Welcome to Gaia! ::

I wasn't sure where to post this. I am not really seeking advice, I'm actually kind of giving it to all of you, because sometimes good books/movies get ruined by unnecessary deaths.
By unnecessary deaths, I mean, like, a person dying in a story simply to make the reader/audience feel sad. Or like when the author thinks "Hurm, no one's died yet. That's odd. *KILLS MOST LIKABLE CHARACTER*"

Examples? HINT: THERE ARE SPOILERSThe Hunger Games. Prim. She seriously had no reason to die, except to make you sad and make Katniss sad. BUT KATNISS WAS ALREADY SAD. In fact, she was borderline suicidal. I'm surprised she didn't jump off a bridge after the death of her sister because of all the other crap that was happening. Oh yeah, and Finnick. His death was there simply to make someone important die so we all could realize what a dangerous situation they were all in.
Need more examples? Wash from Firefly. Cyclops in X-Men. I could go on and on with a lot of random examples.

By the way, no, I am not complaining because I liked these characters. (Although I really did like Wash, Finnick, and Prim). I am complaining because it messes up the story and makes the author look a little stupid.

So my advice? When you guys are writing, think about WHY this person is dying. Not, like, "Gosh, I need to get an emotional response from my readers." Or better yet: "Gosh, I don't want my main character cheating on this guy. How do I get rid of him so she can date this other character without her looking like a bad guy? I KNOW. I'LL KILL HIM."

The death needs to be important to the plot. It needs to make sense. If you need a situation to look dangerous, injure a couple of people, or at least MOURN the person's death when necessary. I was seriously waiting for people to mourn Finnick, but NO ONE EVER DID. At least not enough. It was just like, "Damn, he died. That sucks. Oh well. He was a really close friend of mine, but I'm not gonna care. WHOOOO..."

Okay, I'm done ranting.

TL;DR: When you kill a character in a story, it should be there only to have some kind of meaning to the plot. In fact, everything in your story should have meaning.

So. Discuss: Characters who didn't need to die, characters you want to kill, et cetera...

Oh yeah, and the reason Wash's death angers me so much is because he was the comedy relief. You don't kill the comedy relief. That is a big no-no.
My brother said Jayne was pretty funny, but that's a different kind of funny. Jayne's funny because he's stupid. Wash is funny because he's witty and silly. YOU DON'T KILL THAT.

The shepherd's death was alright for the story. Because it was a little important. He had some last minute things he needed to say to Mal about his faith, plus they needed the bodies for cover from reevers, and it showed how bad the Alliance was. I mean, that all kind of makes sense.

Can I just ask are you sure these deaths were unnecessary? I don't think a good writer would spontaneously kill off characters without some reason. Are you positive that they don't have motivations you don't understand? also what kind of response where you hoping to get here?

You're right. A good writer wouldn't kill off characters without a good reason. Which proves my point. Suzanne Collins just isn't that great of a writer. Granted, the story was very interesting, thought-provoking, and compelling. But the unnecessary deaths, her frequent use of the words "stuff" and "things," and other points I just don't feel like getting into right now prove my point. She's just not a good writer. Probably a potential good writer, seeing as I was willing to look past the flaws and accept the story as a good one. Even though it's a lot like Battle Royale.
And if there's motivations for the deaths of those characters that I can't understand, shouldn't it be the writer's job to let the audience understand why? Because the only logical reasons I can see are for emotional responses from the readers, an opening for another character to get the girl, a person just simply needing to die, or a TV series that needs to end with no hope of ever returning.

Well maybe the author did convey there reasons just because you don't like the reasons doesn't really mean much. Also as a writer a huge part of what I'm doing is attempting to get readers to respond emotionally and there isn't anything wrong with that reason. In fact I think its a great reason. Also a person needing to die just because is also a good reason if what you're writing is suppose to contain death as a main theme. The other two could be good reasons too although usually are executed poorly.


It's super fun could be a good reason It really depends. although I didn't ever say it had to be a good one I said some reason. Even a bad reason would be acceptable as long as its good writing.