Killing the protagonist - should it be done?
I am an aspiring author, but I have written several short 'test novels.' With each of those, it became increasingly clear how you have to develop the main character, the protagonist. After all, the story is about the protagonist. The reader needs to like the protagonist and want him to win, otherwise he will stop reading. Therefore, I am unsure about killing off the protagonist. This is not because I like the character too much, but because the reader might stop reading.
I looked up Killing off a Character, but it didn't quite answer my question: Should you kill off the protagonist. It dealt more with main characters - characters that are important to the novel but not necessarily the protagonist. My question deals more with the hero, the person everyone is rooting for. How can you kill that person without losing the reader? Is it possible at all? Is it even advisable?
Looking over the above linked question, I understand the points being made. Don't make the death meaningless, don't kill someone just because he's in the way, etc. The death has to mean something. But how can you justify anything the death has to prove by killing off the hero, basically the main reason the reader is reading?
This question is especially a problem for first-person novels. If the hero keeps on narrating after death, the reader is probably going to wonder where he is. Heaven? Hell? Did the character die at all?
The only place I could see the hero dying without catastrophic results would be at the very end of the book. If his death can prove something and then the book ends immediately after that... that could work. However, the problem still remains that the reader will doubtless be displeased.
So is it advisable to kill the protagonist? If it is, how can you do so without alienating the reader?
EDIT: After reviewing all of the excellent answers that have been submitted for this question, I feel that most of them each have a part of the answer. If I were to choose one, however, I would have to select the comment supplied by @GreenAsJade on clockwork's answer, which was also very good.
If the character's death is at the end of the story, then a good way to finish the story is to have the rest of the char …
5y ago
If it works, of course you can do it. It isn't the most common thing that happens in novels, but I've seen it before, al …
7y ago
Quite simply, it is impossible to kill off the protagonist before the end of the story. Killing off your main character …
9y ago
Even if readers are radically and nearly exclusively committed to the protagonist, there are several ways for the protag …
9y ago
Make sure you have introduced another character to take his place, and that at that point the reader has already devel …
9y ago
It's definitely possible to do this without losing the reader. The New Testament is a story where the "protagonist" dies …
9y ago
We've addressed "the protagonist continues to talk after dying, even in first person" here: Ways for main character to …
9y ago
7 answers
If the character's death is at the end of the story, then a good way to finish the story is to have the rest of the characters make one final push to complete the goal, spurred on by the death of the hero. A good example of this is in (spoiler because it's a great movie and I don't want to ruin the ending for anyone):
The Lego Movie
In this movie, when the main character (seemingly) dies, the rest of the characters take up the cause and almost defeat the villain with only the hero's inspirational power by using the help of the general populace. It's one of the most emotional and impactful moments of the entire film. This technique should be transferable to a book, as long as some secondary characters have been fleshed out enough.
tl;dr Always keep a backup; also, martyrdom
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40649. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
It's definitely possible to do this without losing the reader. The New Testament is a story where the "protagonist" dies towards the end. I'm sure plenty of readers are quite satisfied with that.
Much like the Gospels, killing the protagonist is advisable only if it really means something.
Emphasis on the really. Even if you make your character a martyr whose death brings about a sweeping social change that lasts for centuries and cleanses you of your sins, it doesn't mean anything if your reader doesn't care. Does your reader sob when the protagonist finally breaks the chains of his oppressors and dies a free man? Does your reader smile at the earnest deathbed confession of your protagonist, who has finally come to terms with his life and family after all those years of struggling? Can your reader not stop thinking of the warrior who bravely held her ground until the very end? Does the death of the salesman point out the futility and meaninglessness in this world and brings up philosophical questions in the reader's mind? Does your reader understand why the death had to happen (even if they wanted a happy ending for the character)? Then you can kill your main character. Delicately. Carefully. Probably with the intent from the very beginning that you're going to kill this protagonist off and that is the definite culmination of their entire purpose or character arc.
Even if their death is at the beginning of the story and the entire rest of the fiction is just flashbacks, it has to mean something and it has to be their purpose. Don’t just shuffle them out of the way by saying, “Oh yeah, and then she fell down the stairs, how tragic, oopsie daisy,” because that's when readers start feeling ripped off.
And there are plenty of stories out there (besides the New Testament) you can look at that pulled this off successfully. I’m afraid to bring any up because, hello, spoiler alert, but I can think of a good one where the death is the main point of the piece. One of my favorite short stories is "Bullet in the Brain" which is a quick read that handles the death of the main character in an interesting way. I think this is a good example of how you've really got a lot of options out there for where and when to kill off the protagonist. It just depends on how you want the story to flow and what kind of meaning you want to give to said death.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12841. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Make sure you have introduced another character to take his place, and that at that point the reader has already developed some connection with it. From that point forward, work to intensify the connection between them.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12842. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
We've addressed "the protagonist continues to talk after dying, even in first person" here:
Ways for main character to influence world following their death
It sounds like your concern is that the death of the protagonist means the absolute end of the storyline. As in, there's no room for sequels, nothing for the reader to wonder about, no way for the story to go on and on in the reader's imagination.
1) Okay, it ends. So what? Not every story has to be part of a series.
2) Only kill the main character at the end of a series. If the character dies at the end of book 10 after a lengthy arc and struggle, it's a very different feeling than if the character lives and dies in one book.
3) The series continues from the POV of another character. To take a recent modern example, both the book and the TV show of Game of Thrones feature a particular character in the first book/season who then dies shockingly about 90% of the way in. Most readers/watchers were gobsmacked because this person seemed to be one of the pivots of the tale. Other characters took up the story.
4) The Reichenbach Gambit, aka "Surprise! I'm not dead after all." Your character might appear to be dead to the other characters but in fact isn't, for whatever reason. This catapults you into the sequel, as the other characters will inevitably find out the greatly exaggerated reports.
(ETA This isn't just the "I faked my death" trope, but also might have a sci-fi component, like the Trill in Star Trek. They are a joined species, so the symbiont can take a new host and retain the memories of its previous life. So Dax, the symbiont, remembers being part of the host Curzon, and when Curzon dies and Dax is joined to a new host Jadzia, Jadzia Dax now has the memory of Dax's friendship with Sisko.)
0 comment threads
Even if readers are radically and nearly exclusively committed to the protagonist, there are several ways for the protagonist to "speak after death".
The protagonist's legacy can speak. (This is covered in the answers to "Ways for main character to influence world following their death", linked in Lauren Ipsum's answer. The legacy of a Cause does not seem to be mentioned in those answers, though "What Would Dead Guy Do?" comes close.)
This may take the form of writings, recollections, and the surviving influence on individuals and the society. One technique for doing this is to introduce shorter stories after the death branching off from an earlier action. For example, if the protagonist as an imperial soldier intervened in an injustice by another soldier, a young observer might be moved to recognize that the imperial soldiers are not just bullies and later prevent an uprising (which might incidentally have diverted troops from guarding a border at a very critical time as covered in the main story). Such can act as a kind of extended eulogy or memorial offering, so even a reader focused on the protagonist may appreciate such side stories.
Alternatively, the narrative order may deviate from the temporal order. This includes flashbacks as mentioned in clockwork's answer but even an inverted order could be used where successive narrative sections are set earlier in the protagonist's life. For example, a novel could begin with the funeral and immediate impact of the protagonist's death, proceed to shortly before his death (showing a part of why he was mourned as he was) and show his last words to his wife, then show how the couple came to love each other so, then show how the conflict which proved their love developed, etc., each section ending with a link to a previous time. A fully reversed order would be challenging to write well, but such is an extreme of the temporal reorderings possible.
Another possibility, mentioned in Lauren Ipsen's answer, is that the death is not complete or permanent. This can be a very dangerous method since the reader can easily feel cheated (tricked with inadequate benefit) and lose some degree of suspension of disbelief. This can also make death seem less final and the risk of death less serious. If risk of death is not a common component of the story, it becoming less serious will have limited impact. If the survival reinforces the nature of the protagonist (e.g., tough to kill or crazy prepared), the protagonist's relationship with others (e.g., rescued by insignificant (and so unnoticed) beings, spared by a villain for better sport, rescued by a villain's henchman), or the protagonist's destiny (protected by fate), then this can strengthen the story.
I would also qualify the statement in clockwork's answer that "it has to mean something and it has to be their purpose". There are several ways that a relatively meaningless death can have meaning in the context of the story. Obviously, for a dark tale, pointlessness may be the point. While such may not be popular, it can provide a meaningful story and press the reader to consider the philosophical question of what is the ultimate purpose of life.
Alternatively, the author can hint, possibly even heavily, at a less obvious meaning to the protagonist's death. Subtle hints may even allow various readers to insert their own meanings. One way to hint at such meaning is for the protagonist to have been significantly influenced by a similarly meaningless death; the meaninglessness of the death then becomes part of the protagonist's legacy.
A meaningless death can also be used to display the character of the protagonist (e.g., displaying a sense of humor even in tragedy or raging against the dishonor of dying in bed of amoebic dysentery) and of those close to the protagonist. The effect of the death on others can be reveal how the protagonist impacted their lives. Do they focus on the pointless death or the rich life? Do they fall to despair or find new courage as they try to honor the memory of the protagonist?
Finally, as has been pointed out in other answers, even if the reader has a strong favorable attachment to the protagonist, it is possible to transfer the mantle of significance to one or more other characters after the protagonist's death. This may be most easily done if there is a common cause championed by the protagonist such that the protagonist's death is largely a passing of the baton. However, if other characters are well-developed before the death, they may naturally fill the significance vacuum, especially if their initial actions are significantly informed by the protagonist's life and loss (not just taking up slack and mourning but also discovering how significant the protagonist was to them).
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12845. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Quite simply, it is impossible to kill off the protagonist before the end of the story.
Killing off your main character is absolutely possible, but the protagonist you can not. The story is ultimately the protagonists struggle. If you kill him at the beginning then the book is flashbacks, you still killed him at the end of the Story. Your only telling the story out of order. I know a lot of people are pointing out George R.R. Martin, i'll argue with you that as an epic fantasy his protagonist is his world as a whole. That's why he can arbitrarily kill off characters. Or
Bran is the protagonist, and he is present for every scene by his connecting to the trees.
In short, no your protagonist is impossible to kill off before the end of the story. If the story continues then by definition they were not the protagonist just a main/major character. Like killing off Sherlock Holmes without Watson, Watson's the protagonist, Sherlock is the main character.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/15994. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
If it works, of course you can do it. It isn't the most common thing that happens in novels, but I've seen it before, although that was in an anime.
However, there should be a good reason for killing the protagonist, and it should do something good for the story. If you kill off your protagonist without explaining what it resolves, then your reader probably won't see the point in the death. They have followed this character through the story and they'll hate to see him/her die at the end, but their pain will ease if you provide insight into why it happened and the good it did for the world.
SPOILERS ALERT
In 'Harry Potter', Harry discovers he is a Horcrux and must die in order to fully defeat Voldemort. Hence, he sacrifices himself, yet is able to return to life to finish what he started. And in the anime I mentioned above, the main character made himself hated, then planned his death to unite the world. Just two examples of killing off the protagonist.
Thanks a lot, Code Geass.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/28029. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads