Killing a character - how, when, where, why, and whether to do it.

[boethos]

My novel is written, and is going into its third draft. I've hammered out most of the problems, have my eye on a couple more. But one big sticky problem remains as it has from the beginning.

I have this character who is not quite a major character, but close. He doesn't have any POV scenes, but I could easily make one or two. His entire purpose was/is to accompany a small group of young nobles on a wilderness trek, and provide them with some outdoors skill. He cooks, he knows what herbs to use for medicine, etc.

I've painted him as a rather weak character, however, because I don't want him to dominate and distract from the main characters. The problem is about 2/3 - 3/4 of the way through the story this entire party gets taken prisoner, and they remain prisoners until the end. The others still have key parts even as prisoners, but this guy ends up as dead weight just tagging along. The first person to read my story immediately pointed him out as 'annoying' and mentioned how she kept wishing he would get killed so he would stop annoying her.

I have already established that I'm not afraid to kill characters, I kill several early in the story. But it's not a gore-fest. By the end only three or four named characters have died (mostly at the beginning.)
I only hesitate because I hate it when an author kills off a character and it's obviously only done because he ran out of ideas for what else to do with him. I don't want to be 'that guy.' If he dies, I want it to be part of the plot. Obviously without knowing the details of my plot nobody here can tell me specifically what do do with him, but I'm wondering if any of you have dealt with a similar situation or have general advice for whether or not to kill him and if so, how.

[Manderley]

Could you not kill him of when they get taken prisoner? Maybe he tries to step up and get taken down instead? Or he gets all panicky and forces the bad guys to kill him? Or maybe he's not that good with herbs as he's letting on and accidentally take the wrong one and dies? :D

PS: The one thing that's more annoying than seeing a character killed of because the writer run out of ideas, is having to suffer a character with no purpose through the entire story ...

[MumblingSage]

I know some would advise that you look for a way to cut the guy entirely. That might be a bit much.

For myself--does he have to be captured? What would happen if he somehow escapes?

Otherwise, maybe have him get killed while the group is captured--he tries to fight back or something. Then it won't be so obviously a way to get rid of him. Remember--the reader won't necessarily know you had nothing to do with him after page 204 if he's dead on page 207. As soon as he's dead, they're not seeing him, so they can't really think of him as a dead weight.

[TheIT]

Killing him off when the group gets captured could be a way of showing that the bad guys are playing for keeps. Maybe the bad guys make an example of him since he's expendable in order to show the others what would happen if they get out of line.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Aw. I haven't even read it and I like this guy already. He's a good outdoorsman, it seems. Wouldn't he be a benefit while captured instead of the dead annoying weight you've made him out to be?

Otherwise, as already suggested, have him die during the capture.

Or, as also suggested, have him escape and be the heroic woodsman who comes to the rescue.

Then kill him.

[quickWit]

If he's weak you may be able to further illustrate that character trait by having him bolt at the first chance when the rest of the group gets captured. Maybe there's an opportunity for him to either step up and help or save himself and he chooses the latter? That way he's not dead but he's not around either. :)

[boethos]

Killed in capture is actually the option that's been in the front of my mind. Hearing it echoed back several times gives me reason to think it may be my best option.

I forgot to mention he did have one more purpose - he joins a 'group' when it is just a boy (MC) and a girl, and he enhances the tension between them (because the boy has a crush on the girl but she seems indifferent toward him.) But later they're joined by a fourth character who is the MC's best friend so he can carry the tension from that point on.

Manderley you are right. Once captured I had to have them drugged (they have 'magical' talents that the guards can't deal with any other way) so he is not only dead weight, but he is drugged-to-the-point-of-unconscious: literal dead weight. He probably is better off dead (poor guy.)

They've been evading capture by the skin of their teeth for some time, and by the time they actually get captured one of them is too exhausted to resist, and one has been wounded in a previous fight and is delirious with fever. The girl puts up the best fight, until she gets knocked over the head from behind.
My poor little weak character hasn't done much fighting at all up to this point but I could have him work himself up into a decision to help his friends, and die...not quite a hero, but at least trying to be one. Might give the guy some dignity at the end.

EDIT: oh yes. And I already have a bit of a theme going through the story of the conflict between passifist philosophy and the need to stand up and fight for something, with a little bit of heroic self-sacrifice thrown in for good measure. I don't want to overdo it so much that it becomes overbearing or cliche, but it would fit with the theme if tastefully done.

[Takvah]

Kill him, dead...dead...dead! Characters that outlive their usefulness NEED TO DIE! :D

[shelboselby]

Yeah, it seems the best culprit for his murder would be their captors. It will heighten the danger these characters are in if one of them is murdered (for getting out of line, for being too scared, whatever).

If he has a small purpose after being captured and there's a scene you need him for later, have him try to escape after that and get caught and killed.

[boethos]

Okay here's another fine point of the dilemma: Should I try to make the readers sympathize with him, maybe even give him a POV scene to make it personal so when he dies there is some emotion attached to it? Or is that more likely to just piss the reader off? ("Why'd you have to kill him? I liked that guy!")
Where's the balance between 'so much of a background character that nobody even notices his death' and 'so sympathetic of a character that the reader feels his loss as if it were family?'

To answer my own question, I guess it depends on the tone of the whole story. If the entire story is dark and morbid then by all means I would build him up only to cut him down. As it is I have a bit of a dark shadow over the story, but with a promise of redemption and hope that I follow through with at the end. So maybe I should build up the character a little bit but emphasizing his fear, then at his end scene he overcomes his fear (redemption) but dies in the process (sacrifice.) Hmmm.... the intricacies of good story-telling. :)

[shelboselby]

One other thing - where you mention he's "literal dead weight" - what immediately pops in my head is that perhaps they overdose him. Maybe they accidentally give him to much of this drug and he doesn't ever wake up.

Maybe that seems to easy of a way to get out of him existing - but maybe his death will push the characters to try and escape or maybe even keep them where they are - they can't bring him with them, so they stay there because they don't want to leave him behind, with everything that's happened? I don't know...but overdose could be a way to play it.

[HeronW]

In wolf society every one knows there's the alpha, the top dog who rules the rest. There's also a very important omega dog--the bottom dog, the one pushed around and though an adult gets last in line to eat. He's usually not very big or a good hunter but his job is that of easing tension and reducing stress by acting like a pup, by being the first to give in, by bouncing around and welcoming the rest back from a hunt.

Your 'need to kill' character could be this omega dog, not a warrior or the smartest, noblest, etc.but by being the glue that keeps things going smooth. By being this 'weak' he is picked on by the enemy and killed in a long painful session as an example. This gives all sorts of feelings in the remaining captives realizing the value f the undervalued person and giving motives for personal improvement.
Does this character act as the nurturing type?

[Clair Dickson]

I'm in the kill him off camp. Maybe while he tries to flee as they're gettin captured. Round him out as a weenie character. I don't think the reader needs to care about him-- I don't want to care about too many people. I have limited empathy. ;-) (Just ask my studnets...)

[James D. Macdonald]

Do it in the conservatory with a candlestick.

[TheIT]

Do it in the conservatory with a candlestick.

But only if the murderer's name is "Miss Scarlet".

:D

[Fenika]

Don't forget that even though you are killing this character off they need their own plot arch and sympathy from the reader. You don't want people to be glad you got rid of the little bugger.

I'm killing off one of my characters (also the weakest link) but she has a lot of development and purpose in the novel, including being a good friend to my MC. If I do my job right the readers will cry alongside my MC when the said character meets her untimely end.

[Telstar]

Killed in capture is actually the option that's been in the front of my mind. Hearing it echoed back several times gives me reason to think it may be my best option.


Yes, do it.


Okay here's another fine point of the dilemma: Should I try to make the readers sympathize with him, maybe even give him a POV scene to make it personal so when he dies there is some emotion attached to it? Or is that more likely to just piss the reader off? ("Why'd you have to kill him? I liked that guy!")


"That's more likely to piss the reader off."

Sideonte: I wanted Snape dead from the second book and i enjoyed when he died, even if we knew he was a good fella. Too much hatred accumulated.

[Telstar]

Don't forget that even though you are killing this character off they need their own plot arch and sympathy from the reader. You don't want people to be glad you got rid of the little bugger.

I'm killing off one of my characters (also the weakest link) but she has a lot of development and purpose in the novel, including being a good friend to my MC. If I do my job right the readers will cry alongside my MC when the said character meets her untimely end.

The opposite may also work.
Some readers may get pissed instead of cry and sympathize for him/her.

It really all depends on the story.

[Nakhlasmoke]

If a death is to mean something, then that character must mean something.

I've killed off a minor character where I thought the death was meaningful - thanks to beta reactions, I know I need to work harder with it. But that's just how I feel - even a senseless death should have meaning within the context of the story.

[tehuti88]

Without looking at the other replies (so I might be repeating or answering a bit too late if you've already decided what to do)...

I had an important character--in fact, one of the first main characters--in a story killed off for the main reason that I no longer liked writing him and felt he was dragging down any potential for development in another direction. But it would have been incredibly shallow to make that the only reason for killing him off, especially since he was one of the main characters! So I made it so that his death had major repercussions on the other characters and even on the plot itself. His death ended up being just as important, or even more so, as his life. I thought that worked out pretty interestingly.

So go ahead and kill somebody off because they're dead weight and serve little useful purpose. If you can find some way to make his death affect the plot and other characters in a much bigger way than his life indicated was possible, it'll make the story a lot more interesting, and anybody reading will realize just how important that dead weight character was after all! (I. e., make the dead character more important than he was--AFTER he's dead!)

The main problem is in finding out HOW this character's death could end up being so important...I guess that's up to you. :D

[dwellerofthedeep]

Without looking at the other replies (so I might be repeating or answering a bit too late if you've already decided what to do)...

I had an important character--in fact, one of the first main characters--in a story killed off for the main reason that I no longer liked writing him and felt he was dragging down any potential for development in another direction. But it would have been incredibly shallow to make that the only reason for killing him off, especially since he was one of the main characters! So I made it so that his death had major repercussions on the other characters and even on the plot itself. His death ended up being just as important, or even more so, as his life. I thought that worked out pretty interestingly.

So go ahead and kill somebody off because they're dead weight and serve little useful purpose. If you can find some way to make his death affect the plot and other characters in a much bigger way than his life indicated was possible, it'll make the story a lot more interesting, and anybody reading will realize just how important that dead weight character was after all! (I. e., make the dead character more important than he was--AFTER he's dead!)

The main problem is in finding out HOW this character's death could end up being so important...I guess that's up to you. :D

This is something I like to hear. I did this to a character in the novella I finished in June. Of course, now I want the whole story to continue, but the point is that I greatly enjoyed using the repercussion to spin the rest of the story.

[Pachydermia]

i didn't read every post *oops* so i'm sorry if I'm repeating.
what would be really cool: if he turned out to have a real purpose.
what if the readers were annoyed by his purposeless presence the entire book, and are annoyed further by being able to sneak away when the rest are kidnapped, only to be completely surprised, (and happy to be wrong), when he comes back and rescues the camp, possibly giving his life in the process?
that, to me, would be terribly good of you. that way, you can establish that yes-sure- he was annoying, but he really was a good guy and he showed his loyalty/ bravery in the end.
that would help him be less one-dimensional.
:)
hope i could be of assistance, (or not, that's cool too. :) )

Weatherly

[Quossum]

I only hesitate because I hate it when an author kills off a character and it's obviously only done because he ran out of ideas for what else to do with him. I don't want to be 'that guy.' If he dies, I want it to be part of the plot.

Thank you for recognizing this and trying to avoid it. I read a fantasy novel once with a core group of people on a quest. Each step along the way, they gained a companion who was along solely to help them survive / teach them valuable things about whatever phase of the quest they were entering. Days later, in the obligatory sticky situation of that phase of the quest, that character would get killed. It was like every other person on the quest was coated in Teflon; it was always, every single time, the latest addition / no longer needed character getting offed.

It infuriated me. It was like those poor guys in red on Star Trek that you *knew* were about to get killed by the hostile natives so that we'd learn a lesson about how incredibly hostile the natives were while still being able to have Kirk, Spock, and McCoy intact.

Now, if you only do it once, and do it in the way that others are mentioning, somehow working his death into a plot point or using it to reveal something about the world, you should be okay.

--Q