Should I pull the trigger?

[rktho]

I'm writing a story about dragons. There's only two major characters who aren't one species of dragon or another, and that's the villain's pet snake and the godlike, omniscient being-- basically, me. That's not the important part, though. It's just some basic context.

In my book, a dragon named Ginzaekh and his two friends find a crystal that takes them on a journey where they learn of the existence of two wizard factions that have gone into hiding. They run into Ginzaekh's uncle, who becomes a mentor to them later in the series. Ginzaekh's cousin, Dav, tags along with them and becomes part of the group, with invaluable knowledge of certain languages and places from his family's travels.

Anyway, he's not THE protagonist, but he's fairly important. I'm giving him a romantic arc that goes along these lines:

He's in love with this dragon named Narta. Dav is friends with her whole family. Sort of a Harry Potter and the Weasleys situation, except Dav's not an orphan looking for a family, he just really likes them. He's best friends with her brothers, and her dad reminds him of his grandpa.

Narta's been distant with him lately, and Dav is severely concerned for their friendship. When Ginzaekh and the group run into them, they stay at their house for the night. However, Narta's father tries to steal the crystal they're trying to return, shattering Dav's trust in him. We find out later that he's one of the good wizards and he's trying to destroy the crystal because it's basically the villain's Horcux. Dav, heartbroken, dies without knowing the truth when the villain kills him.

However, Dav is brought back to life in the next book because the villain turned back time to give himself his old body. As a result, the crystal is never stolen, and anyone who didn't follow him back in time loses their memories of what happened. So only Ginzaekh, his friends, and Dav's father know what happened in the first book. Dav, who was dead, remembers nothing.

Dav learns that Narta's dad and brothers are wizards, along with his own parents. He confides in Narta's brother, who tells him Narta is most likely not interested in him. Dav is worried because Narta wants to study overseas and he'll never see her again if she leaves.

At the end of that book, the final battle ends in mutual defeat. The protagonists must go into hiding from the villains' wrath, while the main big bad, severely wounded and humiliated, is left to die by the other villains and swears revenge against both sides, going rogue. As a result, all the good wizards and their families go to live in the same house where they will be protected. This leads to Dav and Narta interacting daily.

Narta is still distant, though she doesn't seem to dislike Dav and is friendly whenever they happen to have a moment of conversation. However, for the most part, she seems to avoid him when she can.

The villains find the protagonists and destroy their sanctuary, sending them on the run. Dav comes to the realization that Narta is avoiding him because she knows Dav's feelings for her and doesn't want to tell him she doesn't reciprocate them. Dav approaches her and says he just wants to be friends and that she doesn't need to be afraid of his feelings.

So Dav's friendship with Narta is restored, and he's finally at peace with it.

It's at this point that Narta leaves for her own safety to join the wizards' families, who are travelling across the sea to escape the villains. She never reaches them, as she and her escort are apprehended by the villain.

Should I kill her off at this point?

I've certainly contemplated faking her death at this point, having her escape with no indication to the others that she's survived her imprisonment. But what if I killed her off for real?

Would it be too much? Would it make Dav's arc with her feel pointless or give it more impact? I'm planning on killing Dav's father as well, which would not only hurt Dav but Ginzaekh, the main protagonist. His death is a must. Narta's not so much. With Dav's father and the other characters I'm planning on killing off, would Narta's death feel like too much? Or unnecessary?

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

If the ability to turn back time is part of the story, what does it matter who you kill off or don't kill off? The reader will know you can always bring any of them back if you really want to. As soon as you bring Dav back from the dead, death becomes less of a threat to any of your characters from a reader perspective.

 

[pmmg]

I don't really know much about this story to really usefully answer this question. I think my answer must be what value does it bring to the story if it goes one direction, versus the value it brings if it goes another.

If the female character was not going to reciprocate, then I do feel you might be losing some of the emotional impact for her death. Nothing hurts more than unrequited love, but there is still much that could come of it. Is this something you must decide now? If she disappears from the story, and everyone thinks she is dead, then the story will go on for a bit before you must reveal it. So, when you get to that point, maybe the answer will become more plain to you.

IMO, and based on what I read here, I would have her survive and appear much later in the story as a somewhat changed character. I feel there is still story the be mined from her.

 

[rktho]

If the ability to turn back time is part of the story, what does it matter who you kill off or don't kill off? The reader will know you can always bring any of them back if you really want to. As soon as you bring Dav back from the dead, death becomes less of a threat to any of your characters from a reader perspective.

Great question! Of course I knew time travel would pose that issue, so I wrote in restrictions on it beforehand:

1) The ability can only be used once.
2) It's a dark art. The good guys wouldn't use it.
3) The further back you go, the harder things become. You can't go forward, only back. So if you went back ten years to correct one mistake, it better be worth the possibility that everything from that point forth changes drastically. If you'd worked hard to accomplish something in ten years, you've just undone all of it, so the mistake you set out to correct had better be worth it. I made it this way because I wanted to create a paradox-free time travel system, so I basically made it a reset button.
4) There are only so many evil magicians in my book, and their mentor has had a bad experience with messing with time (he created a portal that was supposed to send him back decades, but didn't make it through before the portal closed, so history repeated itself exactly as before, without his knowledge, up to the point where he attempted to do it again, but found out that he had already done it and used up his one chance to fix his mistake. With his warnings against it, they aren't likely to employ it. I mean, if you had the ability to reset all of time to a certain point, you'd handle that power carefully and maybe never even use it. The butterfly effect ensures you actually have very little control over the consequences.

 

[rktho]

I don't really know much about this story to really usefully answer this question. I think my answer must be what value does it bring to the story if it goes one direction, versus the value it brings if it goes another.

If the female character was not going to reciprocate, then I do feel you might be losing some of the emotional impact for her death. Nothing hurts more than unrequited love, but there is still much that could come of it. Is this something you must decide now? If she disappears from the story, and everyone thinks she is dead, then they story will go on for a bit before you must reveal it. So, when you get to that point, maybe the answer will become more plain to you.

IMO, and based on what I read here, I would have her survive and appear much later in the story as a somewhat changed character. I feel there is still story the be mined from her.

My friend gave me some advice and said I should have her interact with the villain's apprentice, who helps her escape, and forms a romantic connection with him. After she is rescued, she becomes obsessed with saving him until he puts Dav in danger and she realizes how much she cares for Dav. In the final battle, the apprentice would help the protagonists defeat the villain and die in the process.

So, I guess my question has been answered. Kind of makes this post redundant. Happens with me all the time...

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

Great question! Of course I knew time travel would pose that issue, so I wrote in restrictions on it beforehand:

1) The ability can only be used once.
2) It's a dark art. The good guys wouldn't use it.
3) The further back you go, the harder things become. You can't go forward, only back. So if you went back ten years to correct one mistake, it better be worth the possibility that everything from that point forth changes drastically. If you'd worked hard to accomplish something in ten years, you've just undone all of it, so the mistake you set out to correct had better be worth it. I made it this way because I wanted to create a paradox-free time travel system, so I basically made it a reset button.
4) There are only so many evil magicians in my book, and their mentor has had a bad experience with messing with time (he created a portal that was supposed to send him back decades, but didn't make it through before the portal closed, so history repeated itself exactly as before, without his knowledge, up to the point where he attempted to do it again, but found out that he had already done it and used up his one chance to fix his mistake. With his warnings against it, they aren't likely to employ it. I mean, if you had the ability to reset all of time to a certain point, you'd handle that power carefully and maybe never even use it. The butterfly effect ensures you actually have very little control over the consequences.

In that case, I'd be super careful to make sure it will be clear to the reader that these restrictions are in place, that they make sense, and aren't just there as author conveniences. For instance, why can the ability only be used once? Is it just a rule, and that's it? Or does the reason stem from something in the story? If you simply say, it is told in the ancient archives that any wizard can only turn back time once, well, readers are going to see through that as a plot device, or maybe they will figure the ancients might have gotten it wrong. Also, even though it's considered a dark art, "good guys" aren't realistically 100% good 100% of the time. Blah blah blah. I'm just saying, whatever "rules" you put in place, make sure they are strong enough to convince readers in the story context.

 

[rktho]

In that case, I'd be super careful to make sure it will be clear to the reader that these restrictions are in place, that they make sense, and aren't just there as author conveniences. For instance, why can the ability only be used once? Is it just a rule, and that's it? Or does the reason stem from something in the story? If you simply say, it is told in the ancient archives that any wizard can only turn back time once, well, readers are going to see through that as a plot device, or maybe they will figure the ancients might have gotten it wrong. Also, even though it's considered a dark art, "good guys" aren't realistically 100% good 100% of the time. Blah blah blah. I'm just saying, whatever "rules" you put in place, make sure they are strong enough to convince readers in the story context.

Also a valid concern.

 

[pmmg]

My friend gave me some advice and said I should have her interact with the villain's apprentice, who helps her escape, and forms a romantic connection with him. After she is rescued, she becomes obsessed with saving him until he puts Dav in danger and she realizes how much she cares for Dav. In the final battle, the apprentice would help the protagonists defeat the villain and die in the process.

This sounds like a story arc to me...

 

[rktho]

This sounds like a story arc to me...

Yes? I was deciding whether or not to kill her off. If I don't kill her off, giving her an arc makes sense. Going through an experience like that would definitely give more weight to her character, so not doing anything with that weight would be pointless.

 

[pmmg]

You make a mine with what you build. Take it for all the gold its worth.

If she dies, what direction would the story take? Is that better?

 

[rktho]

You make a mine with what you build. Take it for all the gold its worth.

If she dies, what direction would the story take? Is that better?

Well, if she died, when Dav was finally at peace with the prospect of not being in a relationship with her, it would shake him pretty badly. Instead of a new beginning where he and Narta are friends, she's gone forever. And he might feel personally responsible for her death, as those who lose people close to them often do.

 

[pmmg]

Well, if she died, when Dav was finally at peace with the prospect of not being in a relationship with her, it would shake him pretty badly. Instead of a new beginning where he and Narta are friends, she's gone forever. And he might feel personally responsible for her death, as those who lose people close to them often do.

But, if she does not die, but everyone thinks she has, does this not happen anyway?

 

[rktho]

But, if she does not die, but everyone thinks she is, does this not happen anyway?

Yes, but the difference is, if she doesn't actually die, then sooner or later they will find out about it and reunite. Actually, she would do everything in her power to find them again. So that device would still be in play, but in a more temporary fashion.

 

[pmmg]

I think there is more play if she lives. That is my opinion. Just have sooner or later, become later.

 

[rktho]

I think there is more play if she lives. That is my opinion. Just have sooner or later, become later.

The arc I mentioned before with the villain's apprentice would be how she survives her capture. I could go anywhere from there.