Killing off the heroes

[starry-eyed]

Killing off Heroes:

In fiction, the writer is not constrained to merely depicting events that are set in stone. In fantasy even the most mundane aspects of life need not be taken for granted in the novel. In other words, nothing that happens occurs by chance. The magician doesn’t have to be all powerful- but if he is, then it is because the author deems it necessary to tell his story.

If an author determines a central character must die, then the manner of that death- either a JohnH sort of historically accurate demise or a more dramatic and historically implausible death- must serve a purpose for the author. The reader may interpret the event as tragic or as senseless gore. The “real” feeling has less to do with how the character dies, but more how we feel about the character’s death.

I enjoy the element of escape when I read fantasy, but even I find it hard to relate to utopian worlds where Bad things don’t happen to Good People. I can appreciate when an author sacrifices a character that I empathized with, but only so long as I approve with what I perceive is the author’s intent in doing so.

Truth is stranger than fiction… and sometimes fiction can feel more “real.”

 

[Bond]

Well the "romantic tradition" as far as I am concerned was a Victorian invention... The Knight and his Lady.

Victorians probably did lap it up but the commonly referred to major early exponent of ideas of courtly love, romance, and chivalry would be Chretien de Troyes who lived in the 12th century.

But as to realism, I can see the others point of view that the death of characters can make it "real". But it can also make it "unreal" if that makes sense, in the manner of a "Horror" film, where you get to the stage where you start laughing at the next death and start taking bets as to who will survive.

Yup.

 

[saintjon]

I wonder how far people are willing to take this plausible reaction to death thing though, in the face of an alien culture to the one we live in, which is kind of the whole idea of a fantasy world isn't it?

Like say some author decides to write a culture where the attitude towards death is more like it was in Japan. The characters from that culture probably wouldn't react in any sort of way that would seem credible in the face of your own experience, but when it comes down to it there are all kinds of different ways to feel about death, so I guess what I'm saying is the author could have their characters feel just about any way they want just as long as they back it up.

The whole thing kind of opens a can of worms doesn't it? what about rape in fantasy, that great staple of the ancient world? I've got to say I've got a lot of respect about how Guy Kay explored how differently a Viking might have viewed things in Last Light of the Sun.

Just out of curiosity what story do you guys feel had the most credible injuries/deaths inflicted upon it's characters, and the most plausible reactions from those who survived? I know we have plenty of list threads but examples can help to clarify some.

I think I'd probably say Martin off the top of my head, the fact that he's stepped up the mortality rate isn't the same as overdoing it in my opinion.

Outside of fantasy I think James Clavell was great at writing character death. Somehow he just always seemed to find an excellent balance of deliberate, accidental, unfortunate and really pretty unavoidable deaths throughout his books. The way people bit in Whirlwind, stumbling around through all that turbulence was probably his best example of this IMO.

 

[Radthorne]

Like say some author decides to write a culture where the attitude towards death is more like it was in Japan. The characters from that culture probably wouldn't react in any sort of way that would seem credible in the face of your own experience.

I think SaintJon raises a very good point, about the cultural relativity of death (or many other of "life's" significant events). If a writer has based his or her world on an existing historical setting, there is a compelling reason for having the story's "attitude" toward death be true to that culture. Clavell brought much of the period Samurai attitude toward life and death into Shogun, enriching the story as a result. On the other hand, he also had to "explain" a great deal of the culture to an audience not familiar with it, in order for those attitudes to make any sense.

This is the sort of trade-off an author has to decide upon when creating the work. Most of us who are writing are doing so for a largely Western audience, where the majority of mass-market readers are not familiar with other cultures. It is difficult to write culturally-true tales and be commercially viable at the same time, due to the expectations of the marketplace. Several of the writers I know who invest tremendous amounts of time in ensuring the cultural accuracy of their work also struggle to keep those works in print.

But, back to the point at hand. In the end, the author needs to decide if the story needs the character to die or not. It's all about storytelling, and to me the story should drive what happens to the characters. "Shock" value in killing off main characters is a short-lived thing (so to speak). Making a tremendous impact on your remaining characters, on the other hand, or causing a major plot point to evolve as a result of a death, can pay dividends.

My final thought: kill wisely.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Kill wisely and kill with meaning. The drama of a beloved character coming to an untimely end can be poignant. It can also make the reader annoyed at the loss of someone with so much potential. But, if the story demands the death, then so be it. I must admit though, that despite the fact that I have seen three important characters die in my series, I have not killed off any of my main characters. They are still all essential to the story, and even after 2800 pages of text, I need them and so do the other characters. I would miss each and every one of them so terribly that I am not yet ready to let any of them go....

When I started this thread, my interest was to understand how readers might react to the loss of a character that they love. I wanted to know if they might feel cheated and angry, and if they would resent the author for taking that person away unnecessarily, much as we rail against the universe when someone dear to us in real life dies prematurely.

I knew from the beginning that there was not going to be one answer. I was interested in opinions and thoughts, and the thread has evolved in an informative and intelligent way.

When our heroes die, the extent of the sense of loss that we as readers feel could determine what type of book or series we pick up next. The emotion that we leave with when we turn that final page.....

 

[The Dark Truth]

(Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this is something I have been thinking about lately and are a lot of good arguments made in this thread.)

It depends on the setting and the story. A negative example, I stopped reading the WoT after the 2nd book because this was supposed to be about a world (universe?) altering conflict against the ultimate evil; however, none of the major characters had been killed, even though they were for the most part a bunch of farm boys and girls just off the farm. So I looked at couple amazon reviews for the latter books in the series (8th or 9th) and all the same characters are still surviving. How am I supposed to take the conflict seriously when the evil forces are so inept and harmless? If you want your Dark Lord to be taken seriously it better be able to kick butt and take names. If you are going to have a bunch of characters facing some ultimate evil, some of the good guys, as well as, the bad guys need to be killed off, if the evil is to be taken seriously.

As a positive example, Martin's ASoIF has a host of characters vying for political power in a medieval setting. No character is safe. Major characters die under believable circumstances. New characters step forward, while others, no longer necessary to the story, are removed by one means or another, and not always through death.

Relating to this topic, a cheap ploy, found fairly often, is when authors make it appear that a character has died to get the emotion of the death, then they bring the character back at the end/latter in story so readers aren't upset that the character died (happier ending) or so that said character can save the day, often in a deus ex machina manner. I despise this with a passion.

My view is that the well written death of a major character will add to the story by creating, building upon, or resolving some conflict. It may make readers unhappy, but if they can see it makes sense, within the framework of the story, and adds to the tale in some way, they will accept it. A poorly written death of a major character, neither affects the plot nor conflict and leaves the reader feeling cheated.

 

[Bond]

It depends on the setting and the story. A negative example, I stopped reading the WoT after the 2nd book because this was supposed to be about a world (universe?) altering conflict against the ultimate evil; however, none of the major characters had been killed, even though they were for the most part a bunch of farm boys and girls just off the farm. So I looked at couple amazon reviews for the latter books in the series (8th or 9th) and all the same characters are still surviving. How am I supposed to take the conflict seriously when the evil forces are so inept and harmless? If you want your Dark Lord to be taken seriously it better be able to kick butt and take names. If you are going to have a bunch of characters facing some ultimate evil, some of the good guys, as well as, the bad guys need to be killed off, if the evil is to be taken seriously.

As a positive example, Martin's ASoIF has a host of characters vying for political power in a medieval setting. No character is safe. Major characters die under believable circumstances. New characters step forward, while others, no longer necessary to the story, are removed by one means or another, and not always through death.

Although I can appreciate to a certain extent this particular criticism being levied against WoT, it only started to weigh on me when characters thought dead started coming back and the foreshadowing got so heavy that it started predicting the future too clearly.

Still, I personally find Martin far more of a turn off in this regard because his treatment of deaths is akin to aforementioned horror flicks where he builds characters up just to off them. After a while it comes off more as a gimmick for effect. Martin chooses to give more focus on characters dying than Jordan but if you're going to do a body count on number of characters with points of view that end up dead they are probably comparable. I wouldn't be surprised if WoT actually comes in ahead in the body count, the deaths in WoT just aren't set up and sensationalized as much.

Actually sensationalism is a hallmark of Martin's entire approach and is why I cannot help but take exception to the surfeit of praise he receives. The approach can be effective and enjoyable but please forgive me if i don't join the chorus lionizing his skills as a writer. Get past the shock tactics Martin seems to specialize in and the lack of creativity in the story becomes sorely evident.

 

[The Dark Truth]

Still, I personally find Martin far more of a turn off in this regard because his treatment of deaths is akin to aforementioned horror flicks where he builds characters up just to off them. After a while it comes off more as a gimmick for effect.

If a character is not built up, then why should I care if they live or die? Why would anyone see them as a threat to be removed, if they do rise above their peers? Because the author thinks I should? I don't care if a character is killed that I like, as long as, it makes sense within the world and story the author has created. I feel Martin does a good job with this. I also understand everyone has different ideas about how much death they want to see in the fantasy they read. Some would prefer that none of the characters they are attached to ever die. In some stories this works, but in others it makes the story hard to digest. If you are telling me a story involving warfare on a large scale, I expect some deaths, including major characters, as that is part of warfare.

Martin chooses to give more focus on characters dying than Jordan but if you're going to do a body count on number of characters with points of view that end up dead they are probably comparable. I wouldn't be surprised if WoT actually comes in ahead in the body count, the deaths in WoT just aren't set up and sensationalized as much.

Since I did not choose to continue past book 2 in the WoT, so I can't answer this except to say that the 6-7 major good characters from the first 2 books are all still alive it appears 8(?) books later. If this was not supposed to be a world (universe?) altering conflict against the ultimate evil then it would be no problem to me. Major bad characters (the forsaken?) dying is par to the course for most black and white fantasy. Most people do not get very upset about the bad guys dying off. My guess is this is where most of the WoT major character deaths are occurring, since I have NEVER seen Jordan held up as someone who was willing to kill his major characters, but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am way off base here.

Actually sensationalism is a hallmark of Martin's entire approach and is why I cannot help but take exception to the surfeit of praise he receives. The approach can be effective and enjoyable but please forgive me if i don't join the chorus lionizing his skills as a writer. Get past the shock tactics Martin seems to specialize in and the lack of creativity in the story becomes sorely evident.

I guess I do not feel the deaths in ASoIF are that sensational, though I could see why some might feel that way. Historically, in medieval power struggles the little folk suffer and nobles died through fair means or foul. Martin's stuff is actually pretty tame compared to some of the history I have read about the middle ages. Based on the story he is telling I expect major characters to die fairly frequently; therefore, using him as a positive example of being willing to kill major characters in a manner which is believable.

As for creativity, the story is inspired at least partly by the War of the Roses I believe, so I agree it is not the most creative story (like a lot of fantasy); however, I do enjoy the way Martin is telling it, even if there are some choices which annoy me at times (like undead Cat, too many children wielding too much power). Jordan's work is not entirely original in its own right; but, many people enjoy it very much. It is just not my cup of tea.

 

[GreyMantle]

I think one of the worst authors I have ever encountered as it pertains to character death is RA Salvatore. In Drizzt/Entreri novels, NO MAJOR CHARACTER EVER DIES! He's working with the same characters he was writing about 10-20 years ago. His recent books are nothing more than glorified Monty Haul dungeons in which he showcases his battle skills and lets Drizzt dance around the thousand orcs. He compounds this problem by introducing new characters that never die either. And in the newer ones his villains refuse to kick the bucket as well. He does the exact opposite with the Demon Wars novels, though. In those almost EVERYONE dies. It's gotten to an absurd point now. Ultimately, if an author does either of these approaches, then I know that I won't like it. Whatever your personal opinion is of his series, I think Martin does have the right way of thinking: Create a bunch of great characters that readers will identify with, and then kill off some of them, bit by bit. That way the deaths don't lose any emotional appeal and become commonplace, but at the same time show that some characters can't live through everything.

 

[James Carmack]

Who should live and who should die? It's quite the burden to command life and death, even more so when trying to balance craft and "reality." In real life, death will strike suddenly, unexpectedly and indiscriminately. Both the authors and the readers have an emotional investment in the characters. To abruptly rob them of that is "real," but it's easy to see from a crafter's perspective that it's wasteful. It's a fine line to walk and you're never going to get off scot-free. Someone's bound to complain one way or another.

Personally, I find most horror films boring because I know there's not much point in getting attached to most of the characters because they're only going to get killed off. (Fortunately, characterization is usually shallow enough that you can be apathetic without any regrets.) On the other hand, when you know everyone's going to make it out alive and well in the end, there's no dramatic tension. An author has to be judicious in his death-dealing.

Is there a hard and fast rule? No, of course not. My best advice to authors is to do what feels truest to the story. Cheap ploys to exploit the readers' emotions are bound to result in a backlash. To handle the problem well isn't easy, but that's exactly why success is so deserving of acclaim.

 

[typhoon]

I think this is a very good question. Killing off heroes can never be done lightly. Thinking back on some of my favorite fantasy reads main characters must sometimes die to add to realism and belief and give the reader that flood of emotion and extra edge to the story. Yet having said this there are main characters and main characters.
Not sure how really to explain this statement except to say I read Erickson for two and a half books with great passion. Good guys died and for raw emotion there was none better. Then into the third book Memories of Ice I thought I caught a glimpse of which hero was to die next I skipped ahead and saw the truth of my guess to my horror and I haven't read any more Erickson since. Not even sure why except to say that for me this particular Character was essential to my future enjoyment of the story and in some ways I felt betrayed at this persons loss. First posting so I hope I got things right even if not really clear.

 

[NighteyesIV]

A 'struggling' story stays with me longer.

I completely agree with this. Although I would probably be very depressed that my favorite character died, I would at least remember that novel. I think it's very weird if lets say 10 main characters go on a huge adventure and fight many battles, and not one of them dies. It just seems like a kid's fantasy fairy tale to me. I think its fine to kill off a main character, if its done right. I would hate to read a book where the main character just dies out of no where. I've heard many people say they wish Harry Potter would just die to fulfill the prophecy, so that would be something I would enjoy. Books that make you think and talk about them afterwords are usually very good. So kill away.

 

[Wayne Batson]

Great topic, Gary. I've run into the same quandary in my books, but in two very different ways.

The 1st, in The Door Within books, my protagonist needed to grow, needed to change, and needed to face an incredible challenge with no one to catch him. That kind of forced my hand, and I ended up killing off one of my favorite characters--but it was a noble death.

Now, in my new book {a pirate adventure} Isle of Swords, there came a scene involving multiple main characters where it would be ridiculous for them all or even most of them to survive. So...I let a number of them perish as was fitting considering the events. {unlike an Arnie movie where 100 guys are firing machine guns and Ah-nold doesn't get hit.}

Funny thing was, my editor, was really mad at me. She reminded me that I had a sequel to plan and that some of these newly deceased rogues could come in handy. Solution: I rewrote the scene giving plausible outs to a couple of the would-be deaders.

 

[Eventine]

Sacrificing artistic integrity for the sequel dollars hey Wayne?

Sorry, just joking. I wonder how prevalent a situation that is within the industry though, especially with fantasy being such a sequel driven genre? How many characters in the books we discusss here are only still around because of editorial (or other external) intervention?

 

[The Dark Truth]

Outside of fantasy I think James Clavell was great at writing character death. Somehow he just always seemed to find an excellent balance of deliberate, accidental, unfortunate and really pretty unavoidable deaths throughout his books. The way people bit in Whirlwind, stumbling around through all that turbulence was probably his best example of this IMO.

In Shogun, the fight scene where one group of samurai are trying to reach a dock to escape the city they are in, and fight samurai belonging to the city they are trying to leave, in a series of one on one fights, on the way to the dock, is the favorite battle scene I have read. I agree he does a great job with characters dying in his novels.

 

[The Dark Truth]

Not sure how really to explain this statement except to say I read Erickson for two and a half books with great passion. Good guys died and for raw emotion there was none better. Then into the third book Memories of Ice I thought I caught a glimpse of which hero was to die next I skipped ahead and saw the truth of my guess to my horror and I haven't read any more Erickson since. Not even sure why except to say that for me this particular Character was essential to my future enjoyment of the story and in some ways I felt betrayed at this persons loss. First posting so I hope I got things right even if not really clear.

I think many of the major characters Erikson kills off (I have read the first 3 books) will show up again as ascendants in latter books. I am guessing the one you are talking about will be one (though I could be wrong).

 

[pat5150]

Speaking of Erikson, he kills off quite a bunch of characters in Reaper's Gale.

Patrick

 

[Wayne Batson]

Sacrificing artistic integrity for the sequel dollars hey Wayne?

Sorry, just joking. I wonder how prevalent a situation that is within the industry though, especially with fantasy being such a sequel driven genre? How many characters in the books we discusss here are only still around because of editorial (or other external) intervention?

Too funny, Eventine. No actually it wasn't the $$$ for a sequel in this case. It was just a lack of forethought on my part. The sequel was already contracted, I just wasn't thinking of who might be useful in the next story. Not to say that I wouldn't ressurrect a character if the price was right.

 

[typhoon]

I think many of the major characters Erikson kills off (I have read the first 3 books) will show up again as ascendants in latter books. I am guessing the one you are talking about will be one (though I could be wrong).

Thank you Dark truth that might be enough to get me started again with Erickson hjope your right as well.Although at the moment it poses a bit of dilema as I've just discovered ASOFAI and wont be able to leave that till I've finished Feast of Crows which will mean probably begining Erickson all over again.
This forum certinly has alot to answer for before I found it I thought that Fantasy writing began with LOTR and ended with WOT how wrong was I. Erickson and Martin which I first heard of here have taken the genre a whole lot of steps further.

 

[Khallandra]

Killing off main characters in some situations is simply necessary. It can be absolutely devastating for some people, but if the other characters are just as strong then the reader will continue reading the story. This is because they simply want to know what happens to the 'rest of them' even if their favourite has died.

A death of a major character may become fuel for the 'quest' that the characters are on. A motivation that the readers also feel.