B&A: Killing off characters?

Figure out if it's important to the story that the character dies.

As for not stirring emotions, the aim of the writer is to stir emotions, but you don't want to manipulate them, because that is where it becomes melodrama. And if stirring of emotions is the only purpose, you are right, that's a bad reason.

You can kill a character for many reasons, for example:

In Lord of the Flies, William Golding makes the choice of killing off the character of Simon to show that the boys are becoming so savage that they can now commit murder. It is a huge turning point. Later on, Piggy too is killed, and the conch is destroyed simultaneously. This symbolizes the end of order.

In Romeo and Juliet, we are told from the beginning that the title characters are going to die. The deaths were important because the whole thing was about them being star-crossed, a new kind of tragedy different from the classical mode, because their demises were not due to their own fatal flaws.

In the yearling, Jodie is forced to kill Flag. This stirs our emotions, but it also has a purpose because it is a coming-of-age novel, and killing Flag is part of his maturing. The same can be said of Old Yeller.

In Gone With the Wind, Melly tells Scarlett, before she dies, that Rhett loves her and to take care of him. Scarlett realizes, now that she can have Ashley, that she doesn't want him, and that she really does love Rhett. It comes a little too late, however.

In Les Miserables, Fantine's death is sad, but more than that, it shows the unfeelingness of Inspector Javert, and also provides a way for Cosette to end up in the care of Jean Valjean. Inspector Javert's death shows how tied he is to his laws and regulations--when he breaks them, even for a good cause, he can no longer bear to live and takes his own life. Jean Valjean's death at the end of the novel is very emotional, but it underscores the theme, because there can be no question after that that he died a good man.

In Wuthering Heights, there is an awful lot dying. The purpose of it all is that Catherine married Earnshaw for money instead of Heathecliffe for love, and so even though her passion for him continues, there is to be no hope of their ever being together.

In my own book, I had to kill Miss Mattie off, a somewhat cantankerous old lady who had a soft-spot for both Elsie Rosfield and William Goldson--who didn't know each other. It was emotional when Elsie found her, but the main reason I killed her was that she had made her will in such a way that it would bring her two favourite people together.

I think you get the idea. Best wishes!

Characters, in my opinion, should only be killed if the story needs it. As was stated, you don't simply throw John or Jane under the bus to pull heartstrings. Unless you need them to die to keep the plot flowing, there's no reason for you to start generating random obituaries. However, after you've killed off the necessary people, do your best to have their deaths leave an impact. All but the coldest will suffer at least after having had their friend/coworker/lover/teammate get shot down next to them.

As for my own personal checklist, I get a general plan out before writing, and only make sure the characters I need are alive, until I don't. Minor characters can die, and most likely will, both because the story needs it and because it's the only logical ending to an action one of my characters took.

i.e., if Bad Guy A slams the detonator while Good Guy B is in the rigged safe house, I'm sorry, but B is going to have to go down. He isn't explosion-proof, debris-proof, or shrapnel-proof.

Well, you kill some because maybe to show that not all society are absorbingly 100% happy 24/7. It maybe grounds a story to make it more realistic.

I think we are allowed to kill characters to stir emotions, BUT it has to make sense! For example, in many war situations, in order to make the scene and prospect believable, somebody has got to die! Just like what I said firstly in this post.

Secondly, it depends on the novel your writing. Is it a tragedy? Does the person unfortunately kill themselves at the end? Many things drive a character or person to that solution, and ofcourse, killing of a character is any easy way to do that!

If it fits your plot, it is okay to kill characters. If you're writing about a war, death is realistic. For example, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or The Girl of Fire and Thorns, important characters died and, though it stirred emotions in readers, the deaths helped to further the plot and lead the main characters to the conclusion.

Try not to kill characters just to add to the body count. If the death can assist the main character -- either in their actions, reactions or decisions -- then your readers won't feel the loss so much.

Hope this helps.

You should not kill off a character JUST to stir emotions. You should be able to generate emotion from your story.

Obviously if you are writing a hard-boiled crime novel, war story or western, you are going to have to have characters die.

But if you are writing a romance, having the male lead go off to war and be killed is just trying to gain sympathy for the female character. In that case, the novel should begin with the death having happened and the woman trying to put her life back together.

Characters die when it's realistic for them to die and it's a necessary plot point. Don't push a character under a bus just so your MC can feel guilty and angst about it while going on their adventures for example. But if your story IS about overcoming guilt, maybe that works better. Also if there is a huge war and you have a lot of characters, some of your characters are bound to die.

I think that is the check list - why not to do it. LOL

Reasons to?

It would be ridiculous if all the stuff before that happened, yet no one died.

It's someone's complete life story, and life always ends with death.

To prove no one is immune to being killed, not even the good guys.

Sorry, that's all the reasons I can think of right now.

Kill off the character to advance the plot.

Normally it's a twist.