Killing Main Characters ...

[ctg]

Dear Writers,

I don't know if you have come across dilemma where you're writing a series of novels, and one or two main characters in your story starts to bug you, yet you know that those characters are sort of essential to the story itself. At back of your mind you have kept them alive (to the end of the book), but as you are thinking to start to write the next book, you find those characters have a little or no meaning to the story, almost as if they done have a role. Therefore, the question becomes, is it all right to kill them off? And what would be the best way to do it (rewrite their endings in the book 1 or at the beginning of the book 2)? ... Or is this a normal sort of thing that every writer has with their characters, kind of love/hate relationship?

What do you think about this?

[Urlik]

killing them off at the beginning of book 2 might be easier, and could also form a subplot; the hero's quest for revenge for the death of his companion/friend against the backdrop of the main story.
it could also be used to illustrate how ruthless and evil the villain is, saving a lot of time describing his character and background.

[Overread]

The only thing I would avoid is the NPC trap of existance.
By this I mean that in a roleplaying game of DnD a character not played by the players often exists only to perform a certain action - such as give a quest or to be rescued - until they perform this task they are essentially invulnerable, but afterwards they can be gutted and killed and looted like anything else.

In a book this comes over as weak charactization as the characters are not people but roles on a board - so if you are killing people off try to make sure that they are not falling into the little trap

[ctg]

Urlik, the character who I am thinking about killing is a major player on the plot line that goes parallel to the main plot. Therefore his death is not easy, although he died once to get resurrected in plot that goes with and against the antagonist plot-line. He also becomes a temporary guardian to a impact character. So there is a lot of stuff going with his character.

Thank you very much Cverread. You really made me think of their purpose and how I have written the characters in the story. The reason I am asking is because much out muchness, I move the viewpoint much more to be seen from antagonists point of view in book two, where main characters from the book 1 appear more and less as a that annoying nuisanse, that won't go away, no matter what do you do.

All I am thinking about how much story I am going make, if I keep all the characters alive, till I reach the book 3. As some of these characters are not really necessary in the overall plot.

Also Overread, you must have had very bad RPG experiences, if that is what you can come up from those games. Although it very well explains what you mean ... and it made me think.

[Overread]

I also take RPG lessons
Fear the Boot

[ctg]

Maybe you should start reading these from the beginning as they are very educational ... DORK TOWER ... or then think about buying SJG Munchkin sourcebook, as it teach about gaming more then any other book.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

When you say the character has started to "bug" you, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean that the character has annoying personality traits, like, for instance, always speaking in rhyme, and you're just getting tired of writing it? In which case, I would advise you to just stick it out. I mean, some people are just annoying. And some characters are a challenge. But if you just can't stand it, go back and rewrite the character so that he doesn't bug you anymore.

But, if this character is bugging you because he seems to have suddenly run out of things to do, that's another story. I wonder at a "main" character who suddenly stops being vital to the movement of the plot. That would suggest to me that you should explore this character more deeply. If he doesn't serve a purpose to the bitter end, or until he dies unavoidably, I think his role could be carried out by another character. Or he could be scaled back from the beginning so he becomes a minor character.

In either case, when you say you have "in the back of your mind kept them alive (to the end of the book)," killing him off would seem like an artificial plot contrivance, especially right at the end or right at the beginning of the book. There are less melodramatic ways to get rid of a character. Maybe when the next adventure gets underway, he says, "Sorry guys, I can't go with you this time. I had an epiphany. I started a family. These crops aren't going to harvest themselves. My heart has always belonged to the sea, etc."

Another benefit of keeping him alive would be you can choose to bring him back again in Book 4 or 5 if you want.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree with Pelagic Argosy that there are plenty of other ways to get a character out from underfoot -- and still keep them on hold should you need them later.

On Lost, I've noticed that whenever the writers get tired of a character and don't want to go to the trouble of resolving that person's storyline, they kill them off, often without any warning. I love that show, but this is one aspect of it that I don't like at all. It seems sloppy.

[magician2magici]

well , i think you don't kill characters - especially main - just because they bug you !
half of my main characters in my triology were not main characters from the start ! and the other half is what has left behind !

i think if the character has one remaining role to play , even it was small , you should keep him ..

** away from this , i wanted to open a discussion before about the matter of killing characters , but thanks ctg for opening it

here i have a question to ask :
why and how do you kill you characters ?!

actually in my triology i have made only one killing for a main character , although he was powerful , but i thought if i murdered him at this critical situation it will give more effect into the situation .. and it had made such a role..
this is one ..
now at my current novel i'm writing , there is a big situation where two nations fight and finally at critical point two heroes - one from one nation- stop the fight as one protects the other - love problems you know -
so i thought if i kill one of them i would make much more influence and the divergence of the path of the situation towards alliance will be more convincing than just making serious injury to one of them and make him get better .. , but then a problem came , i'm not sure i can deal with the consequences .. love problems , nations problems , even plot problems , i need every role in this line especially to fullfill a role at the end of everything , i can't just take the risk of making such death for just ... convincing more !

so ..
what would you do if you were in my shoes ?
why do you kill your characters ? would you kill them for making more deep effect in your readers souls or even making the situation convincing ?
how would you deal with the consequences especially in major role characters ?

oops..
i made long discussion here...
i hope ctg forgives me ..

salam..
m2m

[ctg]

Originally Posted by The Pelagic Argosy

But, if this character is bugging you because he seems to have suddenly run out of things to do, that's another story. I wonder at a "main" character who suddenly stops being vital to the movement of the plot. That would suggest to me that you should explore this character more deeply. If he doesn't serve a purpose to the bitter end, or until he dies unavoidably, I think his role could be carried out by another character. Or he could be scaled back from the beginning so he becomes a minor character.

Well this is a bit of explanation, as I said I run a couple of plot parallel to the main plot (follows the leading characters from the beginning to the end). The character, which I am thinking of killing of is a main character. He investigates the background of the main character, and his dealings with the world. In the third version, he was to become leading character jailer. On fourth version he dies - like in third version - to be resurrected by the antagonists, but in fourth version he's being resurrected by the antagonist rival and given a (hidden - left for readers to decide) purpose by them. At the end of the book 1 (v4), this character is under thread of being wiped out again, but I leave it up to second book on am I killing him off second time or not ... or am I moving him to see the 'nice' white coated people, if you get my gist. (Of course even in this moment I am thinking other ways to deal with him.)

The reason for this is, that I really don't need him that much, because I am bringing new characters in the second book. Therefore, I am contemplating on best options. Should I leave him in the play or should I straight move him in background to wait for his return. All this is because I don't want to have a plot-line, that I have to drag forcefully to the end of second book.

I am sorry if I sound cryptic, but I just don't want to spill my beans here and spoil ... or do something worse. Like in book 1, I had a clear goal on what I wanted to tell, and where I wanted to lead. Therefore it is the same with the book 2, as I know where that is heading, and I can only use the open plots to certain points, and make new ones that lead to the culmination at the book 3, in which I want to stop writing that series - I don't want to write seven book for a story I have planned to do in three.

[ctg]

Originally Posted by magician2magici

well , i think you don't kill characters - especially main - just because they bug you !
half of my main characters in my triology were not main characters from the start ! and the other half is what has left behind !

i think if the character has one remaining role to play , even it was small , you should keep him ..

Including Theresa answer, that's three votes on keeping the character in play.



Why and how to you kill your characters ?!

now at my current novel i'm writing , there is a big situation where two nations fight and finally at critical point two heroes - one from one nation- stop the fight as one protects the other.
so i thought if i kill one of them i would make much more influence and the divergence of the path of the situation towards alliance will be more convincing than just making serious injury to one of them and make him get better .. , but then a problem came , i'm not sure i can deal with the consequences .. love problems , nations problems , even plot problems , i need every role in this line especially to fullfill a role at the end of everything , i can't just take the risk of making such death for just ... convincing more !

it's very similar problem to mine, but instead of killing mine, killing off your character affect the play more then anything. Therefore, I would proceed on killing him, or injuring him such a way that it's impossible for him or her to proceed on current course. If there is a love in the play, then you should show the dramatic side of that, treating an invalid (or even a cancer patient) can ask a great deal from one. Does readers want to know how hard it is? Don't know. Do they care to read such a tragedies? Don't know. Does it create a conflict in the play? Hell yes. Can it hammer the story? Yep, and that's a big problem for the story and the writer.


Why do you kill your characters ? To serve a purpose and to create a conflict or three.

Would you kill them for making to make an deep impact on the audience? Without blinking an eye.

How would you deal with the consequences, especially in major role characters? Trying to solve the plot to the end, and then showing the consequences via other characters lives. Using their memories, dialogue, or even using random encounters to bring them back ... unless I want to resurrect them to serve another purpose.

i hope ctg forgives me ..

salam..
m2m

I forgive you m2m,
salam

[anthorn]

I love killing xharacters. I have a cast of several people. So in book three i slaughter nearly all of them. I kill, Faircaira, sorrel and Garrison and Faelii, Faraday and Tanyalla. Who are all main characters.

[ctg]

That's good for you anthorn.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by ctg

On fourth version he dies - like in third version - to be resurrected by the antagonists, but in fourth version he's being resurrected by the antagonist rival and given a (hidden - left for readers to decide) purpose by them. At the end of the book 1 (v4), this character is under thread of being wiped out again, but I leave it up to second book on am I killing him off second time or not ... or am I moving him to see the 'nice' white coated people, if you get my gist. (Of course even in this moment I am thinking other ways to deal with him.)

I say leave it up to the antagonists. If he is at their mercy, what are they going to do to him? What kind of people are they? If he failed them, would they kill him off? Or would they keep him alive in an asylum in case they want to use him later? Although, if he can be resurrected again at will, the whole question becomes moot.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of resurrections. It seems like cheating to me a little bit. Either the resurrected person has to be very different from the way they were when they were alive. (A zombie, or something.) Or, bringing them back has to be extremely difficult. Otherwise, death would lose all meaning.

Originally Posted by magician2magici

...so i thought if i kill one of them i would make much more influence and the divergence of the path of the situation towards alliance will be more convincing than just making serious injury to one of them and make him get better .. , but then a problem came , i'm not sure i can deal with the consequences .. love problems , nations problems , even plot problems , i need every role in this line especially to fullfill a role at the end of everything , i can't just take the risk of making such death for just ... convincing more !

so ..
what would you do if you were in my shoes ?
why do you kill your characters ? would you kill them for making more deep effect in your readers souls or even making the situation convincing ?
how would you deal with the consequences especially in major role characters ?

Everything should make a deep impact in your readers souls.

Look at the circumstances of the scene. Are events leading unavoidably to that characters death or not?

I don't find scenes 'convincing' or not based on how much drama or angst they contain, or the body count, or how vividly you describe vultures picking at a carcass. I will either be buying your story or not by the end of Chapter 1 or 2, based on how well you draw me in to your world and make me forget that I'm reading a book. If I'm buying it, I'll accept whatever you tell me. If not, I'll stop reading. (That's not to say that a clunky bit can't shatter the illusion here and there. But, if I'm otherwise engrossed in the story, I'll forgive you.) Basically, how a character's death will affect me, as a reader, starts being determined when you first introduce him or her.

[ctg]

Originally Posted by The Pelagic Argosy

I say leave it up to the antagonists. If he is at their mercy, what are they going to do to him? What kind of people are they? If he failed them, would they kill him off? Or would they keep him alive in an asylum in case they want to use him later? Although, if he can be resurrected again at will, the whole question becomes moot.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of resurrections. It seems like cheating to me a little bit. Either the resurrected person has to be very different from the way they were when they were alive. (A zombie, or something.) Or, bringing them back has to be extremely difficult. Otherwise, death would lose all meaning.

In third version, that character woke from a slap and soon realised that he was being torn in part and turned to a zombie, but it didn't work for my editor (as he couldn't understand motivation behind it), therefore I think that I will remove his last four chapters and keep him dead as a stone. It will also remove rival antogonist plot from book 1, but I can bring it back other way in book 2.

Also take a note that this is post-cyberpunk, transhuman civilisation, with a technology that can bring people back from hanging on the edge between life and death. Losing a limb is not a really big problem. Bio-, cyber- and nanotech can do wonders. Getting shot in middle of the colony, or even in middle of the medical hub is not a problem. Somebody can most probably bring you back in living books.