Who to kill?

This thread made me laugh (or at least smile at my computer screen). A system for killing off characters? That's sort of morbid and brilliant.

Then I started thinking about some of the YA novels I've read, and there does seem to be a lot of death that occurs. Hmm. I think it has to do with playing up angst and drama and OHMYGAWDSOMANYFEELINGS and all that good stuff.

It does seem like this can backfire, though. I didn't read the Divergent series, but I know what happens at the end of the last one and that it annoyed many readers because it felt random/unnecessary. Again, I didn't read the book so I don't actually know.

I have read books where the death of a character just falls flat, and it's kind of embarrassing for the author. Like, he/she clearly meant this to be a major moment with lots of emotional heft, and so when it doesn't work, it really demonstrates a lack of skill.

I'm worried that my WIP will have a similar moment. A secondary character commits suicide and I just don't feel like it has the desired effect in this draft.

Stakes are getting higher in YA fiction. Looking at a list of "best" first sentences, about half of them feature the words "kill" or "death".

If you really want to surprise your readers, there is only one person you can kill:

your protagonist.

But you must kill him or her not at the end, but somewhere in the middle, because killing the protag at the end will dissapoint the reader.

If you can pull that off without resorting to vampires, zombies, or other expected undead, you are gonna stunn your readers.

I did it in two of my books ;-) Good luck!

CoffeeBeans said:

just to finish the story with someone else

Click to expand...

No, the dead protagonist must be alive at the end of the book and gain his true love etc. After all (s)he is the protagonist, you can't just switch the tale to someone else.

Robin Hobb did it in one of the Apprentice novels: to escape from prison (or execution? I don't remember), Fitz had to die and get buried; to survive, his soul was transferred to his dog and later transferred back to his own body which was dug up after attention had left the grave (sorry, only vaguely remember the story, but you get the idea).

Hobb let the reader in on what was going on, so it wasn't a dramatic shock to the reader, but you could tell the same story from the point of a character (a lover being devastated over the death of the protagonist), so that the reader really believes the protagonist is dead and is completely surprised, and then you surprise him with a believable tale of how he actually did not die.

George R. R. Martin on the other hands truly kills his protagonists. It works because he has an ensembe cast, some members of which survive, but he really takes out some of the people I loved and identified with, such as Ned Stark. Martin is treading on thin ice there, because the outrage at the characters' death can quickly turn from fascination at a gritty tale to annoyance at the author. I for one was only mildly appeased by the continued adventures of Daenaerys and John.

Anyway, you can do it and it has been done in popular works.

what? said:

No, the dead protagonist must be alive at the end of the book and gain his true love etc. After all (s)he is the protagonist, you can't just switch the tale to someone else.

Robin Hobb did it in one of the Apprentice novels: to escape from prison (or execution? I don't remember), Fitz had to die and get buried; to survive, his soul was transferred to his dog and later transferred back to his own body which was dug up after attention had left the grave (sorry, only vaguely remember the story, but you get the idea).

Hobb let the reader in on what was going on, so it wasn't a dramatic shock to the reader, but you could tell the same story from the point of a character (a lover being devastated over the death of the protagonist), so that the reader really believes the protagonist is dead and is completely surprised, and then you surprise him with a believable tale of how he actually did not die.

George R. R. Martin on the other hands truly kills his protagonists. It works because he has an ensembe cast, some members of which survive, but he really takes out some of the people I loved and identified with, such as Ned Stark. Martin is treading on thin ice there, because the outrage at the characters' death can quickly turn from fascination at a gritty tale to annoyance at the author. I for one was only mildly appeased by the continued adventures of Daenaerys and John.

Anyway, you can do it and it has been done in popular works.

Click to expand...

Then the OP would surprise the reader with a believable tale of how the protagonist didn't actually die because of dog soul transfer ... x2?

OP - Maybe the older brother? It's far enough removed so it's not the main characters, but it'd have impact on the main characters?

If the character is important enough to carry through the book, it needs to be significant to the reader when they die, that's the best advice I can live. Figuring out who you need at the end is a good start (it's why Hagrid survived in Harry Potter, JK Rowling needed him to carry Harry out of the forest).

If the character you want to die isn't important enough, you need to make them more important, and that, unfortunately, I can't help you with.

CoffeeBeans said:

I've never seen this done in a way that didn't make me really annoyed.

Click to expand...

As a reader, I totally agree with this. It almost always feels gimmicky to me, especially if the MC comes back via some soap opera method. Plus, if I invest all that time connecting to the MC and his/her story, it feels like a waste of time if the MC dies, leaves, etc. That's why I was so annoyed by Mockingjay, because I had invested in Katniss and it felt like she retreated so much that I could no longer connect to the story. Even though it was a realistic portrayal of PTSD and the disconnection was kind of the point, it frustrated me as a reader. (Spoiler in white. Although is there anyone who hasn't read THG series?)

I think your bullet points are really well thought out. If I were you, I'd also take a look at my MC's fears and see if I can make the death play into that.

now you know what you have to do...burn the house down. Burn em all!!

Hmm. I think your questions are pretty spot on, tbh. I always try to have a reason for killing characters that isn't just #OMGFEELS&DRAMALOL. Generally, it'll be one of these:

It's the only way to end a character's arc honestly. (Did this with my main villain. He had such a tough life I wanted him to live, but it would have been betraying everything he stood for).

It proves to be a turning point on another characters arc (I killed one of my LIs because it took the element of control away from my MC, and changed the way she views the world).

The character is no longer needed in the story and I need to get rid of them

I do like to kill at least one major character if the book is about a life threatening situation. Take the Inheritance series for example [spoilers ahead]: one of its (many) faults was that it was all too neat. There was this huge battle with the most powerful villain ever, and everyone bloody survived. Come on, Paolini. Come on.

If you're going to up the stakes, someone's got to kick the bucket. We, as readers, are trained to expect happy endings. One way to crank up the tension is to stop them expecting that.

Based on experience, I'll forewarn you that if you shop a book where you kill the love interest, it'll limit the people willing to take it on, for a few reasons.

1) If an imprint tends to take on romance/romantic plotlines (either because they're a known romance imprint or that their books tend to feature relationships), they MOST LIKELY won't take it. Romance entails a HEA, and well... dead LI is not "happily ever after." This may seem minor ("well I'm not going to shop it as a romance"), but in YA, it'll cut out a LOT of imprints, even ones you wouldn't necessarily think of as "romance" imprints. So, be mindful.

2) "Marketability" - many agents/editors worry about upsetting booksellers and readers. Yes, really. I heard more than once that teenage girls would be "too upset."

3) You may come up against people who feel the death is gratuitous or for shock value, no matter how you do it.

So, just food for thought. This by no means should dictate not doing what's right for your story, it's just some insight based on personal experience. AKA, if you're going to do it, make sure it's the right move. Otherwise, like others have said... make readers care. Make them feel the loss.

maybegenius said:

I heard more than once that teenage girls would be "too upset."

Click to expand...

Not only teenage girls, me too.

I don't have a problem with the protagonist or the LI dying. But the book has to be the kind of book where the protagonists die. Not that I have to know up front, but it is in the tone and subject matter.

I just recently read "Leaving Paradise" by Simone (?) Elkeles. At the end of the book the LI leaves for the sequel. I really, really hate that end. The book was totally fantastic up until a few pages before the end. Everything in the story pointed to the LI and the protagonist getting together. And then, on the last page, he just says he's not ready for a relationship and leaves.

The end just did not fit the book. To me it seemed as if the book had a happy ending, and then the author or the editor thought they could add a sequel and changed the ending to something totally jarring and wrong.

I was seriously upset. I even cried. Out of frustration. It was late at night, and I was just finishing that book and getting read to sleep, and then I had to deal with the protagonist all alone and lonely and sad. I strongly hesitate to buy and read another book by that author! That end made me distrust her. She's not taking good care of me, and I don't want to allow her to muddle with my emotions again. Because reading is an emotional investment for the reader. And you don't play with the emotions of other people. Ever.

There are other books where the couple don't get together or the LI dies or the protagonist dies or whatever, and it is great because it fits with the development of the characters, with the quest, with the moral premise, with everything.

So if you kill anyone – or rather: if you have anything happening in your book at all – make it flow from the story you are telling. It must come natural. Even if it is a shock, it must be a shock that feels right.

So don't construct that, but feel what is right. Good luck!