Kirby
August 23rd, 2002, 03:41 AM
Only once have I seen it employed to good effect - in the first few books of Wingrove's Chung-Kuo series.
I won't say who bites it, only that some characters who have been given full development from the start (as opposed to "just before they get taken out") get knocked out of the loop, a couple of books later :)
It's a risk, to be sure - especially if the character is liked - so having more than one likeable character is a good idea.
How many different ways have you seen the death topic handled in stories?
Holograms, spirits, Immortals, recordings, empathic inserts, re-incarnation, are all very popular for throwing the character back nto the story for a bit.
I'm not sure if there's really a purpose to this post, other than I happened to be thinking about it :)
A writer friend of mine , who is married to a partner who also writes, described their relationship as thus - "I make him save some of his characters, he makes me kill off some of mine!"
How do you feel about the topic?
Does it give a character more dimension? A rounded conclusion? (like the fate of Boromir who realised his flaws only before he died) or give more dimension to the living ones as a result?
How about the emotional resonance of a well written death?(as in, you knew the character very well / you associated with the character / had empathy for them, first)
I think that's why I like the description of the end of Aragorn and Arwen, in the appendices of LotR so much - I'd had three books to get to know them in.
And how do you feel about "throwaway" characters that are set up just to die - ? Would it make more impact to kill off just one properly developed character, than to (commonly) kill off many half baked characters instead?
(and hey - it worked a treat for Darth Vader and Obi Wan ;) )
Violent death v's peaceful death?
I think if a character has undergone enough of an emotional arc (change/growth) to be interesting, then their death has more impact.
How much development is enough? At what point do we begin to care?
Okayokayokay - that's enough for now :)
I won't say who bites it, only that some characters who have been given full development from the start (as opposed to "just before they get taken out") get knocked out of the loop, a couple of books later :)
It's a risk, to be sure - especially if the character is liked - so having more than one likeable character is a good idea.
How many different ways have you seen the death topic handled in stories?
Holograms, spirits, Immortals, recordings, empathic inserts, re-incarnation, are all very popular for throwing the character back nto the story for a bit.
I'm not sure if there's really a purpose to this post, other than I happened to be thinking about it :)
A writer friend of mine , who is married to a partner who also writes, described their relationship as thus - "I make him save some of his characters, he makes me kill off some of mine!"
How do you feel about the topic?
Does it give a character more dimension? A rounded conclusion? (like the fate of Boromir who realised his flaws only before he died) or give more dimension to the living ones as a result?
How about the emotional resonance of a well written death?(as in, you knew the character very well / you associated with the character / had empathy for them, first)
I think that's why I like the description of the end of Aragorn and Arwen, in the appendices of LotR so much - I'd had three books to get to know them in.
And how do you feel about "throwaway" characters that are set up just to die - ? Would it make more impact to kill off just one properly developed character, than to (commonly) kill off many half baked characters instead?
(and hey - it worked a treat for Darth Vader and Obi Wan ;) )
Violent death v's peaceful death?
I think if a character has undergone enough of an emotional arc (change/growth) to be interesting, then their death has more impact.
How much development is enough? At what point do we begin to care?
Okayokayokay - that's enough for now :)