Killing off a character

There's nothing wrong with killing off characters. In your particular case, you might want ot flip a coin. If she dies,then it may detract from the other action in the book, but it would give you the opportunity of introducing a replacement. One way around the problem would be to have her remain ill through the whole book. If you do another in the series, then you can dcide wheether she will be alive for that one, or if she died between the two books.

I don't have a problem with killing off a recurring character now and then. My problem comes when there's a killing spree... but this is really a problem with television more than books. Why get invested when the characters are likely going to die soon?

No character should have divine (authorial) protection. If they're human, let them face the same risks as any other character in the book.

I'm surprised to hear that you found so much support for keeping all continuing characters alive, JE.
Personally I think killing off a character who the reader has grown to know is more effective as a device than killing off a "classic" victim, i.e. one who is introduced simply to be killed off, and tends to be one-dimensional because of it.

I can see HeyJude's point - if you kill masses of well-loved characters, the reader will feel a bit betrayed. But Peter's suggestion of having her ill throughout the book and then, in the next book, having passed on, might be an acceptable solution. If I recall correctly, S.King did this with one of his continuing characters between The Dark Half and Needful Things - she was constantly ill with headaches in the former, and dead from a brain tumour in the latter.

I just want to let you know that i would get annoyed if the person died in between books because i would want to know every detail but i wouldnt mind if she/he died.

I have no problem with killing a man character. In fact, I typically see it as a positive because most of the time it's unexpected. We tend to expect that our main cast of characters is immortal.

I'm actually much more annoyed by books that fake kill a character. Now a little suspense and wondering if someone is okay or going to make it I'm okay with, but I can think of a relatively well known fantasy author who wrote a series in which it seemed like all the minor characters were "killed," only to be later miraculously not dead because they happened to be wearing a magic ring or some such nonsense.

So basically, I'd say if it works for the story and serves a purpose, go for it. Don't do it for shock value or go on a killing spree, like other said, but I would have no problem with it.

kaitie said:

I have no problem with killing a man character.

Click to expand...

But what about a woman character?

ITA on the fake death. Done. To. Death. So to speak.

When readers stop reading a series because a character was killed, it means the writer made the mistake of killing off the best damn character in the series--the one people were reading it for. I guess what I'm saying, is to consult with betas before you kill someone off. Make sure you are not making a reckless mistake.

I think your question is

unanswerable.

Can it work to kill off the wife? Probably.

Can it not work to kill off the wife? Same answer.

It's all a matter of what makes the story really click along. For example, if in dying the wife makes psychological space for the main character to become deeply involved with the nurse (who is actually his soul-mate), and if the wife sort of deserved what she got (say she is something of a vengeful bitch who never knows when to leave well-enough alone, and decides to chase a purse-snatcher down a dark alley and he turns on her [not a real good example, I admit, but it works as a placeholder]), then, yeah, you can make it work for your story.

But if you've set it up so that your audience is really invested in Wife and is anticipating knowing what happens to her next (without dying, that is) so that you make them feel betrayed when she dies, then, no it's probably not a good idea.

But no one can tell you how they are going to feel when they read about the wife dying until they read about. The generalizations I think don't help at all.

One mistake I have seen a few times in manuscripts is a first chapter where the character dies at the end of it -- this I think is almost always a mistake, requiring a second beginning and rendering the reader's investment in the character worthless.

All the above, of course, for what it's worth (and what you paid for it).

It would seem to me, that if the wife is dying of cancer, AND gets a lot of screen time, it would violate the character growth rule. She doesn't change. She's pitiful and is suffering at the beginning, middle and end of the book. That would be too much for me. There has to be some change, up or down. Either that, or make her a minor character.

If the death is meaningful and adds more than detracts from the story, I say kill. I personally wouldn't want to read about a woman contiually suffering from cancer, always on the brink of death but not dying - feels unrealistic. Change needs to occur: remission or death. I also agree with RJK to some degree- there needs to be growth but if you've provided that, go ahead. Rules kill good fiction.

scarlet is absolutely correct. Case in point: Jack Bauer should have died three seasons ago. Now, if he does die it will be SO anti-climactic that nearly everyone who's watched '24' for all these seasons will say the same thing: "He survived everything and that killed him?!?!?!?"

EVERYONE should be killable, for lack of a better word. Even the main character.

I personally hate it when a main character, sidekick, or recurring character dies. I just think it really sucks and puts a big bummer on the story. Some people get off on that, and that is fine. Not me. However, that is... just me. If I've invested some care into a character and they die, I get pissed. I don't read books to get pissed, I read them for enjoyment. Yet there are some people that are just the opposite.

It is entirely up to you with what you want to do. You could alienate your audience or get them more interested. There is no one right answer.

I like my writing to reflect reality. In reality, people die. I don't want my audience to become lazy. I don't want them to take any character for granted... so I kill them off (if it makes sense to the story). That said, many people read for escapism. They want to be lazy. They don't want to invest in an emotional commitment and so they resent the heck out of a writer when he/she kills off a beloved character. For me, I found myself feeling this way while reading Martin's Ice and Fire series. I was irked that many of my favorite characters were being killed off left and right while the real scum of the bunch were surviving and thriving. In the end though, I suspect the pay off will make it worth it, and the defeat of the real villians will be all the sweeter. Of course there is nothing that will insure that outcome... but at an average of 700 pages per book, I'm committed at this point!

Killing off a character nobody cares about is rather cheap. To get the reader to care a character needs internal tension. But that raises the question: what happens to the tension when the character dies?

I believe that a good author will pass it onto another character so that the reader's interest is not squandered. Therefore my answer is that it's okay to kill off a character when it has internal tension and when you've got some other place for that tension to go.