Thursday, September 18, 2014

Killing them not so softly



Today’s all about death in our books and the books we read.  Now, I’ll freely admit I’m not a huge fan of characters I care about being killed (yeah- not a Game of Thrones fan ;)).  I know some folks like death in their books (readers and writers) since it lends realism.  I’ve lost enough people close to me that I don’t need that kind of “realism”-- hits a bit too close to home.

That being said, I have been known to bump off a character or two and there have been books that didn’t become airborn (aka being through across the room) the minute a character was killed.  I didn’t like it, but I could see where the author was coming from.

What I REALLY hate is when a character is killed for no real story or character reason- or a reason that could have been plausible even without the death (yes, I am still traumatized by Joss Whedon- love the man, but won’t forgive him for Wash).

I just finished a book that I would have recommended- right up to a gratuitous killing of the character’s parents…right in front of her….after they’d just gotten back together with her after a two year estrangement. Yeah….no.
Part of the problem was the character had a chance earlier to save them- she knew they were in danger, drove out to get them- then decided it was better she didn’t.   Even though she knew the Big Bad had her parents’ address.

 The second part is that it didn’t really seem to impact the character.  This was an “origins” story, and as such could have used the deaths early on to motivate the character (Batman anyone?) but where it was placed it did nothing but shock the reader (and in this case, piss this reader off). Injuring the parents and having a dramatic reconciliation would have a had a much bigger character impact- especially since the character really didn’t respond to the loss.

I know not everyone is as sensitive to death as me, I’m a wimp and I admit it.  But I still believe that as writers we have to make the big events count- we weaken them, and betray our readers, when we just dump them in for shock value.

What's your take?

10 comments:

  1. Ah, killing your darlings. Unlike you, I'm all for it for the very reason you mentioned - realism. Think the charred bodies of Luke Skywalker's aunt and uncle. Would a cut on the uncle's arm and a black eye for the aunt have proved to be a life changing event for Luke or shown the terrible extent to which the Empire was willing to go to get what they want? If you're writing about dangerous situations people die. While I enjoy watching characters get out of trouble using their wit and skill, a never ending string of just plain "good luck" doesn't cut it for me. On TV it is a given that the regulars live, which is why GOT shocked so many people. Books don't pay their characters salaries or need to keep advertisers and so aren't constrained to keep everyone around. You may say that books need to keep readers, but I venture that as many readers leave because there isn't enough realism in books as those who leave over lost characters. Perhaps it's all just a matter of taste. So weep for the hero's lost love (friend-parent-child). Who's to say that the next love-friend-child won't be an even better character?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will agree to disagree, Sharon- as it's all taste ;). But I think too many folks use death as a shock value and nothing more. As for Star Wars- those deaths (aunt and uncle and Obi wan) were perfectly fit with what the character needed to move forward- they were well used. It's when writers just toss one in to make it real or to shock the reader that I really have an issue ;).

      Thanks for coming by and showing the other side!

      Marie stuck at work, can't log in to blogger

      Delete
  2. I agree with Sharon. A character death can add realism and raise the stakes of the story. However, Marie does have point, the "death" needs to have impact and meaning, and not just for shock value.
    That is why I love George R.R. Martin's Song of Fire & Ice series, you never know who might die, and all the major characters he's off'd have had impact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points, CJ :). Every type of book has a following, and as long as the actions suit the book and not the author - it works :).
      Thanks for coming by and commenting!

      Marie stuck at work, can't log in to blogger

      Delete
  3. A well-known woman writer killed a small child in a book for no good reason and I never forgave her, never read another one of her books, even when Oprah featured one in her club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear you, Phyllis. I used to love a certain paranormal series- one of the few I would buy in hard cover- until the author killed off a love interest in a shocking, and in my opinion not needed way. I'm sure the author had her reasons, but I've never read another book from her :(.

      Thanks for coming by and commenting!

      Marie stuck at work, can't log in to blogger

      Delete
  4. Great post Marie. This is one of my pet peeves too. I don't mind if a character dies if it is necessary for the story AND it changes the main characters somehow. I'll use Joss Whedon and Serenity as an example of what I consider ok and not ok. Shepard's death I was ok with. It upset me, but it was essential to the story and it changed the characters. Wash's death I was not ok with. I did not see how it was essential to the story and we did not have time to see any change in the remaining characters (and a memorial service at his grave is not change). Now if there is another movie, and we see how the characters changed and we see the story unfold because of his death then that is another matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point, Cyndi! And I totally agree. I wasn't happy about Sheppard's death- but it served a function. Wash's was out of the blue and not needed. I did think it was interesting that at Comic Con for Firefly's Anniversary panel, Joss admitted that had he known he would only have one movie he probably wouldn't have killed Wash ;).

      Thanks for coming by and commenting!

      Marie stuck at work, can't log in to blogger

      Delete
  5. Death can never be treated lightly. For those of us who have lost an intimate family member, we know first hand the impact. I think death itself is almost a character just like a storm or setting can be a character. It's just that important. And if there's no room in a book to include the depth of that character than it shouldn't be in the book but a part of the past. Grief or even non-grief has so many levels! So if a character is killed, esp. an important character it had better include all the impact levels or the book and the other characters come off as highly superficial and well ... stupid rather than having an emotional impact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a great way to think about it- death needs to be a character and treated with the same weight as we would our lead characters. Very well put!

      Thank you for coming by and commenting, Sharla!

      Marie

      Delete