The decision to have a character die

[respheal]

The death needs to either bring closure or motivation. I'm gonna use Fullmetal Alchemist as an example because it has great examples of both.

Motivation: The Elric's mother's death as motivation for...everything. She was clearly written just to die, but still.
Hughes's death. Not written just to die, he did contribute other things, but BOY HOWDY was his death impactful. It became a huge motivator for Mustang.

Closure: I won't name names, but he dies in the epilogue, and it's a relief. That dude just needed some rest and it's about time he got it.

[spadesart]

i did make a character coming up in my comic just to be killed but he'll only appear for 1 or two pages at the most and its just for that scene. other than that i dont think any of my main characters are planned to be killed actually?? never actually realized that wow

[tsukiko]

Oh man now I'm a little worried. I mean im planning to kill a number of my characters, theyll die in the later parts BUT some of them were/will be featured in the beggining of the story! XD since i hate killing extras, the effect it will bring me will be honest and the feeling may reach the readers as well
reading through this thread though. . . I just got more scared of the risk i took xD

[69Michi]

Although it's not to the point of people dropping off left and right, but my comic will have a lot of character death, considering it's on the subject of zombie apocalypse. I respect Game of Throne for how it can reasonably kill of any character without flinching, it gives me the impression that okay everyone is the same, there is no main character in real life, everybody will die eventually; unlike a lot of story you read where "Oh this person is a main character, so no matter what happens, they will survive." Like in AoT. But to be honest, deaths like in Game of Throne tire me out and gave me no reason to connect with any character in general, so it get boring quick haha.

I'm fine with the story making characters just to be killed off if the plot and setting are fit. It's like you can't expect no one to die in a setting like AoT, plenty people are gonna die, no matter if you are emotionally connected to them or not. I do divide the priority when it comes to my character's death though. Minor death (background character, random character we come across) and major death (a person in the main cast) I think it's how you execute it will make it less unacceptable to the readers. If you can't find a meaningful reason for their death, give them something dumb to do that suits their personality, and give them the befitting consequence. Don't just suddenly kill people off for no absolute reason except for the shock factor, I hate that.

[indagold]

If the character serves literally no point besides to make the sads then I can't stand it. I remember reading a short comic where they introduce a puppy with a stubby leg out no where and everyone is all sad over the puppy and it dies immediately by drowning. Literally the worst cliche and it was coming from a comic writer I really liked too.

Also I don't like authors who coddle their characters. They throw such a big fit if one has to die and complain their little cinnamon bun has to have conflict. First of all they're not real, second of all you have a story to write, you're not babysitting someone. I don't know why people get so attached to something you lose the ability to understand how to write.

I don't go through much of a giant thought process for death, I see it as another part to drive the story much like anything else. How character's react, how it changes the plot. Things like that.

[marygold]

Yeah the shock factor, don't we all love that .-. Hope I don't accidentally do that don't know if anybody goes through this but sometimes I can't tell if my thought process is a good one or bad one

[69Michi]

IKR LMFAO In a way Game of Throne sorta is guilty for this shock factor. I won't say the upcoming first death in my comic won't be a shock factor, but at least I think I give /that character/ enough of a reason to die. Also apparently every readers want them death, it's not like it's that unexpected

[storytimebiondi]

they would look at that possibility and see if it serves the story and serves that character.

@shazzbaa and @AnnaLandin both said it quite eloquently already. However, I will reinforce some narrative structures.

First off, everyone has a different style of writing. Some pre-plan their entire plot, events, and so on before they even bring pen to paper. Others will just begin writing off the cuff, fly by the seat of their pants (plot wise) and then go back and make changes later. There are hybrids of both. My point being that depending on method, the decision to kill a character will come differently. However, there are still rules, as mentioned before by the two aforementioned well thought out answers to this question.

Death has to serve a purpose, otherwise it's considered poor plotting. In the circles I went in when I was in university for creative writing, there was the idea that the death of a character came when that particular character's role in the story was done. And I find this to be true in most settings. However, death isn't always the answer in this case. The character can simply leave and not come back, or so on. Death still has to serve its purpose here.

I wish I could better remember the death of Collin Creevey, but I am certain that Rowling had very intentional reasons for killing him. As I am certain she is a pre-plotter, and would have put a lot of thought into the purpose of her characters (especially since she writes them so well).

All this being said, the moral of the story is, be cautious with death. Make sure it serves a purpose to the plot, and make sure that the character involved has completed his/her arc or purpose in the story as well. If the latter is true and the former is not, I would recommend just writing them out of the story. Have them settle down someplace else. Don't kill them.

[MichelleAntisocial]

I think this all depends on the type of story. For example, in my comic, things are not going so great for anyone and unfortunately there's a lot of death involved. And yeah, sometimes I write in characters knowing I'm going to kill them off. Sometimes they have back stories, sometimes they're basically just extras. Besides setting a tone and creating a sense of urgency in the given environment, I'm doing it because I'm trying to convey some things about how my main characters handle grief (which they both handle differently). More importantly, I'm trying to convey a sense of powerlessness as they are not quite traditional heroes.. I've also lost a few people this year and instead of that making me not want to have a comic with death in it, it's made me want to more accurately portray loss.

But to be fair, I'm not really turned by any stories that include death, as long as it's handled well. I even don't mind it being used as a shock factor or to create an emotional scene, I just want good writing.

[donathinfrye]

This has been said by quite a few in other ways, but I'll toss my opinion into the mix here. There is power in death, and even in senseless death. It arrests control from the other characters, from the reader. It echoes the scariest things about our real world (where death is often all too senseless). It asks our characters how they deal with grief, with guilt, with violence, with disease, with accidents, with change. Those are all scary, important internal engines.

Sure, how the writer deals with death before and after and during the event matters ... but that's no surprise. How they deal with every part of the story matters.

Game of Thrones is more than the characters that die tragically -- it's a fantastical reflection of a historical period of Europe. The Walking Dead is more than a game of character russian roulette -- it's a look into the souls of a people forever lost, forever changed, forever forced to be survivors and victims, and how those characters deal with that harsh reality. LOST, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, many of these shows/books/comics are more than just the anticipation and release of character death. But the threat enhances the stakes for all of the characters involved, precisely because there isn't plot armor (or, at least, less of it) or a safety net.

I don't generally feel it's fair to say that a writer ever creates a character just for the purpose of killing them. In the panels where that character is alive, what they do, what they say, that all matters. It's not erased when they die (and perhaps it's only emphasized by their death). After all ... and not to be overly macabre, but aren't we all going to die? That's an uncomfortable truth, and even more uncomfortable is the truth that some of us will die younger, more suddenly, more unexpectedly than others. But, I would gently argue that no wo/man that is born was born only to die, no matter how young they might cross into the unknown next.

It's the same for stories ... in my opinion, at least.

[storytimebiondi]

@donathinfrye solid and intelligent answer. Respect.

[Rea]

I think that it can be very important to make sure that your readers know that your characters aren't safe. If they're put in a situation that they aren't fit to handle, it can be very refreshing for an audience to view the consequences of this scenario.

[Heck]

When a character dies, it has to be for a reason. It has to reflect their purpose and struggle. A character who would give anything to save his best friend should die in attempt to save his best friend, not choking on a chicken bone at Denny's. The only acceptation is if the character's death makes a statement about some truth to the reader or reveals something to the protagonist.

It's been a really long time since I read HP books, but wasn't the purpose of cameraboy's death to reveal one of these truths to Harry?

[Momomori]

well it depends on how you want the story to go I suppose, usually the death of a character should make you cry if their important, and that can be used as a catalyst for a either character turning evil or becoming a better person. it really all depends on how you want the story to go, you don't even need to kill off a character to have tragedy, I mean sometimes letting some live isn't always considered mercy if their forced to live a horrible life.

[marygold]

SPOILER SPOILER I think Collin's petrification back in book two revealed one of the Basilisk's secrets to Harry. If I remember correctly, Harry only noticed Collin's corpse before he went into the woods to confront Voldemort. END SPOILER

[Shanny8]

@Heck people do die choking on chicken bones- it happens...lol

[Heck]

Sure, but within the context of my example it equates to poor writing at best.

[nerosmoke]

Making people Die is a normal thing think how many times superman has died.

[Rudydemon]

For me, it depends upon the story that is being crafted.

I have a few that take place in situations where people die (war, adventure, colonization)
In these situations, to me, to just have side characters that the reader has no relationship with die, seems cheap. You wont be able to feel the grief of the community because you didn't know this person. You have no reason to care about their death. To create a character who will only die a few chapters later also feels cheap because it is very obvious that they were just "made to die" and it was just an emotion grab, not attempting to truly reach the reader.

Many times, the character's I know are going to die are there for a while. We all deal with death at some point in our lives, grief is a natural part of living to me, so it feels natural and sort of necessary to also put that in my own stories. Many times they are one of the main characters, (So think RON instead of FRED). You have an intimate relationship with this character. Sometimes their death is self inflicted (I do have a suicide in a story I want to write), sometimes its an accident, sometimes its a heroic action. Sometimes its in the middle of the story, sometimes its the climax. Sometimes its even towards the beginning, and the more you learn about the character thru other characters reactions and reminiscences about them can make it seem like you knew them better too.,

But it always has to work for the story. If you just want to show that people die, then yeah throw the rag dolls to the slaughter. But if you are trying to communicate to your readers Grief, loss, the tragedy of War, the senselessness of accidents, healing, ect... you'll need a character to die, and to die in a way that communicates that message.

Then again, if you are doing a horror story (Thou I've always found it a bit more horrific when deaths happened to characters I had attachments with) or you have some nameless soldiers being shot down, or whatever. If the nameless death needs to happen within the narrative, then do it.

So i guess after that ramble, its all about what you are trying to convey in the death (change in dynamics, a theme, a feeling) to determine how you should implement it.

(Ex: I dont actually think GRR Martin just kills people off. I've always thought it mimicked the reality of death in such environments, and the truth that you can never call it. Which i like. Thou I will admit, I didn't feel most of the Harry Potter deaths (In the final battles) because they were all done off screen. While on one side it also mimicked how, in a war, you may find out your compatriots died, the lack of really seeing and feeling it felt a little cheap to me. Especially since its done right at the end, so there is really no time to delve into the aftermath, and its just sort of stated then gone. But that's just me. I personally think killing a bunch of characters off screen (So to say) is not that impacting and really just more annoying)

[scullpanda]

well in comics I like when its placed well as death is part of life and sometimes inevitable or even a shock placing a well timed and planned character death can make all the difference,it needs to flow naturally into the story in some way, I know I'm planning some and I'm having for a specific reason a purpose in the story that leads to an important plot point.