Question on narration

Never heard of this rule.

I'm from the school of thought that you can write whatever story and do whatever you want to the narrator as long as it serves the story.

I took a writing class a few years back where my classmates and the teacher would critique each other's stories. I took the class to learn structure, grammar, plot, punctuation, ect...the bones of story telling. Every other comment I received was purely subjective upon my classmate's (and teacher's) perception on what a story SHOULD be. I accepted some of these comments. Others I discarded.

It sounds like you may have broken one of this teacher's cardinal rules because it's something he'd never do. I don't believe that it's a cardinal rule of writing as a whole.

So you killed off the narrator. It might be a big deal if you're doing a sequel. But even then you could write some creative way to bring him back.

This opinion is, of course, only my own and purely subjective.

I've heard of this "rule" a few times before, but I don't agree with it in the way it's normally meant. JMHO.

If you want to keep your story "as is" while also keeping your instructor from docking you a letter grade, have the narrator/character end the story with it being the last entry in his or her diary.

ac

Dead characters don't talk

A narrator can't report his or her own death. There are other ways to show that the narrator dies at the end of the story. You can create a situation in which the narrator's death is inevitable.

Au contraire, Rephy. It's been done before and it's been done well -- entire novels, even! But because it's been done so much it should be avoided, lest cliches abound. That is, unless so-and-so Authress can do it orginally and sexily.

Relp stated the rule in the way I've usually heard it: Dead character don't talk (or write stories after they're dead). That's why I suggested a "diary entry" as a compromise.

I think this "rule" takes logic to the extreme. If that sort of test were applied to all writing, then it would be odd to even have third-person POV where the narrator gets into multiple people's heads, or any number of other writing conventions.

Again, this is just a personal opinion and nothing more. I've sure there are a lot of folks here on AW who are more knowledgeable than I am and can make a case for why the rule should be followed. I've never used this device in anything I've written because, as TC pointed out, it can be a bit gimmicky.

It'll be interesting to see where this discussion goes.

ac

Narrator

The way I'd put it is this. A narrator can't report his own death UNLESS he survives that death as a spirit, etc. First person narrators who die in the end just can't tell the story later on. Do not do it.

Third person is different. A thrid person narrator can tell about the death of anyone because the narrator is usually not the same person/thing as the protagonist.

Killing your protagonist is fine in short fiction. Nothing wrong with it at all. Just don't do so in first person.

Jamesaritchie said:

A narrator can't report his own death UNLESS he survives that death as a spirit, etc.

Click to expand...

Right. I forgot to include that refinement. I was thinking of stories told in the ordinary way, where the narrator is alive during everything that happens. Ghost stories, for instance, can violate the rule in its simpler form. Another exception: rarely, people in medical situations have been clinically dead and returned a few minutes later.

Jamesaritchie said:

The way I'd put it is this. A narrator can't report his own death UNLESS he survives that death as a spirit, etc.

Click to expand...

Or is resurrected.

I've heard of the rule before, and like all rules, it can be broken, but if you're going to break it, you have to do in a way that isn't trite, yet still plausible. And it probably has to be a fantasy of some sort.

Cardinal rules are made to be broken.

Rules

Any rule can be broken. Whether or not it can be broken successfully is another matter.

But if you kill the MC off at the end of the story, then who cares? It's the end.

It's your story, your world you've created, your characters. If we all followed the same rules, no one would read because stories would simply be boring. It's kind of too bad a creative writing teacher doesn't embrace creativity and risk-taking, which is the only way storytelling will evolve.

The narrator and the MC aren't necessarily one and the same. The MC can die and the narrator, who is the entity telling the story about the MC, can survive.

I'm of two minds on that one. I don't believe in writing rules; however, in this case I would agree with your teacher. If it is a first person narration, then there's just no graceful way out of it. "And then I died" or "The last thing I saw was the gaping maw of the beast" just doesn't work.

If you have a narrator who is narrating while he'd dead, there're two ways of handling it:
1) All along the narrator knows that he's dead, but withholds this info from the reader. Reader feels cheated at the end, since the writer was not playing fair (all too many Twilight Zone episodes did that -- pull a fast one by deliberately hiding crucial information, known to everyone but the viewer.)
2) Narrator doesn't know he's dead -- aka Sixth Sense. It has been overused recently, and personally I groan when I see that one.

If you came up with something different, I want to hear it!

rbflynn said:

My professor told me via email today that killing your narrator violates a cardinal rule in short fiction. I was ignorant to this until today, and actually am not altogether sure I agree with it. Maybe I am suffering from "It's my baby, of course it's beautiful!" syndrome, but I think it is handled well, and the little bit of feedback I have recieved supports this.

My question is this...

What's your take on this cardinal rule of short fiction? Death of a narrator = death of a story?

Click to expand...

I think you could only define this as a rule if we knew with great certainly that death was the end. Or, if we know with great certainly that inanimate objects (such as corpses) had no conciousness. Actually, I should say that even if we DID know those things, it's fiction, so in the world of the story, it can still happen.

If you were to define in your story that a) there is nothing after death or b) that a corpse cannot have a consciousness and tell a story, then no, you can't do that. But if you leave that possibility open, than you can.

I have read good stories from the POV of inanimate objects, and spirits of dead people, so it's possible.

I think the whole deal with this narrator relating the character's death is a matter of that sacred bond between writer and reader. It's not necessarily a cardinal rule, like you'll go to hell if you break it, kind of thing, but you have to realize that, unless you do it just right, your readers could feel really cheated. You'll be pulling them along in your story, only to snuff out their lights right at the good parts! Just remember to always bear your audience in mind.

Secondly, consider how a good ending is supposed to be (I use the term "supposed to" lightly and liberally). It should feel totaly unexpected, yet completely innevitable. Unpredictable, while at the same time being the only ending that would fit. Does that make sense? So think about things that way in relation to your story, and if the answer is satisfactory, and you don't think your readers will be cheated, I say screw your professor and keep the ending! That's all!

- Joe

I've heard this rule before and mostly, I never paid attention to it. I never thought much of "cardinal rules" or "fixed rules of writing," or anything like that. There are common sense things that you do, but you don't HAVE to do anything you don't want to.

If someone complained, "Your narrator dies at the end of the story," I probably wouldn't get worried. I would probably say, "Er. Yes. Which was the point," and be concerned no more about it, unless I handled it badly enough that it just made no sense.

Death doesn't really have to be a major obstacle in your writing, I've always thought. In stories (sometimes,) the dead just keep right on talking.

reph said:

A narrator can't report his or her own death. There are other ways to show that the narrator dies at the end of the story. You can create a situation in which the narrator's death is inevitable.

Click to expand...

I assume you haven't seen American Beauty?

PeeDee said:

I've heard this rule before and mostly, I never paid attention to it. I never thought much of "cardinal rules" or "fixed rules of writing," or anything like that. There are common sense things that you do, but you don't HAVE to do anything you don't want to.

If someone complained, "Your narrator dies at the end of the story," I probably wouldn't get worried. I would probably say, "Er. Yes. Which was the point," and be concerned no more about it, unless I handled it badly enough that it just made no sense.

Death doesn't really have to be a major obstacle in your writing, I've always thought. In stories (sometimes,) the dead just keep right on talking.

Click to expand...

Unless it's the editor who complains. If he does, no one else will ever read it.

AB

Mike Coombes said:

I assume you haven't seen American Beauty?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have seen it. And regreted the time lost forever since the moment it ended.

I think a better movie for a narrator reporting his own death is Sunset Blvd.

And in both cases, this was a major disappointment.

What about...?

1st person, present tense and your character can take you right up to hir death. And the reader will understand exactly what has lead to the death.

I think that rules like Don't Kill Your Narrator are basicaly sensible, but once a writer has found hir voice and understands story structures then if the narrator's death is what the story demands then write it right so that the reader accepts it.

Mike Coombes said:

I assume you haven't seen American Beauty?

Click to expand...

I've seen it. I would have liked it better without the revelation about you-know-what at the beginning.

Another "rule"? I've never heard of this rule, but then again, I'm not an expert. If killing your narrator works for your story, then do it. Like someone else said in this thread, I'm wondering if the professor has made up this rule because he/she would not do it himself? Also, is he trying to teach you to write in his style rather than letting you find your own style and voice?
Good luck!
Marie

reph said:

I've seen it. I would have liked it better without the revelation about you-know-what at the beginning.

Click to expand...

I thought it worked well. I knew he would die, but had no idea how up until the moment it was revealed, which was even after I saw it happen.