What Might Have Happened V – The Death of a Main Character
I said the other week that I would reveal one of the greatest turning points of the series. The early death of a major character was one of the biggest decisions I had to make. It resulted from my desire to make a villain into a bigger villain, whilst also adding a random shock to the series.
In the end, I decided against it for reasons I will outline for you now. As always, there will be spoilers coming immediately in the next section, so if you haven’t finished the series stop reading here.
Who Died?
I can reveal that Peter Warren was the character to die early in the series. He was supposed to die in book 3 1972 at the hands of Rufus Camberwell, or I should say that was the final plan.
Thoughts entered my head about having Robert Hardy himself slay Peter, but in the end this was too easy and I couldn’t figure out how to make it work without changing the entire premise of the book. So in the end I was going to use Rufus to kill Peter through stabbing him.
I wish I could tell you how it was going to happen, but the idea never made it as far as this. I knew he was going to stab him and I knew he would defend Richard from something, but what, where, and why I have no clue.
Why Kill Off Peter?
I can only advance on my previous blog about the real villain. Rufus was designed to be the main antagonist, so I thought this was the best way to make him so. By killing off, arguably, the person who matters most to Richard, he’s committed the worst possible sin against him.
The truth is I turned against this idea when I discovered how much I liked Peter and how essential he became to the series. I’ve always believed he’s the most important person after Richard because he’s the only one who can function as a true foil to Richard’s personality.
Like most big brothers do, Peter can put Richard down when he needs it the most. There’s little Richard can do about it because, again like most big brothers are, he’s bigger, stronger, and older than him.
The Disappearance of Peter
The idea that I was going to kill Peter off originally manifested whilst I was writing 1969. I plan my books even before I’ve finished their prequels. The plots are never fully formed, but I note down events I may want to enter into the plots. I’ll usually finish off the ‘how to get there’ later on.
When I’d decided against removing Peter, I took him out of the book entirely. I could easily use the excuse that he’d simply disappeared to ‘find himself’ and discover his place in the world. I suppose in some ways it made it more meaningful when he did return a year later after four years.
But the truth is I consider this a mistake.
Peter is so essential to the series that I think removing him from a book entirely wasn’t a good move. I’d have loved to use him even in a cameo role. It’s taught me an important lesson for the future, though.
Next week we’re going to discuss the original plans for Richard’s father and why he became little more than a background character after 1964.
Until next time…
James Farner
In the end, I decided against it for reasons I will outline for you now. As always, there will be spoilers coming immediately in the next section, so if you haven’t finished the series stop reading here.
Who Died?
I can reveal that Peter Warren was the character to die early in the series. He was supposed to die in book 3 1972 at the hands of Rufus Camberwell, or I should say that was the final plan.
Thoughts entered my head about having Robert Hardy himself slay Peter, but in the end this was too easy and I couldn’t figure out how to make it work without changing the entire premise of the book. So in the end I was going to use Rufus to kill Peter through stabbing him.
I wish I could tell you how it was going to happen, but the idea never made it as far as this. I knew he was going to stab him and I knew he would defend Richard from something, but what, where, and why I have no clue.
Why Kill Off Peter?
I can only advance on my previous blog about the real villain. Rufus was designed to be the main antagonist, so I thought this was the best way to make him so. By killing off, arguably, the person who matters most to Richard, he’s committed the worst possible sin against him.
The truth is I turned against this idea when I discovered how much I liked Peter and how essential he became to the series. I’ve always believed he’s the most important person after Richard because he’s the only one who can function as a true foil to Richard’s personality.
Like most big brothers do, Peter can put Richard down when he needs it the most. There’s little Richard can do about it because, again like most big brothers are, he’s bigger, stronger, and older than him.
The Disappearance of Peter
The idea that I was going to kill Peter off originally manifested whilst I was writing 1969. I plan my books even before I’ve finished their prequels. The plots are never fully formed, but I note down events I may want to enter into the plots. I’ll usually finish off the ‘how to get there’ later on.
When I’d decided against removing Peter, I took him out of the book entirely. I could easily use the excuse that he’d simply disappeared to ‘find himself’ and discover his place in the world. I suppose in some ways it made it more meaningful when he did return a year later after four years.
But the truth is I consider this a mistake.
Peter is so essential to the series that I think removing him from a book entirely wasn’t a good move. I’d have loved to use him even in a cameo role. It’s taught me an important lesson for the future, though.
Next week we’re going to discuss the original plans for Richard’s father and why he became little more than a background character after 1964.
Until next time…
James Farner
No comments have been added yet.
