Men die, cattle die, even the series protagonists themselves must one day die.

[mrissa]

I have been thinking about protagonist deaths in fiction, when they work for people and when they don't. I would particularly like to hear more about what works for you in the comment section, with specific and potentially spoilery examples, so read the other comments with care if you are spoiler-sensitive.

[Poll #1727111]

PS No, I am not thinking of killing off Carter. As far as I know, Carter does not die. Bullets can't...wait, that's something else.

Comments

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I almost checked every single ticky box, because really, all of that can affect how I feel about it. Protagonist death is a complicated issue, and gets more complicated the larger a percentage of the narrative that protagonist carries. Somebody like Martin can off them with more impunity, because his story is divided among so many characters; if, on the other hand, the protagonist is the only pov we've had all book, then getting rid of them is a much trickier matter.

(And I say that as somebody who has done it, albeit in a book I have not yet sold.)

Come to think of it, I guess I've done protagonist death of one sort or another in three of my five published books. So I guess I should have checked the "doom" ticky box after all?

[pnkrokhockeymom.livejournal.com]

I answered with a definition of "be okay with" as "It doesn't make me think the book sucks" or "doesn't spoil the story for me." But that might not mean I'm OK with it in an emotional sense; I might mourn. I mean, if I love your character and she dies, I might not be okay with it in that I may cry and weep and tear my hair out of my scalp, but that won't stop me loving the story if I would otherwise love it.

If the definition of "be okay with" that you're looking for is "doesn't wreck the story for me," then the death just needs to work in the story and the character arc. If the definition of "be okay with" is, instead, however, "I won't be angry, be sad, curse, walk around in a funk upset that someone real to me has passed," well, um, then my answer is probably different.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Basically, I just don't approve of it.

I'm still kind of pissed at Heinlein for killing off Valentine Michael Smith; particularly since it didn't solve any plot problems (he's taught people too much, there are powerful magicians everywhere). (Yeah, I know, he couldn't resist the religious imagery. Sucks to be him.)

Now, he maybe really did have to kill Mycroft Holmes (another Mike) off; too powerful a piece to leave on the board. Not that he did anything with the continuity after that book, though.

I don't count temporary deaths. That's different; in particular, that's not actual death.

Paul Tankersly wasn't a protagonist, but Weber probably thought he had to do that to Honor. I'm doubtful it was really necessary.

I really can't think of any other books I like where a protagonist dies. I'm probably forgetting 15 obvious ones, though. But really; even Sam and Frodo survive the quest. Even Merry and Pippin. Now, Gandalf was a shock; but also, having him sent back was a clear indication that the higher-ups were taking sides. He was sort of a protagonist.

[carbonel]

I am not big on "he's dead, only fooling" type stories. If he's dead, he should be dead, not show up in the last chapter after all. Yes, I mean you, Spider Robinson.

[stillsostrange.livejournal.com]

Sometimes death is the natural conclusion to a character's arc or predicament, and sometimes characters die anyway because the author is mean that's the way the story works. In the latter case, what bothers me is if the death feels cheap or exploitative, or if I feel like the author is deliberately thumbing his nose at the reader. (Joss Whedon, I am looking at you.) Or if the author has killed a cooler character to put the spotlight back on a less-cool (to me, anyway) primary character.

Of course, I'm a softy who doesn't kill enough. Err, fictional people, that is.

[brooksmoses]

I'm reminded of one of the books that I gave up on in the middle of the climactic scene (although I did finish it; but with suspension of disbelief rather badly broken) -- there, the problem was approximately that a protagonist didn't die when they needed to. There was a massive bloody battle. Whole squads were killed, left and right; there were few survivors on either side. And the protagonists were scattered all through the middle of this -- and they kept not dying. At all. Not even meaningfully injured.

On the other hand, that was somewhat of an exception, and the problem was not simply that the protagonists didn't die, but that the whole shape of the story was wrong for them to die. So just having one of them die wouldn't fix it.

...

Beyond that, one of the things that really annoys me about character deaths, both protagonist and important-supporting-character alike, is when they happen at a point that is clearly for thematic purposes without the plot support. The book I was reading last night has this problem; the protagonist's not-quite-partner has set up a party in order to try to reconcile the protagonist with a couple of estranged friends -- and then, having set up the party and arranged that they will encounter each other and fulfilled that thematic role, she is "randomly" killed by a drunk driver on the way to the party, and then takes on the new thematic role of a factor in the protagonist's continued depression and regrets about past choices. It's all too tidy and convenient, and dehumanizes her from a character I can care about into a cardboard foil for the protagonist, whose death is worth causing simply to make a thematic point.

Protagonists die of thematic points, too, and it annoys me even more there -- "I exist for this story element that is my life's work, and the work is done, so I will die now. All done. It makes the completion so poignant, and underscores how it was the only purpose I had!" Especially when the death is a convenient way of tidying up the consequences.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

Mike Smith didn't die, he just discorporated, which was clearly different. And Mike Holmes was implied to still be alive later. (Is your "Not that he did anything with the continuity after that book" meant to be the equivalent of "So sad they never made a fifth season of The Wire"?)

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

This thing that you have said here, I agree with it. Death has an emotional impact, and if an author insists on jerking me around by cheapening it, I'm gonna take my eyes and go home.


As far as I know, Carter does not die. Bullets can't...
"Spotted Carter cannot be killed by a bullet."

[txanne.livejournal.com]

Wait! She stole my newsletter idea!

I point to the works of Bear, Elizabeth, as the prime example of doing it right. I *hate* it when she kills characters, because then I *miss* them, but all of the many deaths are required by the story. She never just goes "oh, I need to make Worf mad, I might as well kill his girlfriend." NOT THAT I'M BITTER OR ANYTHING.

[txanne.livejournal.com]

Those of us who love your fictional characters are perfectly fine with that.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, the book says those things in various ways. But those are conventional things for after death in the mythology that book is playing with, so I'm not sure that's any better.

And no sequels to Dune; that's VERY important. Yeah, Heinlein uses the same names for some characters later after the complete triumph of the brain-eater, but they're quite clearly not the same. So anything about Mike from there doesn't count.

[ellen-fremedon.livejournal.com]

This, with bonus hate for character deaths which conveniently spare surviving characters from having to look them in the eye and say uncomfortable things like "you were right" or "please forgive me."

(Snape. Ianto Jones. Not that I'm still bitter at all, oh no.)

[aedifica]

Yes, that's the definition of "be okay with" I ended up using for this too.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

GRRM lost me at Book 1 of "the series everyone is talking about" precisely because of who he axed. I tried to read Book 2, had zero interest because none of the other characters interested me enough, and haven't touched the series since.

[aedifica]

This is the other comment I was going to make--if the character's death feels like it was done to shock, or like it was done because the author got tired of the character, then it will bother me regardless of the other aspects.

(Or, say, the character had to die because the author can't allow his characters to have lasting, healthy romantic relationships. I too am looking at you, Joss Whedon.)

[wshaffer.livejournal.com]

I could easily have checked all the boxes, but I picked the four that seemed most critical to me. I think the most important, which I kind of lumped under "fits the characters arc" is that death has to have a point to it, beyond the writer wanting to tug at my heartstrings or prove some kind of point.

Then there are the weird corner cases that don't really count as protagonist death. I'm reading Iain Banks's Surface Detail at the moment, and one of his POV characters is an uploaded consciousness in a computer simulation. He dies in practically every chapter in which he appears, and it doesn't matter because they just reboot him. I'm not only okay with it, I'm finding it hilarious.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

There's still a risk, yes. But the spread of characters makes it more likely that the reader will care about somebody else enough to keep going.

Something else I just thought of (partial spoilers for Stargate SG-1 and Bones)

[aedifica]

Stargate SG-1 spoiler: in season 5 when Daniel did something very much like dying, my reaction was "...wait. This is happening already? I knew something like this was going to happen, but I thought it would be later!" Because I'd read enough SG-1 fanfic to know that he was going to Ascend, and I also knew that sometime later he was going to un-Ascend, though I didn't know the details of either event.

So I think that's another option: much as I hate to say it because I hate spoilers in general*, I was more OK with this death-like event because I already knew it was going to happen sometime. If I hadn't known that, I would have been upset about Daniel's death, and I'd have been muttering angrily about Zach from Bones and how it was just like the show treated him. (This season of SG-1 was filmed before that season of Bones, I know, but I watched Bones first.) But happily, with the later un-Ascension, the whole thing does work with the story and Daniel's character development much better than Zach disappearing off to jail worked there. IMHO.

* I'm reading comments on this entry with my eyes half-averted so as to try to avoid spoilers on anything I haven't read yet. :-)

[reveritas.livejournal.com]

How about Dumbledore? I basically agree with your comment. I don't like it. You get invested in a character ... then GOODBYE. But Dumbledore I guess was only a tertiary protagonist.

GEORGE MARTIN SPOILERS HERE

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Okay, now, the death of Ned Stark is one of the things that interests me in this. Did you like him early on? Did his death shock you? Whether or not it shocked you, did it bother you emotionally or merely annoy you in its implications (e.g. lack of Ned Stark)?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I would not say "tertiary protagonist." I would say "supporting character." He is one of the "good guys," but very much in the background for most of the series.

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

It all depends on so many factors, some of which are here and some of which are not. And what is this "okay"ness of which you speak? Does it count if I cry a lot but I adore the book? What if I am unmoved and unruffled?

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

Something else I will kindly explore in comments

A) whether they were fridged to motivate another character, or whether the death was related to their own arc and agency

B) whether the death was a punishment for something the author disapproves of and that I think is not worthy of punishment, such as being strong and female

C) whether they were romantically involved with someone of the same gender, because enough already.

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

The best way I can put it is that the death needs to not feel cheap. Especially, it needs to not fit either the'Girl in the Fridge' or 'Dead Fag' tropes. It must not happen only to shock the audience, or to provide another character with pretty angst (and particularly not to provide another character motivation to Swear to Never Be Close to Anyone Again). GRRM and Elizabeth Bear consistently get it right. Like the rest of the thread, I am Looking At Joss Wheadon and Russell T. Davies so hard.

-Nameseeker

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

This is totally failing to support my assertion, at Fourth Street, that my wife and I are two different people.