Killing off a character.. (Read 1,239 times)

[blueyed358]

I am curious to see what your thoughts are, both from the writers and those who read, about killing off character. While the character I recently killed off was a main character, I felt there was a lot of potential story to come from her death. What is your opinions on the subject?

[Kpatch]

Great question! I think if it works with the story, you have to do it. I don't like it when it's gratuitous, but sometimes you just have to. It's a hard decision to make. How did your readers react, Blueyed?

[blueyed358]

well at first they were mostly guessing that someone else had stolen her ID and it wasn't really her. But today I posted a chapter putting tose theories to rest..I made a number of people cry..

[jwsel]

I know a lot of people hate stories where significant characters die, but I think it all depends on the way the death is handled and how it fits the story. When an author kills a character for shock value, it's annoying. But when a death serves a major plot purpose, it can be very well done. And deaths aren't always tragic; sometimes, a seemingly tragic ending can be a show of heroism. (Think of the ending of A Tale of Two Cities, for instance.)

When I first started writing (in another fandom), I killed a major character in the first story I posted. A lot of readers hoped the "death" was a plot-twist and the character would be alive in the end, but that never felt right to me. The death always felt necessary to the story, so I kept it. And I don't feel that any of the other deaths I've written into stories have been gratuitous.

Personally, I found that being willing to kill major characters gives you a lot of freedom as a writer. I know other writers who are very adamant that nobody will die in their stories. But that removes a lot of the suspense. When characters are in mortal danger, the reader should fear they might die. If the readers know there is no chance of death, it is equivalent to a major spoiler.

[blueyed358]

I totally agree..I love to keep the readers guessing

[MrsM]

I like if there is an unknown. I don't mind if a character is killed off if it truly serves a purpose. I don't want them to die just because it sounds like something to do.

[DancingDays]

No one ever dies in Salem.......

[Kpatch]

That's kind of a problem though, don't you think? It takes away the dramatic impact of a death when you EXPECT the deceased to return.

[fluffysmom]

I'm okay with a character's death if it works well in the story.

[DancingDays]

Oct 7, 2012 21:28:39 GMT -5 Kpatch said:

That's kind of a problem though, don't you think? It takes away the dramatic impact of a death when you EXPECT the deceased to return.

To me, it's a running joke (like the going upstairs thing). It's just what Days does. It's not right or wrong, it just is.

As for fanfic - I don't mind, just so long as everything is IN CHARACTER. Sorry, was that yelling? I didn't mean to yell, just emphasize.

[blueyed358]

Oct 7, 2012 21:28:39 GMT -5 Kpatch said:

That's kind of a problem though, don't you think? It takes away the dramatic impact of a death when you EXPECT the deceased to return.

True...case in point my favorite..how many times and ways can they kill Jack ! As much as I love Jack/Matt it has become a joke..why hire him just for him to be killed off yet again. It gets to the point where there is no real impact to his death

[jwsel]

I agree that all the coming back from the dead does reduce the impact of deaths, though some of the early death storylines were brilliant. Watching some of Deidre Hall's scenes after Roman's "death" in 1984 give me chills. Even a storyline where a character is mistakenly believed dead can be really well done. Some of the scenes after Shane was thought killed in 1989 are excellent, with Patsy Pease and Charlotte Ross really giving some great performances.

But the flipside is also true, with "deaths" being used for cheap theatrics. Days really annoyed me with the safehouse storyline in May. It was like they wanted to give a bunch of actors something for their Emmy reels, so they had everyone believe six major characters were dead for all of 2-3 days. And then, once they had the big emotional memorial scene, they were all told the six were alive. The whole storyline made no sense.

I do have to say that the "nobody dies" trope did let Esp13 and me have some fun in Collateral Damage. The story is set during the period when Marlena and realRoman return, plus our entire premise is Steve returning from the dead. So we did get to have some fun with the thoughts and dialogue. Early on, Shane thinks about how it's funny that death never seems permanent in Salem and one of my favorite exchanges in the entire fic was written by Esp13. When Steve finds out that Kayla was in a relationship with Shane, he sarcastically says, "My return from the dead seems to have messed up the perfect romance." She responds, "No, your death messed up the perfect romance." I must have read that exchange 100 times and that line still gets me. And I always chuckle at one of my own lines. During a scene in which a character's life is in danger, one of the kids asks, "Is Daddy going to die again?" That's a line that can only happen in a soap opera.

[slyn11]

I think REAL human emotion is the backbone of good dramatic storytelling. I think pain is what makes our characters real. So much growth comes from being faced with life or death situations. I am all for killing off characters. Death is a part of life. We can't ignore that as writers.

People coming back from the dead is the number one thing I hate about soap operas. It cheapens the pain and grief process that the characters left behind have to go through. Not to mention, it provokes wasted emotion from viewers. And soaps that use the "back from the dead" scenario too much, run the risk of never being able to "sell" real emotion on their shows, fans don't take anything seriously, no condition is permanent.

[blueyed358]

I think the worst reason a show can use to kill a character off is because the actor or actress is leaving. Surely a team of professional writers should be able to come up with another way. Sometimes it feels like they are saying, let's just kill him/her off..we can always bring them back later on. A death of a character should effect the other characters..not just for an episode or two. (One guess as to whom I am referring to ). Don't get me wrong I understand the need to move the story on but a death of a spouse/child for example should have an impact for more than a few days.

[jwsel]

I disagree about an actor's leaving being a bad reason to kill a character off. When Wayne Northrop left, Roman's death was very well done and had a huge impact. It propelled major storylines for months -- Bo's guilt over leaving Roman's body, his need for revenge on Stefano (which lasted through the Pawn), Marlena's "killing" Stefano and struggle to move on with Chief Cates, Shane's entire reason for staying in Salem, Kim's reason for helping Shane with Leopold Bronski, etc. Hope's death in 1990 (when Kristian Alfonso left) sent Bo on a tailspin and caused major soul-searching as he faced life as a single father and then moved on with Carly. Steve's death that same year (when Stephen Nichols left) had major repercussions on a large part of Salem and played a significant role in major storylines, including Nick's death, Alamainia (and Lawrence's coming to Salem), and pretty much everything that happened with Kayla for the rest of her run.

But those were well-written death storylines, at a time when death did have meaning in Salem. Jack's death was terribly written and the complete absence of any sense of mourning on Jennifer's part just contributes to the destruction of her character.