Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23399
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23399
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 13