jpskewedthrone | Character Assassination for Fun and Profit (Boskone)

This is the first of the writerly discussions that I'm stealing from the Boskone program. Because, yes, I am a thief. I was actually on this panel at Boskone and I thought it was a great title for a panel and the description very interesting. Unfortunately, I don't think we got to half of what could be discussed on this panel due to . . . sidetracking, let's call it. So I figured I'd have my say here, on my LJ, where no one can ~~hijack~~ sideline the panel in favor of, oh, I don't know, stories about their children. Or interesting ways to die that make me not want to eat lunch after the panel.

I'll give the panel description according to Boskone, and then just talk about whatever that description inspires in me. I'm hoping that everyone else here has their own opinions and/or comments and will comment heavily.

The Description: The death of a major character often proves upsetting for involved readers. How does it feel to the writer? What genre works have killed off their own most memorably? Does it always help the story? Which writers have a special gift for this dark art?

First of all, I want to state that I have never killed off a character frivolously in any of my novels. One of the things brought up was killing off a character because a writer had grown bored with them, or hated them and never wanted to write about them again, or whatever. I don't do that. If a character dies in one of my novels, even a minor character that has only been there for a chapter, it's because that death was inevitable. Meaning it's was necessary for the plot, or for character development, or because that's what HAS to happen at that point to make the story believable.

But this still leaves tons of options open. For example, the writer can bring in a new character for the purpose of the plot, to perhaps make things more suspenseful or whatever, and then not know what to do with that character. And so "disposes" of them in some way.

I don't do this either. I think the writer needs to treat death seriously in a novel. It can't just happen. It needs to happen for a reason. If it's simply to shock the reader, or to solve a "problem" that the writer has written themselves into, then that's a cop out. It's . . . lazy. If this comes up while you're writing, then it's a sign that you, as the writer, need to sit down and figure out a different way to create that problem, or a different way to resolve the problem. In this instance, death is too easy. And because it's easy, it's going to feel like a cheat to the reader, who may chuck the book across the room and never pick it up again.

And I guess that's my main point about death and how it relates to the writer and the reader and the characters: Death should never be easy.

It shouldn't be easy to the writer. If it is, then I'd question whether or not you, as the writer, are relating well enough to your characters. I personally am invested in my characters, even the "evil" ones, and so when one of them dies, it's rather traumatic to me. I know that for one character's death in particular, I was crushed. I cried when I wrote the death. I thought that would be the end of it, but I cried again during the revision, and then AGAIN during the editor's revision process, and AGAIN when I got the galleys . . . well, you get the picture. I think this death in particular hit me hard because it hadn't been planned. It came as a shock to me when I finally realized that this character WAS going to die. I literally stopped writing when it struck me and went, "Oh crap." Because I realized the character was going to die a good 200 or 300 pages before the actual death. So if I figured it out so early, why not stop it? Well, the story demanded it. It was too perfect, so even though I hated the fact that a death was involved, it had to happen, whether I liked it or not.

Of course, not all of the deaths affect me that badly. But they affect me to some extent, even if it's just a vicious sense of judgment on my part. Meaning the character deserved to die. I'm still emotionally involved with that character. The same is true for evil characters, because if you're writing well, you know that the evil character isn't evil in their own mind. They have their own goals and agenda and friends and feelings, and so their death should be just as significant to the writer as the death of a good character. The difference is that the death of the good character and the aftereffects generally take center stage, while the aftereffects of the death of an evil character (how it affects their friends, etc) generally isn't center stage. But the writer should still be aware of it, even if it's all happening backstage.

The reader should be emotionally involved with the characters as well. I personally take the email from a fan saying that they couldn't believe I killed such and such off, how evil could I be, to be a good email. Because it means that I've succeeded in making someone care about these characters, so much that they're invested in the character's life. And when that life ends, for whatever reason, they were involved enough to send me an email. I just hope they realize that I more than likely had the same reaction to the character's death as they did. Death should not be easy for the reader, not if the writer has succeeded in what they've attempted when writing the book.

But in the end, I think it's the characters themselves that are what the writer should focus on, and this idea did come up at the panel discussion at Boskone. A death has consequences, for everyone surrounding that character. Traumatic consequences. And a writer should never, ever, gloss over those emotional changes that everyone else should be going through. If death becomes easy for the characters, then the book has failed. If a character kills someone, and then just moves on to the next part of the quest, or if they witness a death and just move on, or if they inadvertently cause a death and just shrug and move on, then there's something seriously wrong with the book. A death, any death, should shake up everyone involved with that death, even if they're only involved peripherally. I don't mean they should all burst into tears and sob over the grave. But it should affect them in some way. Even if they simply go quiet and walk away, never shed a tear, etc. In that case, they've internalized the death. So while there's no outward sign it has affected them, there are probably some rather interesting things going in internally for that character. In the end, these reactions are the most important part for the death of a character. Because they affect the story. If a character dies and no one is affected . . . then I'd say that that character probably shouldn't have been in the story.

And again, I mean all of this in layers . . . or as I said early, where the death appears on stage. If it's a major character, then the affects should be center stage and gone into explicitly. If it's a minor character, then these affects won't be center stage necessarily. And if its the death of a spear carrier, someone who doesn't even have a name, then perhaps the affects won't be seen onstage at all. BUT THE WRITER SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE AFFECTS ANYWAY. No matter where they appear on stage. Because they'll still have minor ripples elsewhere on stage that should be noted.

And I think that's all I wanted to say on the topic at the panel. As I said, most of this got mentioned at the panel in some form or another, and this post isn't supposed to be a hardcore "essay" on the topic in any sense, just me rambling. I'm sure I left something out. But that's what comments are for! So comment away and I'm sure we'll catch anything I missed.