Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/18614
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Without knowing te specifics of the plot and the character development I have to say I'd find that climax personally disappointing.

The whole concept of character development is for them to get wherever they're going by themselves. The fact that the main character is being told what to do, in effect, negates the whole journey.

Note that I don't disagree with death being the trigger but with the dying character stating the action. I'd much rather have the character die in the way you've imagined and the protagonist decision of standing up being a result of his own internal dialog. In that way, death of a friend triggers the last step to happen as opposed to _telling_ the protagonist what it should do.

"For a short moment he seemed to possess the strength of old times and then the illusion broke and he was gone. And finally he understood. Finally, when it was to late, when nothing could bring him back he saw it all clear...

For me, that kind of realisation is much more powerful than actually telling the character what to do.

Note from my point of view the final battle is NOT the climax and whether you chose to describe it in depth or not is secondary. The climax is Steve deciding to actually take a stand and fight and, specifically, how he takes that final step.

In my view the battle is not important. What happens after, though, is. You've made the point of evolving the character to "take a stand" (climax), you then have described the internal thoughts and processes that produce that change. For me, from a reader perspective, what I want is an epilogue. What is his life after? What path is he going to take after that? Even if the story doesn't continue it feeds the reader need for closure.

Just my thoughts (Note English is not my mother tongue so the text above is just an example I hope illustrates what I mean).

Original score: 0