Killing Off Characters

[tangential1]

I was mourning the loss of a beloved character over on the "What are you reading" thread and thought this topic just might warrant a thread of it's own.

I can't really think of too many books in which a major character that I loved was killed off. Sheri mentioned that she felt there was a betrayal by the author (of the readers' trust) when they kill off major characters. And I rather have to agree.

I think the only book where several of my favorite characters died and I was fairly okay with it was Harry Potter. For some reason, while I was completely sad that they were dead, I wasn't quite as upset as I am right now about the book I just finished. Why is that? I'm thinking it's a matter of surprise, maybe? Maybe some books have a level of foreboding built into the rest of the book that has you on guard for something to happen, so you aren't quite as shocked when it does?

How do you feel about authors killing off characters you love? Is there a particular book/series that really got to you?

[Strawberry Curls]

This is a major sore spot with me. I do not like it when a character that has been introduced and then fleshed out over many books is suddenly dispatched. It seems an insult to the reader. The most famous case of this that came to mind was in Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley series. I know many readers dropped the series in protest and were very upset by her decision to kill a character suddenly and shockingly.

I suppose I should also point out that Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes, much to the dismay of the readers of the Strand Magazine. An urban legend says many people in London wore black arm bands to mourn the loss of the detective, but I believe that has never been proved. What is fact is the Strand lost up-wards of twenty thousand subscriptions over the death of Sherlock Holmes.

[Lenore]

I can't say I ever hold it against an author when he/she kills off a character. First of all, that's life -- people die, and some of the people who die are ones you loved, or at least counted on. Secondly, it's the author's book -- the author gets to choose what happens. (Which, depending on how well-written the book is, either works or doesn't.) Having said all that -- AND THIS IS A SPOILER FOR CHARLES FRAZIER'S COLD MOUNTAIN, SO STOP HERE IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT --

I was absolutely stunned and shocked by Inman's death at the end of Cold Mountain. I had been so certain that he and Ada would survive together. It was a very powerful and devastating climax.

[Jennifer]

I guess I have read books where major characters were killed off and I didn't fall apart. Erin mentioned HP and I have to say, one of the reasons I can not read "Deathly Hallows" the millions of times I have read the others is the amount and rapidity of the deaths. I was blown away by the death of Harry's owl, not to mention Mad-eye, Dobby, need I go on? But there is a sense of fairness about death. If you make me a love a character and just willy-nilly kill him off to see me squirm, then I have to stop reading your books. Sounds a bit like that is what happened in the Kate Shugak series. I just saw "Little Women" on tv last weekend and while I had read the book, I couldn't remember much having read it in my long-distant youth. And while I felt wretched about Beth, somehow it wasn't done in such a way as to make me fling down the book and vow to never read another such story. Why is that? I don't know. Fairness in this issue isn't something I can define, but I know it when I see it, how unclear is that?
Jennifer

[KarenB]

I'm going to have to think about this a bit . . . I do remember sobbing bitterly when Beth died in Little Women, but didn't feel betrayed as her illness led inescapably to that conclusion. The Kate Shugak series, while that was also a devastating event, and not inevitable, it did work with the scenario as written. The "bad guys" were evil and evil produces really bad and painful events. The depth of the response to that event seems to me to be an acknowledgement of the power of Dana's writing. Her characters are so real that they provoke that kind of impassioned response. Also, from a writerly mechanics point of view, it does provide much more fodder for Dana to work with - new relationships, explorations of past little acknowledged tensions, etc. However, if she kills off Mutt or Johnny, I'm out of there! Then there are the Elizabeth George books. I was already becoming weary of the everlasting, overwhelming guilty feelings of all the her characters (get over it! you aren't responsible for everything!!) and then the senseless killing of a major character just left me totally cold. I have not been able to read any of her books since.

[Jennifer]

Karen,
Your very reasonable response to Kate almost had me convinced I was a loser/wimp! Then you mentioned the writer that laid you low with an unfair death or series of events and I just had to smile! I am coming to the conclusion that we get particularly attached or see things in a certain way that makes some deaths or plot events seem right and true and some a vicious manipulation of our sensibilities! Oh yes, I cried at Beth's death on the screen. Could I have possibly remained untouched as a child? Yikes. Maybe I never finished the book or maybe I was a hard-hearted little blighter.
Jennifer

[Pat Floyd]

My reaction is very much like yours, Karen. With Elizabeth George I went from enjoying her earlier books to finding them becoming pretentiously long and tedious with the only thing going for them some characters I liked. With the elimination of one of them I felt disgust at the author, not grief. With Dana Stabenow, I felt that the death was something that happened, not something she did and that the subsequent books are an appropriate response to tragedy in life. For those who haven't gotten there yet, A Grave Denied has life in the Park and in Kate's relationships as much on an even keel as life in the Park ever gets.

[tangential1]

This is a major sore spot with me. I do not like it when a character that has been introduced and then fleshed out over many books is suddenly dispatched. It seems an insult to the reader.

You know, I think I'd be more okay with the death of the main main character than other prominent characters in a series. I think I'd be a little less bitter, at least? If the author kills off the main character, they are obviously done writing about that character. If they go for a major secondary character, it feels like it's just a plot device. And I think that's where it hits me.

The objective side of my brain understands how that character's death will open up new avenues to the series and development of our main character...and that in real life bad things happen to good people. But I can't help being indignant that such a well developed and loved character was sacrificed to the writing gods.

[tangential1]

With Dana Stabenow, I felt that the death was something that happened, not something she did

That's an excellent distinction, Pat! Thank you! I'll try to approach the rest of the books with that frame of mind.

I think it's a little too easy to be cynical toward the author...whether they deserve it or not.:o

[Pat Floyd]

I think a great deal depends on how good a writer is and how much a writer shows that she values her characters and at the same time mirrors successfully the realities of life and the probable outcomes of a sequence of events. At the same time I find that with age I have a different perspective about loss and grief. I know that in the next twenty years or in extraordinary circumstances twenty-five I shall die. My best friend twenty years younger lives in pain and has enough physical problems that he may die before I do. To lose any family would be very hard indeed. There have been other deaths, but life is good, just as it is; God is good; we live with wonderful people and animals in a beautiful world with minds to learn new things and emotions for loving and appreciating one another. I find that I don't mind seeing in fiction death, if it is honestly grieved, as much as I once did.

[tangential1]

Had a realization just now that I thought was funny. Not funny haha, but more funny interesting. With the exception of "bargaining," I'm pretty sure I've been moving my way through the five stages of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model) since finishing that last book.

[Pat Floyd]

Now that you mention it, Erin, I've done that with books too and hadn't realized it.

[tangential1]

And the "well it mimicks RL".... doesn't work for me. The truth "I wasn't happy at the moment with the way the plot was going, I prefer to let her wallow more...." I'd except... doesn't mean I'll continue reading your books though.

I think the thing that I find hard to believe with the "it mimics real life" argument is that the survival of the main character is usually so unrealistic. It's completely implausible that the main character will have nearly died a dozen times, but have survived by shear stubbornness or whatever. It ends up giving the main character this sort of super-hero quality. And people dying in super-hero stories is always a plot device, no getting around that.

[SarahBZ]

I haven't posted to this discussions for a long time but I am very interested in this topic. I agree that the important issue when it comes to death is the respect the author gives to that death and the reasoning behind it. I had issue with some of the deaths in Deathly Hallows because I felt characters I loved were taken away without any respect to what they meant. I also need the death to happen for some reason other than to wring an emotional response from me. The Mortal Instruments series by Cassandra Clare had a character death that I thought was just to shock and cause the readers pain. I do remember the character deaths in the books I read as a child distinctly but Beth's death in Little Women and Matthew's in the Anne series had purpose behind them. Also in the realm of children's boks the character death that most effected me was Anne Franks, because that book was read before I had a true grasp between fiction and reality in books and Anne was a character to me. I think readers love characters and feel betrayed by any attacks on them whether it is through death or even having actions that the reader perceives as their personality and morals.

[SCWillson]

I remember when Gandalf died in "The Fellowship of the Ring" when I was first reading JRR Tolkien as a lad of 13. I was so upset even my dad, who is hardly the noticing/nurturing type, asked me what was wrong. :D

[Jennifer]

I haven't posted to this discussions for a long time but I am very interested in this topic. I agree that the important issue when it comes to death is the respect the author gives to that death and the reasoning behind it. I had issue with some of the deaths in Deathly Hallows because I felt characters I loved were taken away without any respect to what they meant. I also need the death to happen for some reason other than to wring an emotional response from me.

You know, if you back way back, away from the story, you can see that JKR wanted us all to realize in a very personal way, the total absurdity of war. How it is random, how the deaths are random. And how totally helpless it makes us feel. And that would be the meaning (or my interpretation) she's trying to wring from the situation. Now with that said, even though I could "rationalize" why there were so many deaths of characters I loved, I still could not stomach it. I can talk the talk, but not walk the ...well you get the drift.
Jennifer

[tangential1]

Ironically, the deaths in Harry Potter that got to me the most weren't the characters that I loved the most. I completely burst into tears over Dobby, but I'd found him annoying through the series. But then by the time the big battle was going on at the end of book 7 and all my favorite people were dying, I think I was pretty numb to it. Battle fatigue. Too shocked to be any more shocked?

[Jennifer]

Ironically, the deaths in Harry Potter that got to me the most weren't the characters that I loved the most. I completely burst into tears over Dobby, but I'd found him annoying through the series. But then by the time the big battle was going on at the end of book 7 and all my favorite people were dying, I think I was pretty numb to it. Battle fatigue. Too shocked to be any more shocked?

Dobby's death was so sad because for me he'd been so devoted to Harry and how many times do you have someone so fully devoted to you? But Harry's loving care of him, how gently he laid him in his grave, that caused me to blubber and it was all just a story....
Jennifer

[tangential1]

It's that whole "dies in their arms" scenario that always gets me. One half of my brain wants to scoff because it is so cliche to have someone die in someone else's arms in a book, but the other half is blubbering.

[SarahBZ]

The deaths that bothered me the most were Lupin and Tonks. I loved them as characters, I really felt that Lupin was a true father figure in Harry's life and it hurt my heart that their deaths were revealed by noting that their bodies were laying in the Great Room. At that point in the book I was numb as well but I felt cut by the fact that I will never know how they died, but I guess such is war.

[Pat Floyd]

I think the thing that I find hard to believe with the "it mimics real life" argument is that the survival of the main character is usually so unrealistic. It's completely implausible that the main character will have nearly died a dozen times, but have survived by shear stubbornness or whatever. It ends up giving the main character this sort of super-hero quality. And people dying in super-hero stories is always a plot device, no getting around that.

In reflecting on this discussion, I agree that a death for the purpose of mimicking real life is not particularly helpful. We all know about death and taxes. But when a writer reflects real life by showing that there is healing after loss, that we are resilient creatures, and that life can become good again, the writer is doing a service in giving hope for life in all its tragedy, comedy, and complexity. I can also understand that sometimes in our reading we want to keep it simple and upbeat.

[tangential1]

But when a writer reflects real life by showing that there is healing after loss, that we are resilient creatures, and that life can become good again, the writer is doing a service in giving hope for life in all its tragedy, comedy, and complexity.

I'm really glad that Ms. Stabenow set the next book 9 months past the fateful events of the last. I think the perspective provided by time allows for what you are talking about.

[Millie]

Interesting thread :)
Dobby's death threw me. The inscription on his grave - "Here lies Dobby, a Free Elf" had me sobbing my little heart out. And Lupin and Tonks - to me, that was the final killing off of everyone who had protected Harry. Thank goodness she left Hagrid alone!

The other literary death that upsets me every time is Walter Blythe, in Rilla of Ingleside.

[Elizabeth Chase]

JKR's reasoning for the deaths of Remus and Tonks is beyond annoying -- to complete the cycle of the orphaned boy who in this case will be raised by his loving grandmother instead of the hateful Dursleys.

The death (and the aftermath of that death) that bothered me the most was the death by snake of Severus Snape. Granted the poor man had no happy life ahead of him, but to leave him to rot in the Shrieking Shack? :mad:

[Millie]

I don't remember that! Right, off to find the book :)

[Jennifer]

Interesting thread :)
Dobby's death threw me. The inscription on his grave - "Here lies Dobby, a Free Elf" had me sobbing my little heart out. And Lupin and Tonks - to me, that was the final killing off of everyone who had protected Harry. Thank goodness she left Hagrid alone!

The other literary death that upsets me every time is Walter Blythe, in Rilla of Ingleside.


At one point it was rumored that Hagrid would be the big death in book V. Also, I can not remember exactly how Sevie died but I know LV was there. It was, by any estimation, an ignominious death. A whimper, not a bang. I remember one livid anti-Snape fan announcing on HPFGU that he would SHRED his entire collection of books if Snape didn't apologize to Harry!
Jennifer

[Elizabeth Chase]

At one point it was rumored that Hagrid would be the big death in book V. Also, I can not remember exactly how Sevie died but I know LV was there. It was, by any estimation, an ignominious death. A whimper, not a bang. I remember one livid anti-Snape fan announcing on HPFGU that he would SHRED his entire collection of books if Snape didn't apologize to Harry!
Jennifer

A lot of us thought that every time JKR said a character was going to die that it had to be Hagrid! Turns out he was never in any danger because almost from the beginning she had the image in her mind of Hagrid carrying the supposedly dead Harry out of the forest.

Things were so insane (IMO) on HP4GU at times that I left for awhile. I've returned, but I don't intend to ever post there again.

-eta-
LV sicced Nagini on SS because he thought SS possessed the Elder Wand (he didn't). After Snape dies and the kids leave he is never mentioned again, ever. Hence my comment that he was left to rot.

[Jennifer]

A lot of us thought that every time JKR said a character was going to die that it had to be Hagrid! Turns out he was never in any danger because almost from the beginning she had the image in her mind of Hagrid carrying the supposedly dead Harry out of the forest.

Things were so insane (IMO) on HP4GU at times that I left for awhile. I've returned, but I don't intend to ever post there again.

-eta-
LV sicced Nagini on SS because he thought SS possessed the Elder Wand (he didn't). After Snape dies and the kids leave he is never mentioned again, ever. Hence my comment that he was left to rot.

Well sorry there. The wit of your reference just went over me head, as is the wont of witty comments all too frequently! I did love the image of a rabid fan putting his books through a chipper/shredder! I asked him as politely as possible what he did like about the Sevie storyline and he virtually shredded me! Surprisingly, and hearteningly, other posters defended me! You are right, that group was wound a little too tight upon occasion.
Jennifer

[SCWillson]

At one point it was rumored that Hagrid would be the big death in book V. Also, I can not remember exactly how Sevie died but I know LV was there. It was, by any estimation, an ignominious death. A whimper, not a bang.
Snape died!? Why didn't anyone tell me!

:D

[Jennifer]

Snape died!? Why didn't anyone tell me!

:D
Oh Steve,
If in my wildest imaginings I thought you had even a scintilla of interest in HP goings on, I surely would have put "spoiler" in my heading!
Jennifer

[SCWillson]

Oh Steve,
If in my wildest imaginings I thought you had even a scintilla of interest in HP goings on, I surely would have put "spoiler" in my heading!No worries, Jenn. I finished reading The Deathly Hallows the day after its release. :)

Now I'm looking forward to the last two films, where presumably Snape will still die (although I wouldn't be surprised if the film expands a bit more on Snapes' death). It was rather abrupt in the book.

[Jennifer]

I've found the HP films seem to enjoy their own emphases pretty much. If Sevie can be given his due in a believable way, I'd very much appreciate it. I thought it unfortunate that Book #7 seemed to be dominated by "the long camping trip" and wouldn't mind seeing that tightened up significantly. I was thrilled that Hagrid's presence was vouchsafed by the necessity of his dramatic entrance with Harry. I have to admit that I have only read #7 once. It was a hard book to read....
Jennifer

[SCWillson]

I've found the HP films seem to enjoy their own emphases pretty much. If Sevie can be given his due in a believable way, I'd very much appreciate it. I thought it unfortunate that Book #7 seemed to be dominated by "the long camping trip" and wouldn't mind seeing that tightened up significantly. I was thrilled that Hagrid's presence was vouchsafed by the necessity of his dramatic entrance with Harry. I have to admit that I have only read #7 once. It was a hard book to read....Agreed on all counts. The "camping trip" seemed like half the book to me.

I like the books and movies both for themselves. Both have qualities I appreciate and I own copies of both HP media.

[Elizabeth Chase]

Snape died!? Why didn't anyone tell me!

:D

So sorry you missed the bulletin!

[Jennifer]

I like the books and movies both for themselves. Both have qualities I appreciate and I own copies of both HP media.

That's a very good quality to possess, the ability to like bothfilms and books for their own strengths. I know this makes me a literary and critical yokel, but I liked 1 and 2 best. I read Chris Columbus was most afraid of veering off the path but I like his take on childhood, always have, and I appreciated his special ability to make Harry's world come to life in a most fullsome way, very twinkly, very magical. I thought he was a fortunate chioce for the first two books which seem to, by JKR's design, speak to children most directly. As the books headed into adolesence, they did seem to pick a director who had more of an adolescent sensibility. Anyhoo, I digress as is my wont.
Jennifer

[tangential1]

After Snape dies and the kids leave he is never mentioned again, ever. Hence my comment that he was left to rot.

That's totally true, now that I think of it. Presumably Harry went back and burried him? Given that he named his kid after him and all, that's what my assumption was. The whole story pretty much ends abruptly with all of the casualties laid out on the Hogwarts lawn or in the great hall with no mourning chapter or anything, so I hadn't really thought much about it for Snape specifically.

[Jennifer]

Sevie was such damaged goods that I think a lot of people unnaturally identified with either him or the work of his hands. I wasn't a big fan yet I yearned to see him have some kind of reconcilliation with Harry. At first, I was quite dismayed that his life, his sacrifice (yes, I said "sacrifice!") was reduced to being killed for a wand. We were all left with no answers, no chance for some sort of conversation. And yet I realized in a real world there could be no such conversation. What could be said? That Harry realized what this strange man had done, what he'd given up, how he protected the students even in his own incredibly twisted (but brilliant) way, that was all the resolution I could expect. JKR has a funny way of writing true things in a format that makes them seem like fairy stories....
Jennifer
But I still can't picture Dumblydore as gay, only very British and a tad reserved....

[tangential1]

But I still can't picture Dumblydore as gay, only very British and a tad reserved....

Ironically (that you say that...not the actually content) Michael Gambon didn't get Dumbledore right, imo, until after he heard that he was supposed to be gay.

I think I saw him the same way I see/saw most of my elders...asexual:p

[Kati]

I really like what you both said about Dumbledore...exactly what I am thinking, too. I was sad that Richard Harris died...I liked him better as Dumbledore...I just can't warm to Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. He seems so unspirited, for lack of a better word.

[SCWillson]

I really like what you both said about Dumbledore...exactly what I am thinking, too. I was sad that Richard Harris died...I liked him better as Dumbledore...I just can't warm to Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. He seems so unspirited, for lack of a better word.Me too. Gambon just seems more tepid than Harris was. Harris' Dumbledore was a much more commanding presence.

Dumbledore being gay I just view as a last-minute inexplicable addition of JRK; for reasons unknown. It fit nowhere within the story and there wasn't a shred of foreshadowing to make it click. Political correctness, I suspect.

[Elizabeth Chase]

Me too. Gambon just seems more tepid than Harris was. Harris' Dumbledore was a much more commanding presence.

I despise Gambon's disrespect for the books. He never read the books, hence his early miscues in PoA. How could he possibly know who Dumbledore was? IMO he very nearly got it right in HBP.

Dumbledore being gay I just view as a last-minute inexplicable addition of JRK; for reasons unknown. It fit nowhere within the story and there wasn't a shred of foreshadowing to make it click. Political correctness, I suspect.

Well, there are the usual stereotypes -- Dumbledore's velvet plum suit and his fondness for reading knitting patterns in HBP -- and if you squint a bit and tilt your head, you might read 'the love that dare not speak it's name' in his letter to Grindelwald.

[Kati]

Dumbledore being gay didn't surprise me. Throughout the books I had the feeling that there was some love interest in his past, a long lost love or something along those lines. Of course I first thought it was a woman, but he never struck me as the flirting kind of man - more the brainy, brilliant kid who takes his time founding a family. When the Grindelwald story came up, it all made sense to me. I didn't need the label "homosexual" (I'm no big fan of labels), but I think that JKR thought Dumbledore well through.

[Jennifer]

Re: Dumbledore

I think I saw him the same way I see/saw most of my elders...asexual:p
Oh you picked the better word for me! Asexual! He was always almost like God to me! It's not a prejudice but more simply how can you see God as having any specific love interest?
Jennifer

[Jennifer]

Dumbledore being gay I just view as a last-minute inexplicable addition of JRK; for reasons unknown. It fit nowhere within the story and there wasn't a shred of foreshadowing to make it click. Political correctness, I suspect.


You know it came from out of the blue for me too and I consider myself fairly sensitive. It did seem last-minute and designed to tweak certain folks...
Jennifer

[tangential1]

and if you squint a bit and tilt your head, you might read 'the love that dare not speak it's name' in his letter to Grindelwald.

Haha, I like that....squint a bit:D

For me, it was more just accentuating the fact that we, like Harry, don't know anything about Dumbledore really. And that is so odd, but so often the case with mentors/parents/elders, no? It's hard to imagine them having a life outside of how we know them. Kind of a common theme in a lot of books, actually.

As I recall, though, JKR's comment was in response to a question about Dumbledore ever having a girlfriend, right? And she basically said, "I rather thought he was gay." Obviously she could have been saying it to push a reaction from some, but I didn't get that impression. And I rather liked the off-hand way she mentioned it...kind of enforced the idea that his sexuality reallly didn't have to do with anything, leastwise his personality and character.