would you feel cheated

[Jammill Khursheed]

As long as they are actually dead I would like it, Aeris really getting killed by Sephiroth is the second best bit of any Final Fantasy game, and that was years ago so I surely don't need a spoiler warning or white text

The best bit btw, would need a spoiler warning because it comes at the end of Final Fantasy X, and they are about to re-release that in HD on PS3.


A lot of the characters in my Sci-Fi series die, but the whole series proper covers 25 years, an apocalyptic third world war, and a civil war amongst the ruins after that, so I see the prospect of all my major characters making it to the picnic at the end massively unbelievable.

That said, usually only one or two main characters die on the way to the end of the story, and most of the time that's a noble sacrifice to stop the bad guys. These are of course massively generic and usually unbelievable. If you're doing something new, that doesn't stick to the standard model, all power to you, somebody always needs to.

Jammill

 

[Glitch]

If the death was relevant to the story, and not because the author felt like it; then no, I wouldn't feel cheated.

However, if the character died and it didn't affect anything or anyone; then yes, I would probably feel cheated.

Death can be a hard subject to touch on. Unless you are aiming at a younger generation, most of your readers have probably known someone who has died. How the other characters deal with death can be more of the issue than actually killing off a major player.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think one of the problems here is that one of the people who dies is a kid, and if it was just the adults it might have had a different impact. I didn't put it in for shock, and it is important to the protagonist. I had two ways I could take the book, one was to start with the main prot after this had happened, the other was to strengthen the first part and make it deeper, which is the way I went, meaning this scene is much more challenging, because the characters are more rounded.

Do I think the book makes sense without what happens here; no. Is it overtly referred to again, no, but it is the central theme of the protagonist and shapes him for what lies ahead. And this story is harsh, it's not gentle, it's not a fairytale, so maybe this prepares the reader for what's ahead...

 

[Glitch]

Then it sounds like it needs to be included. I'm sure you will do it justice

 

[Scott R. Forshaw]

Springs, it works for me. Yes, it's a shock, and it's certainly one of those lumps in the throat moments, but I feel that it gives more depth to the remaining protagonist. Not only does it give you an insight into the hardships he's had to face, and the struggles he's been forced to overcome, but it also draws you in, makes him likeable.

My answer is simple: you mustn't change a thing; for me it works perfectly.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

And that, more than anything, Glitch, sums it up; I hope I do it justice, and that's through the protagonist.

@ Scott; ty, good to know, cos you have the deeper pov version, and you seen it without the first section, and the background to it.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

Incidentally, the reason I've never reread ASoIaF, and haven't even bought ADwD is a perfect example of this - too many deaths of "good" characters at, apparently, the whim of the author. I haven't the time or inclination to read another installment where the rug's going to be pulled out from under me yet again. Sorry, George...

What I enjoy most about that series, Pyan, is that characters do die. As Jammill said, when you have an apocalyptic world war, followed by a 25 year civil war, not all the characters will make it to the picnic at the end.

I have a character die in my super hero series. Then he comes back to life. Only not quite.

I'm trying to do that to poke fun at the way comic book super heroes enhance their careers by dying (the "Death of Super Manatee" issue outsells all previous issues in the series combined), and then get brought back from death.

I'm hoping I can pull it off. Fingers crossed.

That, however, is the exception. Normally, I want characters to stay dead. And super heroing, war, etc. are dangerous occupations. People will die. Nobody lives forever.*

*With the possible exception of various gods and demons. And even then...

 

[Glitch]

I don't have an issue with characters coming back to life, if that's how the world works. But I think it's better to set that up beforehand.

In one of my wips I have a space station blow up. On reading it back I noticed every main character survives. I couldn't go back and kill some of the off for effect, it would seem forced.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

I don't have an issue with characters coming back to life, if that's how the world works. But I think it's better to set that up beforehand.

In one of my wips I have a space station blow up. On reading it back I noticed every main character survives. I couldn't go back and kill some of the off for effect, it would seem forced.

The easiest way to survive an exploding space station is to be somewhere else when it explodes.

 

[Warren_Paul]

The easiest way to survive an exploding space station is to be somewhere else when it explodes.

That would certainly be helpful... there you go Springs, just have them somewhere else.

just kidding... don't hate me... I'm shutting up now

 

[Jo Zebedee]

teleport; works for Star trek?

On the GRRM comments, the problem with him(and others tolkien and Gandalf set the barameter for this one) is that yes, he does kill some characters off, and obviously I shall put nothing here to spoil, but on the other hand, there is one character who I've thought is dead a couple of times and they aren't. And, to my mind, that's the real cheap shot for the reader; "Here, buy in emotionally, it's awful, but ah-ha, they're not dead!"
It generates great publicity, particularly when done as a cliffhanger and the next book is some way off**, but I think its much more dishonest to the reader.*

I think we could have a different thread; how would you survive this.... improbable disastrous death.

*the last series of Sherlock irked me for this, too, but I do appreciate it is an accepted part of the genre, another mystery to solve, but I thought they made it too certain for me to suspend my disbelief enough, and I struggled with it.

** and, of course, I could be wrong in my suspicions.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

teleport; works for Star trek?

On the GRRM comments, the problem with him(and others tolkien and Gandalf set the barameter for this one) is that yes, he does kill some characters off, and obviously I shall put nothing here to spoil, but on the other hand, there is one character who I've thought is dead a couple of times and they aren't. And, to my mind, that's the real cheap shot for the reader; "Here, buy in emotionally, it's awful, but ah-ha, they're not dead!"
It generates great publicity, particularly when done as a cliffhanger and the next book is some way off**, but I think its much more dishonest to the reader.*

I think we could have a different thread; how would you survive this.... improbable disastrous death.

*the last series of Sherlock irked me for this, too, but I do appreciate it is an accepted part of the genre, another mystery to solve, but I thought they made it too certain for me to suspend my disbelief enough, and I struggled with it.

** and, of course, I could be wrong in my suspicions.

Oh Suspicious One, do you know how some people believe the Star Trek transporter works? It annihilates matter, and then beams the equivalent energy to the new location, and then turns matter into energy -- thus killing the transportee, and assembling a copy in the new location.

Read China Meiville's Kraken for a subplot involving a transportee haunted by ghosts...of himself!

P.S. There was another series of novels I read many years ago where the transporter assembled copies in the new location without harming (or moving) the original. Involved the exploration of an alien Dyson Sphere. Can't remember title or author.

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm pretty much with Pyan about this: while it's inherently not a bad thing, there's nothing intrinsically clever or better about killing off characters, either. I'm somewhat wary of it, partly because it can lessen the reader's attachment to the book if you bump off people to whom they've become attached, but more because it's not the short cut to realism or quality that some people seem to believe it to be.

A writer isn't required to depict real life, just to make as convincing a job of impersonating it as the novel requires. Therefore, if Mr X has to been the only survivor of an accident that kills millions, he can be, even if the odds of it happening are extremely small. It's when the characters get too lucky, or too good, for the setting that problems arise: if you establish in Chapter 1 that King Arthur can kill a thousand men in a battle, it won't be too much of a surprise when he defeats half an army in Chapter 2. Which all probably amounts to "Do what you like, just do it well."

 

[Gumboot]

Ultimately, if what you're writing serves the story, it's the correct thing to do, and if it doesn't it's the wrong thing to do. There's no rules, and no formulas, other than that.

 

[James Coote]

You can allude to the death, but have a character who doesn't know the story (of the death). Thus you can build some tension whilst letting the reader know that at some point, they, along with the clueless character, are going to be filled in on the details.