Is killing a character to further the plot necessarily a bad thing?
I've heard quite a few complaints about character deaths being used to further the plot. They say it's boring and overdone and mention that there are plenty of other ways to get to the same point without killing off a character.
I am writing a novel that involves the death of an important character, which is integral to the plot. I am not killing her off for "shock value," to make the main character sad/angry/depressed, or to make my novel "dark." This character has a very high-ranking position and has been the prime target for the enemy group since the beginning of the novel (and everyone is aware of this). Despite the efforts taken to protect her, she dies anyway, and her death triggers many other events that could not happen if she was anything but dead. The main character, for example, undergoes great change, and everyone else falls into a state of chaos after losing their leader.
I have tried thinking of alternatives in which she doesn't die, but these alternatives don't quite deliver the same effect, and it would be very difficult (if not impossible, in some cases) to get the same places in my plot if she did not die. After all my consideration, death still seems like the best route to take for this character... but then, I have read things from other people saying that death for the sake of furthering the plot is bad writing. My issue here is that if there was no death, there would be no plot. So is the whole "death used to further the plot = bad/boring/overdone" thing really true?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/23396. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I know this answer is late, but for anybody coming across this question, the premise is wrong. Characters die in fiction all the time. Consider (in multiple stories) a secret service agent that fails in his duty to keep the President from being assassinated. Or a family dealing with the accidental death of a mother or father or sibling. Or older friends dealing with the impending (or recent) death of one of their own circle. Or a parent dealing with the death of their child.
Dealing with the death of somebody you love or value is a part of human life. In order to make the death 'real' to the reader, you generally have to present the character alive, show their value to the main character (or society or others), and then kill them. That IS the plot, as in the OP's question.
Anything else, such as kidnapping or disappearance or stroke, becomes ambiguous and is no longer about dealing with irrevocable death, especially a murder. A stroke is not the same as a murder.
Only a small number of people are so averse to dealing with death they cannot handle it in fiction, and trying to write around it makes the story fatally unrealistic or impossible to please this tiny percentage of the audience.
0 comment threads
Of course! If people don't die, it's rather unrealistic in my opinion.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23397. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
There is one rule in writing from which everything else stems: you write for the reader. However, from that rule, you can deduce that if you turn out a novel that you know could have been better, you are cheating the reader from reading it.
You've examined other possible routes which do not include the character's death, but you've found that none of them have the same effect. That's all you need. If those other routes weaken your novel, do not use them. Turn out the best novel you can, deaths or no deaths.
As far as the whole 'death to further the plot is bad' thing..
You have to realize that a lot of authors have no idea what they are doing. Even some of the successful ones are lacking in certain areas. The reason they are succeeding is because there are very few people out there who do know what they are doing (in all areas), meaning there is essentially no competition. Readers and authors then look at those novels, and deduce that they are 'what works.'
Killing off a character to advance the plot is common in fiction. However, because most authors don't know how to do it, why to do it, when to do it, or who to do it to, wrong conclusions are formed when the readers are displeased.
Usually, a character death has no meaning because the character had no meaning. Critics then assume that character deaths in general have no meaning. A death scene that is mishandled can leave readers feeling confused or lost. Some critics then assume that death scenes generally have this effect. And if a character dies that the reader really liked, they will start to look for a reason, and if they don't find one, they will be greatly displeased. Critics then assume that character deaths are largely a bad thing, and should be avoided. You get the picture.
What I'm trying to say here, is that you have to look at feedback while trying to determine the true cause. I know that I've left feedback where I was struggling how to articulate what I meant, and I doubt I'm the only one. Such comments usually cause those that read them to come to the wrong conclusions, and that leads to wrong opinions on how to write.
I would revise the original statement to this:
Killing off a character just to advance the plot is bad. Killing off a character to advance the story is perfectly fine, as long as you are sure it is the best route to go.
The plot is only one part of the story. The story is made up out of setting, characters, stakes, tension, and above all, theme (plus many more). If killing off a character is furthering the story, and you know it's the best route to take, do it.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads