Who dies?

[clarentine]

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.

Comments

[rhia-hilldancer.livejournal.com]

yes. i've been mulling on this too. i don't think i can say too much without getting spoilery, but, yeah.

and the application for us as writers is tremendous. i don't think a character has to die to make the threat credible. they could lose everything - people they love, possessions, their health. how much can you take away from them? i think when you strip all that down, death might be preferable to the repercussions that you have to live through and face.

and i think jk's handling of some of things made them less impacting than they could've been. i didn't really cry over the deaths when i read the book, but i did get weepy later, when i watched movies and saw people who i knew were going to die.

shutting up, now. :D

[eseme]

Huh. I never got the impression that Rowling will write another series. She's been empathetic that there will only be 7 books, and the only other thing she *may* write in the setting is an encyclopedia or companion book with deleted scenes and such.

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.

[clarentine]

Oh, do feel free to comment away as you see fit. I might be mulling on the screen, as it were, but other mullers' thoughts are valuable, since they make me defend my position, if only to myself.

and the application for us as writers is tremendous. i don't think a character has to die to make the threat credible. they could lose everything - people they love, possessions, their health. how much can you take away from them? i think when you strip all that down, death might be preferable to the repercussions that you have to live through and face.

This is the essence of what I most like to write and read. Just exactly what is the point at which a given protag will bend, will break? What agonies must he survive to come out the other side, and what shape will he be in when he does? If he does?

I think that, when Sirius went through the veil and I understood at the end of that chapter what had happened, I shut the book and just stared at the wall for a long while. She got me there, but good. I am such a sucker for the underdog. *g*

[clarentine]

I'm not saying that Rowling had promised to continue the series, just that the readers had become convinced that the threat was not to Harry's world, per se. With that being the case, they were free to change their focus from "Rocks fall, they all die!" to "Who dies?"

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*

[corrinalaw.livejournal.com]

Part of it is that no one really expected Voldemort to prevail. The 'what' of what would happen was fairly clear. The 'why' and the 'how' not so clear, which is where the strength of the writing comes in. When I re-read LotR, it's not the 'what' that makes me do it, it's seeing how and why Sauron is defeated.

So why are people interested in the death? So they know what it cost, perhaps? Or maybe because the last two books have included major deaths, perhaps.

But death in general..a good question. Are deaths needed for emotional impact? I say not, simply because one of the biggest emotional impacts I've ever had in reading a story was in Bujold's "Shards of Honor" and it's the quiet moment when Cordelia appears at the end to a very diminished Aral.

I think emotional impact is centered in how much the writer makes you *feel* the characters and their world--and all that is within them. I think death can start to lose that emotional impact if not used judiciously or in context. The current question right now in the DC universe isn't "how Batman saves Gotham," it's "what is the body count in Gotham?" And, frankly, it's gotten to be a big joke because the deaths have been so out-of-character and needless that it produces much reader anger, rather than empathy.

Whereas the current death of Captain America storyline at Marvel has impact and has picked up readers. Why? Because the emotional power of those panels---the how and the why of his death--hit hard. Knowing Steve Rogers died does nothing. Feeling those panels--everything.

So did JKR overdo it? I don't think so--the most major death seemed absolutely necessary and right and the others seemed to show exactly the kind of world that being Voldemort would led to, a world that Harry rejected, utterly.

[corrinalaw.livejournal.com]

P.S. A former editor at DC comics is on record that a storyline a few years back started because editorial decided 'they needed a rape' to be taken seriously.

And that seems quite the wrong way to go about making these things impactful. Either they come from a character's choices and worldview or they don't feel right or real.

[clarentine]

I won't argue with that. (Well, I guess I could see a story being written deliberately to showcase a choice, but I still think the best use of the character who has to either make or deal with that choice is to have the decision arise from the character, not craft the character to make the choice.)

[clarentine]

What the death cost - I suppose it could be that. Who dies, and particularly if/when any of the major characters dies, has an impact on Harry; the closer they are to him, the bigger the impact.