Thread: Fiction Writing - Killing off your Lead Character?

What do you guys think about the death of the Main Character?

How would you react to this as a reader? What do you think of this as a writer?

What do you guys think about the death of the Main Character?

It's been done many times over the centuries, in drama, action, and comedy forms of every genre I can think of; it's opened stories and closed them, and occasionally popped up in the middle; it's been permanent and temporary, even recurring; caused by outsiders and self-inflicted.

How would you react to this as a reader?

The same as to the rest of the story - if it's done well, then it's well done.

What do you think of this as a writer?

If it suits the story, it's a legitimate move.

What I don't understand is this obsession so many writers have with death and/or killing people. A psychiatrist would have a field day.

I echo Cran on this one. There are a number of novels out there who do this, and they do so quite well. One example that comes to mind is The Ghost Writer. I think the story killed off the lead character rather well.

A Tale of Two Cities also does it well (although it should have been that whiny, insipid sugar-puff Lucy Manet on the slab instead), as does The Lovely Bones, but for two totally different reasons. I also agree with Cran, there should be a strong, singular motivation for topping your MC that feeds the story like no other plot event can.

And OX, I think a lot of people start writing not for a love of story or language, but just so that they can legally kill people

Kyle I find the killing of any character very disheartening in general, but thinking about your question it is best not to for me.
what if one day you wake up and have a brain new idea for that character?
what would you do then now that you have killed it?
so in a way it is better not to, just in case 10 years down the line an idea comes up.
writing is ongoing so it is perhasp best to keep your charcaters alive in order to save time and harssel and gives more avenues to explore other 'ideas' for writing.
of course bringing any character back to life is another dimension and does not appeal to me personally.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

What I don't understand is this obsession so many writers have with death and/or killing people. A psychiatrist would have a field day.

lol sorry I could not help it.LOL

Oh, interesting, Nasci. I haven't though of that.

I do know some writers fall in love with certain characters, and bring them back time and again. The characters in "Harry Potter", for example. Seven or eight books later and they still won't go away! lol

Definately something to ponder. Hmmmm..

It all depends on the story. A story can have more than one lead character an if it does, killing one of them is less impactful. Problems could arise if you spend the first half of a novel writing only from the lead charcter's POV and then scuttle him/her. If so then have you created enough interest in the characters that will take over from that point on?

Killing off the lead character at the end of a story is potentially less of a disturbance to a reader because the story is over or at least near the end. The hero going out in a blaze of glory to save [insert person/thing being saved here] is and ending that is often used.

To go back to my opening statement and reitterate it, it all depends on the story. Gratuitous death is rarely looked upon well. But death that futhers a story serves its purpose in that respect. If you are going to kill off a or the lead character just make sure the story is moved forward by said death. And if you do it anywhere other than the end I would suggest you make sure that you invest in the character that will take over so the reader is not left flat footed.

I don't mind when main characters die, especially when the novel has set it up as an inevitability. Even when we know the main character will have to die because there is no feasible way out, we still clad him/her in plot armor and take every tiny inkling that he/she will escape death as a sure way out. When the character finally does die, as we knew he/she would, we thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

There are a lot of great examples, but I'd like to present two. SPOILERS! (it's in white, so you'll need to highlight it to read)

1. Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler - It's a grim book, to be sure, but though you know that the main character is sentenced to death, you still think he will find a way to escape or perhaps convince his captors to release him.

2. Doctor Who at the end of each Doctor's run - He has to regenerate, and you know it. Yeah, he's going to come back as a different person, but you know there will be that sad moment when he says good-bye to his companions and changes into someone else.


What I hate is when a writer kills the character just to wrap up loose ends. That's high school work. I did that sort of thing simply because I wanted a dramatic ending. HEY! Let's kill my main character off at the end! That'll be awesome! If you do it, be sure to make it really mean something. It's either inevitable or unexpected in a way that makes terrible sense when it's done.

Originally Posted by BabaYaga

A Tale of Two Cities also does it well (although it should have been that whiny, insipid sugar-puff Lucy Manet on the slab instead), as does The Lovely Bones, but for two totally different reasons.

Ah, yes. The Lovely Bones. That was indeed a well-penned story, able to kill the protagonist early in the running but still pulled the story nicely. Come to think of it, it was the death that fueled the story. I thought it was unique and cool. Btw, I really hoped the killer would be caught, but it wasn't to happen. He died in a freak accident, but that didn't satisfy my vengeful spirit...

I HATE when writers do the "killed in an accident" thing just to give villains some karma punishment.

*fumefume*

Unless the accident was entirely the villain's fault or a murder by another character made to look like an accident, it's so very, very Hays Code.

Personally, I'm sick of main characters having "plot armor." Too often, it seems that protagonists can never get seriously hurt or killed, simply because they're the protagonists. I say, to heck with that. My novel is about a war. People are going to die, and not just red-shirt nobodies, either. To do otherwise is a discredit to the reader and to reality.

I'm not sure you read my statement entirely, if you're replying to me (since you're using the same term, but I could be mistaken).

I said that I LIKE when writers kill a main character because we, as readers, clad the character in plot armor by default, feeling like there's always got to be a way out for the main characters... and when there isn't, it hurts because we really didn't believe they would die, even if the writer says flat-out that there is no escape. Characters in movies and TV and even books ALWAYS escape the inescapable, which is why it works when they don't. If fiction were like life, and most people died when faced with terrible odds, we wouldn't expect the heroes to live and would not be nearly as sad when they do, once in a while, die.

Some authors get away with killing their main character. Just, you better know what you're doing. I would never do it, but then again I avoid killing characters on principle. I consider them to be resources and more often then not, they serve the story better alive then they do dead.

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Personally, I'm sick of main characters having "plot armor." Too often, it seems that protagonists can never get seriously hurt or killed, simply because they're the protagonists. I say, to heck with that. My novel is about a war. People are going to die, and not just red-shirt nobodies, either. To do otherwise is a discredit to the reader and to reality.

Yeah, but are those deaths going to mean anything?

As I see it, character deaths must have a real effect on the story, preferably a major one. It has to be a plot point. Otherwise you've just lost a decent character and made your readers a bit sad, for no real reason.

Take A Song of Ice and Fire, for example. I always refused to read the books because everything I heard about them suggested Martin was the kind of author who liked killing his characters totally randomly, which is something I just can't stand. So when I got around to watching Game of Thrones, I expected to see a lot of pointless deaths just to ramp up the grimness.

But you know something? The deaths in Game of Thrones were alright. They actually changed the circumstances, caused major character development, and generally altered the direction of the plot whenever someone got the axe. When someone important died it meant something, because they were important characters who had a real part to play. That's the kind of character death I can get behind. I still don't like it if a character I'm fond of bites it, but if there's an actual purpose to it, I can get behind it.

On the other hand I hate when an writer kills characters just to prove that "Anyone can die!", thereby making the readers fear for the characters. (JK Rowling was terrible in that particular regard.) If you think about it, that's just a sign of poor writing skills. Rather then killing characters just to prove they can die, what a good author should do is make the characters genuinely concerned about themselves or their loved ones dying, and then conveying that feeling to the readers. If you're good enough at that you can probably get away with not killing anyone of importance and the danger will still feel real.

What I'm basically saying is, if your readers aren't at all worried about the characters simply because they don't expect the characters to die, that only means you haven't managed to write an engaging story. You're suppose to make them forget stuff like that.

On the subject of authors killing off characters, in the mystery/suspense genre, there is a common plot device used called "throwaway victims". Often this is the Prologue or Chapter 1, where the reader is introduced to a character who is, let's say, jogging at night. The trick is to make the reader sympathize with the character and begin to like him/her.

Example:

MaryLou has her earphones on and is trying to run away from the stress of her mundane job and her ever-apathetic boyfriend. She's sick of all the condescending remarks Arnold hands to her, with a smile, as if he expects her gratitude for being called useless. And Johnathon is just as bad. He doesn't even look at her anymore. He just sits in front of his computer and types the night away. The both of them can go to hell.

She turns a corner and a man is standing motionless beneath a streetlamp. His face is concealed in shadow. Feeling a twinge of unease, the young woman takes another route. Looking back, she sees the man is gone. She can't tell if her heart is pumping more from the running or from the sense of fear spreading through her torso. Why should she be afraid? She's in good shape, she does Kick-Boxing. If worse comes to worse, she can scream and every house in the densely packed community will flash to life. No, she thinks to herself, there is nothing to be afraid of. It was just a man out for an evening stroll, that's all.

*Enter violent, detailed physical attack scene here*. With each thrust of the blade, another gory chunk of her problems splashes away. She claws at his face and tries to scream, but his gloved hand squeezes and smothers her mouth hard. Maybe, she thinks, as the knife slices into her again and again, maybe this is how it was always meant to be.

The next chapter then introduces the MC, the grizzled old veteran detective, or the young couragous female investigator. The reader discovers that MaryLou was never really there for anything more than to introduce the Villain.

What do you guys think of this technique? I see it used all the time, especially on television police/crime shows. CSI, Law and Order, Castle, you name it.. they always start with some throw-away victims being chased or robbed or assaulted, and after the commercial break you always see their dead body laying in the street, as the lead characters walk up saying "Okay, so what have we got this time.."

At this point I'm beginning to think of it as formulaic and almost cheesy... but maybe formulaic and cheesy is the way to go..