![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
clarentine![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
corrinalaw and I were talking, post-Deathly Hallows, about the book and various acquaintances’ reactions to events in it, and I was struck by the single most-asked question I was getting from people who had not read it. They don’t want to know who survives, or if Harry beats Voldemort (or vice versa); they want to know who dies.Now, I’m as angst-ridden a writer as you might expect to find anywhere. I love stories where I’m not sure if someone’s going to live or die, and the possibility that they might actually die immensely increases my appreciation for the emotions of the story. I think it’s important, as a writer, to ensure that your readers understand that no character in your work is so sacred that their death might not be possible; IMO, reader identification with the characters is stronger if they think the character might cease to exist at any moment.
I suppose it’s possible that the people asking who dies in Deathly Hallows are trying to find out if their favorites are safe. But, you know, I wasn’t being asked if Neville, Ron, or Hermione died; it was just a blanket question, with the clear expectation that I’d list the ones I knew of. (I don’t suppose it’s a spoiler to say that characters died; Rowling has been good about making sure her readers understood there could be deaths.)
And I do not think this question has as much to do with character identification as it does with series identification – by which I mean, a conditioned expectation that there will be another story, together with anticipation of which characters will face what conflict in that next story. Who dies in story ABC affects who is left to cope in story DEF.
Further, I think this may be a weakness – either a bug or a feature, I’m not sure which – of series in general. We expect there will be another story after the current one, and therefore some of the characters will survive. The threat to the characters and the universe as a whole is lessened just by virtue of our awareness that this is a series, and the release of tension is diverted into eager contemplation of who died this time.
Interesting.
So, perhaps, in order to strengthen a reader’s sense of urgency relating to events and characters in a given story, an author needs to be careful not to create an expectation of survival. Would I have been asked that question if Voldemort’s plans might have led to the destruction of life as Harry Potter knew it?
Perhaps not. *g* But it’s certainly something to think about.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 07:26 pm (UTC)The power of series must be very strong if, in spite of an authors repeated statements that there will be no more, people expect more.
I mean, Doyle killed off Shelock Holmes, and that didn't stop it. Lucy Maude Montgomery was only going to write one story about Anne, but readers demanded to know her entire life. And from that, I think, it can be concluded as an attatchment to characters or settings that makes people demand more.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 08:22 pm (UTC)I think that, for Conan Doyle, the problem was that the risk was never to Holmes himself; his reputation, sure, but never his life. (Not that I recall, anyway, but it's been a while.) The death came out of left field for the readers, and they revolted. And then, after Conan Doyle brought him back, the focus had shifted, and with each new installment the readers were forced to confront the worry for Holmes' life. The mystery itself has a whole lot more spice when you worry if the detective will survive his detecting.
from that, I think, it can be concluded as an attatchment to characters or settings that makes people demand more.
Sure. But I wasn't disputing or even mulling over that. *g*