

[Aidan of the tavern]

I think I've figured out part of why I don't like the pattern of the mentor dying--I don't like the implications for when the protagonist grows to become mentor to a new hero. If each hero's ultimate fate is to become a mentor and die, never able to settle down and live in peace, is there even a reason for your hero to get out of bed in the morning?

Interesting point. Maybe thats why I also like the idea of the protagonist becoming a farmer or something in the end.

 

[Twook00]

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the whole death of leaders/mentors business? Do you think its becoming too predictable?

I've never been a big fan of this, not unless it just comes out of no where and catches me off gaurd. I see the value in it, but there has to be an alternative by now.

The mentor turns out to be the villain - I don't like this. It's not very satisfying to me.

The mentor is captured - This has potential and can add to the plot (now the character has to save the mentor).

The mentor becomes a vegetable - Someone casts a spell, the mentor loses all memory and sense of self, the character feels responsible and tries to look after him which adds more complications.

The mentor takes the dark side - It would be interesting if something happened to the mentor that made him switch sides during the story. Like if Darth Vadar was your mentor until he got all burned up and stuff.

The mentor gets in over his head - What if the MC and the mentor show up somewhere and the mentor just doesn't know what to do?

I don't know. These are all pretty lame but I think the point is to raise the stakes, add complication, and force the MC to step up to the plate so he can become the hero. Surely there are other ways for this to happen.

 

[wordwalker]

I think I've figured out part of why I don't like the pattern of the mentor dying--I don't like the implications for when the protagonist grows to become mentor to a new hero. If each hero's ultimate fate is to become a mentor and die, never able to settle down and live in peace, is there even a reason for your hero to get out of bed in the morning?

But isn't everyone's fate to die?

(Various immortal characters excepted; moving on...)

That's the other reason mentors die, besides the balance of power: as a nod to how most people do leave their mentors behind, by either outliving them, moving away, falling out with them (mentors becoming villains counts!), or so on. All part of life.

 

[Mindfire]

I think I've figured out part of why I don't like the pattern of the mentor dying--I don't like the implications for when the protagonist grows to become mentor to a new hero. If each hero's ultimate fate is to become a mentor and die, never able to settle down and live in peace, is there even a reason for your hero to get out of bed in the morning?

You ever get the feeling that these mentor types want to die? That after they pass the torch to the next generation they'd rather be remembered for going out in a blaze of glory than quietly passing away in their sleep in a comfy cottage? It puts a new spin on the mentor death trend. Might even make an interesting character idea.

 

[Helen]

Also another question. If my mentor was alive at the end of the story do you think some readers would in a way be disappointed (even if the good side had paid dearly for their victory)? I'm just wondering if some people would consider his blood a necersarry sacrifice for victory. I would still have him out of the way for quite a while (in the Hobbit for instance Gandalf has to leave them for most of the book, then in the Fellowship he gets captured), so I was just wondering what your thoughts were. Another thought I had was for the mentor to die at the end from illness.

Well, there's Silence of the Lambs.

Lecter is Clarice's mentor and he survives.

 

[Ireth]

Well, there's Silence of the Lambs.

Lecter is Clarice's mentor and he survives.

That may be a different case, because arguably Hannibal is one of the villains, along with Buffalo Bill.

 

[ScipioSmith]

I think I've figured out part of why I don't like the pattern of the mentor dying--I don't like the implications for when the protagonist grows to become mentor to a new hero. If each hero's ultimate fate is to become a mentor and die, never able to settle down and live in peace, is there even a reason for your hero to get out of bed in the morning?

That is exactly how it is supposed to work in my universe: each First Sword spends his life guarding the gates of paradise, never allowed to go in, never allowed to relax his vigil enough to do more than glimpse inside, and then you die; passing the mantle to someone else while you...serve the Empress in death as you did in life.

It's a job that attracts a certain kind of person shall we say, one willing to accept the self sacrifice and submission of self into the cause of a greater whole that the story valorizes.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

That may be a different case, because arguably Hannibal is one of the villains, along with Buffalo Bill.

I see Lecter as more of an antagonist to Clarice (forcing her to confront her past) but not as a villain per se. Aside from his escape at the end (oh, spoilers, lollerskates), he spends most of his story time just hassling Clarice.

 

[wordwalker]

That may be a different case, because arguably Hannibal is one of the villains, along with Buffalo Bill.

Then again, maybe the core dramatic need is just that the mentor is gone, so the hero can't keep letting him do the work. So Lector escaping fills the same function as dying.

But then, it wasn't strictly necessary since the way he "helped" Clarice was hard enough for her that she was still carrying her own weight. (Ahh, for the Clarice/Hannibal TV series that might have been, at least for as long as they could keep those cellside negotiations fresh...)

 

[Sheriff Woody]

It's not just in fantasy, but in stories in general.

You have to remove the mentor before the protagonist can make that necessary step and be able to arc.

In The Silence of the Lambs, Lecter escapes from the makeshift prison and disappears. This leaves Clarice on her own for the first time with nobody to turn to for guidance. She must find the will to press on and end the conflict on her own.

This particular example stands out because the escape literally has no other bearing on the plot. The sole purpose for having Lecter escape is to put Clarice on her own with no mentor to turn to.


EDIT: Wow, I typed all that before reading any more than the first page (because I'm lazy). Goes to show you the power of good storytelling.

 

[Mindfire]

Is it possible to write a story where the mentor DOESN'T die? Food for thought.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Well, Barda in Deltora Quest is archetypally a mentor, but functionally a co-protagonist who survives the entire series. And like I mentioned earlier, Ryter is the driving force throughout The Last Book in the Universe.

 

[Penpilot]

Is it possible to write a story where the mentor DOESN'T die? Food for thought.

The mentor dying, doesn't have to be literally dying. It's figurative and they just have to be removed from the equation so they can not help the protagonist in time or at all. Doing this sets up the protagonist so they have to succeed without a safety net, where the protagonist's failure is the failure of everything. Where's the tension if the protagonist fails and then the mentor just steps in and saves the day? The story might as well have been about the mentor instead of the student because for all intents and purposes the protagonist didn't matter.