Killing off the heroes

[Susan Boulton]

Fantasy vs. realistic. The ideal story is a blend of the two.

To me the whole point of a story is that the characters in it make a journey. They, the world they live in, changes, for good or ill. Things progress and change. If there were no change, if everything at the end were the same, if the characters were the same, all unmarked by the events, what really is the point of telling the story...

Janny Wurts, both in her work with Raymond E Feist, and her series Light and Shadow has killed major characters, Raymond E Feist has too, his books span two or three generations, so it was plain that well loved characters were not going to be in the later books.

Anne Mcaffey has removed characters and the death of these, least to me has felt right.

The people you know as a young person are not often around when you, yourself, are middle aged. Death is, I feel, a touchstone to reality in a fantasy world. It makes the characters real in the sense you can relate them to you, and what you have experienced.

If the writer is skilled then the death moves the story on, affects the characters and opens up new pathways for the story to develop along.

As for my own work... the fate of each character in my serious work has been carefully worked out, thought on and used to drive the story to its conclusion. I suppose the monster is fantasy with a small f. I have no magic, no grand mages or elder races. Just man struggling to deal with the affects his choices have had for the world at large.

Yes, certain characters I have become attached too. But if their death in the any of the further five books I have outlined in the "world" I have created for the monster, will move the story in the direction I want it to go, then they will go.

 

[Radthorne]

The rest of the characters were shocket for a couple of sentences afterwards and then the book just continued on to the climax barely without a ripple..

Just to second this thought of Nicba's, as it has always been a pet peeve of mine as well. If you're going to deal with a character death, then it should have a meaningful effect on the other characters if it is to be at all believable. As Nicba knows I actually have a whole chapter in my first book that deals with the death of an important, if not main character, and the effect that death has on one of the main characters. One just does not lose a friend or companion or relative without feeling a sense of loss, and if your characters feel it then hopefully your readers will too (for, as was said early on, a sense of loss is an emotion too, and can be very moving for readers to experience).

 

[Chlestron]

In my writing, it is almost inevitable that one of the main non-villain characters is going to die. Most of the time, my heroes are reluctant heroes who aren't in it to save the world but just want to go home or be left alone. They don't want to face the villain at the end or to beat the race or whatever the conflict happens to be.

I use a character's death (or near death) as a sort of wake up call for the hero dragging them kicking and screaming into the fray. I want the hero to be pushed by grief or anger or some other emotion to do something truly rash and unexpected that turns the tide (though not always in a good way).

Another feeling I have with character deaths is that they are the price the hero must pay to get what they want. Sometimes the price is too high, but I think that this makes for a better story than if the price wasn't high enough. If you save the world and come out unscathed, then something is wrong.

 

[James Barclay]

As some of you will know, part of the reputation I gained for my Raven Chronicles and Legends was down to the fact that I had a habit of bumping off major characters.

It's always a difficult decision. You have to be careful you aren't being gratuitous, careful you're not leaving yourself a hole you cannot fill further on in the series an careful you don't overdo the concept and turn shock into expectation.

For the author, there is always the added problem of being reluctant to kill off a loved character even though it is right for progression of the story you are telling.

The central reason I did it were because I felt, as Fitz certainly mentioned, that it is just not credible to have a group of heroes all survive every encounter in every book. I wanted people to understand that my heroes, though powerful, were not immortal and that in every risk situation, they might not all survive. As a tension device, it certainly works.

Additionally, I wanted the other characters to react to the deaths of their own. To have to deal with grief while still doing what they had to do. I think I became better at doing that as time went on.

I think that in my situation, having a group of heroes gave me licence to do this and yet keep the concept credible and keep readers coming with me. I kept alive those characters I felt utterly critical for most of the series though that didn't stop them getting badly damaged at times. And from the email I get, the emotional involvement of readers was undimmed by these deaths (and they were occasional rather than regular and often) and there was great upset at certain demises.

If it's any consolation, two of the death sequences for hero characters brought tears to my eyes when I was writing them. It's a difficult thing to do, keep real to the story and give your hero the 'right' send-off. Some hard decisions had to be made.

Summary? Yes it works, yes some readers will be disappointed (or even cross...) but if it's handled carefully, readers also see the truth in what the author is doing.

NOM

 

[Gary Wassner]

I think, James, that you are much like me when it comes to the emotions that writing elicits. I too have watched a number of my characters die, and I too have been reduced to tears while writing the chapters. Confronting death when it is not instantaneous can be heartwrenching and ennobling as well. In fact, I enjoy composing those scenes, even though it means the loss of a character for future use, and even though it can be so terribly sad.

Issues of realism aside, fantasy runs the gamut of emotion and when a loved character dies, it should not be gratuitous. That would be unfair to the reader. It should be necessary and crucial to the story. It should serve a purpose.

 

[Erfael]

...readers also see the truth in what the author is doing.

I think this is the most important thing in this question or any question of plotting or storytelling. I think whatever happens has to be true to the world that's created and the story that author has set up. Not having a death when one is called for can be grating, but just as grating can be death when there is no clear reason for it, when one can just see the man behind the curtain saying, "Now I'll kill this one off to get a rise out of them."

As far as whether I like seeing major characters killed off, I don't have a preference outside of that truth, though I believe that too many authors are too cowardly to kill off loved characters because they're afraid what their readers will think. It's artificial that so many people survive to the end of many books. And by artificial, I don't mean less real as in reality versus fantasy sense, but artificial as in being able to see the guy behind the curtain too much.


And NOM, we're still hoping for a US release of those Raven books...how is that working out? Who do we write to to make that happen?

 

[James Barclay]

I'm still hoping too, Erfael. I do have an agent for US rights now which I'm very excited about. I'm attending World Fantasy next week too. It all helps. But in the end, publishers need to be confident they can find a market and make the money they want.

I'll get there. It's a matter of time but I will. 2005 could be very interesting career-wise in the US.

I think your mentioning it on this site is as useful as writing letters to publishers and the media, by the way. It all breeds interest for which I thank you very much.

NOM

 

[Gary Wassner]

NOM - Kevin Radthorne and I (Gary Wassner), along with Patrick and Hanna Swenson of Fairwood Press/Talebones, Alan Clark's IFD Publishing as well as Robert Kruger and Electricstory.com are hosting a release party on Saturday from 2:30 until 5:00 at the Convention. All of us have either just had books released or have begun new ventures and we wanted to celebrate those events. Please stop in and say hello!!!

Have you been to World Fantasy before?

 

[James Barclay]

I'll certainly try and get along, thanks. I'm sure there'll be a message board in the con so we can leave messages etc.

Haven't been to a World Fantasy Con before but have been to a WorldCon and a few UK based cons. Looking forward to this one.

NOM

 

[LordGrimm]

Killing off a hero . . . it all depends on how it is done.

Example (per my opinion) - When Karl Cullinane was killed, sacrificing his life to save others, his death left a void in the Guardians of the Flame series that was, for me, unrecoverable. What was once upbeat and admirable, became downright depressing. Walter Slovotsky is a great character for relief, but putting him in the role of the hero was a mistake. The following books in the series were hard to read, as there was no character to latch on, and the storyline wasn't one of redemption but despair. It only worsened the absence when he created the legend of Karl Cullinane as the heroes went out to spread the message of the "Warrior Lives".

If you are going to kill off a main character, do it like Margeret Weis and Tracy Hickman did.

Spoiler

Both are sacrifices, but only one hero was the narrative thread that binded readers. Sturm's death was tragic, but it didn't stop anyone from reading the rest of Chronicles.

[MOD EDIT: Spoiler covered over. Hobbit]

 

[Leiali]

As some of you will know, part of the reputation I gained for my Raven Chronicles and Legends was down to the fact that I had a habit of bumping off major characters.

If it's any consolation, two of the death sequences for hero characters brought tears to my eyes when I was writing them. It's a difficult thing to do, keep real to the story and give your hero the 'right' send-off. Some hard decisions had to be made.

Summary? Yes it works, yes some readers will be disappointed (or even cross...) but if it's handled carefully, readers also see the truth in what the author is doing.

NOM

I feel better now....And your argument makes total sense. Though I suppose I don't read fantasy for 'realism' I do sometimes find myself incredulous when a protagonist and friend ALWAYS survive major catastrophe and mayhem, so I guess I know what you mean. I think it works best as long as everyone (author and reader) has a good cry, proving an emotional attachment and a well written book.
.....In my opinion, the worst culprit is Guy Gavriel Kay, I mean my emotional investment in his books and the despair with which the books often leave me when things work out how they should but often tragically, really is gut wrenching. But I would never stop reading his books, as the tragedy is part of what makes it work.

Oh, and Lord Grimm - you need a spoiler warning for the comments you just made!
[MOD EDIT: 'Tis done! Hobbit]

 

[Sir Stephen]

I agree with what a lot of people have said here. There can be several reasons for killing off a main character, for me it helps the story came alive a little (depending on the type of story of course) and how boring is a story when you know the hero characters are invulnerable....

Basically if you find a character has run out of story, you may have needed him/her near the start of the book, but perhaps their now at a loose end with nothing much to do. May as well kill them off, give the story an emotional boost and elevate the sense of danger for the characters you do still need.

 

[nicba]

Basically if you find a character has run out of story, you may have needed him/her near the start of the book, but perhaps their now at a loose end with nothing much to do. May as well kill them off, give the story an emotional boost and elevate the sense of danger for the characters you do still need.

I'm still somewhat opposed to that sort of thinking (and writing). Especially if it occurs multiple times in a book/series. That could grow old and predictable even faster than the 'heroes always survive without a scratch' syndrome:

"The stealthy thief managed to disarm the devious trap in the Dungeon of Evil and the group of heroes escaped in to the wilderness. When the thief died of a snake bite the second night, they were all shocked and saddened. But the group of heroes had to go on. Thus the trusty ranger took the lead, until they reached the city. Here he fell foul of a drunken old fighter and died on a rusty blade. The grief hit the remaining heroes hard, but it also made them realise that the city was a place even more dangerous than the wilderness, and that a different set of skills were necessary now...."

Yet if a writer really, really needs to kill off a 'hero' I think what matters is not so much how he kills the hero, as how he continues the tale afterwards. The character was important, therefore he probably had some special ties to the other characters, or some special skill that made him important in the first place. He should be long remembered and difficult to replace. But he should not be the only cornerstone left in the story. If a story is very character-oriented and the sole interesting character suddenly dies, then my interest in the book will probably die too...

 

[allanon]

Well, I have read good stories in which main characters survive and good stories in which some of these main characters die; bad stories in which main characters survive and bad stories in which some of them die. My point is - it depends on the story.

 

[Sir Stephen]

I would still like push forward the "kill" side of the argument, I would also like to see more people die in slightly humorous circumstances rather than grand heroic deaths. I have compiled an original list for you, Gemquest. Just pick one of the following demises....

Falling off ones horse and into adjacent river...with full battle armor!

Someone else's hunting accident.

Charging on ones horse and hitting a low hanging branch at speed.

Inventing explosives (often happens in fantasy), and being blown up in a badly planned experiment with said explosives

Have your hero lead a daring charge in battle only to find no one followed him...

Attempting to recapture an escaped farm animal (goat, pig etc) and blundering off a hidden cliff edge in the chase

Crushed by a large cheese

 

[Gary Wassner]

I love cheese. I would hate to have one of my heroes 'die by the cheese'.

 

[Hobbit]

Unless, of course, it was 'death by eating cheese'.

Sounds very Pratchettian.

I'm sure the rest of your list have appeared at some time though, Sir Stephen.

Hobbit

 

[JohnH]

Unless, of course, it was 'death by eating cheese'.

I much prefer the idea that the hero got between a large rat and an even larger wheel of cheese. Or maybe an author could tease a river of tears by having the successful band of heroes sit down to the their victory feast after defeating the evil overlord only to find that the main protagonist is fatally lactose intolerant. Death by binding. Or maybe the lovely damsel who is the intended love of our beloved hero eats her fondue without blowing on it first and burns the roof of her mouth. Ruining her dulcet tones and causing unsightly blistering. The tragedy causing her to throw herself off a cliff, having sullied her beauty and making her unworthy of the hero. Death by mouth burn. Then there are the rich possibilities in the strong warrior maiden forgetting to unpack her saddlebags, deservedly tired after skewering the wicked mage and his little goblins. Unfortunately goblins smell of old cheese and the over ripe cheddar sitting next to her bum causes the villagers she just saved to mistake her for one such goblin (assuming that the mage has set a disguising spell) and take several pitchforks to the surprised (but now thoroughly dead) rescuer.

Death by cheese. Oh the possibilities.

 

[funky_fantasist]

LOL! John - I thought you were an "abstainer from Foolosophy!"

BTW - back from Vegas. Didn't make my fortune so I had to come home...

Funky

 

[JohnH]

Ah, ah, ah. Death by cheese is hardly foolosophy. Going into detail as to why cheese was the means of death, what death by cheese means as a determiner of society and culture at large. That would be foolosophy. Having the big hearty guttonous warrior sidekick of usual barabrian origins make the mistake of trying to eat a giant wheel of gouda from the inside out is entertaining. Asking why the author made the cheese gouda instead of Emmentaler or a Grana Padona and arguing the individual merits of each type of cheese as metaphors for Dickensian content or the deep rooted religious themes of various world cultures? That is foolosophy. Heck simply asking the question "why cheese?" is foolosophy.

As to the aspects of your venture to Sodom and Gomorrah in Nevada. Did you get a chance to see any of the Cirque du Soleil shows or was all your lucre scattered to the greedy maul of the slot machines and craps tables?

As one comic said, you might as well take all your money, change it into qurteres and go back to your, feeing each quarter, one at a time, into the toilet and then flushing. You end up in the same financial state and at least leave with the satisfaction of totally screwing the hotel's plumbing up.