The Perks Of Being A Book Addict discussion
Why Dont They Ever Kill Off The Main Character In Stories
date
newest »
newest »
Well, you know everyone is giving out to me about being like"no you shouldn't kill off the main character it depresss the reader" . kill the character off. Im not saying they should do it in every book just in some books you know.
Jude wrote: "Well, you know everyone is giving out to me about being like"no you shouldn't kill off the main character it depresss the reader" . kill the character off. Im not saying they should do it in every ..."Well of course it depresses the reader, but it also lends a sense of realism to certain novels. Which can be amazing in some perspectives despite the downfall in emotions.
As Buffy pointed out above, "no one in real life is safe." In real life, our heroes often die. Which is why I think authors try so hard not to do it in books, but sometimes it will have a bigger impact to the audience if they do. Other times, they want the character to succeed to give us a sense of hope, if they can make it then so can we.
Two sides of the same coin and legitimate arguements for both I think.
Well it does happen in some but you end up destroyed in tears... (*spoiler* One Day, The Fault in Our Stars))I do love them anyway
Classic books more than comtemporary ones have a tendancy to kill the main character (Among others: Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet).Maybe that's why people love Classics. In these books the author isn't as attached to his main character(s) as he is to the story itself.
First of all, the author wants to put a message/view across.
If the character has to die (to let the story going through), the author must kill him. Readers'll come around eventually.
A lot of authors and novelists have a tendancy to forget that...
It all depends on the story as well, to kill the MC for shock value is just cheap.
They did in The Sight. It was actually one of my favorite parts of the book. Love that book.
And then there was the unforgettable YA book, "Bridge to Terebithia" Heartbreaking but so satisfying and enriching to read. But it MUST be like this. If an author just kills off the protagonist to display his power it is likely to cause an instant closure of said book and a loss of interest in all other works by that author.
I believe no author in the grips of a true creative process would do this. BECAUSE, your characters are creating the story. They tell the author who must die. The author by then is hardly more than the puppet of the characters. Our egos might take a hammering but our work will be taking off in all the right directions.
Katherine Paterson is a genius. Here's the link to "Bridge..."
http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-to-Terab...
The last book I read that killed the main character was good until said character was killed. The story continued but it just seemed disjointed and pointless
The primary reason is story structure. Generally, there is a set structure for stories that requires the character to go through a set of trials, then come out the other end changed. That's a simplified description, but it's essentially what happens. Watch just about any movie and you'll see it. On the other hand, if the character is a tragic character, then he'll likely die. For example, Richard III, or the Kid in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West.Michael E. Henderson
Good point Michael and I must say thanks to Jude for posting this interesting topic. It's a terrific discussion. By the way Michael's mention of Shakespeare above, reminded me of some of his other tragedies and of course I thought of Romeo and Juliet. It just wouldn't be the same without the deaths at the end. But you felt that the love would live forever somehow and the immortality of the story itself has ensured that.
Mainly because you can't have a story without the main characters. If they're dead, then where will the story go?
Well if it's a series it just kind of ruins it but I think it would make people give bad reviews an people would t want to recommend the books
When you kill a character, any character, you destroy any future potential for a reader to devote both emotion and attachment towards. Killing too many characters (or important characters) results in the reader not having anything to attach to. Without anything to attach to, it becomes extremely difficult to keep them connected to your work unless there are suitable characters to replace them, or the character in question has built such a legacy that the reader will never forget him/her due to his/her death. That's probably the most logical reason. Imagine if you killed Harry Potter in Book 6. You'd lose all the history and attachment readers have held with him, leaving nothing left in return.
I absolutely agree with Eric..I wouldn't like to see Harry Potter killed in the 6th book.Thanks to J.K.Rowling she diidn't do that...:))
It's more emotional to kill off main characters. Authors always wanna make readers evoke emotions, and one of the best ways to do that is to kill off the main character, because generally it goes without saying that the main character is a fan favorite that everyone likes.Just look at Game of Thrones, Mistborn, and The Bartimaeus Trilogy, to name a few examples. Those stories are emotionally compelling because *SPOILER* the main character(s) that everyone likes dies.
It's because if the main character die, many people won't buy the book. Actually, I would never read a book where the main character die ever!!
Mmh, I have no answer. But I think that could surprise me... And I could like it. It could make a story different from the others.
I've read a couple where the main character does though...
you're too attached. it would be really hard to pull off. you would really hate the book.
I've read 1 book where it was a diary type format and they killed off the main character and then someone else takes over..It was strange and a huge shock.....
Read Stephen King. He kills off his main characters sometimes, actually a lot.
**SPOILER**I recently read a book for a review in which the main character did get killed and it was awesome. (The book, not the killing - well it was pretty dramatic too).
The book continued on and having the major character gone didn't cause the story line to suffer.
**SPOILER**Well Elizabeth George did. (Someone else may have already mentioned this.) I absolutely hated this. While it was not THE LEAD, it was still a very important character and one that was a key player. I am not going to go on about it for those who have not read it, but added the spoiler just in case.
What authors tend to do is to stop writing a particular character and move on to another series. That may not be killing off the main character, but since we don't get to read about them anymore they are more or less dead.
And if an author is just writing one book with no series expectations, they are more likely to kill of the main character as part of the story line.
I also read a book like what Megan read recently. It may have been the same one. But anyway, it was amazing. You were attached, but the main character's death was necessary and a form of repentence and it was beautiful. I cried of course but you really saw the beauty of the circle of life in the way it was done. And now it was someone else's turn to take the pen and carry on the story.
**SPOILERS**In pretty much every book of the Song of Fire and Ice series (also known as Game of Thrones), a main character is killed. It breaks your heart to watch it happen but it is a series about war and the fight for a throne, so lots of death is bound to occur. I think it makes the series more "realistic" in a sense because you know most battles for a thone involve bloodshed, especially throughout our own history.
I think if it is done well and with purpose, killing off a main character is acceptable.
It seems to me that it is not so unusual for a main character to die. Think of Lord Jim. Think of Islands in the Stream, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Honorary Consul, The Quiet American, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, and Absolute Friends. Unless an author is extremely perverse, he loves his characters and is loathe to kill them off, but sometimes there is a compelling reason to do so. The most obvious reason is that the author is telling a true story, and he simply cannot change the facts. The second reason is that the situation the author has created is so dire that he can find no believable way to save his character. This was the case with Absolute Friends. And the only other reason I can think of is that how the character elects to face death is the most-persuasive demonstration of that character's spiritual growth, which has quietly taken place during the unfolding of the story. Sometimes the reason for killing off a character may even be a combination of the latter two reasons cited above.
The Perks Of Being A Book Addict
Books mentioned in this topic
Noah's Ark (other topics)Blood Meridian, or, the Evening Redness in the West (other topics)
The Sight (other topics)
The Book of Human Skin (other topics)
Don't Wait For Me (other topics)
I will disagree with the Great Gatsby however. Nick is the main character and he does not die. He is the real "hero" of the story, complicated as it might be.
As for stories such as Song of Fire and Ice which follow multiple perspectives and give us a new "main character" to focus on in each one, the death of those often occur in order for the story to move forward. The entire series is about a war after all, and there is no war without death. How else would other characters thought to be minor at first, like the Stark sisters, come into their own and grow into the heroes that the realm needs them to become?