# Fiction Writing - Killing off your Lead Character?



## Kyle R (Oct 25, 2011)

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?


----------



## Cran (Oct 26, 2011)

> 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.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Oct 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## BabaYaga (Oct 26, 2011)

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


----------



## Nacian (Oct 26, 2011)

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.



The Backward OX said:


> 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 :rofl:sorry I could not help it.LOL


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 26, 2011)

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..


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Oct 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## slythgeek (Oct 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Oct 26, 2011)

BabaYaga said:


> 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... X\'D


----------



## slythgeek (Oct 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## slythgeek (Oct 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## Anders Ämting (Oct 26, 2011)

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.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> 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.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 26, 2011)

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..


----------



## Nacian (Oct 27, 2011)

about the MC, why make the reader sympathise and like the throw away characters then kill them?
I have recently seen a throw away character who not was to be liked by the viewer
the throw away character was a bully, not a very nice person..so what do we do here?
likeable and not likeable?
are we in any way treading on danger zone by proposing the person who got killed, is not a nice person anyway??
where does that leave us to think?
or I am thinking are we not upsetting the reader by killing this likeable character?
 two contrasting feelings there.just a thought.


----------



## movieman (Oct 27, 2011)

slythgeek said:


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



Yeah, I haven't read the book, but that was one of the reasons why I thought 'Lovely Bones' was an awful movie.

Personally I killed off everyone except the character they were searching for in the novel I just finished, though several only die by implication so I'll bring them back if I write a sequel .

One of the big problems is first-person novels, where killing the character is hard because unless you bring them back by magic you run out of story.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 27, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> 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?



I've read books where the main character is killed off halfway through the story. The writer did a perfectly nice job of it and another viewpoint character picked up from there. If you handle it well, there's no reason it can't be done. It certainly took me by surprise.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 27, 2011)

movieman said:


> One of the big problems is first-person novels, where killing the character is hard because unless you bring them back by magic you run out of story.



Actually, one book I am thinking of that I can't remember the name of (been a long time since I read it) did just that, and never brought the character back in any way. The first-person viewpoint character died part way through the book and the viewpoint character from that point forward was someone else (and I think the author switched to third person at that point as well). The original first person POV character never returned.


----------



## movieman (Oct 27, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> The first-person viewpoint character died part way through the book and the viewpoint character from that point forward was someone else (and I think the author switched to third person at that point as well). The original first person POV character never returned.



I've seen that done a number of times, but I've never seen it done well just by jumping from one character to another. One option that does work is the tried and trusted framing story character reading a journal or watching a video diary or whatever telling the story of the first-person character who died.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 27, 2011)

Anders Ämting said:


> 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.



You'd better believe they mean something.  A million deaths may be a statistic, but that's because those million are faceless, unknown entities.  A main character is just the opposite of that, so unless one is an AWFUL writer, the death of any main character is going to have far-reaching effects.  Sometimes the death is the pinnacle of a character's personal growth.  Sometimes the death shows how drastically things have changed since the start of the story.  Sometimes the death reveals new information about the plot.  Sometimes the death is to show that a supposedly invincible character, isn't.

And yes, sometimes character deaths are just necessary attrition.  But because it's the death of a well-realized character, the death will impact everyone else who remains alive.

Is the death going to sadden the reader? If you're doing your job as an author, yes.  But deaths, at least in my story, can have another effect: They tighten the plot.  As the story reaches its conclusion, you can't have a dozen plot points floating out there.  In my case, the story begins with the main character alone, and ends with the main character alone.  The final arc is fast and intense, because there's only one thing driving the plot anymore.  The story gets better as it reaches its end, and THAT'S how you keep readers reading.


----------



## Robdemanc (Oct 27, 2011)

Its an interesting point.   I like it when a story snubs the typical happy ending.  I wrote one once where the main character gets what she was after all along, only to find it made her very unhappy.    However, I didn't think of killing her off, or having her jump of a building or anything.    But I could think of ways that killing the main character would add intrigue, especially if its supernatural.

Wuthering Heights does it with Cathey.  And that is much acclaimed.


----------



## felix (Oct 29, 2011)

Killing the main character can work if it's done carefully, but I believe that what makes a writer great is being brave and patient enough to terminate dynamic characters with regularity, instead of red-shirts. Quite often it's a reflex to make your red-shirts one dimensional and lacking in personality (hey, if they're gonna die, what's the point in complicating things, right?) but taking the time to develop dynamic cannon fodder makes for a better read.
I haven't been able to get the hang of it, to be honest. I love my characters too much, I spoil them by letting them live. When I learn to sacrifice my beloved protagonists, I'll be a whole lot happier.
King's always impressed me with his ability to knock off so many characters, especially when so many of them have the potential to have much larger story arcs than are ever realised. It takes an imagination like his to draw up so many expendable dynamics though.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 29, 2011)

felix said:


> I haven't been able to get the hang of it, to be honest. I love my characters too much, I spoil them by letting them live. When I learn to sacrifice my beloved protagonists, I'll be a whole lot happier.
> King's always impressed me with his ability to knock off so many characters, especially when so many of them have the potential to have much larger story arcs than are ever realised. It takes an imagination like his to draw up so many expendable dynamics though.



The key is to think of your characters as pieces in a larger game; almost like different chemicals in a laboratory.  The fun isn't in the chemicals themselves; it's in how they change and react when you do things to them.  It's why you initiate a relationship between two characters that a third doesn't approve of.  It's why you give a character a leadership position to see how they handle that power.  It's even why you kill off characters, just to see how it affects the others.

However, this requires a lot of commitment beforehand, which means a lot of sacrifice when it comes to the critical moment.  In order to truly play with your characters, they have to be so well-realized that your thought isn't, "How should I make Bob respond to that?"; it's, "How is Bob going to respond to that?" Good characters write themselves.  They're the ones that give you material to work with.  And you, lucky you, are the puppet master, getting to choose just which strings to pull.  Sometimes that means characters die.  But unless those characters are the only ones you've given any depth to, it shouldn't be a problem.  The rest of the cast should continue to drive the story.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 30, 2011)

To support to Gamer's perspective, the author Jerry Jenkins said that he didn't kill his characters. Instead he says, "I found them dead."


----------



## felix (Oct 30, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> The key is to think of your characters as pieces in a larger game; almost like different chemicals in a laboratory.  The fun isn't in the chemicals themselves; it's in how they change and react when you do things to them.  It's why you initiate a relationship between two characters that a third doesn't approve of.  It's why you give a character a leadership position to see how they handle that power.  It's even why you kill off characters, just to see how it affects the others.
> 
> However, this requires a lot of commitment beforehand, which means a lot of sacrifice when it comes to the critical moment.  In order to truly play with your characters, they have to be so well-realized that your thought isn't, "How should I make Bob respond to that?"; it's, "How is Bob going to respond to that?" Good characters write themselves.  They're the ones that give you material to work with.  And you, lucky you, are the puppet master, getting to choose just which strings to pull.  Sometimes that means characters die.  But unless those characters are the only ones you've given any depth to, it shouldn't be a problem.  The rest of the cast should continue to drive the story.



Well put, thanks. It's always great to have characters so well developed that considering their actions isn't something that comes into your mind, but making the conscious decision to cut their existences short for the sake of the story is something that impresses me to no end.


----------



## Notquitexena (Oct 31, 2011)

I've read several books where one or more main characters was killed off, sometimes in a single book and sometimes at the end of a series of several books. It is always gut-wrenching because, let's face it, you CARE about this guy by this time, but that is part of the catharsis of fiction. Sometimes a tragedy occurs. And we never get out of this life alive (except for some religious and fantasy stories).
:nevreness:


----------



## GRING0 (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm dealing with this exact issue within my current project.  My writing efforts were progressing normally (and chronologically) when suddenly I was compelled to skip to a placeholder chapter entitled The End.  I proceeded to murder my lead character after an unusual encounter and conversation with a mysterious stranger.

I've since resumed the story normally, periodically skipping to the end and making refinements to the unnerving dialogue and interactions within that death scene.  And while I'm not entirely sure what will happen once I get there, I feel as if the thought itself - of killing him - has profoundly affected my approach to the story.  I've been deeply concerned with my main character, having become fond of him over these many many months, and as I struggle alongside him to overcome the obstacles set before him I find myself desperately seeking a way for him to cheat that unexpected fate established so early in the writing of his tale.

Death is certainly a motivator.  Like a lot of people are echoing on this thread, killing off the lead requires certain finesse if the reader is to accept it.  And the writer will more than likely need to come to terms with the death of his franchise.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 1, 2011)

I once listened to a song with the lyrics, "He's torn between his honor and the true love of his life / He prayed for both but was denied."  I knew immediately that one of my characters was going to die (the analogous "true love of his life").  It was a simple decision, because the story is all about the protagonist and how his life and character are changed by events beyond his control.  The ending of the story was for him and him alone, and this particular death simply gave me more material to write for him in the meantime.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 2, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> Its an interesting point.   I like it when a story snubs the typical happy ending.  I wrote one once where the main character gets what she was after all along, only to find it made her very unhappy.    However, I didn't think of killing her off, or having her jump of a building or anything.    But I could think of ways that killing the main character would add intrigue, especially if its supernatural.
> 
> Wuthering Heights does it with Cathey.  And that is much acclaimed.


Rob it is a very clever twits on your story ending. I liked it.
The fact that she was unhappy after all that is a very poignant but telling truth.
howeverabout Wethering Heights, I have heard of but never read, how did it go with Cathey? what was her ending like?


----------



## KarlR (Nov 2, 2011)

To kill or not to kill.  That is the question.  You can achieve a terrific impact by killing off someone your readers have come to know, but in doing so, you limit your future with that character (unless you plan to bring 'em back as a ghost, or flash back to past situations).  Hmmm.  How about a few more questions.  What, as a storyteller, do I hope to achieve by killing off this character?  What does the death of this character allow me to do with the story that I could not have otherwise done?  Is the death of the character the point, or does is exist only for shock value?  How would the story read if the character was _not_ to die?

I've been down the road.  Not too long ago I wrote a chapter where I had to kill off a very important character.  It was a difficult decision, but the vast chasm of possibility that opened up through her death allowed the story to progress--whereas, not long before, I had been lamenting that I had been feeling boxed-in by my own storyline.  Here's the blog page where I posted the chapter if you're interested in chasing it down.  Karl Roscoe Books: A return to a theme....

Can you kill off a MC?  Sure.  Should you kill off an MC?  As with everything in writing (and life), the answer is 'it depends.'  If your story can't move forward without, then you must.  If it can, maybe you can tap into your own creativity and find a way to move your story without resorting to cheap trickery.

Best of luck, Kyle.  Let us know how it turns out!


----------

