Characters dying at the end of books.
- Thread starter shwnbob
- Start date
Yeah well, I was trying to avoid a spoiler by making a subtle reference to the main character of the book. Also, I was doing it to check if it's the same Winston I had in mind.
Just to make things clear, I was referring to Winston being afraid of rats.
Just to make things clear, I was referring to Winston being afraid of rats.
The one book i remeber reading where the character dies at the end is
. The characters death really made the book make more sense and gave the reader a kind of saddened, yet humorous approach to the conclusion of the book.
Fogjuice - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
Sometimes yes, other times, NO NO NO!
I'm sorry, but one book that did this, and did this absolutely horribly, was Star Wars Republic Commando Order 66. Essentially...
I'm sorry, but one book that did this, and did this absolutely horribly, was Star Wars Republic Commando Order 66. Essentially...
The story ended with the Jedi wife of one of the Commandos dieing in one of the stupidest ways ever. Order 66 is called, and she protects the life of a Clone Trooper about to be killed by a Jedi, by JUMPING IN FRONT OF THE LIGHTSABER TWENTY FEET AWAY FROM ETERNAL PEACE AND HAPPINESS. Instead of simply walking into the parked transport and escaping to live with her husband and CHILD in peace, she gets herself killed in the stupidest way possible. The writer just went, 'Hey, this is going to end on a note of optimism and happiness, where the characters have finally come out on top after a long struggle... I HAVE TO FIX THIS FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA AND DARKNESS!'. It's absolutely retarded and has tainted the series since.
Randomly killing the protagonist can make the entire story seem meaningless. There's nothing wrong with a happy ending. On the other hand, sometimes protagonist murder can be appropriate. It depends on the story.
Subverting a happy ending by randomly dropping a fridge on the glorious victor is a cheap shot and really annoying.
Subverting a happy ending by randomly dropping a fridge on the glorious victor is a cheap shot and really annoying.
I think that an author needs to stay consistent. If the characters they create are part of a swashbuckling Hollywood-style adventure, then it often doesn't make sense for them to die. That's what "redshirts" are for anyway.
However, if they establish a darker narrative where the characters themselves realise that they face possible death, then it can be an effective plot device that really drives the whole book home. It can also be used as the literary equivelent of a shock tactic.
But when the author throws in random deaths just to give the book a more 'serious' tone, then it breaks immersion and generally just ruins the whole damn thing.
I generally like darker stories, so I like to see well-orchestrated character deaths.
However, if they establish a darker narrative where the characters themselves realise that they face possible death, then it can be an effective plot device that really drives the whole book home. It can also be used as the literary equivelent of a shock tactic.
But when the author throws in random deaths just to give the book a more 'serious' tone, then it breaks immersion and generally just ruins the whole damn thing.
Like in The Deathly Hallows, where half of the characters from throughout the entire series died. I mean, just a few would have been enough to drive the point home, but too many deaths and the readers stops caring.
I generally like darker stories, so I like to see well-orchestrated character deaths.
man.... you should read the Horus Heresy, so many of the main characters die
in this case, yes I think the books are better because some of the main characters die
in this case, yes I think the books are better because some of the main characters die
It depends how it is done and why it was done and how it relates and how things are managed later on because of it. It always has you feeling sad or shocked, but in the end, no matter if you predicted it or not, it should make sense.
shwnbob said:
You need to read "Vampire Wars: The Von Carstein Trilogy" by Steven Savile. That series goes through protagonists like a hot knife through butter and it's awesome.
I've read a few books where a character's death is not only defining of the book, but the series and world setting from that point on (for example, Sturm's death in the Dragonlance books).
But the rats had nothing to do with Wilson's death. The comment doesn't make sense!maninahat said:
Unless they shot him with a rat-bullet
It can be very good, it can also be really bad. Depends how it's done.
For example,
A bad example is as follows,
For example,
at least (I'm sleepy) one Iain M Banks novel has the protagonist die at the end, and it wouldn't work any other way imo.
In the film Legend, there are two different endings. One where he dies and one where he survives. It completely changes the film from awesome (dies) to mediocre (survives).
A bad example is as follows,
In the latest Lee Child Jack Reacher novel the book is left on a cliff hanger with the reader not knowing whether he's dead or alive. This is bad. I also think the news was spread before people had read the book so everyone knew it was going to happen. Also, the book includes, for the first time in the series, a "to be continued" page at the back. Marketing ploy or what? I mean, I want to know what happened, and anyone who's read that far in the series does too, but effectively telling me to buy the next book makes me want to not do so.
Who's this Wilson now? And of course he didn't die because of rats but if you read the book(like, reading every page of it ok?), the rats would surely remind you of him no matter what.Hubilub said:
They were what Winston feared the most
Read the book called Swan Song, and dont forget to wear the stupid helmet because that book will blow your mind!
Damn it, I'm too tired to even remember names. I need some coffee, and a ham-sandwich.alexdulcianu said:
It'sHubilub said:
1984 isn't it? I love that book, just recently read it.
I only like when characters die when it makes sense for them to be killed, when it has major bearing on the plot, rather than just to get a cheap 'twist'.
EDIT: Damn ninjas.