The Death of a Character

Every living thing in this universe shares at least one thing in common. We will all die. Most of us likely heard 'death is part of life' or 'death is a fact of life' as we were growing up. Most of us have been touched by the deaths of loved ones. 

So when someone asks if it's absolutely necessary for characters to die in my novels, the answer is 'of course'. But.

BUT. 

Anyone I kill off in a story must die for cause. The death(s) need to mean something to the characters left behind, or they need to augment reality. Any time you're writing military SFR, if people aren't dying when you shoot at them, you're writing parody. You need to apply a cost to everything characters do. Or don't do. You need consequences. 

Sure, I can make the consequences impact the character directly, but consider the psychological impact of your poor decision destroying an innocent's life. That's some heavy guilt and it's hard to get rid of. Am I fond of fridging girlfriends, boyfriends, or anyone else? I'd like to say no, but I have a lot of dead people who are driving a hero in the current WIP. I think that's the textbook definition of 'fridging'. That sucks. I didn't want to be that author. Forth book in a series, tho. So it's not like I can change it now or make it somehow okay. I don't want it to be okay. I want it to be raw. And hard. And haunting. 

Anyway. We're off track. Death must mean something. If it doesn't, then killing off a character becomes a toss off. These are the character deaths in books, TV, and movies where a writer just kills the character. It's almost an accident. Oops. I dodged when I should have parried and now I'm dead. I understand that this is, in fact, reality. All too well I know this. But you know who handles what could have been a toss off death so adeptly that it carried a boat load of weight and emotion? Peter Jackson. Lord of the Rings. Battle of Helm's Deep. The elf Haldir leads a troop to bolster the defenders. Heroic! Hopeful, even.

Then Haldir takes an enemy arrow between the eyes while defending the battlements. It's almost accidental (and never happened in the books). It's a brilliant piece of theater - a full few seconds to watch realization cross his face, then that face go slack, and the slow motion fall. It's also amazing emotional manipulation - just as the audience is cheering the heroic elves riding to the rescue, they're toppled from their emotional perch by the arrow of Haldir's death. I totally see why Peter Jackson put it in the film when it isn't in the books.

The hero. Fallen. Lovely imagery. Sledgehammer of 'aw, man, I liked him'. 

A toss off would have been 'Hey! Hero riding in with reinforcements! Oops. He's dead. Oh well.' It would have been a quick pan. Or someone who deserved a better, weightier death accidentally falling through a magic mirror. Not that I'm mentioning names of authors or books here.

Summary:

• If I kill named characters on the page, I want them to have earned their deaths as much as other characters have to earn their HEAs. I don't often kill named characters.
  
• If I kill people off stage, it's to drive named characters into the character arc they've been avoiding.
• If I kill people off stage, it's also set that stage for stakes and/or ticking clocks and because there are no wars without atrocities. I just don't have to enumerate them or dwell on them. Often.
• If I kill NPCs in large number, I always mean to include the stories of heroism that never actually make it into the darned novels. There may someday be a short story anthology of those depressing heroic-unto-death stories collected and published.

And now, a bit of new life. The monarch caterpillar I brought in to save from the red wasps cocooned in a nursery on my front porch. It emerged and flew off into the world on Tuesday. 

 

Is Death Truly Inevitable?

This week at the SFF Seven we're discussing The Necessity of Death.

In fiction, of course! 

We're asking "Do You *Have* To Kill Characters for there to be enough risk? What other threats work better or just as effectively?"

This is one of those topics readers and writers alike seem to debate often. The readers, of course, never want any character they love to die. This includes all animals and children, named or not. (As a reader, I agree!) 

Writers, however, often feel the pinch of this expectation. Death is, after all, a part of life. And without the peril of death, the stakes of any conflict can feel flat. Though we do enjoy making our readers cry, we also want them to be happy with the story. A cathartic ugly cry is a wonderful reading experience. Coming away from a book bitter and grieving? I don't like it, myself.

I recall an author asking this question on some writer forum a while back. He had a long-running series with a central protagonist. All along, he'd planned to kill this guy at the end. But, the series had gone longer than he anticipated, gaining many passionate readers. Seeing this character's fate coming, they'd begun writing to the author to beg him not to kill the character at the end. The author was seriously torn. He felt that this certain death was so integral to the story - as indeed it must have been, for readers to anticipate and write to him about it - that he worried doing anything else would be a cheat.

Would it have been? 

One well-known author killed her protagonist at the of a series, to great dismay from her readers. This was something she'd planned from the beginning, as she wrote the books in reaction to what she felt was a cheat ending to the Harry Potter series. She thought Harry should've died at the end, so created her own series to execute that exact arc. That author has defended the ending by saying that the series is about this character learning to be selfless and that only by making the "ultimate sacrifice" - by dying - could she truly learn that lesson.

But... is that the case?

This is the crux of what we're asking here. Is death of a character necessary to demonstrate something? You'll notice I put "ultimate sacrifice" in quotation marks, but is giving up one's own life really the greatest sacrifice? I'd argue that dying can be easier than living through difficulty. Making restitution to people you've wronged can take tremendous effort and suffering - something that arguably takes much more strength of character than escaping into death. 

With THE PROMISED QUEEN coming out next week, quite a few readers are revisiting the first two books in The Forgotten Empires - THE ORCHID THRONE and THE FIERY CROWN - and making guesses about how the trilogy will end. There are a few questions they want answered and one has to do with the quote above. I think I'm spoiling nothing when I say that I believe that repaying debts and suffering to truly change is far more meaningful for a character than merely dying. 

        

Regrets

In the second book of the Enemy series (which now has an actual series name of Chronicles of the Empire) I ended the book on a tiny bit of a cliffhanger. Someone died. I got some anguished email over that one. But my real regret there is that it took so bloody damned long to get around to book three so I could solidify that cliff hanger. 

Beyond that, I have no major regrets over how I've treated characters. And this is probably where I will leave you because my parents moved in today. It is no longer possible to walk through the house without serious risk of bodily injury. So I'm gonna go risk minor bodily injury and go schlep furniture around into some semblance of order. And keep writing this series, wherein, I *might* do something for which I will have to apologize in a future blog post.

Who's Looking Over Your Shoulder as You Write? Appeasing the Fandom

One of my faithful desk companions - Isabel has little interest in the stories themselves, but she disapproves of my reaching for the mouse. Good incentive for me to keep typing with no backtracking!

Not as visible - and not as likely to claw me for reaching for the mouse - is everyone else virtually on my desk as I write. By this I mean my readers. And not just any readers - but those passionately invested in the stories, worlds and characters. You know who you are! These are the power readers, the ones who take time to give me personal feedback on how much they love what I write.

And they have opinions. Sometimes strong ones. Again, you know who you are. :-)

That's our topic this week: Responding to the fandom – where do you draw the line? (e.g., not killing a character after all)

It's an interesting question for me because I've noted several authors in recent years who I've felt have caved to reader pressure on various levels. That might be a bit sideways of this topic, so let me respond directly to the question before I dive into that.

Would I not kill a character because my readers urged me not to? Absolutely. Okay, probably I wouldn't. The only exception would be if I believed that death to be necessary to the story in a way that resulted in greater richness. I wouldn't do it to make a point or to create emotional angst. I like stories that make me feel enriched and optimistic, so I like to leave my readers with that feeling, too. I have killed characters - because people die, and sometimes a character's death is needed to allow another to move forward - and I would even kill a loved character because the story demands it.

For example, in MAGIC RISES, the sixth Kate Daniels books (don't read this paragraph if you aren't caught up and don't want to be spoilered) Ilona Andrews made the choice to kill Aunt Bea, a hugely popular character. I tell you - and you know if you love the series, too - I cried and cried. BUT, her death was important. The stakes were very high and it made no sense if no one was killed in that situation. Also, her death meant a change in the political structure and allowed two other characters to step into leadership positions. I'm sure the writing team of Ilona and Gordon Andrews got a LOT of upset feedback from their passionate fandom about not killing that character. They mention in interviews that they argued between themselves about it.

They made a hard decision and stood by it.

At the same time, other authors have made the choice to kill characters - even first person point-of-view protagonists - in order to make a point. George RR Martin famously kills off characters, sometimes almost arbitrarily, to demonstrate how capricious such things can be, and how tenuous our grip on life.

I'm not into that so much.

Where I do draw my own line is bending to political pressure. There's a great deal of discussion online about what's appropriate in real life - such as consent and healthy relationships - and also trope exhaustion. I've seen authors change their stories to accommodate this kind of feedback. One wrote a beta hero who gave way to the heroine in all things because her readers were "tired of alpha holes." (That's a cross between alpha and asshole, for those not in the know.) You know what? That book was dead boring, at least to me. I know some readers loved it, which is cool, but I thought it was far from her strongest work - and I fell off reading that series due to lack of interest.

Another author has gotten tons of feedback on a couple who are both highly emotional, sometimes violent people. She's really toned down their interactions over the years - and I wonder how much is due to the sometimes strongly chastising posts written about some of those scenes. The thing is, I read the most recent book - found it dead boring - then went back to an earlier one and devoured it for all the excitement and turmoil. I'm missing that element now.

Passionate voices are loud voices - and strong opinions have great conviction behind them. It's important to discuss issues like consent and healthy relationships. But it's worth noting that conflict is what makes STORIES interesting and exciting. I think authors bend to social pressure at the risk of bleeding the energy from their books.

In real life, we'd never find it useful for someone to die. As authors of our worlds, it's a choice we make. Sometimes with relish.

Because relish is what adds the flavor!

Ding Dong the Dude Is Dead

Weeeeeell. Could last week's meme post have segued any more smoothly into this week's? I don't think it could.

I think I've provide graphic proof that I have no issue with killing of whoever needs killing. Bad guys. Innocents. Not so innocents. Folks who were in the wrong place at the wrong time - few are safe from me. And it's probably a character flaw of mine, but since those deaths happen solely to serve the story, I may be guilty of using death as plot device.

Remember fairytales? Not the ones Disney fed you - the dark and creepy tales the Brothers Grimm actually wrote - where Cinderella's step mother maimed her own daughters to get the glass slipper to fit? The penalty in those old, dark stories is almost always death. There's something ancient and bloodthirsty in the human psyche - something that whispers for the deaths of those who transgress, who keep the hero or heroine from what is rightfully theirs. No wonder genre fiction likes to off the bad guys. On some primitive level, it just feels right.

That's the bad guys sorted, but what about when it's a good guy or gal who bites it? I'll be straight with you here. It's emotional manipulation. Yep. Truth. You are being twisted into giving a crap about a character, you're being led to invest emotionally, and then you're being hauled nose first right into your own fear of death. Have I killed off good guys? Of course. SPOILER ALERT: There are likely to be more who take a dirt nap. Why? Not because I intend for you to work through your existential dread over what happens when you die - though, according the ancient Greeks, that's exactly what you're doing - that's the premise for all those tragedies they wrote. Catharsis - purging emotion. I'm not Greek. I kill off good guys because in every battle, in every crisis, in every situation with high stakes, some people learn the lessons that allow them to survive and some don't. Every action a hero or heroine takes has consequences. Sometimes, those consequences include the deaths of allies. Characters who could have been the heroes of their own stories. These are the deaths I try to be most careful with. I roll my eyes at every movie that murders some dude's family/girlfriend/partner in the first ten minutes (y'know, to motivate him) so I am very careful to not use character death as some kind of goad. That's just my particular peeve. If a character is to die, it needs to be the culmination of that character's arc - NOT a blip on someone else's arc, if you see the difference.

The one thing I can say is that I ended a book on a character's death. The series was later canceled by the publisher (not because of the death!) I'd intended to answer the question of whether that character had actually lived or died in the third book - only I didn't get to do a third book. This was not a happy thing for anyone. So. Killing characters is often necessary. Both from a story standpoint and from a character standpoint. But if there's any ambiguity about the demise, don't leave yourself and your readers hanging unless you're already contracted for the next book.

On Killing Characters

A List of Killed Characters off the Top of my Head:

  Numerous characters from Game of Thrones

  Numerous characters from the Walking Dead

  Spock/Kirk when facing Khan

  Mary on Sherlock

  Jack from Titanic

           **I could go on but I have a post to write. (; 

I consider myself a level-headed, thoughtful person. I believe the Golden Rule is valuable and that the commandments were a pretty good list overall. And yet:

1.) I want Arya or Tyrion or Daenerys or Grayworm or SOMEONE to beat the shit out of Cersei Lannister and cut her vile throat.

2.) I want someone to take out Negan.

Let's compare the difference in the level of vehemence in my two statements above. 

GOT: Cersei is a horrible, conniving person bent on keeping her family in power. She reads people well, anticipates their motives and acts to thwart any effort she sees as a threat. She's not afraid to unleash her vengeance-but there's a trigger beforehand. I feel she deserves to die more than most on the show who have been killed, but I have to admit last season they made me admire her inner strength. The deaths and the violence, in my opinion, feel in line with the time period and the social constructs. This 'realism,' I think, is part of what maintains my emotional investment.

**I'm no expert on the historical eras GRRM draws on for inspiration, so I have to note that WILLING SUSPENSION of DISBELIEF is a factor here.


TWD: Negan is a horrible and manipulative person, but I find him crossing the line into evil because he enjoys setting people up to fear him and to fail in order to have the excuse to hurt, maim or kill them. Watching the Walking Dead with him in it is something that must be akin to watching a snuff film. And while my writer brain understands that he is the embodiment of a level of evil that will force Rick & Co. to accept the risks of loss to up their game, I find I can no longer suspend my disbelief. I was emotionally invested until the season opener. Since then, there seems to be a personal distance. I still root for Rick & Co., but the fire has dissipated.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WRITING?

KILLING CHARACTERS SHOULD HAVE UNDENIABLE IMPACT. 

I can prove it with one word:

HODOR

In my series, I killed a character in FATAL CIRCLE (#3) who I liked so much I've thought of going back and writing her story, set a few decades earlier. I did not intend at the outset to kill her. I had a different plan. But when that moment came, I knew it was right. How did I know? See #3 below.

In books, characters die (much as they do in life) in a few ways:

1.) Random/unforseeable accident/health issue or complication
      {Guy killed by raptor in Jurassic Park}
       VALID BECAUSE:

            it happens in real life   ok, maybe not killed by raptor, but you know what I mean

            the aftermath for the survivors will show their character and possibly growth  

2.) Murdered {Abraham, Glenn; Qui-Gon Jinn}

       VALID BECAUSE:

            it happens in real life

            it shows how far your villain is willing to go

            the aftermath for the survivors will show their character and possibly growth

            murder and/or revenge continue to be suscessful stories

3.) Self sacrifice  {Kirk/Spock facing Khan; Hodor; Mary from Sherlock; Obi-Wan}

       VALID BECAUSE:

            it happens in real life

            it shows how far your hero/ine is willing to go

            it shows how far the cult leader & group are willing to go

            in the aftermath if the hero/ine is/isn't changed by this tells us something

4.) Suicide

       VALID BECAUSE:

            it happens in real life

            in the aftermath if the hero/ine is/isn't changed by this tells us something

If you're killing a character in your story, 

the real question to me...the real root of it is:

            

How does the story change without them?

Unless you're writing an out of sequence time tale, or plan to write prequels, once you kill a character, they are gone. Their impact should not be. Whether their death hurt the hero/ine or whether it was a two-paragraph entry that defines the villain, if it is there it should have meaning beyond that death scene. If it was a beloved character, the impact for your readers will resonate. Make it count!

Die, Damn You, Random & Beloved Characters, Die!

People die in my books all the time. Unnamed characters are pretty much the Red Shirts. Named characters expire in order to develop the plot or protagonist. Once in a while, for great impact and in the third act, a character who has been pivotal to plot and protagonist will die.

Those third act deaths are either the Great Glorious Come Uppance or the Ghastly Gutting of the Soul. 

Yes, I usually know who is going to kick it in the third act from the beginning of the crap draft.  That character owns the burden of pushing the protagonist the hardest. Their death symbolizes the Goal Achieved. Sometimes it's a merciful death or the final sacrifice. Other times it's hubris.

The trick is balancing the deaths. 

Too many and the reader doesn't care; they're inured. Too few and the story rings hollow; after all, the value of life is driven by the inevitability of death.  Not every death has to be gruesome. Not every set up for the dying should be intricate. Not everyone has to die by the antagonist's or the protagonist's hand. Oh, and don't overlook a good maiming; it can deliver equal--or better--emotional resonance.

All that said, if you're reading one my books, someone will die, folks. Usually a lot of someones. 

However, I guarantee you, it'll never be the dog. 

Killing Prince Charming

Okay, so... the cover for THE FORESTS OF DRU isn't  *quite* ready, but here's a teaser. You guys, it's so pretty!! The good news is that the book is up for preorder now!! Just at Amazon so far, but the rest will be coming. Release date is January 24 for sure!

Our topic at the SFF Seven this week is: Burning Bridges: Killing Off Characters in Your Fiction As a Plot Point.

I'd lay money down this topic is one of Jim's. The man loves to kill off characters, I tell you.

For me... I don't like to so much. But sometimes it's necessary. A lot of times I fight it, but death in fiction, as in life, is inevitable.

I'm going to talk about my book THE MARK OF THE TALA, the first of The Twelve Kingdoms books. If you haven't read it and don't want a huge spoiler, better stop now.

Okay? All the spoiler-nervous folks fled?

(Not like they couldn't guess from the title, though.)

So, THE MARK OF THE TALA ends with Hugh, the handsome and noble prince who marries Princess Amelia just before the start of the story, dying unexpectedly and brutally. As one guy who read the book said to me, "I can't believe you killed Prince Charming!"

I've quoted him a lot on that, because it does perfectly sum up what happens - and how I also felt about it. As I wrote that book, I fought the dread all along that Hugh would die. There's a recurring premonition where Princess Andi - the heroine of the story - sees Rayfe, the hero, dead in the snow. At the end, fate twists - because Andi changes it - and Hugh dies instead.

It really sucked and I cried over it.

But... Prince Charming had to die. While these books do end with Happily Ever Afters, as in life, those are only for some people. Others are passing through stages of grief and loss. This series, and the continuing saga in The Uncharted Realms are all in a way about loss of innocence. Or, at least, the loss of comforting illusions. Each heroine discovers the world isn't what she thought it was. The truth she discovers is often better in ways - certainly better for her - but each much shed the old beliefs of childhood to move forward.

For all of us, that means putting Prince Charming in the grave.

Because the idea of Prince Charming is one of the most profound illusions we're told. As an archetype he borders on ridiculous - forever riding about on his white charger, hair gleaming gold in the sun and noble visage in handsome profile. He is without flaw and utterly... dull. In THE MARK OF THE TALA, Hugh's essential flaw emerges in that his nobility blinds him. He can't see past it. And, in his zeal to be Prince Charming, he is ultimately the agent of his own demise.

Love this bit from Into the Woods. "He has charm for a prince, I guess - I don't meet a wide range."