Should "promised" arcs always be carried through?

[KyleAW]

Ah interesting, it was a writer lead killing? Yeah, doesn't always sit right then .

 

[Venusian Broon]

Thanks again, everyone. After much racking of brain, I've decided to backtrack and spare him, not so much because I think the revenge arc needs to be played out, but for a couple of other reasons. One of them being that on reflection, I was in danger of letting him die partly because I wasn't sure what else he could do in the future (apart from become a target). As Teresa pointed out, this is not a good idea. But also, I have a soft spot for him and want him to redeem himself, and I want to see where he might end up.

But it's been a thought-provoking thread, so thanks for the contributions.

Oh, he's saved, hurrah! I'm pretty sure I know who you mean. He is an excellent character all full of contradictions, and although he's done terrible things, I'm glad he's got a stay of execution!

 

[Wanderlog]

If you choose to kill them, then be really certain it is for a good reason.

You see, I don't know a way to create a well fleshed out character and avoid liking hir at that. You spend endless hours imagining hir, thinking how hir can speak and behave in different situation. You bring hir up in the same way as you would bring up a child, you make your readership like hir - and then you just kill hir...?

I alway hated books where authors killed main characters. Among other things, it's easy - as easy as in "In every situation there always is a quick, easy and utterly wrong solution." No need to think about extricating yourself from a difficult situation, about complex relationship with other characters, about consequences of your character's actions - just kill the character as spectacularly as you can and squeeze out a tear from your readers. Terrible...

I've decided to backtrack and spare him

I fully support you in this decision.

If you don't know what to do with the character right now, just put him on ice. For example, he moved to a monastery in far jungles to become a monk and atone for his sins. In my practice, I sometimes re-use characters forgotten long ago. All you need is carefully explaining their temporary absence.

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

read what i wrote in(on?) my blog,28 july.It looks ))like I kill off a main character,right away

 

[Toby Frost]

Widening this out from just killing off characters, certain types of character seem to have their own built-in arcs, and one way of finding new ground is to do something else (but still satisfying) with them. If I say "Female character joins tough all-male team" or "Irresponsible young man makes friends in journey" you can probably guess how the story will go, and any variation will be unusual. I recently read a piece on Mad Max by a woman with one arm, who praised the film for not explaining why Furiosa's arm is missing. The obvious answer would be to say that the villain had been responsible, and that Furiosa was looking for revenge for it, which didn't happen. The reviewer was pleased that the film hadn't fallen into the same structure as all the "disabled hero" stories she'd ever seen.

 

[KyleAW]

Very true. Avoiding obvious stories is hard, but oh so satisfying!

 

[HareBrain]

certain types of character seem to have their own built-in arcs, and one way of finding new ground is to do something else (but still satisfying) with them.

Good point, and the skill comes in judging whether something is satisfying, and to which readers. The old tropes have become well-worn because they do tend to satisfy -- or did, before we were exposed to them so often that we got bored. But changing things merely for the sake of being different or experimental doesn't work either.

I'm a bit hazy on literary history, but I think novels before about 1900 (and the advent of modernism) tended to be written to satisfy the reader, whereas from that point on we saw a lot more novels setting out to challenge the reader, often at the expense of the end-of-a-good-meal feeling that came with reaching the end. I think someone setting out to write that kind of book needs to know his audience.

 

[KyleAW]

I'm a bit hazy on literary history, but I think novels before about 1900 (and the advent of modernism) tended to be written to satisfy the reader, whereas from that point on we saw a lot more novels setting out to challenge the reader, often at the expense of the end-of-a-good-meal feeling

This is part of the reason I argue against saving characters that manage to write themselves out the story (I don't have an issue with rethinking the choice to write a character out yourself). A lovely story were everyone survives is satisfying, but somehow hollow to me.

Never sell a major character off cheaply but don't pack them in mylar either!

 

[HareBrain]

This is part of the reason I argue against saving characters that manage to write themselves out the story (I don't have an issue with rethinking the choice to write a character out yourself). A lovely story were everyone survives is satisfying, but somehow hollow to me.

I agree. The problem I faced was that it was finely balanced. It felt quite likely that my character would have been killed, given the situation he was in (mostly by his own fault). But it wasn't too much of a stretch for him to escape instead, or be captured alive. And from @Venusian Broon 's reaction, I think I made the right choice.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that I was initially swayed towards his death by the plotting difficulties his survival would cause me. Naughty.

 

[KyleAW]

Naughty indeed ! Interesting aside, have you ever read the Wheel of Time series. Very strong example of Protagonists surviving huge numbers of high risk situations. To some it is good writing, others it is a little 'deus ex machina'.

 

[HareBrain]

I've read the first. I think those kinds of series are probably best left to those young enough not to truly understand that lifespan is finite. But yes, I didn't get the feeling that anyone was particularly in mortal danger.

In my writing, I seem to have gone for long-lasting or permanent damage rather than death, and this tends to be damage to the character's essential self: a great fencer losing his sword-arm, for example. That can have just as much of an impact on a reader as character death, but the reader knows it can happen even to characters that are too important to die.

 

[KyleAW]

Very nice, look forward to excerpts to critique

 

[Zebra Wizard]

I disagree that killing a main character is a bad thing. If it moves the story forward in interesting ways it should be done. Countless successful authors will say that you shouldn't have some biased attitude to your characters, if you are too afraid to do certain things to them just because you like them. thats when you take the fork into fan-fiction rather than a professional (can't remember who said this).

The same goes for killing a character just because its "cool" or "edgy". Death can change/motivate people and that change can move stories into more interesting and unexpected ways.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I disagree that killing a main character is a bad thing. If it moves the story forward in interesting ways it should be done.

I think the majority of people suggested it was fine if done properly and not out of laziness or to deliberately shock?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I've read the first. I think those kinds of series are probably best left to those young enough not to truly understand that lifespan is finite. But yes, I didn't get the feeling that anyone was particularly in mortal danger.

In my writing, I seem to have gone for long-lasting or permanent damage rather than death, and this tends to be damage to the character's essential self: a great fencer losing his sword-arm, for example. That can have just as much of an impact on a reader as character death, but the reader knows it can happen even to characters that are too important to die.

Don't have much truck with that sort of shenanigan....

 

[Ursa major]

Should "promised" arcs always be carried through?

Yes, if a covenant is involved...

...or Indiana Jones....​

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Yes, if a covenant is involved...

But with Noah's Covenant it was an Ark involved before the Covenant.
The Ark of the Covenant though is different and was designed to be carried.
There was also a covenant of salt.

 

[Ursa major]

Well, if you want to go back to the really arcane stuff...

Q. What's Gabriel's secret for making his hair look really good? A: He uses an arcane gel....​

 

[Ihe]

I'm actually a little disappointed you didn't kill B. It would've opened a lot of doors: The mental dilemma of frustrated vengeance and the unspent energy, the discovery that B wasn't who really killed A's friend (with ensuing regret), discovering B had help, discovering A's friend deserved it (also with ensuing regret, AND broken heart), etc.

 

[HareBrain]

It would've opened a lot of doors: The mental dilemma of frustrated vengeance and the unspent energy, the discovery that B wasn't who really killed A's friend (with ensuing regret), discovering B had help, discovering A's friend deserved it (also with ensuing regret, AND broken heart), etc.

They would be very interesting doors to open in another book, but I'm afraid they can't work in mine. Not even the first: A has only just found out that B killed his friend, so hasn't spent any energy pursuing him yet. I do like the ideas, though. I'll keep an eye out for the chance to include those kind of reversals in the next one.