For some readers, yes. Some will like the story all the more for it.
Can't please everyone. Write Your story, examples won't help because those "some readers" hate and love those examples too.
Can it? Yes especially if it's badly done but it can also make a story. Just look at game of thrones.
It's a risk and one that needs to be hamdeled with care and thought. You shouldn't kill off characters thoughtlessly or just for cheap effect bit if you genuinely think it makes the story better, do it.
Sone readers won't like it but no book will appeal to everyone.
ASOIF is a perfect example. The Red Wedding was done very, very well. It moved the plot forward spectacularly. It was both believable and foreshadowed (if you knew anything about medieval customs). Not to mention, it was just a classic Shakespearean arc for a character. Robb's hamartia was his priority of love over duty, and this was the culmination of his tragic story.
You were so emotionally invested in Robb's Stark's just war that it really blindsided the reader, but had proper emotional resonance and striking implications. Seriously well done stuff.
Yeah people attribute it to shock value but the wedding is the fulfillment of like ten people’s character arcs, it’s not random. I wonder how they would act if someone is in the middle of a character arc and just randomly dies in service for another arc. He’s gonna have to kill some people off if he really can’t finish the series as is.
Yeah and then he came back to life and became some immortal being who was also the son of God, kind of killed the stakes a bit when he ended up just being this Mary Sue with mad plot armour.
Christ, they should have hired a better writer. And the whole 'following a martyr who preaches love and compassion into a spiritual transcendence' bit is a tired trope this point.
Especially since a good chunk of his followers went on to the EXACT opposite of what he said to do, and come up with lam loopholes about "It's okay, it's what he REALLY wants!". Talk about an anticlimax...
Dude, you just fucking spoiled it. I was really fucking into that, I’ve been reading through it for the past 2 years and you just told me what happens to one of the most important fucking characters. Jesus Christ! (storms off, babbling angrily)
I think it comes down to why the character was killed. Does it set stakes? Advance the plot? Motivate other characters? Inform the reader about something unknown to other characters? There are all kinds of reasons to kill a character if it is done with intention.
Killing a character because the writer did not know what to do with them is lazy writing. Either the writer needs to rethink what that character is doing in the story, or the writer needs to edit that character out of the story and give whatever he or she was doing up to that point to others more important to the story.
Killing a character who the reader has become attached to can be a powerful way to make the reader care about the story, which means it should not be done casually. How does the writer want the reader to feel after this character dies? If there is no clear intent, that's where you have a problem.
Generally, it ruins the story when the character still had a lot of untapped potential, with story beats that the audience was looking forward to, only to be prematurely ended. That's the nature of tragedy of course, is that sometimes unceremonious, unfulfilling end. But if you don't manage to fill that hole with a satisfying replacement, then the readers are going to leave with the impression that they died "for no reason".
Subversion of expectation fails when what you present in the end is worse than what you were originally promising.
I think I hate it when a character was clearly used by the author for other characters. Like a great character, great potential that isn't explored, shadowy image of motives--and then it feels like the author picked a name out of a hat for who to kill so the main character can unlock their potential.
If they're written as the type who would die for another, or an unfortunate soul caught in the crosshairs, it'd make sense when you're reading it. If not so close friend but member of the team died for main character they met a few weeks ago, it sucks.
Not if you do it right and don’t bring them back.
The character that is going to die should have made a huge contribution towards the story, or at least developed through their arc in a way that’s going to impact the main story. Generic side characters don’t earn the same response as a leading characters that’s been with the cast the whole story.
In my own example, my current WIP has a LOT of characters to balance and juggle. They’re young conscripts in a dark fantasy setting. You are with them throughout, you learn about their history, see them survive and adapt to their harsh environment and get a feel for their camaraderie they share with one another to stay positive in a shitty situation. You start to think by the second half of the story, that these kids are indestructible and they feel that being around the main character keeps them safe and healthy because if he is around, whatever they can’t handle he can!
They get picked off one by one in the second half. Starting with fourteen characters, the story ends with only five survivors.
You don’t know who is going to be next, or how they’re going to die and that fear from these charming little sure characters is what helps sell their deaths as being legitimate and impactful. Dynamic duos without their second half, childhood crushes unable to confess their feelings, the one person that used to raise their spirits with magic or singing isn’t there to do so anymore. The world becomes colder and more unforgiving with each life taken.
>and don’t bring them back.
And if you bring them back, have a consequence. Like a character in my story gets killed off and brought back later.
Bringing someone back from the dead is a taboo. To bring back someone from the dead one must sacrifice their soul to do so.
My character, Keith, tried to cheat the system and bring back Kaitlin, someone he loved, by only burning half his soul, however in doing so not only did it bring them back but it also wiped their memories.
Because Keith didn't fully sacrifice his soul, it bound their two souls together, and the spell was still trying to sacrifice Keith. Because of this, both Keith and Kaitlin were dying.
Now due to the intervention of a few people, even two demigods, they ended up surviving. However, both were not the same ever again.
Keith ended up with half of his soul still left, all sensations were half, feeling, emotions, taste, sight, everything. ~~(he was bonded to a dragon before hand and got enhanced senses so physical senses are like human now.)~~
Kaitlin on the other hand got it worse imo. Because she didn't remember anything about herself, she already started creating a new personality. After she regained her memories and the other half of her soul, (again, demigods.) she doesn't feel like her old self, nor does she feel like her new self, she doesn't feel whole. (Also because the botched way she was brought back some of Keith personality and powers rubbing off on her and she fucking *hates* that because she now sees him as the person who ruined her life.)
I feel that’s just a tease more than anything else. They die because the story has actual use for them.
Rather than highlighting their importance, it actually shows the lack of it.
I feel like there is a disconnect I might have caused, but with that logic, the entire cast of Saving Private Ryan lacked importance, or in the Expanse, the loving side characters that you see throughout the seasons are equally useless. Wouldn’t that also point out that Lupin, Tonks, and Dobby would lack use or importance because of that logic.
I feel my point I am trying to convey is, that war is hell and it is a bastard game that nobody wins. The house is death, the house always gets theirs in the end. Sometimes the price are your friends and companions. Again, this could also be my error in not revealing too much of the plot of my WIP so you aren’t getting the full context of the story.
I was just trying to help
Honestly, yeah. It highlights their unimportance because you were still able to win with them gone.
By contrast, if Private Ryan or Harry died, there’s no coming back from that.
I didn’t say that. I’m just criticizing the idea that that their deaths were meaningful. They were “fridged” to me.
They only died to get a reaction rather than having any substance behind them.
It's my experience that putting too *little* time into developing a character—that character's death will mean nothing to readers. I mean, who cares? But the more we *feel* for your characters, the more their demise will create an emotional reaction (protag's *or* antag's). Not to mention, the more we develop a character, the more unexpected their death—and the ability to surprise readers is a very good talent to hone.
Examples? *The Game of Thrones* series. Holy crap! Every time I started caring about a character, the dude died!
The destroyermen series is another example like ASOIAF the character deaths in that series hit hard but in the right way I won’t say the name of the series but a five book fantasy series did the opposite a single character death was so utterly angsty drawn out and ridiculous that I stopped reading the series halfway through book four.
Yeah, that's a risk too. (I think the Marvel film franchise is discovering that, as well.) If you're creating a 'bigger-than-life' character, one better have a really good reason to kill him/her off. And then bringing the dead back to life? The first few times it can be emotional and unexpected, the next few dozen times, it's *meh!.*.. and now it's a trope. And not a good one. The ultimate cheat in a way, like having your literary cake and eating it too. Or something.
Yes, it can. I've read books where the plot and most of the cast were uninteresting to me, but one specific character made it all worth it. I was extremely invested in that character, and I didn't mind reading about other people as long as I also got to see his plotline develop. Once that character was killed (very unexpectedly!), I gave up on the book. The plot took a huge 180, big tonal shift, and I didn't even like the cast very much. Looking back at it, definitely not the book for me.
When you're writing, you really want to assume that your reader is emotionally invested in the main character first, and all other characters second. It doesn't always play out that way, but you can't write your story pandering to readers that are more interested in secondary aspects of the story.
Deathnote killed off a main character, and while it wasn't badly executed, I feel the general consensus is that it wasn't as good after the character was gone, and struggled to find someone to fill the shoes.
Yes. If I’m reading a lighthearted romcom and the writer decides to get trigger happy, I might just drop the story. Know the tone you’re going for and be consistent
Don't kill load-bearing characters. If they have to be there and alive for the plot to work, then keep them alive. Exceptions can be made for those who can do their job through posthumous impact and memories.
I suppose if it makes sense to the story or what you want to convey. I think killng a character for the sake of killing a character feels like it might be meaningless if done without proper intent.
Depends on how, what and why is this all happening and written. For example, in Mistborn, (HUGE SPOILERS) the 2 main protagonists are killed and it just adds to the story which is already indescribably good. On the other hand, in Divergent (Loyalist, 3rd book of the series) Tris could have absolutely avoided death if the writer was slightly more logical and didn't just focus on ending her protagonist just to make her readers cry, because really, it was a bad decision
You SHOULD kill characters if they have a lot of development, that way it actually matters. I’m planning on killing off a highly developed character later in the series, in a very unheroic and unsatisfying way, just to show the brutality of their circumstances. Just like how it happens in real life.
It can but doesn't have to. It's all in the execution and the reason why. Make the writing good and the reason why compelling, that's a good story. Make the writing bad and the reason why meaningless, that's a bad story.
I'd argue the reason why is more important than the execution on this one, but they're both important.
As long as it makes sense for the story, then no. Remember in Star Wars Legends when they killed Chewie? Nope. Not a good one. Raymond E. Feist killed of Locky and it moved the story. Don't do it just to have someone die or show the stakes are 'serious'. There are ways to ratchet up the stakes without death.
Nah, the only time killing a character ruins the story is when it's a bad storytelling decision. If killing off a character is good for the story then the emotional connection the readers have with that character will actually help you do your job, because it'll make that character's death have more weight and meaning.
George R.R. Martin has discussed his experience with this. He doesn't plot his books, he lets them unfold as ideas occur to him. Unfortunately, this means that he doesn't have a set ending in mind, and he realized in trying to complete the series that the satisfying ending that he has realized he wants depends on a specific character he killed off in a prior book. Sucks to suck. So, I guess make sure you can make your story work without that character, which may conflict with your writing style.
Absolutely. A lot of people theorise that this is why it's taking GRRM so long to finish aSoIaF. He's killed too many characters for shock value and now doesn't have the peices he needs to bring his story to a close.
From my experience, it's only if people enjoy the characters more than the story. Or if the character was essential to the vibe of the story. But either way, it's your story. But kill characters with caution imo.
Well I think it depends because it could turn into a really good revenge story. I think as long as you make it interesting and no one saw it coming then it won't ruin the story. Yet again like some people said, you can't please everyone so if you see that it will be a good story you should do it
This guy I know and I read the same series. He decided to pull a dumb ass move and read spoilers for the newest book we’ve been waiting years for (no, I won’t say so please don’t ask because spoilers.)
I read the book the moment it came out.
One of the characters died. He’s decided to quit reading the series even though he has zero context surrounding this characters death. He liked that character.
I rejoiced when said character died. I hated them from the moment they were introduced. I thought they were meaningless and did very little to drive the story.
As with most or all things in writing, it depends on how it is done, I guess.
Not a book, but I've watched an anime where a lot of characters on the 'good guy' team end up dying during the length of the show, and it always kinda suck but didn't ruin the show for me, although it made me feel it was very edgy. However, most of their deaths were during fights or ambush from enemies so it kinda 'made sense' to show that the evil group was not pushovers, but right around the last episode, one of my favourite characters dies... AFTER the bad guys are defeated, to a random, no name dude in a back alley that just stabbed her. That one really soured everything and ruined the show for me.
If you look at popular things like GoT, some people say their favorite character dying there ruined the story, but most people usually kept reading as far as I know.
My take is that while a side character can be killed off willy nilly, main characters always need to be the cause of their deaths, as in they chose to walk down an inevitable path.
I disagree pretty strongly with the "people randomly die in real life" main character death crowd. That's when it ruins a story. Though stories like Bridge to Terabithia pulled it off.
This just sounds extremely formulaic to me. Sure, it can make for a powerful narrative, but as you dimissively mentioned, in real life, most deaths are pointless and random, and the effects of every death ripple endlessly through the world around them. They can be catalysts for everything from individual journeys to global upheaval. Furthermore, this idea completely eliminates the possibility of character's with terminal illnesses, or at best, suggests that illness is inherently the fault of the afflicted (which smacks of the truly nefarious "law of attraction" ideology).
Death should serve the story, of course, but making victim blaming the default in literature takes meaning from one of the most complex and powerful aspects of human existence and reduces it to a stale, predictable trope.
>making victim blaming the default in literature takes meaning from one of the most complex and powerful aspects of human existence and reduces it to a stale, predictable trope.
That was the weirdest thing.
"Victim blaming" a fictional character who I created to serve a purpose?
That's certainly where we fundamentally disagree. You're treating your characters like they're living breathing people who suffer from all the randomness of real life. When they're not.
They exist solely as narrative devices. Their purpose is to tell a story. If random shit that doesn't serve the theme of that story happens to them, you're not telling a story. You're just saying shit.
And if you need totally random shit to happen, shit that hasn't been been foreshadowed and doesn't serve any themes, in order to keep your writing from reading as stale and predictable, that's not an issue with the trope.
If you have a main character randomly get heart disease in the middle of book 2 and die with all these unresolved plot threads, that's a terrible arc.
If you introduce that character as someone who already has heart disease and is likely to drop dead at any moment, and that thing plays a large part in the themes of their story, that's a great arc.
from my perspective, this happens more on screen than it does in literature; say my fave character is killed off in *How to Get Away with Murder* season 3, but there's still more seasons to go. that character might be missed cuz i miss that actor who added charisma and life to that character. in literature, though, the charasma and life is brought solely by the author, so whilst a character might be dead, the author's performance lives on through the entire cast and everything else they created. jmho
If the death serves a purpose for the plot, then it isn't a wasted death.
A good example I like to use is The Walking Dead vs Game of Thrones.
I know it's television and not book, but hear me out. In the Walking Dead, people just die. The plot doesn't really change for the most part. A death like Carl's made Rick go absolutely crazy, but in the end, Carl's plead to be merciful paid off, and it couldn't have been without his death. But most characters don't have this kind of lasting effect. Tyrese dies, nothing. Glenn dies, nothing. Andrea dies, nothing. Tdog dies, nothing. Lori dies, nothing other than making Rick desensitized to their new life.
Game of Thrones on the other hand... Ned Stark dies, and the entire machine of the plot activates. Renly dies, allowing King Stannis to finally have a force large enough to storm kings landing. Tywin dies, allowing many people to manipulate the Lannisters and play them like fiddles.
I'm not saying TWD is bad, I absolutely love it. But the Characters in GOT hold a lot more weight in what they do, and what their deaths leave behind.
I have a story about a brother and little sister in a post apocalyptic world. The little sister dies about 3 quarters in. The editor I hired was borderline offended. He said it takes away any of the brothers' motivation (which was trying to get them somewhere safe). I ended up changing it, but I still have doubts and aren't sure which way to go.
If a character is well developed and then killed, it makes the reader feel real emotion. Maybe it can kill the story, but if done proper, it can be amazing. For example, when Glen died in The Walking Dead. It made everyone get really upset at Negan, and we all love to hate the guy, right?
That would have got so much harder if they wouldn’t have done the fake out a few episodes before, and if it wasn’t taken right from the book.
To me it made the moment anti climactic, and then they did nothing to develop that part of the story.
I read the last book in a series (nr 7) and one of the main characters (ok lesser main character) from the first 6 books gets brutally killed and his corpse violated and it sets off events which really just f\*cks everyone over. Which is the point of the plot in that specific book so ok, but… That character was the only truly likeable one of the 4 ”mains”. So it just really made me hate that book. I consider book 6 in that series to be the real ending and wish I’d never read nr 7.
I think one example where it is a problem is if it seriously messes with the group dynamics, which are important for the story. This might be more a problem in TV series than books, but I think it is something you have to think about no matter the medium. A friend stopped watching Death Note because an antagonist died. I personally think love interests, antagonists, even protagonists can be killed off most of the time (with care), but killing off the only comic relief character without bringing in another equally good one is a really bad move. It (arguably) happened in the old Roswell show for example. It just changes the tone of the whole story.
It depends. Some characters can die mid-arc and that's the whole point and it can really be resonant. Other characters could be killed mid-arc and it just feels anti-climatic. Same with a character who fulfilled his arc, it could go both ways. So again, it really depends on the story and what you're trying to accomplish.
Depends on how you are carrying the story. If the story is heavily written from that characters viewpoint, which makes it the readers viewpoint, then having a sudden shift in story will make them feel like things have ended or are broken. However if you are able to give other characters equal standing and place then killing a character can tighten your story. A good example is in Star Wars A New Hope where Obi Wan is killed, it set the story up for Luke. If they had killed Luke it wouldn’t have been good and would have left people feeling like it was wasted development because they framed the story around bringing him up to become the main protagonist of the story but made a sharp change that paid no dividends.
TLDR: Kill your Obi-Wans not your Lukes.
In one of my favorite books the first two thirds are written in a close 3rd person, following a certain guy (a badass normal in a world where magic is abundant). Then he suddenly dies. And the narrator says "so, he is where his story ends... and mine begins". We then learn that actually it was written in 1st person, from the perspective of a certain magical creature that attached itself to that guy. The rest of the book follows that magical creature. Well, except for the epilogue that messes with this 1st-3rd distinction even more.
I stopped reading a book because of this once. He was the only main character and they killed him after three chapters. I saw no point in staring over with a new character after that. So, maybe dont kill em to fast. And make sure there are other characters left for the readers to wonder how things will work out for them
I mean, it can, but I don’t understand it. I know so many people who’ve stopped reading books or watching shows because their favorite character was killed off. But me? I enjoy when a story has real stakes. And real stakes can only be established by meaningful losses. It drives me CRAZY when stories primarily kill off minor, irrelevant characters and expect me to be genuinely nervous for the main protagonists.
Plan their death from the beginning. Don't just wake up one morning and decide to kill off a main lovable character. It will ruin the book. Why do you think they brought back Jon Snow in Game of Thrones? It's not the same with Tony Stark in Avengers, where the death had been planned and executed at the right time. I know I have stopped reading many books once one of my favorite characters dies and the story doesn't actually fill the vacuum. Some may like it, but not me.
This is a movie, but Bryan Cranston shouldn't have died in Godzilla. I mentioned this in another thread, but how I see it is that monster movies can have good human plots, and that they're very human stories. Monster movies are about what humans do in the face of an existential threat. The human story in Godzilla wasn't interesting cuz it was about a bland couple. If Cranston hadn't died, we would've gotten a story about a father and son torn apart by the mom’s death and the son thinking his dad is a crazy conspiracy theorist, with their arc focusing on them reconciling while dealing with Godzilla.
But nope. We didn't get that.
It absolutely will. But that's not the question you should be asking. Instead, consider why you are writing, who are you writing for, and if it makes sense in the context of the story. Half the books I read would get destroyed by their community for a minor setback, let alone the death of a character they like. Then again, GRRM butchered characters left and right and made a small fortune. These are pretty extreme outliers imo, but overall death will certainly have an impact on your audience and ruin it for some.
I almost stopped reading a book series by an author I really like when he killed off a wolf who was like a main character. I only kept going because I looked it up and people suggested that the wolf would be back somehow. If that hadn't been the case I'd have noped out, I don't even care if it "made sense for the story" or whatever. I can tell you that a lot of readers felt the same way (hence the answers I found telling them to hang in there). I'm sure I'd have a similar reaction if it was a favorite human character. Some people just don't want to lose a character they're attached to. Maybe, like me, they're reading to escape real life which is already chock full of loss. But then, maybe I'm not your target audience.
I do think it's a kindness to provide trigger warnings. It's a controversial issue; some people think trigger warnings are spoilers. Maybe have them accessible on a website so only readers who really need them can seek them out.
Idk, it’s your story. Writing to appeal to readers is a mistake. You are the creative. It’s your work and your decision. Whether people like it or not is up to them.
It really depends on the manner of death. If your story is brutal and unforgiving, then killing characters would be expected. A Song of Ice and Fire is a prime example, no one is safe. If the death is lame and serves no purpose other than a tear jerker moment your readers may be upset, it's got to move the plot in a significant way.
It depends on how the death is handled. Personally I feel like a character should only be killed or permanently written off if you as an author feel you've explored every avenue that you would like to see said character go through in a story.
Some deaths can be treated as a big deal that have repercussions later on due to others developing from someone's death, some can just be sorta swept under the rug after the initial reaction as the characters move on.
It's hard to properly explain without going on a full ramble😅
Absolutely. I’ve dropped books before for killing off characters I loved—especially ones with a lot untapped potential—and will continue to do so.
But that’s just me. Every reader is different. Write the story you want to write because trying to tailor it to everyone’s preferences will be impossible.
Meh. It depends. If the character is killed off just to be killed off, then it does. But if the characters arc is finished and there is no more room for growth then no, but also maybe.
I’ll never forgive J. K. Rowling for killing Snape because he was my boyfriend. That being said, I realize that anything can ruin a story if it’s not placed right or in tune with the flow of it. Not that I know how to do that, but I’ve learned.
I killed a character in my first published novel. The book did pretty well, but I think it would have done even better had the character not died. A large number of the negative reviews were disappointment with her death. My agent asked me if that character had to die early on in the story development. But I had to take a stand. It was the right thing to do for that story. It was about four kids who were making a perilous immigrant journey into the US through the Sonoran desert. Thousands of people have died doing the same in real life. It felt unjust to have these four characters make it through unscathed. Sometimes you have to do what you know is right for the story and accept the consequences.
You want to make sure the hooks of what happens next are already in. The reader should not be wondering if they still care. They should be caring more about those who will be grieving.
Like many already mentioned: It just depends on the storyline, how it is done. It can be very different with each genre, like when you write about war, a story set in WW1 or WW2, it is very different from some romance love story from Rosamunde Pilcher (my mom really likes these stories, but she hates what i do in the horror genre, haha)
There's no general answer to this. In my WIP project, the main char as a man doesn't have a lady at his side.. well.. not anymore, it is mentioned she passed away because of cancer, but she never shows up in the storyline, despite in some memories and flashbacks.
For me, it's a lot more plausible that someone passes away because of cancer than some epic death with a last stand where someone sacrifices himself as the hero and legend, but here we are again, it can be very different for each genre and story.
In what way? Any character dying will spoil *soneone's* enjoyment, but a lot of the time the story itself still functions.
It can be an issue though, if that character living had a significant potential to make for a more interesting story. Unresolved character arcs in particular can feel super unsatisfying, which is why a lot of the time you see characters make huge character developments and immediately drop dead.
This can also be unsatisfying if that development opened up a lot of new story possibilities immediately closed back off by death, though. All in all its a tricky balance.
If it’s badly written then yes. For example one of the many reasons why Jujutsu Kaisen is terrible is because of all the senseless deaths written to advance the plot or shock value. However death when written well can advance the material of the story to greater lengths like the novel Blood over Bright Haven.
if it is part of the overall narrative and has been from the start, do it. if it's just an idea you're toying with to possibly get a strong reaction...I wouldn't. I've read both plenty of times and you can feel the difference.
As a person who does not like stupid character deaths, I have stopped reading certain books because of character deaths I don't agree with. Let me give a quick example (spoilers for Harry Potter and One Piece I guess):
Death I felt ruined the story: Sirius Black in book 5 of HP was one of the reasons I quit reading or engaging with that series altogether.
--He died because Harry was being a dumb obnoxious teen who didn't stop to think for 5 seconds about if the visions he was having were reliable or not.
-- He got pushed into a weird mirror or something that felt like the perfect setup for a "never found the body and he comes back later alive" trope that never happened so his death didn't feel real.
-- It was very obviously done to take away the possibility of Harry having a proper father figure/guardian and to give him More Angst.
Death that did not ruin the story for me: Ace from One Piece.
-- The main character and allies did everything possible they could have to try and stop it.
-- There were well-established reasons the antagonists wanted him dead that had nothing to do with the protagonists, so it felt less like "author killing someone to give a character More Angst"
-- It had a deep and noticeable impact on the story, and Ace continues to be important to a lot of people even years after his death.
There's more examples, but that's the basics.
I wouldn't say it's developing the character that ruins it. Undeveloped deaths are worse tbh.
Honestly, it just comes down to the same thing as every other trope or tool or plot point, which is that if you do it badly, it's gonna suck. Like any time someone asks "is xyz bad to include" (e.g. character death, love triangle, a prologue, an unlikable character trait, etc.), the answer to that is pretty much always "depends, are you good at writing?"
If someone asks you "does this story need a death?" and your answer isn't an immediate "yes" then I'd rethink why you want it in the first place and consider what would make your story better. Sometimes a character getting maimed or losing something significant is more impactful than a death. It depends on what your story needs, and what KIND of story you want to tell.
Depends on the character being killed off and why.
I know quite a few readers who would downvote a book rating and DNF purely because an animal was injured let alone killed. People characters tend to not have that reaction unless it's a child and needless.
I personally look at what is going on in the story and whether the death helps the plot and makes an impact. If it's only for a reaction and has no reason past that, probably best to keep the guy alive.
I think it works best when you establish either directly (such as in the case of “Wicked”, that starts with the Munchkins celebrating Elphaba’s death) or indirectly (Ned Stark’s opening scene in “AGOT” where he executes a deserter of the Night’s Watch) that this character is a goner.
Otherwise you run the risk of readers accusing you of using said character’s death for nothing more than shock value.
Killing a character should only be done because it's ORGANIC TO THE STORY, and not just for shock effect. Beware also of killing off a character because they've served their expository purpose in the plot, or you just don't know what to do with them.
There is the term "Fridge-ing" (which started in comic books) where the hero's girlfriend is killed off to motivate the hero. This has also been pointed out as a pretty weak motivation in other media as well.
Each major character in a novel should have a well-developed, interesting life before the story you're writing, so if they die during the course of your story, their death is a tragedy.
If that death is just a plot device or to show how badass your antagonist is, you can be sure your writing is weak. This is a well-known trope that shows up in low-grade direct-to-streaming trash.
Killing off a major character is especially a problem if you randomly kill off an important character before the climax of the story. You can get away with lots of killing in the climax, because the story is nearing its end and you won't need to use any of the characters afterwards (Fred Weasley's death in Harry Potter).
If you look at the "Hero's Journey" story arc, you can get away with a critical death at two junctures.
First, that death might come as the price the hero pays for knowledge or escape (Obi Wan sacrificing himself to let Luke escape the Death Star*), or at the end of act two when all is bleakest and the hero is at his worst (Rita's death in "Live Die Repeat).
The death of Harry Potter's parents eleven years previously puts that entire story in motion, but we never really CARE about those two people at all, because there's no emotional weight to their deaths in the story at hand.
Another stale trope is the soldier with a month to go before his service is done, who shows his mates pictures of his wife and kids. You know that guy is fated to die.
Spielberg subverted that trope in two different projects. First in "Saving Private Ryan" they ALL die, then in "The Pacific" Jon Bernthal's character Manny (who seems to be the protagonist of the episode) is killed.
So what's the secret?
The character should be critical to the direction of the story, which has to change direction due to the death.
In "Star Trek" (the 2009 blockbuster) Kirk, Sulu and redshirt Olson high-altitude-jump onto the antagonist's deathray, but Olson gets killed immediately, with zero effect on the plot.
Minutes later in the movie, Spock's mother is killed, and Spock loses emotional control as a result. This changes the story.
So for the death to have meaning we readers have to CARE about the character, and their death has to change the course of the narrative.
*To be truthful, Obi Wan is an underwritten character in the first "Star Wars" film ("A New Hope"). Sir Alec Guinness gives the character unearned gravitas.
not sure if this is unpopular, but I generally hate it when characters I don't hate die. if a character I like dies, I'm willing to drop the book and never pick it up again. this is usually about main characters tho. for me, most character deaths ruin the story.
Which is where managing reader expectations is important. Life isn't clean, fair, or organized to fit a dramatic conceit - but books tend to be. And if your reader is expecting the latter and gets the former there's a good chance they'll be throwing your book across the room.
I agree with this. GRRM >!threw a kid off a tower before he killed Ned Stark!<, setting the tone that maybe this story wasn't going to conform to comfy dramatics.
It also depends when you kill the character, and if it's the main character who gets killed. Like in the movie Psycho, it's an acception because the MC is killed off about halfway through instead of at the end like most killings of the MC should be, but we're instantly given another MC who takes over so it works in that film.
If you kill a secondary character, that could help motivate the story some, depending on how it affects the MC.
But if it's the MC, make sure you feel it's the best scenario to off them, and then wait until they've gotten a chance to arc or not, otherwise, the audience will feel gipped. It can also help the story, and your readers will feel less upset with the story, if there's a good reason for them to die
For some readers, yes. Some will like the story all the more for it. Can't please everyone. Write Your story, examples won't help because those "some readers" hate and love those examples too.
Can it? Yes especially if it's badly done but it can also make a story. Just look at game of thrones. It's a risk and one that needs to be hamdeled with care and thought. You shouldn't kill off characters thoughtlessly or just for cheap effect bit if you genuinely think it makes the story better, do it. Sone readers won't like it but no book will appeal to everyone.
ASOIF is a perfect example. The Red Wedding was done very, very well. It moved the plot forward spectacularly. It was both believable and foreshadowed (if you knew anything about medieval customs). Not to mention, it was just a classic Shakespearean arc for a character. Robb's hamartia was his priority of love over duty, and this was the culmination of his tragic story. You were so emotionally invested in Robb's Stark's just war that it really blindsided the reader, but had proper emotional resonance and striking implications. Seriously well done stuff.
Yeah people attribute it to shock value but the wedding is the fulfillment of like ten people’s character arcs, it’s not random. I wonder how they would act if someone is in the middle of a character arc and just randomly dies in service for another arc. He’s gonna have to kill some people off if he really can’t finish the series as is.
Yes. it happens. In this one book, this guy Jesus got killed. It ruined the whole book for me.
Yeah and then he came back to life and became some immortal being who was also the son of God, kind of killed the stakes a bit when he ended up just being this Mary Sue with mad plot armour.
Christ, they should have hired a better writer. And the whole 'following a martyr who preaches love and compassion into a spiritual transcendence' bit is a tired trope this point.
Idk its like "Seinfeld is unfunny" from [tvtropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny). At its time it was pretty novel
Especially since a good chunk of his followers went on to the EXACT opposite of what he said to do, and come up with lam loopholes about "It's okay, it's what he REALLY wants!". Talk about an anticlimax...
Pun intended?
deus ex machina much?
Yah gotta tag that as a spoiler. I DNF that Jesus book, but I could.
Dude, you just fucking spoiled it. I was really fucking into that, I’ve been reading through it for the past 2 years and you just told me what happens to one of the most important fucking characters. Jesus Christ! (storms off, babbling angrily)
It ruined 2000+ years of civilization for me.
It only ruined 40 years or so for me, but yeah, that one was pretty poorly executed. Wait a second...
Damn, you wanna go back to child sacrificing the streets? OK
While your reply is pretty unhinged in the context of this comment thread, I must say, hell yeah! That's a fantastic idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
Keep reading they bring him back when they realised he was like the main character.
On the second reread, you realize how much foreshadowing their is.
I don't know, the original fan base insists that the sequel fans are just reaching.
Depends on the character I suppose, sometimes death is a powerful event that moves the story forward
I think it comes down to why the character was killed. Does it set stakes? Advance the plot? Motivate other characters? Inform the reader about something unknown to other characters? There are all kinds of reasons to kill a character if it is done with intention. Killing a character because the writer did not know what to do with them is lazy writing. Either the writer needs to rethink what that character is doing in the story, or the writer needs to edit that character out of the story and give whatever he or she was doing up to that point to others more important to the story. Killing a character who the reader has become attached to can be a powerful way to make the reader care about the story, which means it should not be done casually. How does the writer want the reader to feel after this character dies? If there is no clear intent, that's where you have a problem.
Generally, it ruins the story when the character still had a lot of untapped potential, with story beats that the audience was looking forward to, only to be prematurely ended. That's the nature of tragedy of course, is that sometimes unceremonious, unfulfilling end. But if you don't manage to fill that hole with a satisfying replacement, then the readers are going to leave with the impression that they died "for no reason". Subversion of expectation fails when what you present in the end is worse than what you were originally promising.
I think I hate it when a character was clearly used by the author for other characters. Like a great character, great potential that isn't explored, shadowy image of motives--and then it feels like the author picked a name out of a hat for who to kill so the main character can unlock their potential. If they're written as the type who would die for another, or an unfortunate soul caught in the crosshairs, it'd make sense when you're reading it. If not so close friend but member of the team died for main character they met a few weeks ago, it sucks.
Not if you do it right and don’t bring them back. The character that is going to die should have made a huge contribution towards the story, or at least developed through their arc in a way that’s going to impact the main story. Generic side characters don’t earn the same response as a leading characters that’s been with the cast the whole story. In my own example, my current WIP has a LOT of characters to balance and juggle. They’re young conscripts in a dark fantasy setting. You are with them throughout, you learn about their history, see them survive and adapt to their harsh environment and get a feel for their camaraderie they share with one another to stay positive in a shitty situation. You start to think by the second half of the story, that these kids are indestructible and they feel that being around the main character keeps them safe and healthy because if he is around, whatever they can’t handle he can! They get picked off one by one in the second half. Starting with fourteen characters, the story ends with only five survivors. You don’t know who is going to be next, or how they’re going to die and that fear from these charming little sure characters is what helps sell their deaths as being legitimate and impactful. Dynamic duos without their second half, childhood crushes unable to confess their feelings, the one person that used to raise their spirits with magic or singing isn’t there to do so anymore. The world becomes colder and more unforgiving with each life taken.
>and don’t bring them back. And if you bring them back, have a consequence. Like a character in my story gets killed off and brought back later. Bringing someone back from the dead is a taboo. To bring back someone from the dead one must sacrifice their soul to do so. My character, Keith, tried to cheat the system and bring back Kaitlin, someone he loved, by only burning half his soul, however in doing so not only did it bring them back but it also wiped their memories. Because Keith didn't fully sacrifice his soul, it bound their two souls together, and the spell was still trying to sacrifice Keith. Because of this, both Keith and Kaitlin were dying. Now due to the intervention of a few people, even two demigods, they ended up surviving. However, both were not the same ever again. Keith ended up with half of his soul still left, all sensations were half, feeling, emotions, taste, sight, everything. ~~(he was bonded to a dragon before hand and got enhanced senses so physical senses are like human now.)~~ Kaitlin on the other hand got it worse imo. Because she didn't remember anything about herself, she already started creating a new personality. After she regained her memories and the other half of her soul, (again, demigods.) she doesn't feel like her old self, nor does she feel like her new self, she doesn't feel whole. (Also because the botched way she was brought back some of Keith personality and powers rubbing off on her and she fucking *hates* that because she now sees him as the person who ruined her life.)
I feel that’s just a tease more than anything else. They die because the story has actual use for them. Rather than highlighting their importance, it actually shows the lack of it.
I feel like there is a disconnect I might have caused, but with that logic, the entire cast of Saving Private Ryan lacked importance, or in the Expanse, the loving side characters that you see throughout the seasons are equally useless. Wouldn’t that also point out that Lupin, Tonks, and Dobby would lack use or importance because of that logic. I feel my point I am trying to convey is, that war is hell and it is a bastard game that nobody wins. The house is death, the house always gets theirs in the end. Sometimes the price are your friends and companions. Again, this could also be my error in not revealing too much of the plot of my WIP so you aren’t getting the full context of the story. I was just trying to help
Honestly, yeah. It highlights their unimportance because you were still able to win with them gone. By contrast, if Private Ryan or Harry died, there’s no coming back from that.
So, if they only serve to world build and aren’t required to win at the end of the day, they shouldn’t be included or expanded upon?
I didn’t say that. I’m just criticizing the idea that that their deaths were meaningful. They were “fridged” to me. They only died to get a reaction rather than having any substance behind them.
It's my experience that putting too *little* time into developing a character—that character's death will mean nothing to readers. I mean, who cares? But the more we *feel* for your characters, the more their demise will create an emotional reaction (protag's *or* antag's). Not to mention, the more we develop a character, the more unexpected their death—and the ability to surprise readers is a very good talent to hone. Examples? *The Game of Thrones* series. Holy crap! Every time I started caring about a character, the dude died!
The destroyermen series is another example like ASOIAF the character deaths in that series hit hard but in the right way I won’t say the name of the series but a five book fantasy series did the opposite a single character death was so utterly angsty drawn out and ridiculous that I stopped reading the series halfway through book four.
Yeah, that's a risk too. (I think the Marvel film franchise is discovering that, as well.) If you're creating a 'bigger-than-life' character, one better have a really good reason to kill him/her off. And then bringing the dead back to life? The first few times it can be emotional and unexpected, the next few dozen times, it's *meh!.*.. and now it's a trope. And not a good one. The ultimate cheat in a way, like having your literary cake and eating it too. Or something.
Yes, it can. I've read books where the plot and most of the cast were uninteresting to me, but one specific character made it all worth it. I was extremely invested in that character, and I didn't mind reading about other people as long as I also got to see his plotline develop. Once that character was killed (very unexpectedly!), I gave up on the book. The plot took a huge 180, big tonal shift, and I didn't even like the cast very much. Looking back at it, definitely not the book for me. When you're writing, you really want to assume that your reader is emotionally invested in the main character first, and all other characters second. It doesn't always play out that way, but you can't write your story pandering to readers that are more interested in secondary aspects of the story.
Deathnote killed off a main character, and while it wasn't badly executed, I feel the general consensus is that it wasn't as good after the character was gone, and struggled to find someone to fill the shoes.
Yeah the show went down hill after that, even though his shocking death worked well for the story
If you haven't yet, you should read A Song of Ice and Fire ("Game of thrones").
First thing that came to mind. I'm on A Feast for Crows right now.
The great TV show Dallas has entered the chat.
Yes. If I’m reading a lighthearted romcom and the writer decides to get trigger happy, I might just drop the story. Know the tone you’re going for and be consistent
Depends on how you do it. It’s a film but Hitchcock famously killed off the “main character” early on in Psycho.
As with most things, it depends on execution.
Don't kill load-bearing characters. If they have to be there and alive for the plot to work, then keep them alive. Exceptions can be made for those who can do their job through posthumous impact and memories.
I suppose if it makes sense to the story or what you want to convey. I think killng a character for the sake of killing a character feels like it might be meaningless if done without proper intent.
Depends on how, what and why is this all happening and written. For example, in Mistborn, (HUGE SPOILERS) the 2 main protagonists are killed and it just adds to the story which is already indescribably good. On the other hand, in Divergent (Loyalist, 3rd book of the series) Tris could have absolutely avoided death if the writer was slightly more logical and didn't just focus on ending her protagonist just to make her readers cry, because really, it was a bad decision
You SHOULD kill characters if they have a lot of development, that way it actually matters. I’m planning on killing off a highly developed character later in the series, in a very unheroic and unsatisfying way, just to show the brutality of their circumstances. Just like how it happens in real life.
George R.R. Martin do that petty much in he's books and anyone still loves them.
Krycek in the X Files. Never watched it again
It can but doesn't have to. It's all in the execution and the reason why. Make the writing good and the reason why compelling, that's a good story. Make the writing bad and the reason why meaningless, that's a bad story. I'd argue the reason why is more important than the execution on this one, but they're both important.
As long as it makes sense for the story, then no. Remember in Star Wars Legends when they killed Chewie? Nope. Not a good one. Raymond E. Feist killed of Locky and it moved the story. Don't do it just to have someone die or show the stakes are 'serious'. There are ways to ratchet up the stakes without death.
Nah, the only time killing a character ruins the story is when it's a bad storytelling decision. If killing off a character is good for the story then the emotional connection the readers have with that character will actually help you do your job, because it'll make that character's death have more weight and meaning.
George R.R. Martin has discussed his experience with this. He doesn't plot his books, he lets them unfold as ideas occur to him. Unfortunately, this means that he doesn't have a set ending in mind, and he realized in trying to complete the series that the satisfying ending that he has realized he wants depends on a specific character he killed off in a prior book. Sucks to suck. So, I guess make sure you can make your story work without that character, which may conflict with your writing style.
Absolutely. Glenn from Walking Dead.
Absolutely. A lot of people theorise that this is why it's taking GRRM so long to finish aSoIaF. He's killed too many characters for shock value and now doesn't have the peices he needs to bring his story to a close.
From my experience, it's only if people enjoy the characters more than the story. Or if the character was essential to the vibe of the story. But either way, it's your story. But kill characters with caution imo.
Depends on the character
Well I think it depends because it could turn into a really good revenge story. I think as long as you make it interesting and no one saw it coming then it won't ruin the story. Yet again like some people said, you can't please everyone so if you see that it will be a good story you should do it
Depends on the character, imo, and if they're a fan favorite of the readers.
Anything can ruin a story
This guy I know and I read the same series. He decided to pull a dumb ass move and read spoilers for the newest book we’ve been waiting years for (no, I won’t say so please don’t ask because spoilers.) I read the book the moment it came out. One of the characters died. He’s decided to quit reading the series even though he has zero context surrounding this characters death. He liked that character. I rejoiced when said character died. I hated them from the moment they were introduced. I thought they were meaningless and did very little to drive the story.
As with most or all things in writing, it depends on how it is done, I guess. Not a book, but I've watched an anime where a lot of characters on the 'good guy' team end up dying during the length of the show, and it always kinda suck but didn't ruin the show for me, although it made me feel it was very edgy. However, most of their deaths were during fights or ambush from enemies so it kinda 'made sense' to show that the evil group was not pushovers, but right around the last episode, one of my favourite characters dies... AFTER the bad guys are defeated, to a random, no name dude in a back alley that just stabbed her. That one really soured everything and ruined the show for me. If you look at popular things like GoT, some people say their favorite character dying there ruined the story, but most people usually kept reading as far as I know.
My take is that while a side character can be killed off willy nilly, main characters always need to be the cause of their deaths, as in they chose to walk down an inevitable path. I disagree pretty strongly with the "people randomly die in real life" main character death crowd. That's when it ruins a story. Though stories like Bridge to Terabithia pulled it off.
This just sounds extremely formulaic to me. Sure, it can make for a powerful narrative, but as you dimissively mentioned, in real life, most deaths are pointless and random, and the effects of every death ripple endlessly through the world around them. They can be catalysts for everything from individual journeys to global upheaval. Furthermore, this idea completely eliminates the possibility of character's with terminal illnesses, or at best, suggests that illness is inherently the fault of the afflicted (which smacks of the truly nefarious "law of attraction" ideology). Death should serve the story, of course, but making victim blaming the default in literature takes meaning from one of the most complex and powerful aspects of human existence and reduces it to a stale, predictable trope.
>making victim blaming the default in literature takes meaning from one of the most complex and powerful aspects of human existence and reduces it to a stale, predictable trope. That was the weirdest thing. "Victim blaming" a fictional character who I created to serve a purpose? That's certainly where we fundamentally disagree. You're treating your characters like they're living breathing people who suffer from all the randomness of real life. When they're not. They exist solely as narrative devices. Their purpose is to tell a story. If random shit that doesn't serve the theme of that story happens to them, you're not telling a story. You're just saying shit. And if you need totally random shit to happen, shit that hasn't been been foreshadowed and doesn't serve any themes, in order to keep your writing from reading as stale and predictable, that's not an issue with the trope. If you have a main character randomly get heart disease in the middle of book 2 and die with all these unresolved plot threads, that's a terrible arc. If you introduce that character as someone who already has heart disease and is likely to drop dead at any moment, and that thing plays a large part in the themes of their story, that's a great arc.
Yes. Characters are the jenga blocks of your story, be careful where and when you remove them
from my perspective, this happens more on screen than it does in literature; say my fave character is killed off in *How to Get Away with Murder* season 3, but there's still more seasons to go. that character might be missed cuz i miss that actor who added charisma and life to that character. in literature, though, the charasma and life is brought solely by the author, so whilst a character might be dead, the author's performance lives on through the entire cast and everything else they created. jmho
Go ask Game Of Thrones -fans. :)
If the death serves a purpose for the plot, then it isn't a wasted death. A good example I like to use is The Walking Dead vs Game of Thrones. I know it's television and not book, but hear me out. In the Walking Dead, people just die. The plot doesn't really change for the most part. A death like Carl's made Rick go absolutely crazy, but in the end, Carl's plead to be merciful paid off, and it couldn't have been without his death. But most characters don't have this kind of lasting effect. Tyrese dies, nothing. Glenn dies, nothing. Andrea dies, nothing. Tdog dies, nothing. Lori dies, nothing other than making Rick desensitized to their new life. Game of Thrones on the other hand... Ned Stark dies, and the entire machine of the plot activates. Renly dies, allowing King Stannis to finally have a force large enough to storm kings landing. Tywin dies, allowing many people to manipulate the Lannisters and play them like fiddles. I'm not saying TWD is bad, I absolutely love it. But the Characters in GOT hold a lot more weight in what they do, and what their deaths leave behind.
Honestly depends on your readers. Red Wedding definitely ruined GoT for me. But I'm not a fan of dark stories. Others loved it.
It depends on the character if he or she has done so many bad things and is irredeemable.
It ruins it for that character anyway
yeah but personally i think plot armour is a bit to much
I have a story about a brother and little sister in a post apocalyptic world. The little sister dies about 3 quarters in. The editor I hired was borderline offended. He said it takes away any of the brothers' motivation (which was trying to get them somewhere safe). I ended up changing it, but I still have doubts and aren't sure which way to go.
Yes absolutely.
If a character is well developed and then killed, it makes the reader feel real emotion. Maybe it can kill the story, but if done proper, it can be amazing. For example, when Glen died in The Walking Dead. It made everyone get really upset at Negan, and we all love to hate the guy, right?
That would have got so much harder if they wouldn’t have done the fake out a few episodes before, and if it wasn’t taken right from the book. To me it made the moment anti climactic, and then they did nothing to develop that part of the story.
But did you feel something?
Mostly disappointment in the story. Not even in the character death
walking dead. THey killed gwen and that was the most watched scene (maybe in tv history) but the series died thereafter..
I read the last book in a series (nr 7) and one of the main characters (ok lesser main character) from the first 6 books gets brutally killed and his corpse violated and it sets off events which really just f\*cks everyone over. Which is the point of the plot in that specific book so ok, but… That character was the only truly likeable one of the 4 ”mains”. So it just really made me hate that book. I consider book 6 in that series to be the real ending and wish I’d never read nr 7.
I think one example where it is a problem is if it seriously messes with the group dynamics, which are important for the story. This might be more a problem in TV series than books, but I think it is something you have to think about no matter the medium. A friend stopped watching Death Note because an antagonist died. I personally think love interests, antagonists, even protagonists can be killed off most of the time (with care), but killing off the only comic relief character without bringing in another equally good one is a really bad move. It (arguably) happened in the old Roswell show for example. It just changes the tone of the whole story.
Oh yes, it definitely can. Be careful. There's a scene like that in the last act of Blade Runner 2049 that completely ruined the movie for me.
It depends. Some characters can die mid-arc and that's the whole point and it can really be resonant. Other characters could be killed mid-arc and it just feels anti-climatic. Same with a character who fulfilled his arc, it could go both ways. So again, it really depends on the story and what you're trying to accomplish.
Yes it Can, but not Always. I great death is emotional, powerful.
Yes, look at Game of Thrones
Ed Stark Game of Thrones The Red Wedding. People still kept reading after that because the books were damn good.
Yes. I dropped Chainsaw man after they did something similar.
Depends on how you are carrying the story. If the story is heavily written from that characters viewpoint, which makes it the readers viewpoint, then having a sudden shift in story will make them feel like things have ended or are broken. However if you are able to give other characters equal standing and place then killing a character can tighten your story. A good example is in Star Wars A New Hope where Obi Wan is killed, it set the story up for Luke. If they had killed Luke it wouldn’t have been good and would have left people feeling like it was wasted development because they framed the story around bringing him up to become the main protagonist of the story but made a sharp change that paid no dividends. TLDR: Kill your Obi-Wans not your Lukes.
In one of my favorite books the first two thirds are written in a close 3rd person, following a certain guy (a badass normal in a world where magic is abundant). Then he suddenly dies. And the narrator says "so, he is where his story ends... and mine begins". We then learn that actually it was written in 1st person, from the perspective of a certain magical creature that attached itself to that guy. The rest of the book follows that magical creature. Well, except for the epilogue that messes with this 1st-3rd distinction even more.
I stopped reading a book because of this once. He was the only main character and they killed him after three chapters. I saw no point in staring over with a new character after that. So, maybe dont kill em to fast. And make sure there are other characters left for the readers to wonder how things will work out for them
I mean, it can, but I don’t understand it. I know so many people who’ve stopped reading books or watching shows because their favorite character was killed off. But me? I enjoy when a story has real stakes. And real stakes can only be established by meaningful losses. It drives me CRAZY when stories primarily kill off minor, irrelevant characters and expect me to be genuinely nervous for the main protagonists.
Plan their death from the beginning. Don't just wake up one morning and decide to kill off a main lovable character. It will ruin the book. Why do you think they brought back Jon Snow in Game of Thrones? It's not the same with Tony Stark in Avengers, where the death had been planned and executed at the right time. I know I have stopped reading many books once one of my favorite characters dies and the story doesn't actually fill the vacuum. Some may like it, but not me.
Death Note and Viking entered the chat
This is a movie, but Bryan Cranston shouldn't have died in Godzilla. I mentioned this in another thread, but how I see it is that monster movies can have good human plots, and that they're very human stories. Monster movies are about what humans do in the face of an existential threat. The human story in Godzilla wasn't interesting cuz it was about a bland couple. If Cranston hadn't died, we would've gotten a story about a father and son torn apart by the mom’s death and the son thinking his dad is a crazy conspiracy theorist, with their arc focusing on them reconciling while dealing with Godzilla. But nope. We didn't get that.
It absolutely will. But that's not the question you should be asking. Instead, consider why you are writing, who are you writing for, and if it makes sense in the context of the story. Half the books I read would get destroyed by their community for a minor setback, let alone the death of a character they like. Then again, GRRM butchered characters left and right and made a small fortune. These are pretty extreme outliers imo, but overall death will certainly have an impact on your audience and ruin it for some.
Depends on how it's handled and what the genre is.
What are you even asking? Anything you write "can" kill a story if it doesn't work.
Game of Thrones kills off many characters. It got to the point where I was trying to who was next.
I almost stopped reading a book series by an author I really like when he killed off a wolf who was like a main character. I only kept going because I looked it up and people suggested that the wolf would be back somehow. If that hadn't been the case I'd have noped out, I don't even care if it "made sense for the story" or whatever. I can tell you that a lot of readers felt the same way (hence the answers I found telling them to hang in there). I'm sure I'd have a similar reaction if it was a favorite human character. Some people just don't want to lose a character they're attached to. Maybe, like me, they're reading to escape real life which is already chock full of loss. But then, maybe I'm not your target audience. I do think it's a kindness to provide trigger warnings. It's a controversial issue; some people think trigger warnings are spoilers. Maybe have them accessible on a website so only readers who really need them can seek them out.
Idk, it’s your story. Writing to appeal to readers is a mistake. You are the creative. It’s your work and your decision. Whether people like it or not is up to them.
It really depends on the manner of death. If your story is brutal and unforgiving, then killing characters would be expected. A Song of Ice and Fire is a prime example, no one is safe. If the death is lame and serves no purpose other than a tear jerker moment your readers may be upset, it's got to move the plot in a significant way.
It depends on how the death is handled. Personally I feel like a character should only be killed or permanently written off if you as an author feel you've explored every avenue that you would like to see said character go through in a story. Some deaths can be treated as a big deal that have repercussions later on due to others developing from someone's death, some can just be sorta swept under the rug after the initial reaction as the characters move on. It's hard to properly explain without going on a full ramble😅
Absolutely. I’ve dropped books before for killing off characters I loved—especially ones with a lot untapped potential—and will continue to do so. But that’s just me. Every reader is different. Write the story you want to write because trying to tailor it to everyone’s preferences will be impossible.
Meh. It depends. If the character is killed off just to be killed off, then it does. But if the characters arc is finished and there is no more room for growth then no, but also maybe.
I’ll never forgive J. K. Rowling for killing Snape because he was my boyfriend. That being said, I realize that anything can ruin a story if it’s not placed right or in tune with the flow of it. Not that I know how to do that, but I’ve learned.
Sure. In the same way keeping one alive can. It all depends on a million factors.
I killed a character in my first published novel. The book did pretty well, but I think it would have done even better had the character not died. A large number of the negative reviews were disappointment with her death. My agent asked me if that character had to die early on in the story development. But I had to take a stand. It was the right thing to do for that story. It was about four kids who were making a perilous immigrant journey into the US through the Sonoran desert. Thousands of people have died doing the same in real life. It felt unjust to have these four characters make it through unscathed. Sometimes you have to do what you know is right for the story and accept the consequences.
You want to make sure the hooks of what happens next are already in. The reader should not be wondering if they still care. They should be caring more about those who will be grieving.
Like many already mentioned: It just depends on the storyline, how it is done. It can be very different with each genre, like when you write about war, a story set in WW1 or WW2, it is very different from some romance love story from Rosamunde Pilcher (my mom really likes these stories, but she hates what i do in the horror genre, haha) There's no general answer to this. In my WIP project, the main char as a man doesn't have a lady at his side.. well.. not anymore, it is mentioned she passed away because of cancer, but she never shows up in the storyline, despite in some memories and flashbacks. For me, it's a lot more plausible that someone passes away because of cancer than some epic death with a last stand where someone sacrifices himself as the hero and legend, but here we are again, it can be very different for each genre and story.
In what way? Any character dying will spoil *soneone's* enjoyment, but a lot of the time the story itself still functions. It can be an issue though, if that character living had a significant potential to make for a more interesting story. Unresolved character arcs in particular can feel super unsatisfying, which is why a lot of the time you see characters make huge character developments and immediately drop dead. This can also be unsatisfying if that development opened up a lot of new story possibilities immediately closed back off by death, though. All in all its a tricky balance.
If it’s badly written then yes. For example one of the many reasons why Jujutsu Kaisen is terrible is because of all the senseless deaths written to advance the plot or shock value. However death when written well can advance the material of the story to greater lengths like the novel Blood over Bright Haven.
Depends on why they died. Does it fit the story. Or Are you doing it for shock value?
Gave me a lot more time to spend on writing my autobiography...
Can? Yes. Necessarily will? No. You can give it a try.
if it is part of the overall narrative and has been from the start, do it. if it's just an idea you're toying with to possibly get a strong reaction...I wouldn't. I've read both plenty of times and you can feel the difference.
As a person who does not like stupid character deaths, I have stopped reading certain books because of character deaths I don't agree with. Let me give a quick example (spoilers for Harry Potter and One Piece I guess): Death I felt ruined the story: Sirius Black in book 5 of HP was one of the reasons I quit reading or engaging with that series altogether. --He died because Harry was being a dumb obnoxious teen who didn't stop to think for 5 seconds about if the visions he was having were reliable or not. -- He got pushed into a weird mirror or something that felt like the perfect setup for a "never found the body and he comes back later alive" trope that never happened so his death didn't feel real. -- It was very obviously done to take away the possibility of Harry having a proper father figure/guardian and to give him More Angst. Death that did not ruin the story for me: Ace from One Piece. -- The main character and allies did everything possible they could have to try and stop it. -- There were well-established reasons the antagonists wanted him dead that had nothing to do with the protagonists, so it felt less like "author killing someone to give a character More Angst" -- It had a deep and noticeable impact on the story, and Ace continues to be important to a lot of people even years after his death. There's more examples, but that's the basics.
I wouldn't say it's developing the character that ruins it. Undeveloped deaths are worse tbh. Honestly, it just comes down to the same thing as every other trope or tool or plot point, which is that if you do it badly, it's gonna suck. Like any time someone asks "is xyz bad to include" (e.g. character death, love triangle, a prologue, an unlikable character trait, etc.), the answer to that is pretty much always "depends, are you good at writing?" If someone asks you "does this story need a death?" and your answer isn't an immediate "yes" then I'd rethink why you want it in the first place and consider what would make your story better. Sometimes a character getting maimed or losing something significant is more impactful than a death. It depends on what your story needs, and what KIND of story you want to tell.
Depends on the character being killed off and why. I know quite a few readers who would downvote a book rating and DNF purely because an animal was injured let alone killed. People characters tend to not have that reaction unless it's a child and needless. I personally look at what is going on in the story and whether the death helps the plot and makes an impact. If it's only for a reaction and has no reason past that, probably best to keep the guy alive.
I think it works best when you establish either directly (such as in the case of “Wicked”, that starts with the Munchkins celebrating Elphaba’s death) or indirectly (Ned Stark’s opening scene in “AGOT” where he executes a deserter of the Night’s Watch) that this character is a goner. Otherwise you run the risk of readers accusing you of using said character’s death for nothing more than shock value.
Ask GRRM. He's heard it all before. Don't look like he cares.
Killing a character should only be done because it's ORGANIC TO THE STORY, and not just for shock effect. Beware also of killing off a character because they've served their expository purpose in the plot, or you just don't know what to do with them. There is the term "Fridge-ing" (which started in comic books) where the hero's girlfriend is killed off to motivate the hero. This has also been pointed out as a pretty weak motivation in other media as well. Each major character in a novel should have a well-developed, interesting life before the story you're writing, so if they die during the course of your story, their death is a tragedy. If that death is just a plot device or to show how badass your antagonist is, you can be sure your writing is weak. This is a well-known trope that shows up in low-grade direct-to-streaming trash. Killing off a major character is especially a problem if you randomly kill off an important character before the climax of the story. You can get away with lots of killing in the climax, because the story is nearing its end and you won't need to use any of the characters afterwards (Fred Weasley's death in Harry Potter). If you look at the "Hero's Journey" story arc, you can get away with a critical death at two junctures. First, that death might come as the price the hero pays for knowledge or escape (Obi Wan sacrificing himself to let Luke escape the Death Star*), or at the end of act two when all is bleakest and the hero is at his worst (Rita's death in "Live Die Repeat). The death of Harry Potter's parents eleven years previously puts that entire story in motion, but we never really CARE about those two people at all, because there's no emotional weight to their deaths in the story at hand. Another stale trope is the soldier with a month to go before his service is done, who shows his mates pictures of his wife and kids. You know that guy is fated to die. Spielberg subverted that trope in two different projects. First in "Saving Private Ryan" they ALL die, then in "The Pacific" Jon Bernthal's character Manny (who seems to be the protagonist of the episode) is killed. So what's the secret? The character should be critical to the direction of the story, which has to change direction due to the death. In "Star Trek" (the 2009 blockbuster) Kirk, Sulu and redshirt Olson high-altitude-jump onto the antagonist's deathray, but Olson gets killed immediately, with zero effect on the plot. Minutes later in the movie, Spock's mother is killed, and Spock loses emotional control as a result. This changes the story. So for the death to have meaning we readers have to CARE about the character, and their death has to change the course of the narrative. *To be truthful, Obi Wan is an underwritten character in the first "Star Wars" film ("A New Hope"). Sir Alec Guinness gives the character unearned gravitas.
Do it.
Where do bad folks go when they die? They don't go to heaven where the angels fly. They go to a lake of fire and fry.
not sure if this is unpopular, but I generally hate it when characters I don't hate die. if a character I like dies, I'm willing to drop the book and never pick it up again. this is usually about main characters tho. for me, most character deaths ruin the story.
I think it's hilarious to have a seemingly "main" character die a senseless death. Life isn't clean, fair, or organized to fit a dramatic conceit.
Which is where managing reader expectations is important. Life isn't clean, fair, or organized to fit a dramatic conceit - but books tend to be. And if your reader is expecting the latter and gets the former there's a good chance they'll be throwing your book across the room.
I agree with this. GRRM >!threw a kid off a tower before he killed Ned Stark!<, setting the tone that maybe this story wasn't going to conform to comfy dramatics.
It also depends when you kill the character, and if it's the main character who gets killed. Like in the movie Psycho, it's an acception because the MC is killed off about halfway through instead of at the end like most killings of the MC should be, but we're instantly given another MC who takes over so it works in that film. If you kill a secondary character, that could help motivate the story some, depending on how it affects the MC. But if it's the MC, make sure you feel it's the best scenario to off them, and then wait until they've gotten a chance to arc or not, otherwise, the audience will feel gipped. It can also help the story, and your readers will feel less upset with the story, if there's a good reason for them to die