Sort of like Amber's thread, but sort of not.

IReidandWrite · Mar 30, 2009

It's complicated.

I have about four main characters. The rest of them are redshirts and die off pretty quickly. Only ONE main character lives, but the story is really about her. One of the characters is a little smaller-scale than her. Sort of like a B-story. They don't even interact but live in the same vicinity.

Is that going to be a problem? It's not really a gore fest (I mean, some deaths are. One MC sets fire to an entire army base to teach another a lesson), but, you know. If the MAIN main chick lives, that's okay, right?

MetalDog · Mar 30, 2009

I think so long as you're not whacking characters purely to try to wring tears out of your readers, you're probably fine. If it makes sense that people might die under the circumstances, whack away.

Rushie · Mar 30, 2009

I'd say you really have only one main character and the others are secondary. Make sure your reader invests the most emotionally in the one who lives.

bohica · Mar 30, 2009

Agreed. Being willing to kill off a character you, the writer, and I, the reader, have invested in shows that you don't pull any punches. As long as it makes sense that the character would die.

Meredith · Mar 30, 2009

In the book I'm working on now, I seriously considered killing off my MC at the end, mainly because given my set-up, anything else seemed like a cop-out. But that was before I got to know him - and now I think I like him too much to kill him. I had to shift some things around in my set-up so letting him live wouldn't seem cheap, but I think I'm happier now, and the story is stronger.

I think the big question is always going to be, does every character's fate feel true to his or her arc. We can put anything we want onto the page, but the only way to give something the feel of truth is to not pull any punches. And that means that a character whose set-up requires death by any realistic standard does, in fact, die (excepting fantasy/horror/sci-fi elements as appropriate); but it also means that a character whose set-up doesn't require death, who we've come to care about, doesn't die for unrealistic reasons. By that I mean they shouldn't die because of what the death would mean for the audience; if someone's going to die out of the blue, it should be because of what it's going to mean to the other characters in the story.

YMMV, natch. =)

IReidandWrite · Apr 1, 2009

Here's another question. I figured I would go ahead and use this thread.

Is one half of a relationship supposed to be weaker in terms of characterization if they're not all that important? They kind of are, because they're her girlfriend. But they're not really that important to the story, save for a brief moment where they are torn apart and the more minor character is forced to hunt them down. So should I give her a proper introduction, show her background, etc? Right now her first scene is shown where her future girlfriend tricks her in a card game. They start out as partners in crime, then, well, happy times.

You know.

Shweta · Apr 1, 2009

Project nachonaco said:
So should I give her a proper introduction, show her background, etc?

Um.
Are you presupposing that a character needs a lot of screen time to be strong? Because that isn't true. It's possible to get strong characterization in one sentence, one line of dialogue-- just has to be the right sentence. It has to get the reader imagining more.

Now, complexities/nuance in character, they require more time.

Sort of like Amber's thread, but sort of not.

IReidandWrite

MetalDog

Woof!

Rushie

bohica

scribe to dark muses

Meredith

IReidandWrite

Shweta

gone