Monday, 24 November 2008

Killing my darlings

Today, I want to talk about cold blooded killings. Unfortunately, the writers of horror have to indulge in, literal, character assassination from time to time, and sometimes that means killing off perfectly nice people for no other reason than that it makes for good reading. As a writer, I admit I don’t like doing this, partly because I tend to grow quite fond of my ‘chaps’, and partly because it seems such a waste. After all the time and effort I put into creating that person, developing their character, their history, their idiosyncrasies, it seems quite perverse to have them fall victim to a vampire/homicidal maniac/tub of potato salad. However, as a reader, I think very differently.

Some horror writers play it safe and make sure the reader knows some characters are untouchable. They may go through some scraps and scrapes, but, at the end of the story they will stroll off into the sunset, a little bit battered and much wiser, but otherwise unharmed. As someone says in the film, Scream, there are rules to horror. A result of these rules is that some characters are more vulnerable than others. I can understand why that kind of plot may be popular, but on the whole, I prefer writers who break the rules.

Stephen King and James Herbert are two notable examples of writers who break the rules of horror. In Pet Sematary, King kills examples of all three untouchable groups: the elderly, the very young and/or anything cute and furry. Herbert does the same in most of his novels. These books don’t make for easy reading because there are no guarantees, but at the same time, a reader keeps turning the pages because they have to know the truth, even if it may not be the truth they wanted. And, knowing all the rules have been thrown out of the window keeps one guessing, not second guessing.

So, I come to my latest dilemma. I have five main characters and that is too many. Three will be quite sufficient. The question is, which two of these flawed but delightful folk should get the chop, or the axe, or maybe the tub of potato salad? Of course, that isn’t a question you can answer, you probably aren’t familiar with these people. However, the feedback from those who have read the first draft, suggests that two particular characters are popular. Hmm. How mean am I feeling?


Note: The title of this post is a paraphrasing of a quote by William Faulkner, or Stephen King, or Dorothy L Sayers, or someone else entirely.

This post was originally published on 21st November, 2007


3 comments:

Lord Matt said...

Sometimes death is senseless and sometimes it just follows. So I might have the bad guy fire is gun or cross bow or whatever at the group. Stop roll a dice and decide who gets it. Because death is like that.

Or if I wanted to be mean I'd kill one half of the romance I'd been building for the entire story.

There are other ways. For example one character in my NaNoWriMo a few years ago under the side effects of powerfull hyposis ended up locked in a room. Mean while my other characters killed off his capters and then left wondering where he was.

End of character (but with the hope I could bring him back). It was senseless but just the way the characters flowed.

Anotehr time I had a favourite side kick run after a guy with a gun. I typed "... saw him turn and fire. His knees gave out and blackness came."

It was at that stage that the most logical thing had happened and the bad guy with the gun had shot my guy. It made the bad guy more of an evil character because he'd just casually offed a character that people will have been cheering for who had been written as if they would be there for the end game.

I was as shocked as everyone else and the next few pages reflect that shock. (I had to stop for a breather to get over the death of the character too).

Kate said...

I've killed off one half of a romance - felt like a complete git for doing it, but it did work in the context of the plot.

I can see how killing off a loyal side-kick would enhance the evil personality of the bad guy, especially if it seemed that he would be there till the end - it makes the reader wonder about the safety of other apparently endgame characters too. Nice move!

diddums said...

I think it depends on the book itself whether or not it will work. I will accept controversial deaths in a plot if it's a plot that has me hanging on... and if the main character at least survives to the last few chapters (he might then die or go missing, but if he's achieved something and it was an interesting story, I will accept it).

I would say the death of the swimming grandmother in the Poseidon Adventure was controversial; she was such a nice woman! But it was such an gripping yarn that you stayed with it -- and she saved somebody's life (probably all their lives).

I tend not to accept controversial deaths in a plot if I wasn't enjoying the story anyway, or it was confusing to follow, or was generally making me think "am I going to keep reading this?" There was a book recently that had something really bad happening to someone's pet. I found myself gritting my teeth and saying "if the pet dies, I'm going to stop reading this..."

In the end it survived, and I read another chapter, then decided I really didn't like the book anyway, for various reasons, and threw it across the floor. :-) It wasn't good bedtime reading.

I suppose the main rule would be to make sure your readers / audience are well on board before you start wielding the knife indiscriminately. :-)

Post a Comment

I appreciate you dropping by,
Leave a comment, don't be shy