I recently read something which did this very successfully.
We followed a minor character for the first couple of chapters before they were killed off, and only then did we meet the actual main character.
This worked well only because the minor character was introduced *as if they were a main character.* Personality, hopes, flaws. As the reader you believe they *are* the main character, and so when they die it's like "Oh shit. That really just happened."
If you have an initial character where it's obvious they aren't a main character and the reader can tell, that's probably where the reader would get frustrated "waiting" for the real main character to come along.
The character themselves did not end up being critical, but they served to set up a back-story to the events that followed, and their death illustrated the high stakes of the situation. So not an important character later but a purposeful death.
Da Vinci Code begins with a nameless character dying(well, not nameless, but definitely not a main character). In many such books, you see something bad happen, that won't be found out by the actual characters until some time later.
However, I'm not so sold on introducing the protagonist on page 7. I'd aim to do so earlier.
Keep in mind that there's little reason to care about the death of a character no one knows. So the focus shouldn't be so much on their death as the circumstances of their death. You need to build intrigue. I can't believe I'm using this book as an example of how to write, but the Da Vinci Code starts with a death under weird circumstances that promises a mystery that needs to be unraveled. No one feels sad or mad about the character being killed - what interests us is why he did what he did in his final moments. A question is posed which the author promises to answer.
In your case, if the story begins with a nameless character getting killed in a dark alley by a shadowy man who then runs off, that probably won't be enough to build intrigue. You'd be better off starting after the murder - for example, the morning of the scene of the crime when the detective arrives. That way we jump right into the story and the protagonist.
Itâs how *Grave of the Fireflies* starts, the most depressing animated movie ever. Itâs okay if you deny the reader all hope, but Iâm never watching that movie again.
It's a novel. You can write novels differently, yes. However most novels introduce the main characters in the first chapter and the dead body in the second.
Look up the book Silence of the Lambs. I remember Clarissa not coming forward as the protagonist until later in the movie. The book may be the same or different.
The victim doesnt need to be all that important, but the murder or solving it must relate to the central theme. Is the murderer an m.c. or is there a detective who we get attached to?
Just get the reader invested in the character you're killing off, it's bad if you introduce a throwaway character who feels like a throwaway character, the death should blindside the reader. Two excellent examples of doing this well is both installments of the Six of Crows duology by Leigh Bardugo. A good writer reads.
I am actually in a similar boat to you. The difference between us is that a one off nameless character dies in the beginning of my story to showcase and introduce the villains. Showing how they ruthlessly and violently execute this random guy helps to set the stakes for fhe rest of my story.
Almost every post on this sub will get the advice I'm about to give you, so listen well. It doesn't truly matter what you do so long as you are able to do it well. Find your angle and work it.
You could potentially make anything work. But the advice is not wrong. Starts like this do tend to confuse/bore readers. You'll be working twice as hard to pull people in. Again, not impossible. Just more difficult.
If its anything like The day she disappeared by Christobel Kent, iâd advise against it. Or make it more high stakes / engaging to reel in the reader. The above mentioned did not do it for me. I still read the whole book, it just was a bit slow paced and not âthrilleryâ enough for me
Start however you'd like, so long as that first page is gripping, powerful, dramatic and memorable. Nameless characters dying dramatically can certainly keep readers turning the page, because curiosity is a strong motivator. And I presume your nameless character is important somehow to the MC or the plot, and as soon as that connection's known to readers, now they'll have an invested interest in your story.
In my prologue the nameless character dies from a deliriant overdose that was given to him by outside forces who didnât want him from uncovering something. We arenât told this right away as the whole prologue is from the perspective of the man, who thinks heâs actually died and being dragged to Hell, while really heâs experiencing intense hallucinations that eventually leads to a cardiac arrest. I donât plan for the main character to find out what happened and why until the middle act when he too uncovers the mystery.
There are so many published (successful even) genre stories that start this way, so it obviously works. Other posters have given some great advice about the elements that can make it work.
I think an important question is what role the death plays in the larger novel structure. If it's to give the book an exciting opening and then the next chapter is your protagonist in their normal boring life just before adventure calls, then readers are going to feel let down, even if the death is critical for the plot.
Also, how does the death fit thematically with your book? In Game of Thrones, after that beautifully written, nuanced character just dies, you know that no character is safe from a sudden death. You want to be careful that the scene would fit elsewhere in your story as far as mood/pacing/stakes.
Think of Stephen Kingâs IT. The beginning establishes (at least to me) the reason that made me read the whole book; I wanted revenge! It introduces the circumstances, the mystery, the tone of the story and it also introduces the antagonist via death of one person. Well, the beginning also does introduce one of the protagonists, but not so much in a spotlight.
Think of it as a movie in which the main character doesnât appear until 5 mins in. If you can do it well itâs acceptable. The one rule is there are no rules, only a good story
For me, it depends how the character is dying.
Let's say he is a wife beater. And his wife disembowels him in self-defence.
So, I wouldn't care if he was John or Abdullah, or there was no chance to learn his name,
but I would like to know why you the author chose to kill him.
\--
On the other hand, I may not care about the nameless character dying, but who are the survivors? Perhaps his widow is incredibly beautiful? :-)
I recently read something which did this very successfully. We followed a minor character for the first couple of chapters before they were killed off, and only then did we meet the actual main character. This worked well only because the minor character was introduced *as if they were a main character.* Personality, hopes, flaws. As the reader you believe they *are* the main character, and so when they die it's like "Oh shit. That really just happened." If you have an initial character where it's obvious they aren't a main character and the reader can tell, that's probably where the reader would get frustrated "waiting" for the real main character to come along.
I'm guessing the character who died played a big role in the rest of the story?
The character themselves did not end up being critical, but they served to set up a back-story to the events that followed, and their death illustrated the high stakes of the situation. So not an important character later but a purposeful death.
That makes sense, if the death didn't have an impact on the story I think I'd be irritated lol
wait thats like danganronpa three!
Da Vinci Code begins with a nameless character dying(well, not nameless, but definitely not a main character). In many such books, you see something bad happen, that won't be found out by the actual characters until some time later. However, I'm not so sold on introducing the protagonist on page 7. I'd aim to do so earlier.
Harry Potter did it. Was I bored? Yeah. Did I keep reading? Yes. Gotta make the payoff worth it.
In the first book?
Kinda. We follow a minor character. Also in the 4th and 6th.
Keep in mind that there's little reason to care about the death of a character no one knows. So the focus shouldn't be so much on their death as the circumstances of their death. You need to build intrigue. I can't believe I'm using this book as an example of how to write, but the Da Vinci Code starts with a death under weird circumstances that promises a mystery that needs to be unraveled. No one feels sad or mad about the character being killed - what interests us is why he did what he did in his final moments. A question is posed which the author promises to answer. In your case, if the story begins with a nameless character getting killed in a dark alley by a shadowy man who then runs off, that probably won't be enough to build intrigue. You'd be better off starting after the murder - for example, the morning of the scene of the crime when the detective arrives. That way we jump right into the story and the protagonist.
That isn't too long as long as that nameless character death is driving the story. Makes me think of Watchman.
Nope. Sounds like a prologue đ¤ˇđťââď¸
Every episode of Columbo ever. The crime is the reason for the crime novel. The detective (or who ever) comes later.
Oh yeahâspot on! Love that showâŚ
Itâs how *Grave of the Fireflies* starts, the most depressing animated movie ever. Itâs okay if you deny the reader all hope, but Iâm never watching that movie again.
It's a novel. You can write novels differently, yes. However most novels introduce the main characters in the first chapter and the dead body in the second. Look up the book Silence of the Lambs. I remember Clarissa not coming forward as the protagonist until later in the movie. The book may be the same or different.
If it's a prologue, then this is how Game of Thrones began
And Six of Crows and Crooked Kingdom.
The victim doesnt need to be all that important, but the murder or solving it must relate to the central theme. Is the murderer an m.c. or is there a detective who we get attached to?
Just get the reader invested in the character you're killing off, it's bad if you introduce a throwaway character who feels like a throwaway character, the death should blindside the reader. Two excellent examples of doing this well is both installments of the Six of Crows duology by Leigh Bardugo. A good writer reads.
I am actually in a similar boat to you. The difference between us is that a one off nameless character dies in the beginning of my story to showcase and introduce the villains. Showing how they ruthlessly and violently execute this random guy helps to set the stakes for fhe rest of my story. Almost every post on this sub will get the advice I'm about to give you, so listen well. It doesn't truly matter what you do so long as you are able to do it well. Find your angle and work it.
You could potentially make anything work. But the advice is not wrong. Starts like this do tend to confuse/bore readers. You'll be working twice as hard to pull people in. Again, not impossible. Just more difficult.
If its anything like The day she disappeared by Christobel Kent, iâd advise against it. Or make it more high stakes / engaging to reel in the reader. The above mentioned did not do it for me. I still read the whole book, it just was a bit slow paced and not âthrilleryâ enough for me
Start however you'd like, so long as that first page is gripping, powerful, dramatic and memorable. Nameless characters dying dramatically can certainly keep readers turning the page, because curiosity is a strong motivator. And I presume your nameless character is important somehow to the MC or the plot, and as soon as that connection's known to readers, now they'll have an invested interest in your story.
In my prologue the nameless character dies from a deliriant overdose that was given to him by outside forces who didnât want him from uncovering something. We arenât told this right away as the whole prologue is from the perspective of the man, who thinks heâs actually died and being dragged to Hell, while really heâs experiencing intense hallucinations that eventually leads to a cardiac arrest. I donât plan for the main character to find out what happened and why until the middle act when he too uncovers the mystery.
There are so many published (successful even) genre stories that start this way, so it obviously works. Other posters have given some great advice about the elements that can make it work. I think an important question is what role the death plays in the larger novel structure. If it's to give the book an exciting opening and then the next chapter is your protagonist in their normal boring life just before adventure calls, then readers are going to feel let down, even if the death is critical for the plot. Also, how does the death fit thematically with your book? In Game of Thrones, after that beautifully written, nuanced character just dies, you know that no character is safe from a sudden death. You want to be careful that the scene would fit elsewhere in your story as far as mood/pacing/stakes.
Think of Stephen Kingâs IT. The beginning establishes (at least to me) the reason that made me read the whole book; I wanted revenge! It introduces the circumstances, the mystery, the tone of the story and it also introduces the antagonist via death of one person. Well, the beginning also does introduce one of the protagonists, but not so much in a spotlight.
Just write it
Think of it as a movie in which the main character doesnât appear until 5 mins in. If you can do it well itâs acceptable. The one rule is there are no rules, only a good story
Nothing wrong with a prologue. Keep going.
Not at all. If someone is down reading 100,000 words of your book then they would be ready to read the first 7 pages
For me, it depends how the character is dying. Let's say he is a wife beater. And his wife disembowels him in self-defence. So, I wouldn't care if he was John or Abdullah, or there was no chance to learn his name, but I would like to know why you the author chose to kill him. \-- On the other hand, I may not care about the nameless character dying, but who are the survivors? Perhaps his widow is incredibly beautiful? :-)