killing off main characters

Status
Not open for further replies.

zerohour21

Okay, didn't want to jack the 101 things writers should know thread, or whatever you want to call it, but I've wanted to ask this question, so will start a new thread for it.

Okay, so people said that you shouldn't kill off the main character of the book. I can understand the whole "don't have them randomly run over by a truck at the end" thing as that would seem pretty cheap (and I definitely agree about the whole "it was only a dream" ending; sooooo lame). But what if the protagonist dies heroically, making a noble sacrifice for his/her friends, lover, family, the world at large, etc. Wouldn't that be a bit more acceptable?

Of course, another thing to consider is that if the author does from time to time have stories end tragically where the bad guys win and the protagonist either ends up dead or screwed really badly some other way, then when the author does have the good guys win and have a happy ending for them (or semi-happy), then wouldn't it mean that much more to the reader, because they know that the author has had novels end tragically before, and that this one could have also ended tragically, but things worked out for the character after all. Would mean more than if the author always had the story end happily, because then when the current one ends happily then it would be just business as usual and you would have come to expect it. There would be more suspense if the author did have novels with both kinds of endings, because you really WOULDN'T know what would happen in the end.

Just my opinion.
 

maestrowork

I don't think people are saying don't kill your protagonist at the end (if it suits the story).

But if you're writing *1st person*, present tense (or even past tense), then it's coy. Because if the protagonist is dead already, how is he narrating the story? It's okay, if you do a "Sunset Blvd" by having the narrator telling the readers that he's already dead. Otherwise, it's going to piss off a lot of readers.

If you're writing in 3rd person, then it's fine to kill your main character.
 

pianoman5

There's certainly no problem killing off your main character at the end. That's life, after all - death at the end. Sure, more people like happy endings than tragic ones, but you're telling the story, so conclude it as you will.

But it must fit. Something about your story and your character should set up his/her death as a possible fate within the time span of the book, rather than it being a gratuitously gloomy ending for its own sake.
 

Eowyn Eomer

But if you're writing *1st person*, present tense (or even past tense), then it's coy. Because if the protagonist is dead already, how is he narrating the story?
Write the story in present tense?

I'm walking into the street. Oh no! I didn't see that bus! I see my life flash before my eyes. It's getting closer. There's no time to run. Oh the pain! I feel myself hitting the pavement. I see a. . .

The End (because character telling story has died)
:D
 

Writing Again

The reader wants a feeling of accomplishment -- Happy endings tend to have that. But that feeling can happen in a tragedy.

One of the most famous tragedies of all time was Romeo and Juliet. Yet there was a feeling of hope and accomplishment at the end.

When the story begins two families are doing the Hatfield and McCoy bit. The love of Romeo and Juliet should have brought them together, but it did not. Their death did.

If your hero dies heroically, then the most satisfying option is for his death to succeed. The person, place or thing the hero sought to save is saved.

In Titanic Rose casts off the life chosen for her and chooses the freedom of spirit Jack Dawson gave up for her: She goes so far as to adopt, and keep, his name.

If you kill off your main character make that death an achievement, not a waste.
 

SimonSays

It totally depends on the theme. If the theme is about the evils of greed or the like, then the death should be a waste because it illustrates the theme.
 

Eowyn Eomer

You can also have some sort of resurrection of your character. Showing that there's life after death or something along those lines.
 

Writing Again

Simonsays:

It totally depends on the theme. If the theme is about the evils of greed or the like, then the death should be a waste because it illustrates the theme.

Actually you are right -- Those who are theme writers take note. I personally do not write to themes. If you find one in any of my stories you can have it.

I just write entertainment.

Not saying there is anything wrong with writing thematically. I just don't do it and sometimes I forget that it is done.
 

SimonSays

Re: killing off main characte

I also write entertaiment - very commercial stuff.

But writing entertainment, does not preclude having an underlying theme - good fiction always includes a theme.
 

Ruukah

Re: Re: killing off main characte

Personally I see nothing wrong with killing off the main character after he has served his intended purpose. To me what that says about an author is that he (or she) writes unpredictably and therefore what I'm reading suddenly becomes a lot more interesting because I have no idea what could happen next--it could be anything. ^_^ But that's just me. (Warning: I'm an ameteur. :p )
 

Writing Again

Re: Re: killing off main character

Ruukah,

Personally I see nothing wrong with killing off the main character after he has served his intended purpose.

Right and wrong, at least in the standard sense, is not the issue. There really is no right or wrong when it comes to writing.

What there are are objectives.

SimonSays and I write to entertain. We are called commercial writers.

I want to sell my material to the widest possible audience.

Not everyone does this.

Some writers write to inform, or instruct; some write to persuade, or even propagandize; some write for a very small ingroup, or even for no one else save the writer; some write for therapy, or just emotional catharsis; some write for literary reasons, or the joy of experimenting with writing.

None of these objectives is wrong but some techniques work better to achieve one objective than they do for another. If your literary writing is too commercial it may not be recognized; if your commercial writing is too literary it may not sell.

This is one of the reasons you should be careful who you take advice from. Just asking, "Does the person I'm listening to know what they are talking about" is not enough. You must also determine if the person's advice is taking you in the direction you want to go.

If you want to be a commercial writer you could listen to everything SimonSays says until you form your own opinions, and you would never go too far wrong. You would do well to listen to Uncle Jim.

If you have other goals, then think about what they say, but don't be too quick to adopt everything they suggest.

I suggest that you don't listen to anything I ever say, just think about it. If it doesn't make you think then it isn't worth listening to in the first place.

So now the ball is in your court.

What are your objectives?
 

Crusader

Thoughts...

To Die, Or Not To Die

Scenario 1: The Noble Death
Hero succeeds in the climax, yet dies.
Suggested use: To depart from the stereotypical "happy ending", while still holding onto a positive tone (e.g. through a funeral showing great love for the departed).

Scenario 2: The Ignoble Death
Hero fails in the climax, and dies.
Suggested use: To explore the aftermath and ramifications of catastrophe (e.g. "What will the survivors do now?").

Scenario 3: The Requited Death
Hero succeeds in the climax, but dies sometime thereafter.
Suggested use: As a variant of the Noble Death, to throw a unique skew on the resolution after a climax (e.g. by interposing tragedy amidst celebration).

Scenario 4: The Unrequited Death
Hero dies before reaching the climax.
Suggested use: As a variant of the Ignoble Death, to dramatically shift the spotlight upon a lesser character (i.e. "passing of the torch").

All of these techniques are intended to permanently kill a character, and thus they share several things in common:

- They can give higher dramatic impact and/or realism to the story.
- They can throw a refreshing twist on the 'same old, same old'.
- They must be used sparingly, otherwise the author and/or series may be 'typecast' negatively by the trait.
- They tend to hamper the possibility for sequels, limiting the author to things like prequels, "what-ifs", or derivative works.
- They may negatively affect or even ruin the climax and/or resolution, if the reader fails to embrace the event.
- They can turn off the reader to the story and/or author, as well as drive both out of the mainstream.

Of course, what can be done by an author's pen, can be undone by that same pen. So, it would be amiss to forget the last "dying hero" technique...

Scenario 5: Any Of The Above, Done Impermanently
Hero dies, but can be resurrected/brought back/rescued.
Suggested use: To extend the plot of the current novel, and/or provide sequel material.

Bear in mind, this technique can strain credibility and suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. As such, it must be used even more sparingly than the others--only once per author name and/or series is recommended.

* * *

Finally, a note on the "sparing usage" dictum discussed above... in general, the rule "there's always an exception to the rule" is good to follow.

And here, we find the exception as such: in any story specifically dealing with death, "Death, personified", necromancy, and other related topics... the number of uses for any of the "dying hero" techniques can be as many as the author believes will sincerely and entertainingly fit within the parameters of disbelief and realism.
 

preyer

Re: Thoughts...

i love it when people list possibilities.

keep in mind a lot of the greatest characters of all time die or 'die' in the books; king arthur, robin hood, jesus (just an example, please don't get bent out of shape, lol), everyone in shakespeare.

i prefer using movie examples because they're much more common, though (and quite often based on stories anyway). how many main characters die at the end in movies? jack in 'titanic,' darth vader, william peterson in 'to live and die in l.a.' (which had one of the greatest lines ever spoke in movies, but to illustrate why killing off your main character in mid-stream is usually not very acceptable just look at the movie's box office totals), terminator 1, 2, 3, the godfather 3, man on fire, saving private ryan, gladiator... okay, let's just say the list goes on. obviously, as far as storytelling goes, it's okay.

you'll also notice that a lot of these stories and movies are epics. i suppose the definition of that means something a little different to everyone, but for me 'epic' means the main character's life achievements are detailed and in the end they die. not always, but often enough to note. i tend to write 'epic' stories and feel it's really my obligation to kill the protagonist off in the end. i don't care about sequels, per se-- without fail i've got spin-off potential in the story (with the exception of 'preyers,' but, hey, god does crush the earth in His hand in the end, so it's kinda hard to squeeze much else out of that, lol). but, it amounts to a 'spin-off,' not a traditional sequel.

really, though, if you plan on having your character die, isn't that foreshadowing done sometimes almost subconsciously even in the first draft?

i agree with you, zero, i like authors who are 'dangerous' when it comes to their character's ultimate fate. that's just one more reason i quit reading stephen king, though, because *that* guy told you early on he was going to kill his character off. if anyone was caught off-guard in 'pet semetary' or 'thinner,' wow, were you just not paying attention! lol. so, while it's fair to kill 'em off, i think it's also fair to expect that that be handled with kid gloves in non-epic type books. sure as hell don't virtually spell it out in plain english that the protagonist is going to die and i'm not out of chapter four yet.
 

SimonSays

Re: Re: killing off main character

Writing Again -

I very rarely give input on the novel threads because I am still working on my first novel, and am still learning the craft. My professional background is as a screenwriter. I agree that Uncle Jim is the best resource on this site for information on both the craft of novel writing and the business of publishing.

I am chiming in here because there are some aspects of storytelling that apply to all forms - be it a play, novel, short story, screenplay, ballet, etc.

Theme is one of those things. It is a key element of dramatic writing. The theme is what lies at the heart of your story. What it is really about. I am not necessarily talking about an after school special life lesson that is emblazoned in Neon or an aesop's fable type moral. But all drama explores something below the surface. And that is what audiences connect with on an emotional level and that is one of the things that producers and publishers are looking for when they read submissions

For commercial pieces - it is best to pick broad, simple universal themes -as opposed to say the existentialist theme explored in Waiting for Godot. The more esoteric the theme, the less commercial. Fantasy for example often explores issues surrounding good and evil, the essence of courage, etc. Action films often explore similar themes. Themes we can all connect with. The theme is often tied to the growth of your main character.

Having a theme is one of the things that seperates a professional author from a hobbyist. You may have a theme, without even being aware of it, it is often subconsciously what draws you to wanting to tell the story to begin with.

I'm sure Uncle Jim probably has a one sentence definition of theme that will have you nodding your head and going "of course I have a theme!!!"
 

Writing Again

Re: Re: killing off main character

Note to everyone: This has the tone of a personal missive from myself to SimonSays, but most of it is universal, and if I were not involved in the conversation it would interest me: Therefore I assume others will be interested as well.

SimonSays,

First let me point out that I agree with everything you said -- I just don't apply it.

You are in the same position here as I am in the screenwriter forums: Understood. In some ways my position here is not much different than yours: I have not been published in a long time: Starting over is still starting at the bottom, only older.

Do not underrate yourself: you understand the universals and that is 90% of writing a novel. I've read your posts: I know what you know: I know you only post when you are certain you know what you are talking about.

We may disagree about some things, but that is a matter of personal application. I've never seen you post advice that I would not feel safe in following if I did not already have my own way of doing things. I don't always do safe.

One of the less obvious differences between novel writing and screenplay writing is the degree of control. There may be exceptions but in general a screenwriter who does not control every aspect of the script has lost it. I mean every aspect. With 90 to 120 pages to work with the first thing you need to develop is discipline.

While the novelist may control every aspect of their novel it is not common. Most novelists leave something uncontrolled, sometimes they don't even know what that something is. Some novelists write straight from the subconscious and nothing is in their conscious control.

You will find many novelists who think the three act structure is something limited to stage plays. Some would not know a theme if it reached out and tweaked their nose. This sounds pejorative, but it is not. There is room enough in a novel that if the majority of it excels it can survive its weaknesses: Weaknesses that would destroy a screenplay.

You are not "wrong" to want to control every aspect of your novel, there are writers who do ... But it would not hurt you to experiment with letting go some of that control either.

My problem with this discussion of theme, between you and me, is that I grew up arguing theme with literary writer's who felt my "commercial crap" was beneath them. Their definition of theme is to "say something meaningful."

As a teenager I took the stand that I DO write commercial crap and proud of it: and that I have NOTHING meaningful to say.

This is a position, not a declaration of correctness.

When I write novels I let the theme take care of itself: When I write screenplays I pay close attention to every detail, including the theme.

However every screenplay I have written is crap including my most recent which is the best crap screenplay I have ever written.
 

Crusader

Re: Thoughts...

keep in mind a lot of the greatest characters of all time die or 'die' in the books; king arthur, robin hood, jesus (just an example, please don't get bent out of shape, lol), everyone in shakespeare.

Certainly. i simply note that the ratio of happy endings to unhappy endings seems something like 20 to 1, or greater. The happy endings is a staple of what children are shown (presumably to encourage optimism?) and a thus a preference for that basic storyline does appear to persist into adulthood.

Of course, now i'm seguing into from-the-hip psychology, so i'll stop. But that's the impression i have, anyhow, and so that colours my perspective on when and when not to use the dying hero. It just feels less common, which makes it both a) a welcome departure from the norm b) stick out like a sore thumb if done badly or used too often.


you'll also notice that a lot of these stories and movies are epics. i suppose the definition of that means something a little different to everyone, but for me 'epic' means the main character's life achievements are detailed ...

i agree. The epic does have its own conventions above and beyond non-epic fiction.


... and in the end they die.

Interesting. i would say it depends entirely upon the epic, itself. If the story is well-written, there's no drama lost in a peaceful ending after The World Has Been Saved(tm), per se... the "happy ending" is just so tediously commonplace that i shy away from it as a rule, is all. That doesn't mean i would swing the other direction and put a death scene in every epic.

It would probably help greatly for an author to have a long range perspective on their works and the works of others. Sitting down with a grand passion to write an epic with a Noble Death implies an awareness of how often it has been done or if it is commonly done in the genre of choice. i don't think the hero dies often in pulp romance novels, for example, so the proposition there seems more risky and more unique than if done in a gritty, realistic crime drama.

[/ramble off]


i tend to write 'epic' stories and feel it's really my obligation to kill the protagonist off in the end... really, though, if you plan on having your character die, isn't that foreshadowing done sometimes almost subconsciously even in the first draft?

As you say you tend to write them, i imagine you can best answer your own question... does often occur to you to foreshadow the death, allowing the reader time and emotional space to prepare for it... or else are you comfortable with dropping the death out of nowhere like a thunderbolt of divine intervention?

i don't particularly lean either way, myself. i find it comes down to what works for the story in question. Some stories may use a neutral tone throughout the rising action, then a sudden sharp drop into tragedy, all to create a creater contrast and stronger impact in the climax. ("Wow, i didn't see that coming!") In those cases, foreshadowing may undermine the rising action's neutrality.

Yet, other stories may keep a constently dark tone, where the foreshadowing deepens the tone by raising the anticipation ("something evil this way comes, dear reader...").

As an aside: this is why i find Star Wars: Episode Two's foreshadowing to be very ham-fisted. The movie's tone bounces around too much for me to take the foreshadowing seriously; and, since i already know the protagonist will become evil, the hints feel as gratuitous and obligatory as crossing the I's and dotting the T's ;)

As far as the subconscious aspect of it all... sure, i may notice foreshadowing here and there after a few revisions. i think it isn't necessarily good, however, if that unconscious motivation "gets away from me". i want total control over my story by the final draft; i don't want themes or elements sticking out of the woodwork that aren't vetted.

If someone else interprets foreshadowing, fine; just as long as i didn't slight-of-hand myself into putting it there if i didn't actually intend to.
 

Crusader

Re: Re: killing off main character

@Writing Again:

My problem with this discussion of theme, between you and me, is that I grew up arguing theme with literary writer's who felt my "commercial crap" was beneath them. Their definition of theme is to "say something meaningful."

Certainly a prime example of irony, here--saying "between you and me" in a message on a bulletin board, and after explicitly saying This has the tone of a personal missive from myself to SimonSays, but most of it is universal.

Also, the irony goes even deeper, since in a way it unintentionally highlighted one issue of the discussion. Discipline in a body of work is, paradoxically, what best keeps the body of work from undermining or limiting itself. Inattention or obliviousness to either the big picture or the small picture, can result in an author's prose communicating one message while their theme communicates another while their foreshadowing communicates another while their characters communicate another.

For example: say i write a book about death and dying, intended to be dramatic and moving in the prose. Yet, i unconsciously allow a key supporting character to act stoically; perhaps my gut feeling is that it makes for a good contrast. If the reader doesn't catch the contrast, and instead interprets the stoicism as 'leveling out' the tension and drama, i've potentially written a mess.

To ape a wiser man's analogy: relate this to chess. Chess isn't played unconsciously or with tunnel-vision; it is played strategically and with open-minded reasoning. The player who can "think ahead farther", i.e., be more aware of possible outcomes of each position and move, is going to be the better player.

So while a novelist may not actually need to fine-tune every last aspect of their novel, it would certainly behoove the novelist to be aware of every aspect in the novel. Not only to avoid contradictions between elements, but also to allow better combinations of elements.

And this relates to your thoughts on theme insofar as writing with a disregard for "meaning" could potentially lead certain readers to interpret something in conflict with your actual intentions. Perhaps the people who argued so rudely with you were attempting (poorly) to convey a message along those lines?

Think of it as the difference between writing a novel in 1 dimension...
("Shoot everything; the end.")

... versus 2 dimensions...
("Shoot everything; save the world; the end.")

... versus 3 dimensions...
("Shoot everything; save the world; learn that shooting everything diminishes personal spiritual growth while negatively impacting our shared worldspace thus undermining the moral underpinning of the very world we've saved; the end.")

... and so on.
 

preyer

Re: Re: killing off main character

i'm rather in wa's camp when it comes to themes. i don't consciously write them, there's no grand undercurrent of meaning, per se. that's not to say it's not there. nor do i do sci-fi where my bad guys are an allegory for the destructive nature of wal*mart's business practices. BUT... i might have that in mind as an example of things that *can* potentially go wrong, that is my bad guys are so successful that these are some of the negative results based loosely on real life corporate incidents. i also know that in a novel themes arise without trying to put them in there. you're right, though, crusader, you don't want the reader to not understand your themes, or re-worded to mean misinterpret them, but at the same time your stoic character has to be almost subliminal unless you really screwed him up enough for the reader not to get him.

i just think in those terms. i don't think to myself, okay, i have to offset all the bad with some good. i just automatically do it in most cases. i do so because i'm a hack, and as such try to understand plots to the point where what happens next seems like a matter-of-course. the themes are there for anyone to pick out, i just don't do the young son rebelling against dad to establish himself as a man thing for theme's sake more than it's simply the part of the story i think needs to be there. maybe i don't consider 'balances' because i feel that comes rather naturally for me. without themes, stories don't have much power, though my themes tend to be rather universal and the complexity of the themes depends on the complexity of the story.

for example, my current story has at one point the daughter trying to poison her father, but then there's a 'breakthrough,' and suddenly the girl is all loving towards him. well, that's a simplistic way of putting it and not very expressive, but, after the notes were laid out on those scenes, i occured to me that that's really how women tend to be. it's not a slam against women, it's just my experience and what i've actually discussed with other people to make sure i was being beared out. there have been many, many instances in my life where dear ol' dad was basically a piece of crap and once they re-enter the female's life, she does everything she can to create a relationship as if she were the ones who destroyed or neglected it in the first place. now, that's a much deeper theme, but it's unintentional, it's just how i felt the story needed to be to seem as, uhm, 'organic' as possible.

in the end, my way, your way, anyone's way is 'the way' as long as it's a good story. if someone's planning the next 'war and peace' or 'moby dick,' sure themes might be something you lay out, lol. as far as entertainment goes, it seems stories with weak or underdeveloped themes seem to then rely on pulling heart strings, or is that just me?

i find that i enjoy stories where the protagonist and antagonist have some kind of personal relationship instead of just 'i must quest to find the evil and destroy it.' in that respect, i like 'attack of the clones,' but, like you said, there's plenty there to raise a brow at. thematically, the prequels probably have a more intriguing basis (thought the execution sucks for the most part), but the old trilogy is simply more powerful for its simplicity.

wa, i reckon i'm commercial to. that is, i wouldn't write these things just to soothe my savage breast. i'd concentrate on music for an artistic outlet if ever i'd never sell a story. that said, i still want to write the stories i want to. sure, an editor would have a fit telling me what to edit and rework, but i would operate under the hope that someday i could be in a position to say, 'i'll keep your offer in mind, but i really want this one done the way i wrote it.' i don't know if that's realistic or not, but if not, don't anyone go bursting my bubble, eh? lol. because chances are if some editor is helping me make tons of money i'll just stick with their way of doing things and accept a little less happiness as a result. and if my way fails miserably, i'd try something different. but, unless i know for sure, 100% satisfaction can't be had.
 

Crusader

Re: Re: killing off main character

@preyer:

i think for the most part we agree on the meat of the topic. Indeed, i myself usually notice my themes, or certain plot angles, or whatnot, only after someone points them out to me.

That doesn't mean i'm not looking for them though, which is the thrust of my point--writing with awareness.


there have been many, many instances in my life where dear ol' dad was basically a piece of crap and once they re-enter the female's life, she does everything she can to create a relationship as if she were the ones who destroyed or neglected it in the first place.

[nodding] i've seen that here-and-there. It's distressing, isn't it.


... it seems stories with weak or underdeveloped themes seem to then rely on pulling heart strings, or is that just me?

Certainly. The movie "Patch Adams" comes to mind. [retch cough gag] i needed an insulin shot after that one, what with all the saccharine involved.


if someone's planning the next 'war and peace' or 'moby dick,' sure themes might be something you lay out, lol.

Well, yes... i just ask that you not interpret me as saying everything needs to be planned out in advance. i'm saying be mindful of what might result of the writing process, instead of willfully saying "eh, theme/plot/foreshadowing/whatever, i'm not gonna pay any mind to that."

Beyond that; i wonder how many well-respected and well-read novels arose from planning, versus those that arose from sheer seat-of-the-pants improvisation... some of literature's brightest stars seem to defy planning.


i find that i enjoy stories where the protagonist and antagonist have some kind of personal relationship instead of just 'i must quest to find the evil and destroy it.

Entirely agreed. The "crunch all you want, we'll make more" approach to writing bad guys is about as nutritious as a diet of potato chips.

And actually, putting more depth thereof is rather scientific, in a way... the more density, mass, and volume in the makeup of both the prot. and ant., the greater effect they have on their surroundings, and the greater the impact when they collide.
 

Writing Again

Re: Re: killing off main character

Certainly a prime example of irony, here

I've got to like a person who can appreciate irony. Irony is an acquired sense that few ever develop. Thank you.

So while a novelist may not actually need to fine-tune every last aspect of their novel, it would certainly behoove the novelist to be aware of every aspect in the novel. Not only to avoid contradictions between elements, but also to allow better combinations of elements.

I'm not so sure of this. When I was first learning how to write I had no access to "how to write" books other than standard grammars, mostly aimed at writing a good business letter. What I did have was a library that had a lot of books about writers. Biographies, studies, what have you.

Some writers were very careful with every word. Others literally dumped their subconscious out onto the page. Some merely followed their beliefs, ideas, and world views.

While I personally enjoy mastering the craft, I firmly believe that it may be detrimental to some writers. One writer, I forget his name, claimed that he merely reported the stories enacted by the "little people" who populated his dreams at night.

Stephen King does not seem to concern himself with either theme or plot. He simply finds a few good characters and follows them around. Look how many successful writers never plot, they just start with an idea and wing it.

I always recommend that people master the craft, learn how to tell a good story, but hey, if you can just dump it out there then go for it.

As far as being misinterpreted is concerned -- Do not fear. You will be misinterpreted. That is human nature.

Whatever you put in a story, people will find things you never intended. People will miss things you print across the page in screaming banners and find some insignificant detail and present it as a world shaking discovery or analysis.
 

Crusader

Re: Re: killing off main character

@Writing Again:

I've got to like a person who can appreciate irony. Irony is an acquired sense that few ever develop. Thank you.

And i am truly impressed by a person who can handle a precariously offhand comment with such grace. On reread, it sincerely felt like i'd struck the wrong tone, so your lack of rancor is very gratefully--and sheepishly--received. Thank you.


I always recommend that people master the craft, learn how to tell a good story, but hey, if you can just dump it out there then go for it.

i do agree with everything you've said.

The odd thing is, my point is a little down and to the left of everything you've said.

See, i mentioned the "irony" of your comment for a reason--it illustrated the very sort of pitfall i'm talking about, where an author can write with one outcome in mind, yet not notice another outcome capering mischieviously alongside.

Yes, any sensible reader knows what you meant in your post; and yes, most will overlook the ironic aspect.

But the irony was still there to be exploited, because of a lapse of awareness.

Now, if the two outcomes mesh out of serendipity, no one is the wiser; but if the second outcome trips up the first, it can muddle the message of both. Supposing that irony was the absolute last thing the author wanted to convey to a reader, yet the theme accidentally led there because the author and/or editor failed to account for theme; wouldn't that be a nasty surprise to hear about from a reviewer?

So certainly, "write by the seat of your pants", or from dreams, or from whatever muse has you by the throat. i'm not disputing that at all.

i simply find it sensible to be aware, along the way, of as many facets of your creation as possible. (i mean, would a jeweler only look at a diamond from one side, or under one type of light?) Certainly it will improve the novel's cohesiveness as well as the author's plotting, writing, and conceptualizing, yes?
 

Writing Again

Re: Re: killing off main character

But the irony was still there to be exploited, because of a lapse of awareness.

True to the degree that I was not thinking about, nor in this instance deliberately intending, irony.

But had I been thinking about it I would not have avoided either the irony or the paradox. Had I been thinking about it I would have probably emphasized it, at which point you, and a few others, would have realized the deliberateness -- and most would have been unaware it even existed.

Paradox and irony, and the ironic paradox are the root and parcel of the world we live in.

Mathematics did not take off until nothing was discovered. The greatest achievement in arithmetic was naught.

Technology did not take off with the invention of the wheel. It took off with the doughnut. The hole is what makes the wheel useful. Wrap it around the finger of your mind, my olive child, now go invent something.

Grammar does not give meaning to the printed word. Grammar only assists meaning. Real meaning resides in what is not said and in the page that is not printed.

So I do not get offended that you found the irony I so densely missed. I rejoice in both the irony and the paradox of what I wrote. In its way it completes what I was saying.

Now let me say something about serendipity and the subconscious.

You are concerned that the secondary ironic meaning may trip up the first, the intended meaning.

Be aware that the second meaning, the one you did not intend or think about, comes from the subconscious mind. Be also aware that no matter what you do that subconscious mind will show through. It operates below the level of your awareness and its power is amazing.

Know then that the subconscious mind will only betray and trip up those who oppose it: Those who deny it, hate it, fight it, fear it: Those who seek censor it, to control it without limit.

The reasons for hating an fearing it is that is has no morals, no ethics, no logic, no sense of propriety. It will take you dancing in fields of clover one day and swimming in an ocean of @#%$ the next. It will cause a man who loves his parents more than life itself to wonder how much he will inherit from them. It will cause a saint to wonder if a certain woman shaves her privates.

But if you make friends with your subconscious mind: love it the way you do a small child, with all of its apparent faults: love it for both its flights of genius and its poopy diapers: Then it will love you in return.

Once your subconscious mind truly loves you, and you love it, then it will not betray you. It will enhance everything you do, every word you say, every story you write.

The first step to becoming a writer is to become yourself. The first step in becoming yourself is to join your subconscious mind with your conscious mind in a loving, happy, playful relationship.

Learn to laugh with your subconscious mind and at your subconscious mind.

And for the rest of your life never worry that it might betray you. It won't. It will love you, protect you, and assist you in everything you do.
 

Flawed Creation

Re: Re: killing off main character

I'm finally chiming in after following this discussion for some time.

A few comments:

first of all, I don't think a story can go without a theme. not everyone consciously picks a theme,(though I do), but all good fiction has one.


(Simon Says) offered the opinion that literary fiction tends to be about deeper or more important themes, commercial more basic or superficial themes. i disagree with this vehemently.

first, let me state for the record that i don't belive in a distinction between "literary" and "commercial" fiction. if i were forced to define one, however, i would say that literary fiction gives a deeper and more involved examination of the theme, while commercial fiction addresses a theme more superficially.


for instance, the Matrix addresses a supposedly deep and philosophical theme: a whole bundle of existential paradoxes. however, all it does it to note the existende of the questions, and the unsatisfactory conclusion is that there is no good reason to belive in reality. even Zion is unlikely to truly exist.

on the other hand, Milton's Paradise Lost is about the basic good and evil theme you mentioned above. specifically, the origin of evil and it's nature. despite this "basic" theme, it is a work of great philosophical import.



protagonists are killed with great frequency. there are problems with it, but there are problems with a traditonal happy ending. in between are endings which feature a protagonist surviving, but in some way scarred by the experience. either mourning lost firends, physically injured, or unable to return to normal life, like frodo.
 

Writing Again

Re: Re: killing off main character

someone (i forget who) offered the opinion that literary fiction tends to be about deeper or more important themes, commercial more basic or superficial themes. i disagree with this vehemently.

I believe the reference was mine and I believe you misunderstood what I meant. I don't define literary fiction as I do not write it and have no reason to define it. Think of it in terms of bear hunters and dear hunters. If you do not hunt both you do not need to know about both. You only need to know about what you do.

However a dear hunter may object to a bear hunter because they hunt using a pack of dogs and the bear hunters may consider the dear hunters less macho because they hunt less dangerous game.

The literary writers I have met consider themselves held to a higher standard than, "writing commercial crap for the common masses" and consider such things as achieving a best seller list as "sure signs of having sold out your art for the almighty dollar."

The real truth is that these so called "literary writers" don't have the guts to compete in an area where failure is so visible. The have a ready made system of protection. It is no longer an admission of "I failed to write a best seller" it is a case of, "The common offal of humanity is simply not able to appreciate my greatness, which is to be expected when one writes literary fiction rather than commercial crap."
 

Flawed Creation

Re: Re: killing off main character

actually, Writing again, while your point about "dear" hunters is appreciated, i was (having now gone back to check), responding to Simon says post, reprinted (in abridged version) here

" Writing Again -

For commercial pieces - it is best to pick broad, simple universal themes -as opposed to say the existentialist theme explored in Waiting for Godot. The more esoteric the theme, the less commercial. Fantasy for example often explores issues surrounding good and evil, the essence of courage, etc. Action films often explore similar themes. Themes we can all connect with. The theme is often tied to the growth of your main character.
"

it is with this that i disagree
 
Status
Not open for further replies.