When an author kills characters...

[Mad Hatter]

I think everyone might agree that the lead up is what makes the death or what happened before and what happened after is the thing that drives the mood. Tara's death was tragic because she and Willow had finally talked...really really talked. They were on the mend...and then wham! Tara's dead by the hands of the Trio who up until that point were cartoonish and not real villains to the Scoobies and Buffy. And you had significant character development in pretty much everyone on that show including Andrew and Jonathan. Even Buffy's multiple deaths were led up to very well and I thought the aftermath of each was brilliant.

I can't comment on GRRM because I haven't read anything by him. To me, the death can be completely random thing that happens because the poor shmuck was unlucky, but it stands the test of reason when you examine how the author/creator deals with it afterwards. And the death of a main character does lend realism because these are heroes we're reading about and they get into danger day in and day out.

I don't think there's a person out there who will ever be able to convince me that at any given moment a hero shouldn't be knocked off or at least be abused mercilessly. It just has to flow with the book. Film noir is a perfect example of this. In that genre. the good guy isn't so good all the time and he/she goes through hell and back.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Whatever the author feels like is going to happen to the characters in any event. I don't understand this thread to be honest. If the characters death serves the story then its fine IMO, I've never been turned off a book by a main chraracter dying I guess.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It's been awhile since I read ASoIaF, so my memory is a little hazy, but I definitely didn't think at the time that there was anything implausible about the Red Wedding. Of course, I was in love with the books at that point, so I was willing to give them a huge benefit of the doubt; it sounds, Kahuna, as if by that point you didn't have much patience with them.

*nod* also, the fact that I read them all at a whack may have contributed.... These conversations always make me think about some psych stuff that I then hesitate to mention because some people take it badly when they think you are putting their opinions 'on the couch'. But it is pretty well established that (generally) the more you have invested in something, the more favorably you are inclined to view it in retrospect. Kind of an unconsious "you get what you paid for" exchange. If I had waited a year for aSoS and taken an extra hour off work to pick it up in hardcover the day it came out.... well, I probably wouldn't have done that, because like I said earlier, it didn't "have" me at that point anyway. But my point is that for a book I did do that for, I would probably be more forgiving and willing to push on and put it in perspective as something that shaped the rest of the book. Not 100% willng, because that sort of 'twist' just isn't to my taste, but more willing.

were there events in them that either demanded explanation (where explanation would have been interesting and necessary), or that you're certain could not be explained plausibly?

I think the red wedding could have been set up to be more plausible. Walder Frey could have had a background that made such a complete abandoment of his honor more logical, Robb's love and marraige of the Random Chick Who Shows Up In The Prior Chapter could have been actually shown to us, to make the setup more natural (the one time a sex scene would have contributed and he skipped it! ) robb and cat could have been taken prisoner to force the army to stand down before their execution, and the gratuitous defilement of the bodies afterwards could have been skipped completely.

The one part that will never make sense to me is the Tents O' Ambush. Its the sort of thing that happens in a D&D game and if you are new to the DM you try to argue it, but after a while you just roll your eyes and say "ok, this is the part where we get captured, I guess" and make choo choo noises under your breath.

 

[PaulKemp]

Whatever the author feels like is going to happen to the characters in any event. I don't understand this thread to be honest. If the characters death serves the story then its fine IMO, I've never been turned off a book by a main chraracter dying I guess.

Agreed. IMO, like all other plot points/story devices, a character's death need accomplish two things: furthering the story and fueling the development of the surviving characters. How it accomplishes those things will vary from story to story. In some cases, a capricious/random act of fate may be appropriate (depending upon the nature of the world), in other cases a grand, foreshadowed showdown and defeat by the BBEG may be appropriate, in others, heroic sacrifice, in still others, moral failure and a consequent spiral into death.

I'm intrigued by this thread. I faced this issue in my most recent novel and it is still fresh in my mind.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Whatever the author feels like is going to happen to the characters in any event. I don't understand this thread to be honest. If the characters death serves the story then its fine IMO, I've never been turned off a book by a main chraracter dying I guess.

As I said in the first post : "But I rank my enjoyment of stories (including TV, movies, comics, etc) based on how much I buy into the illusion that there is a reality to the characters that trancends the part we are shown."

This style of enjoyment isn't universal (though I admit I find a complete lack of willing suspension of disbelief a little puzzling) but it is the basis of my reactions, and this thread. Doubly the basis of this thread, I suppose since many folks rank the red wedding as making them hate the freys, or Wash's death in Serenity as increasing the tension.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I guess why I can't grasp is how a character dying is destroying the Illusion that there is a reality behind it all. People die in reality all the time and most of the time isn't not in a heroic fashion or at the "right time" so to speak. Re-reading your original post I'm guessing that if a character dies and it feels like part of the story, as opposed to a death that seems to be just there for shock value, it is ok?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I guess why I can't grasp is how a character dying is destroying the Illusion that there is a reality behind it all. People die in reality all the time and most of the time isn't not in a heroic fashion or at the "right time" so to speak. Re-reading your original post I'm guessing that if a character dies and it feels like part of the story, as opposed to a death that seems to be just there for shock value, it is ok?

That pretty much sums it up. If I think "why did [author] kill him?" instead of "sniff, oh cruel world, why did he have to die?" it means I am taken out of the story. What I find interesting is some people seem to say "I find the story more engaging when [author] will kill people."

 

[Particle_Man]

Of course, in fantasy tv series/books, being dead doesn't have to be permanent, or more than an inconvenience. Heck, in D&D Raise Dead, Speak with Dead, Undead, Ghosts, etc., the list goes on. And in fantasy series, you can have people come back from the dead, or at least "visit" the living for a while (usually to chat about a relationship that needed closure for the living part of the duo), etc.

I mean, the red weeding sucked, but at least:

Spoiler

Caitlin shows up again at the end - undead and *pissed* at the Freys.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

That pretty much sums it up. If I think "why did [author] kill him?" instead of "sniff, oh cruel world, why did he have to die?" it means I am taken out of the story. What I find interesting is some people seem to say "I find the story more engaging when [author] will kill people."

I prefer my stories to flow naturally in either direction. If it seems heavy handed that this character is surviving all the stuff that is killing others just because of the character's status then I'm annoyed. If chracters are dying just for shock value and it feels jarring, then I'm annoyed. If characters are living and dying and it all feels like a natural flow of the storyline then I'm happy.

I think any writing that has points that jar you out of the flow, be it character deaths or improbably survivals, is bad writing.

 

[evildmguy]

The death of Wash in Serenity is one of those things that really takes me out of a story. It brings to the forefront the fact that what you are watching is a movie. The fact that a character's survival is based entirely one the current career status of the actor involved. The characters that always take the risks, that are constantly in life-or-death situations are the characters that are most likely to survive. A character that seldom leaves the ship is just toast waiting to be burned.

With regards to this, I disagree.

/digression
Wash had just flown the best he had EVER flown. Possibly ever would. It was shown that ships were coming down with them. The reavers were still following them. Just because they had made it to the ground didn't mean they were safe. So, Wash's death was perfect for the story as it a) let him go out with heroic style and b) made me wonder about the rest of the characters.

Joss himself said it was a tough choice but he wanted someone to die there to keep that tension going and I thought it worked well.
/digression

As to the OP, I have no problem when a character is killed, as long as it makes sense. Hopefully it makes sense because of the story.

Personally, I think more (FR) DND novels should have deaths in them. However, it probably wouldn't work as they don't advance the timeline very quickly, especially in FR, and then it might be that they are dying too often. I say this because I think players wouldn't mind if their characters died if they died heroically, such as Sturm in DL.

Again, though, as the OP said, it is one of personal taste. Sometimes it will work for readers/viewers and sometimes it won't.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg