# Struggling to Murder Your Characters



## Justin Attas (Jul 2, 2019)

Does anyone else struggle when the time comes to _actually _kill off a character you never planned to make it through the story? I set out knowing who makes it and who doesn't. I even built many of my major plot points around their losses- after all, why kill a character if it doesn't change the story? But then the time comes, and... I inevitably start thinking of loopholes that would allow them to survive. I always eventually come around to the benefit of the sheer impact of their death to the story, but still. It feels like I'm killing a friend. 

Anyone else struggle with this? How do _you _get through sniper's anxiety when it comes to killing off a character?


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jul 2, 2019)

I think for me, the story is more important than the character. In one particular story, the best resolution was to kill off my MC.

HOWEVER....

I did find a way for him to continue through to the end of the story, so I'm not sure if that counts as a loophole or just creative license. 



I actually really liked this idea when it came to mind b/c it neatly solved some issues that had been building throughout my script. It's not at all obvious that this would be the solution. 

If you're dealing with separation anxiety in nixing a character, just remember that if it doesn't work out, you can always rewrite that character back in. It's not like it has stay that way.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 2, 2019)

Not a bit. My MC is going to die at the end of the book I'm working on. I knew that was going to happen when I created him 2 books ago. It's the end of his overall arc and he's going to die. I've killed so many characters over the years that it doesn't bother me anymore. I can create more. So can  you.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 2, 2019)

For me it depends on the story and the context. If this death is essential for the over all story to work then i'll take them to the chopping block but if i need to i can pull them back from the dead.


----------



## Bmad (Jul 2, 2019)

Death, like any other part of reality, is a thing we wish we could avoid. But it has it's place and the impacts they have on our lives and others are reverberations who's effects can stretch well into the future.

It should be no less adverted in a story when impact is key. 

Unless it's like a kids story or something.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jul 2, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Not a bit. My MC is going to die at the end of the book I'm working on. I knew that was going to happen when I created him 2 books ago. It's the end of his overall arc and he's going to die. I've killed so many characters over the years that it doesn't bother me anymore. I can create more. So can  you.


I have heard authors do this, and the fans of the books never like it. I may not know any names of people in this situation, but a google search should probably help you decide to make up your mind in case it is in doubt.


----------



## Sir-KP (Jul 2, 2019)

No. It's just getting more interesting from then on. I mean, yes, obviously sucks that character lives out through the story had to end and disappear.

Can't keep thinking of loopholes because there is always other way that changes fate.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 3, 2019)

No, in fact I generally take tremendous joy in it.

Of course sometimes it is hard to kill a character who you enjoy writing, because you enjoy writing them. I actually found myself agreeing with your post right up until this...



Justin Attas said:


> It feels like I'm *killing a frien*d....How do _you _get through sniper's *anxiety* when it comes to killing off a character?



I suspect you may be being hyperbolic, but if not, if this is in any way accurate, then it suggests a potential issue of emotional fortitude. 

These are not real people. Their only purpose is to serve the story. There are plenty of real people in the world to worry about. But characters in stories? Nah. Fuck 'em. Kill 'em all. Death is a part of life, etc.

Anxiety (real anxiety anyway) should not be a factor in your authorial decisions IMO. If it is then that's a problem that goes beyond a Writing Forum's scope of discussion. But it's not cool or artistic or Van-Goghian to put yourself through psychological trauma for the sake of a silly book. This is supposed to be fun.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 3, 2019)

My stories are not often the sort that people die in, but I do get tied up in my characters, even if as luckyscars says 'They are *not* real people'. I remember taking great satisfaction in having one evil s.o.b killed and then being cut into small pieces by the hero and his brother for disposal. There is a bit of me that is not very nice, I try to keep it for stories


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 3, 2019)

Justin Attas said:


> Does anyone else struggle when the time comes to _actually _kill off a character you never planned to make it through the story? I set out knowing who makes it and who doesn't. I even built many of my major plot points around their losses- after all, why kill a character if it doesn't change the story? But then the time comes, and... I inevitably start thinking of loopholes that would allow them to survive. I always eventually come around to the benefit of the sheer impact of their death to the story, but still. It feels like I'm killing a friend.
> 
> Anyone else struggle with this? How do _you _get through sniper's anxiety when it comes to killing off a character?



I love that struggle. If I am struggling to kill a character, it means a. that I have done a good job certainly of imagining them, and possibly even of writing them; and b. that I am still emotionally engaged in the project. How to get through it? I think of myself as an agent of destiny, a minor god tasked with the ordering and chronicling of these people's doings. The story, the flow of thoughts and ideas - these I think of as a set of instructions from a higher authority to whom I must answer. I really have very little input into them at all, other than sussing out what fits where. Yes, it's sad when a beloved character has to die, it's a wrench, but what can I do? The message came through. I love my characters but fate must march on. Life is pain as much as it is great joy. All I can hope is that I put it together in sufficiently dramatic form that does justice to any character whose name comes up. If I can do that, if I can honour them that way, then I am satisfied.


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 3, 2019)

I would add to this that if you feel this emotionally invested in your characters, you may naturally be a more character-driven writer. I know I am. Other writers work from plots, yet more may write to a theme, and so forth. But also - if you are planning all this and then struggling, maybe consider that this is the character's way of kicking against the plot. Maybe ... maybe consider having that part of their arc. Maybe they thwart your plans. Maybe you are ...

Maybe ... 

Could it be that ...

No, no. That way lies madness.

But it just seems ...

That you might be a ...

Say it, say it.

I can't.

Look, all I'm saying is that you might be a pantser. A whole armoured division of winging it.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 3, 2019)

Struggling to kill off characters is probably a good sign. If you're not emotionally invested in a character as an author, it's unlikely that your readers will be.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 3, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I suspect you may be being hyperbolic, but if not, if this is in any way accurate, then it suggests a potential issue of emotional fortitude.
> 
> These are not real people. Their only purpose is to serve the story. There are plenty of real people in the world to worry about. But characters in stories? Nah. Fuck 'em. Kill 'em all. Death is a part of life, etc.
> 
> Anxiety (real anxiety anyway) should not be a factor in your authorial decisions IMO. If it is then that's a problem that goes beyond a Writing Forum's scope of discussion. But it's not cool or artistic or Van-Goghian to put yourself through psychological trauma for the sake of a silly book. This is supposed to be fun.



Absolutely true. Now this won't go over well, it never does, but there are some really, really overly-emotional people out there who seem incapable of thinking their way through life, they have to "feel". That leads to making bad decisions, having unrealistic goals, expecting things that simply don't work in the real world, etc. Everything in your book of fiction is in your head. It isn't real. Killing a character has no real world repercussions. You are telling a story. You are not recounting history. You can always make up new stories and new characters. The goal needs to be telling the best story you can. If that story requires the death of a character, or even all of the characters, then they need to go.

The problem, and again, this won't be popular, is that far too many prospective writers think "fun" is the name of the  game. Sure, you want to enjoy your time writing, but let's be honest, not all of writing is fun. Writer's block isn't fun. Editing, by and large, isn't fun. But when your goal is "fun", the second it stops being fun, lots of people just stop writing. They don't finish books. They don't publish. They don't do anything beyond "fun". There's nothing wrong with that if that's all you want, but those same people often complain that they can't complete anything. Of course not, because their goal isn't to complete books, it's just to have "fun". It's like people who want to have a job that pays the bills, but it has to be fun all the time because if it isn't fun all the time, you're just not  going to go. Then I guess you're not going to have a job because reality doesn't work that way.

I think a lot of people need to think long and hard what they actually want out of writing. They need to have realistic expectations based on their goals. The fact that I dare to point that out will make people hate me, what else is new, but that's the truth and people, sooner or later, have to come to grips with it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 3, 2019)

I do not have issues with killing my characters.
I even go out of my way to make them likeable/hateful just so the reader feels the event.
Too often I see death and sex scenes used as a crutch. They happen and I feel nothing because the character was never built up properly.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 3, 2019)

Yes, please make the dead character impact the story. Yes, if you love it, killing it should hurt--but think of all those crying readers in the future! Think of the Red Wedding reactions! 

Killing characters in some ways is easier than inflicting unspeakable loss and anguish on them. Dead men tell no tales (unless you're writing a ghost story).


***Edit***

I think some of the ease or lack thereof in killing characters depends largely on authorial style, narrative distance and genre. Not all genres deal with character death the same. Writing the same scene from a different perspective can have totally different effects on the reader and author. Writing omniscient perspective will distance the author and reader far more than first-person POV. Past tense will distance more than present. The more narrative distance; the easier to write that death is likely to be. Genres have different tropes, and these can also be employed to lessen or heighten the tension in a character's death. GRR Martin subverted the plot armor tropes of noble heroes living through books both in the execution of Ned Stark and in the Red Wedding, and this had a tremendous affect on fantasy readers who were shocked because they were unaccustomed to the killing of noble MCs dying in such unjust ways.  However, regardless of first person perspective intimacy, horror readers know to expect the death of lots of characters in gruesome, unjust ways, so relatively few readers are  especially shocked and emotionally impacted by deaths within that genre. Death of the MC is downright par for the course with a lot of Poe and Lovecraft, and pretty much every horror author since has killed off at least one relatively likable character per story. Generally, if the death was relatively easy to read, it was likely relatively easy to write in terms of emotional impact on reader and writer (writing craft for effect is another matter entirely, and a skilled writer could probably squeeze some reader tears out with relatively little emotional drain). Like a lot of other things, it's something that most people will improve with more experience. So get on with the character killing in the hopes that you get better at wringing tears from readers with less effort in the future, I suppose. Thrillers and other plot driven stories are more likely to kill characters willy-nilly, too, especially when compared to character-driven stories, like romances. Most thriller characters have no souls anyway, so killing them is easy. 


***
As an example, during a creative writing course I took more than a decade ago, I wrote a story which fit into the science fiction series I'd been writing for a few years by that point. One of the main characters in the novel inspired a lot of my beta readers and fellow students to request a lot more of his backstory, so I wrote a short story from his perspective as a child. From his perspective, the abuse he suffers makes his "mother" appear evil and overly simplified, in a way. He's an innocent, awkward, eager to please child who isn't as aware of just how weird he actually is, so when his weird powers kill off everything around him in a moment of mental breakdown during an episode of abuse, the reader isn't as prepared for it (despite a lot of tension building in how the child becomes increasingly nervous throughout the story), and the work as a whole feels more like a comeuppance story Firestarter/Carrie moment. The abuse is just the catalytic event that sends this child over the edge, but it seems to play no other role, so it feels quite flat in a way. 

My beta readers loved it, but my instructor hated it and insisted I rewrite the whole thing from the abuser's POV--all in limited third perspective. I loathed the idea of writing her. She was a child rapist. Why would anybody want her perspective on anything? So I wrote a longer short story from this "mother's" POV because I had to for the class. But I can't write a character I can't understand, so I had to get into her head and figure her part in the greater scheme of the world. What the child had only seen as a small hallway with a few rooms was actually part of a very large military/scientific base underground and totally separated from public awareness. The "mother" was a doctor and scientist who had been involved with creating this strange child. She was concerned about and genuinely cared for him in her own very warped way (given her own history as a victim of abuse). In a meeting with a supervisor and another woman in a similar "mother" role to yet another project child, it's revealed that this company is purposefully pushing these children psychologically to see what kinds of powers they'll manifest because--even if the children must be scrapped/killed--they can always clone another one. Everyone and everything is utterly disposable to this company, and she was placed in this position not only because of her scientific expertise but because the company was aware of her past abuse and knew that she was likely to inflict similar abuse on said child so long as she was manipulated correctly. She realizes all of this entirely too late and winds up killed by this child even as she suddenly, tearfully apologizes at the end of the story (her outburst of apology being the final trigger, in a way). It's a stronger story. Instructor loved it. Everyone else hates it, and it's never been published--probably for the very reason that I hated writing it. Sympathizing with/understanding a child abuser just feels horrible, and readers don't want to be subjected to it. However, her death certainly means more from her perspective than it did from his, and the work as a whole gains far more weight and dimension through the inclusion of her viewpoint, the greater worldbuilding, the themes of the cyclical nature of child abuse, the potential Lovecraftian horrors unleashed by science+business pursued without humanity, etc.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 4, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I think some of the ease or lack thereof in killing characters depends largely on authorial style, narrative distance and genre. Not all genres deal with character death the same. Writing the same scene from a different perspective can have totally different effects on the reader and author.



But it's still an author's personal issue whether they find themselves emotionally tangled - or not - with their character's suffering, and therein lies the problem.

I think it's a cop-out to attribute this stuff to genre. I get what you are saying that certain genres, say horror or crime, carry with them a different expectation as far as violence/death compared with, say, a romance or children's story. But writers and readers of a more sensitive disposition won't likely read a horror novel anyway, they're totally different animals. The same readers and writers won't usually write or read both. So, the comparison between genres for the purposes of exploring a single reader's psychological reaction seems sort of irrelevant?

I have yet to encounter a single sane-minded adult who reacted poorly to the death of a character I have written (and a large number of my characters die - like I say, I enjoy that sort of thing) and that was regardless of how brutal or sad it was. Usually, a well-conceived, well-written death scene actually benefits the character, which is kind of a strange way to look at it I suppose, but it's true.

 Death of a much-loved character can actually elevate their presence - Nobody cared terribly much about Boromir from Lord of the Rings or Obi Wan Kenobi from Star Wars until they were killed off. Same reason the symbol of Christianity is a cross - to kill off a strong character is the most powerful literary move there is.

 Bad writing creates bad effects. Fragile minds get smashed. We are _all _dying. That's not to say you can't be sad when a character you like dies, but to react to some fictional character's death as an terrible, undesirable, unwanted aspect of their story and then try to avoid or otherwise underplay it, is a little silly.


----------



## JustRob (Jul 4, 2019)

You are evidently a planner; you admit that you planned to kill off the character, so the murder was premeditated by you. In contrast we pantsers are just witnesses; we discover and report events as they happen, so are unlikely to feel any guilt about them. As a pantser I am powerless to change the course of events that have already happened in my mind except by winding back time there. That is why I did just that in my solitary novel _Never Upon A Time_. As I have mentioned before, that novel can be seen as an allegory about fiction writing. To illustrate that, in the extract below two of the characters appear to discuss the experience of a death scene being repeatedly redrafted and edited by the writer. Note how the first character to speak, Adrian, regards it as being part of the job, much as an actor would. Even the idea of the writer having memories of earlier drafts like a witness seems to be mentioned. Ironically later in the story Adrian himself is shot dead by a fellow office worker, which annoys him. On the other hand this dialogue could be about something else entirely. 



> ‘Remember that everything that we do here is erased from history when we return. A broken finger nail, a cut finger, a bruised body, a blinded eye, a broken leg, everything is restored to its previous state, but conversations are remembered. You’re a policeman. You must understand the implications now.’
> 
> The expression on Alex’s face showed that the truth had hit home. ‘Do you have interrogation rooms then?’ he asked.
> 
> ...



Note that here I was writing about something appalling that could have happened in my story but didn't, but on the other hand I did still write about it, so what's the difference? Is fiction within fiction any more excusable?

Of course I feel emotional about a death scene as I do about any scene; I consider it essential to be emotionally involved to write in the most effective way. I actually choose the appropriate scenes in the story to write when I am feeling the corresponding emotions about something in my real life. As it happens our next door neighbour died in the night during the weekend just passed and my angel and I are helping his partner sort out his affairs.

You don’t have to be mad to write fiction because the madness is supplied at the door. Don't take it away with you when you leave though.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 4, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> But it's still an author's personal issue whether they find themselves emotionally tangled - or not - with their character's suffering, and therein lies the problem.
> 
> I think it's a cop-out to attribute this stuff to genre. I get what you are saying that certain genres, say horror or crime, carry with them a different expectation as far as violence/death compared with, say, a romance or children's story. But writers and readers of a more sensitive disposition won't likely read a horror novel anyway, they're totally different animals. The same readers and writers won't usually write or read both. So, the comparison between genres for the purposes of exploring a single reader's psychological reaction seems sort of irrelevant?
> 
> ...




Yes, a death scene can benefit the story and cause said character to be memorable. I don't think Nirvana would be so popular without Cobain's death, for instance. A noble or sudden death can elevate mediocrity, if handled well. The death of a strong character, if handled poorly, just sucks and drags the whole piece down with it. So it makes sense that an author would be nervous about killing a strong character.

*Re: Why writing death can be unpleasant*
If the death was "undesirable" or "unwanted" for the story, the author wouldn't have difficulty with changing the scene; it's the fact that the author believes it necessary to write something in that they don't want to write. The inflicted death/torture/maiming/loss/whatever is then necessary for future arcs of the overall story, and may even hit home a given message or theme entirely necessary for the work. But just because it's necessary doesn't mean it's easy or pleasant to write. Not wanting to do something unpleasant isn't silly, though not going through with something just because it's unpleasant is immature and a sign one isn't cut out for writing that particular piece yet.

Undergoing chemotherapy might be necessary in life, but it isn't going to be pleasant. It's perfectly normal to ask others how they cope with unpleasant facts of life. Killing characters is an unpleasant fact of life for some authors. Other authors may enjoy killing specific characters or killing characters in general but might have difficulty with a particular one at some point. The death of a character is difficult to write not only for emotional reasons in some cases but also just as a matter of craft. Death scenes can get very awkward, flat, silly, and can be poorly written just like any other scene (though a poorly written death, rape or sex scene may have more emotional blow back from readers who might find it offensive, insensitive, gratuitous or stupid). It's easy to write death badly, and therefore, the subject can be daunting for writers who are eager to communicate the gravity of this particular death.  

*Re: Emotional response to character death (or "How to make readers cry")*
If the genre/work puts more burden on the spectacle--the scenery, the plot, the gimmicks, the "grittiness"--than it does on character building, the death won't be as likely to make the reader cry. I've caused readers to cry. It's not easy, but I think it's worth the effort. The more emotionally invested the writer is, often the better he or she can get readers invested in the character, and often the more it's going to hurt either or both parties when the character suffers. Despite not being real, the character _feels_ real at that point. There's the suspension of disbelief to factor in; unbelievable characters make it harder for readers to suspend disbelief, while believable characters not only help readers get immersed in the story but are also more likely to cause emotional reactions in readers. Win-win. Not everyone is a character writer. Not all authors are going to understand that particular aspect of life for some other authors--just like not everyone has to undergo chemotherapy. Not all authors are cut out to make grownups cry using nothing but ink on a page, darkened pixels on a screen. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Emotional response to a character's death has very little to do with how gruesome it is. If anything, gruesome deaths often have the opposite effect of shutting down readers and observers. It might be too much to take in, or simply too much spectacle, or it might reek of the author trying too hard and coming off like a noob. When someone kills a dog in a movie or book, it's rarely gruesome, but it's likely to elicit an emotional response from readers and moviegoers--particularly those who have or have had a dog. This is because the observing party empathizes with the plight of losing a dog--not because of shock value or gore. The first few minutes of Pixar's UP choke people up not because the death is gruesome but because it's easy to relate to. Most people have lost a parent, friend, or grandparent before, and they recognize that empty chair, that curious lacking, that gaping hole where said loved one used to be. It's not because we were emotionally invested in the wife's character and just loved her so much--it's because we saw what she meant to the old man and how difficult life is for him after she's passed away. 

The death of Obi Wan isn't as much sad for the audience because we liked him as a character, not because we empathize with him, but because of what his loss meant for Luke. Most people have had a favorite teacher, a beloved uncle, some other older mentor figure, so we can empathize when Luke loses his. The loss of Han Solo later in the series is felt all the more because people got to know him and like him over a longer stretch--but also because he was betrayed by his son. Star Wars being the science fiction equivalent of high fantasy, the deaths of noble characters have gravity because they're unexpected and "not supposed to be like that". 

Speak to the common experiences between your audience and the surviving characters foremost, and if not this, speak to the sense of fairness, betrayal, justice and tragedy. If a death isn't "earned", the audience is more likely to have a negative emotional reaction (if any reaction). If it's "earned", the audience is more likely to feel good about that character dying. It's easy to write bad guys getting their just desserts, but much harder to write tragic heroes brought down by their flaws, a misunderstanding, the warped justice of an area, or a victorious evildoer.  

*Re: Multiple genres*
I know lots of authors who use pen names because they write more than one genre. It's actually not terribly uncommon for an author to swing between, say, gritty, hard-boiled mysteries and fluffy, light romances; between writing dark, paranormal erotica and children's books; between spy thrillers and science fiction. Lots of authors write more than one genre, even if they may not publish using the same name or even attempt to publish more than one genre. I've certainly written multiple genres. The two paid published works I've had might even be considered different genres (one's a cute, touching modern ghost story, and the other was a dark fantasy). 

People read multiple genres. I don't know a single person who has only read one genre or watched only one genre of TV/movies. People eat more than one variety of food and listen to more than one variety of music, too. Maybe you just hang with boring people who don't like variety. Sometimes, people have phases where they prefer a certain genre, but they do eventually try other things (even if they decide they don't like these new things). The most rigid, Puritanical, stuck-in-the-mud people I've ever met still experienced works of multiple genres over the course of their lives (even if they've picked their favorites and go back to them often). It's been my experience that most people oscillate between about two genres at any point (if they read fiction at all). Most women I know bounce between fantasy or mystery and romance. I've met lots of men who bounce between fantasy and science fiction, history and superheroes, westerns and thrillers, or any number of combinations of these. Horror readers are often seen picking up damned near anything else on occasion (usually some kind of speculative fiction). Regardless, nobody's remained totally pure to a single genre so much as to be ignorant of the tropes of other genres. Even the most stuck-under-a-rock-for-decades don't-read-nothing-but-Christian-romances-and-the-Bible individual still knows modern horror gruesomely kills people, somebody got murdered in a mystery, superheroes have superpowers, science fiction has tech that doesn't exist yet; fantasy has magic and dragons.    

It's not uncommon for thousands of nameless mooks to die in any given action or battle sequence. Epic fantasy--like Tolkien--is a genre in which mooks and dark lords die by the dozen, but named, noble characters rarely die, which is part of why Boromir's death can actually hurt to watch/read (it's also the tragic flaw humbling a heroic man who realizes too late to save himself but early enough and apologetically enough that he can heroically sacrifice himself). In horror, it's not uncommon for named, noble characters to die, so it doesn't hurt as much when it happens. The issue is one of expectation in that regards. If the genre is known for killing protagonists, the blow is softened a bit for veterans of the genre. Also, protagonists in both horror and thrillers are rarely super realistic, sympathetic, lifelike people that it hurts to kill off as much--and one could argue that this is a coping mechanism for writers, in a sense. I'm reading Lovecraft, and despite him killing a lot of the protagonists--even in first-person--I ain't felt a thing yet. The most touching one yet was the Outsider--and the MC didn't even die. 

Tropes within a genre can be used to heighten or play down a sense of loss when a character dies. If one wants to get inured to killing characters, watching, reading and writing horror might be a good way to go. If one can't stand to kill characters, children's books and romance might be a good way to go. Subverting genre conventions is a good way to heighten the effect of a character death. It's just one more tool in our tool box as writers. 

*
Re: Tips for getting past the murder hurdle*
If one is having a difficult time writing a death, writing the scene in the language of a different genre, verb tense, or POV might be useful in overcoming the writer's block of the moment. *It can always be edited later.* Even a bland "And then he died" sentence can be padded out and retooled later. The point being, even though it's difficult, it has to be gotten through somehow.  A character dying during its POV often comes off as cheesy and cliched in a stylistic sense. There are only so many ways authors have gotten across the POV character dying, and most readers have seen them all already. Therefore, I've found it can be very useful to switch to a different POV character just before the death, and have this second character either see the death occur or find the body. Because the readers haven't died yet, they're not going to feel as much for the dying POV anyway. Loss is for the living. Seeing the death through a different POV character can heighten the emotional response in readers because it removed them to a different spot just before something big happens (heightens tension) and heightens empathy because most readers have lost someone or could more easily imagine what it's like to lose someone (especially because the author now gets to show the reader how the surviving characters react to the loss of the dead character). 

Worst case, if the scene doesn't work for readers/agents, you can always retool it later. But before you can retool it, you've got to get it written first. Doesn't matter how terrible or short or stupid it seems. Editing it will be easier than writing it, if emotional anguish is the root cause of why it sucks to write. Get some distance, finish the story, come back to this icky part when you can. Often, finishing the rest of the story will furnish all the other good reasons this character had to suffer and/or die, and this can make it easier to flesh out and rework that murder scene.  

If the root cause is an issue of style and/or mechanics, slog through it and retool later. Go study writers who've killed characters. George RR Martin is a great one for this because he's killed off a lot of beloved long-term reader-favorites POV characters.  Also, try making a thread asking for good death scenes.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 4, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> Struggling to kill off characters is probably a good sign. If you're not emotionally invested in a character as an author, it's unlikely that your readers will be.



This ^



luckyscars said:


> I think it's a cop-out to attribute this stuff to genre.



Not necessarily. Not within romance. Because romance is guided by HEA or HFN endings, to kill off a main character would push it out of the genre and into a more niche readership: the whole _Romeo and Juliet_: it's tragedy, not romance, thing. I wouldn't kill off my main characters. That's not saying I can't, I just wouldn't because of the market I write for like the genre's safety barrier. It's not saying they are soft readers -- my god, far from it! You can take your MCs through hell (I've handled the rape-to-straight culture etc) and the reader will go with you, so long as they know HEA/HFN is there. 

Authors can pull whatever literary brilliance off that they think will work best for them, and that's okay, but if the readers don't want it at that moment, it's like selling a cookbook to that mechanic who just wants a car manual to get his engine firing right at that particular moment. And romance readers don't pick up a romance novel to read about the death of a main lover, if they did, they'd pick up a tragedy or horror novel.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 5, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Not necessarily. Not within romance. Because romance is guided by HEA or HFN endings, to kill off a main character would push it out of the genre and into a more niche readership: the whole _Romeo and Juliet_: it's tragedy, not romance, thing. I wouldn't kill off my main characters. That's not saying I can't, I just wouldn't because of the market I write for like the genre's safety barrier. It's not saying they are soft readers -- my god, far from it! You can take your MCs through hell (I've handled the rape-to-straight culture etc) and the reader will go with you, so long as they know HEA/HFN is there.
> 
> Authors can pull whatever literary brilliance off that they think will work best for them, and that's okay, but if the readers don't want it at that moment, it's like selling a cookbook to that mechanic who just wants a car manual to get his engine firing right at that particular moment. And romance readers don't pick up a romance novel to read about the death of a main lover, if they did, they'd pick up a tragedy or horror novel.



But the question isn't whether it is a good idea or not to kill off characters generally, is it? The question was about how and why it can make the author uncomfortable or sad to kill off a character when otherwise it would be appropriate within the story. The OP used the phrase “when the time comes” and mentioned the intent being to kill them from the start, suggesting a degree of appropriateness notwithstanding their reluctance. They just don’t want to do it.

 Those are two totally separate discussions for two totally separate issues.

I agree that in some stories you can't do certain things and still fit the requirements of a genre (although forelock tugging to the requirements of genre for no other reason than acquiescing to 'reader expectations' seems a recipe for a shite book IMO). I'm not sure what that has to do with whether the OP here (or anybody) gets misty-eyed over their characters’ deaths?

So maybe I should ask so somebody can explain...what exactly is the 'genre argument' here? Why does it matter what genre your story is as to whether you feel too emotionally attached to your character to do what seems to be required?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> So maybe I should ask so somebody can explain...what exactly is the 'genre argument' here? Why does it matter what genre your story is as to whether you feel too emotionally attached to your character to do what seems to be required?



I could see it in some cases, if one were writing a traditional cowboy book like 'Edge' the characters are so under developed and death so common I can't imagine any emotional involvement. Makes me wonder whether there is a genre where the only people writing it are hard bastards who wouldn't worry, 'My life in the SAS', 'How I was a Mafia hit man' ?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> But the question isn't whether it is a good idea or not to kill off characters generally, is it? The question was about how and why it can make the author uncomfortable or sad to kill off a character when otherwise it would be appropriate within the story. The OP used the phrase “when the time comes” and mentioned the intent being to kill them from the start, suggesting a degree of appropriateness notwithstanding their reluctance. They just don’t want to do it.
> 
> Those are two totally separate discussions for two totally separate issues.
> 
> ...



Just in case anyone's forgotten what was actually said in the OP...



Justin Attas said:


> Does anyone else struggle when the time comes to _actually _kill off a character you never planned to make it through the story? I set out knowing who makes it and who doesn't. I even built many of my major plot points around their losses- after all, why kill a character if it doesn't change the story? But then the time comes, and... I inevitably start thinking of loopholes that would allow them to survive. I always eventually come around to the benefit of the sheer impact of their death to the story, but still. It feels like I'm killing a friend.
> 
> Anyone else struggle with this? How do _you _get through sniper's anxiety when it comes to killing off a character?



The OP wasn't about "how and why it can make the author uncomfortable or sad to kill off a character" but a request for advice in getting over the murder hurdle. If you don't suffer such feelings, don't worry. It doesn't mean you're a bad writer; it just means you shouldn't give any advice on the subject because you don't understand it. The question was never about the mental health of the writers involved, and was never about whether or not the character needed to die for the purpose of the story. The OP specifically mentions that the character's death was planned out, inevitable, and needs to happen. But, like many other unpleasant facts of life, it's not easy to do sometimes. Ergo, the OP requested help for this specific issue. 

My advice (as a writer who has felt similarly bad about doing unpleasant things to characters sometimes) primarily consisted of mechanical tricks which serve to distance the writer from the anguish of the character. Genre, verb tense, abridged description, skipping ahead and coming back later, POV shifts, and perspective are ways to do this (either temporarily or permanently for the finished work). Even if the whole work is, say, a present tense first-person perspective masterpiece of heartfelt tragic romance with immaculate character development and florid prose, writing that one problematic scene from, say, past tense omniscient third perspective in the tones of a thriller might serve to distance the writer from the pain and finality of this character's death enough to allow him or her to get through the scene. It can always be edited later to fit in with the rest of the story. 

Genres use very different tools to achieve their effects, and using some of these can heighten or lessen the feeling a given scene is supposed to convey. For instance, thrillers are good about suspense but terrible about emotional deaths, so using its tools to gin up suspense and play down death might just be a valid writing choice for a given piece. Take and apply what works best, no matter where you found the tools. In the case of the OP, the object is just getting past the scene--not even producing the final, finished, off-to-the-presses scene. It can be total shite, but it's got to get written before it can be edited into a masterpiece. 

Depending on the level of anxiety one feels when killing a character, it may be best to switch to writing a different genre or story altogether. I don't think this is the OP's issue though. Said 'sniper's anxiety' doesn't seem remotely a clinical issue, so I don't think bringing up mental health status is appropriate. It's just an unpleasant little hurdle. 

Different genres treat death and character development differently. A romance is all about the characters and how they feel, for instance. The language, tropes and tools of a great romance could make for a very weird or just plain awful thriller. The tools and language of a great spy thriller will certainly make for a terrible romance. Readers are supposed to become emotionally engaged with characters in a romance; but a spy thriller's effectiveness isn't foremost concerned with the emotional development of a character so it makes sense that authors of spy thrillers might not connect to their characters as much as the authors of romances and tragedies might to theirs. The heroes of spy thrillers are generally reader/writer avatars of wish-fulfillment escapism--so they're supposed to be kinda bland and not undergo remarkable character shifts or be_ so_ different from each other. Romance--for all of its frowned-upon formula in some cases--is entirely dependent not on wish-fulfillment but emotional intimacy because the audience isn't after material things, and is generally unimpressed with hot chicks, cool cars and explosions. The readers are craving connection with the characters, and because of this sort of intimacy with the character, said character is guaranteed to leave an emotional reaction when he or she dies, provided the author handles it well. But in order to provide that sense of connection between the reader and the character, generally, the author is going to get attached to that character, too, and there's nothing wrong with that. That attachment comes out in the writing of the character and makes him or her seem that much more real to the audience--which means a more lasting impact when the character dies and, often, that it's more difficult to kill off. 

Formulaic romance does remind me, however, of my husband's advice: view this dying character as an actor instead of a real person. You kill him, he stops getting new scripts, goes home to his family, and can start looking for work in some other story. Feel free to clap a new name/face/occupation on him, slightly change his personality (just like any other actor) and use him for another project down the road. This sort of mentality is all over formula fiction of all types. Said character is an archetype.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Those are two totally separate discussions for two totally separate issues.



Are they really? You're arguing it has nothing to do with genre whilst in the next breath boilerplating authors into a single-minded herd of  "if death's needed, don't get upset about it" pen. Every author I've known has needed an editor because editors come with a more objective analysis. Why? Because the author's already too close to the work: the emotions are already up close and personal. So why deny them emotions over this? If one author finds it hard to go with death scene, then that's their individual way of approaching writing, as it would be their individual way of approaching writing to genre, no matter the requirements.

From the author side, if I've invested seven years in series of novels and it came to killing of a main character, it would crush me, but that would be the same with making them face any hard topic: rape, murder, cannibalism etc. I'm not about to lose touch with any element I'm feeling -- mostly because I don't have a romanctic bone in my body, so I know if it's hurting me, then it will hurt the readers too. Getting upset doesn't make anyone a bad writer, they're just showing a different writing corner to sit in. It might not be a corner you want to sit in, but then whatever is yours won't be someone else's.



> I agree that in some stories you can't do certain things and still fit the requirements of a genre (although forelock tugging to the requirements of genre for no other reason than acquiescing to 'reader expectations' seems a recipe for a shite book IMO



You step into writing, it's full of acquiescing to reader expecations: at it's most basic, the likes of horror readers want horror writers. It's no good giving them a Bocelli download link. I can't see the point you're making here.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 5, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Different genres treat death and character development differently. A romance is all about the characters and how they feel, for instance. The language, tropes and tools of a great romance could make for a very weird or just plain awful thriller. The tools and language of a great spy thriller will certainly make for a terrible romance. Readers are supposed to become emotionally engaged with characters in a romance; but a spy thriller's effectiveness isn't foremost concerned with the emotional development of a character so it makes sense that authors of spy thrillers might not connect to their characters as much as the authors of romances and tragedies might to theirs. The heroes of spy thrillers are generally reader/writer avatars of wish-fulfillment escapism--so they're supposed to be kinda bland and not undergo remarkable character shifts or be_ so_ different from each other. Romance--for all of its frowned-upon formula in some cases--is entirely dependent not on wish-fulfillment but emotional intimacy because the audience isn't after material things, and is generally unimpressed with hot chicks, cool cars and explosions. The readers are craving connection with the characters, and because of this sort of intimacy with the character, said character is guaranteed to leave an emotional reaction when he or she dies, provided the author handles it well. But in order to provide that sense of connection between the reader and the character, generally, the author is going to get attached to that character, too, and there's nothing wrong with that. That attachment comes out in the writing of the character and makes him or her seem that much more real to the audience--which means a more lasting impact when the character dies and, often, that it's more difficult to kill off.



This isn't true. There are plenty of romantic thrillers out there, along with steampunk, historicals, crime, comedy, even horror. Most who think of romance do, unfortunately, only think.... romance. In reality, it's one of the most hybrid genres out there, covering so many sub-genres, and it's why it seems there are so many of them on the market. In reality, they just have so many different strands across all the genres.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 5, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> The OP wasn't about "how and why it can make the author uncomfortable or sad to kill off a character" but a request for advice in getting over the murder hurdle....



I think you are quibbling semantics. In this context 'getting over the murder hurdle' involves understanding why the hurdle exists.

Does anyone else struggle when the time comes to actually kill off a character you never planned to make it through the story? I set out knowing who makes it and who doesn't. I even built many of my major plot points around their losses- after all, why kill a character if it doesn't change the story? *But then the time comes, and... I inevitably start thinking of loopholes that would allow them to survive.* I always eventually come around to the benefit of the sheer impact of their death to the story, but still. *It feels like I'm killing a friend. *

Anyone else struggle with this? *How do you get through sniper's anxiety when it comes to killing off a character*?

^Bolding mine. The OP is asking how to deal with their emotional attachment to a character they have already decided to kill off. Understanding this involves recognizing what makes it difficult to let go of a character in the first place. 

I am asking you why genre matters to assuaging that. In your vast essay, you did not address it. You seem to prefer to write about different genres and their relative treatment of death. Which is interesting, sure, but it has NOTHING to do with solving the OP's problem. What are they supposed to just switch genre to avoid having to deal with things? That seems silly.

I mentioned mental health because anxiety is literally a mental health term. Google it. It's not inappropriate to bring up mental health issues when such language is referred to. With all due respect, that's a ludicrous bit of playground stigma, one that is responsible for a hell of a lot of societal problems. 

To be clear: I am not saying the OP has mental health issues, nor am I denying them the right to be emotional. I'm saying it is a possibility, especially if they are in the habit of thinking about their characters as 'friends' or worrying excessively about their feelings. That isn't healthy and shouldn't be endorsed.



Aquilo said:


> Are they really? You're arguing it has nothing to do with genre whilst in the next breath boilerplating authors into a single-minded herd of "if death's needed, don't get upset about it" pen. Every author I've known has needed an editor because editors come with a more objective analysis. Why? Because the author's already too close to the work: the emotions are already up close and personal. So why deny them emotions over this? If one author finds it hard to go with death scene, then that's their individual way of approaching writing, as it would be their individual way of approaching writing to genre, no matter the requirements.




It depends on the definition of 'upset'. If by 'upset' we are talking a little glum, that's fine. I literally said this in my earlier post, so the accusation of herd reduction is bullshit, sorry. Here is my quote so you don't have to take the trouble to read my posts in order to accurately assess what I am saying:




luckyscars said:


> Bad writing creates bad effects. Fragile minds get smashed. We are all dying. *That's not to say you can't be sad when a character you like dies*, but...



On the other hand, if you are upset in the sense of feeling traumatized, devastated, anxious, or 'like you have lost a friend' (OP's quote) then, sorry, that's not normal and it should not be dressed up as some sort of inevitability of good writing. This isn't war. Inflicting regular doses of unnecessary stress on yourself 'because I'm an artist, darling' is the practice of fools, IMO.

Do you see the difference or not?


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> It depends on the definition of 'upset'. If by 'upset' we are talking a little glum, that's fine. I literally said this in my earlier post, so the accusation of herd reduction is bullshit, sorry. Here is my quote so you don't have to take the trouble to read my posts in order to accurately assess what I am saying:





> The OP is asking how to deal with their emotional attachment to a character they have already decided to kill off.



Emotional attachment, nothing more. The op doesn't sound like he's ready to go to a psychiatrist or that he's getting in too deep. Shall I show you why, considering we're splitting hairs with semantics:



> On the other hand, if you are upset in the sense of feeling traumatized, devastated, anxious, or 'like you have lost a friend' (OP's quote) then, sorry, that's not normal and it should not be dressed up as some sort of inevitability of good writing. This isn't war. Inflicting regular doses of unnecessary stress on yourself 'because I'm an artist, darling' is the practice of fools, IMO.
> 
> Do you see the difference or not?



Do you? Authors pick up on a multiple of phrases as they go through learning the trade. "Learn to kill off your darlings" one of the most common. The op uses 'friend', the quote uses 'darlings'. Rightly or wrongly, they are taught from the word go to see characters through affectionate terms. So what if the OP uses the term 'friends?' over characters? Most authors will wander around muttering conversations to themselves with their characters, yet that doesn't mean they're getting too involved. And it has nothing to do with attempted sarcasm over it's "because I'm an artist, darling." It's to do with being human, where they are just upset over something as they learn the trade. This is something you have to learn to do and handle.

Nobody here is saying that you shouldn't seek help if you feel suicidal over killing a character. But that's the extreme end of the spectrum here, which the OP isn't suggesting he's at. You're picking flies with his terminology and focusing the discussion on that.

For my two pennies on the issue over how do you cope with the hurt of learning to kill off a character you know has got to die? With any scene like this? Try and take it in steps. Leave the scene until last if you have to, then go back after you've given the script some distance. I had parts in one of mine that dealt with psychological reconditioning over 50 pages, where rape-to-straight was used in the setup of my main MCs home, along with Victorian ways of 'fixing' a mental disorder (there are no fixes). That was one of the most difficult sections I've written, especially as it incorporated over 6 chapters. I had to do one chapter, then skip to writing another part of the novel, then come back and do another. There are some things you can't keep your head in for too long, so finding ways to break away helps. You're not a machine. Some things are going to be hard to write. Sometimes it's worthwhile, though. Although I found those scene in that one novel to write hard, it picked an honorable mention award and got to finalist in the Rainbow Awards. So don't let a little hurt stop you. If you find it's too much, stop.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 6, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Do you? Authors pick up on a multiple of phrases as they go through learning the trade. "Learn to kill off your darlings" one of the most common. The op uses 'friend', the quote uses 'darlings'. Rightly or wrongly, they are taught from the word go to see characters through affectionate terms. So what if the OP uses the term 'friends?' over characters? Most authors will wander around muttering conversations to themselves with their characters, yet that doesn't mean they're getting too involved. And it has nothing to do with attempted sarcasm over it's "because I'm an artist, darling." It's to do with being human, where they are just upset over something as they learn the trade. This is something you have to learn to do and handle.
> 
> 
> Nobody here is saying that you shouldn't seek help if you feel suicidal over killing a character. But that's the extreme end of the spectrum here, which the OP isn't suggesting he's at. You're picking flies with his terminology and focusing the discussion on that.
> ...




What are you talking about? Serious question. I am trying to work out what I said that confused you, as based on your post history I don't think you're an idiot or anything. So maybe it's all me - I must be going mad!

Aquilo, I did not suggest the OP is mentally ill, let alone suicidal. That would be a straw man, right there. I didn't assert anything about the OP or anybody else's mental state. I made ZERO conclusions about the OP. I don't know them. I don't know you. I don't care. It's that easy.

What I did was mention, I think a grand total of once, that IF anybody starts feeling genuinely traumatized or suffering true anxiety about the plight of their character (1) That's a silly place in which to put oneself as writing is voluntary (2) It indicates they should probably stop writing immediately and go see a therapist.

That was the sum total of my point, and it may not apply here. But, then again, it might. The only one here making assumptions as to the nature of the OP's condition (or lack of one) is you. You are assuming everything is sunshine and tulips. Here, I'll show you, since reading comprehension isn't stellar in this thread. I will bold the places in one post alone where you assume the OP's intent with zero evidence:



> Do you? Authors pick up on a multiple of phrases as they go through learning the trade. "Learn to kill off your darlings" one of the most common. *The op uses 'friend', the quote uses 'darlings'. *Rightly or wrongly, they are taught from the word go to see characters through affectionate terms. *So what if the OP uses the term 'friends?' over characters? *Most authors will wander around muttering conversations to themselves with their characters, yet that doesn't mean they're getting too involved. And it has nothing to do with attempted sarcasm over it's "because I'm an artist, darling." It's to do with being human,* where they are just upset over something as they learn the trade. *This is something you have to learn to do and handle.
> 
> Nobody here is saying that you shouldn't seek help if you feel suicidal over killing a character. But that's the extreme end of the spectrum here, *which the OP isn't suggesting he's at.* You're picking flies with his terminology and focusing the discussion on that.



^ All of that is broad conjecture. And maybe you are right. Hell, you probably are right - statistically most people don't get unhealthily obsessed with their characters.  If so, great. But I'm not sure where you get the idea you know exactly what the OP means with regard to statements like 'I feel like I am killing friends'. Because you don't. Neither do I. All I am doing I am leaving open the _possibility _they are referring to  'anxiety', etc in a literal, not-so-cute sense and addressing that possibility. Which hopefully they are not. What is annoying is that you are then twisting that point - painfully - to suggest it means I am painting them with a brush of mental handicap, when I am absolutely not doing that. 

I think it's pretty low you would make out that I am accusing the OP of being some kind of depressed pariah, but you do you. I know what I said and what I mean and couldn't give a damn either way.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> What are you talking about? Serious question. I am trying to work out what I said that confused you, as based on your post history I don't think you're an idiot or anything. So maybe it's all me - I must be going mad!



I'm not in to dramatics. Leave idiocy and madness out of it, especially as it's surrounding the topic you brought up.  Out of the posts you made, did you actually directly ask the op if HE thought he had real, deeper issues? Because it seems to me you're talking at them about this borader picture, not _to _them about their individual issue. Mentioning it the way you did, you gave the impression to those who get upset that they are potentially lesser writers for getting too emotional. Or that's how it's coming across to me.


----------



## Fatclub (Jul 6, 2019)

Justin Attas said:


> Does anyone else struggle when the time comes to _actually _kill off a character you never planned to make it through the story? It feels like I'm killing a friend.
> 
> Anyone else struggle with this? How do _you _get through sniper's anxiety when it comes to killing off a character?



As in caring about a cyber pet, it's human to care - but not so much that it stops you doing it. 

You need to get over this.

All I'd be caring about is making it as entertaining/shocking/moving/plot-progressing as possible. And hopefully, fun to play the omnipotent writing God and execute it, no pun intended (well, maybe intended a little bit).


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 6, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> This isn't true. There are plenty of romantic thrillers out there, along with steampunk, historicals, crime, comedy, even horror. Most who think of romance do, unfortunately, only think.... romance. In reality, it's one of the most hybrid genres out there, covering so many sub-genres, and it's why it seems there are so many of them on the market. In reality, they just have so many different strands across all the genres.



Ugh, no matter how I start this, it sounds more confrontational than I'm trying to be. I wasn't talking about romance about as a aspect of storytelling but of the most formulaic romance-only dime store paperback version you can think up. Romance as a plot or subplot is absolutely everywhere (and should be because it works!). I'm talking about the language and tools of that genre. Romance (as its own genre, notas a device/plot/subplot) uses different tools to give emotional weight to scenes, whereas your equally derivative, no-romance-allowed, Michael Bay explosions-everywhere, spy thriller uses its tools mostly to gin up suspense and insert cool action. One's after emotional weight, and the other's after "cool". So, if someone's writing a tragic romance and finally at the point to kill off a much beloved character, using the "cool" and action-oriented language of a thriller might be an emotionally-distancing way to initially write the death (even if the author later rewrites it to feel more like it belongs in the work). 

Genres have lots of tools in their toolboxes, and there are strands of each genre woven into works which are predominantly another genre. For instance, Game of Thrones is a fantasy... but also has threads of mystery, thriller, and romance in it. It uses the tools of other genres. Most longer, more complicated works use elements of another genre. Mystery, horror, thriller and romance can easily fit into any other genre (though that genre typically is what the work is billed as).


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think you are quibbling semantics. In this context 'getting over the murder hurdle' involves understanding why the hurdle exists.



No, it doesn't. If someone asks you for directions, you shouldn't tell them how to drive. It's not my job to psychoanalyze the author. There are two major reasons (which I have already addressed) as to why an author might have trouble killing a character. If you don't understand the predicament of the author, you shouldn't give them advice. 




> I am asking you why genre matters to assuaging that. In your vast essay, you did not address it. You seem to prefer to write about different genres and their relative treatment of death. Which is interesting, sure, but it has NOTHING to do with solving the OP's problem. What are they supposed to just switch genre to avoid having to deal with things? That seems silly.



I've never told anyone to switch the genre of the piece or to stop writing in a given genre (unless the genre itself is what's causing the anxiety. If someone just can't kill off _any_ character, modern horror probably isn't for them). What I've repeatedly advised as a tip to get over the murder hurdle is just to switch to the writing style of another genre for a short bit because the genres treat death differently. The same death scene in a thriller, mystery, romance or horror genre will likely read quite differently because _the genres use different language and methods_ to describe a scene. I'm not talking about switching the genre of the entire piece--just briefly using the _language_ of another genre. If you don't understand this, read more widely and really study the mechanics of the writing. Most of the advice I've given here is strictly mechanic in nature.  

Here's a nice YouTube video that hopefully one understand what I'm talking about:
 [video=youtube;T8BirdiPY9o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8BirdiPY9o[/video] 
by Editing Is Everything

Same work, just edited differently to reflect different genres. 

As authors, we don't have the visual or audio to work with, but we do have subtler methods, and it does us well to really pick apart other works and understand how said works achieve given effects.


----------



## velo (Jul 6, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> "Learn to kill off your darlings" one of the most common. The op uses 'friend', the quote uses 'darlings'. Rightly or wrongly, they are taught from the word go to see characters through affectionate terms.



I've always used 'darlings' from this quote (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in a much broader context.  The person who introduced this phrase to me put it in the context of referring to anything in a piece that I'm especially attached to, such as a particularly impactful phrase or use of a specific word.  Sometimes these little darlings need to be excised for the good of the story.  

I hated it at first but the more I do it the more easily I'm able to edit and adjust a story or article and it bloody well works.  It's made me a much better writer in terms of speed and efficiency.  As the Buddha says, attachment is the source of suffering.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 6, 2019)

velo said:


> I've always used 'darlings' from this quote (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in a much broader context.  The person who introduced this phrase to me put it in the context of referring to anything in a piece that I'm especially attached to, such as a particularly impactful phrase or use of a specific word.  Sometimes these little darlings need to be excised for the good of the story.
> 
> I hated it at first but the more I do it the more easily I'm able to edit and adjust a story or article and it bloody well works.  It's made me a much better writer in terms of speed and efficiency.  As the Buddha says, attachment is the source of suffering.



And that's really the thing. It comes down to experience. The more  you do a thing, the easier it is to do and the better at it you are. I think the more professional you are, the more books you've actually published, the less this bothers you because of repetition. Yes, I have characters I wish could go on, but for the good of the story, they die or they have something terrible happen to them or whatever. Not everyone gets a happily ever after. That's life. If it makes the story better, then for the good of the story, it has to happen. There will be other stories and other characters. Losing some along the way is no big deal. In fact, unless you write the same series about the same characters forever, you lose characters all the time. When their series ends, they're no different than being dead.  People just need to get over it.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 6, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> I'm not in to dramatics. Leave idiocy and madness out of it, especially as it's surrounding the topic you brought up. Out of the posts you made, did you actually directly ask the op if HE thought he had real, deeper issues? Because it seems to me you're talking at them about this borader picture, not _to _them about their individual issue. Mentioning it the way you did, you gave the impression to those who get upset that they are potentially lesser writers for getting too emotional. Or that's how it's coming across to me.



You are either not reading my posts before launching into a reply, or being willfully obtuse. You know damn well I did not call anybody on here a lesser writer, and I never said it wasn't OK to be emotional - I said the exact opposite. The rest is a bunch of straw man bullshit.

This is now frankly entering the realm of an inappropriate, irrelevant derailment so I am stopping it here. If you insist on pushing further, please do so via PM.



seigfried007 said:


> No, it doesn't. If someone asks you for directions, you shouldn't tell them how to drive. It's not my job to psychoanalyze the author. There are two major reasons (which I have already addressed) as to why an author might have trouble killing a character. If you don't understand the predicament of the author, you shouldn't give them advice.



Likewise.


----------



## Justin Attas (Jul 7, 2019)

A reminder of who really has the power in a story. The author.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 7, 2019)

Justin Attas said:


> A reminder of who really has the power in a story. The author.


So glad you came back! Hope something in this spirited discussion helped you out. Feel free to ask for clarification, if I've written something that just doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Justin Attas (Jul 7, 2019)

Lol'd at "Nah. Fuck em. Kill em all." I totally get where you're coming from. I always do it in the end, but I find I tend to live in my stories a bit, so I get a little attached to my characters. It has good and bad aspects. Makes it harder to kill em, but I pour that emotion into the book in the context of the other characters' grief.


----------



## Justin Attas (Jul 7, 2019)

Don't get me wrong. I always eventually kill the character, if they need to die for the sake of the plot. I see many different perspectives on this thread and I love it. Some people say characters are basically imaginary fodder. Others say getting invested in your characters is natural. I do a bit of both in my own writing. I agree with you that so many people have no idea what trying to make a career writing is really about. Hell, I wrote for fun for years and years before Is started pursuing it as a genuine career. Even then I was surprised to glimpse what it was like on the other side of the curtain. It takes grit and discipline like most people wouldn't believe.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 7, 2019)

Justin Attas said:


> Lol'd at "Nah. Fuck em. Kill em all." I totally get where you're coming from. I always do it in the end, but I find I tend to live in my stories a bit, so I get a little attached to my characters. It has good and bad aspects. Makes it harder to kill em, but I pour that emotion into the book in the context of the other characters' grief.



Yup, and that's how it's done :grin:

I've found it's actually easier for me to kill a character than to do some of the awful stuff I make them live with. Some of that is an issue of narrative form/mechanics (How am I supposed to get from here to there? How do I get X across so the reader understands what I'm talking about?) but some is emotional, I suppose. I did realize partially via this discussion that it's not really the death or suffering of a given character that I'm dreading when a project goes on hiatus, but rather the mechanics of the plot and how to end it. I can write death and suffering, but making them thematically useful and necessary for the plot without being gratuitous is a bigger sticking point. I don't want anyone to say, "Hey, Subject X needs to be treated with more dignity! It should never be filler!" Having read/watched stories where subjects like rape, child abuse and torture are basically filler, torture porn, a gratuitous excuses to inject more angst in a character, or a giant neon sign that says "Hey, look, this guy's _eeeviiiiill_. Isn't he just the _eeeeviiiiiilest?!_" I never want to be accused of this. It's just too disrespectful (though I'm aware that pretty much any mention of said subjects might get people up in arms anyway).

For an example of totally screwing around with characters in a way that can be difficult to get across, a narrative that's hard to wrap up tidily, and one great example of an abused character that I'm worried will come off very badly even if I'm desperate to play it seriously: in a current genre-bending work on hiatus, the entire story is essentially one normal guy's descent into a peculiar madness. Even if he thinks he knows what's real, I want to at least occasionally illuminate to the reader (while in first-person) that his reality is being totally screwed with by an outside force (and one he is powerless to do anything about, one he will sacrifice seemingly anything to protect even). I'm at the point in narrative where this not-entirely-intentionally-but-nevertheless-exceedingly-dangerous entity is residing in the character's house... but it's screwing around with his wife and toddler son in a similar fashion... and is going to wind up accidentally killing the child in short order. Because that's what this critter does: eats human psyches til they die, while warping their emotions and perceptions as it sees fit. While I'm not looking forward to killing the kid, my reluctance to write has far more to do with my suspicion that the originally planned ending might not be satisfying. And I hate writing erotica. Which is how it morphed from erotica into super deep dark science-fiction, chock full of themes on the cyclical nature of child abuse (how it can turn a child into a figurative monster), the nature of reality, personhood, how sexual preference might change over time, the perhaps wise fear of the unknown and hazards of screwing with things we don't understand (how that same child might turn into a literal monster). And with so many irons in the fire, it can be difficult to wrap up with a nice neat bow. I over-complicate everything. 

Of course, now that I think about it, my approach to writing it hasn't been so far off from a lot of pop media lately: Throw mystery and some worldbuilding at the audience. Throw some sex in to keep 'em interested while continuing to pile on mystery and worldbuilding. Slack off on the sex because the mystery and worldbuilding and character development are so much more interesting. If I could just craft an amazeballs end now (can't be any worse than Game of Thrones' ending already). Oh well. 

Might have to start a thread where people suggest fulfilling endings to each other.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 7, 2019)

velo said:


> I've always used 'darlings' from this quote (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in a much broader context. The person who introduced this phrase to me put it in the context of referring to anything in a piece that I'm especially attached to, such as a particularly impactful phrase or use of a specific word. Sometimes these little darlings need to be excised for the good of the story.
> 
> I hated it at first but the more I do it the more easily I'm able to edit and adjust a story or article and it bloody well works. It's made me a much better writer in terms of speed and efficiency. As the Buddha says, attachment is the source of suffering.



Yeah, very much so. It's used as an umbrella term. It's also meant sarcastically, in a way agreeing with lucky that you shouldn't get to attached.




Justin Attas said:


> It takes grit and discipline like most people wouldn't believe.



It does, to be honest. I've been on the rough end of reader-reaction to my work, and I've hurt readers because I've gone in too hard-hearted and detached. You can be too cold, and that's just as dangerous as getting too involved.  It's why discussions like this worry me. Sometimes they come with that 'couldn't care less if I kill 'em' attitude. Characters aren't real, no, but emotions are. Be too involved with a character's death, and you take yourself to bad places, but go to the other extreme and not give a damn about readers, just have that "I've never seen a reader react badly, therefore all readers don't react badly" bad philosophy...  it can damage your career too. There's no place for arrogance within writing, only responsibilty.




luckyscars said:


> This is now frankly entering the realm of an inappropriate, irrelevant derailment so I am stopping it here. If you insist on pushing further, please do so via PM.



I really suggest we dont. I have a queue as long as my neighbourhood when it comes to answering PMs, and I'm even less likely to carry on a private discussion with someone who is listening to me about as much as they say I'm listening to them. We're grown ups; we can move on and simply not reply to one another on this topic.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 8, 2019)

I never have problems with killing off characters, as some just need to die for the story to go in the best direction I find.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 8, 2019)

ironpony said:


> I never have problems with killing off characters, as some just need to die for the story to go in the best direction I find.



Yup. I don't get emotionally attached to my characters enough to want to keep them around. I care about them, certainly, but they're just not real. Anyone who treats them like they are, those people have some serious mental problems.


----------



## velo (Jul 8, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Anyone who treats them like they are, those people have some serious mental problems.



I get your point but I think the statement as written is hyperbolic and very judgemental.  To me, one of the hallmarks of a good story (as both reader and author) is caring in some way about the characters.  If I don't care, then I feel like the author hasn't done a good job in brining me into the story.  

I get that this isn't precisely what you're talking about but it's on the same spectrum.  Yes, I care about my characters even if I know there are both unreal and doomed.  The other side of the coin from the last paragraph is that if I don't care about my character (at least the main ones) then I'm not going to be able to effectively write about them.


----------



## Periander (Jul 8, 2019)

velo said:


> If I don't care, then I feel like the author hasn't done a good job in bringing me into the story.



I totally agree.  About a year ago, I had to take the life of an important character.  It was one of the hardest things I've had to do in my own writing and now that I think about it, I definitely felt rather depressed for a while although I'm not sure that I was even aware at the time that the sadness was a result of this character's death.  I didn't realize how fond I was of him until he died.

I really do think that we experience real stages of grief when our beloved character kicks the bucket.  It's painful but necessary.  We feel sadness for a few days, a little dead inside, and don't feel as if we will ever want to write again.  But there are more stories to tell.  So we start again and pick up the pen to make something new and beautiful and then it is like a birth and everything is alive and we are able to love and create again without fear.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 8, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Yup. I don't get emotionally attached to my characters enough to want to keep them around. I care about them, certainly, but they're just not real. Anyone who treats them like they are, those people have some serious mental problems.




What you call mental problems, I call writing. If you are not vested in your own characters, then it is unlikely the reader will be either. The writer's emotions come through in the writing. 
If you don't find writing emotionally turbulent, then you may not be doing it right.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 8, 2019)

Can we save further circular debate and just agree that there is an important line between emphasizing with our characters, caring about them, getting sad over them, generally feeing “healthy” levels of waaaah...and feeling severely anxious, depressed, distraught, etc? 

The former being a normal, possibly even desirable, symptom of strong story-craft, the latter being a red flag for potential issues that should not be glorified or condoned in any way. 

There seems an awful lot of obfuscating, conflating and just general misunderstanding resulting from this point: I think it’s pretty clear that it is possible to advocate for writing that is emotional, visceral, even painful to an extent and still recognize that some people can and do get too close to fiction, to the point they do start to have mental health issues of one kind of or another. This is not a terribly obscure or mysterious phenomenon, btw. Numerous examples of it.


----------



## velo (Jul 8, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Can we save further circular debate



You are free to disembark the merry-go-round at any point in the ride.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 8, 2019)

For me, the emotional attachment comes from having lived in their heads.
I try to pretend to be the character when I am writing them, and will spend hours talking out dialog aloud as if I am in a conversation with the other characters. 

Yes, it's an old acting-school methodology thing....

But knowing the characters that well means I can also imagine their genuine horror at being killed.
Your death is a very personal experience, and I try to capture that whenever I kill someone important (like Billie Duggs).


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 8, 2019)

velo said:


> You are free to disembark the merry-go-round at any point in the ride.



Not when it’s spinning this fast....


----------



## velo (Jul 8, 2019)




----------



## Cephus (Jul 9, 2019)

velo said:


> I get your point but I think the statement as written is hyperbolic and very judgemental.  To me, one of the hallmarks of a good story (as both reader and author) is caring in some way about the characters.  If I don't care, then I feel like the author hasn't done a good job in brining me into the story.
> 
> I get that this isn't precisely what you're talking about but it's on the same spectrum.  Yes, I care about my characters even if I know there are both unreal and doomed.  The other side of the coin from the last paragraph is that if I don't care about my character (at least the main ones) then I'm not going to be able to effectively write about them.



There's a  difference between caring and being emotionally attached. Characters aren't real. They're something you made up in your head. You should be able to write about them as though they were real without believing that they are. The people who get that attached are the people who, clearly, haven't done this very much. Because once you've created your tenth or fiftieth or hundredth character, it really becomes old hat. You just don't get these kinds of hard emotional attachments because you do it all the time. To the reader, it might be an amazing character. To the writer, it's just Tuesday.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 9, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> For me, the emotional attachment comes from having lived in their heads.
> I try to pretend to be the character when I am writing them, and will spend hours talking out dialog aloud as if I am in a conversation with the other characters.
> 
> Yes, it's an old acting-school methodology thing....
> ...



But then, you, as the writer, have to move on. And on. And on. And on. Because even if  you don't kill a character, when you go on to a new book, you move on to new characters and the ones from the past might as well be dead because you'll never write about them again. It's just experience. The more you do this, the less each individual character means in the long term.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 9, 2019)

Cephus said:


> There's a  difference between caring and being emotionally attached. Characters aren't real. They're something you made up in your head. You should be able to write about them as though they were real without believing that they are. The people who get that attached are the people who, clearly, haven't done this very much. Because once you've created your tenth or fiftieth or hundredth character, it really becomes old hat. You just don't get these kinds of hard emotional attachments because you do it all the time. To the reader, it might be an amazing character. To the writer, it's just Tuesday.



Out of interest, how do you define the difference between care and emotional attachment here? Isn’t caring just a form of emotional attachment? Like...isn’t that kind of the definition? 

Don’t want to split hairs too much but isn’t the point you are making not exactly that emotional attachment is a problem in itself, but rather the incapacity to let go of that emotional attachment - to detach oneself - in order to make necessary authorial decisions for a good story (which could mean killing, could mean something else)?

This comes back to why I first said mental illness being potentially relevant, because it is in a situation where the detachment isn’t taking place (or it is difficult) that I see a line being crossed and it baffles me that people could claim that’s normal or part of good writing. Whatever happens, they ARE just characters. Attach all you want, but keep one hand on the ejector seat launch lever. Getting all Annie Wilkes “YOU KILLED MY MISERY!” is not a good place to be.


----------



## velo (Jul 9, 2019)

I think "care" is becoming a confusing term in this thread.  Caring has a lot of levels and meanings.  Do I care about my characters _as real people_?  No.  But I empathise with them and their ability to channel aspects of the human condition and emotional states.  I empathise with my characters a lot, which is a form of caring.  

From now on I'll say empathise.


----------



## waterborne (Jul 9, 2019)

Killing off a character leaves an aftershock, which is diluted by the tone of the story, and the amount of the aftershock is heavily correlated with genre because different genres have different tones. Here is a model (it isn't exactly right, but it should help nevertheless).


*Denial*
"Death of a much-loved character can actually elevate their presence -  Nobody cared terribly much about Boromir from Lord of the Rings or Obi  Wan Kenobi from Star Wars until they were killed off."
*Anger*
"it's the fact that the author believes it necessary to write something in that they don't want to write"
*Bargaining*
"I inevitably start thinking of loopholes that would allow them to survive."
*Depression*
"It feels like I'm killing a friend."
*Acceptance*
"I always eventually come around to the benefit of the sheer impact of their death to the story, but still.""

*
Size*
"They happen and I feel nothing because the character was never built up properly.                         "
*Setup*
"I even go out of my way to make them likeable/hateful just so the reader feels the event."
*Sensitivity*
"I think some of the ease or lack thereof in killing characters depends largely on authorial style, narrative distance and genre."


The solution should be to kill them off organically, or paradoxically highlight the artificiality of it. The fact that you are killing off your characters and are feeling something means that there is likely an impact that comes from killing the characters.

Again, this system may not be exactly right, but hopefully it will lead you to the point.*


Journal
*Freewrite your thoughts about killing off your character. Try to use as much figurative language as possible.
*Compress*
 Preferably in outline form, make your freewrite easier to work with so you can analyze it.
*Write
*Add an extraneous scene to your story that expresses how you are feeling from your own perspective. 
*Analyze
*Ask why things are the way they are.*
 Inject*
Add your new insights into the story, revising as necessary.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Out of interest, how do you define the difference between care and emotional attachment here? Isn’t caring just a form of emotional attachment? Like...isn’t that kind of the definition?
> 
> Don’t want to split hairs too much but isn’t the point you are making not exactly that emotional attachment is a problem in itself, but rather the incapacity to let go of that emotional attachment - to detach oneself - in order to make necessary authorial decisions for a good story (which could mean killing, could mean something else)?
> 
> This comes back to why I first said mental illness being potentially relevant, because it is in a situation where the detachment isn’t taking place (or it is difficult) that I see a line being crossed and it baffles me that people could claim that’s normal or part of good writing. Whatever happens, they ARE just characters. Attach all you want, but keep one hand on the ejector seat launch lever. Getting all Annie Wilkes “YOU KILLED MY MISERY!” is not a good place to be.



I mean extreme emotional attachment. Like, these are my best friends and I'll die without them kind of things. It's like people who love a TV show and have a mental breakdown if their favorite character dies. The difference between being a fan and being a fanatic. People who are invested in the character without the ability to detach. You had an excellent way to put that too.

I know I wrote it somewhere, but in the first book of my current series, I really liked one of the characters and, by the end of the book, it became clear that they'd be written out of the sequel. Their story was told and it was time for them to move on. I hated the idea, but I let them go for the good of the story. Ultimately, the story is the primary concern. Everything else, characters included, serve the story. That character wasn't dead, but she was gone. By the time I finish writing this trilogy, and I'm on the last book, then every character in it will be gone, never to return. What's the difference between that and dead? I'll be off writing other characters and other stories. There are always going to be new characters and new stories. I don't have time to love all of them forever. It's just unhealthy.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 9, 2019)

velo said:


> I think "care" is becoming a confusing term in this thread.  Caring has a lot of levels and meanings.  Do I care about my characters _as real people_?  No.  But I empathise with them and their ability to channel aspects of the human condition and emotional states.  I empathise with my characters a lot, which is a form of caring.
> 
> From now on I'll say empathise.



There's nothing wrong with empathy, until that empathy gets in the way of telling a compelling story. Then, it needs to die.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 10, 2019)

velo said:


> I think "care" is becoming a confusing term in this thread.  Caring has a lot of levels and meanings.  Do I care about my characters _as real people_?  No.  But I empathise with them and their ability to channel aspects of the human condition and emotional states.  I empathise with my characters a lot, which is a form of caring.
> 
> From now on I'll say empathise.



I also think the problem with these words 'care', 'empathize' is that they are terms that usually get used to describe a relationship with another person or at least another living thing. You can care for people, you can care about a dog or a kitten, you can maybe care about a cactus plant....but you can't really care for (much less empathize with) a teapot or a couch or a sex doll, right?  

Seems the word we usually use when it comes to inanimate objects instead of 'care' is 'value'. I value my watch, but I don't _care _for my watch.

With that in mind, the debate starts to center around whether we, as writers, consider characters to be in some way alive. I notice in this thread those who tend to advocate for 'caring' about their characters seem to use, intentionally or not, the language of sentience beings in referring to them. They talk about 'inflicting things on them', basically it's that kind of language. It's the essential difference between a puppeteer and a god.

When I write characters, I very much write them as puppets. That is to say, I try to make them lifelike and imagine them as people, but I never really consider their existence off-set. I don't write character biographies or dream up complex backstories and, in all honesty, once I have written their story I tend to more or less forget they ever existed, except as avatars in a story I once wrote.

I guess some might say that cheapens the concept of character, because wouldn't we all prefer to watch people than puppets? No, I think that's a misunderstanding. A good puppet manipulated with enough skill can be as lifelike as any living being. Way I see it, the humanity in my characters doesn't come from 'them' but from me, as the writer. They're all just extensions of myself anyway. They don't have a single thought that I don't already have. So what exactly is their worth?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 10, 2019)

Characters are a way to vicariously experience another perspective, which is in and of itself valuable. I have personally changed writing some characters. Readers have personally changed through reading some characters and stories. Characters can affect real change in real people, so they certainly have worth. Stories are made compelling by the characters in them--and stories have created such uproar that they've been banned, burned, vilified. Stories have changed human rights, animal rights, caused wars, caused ecological change and changed criminal justice--all of which have affected the lives of billions of people throughout history.  

They might not have a thought you couldn't have formed on your own, but you might not have formed such a thought without the character. Putting oneself in the character's shoes gives rise to vicarious learning and enhanced empathy (particularly among persons who have difficulty forming close relationships with other people), which can cause someone to feel and think things they never would have without the vicarious experience.


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> *you can't really care for* (much less empathize with) a teapot or a couch or *a sex doll*, right?



Now hang about - them's fighting words. But actually, I agree, though being British I cultivate an unhealthy attachment to my teapot. But I dunno. I'll maniacally project every bit of unrequited good (and bad) regard I can rustle onto passing fictional characters. 

Because it's safe. They can't hurt you. 

Until they do.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 10, 2019)

bdcharles said:


> Now hang about - them's fighting words. But actually, I agree, though being British I cultivate an unhealthy attachment to my teapot. But I dunno. I'll maniacally project every bit of unrequited good (and bad) regard I can rustle onto passing fictional characters.
> 
> Because it's safe. They can't hurt you.
> 
> Until they do.



You got me there. Damn.

My next short story: The modern-day Duke Of Gloucester gets his mouth constantly burned by the content of a much treasured yet psychopathic teapot, possessed by the vengeful souls of the Princes In The Tower.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> You got me there. Damn.
> 
> My next short story: The modern-day Duke Of Gloucester gets his mouth constantly burned by the content of a much treasured yet psychopathic teapot, possessed by the vengeful souls of the Princes In The Tower.



A little unfair, that title has come and gone a few times with changing monarchies. It is all the present Duke has in common with Richard III I think, certainly not the same family. Still, who said ghosts were fair?  

The lack of compunction that Monarchs seem to have about killing people off to suit their plot makes me wonder if they see the rest of us as 'things' rather than 'people'.







 as far as I know.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 11, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> A little unfair, that title has come and gone a few times with changing monarchies. It is all the present Duke has in common with Richard III I think, certainly not the same family. Still, who said ghosts were fair?
> 
> The lack of compunction that Monarchs seem to have about killing people off to suit their plot makes me wonder if they see the rest of us as 'things' rather than 'people'.
> 
> ...



I can tell you from experience that ten year old boy-ghosts are little shits when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 11, 2019)

You just have to George RR Martin it. After a while it comes to you with surprising ease.


----------

