Book advice please.

[Vella_Malachite]

OK, so currently, like many others, I am writing a novel. My conundrum is I have a massive war and a pair of minor major characters. They are best friends. The first goes to war while the other is too young and stays in the caves. The other (Tretch) ends up helping the main characters in their quest, yada yada yada, while the first (Gorudd) fights the battle. Gorudd at one point gets injured very badly by a flying fireball made of sticky flammable sap, and I want to know if people think I should kill him off or just make him injured for a while and eventually recovers with Tretch's devoted help.

I really can't decide. If you could post reasons as well, that would be helpful. I would like to choose between reasons rather than just doing a vote count kind of arrangement, if that's not too much trouble.

Thanks, all. I'm happy to post extra info if it is needed.

[Nibleswick]

Write it both ways, and see what you like better.

[RTGoodman]

I'm all for killing off characters, especially if it helps with the development of others or shocks the reader into some emotional state.

Your story reminds me a little bit of the story of Nisus and Euryalus from Virgil's Aeneid (which some quick Google-fu reveals is described by this website (http://www.rickwalton.com/authtale/bmyth106.htm)). From what I've heard, it's considered one of the most emotional and famous scenes from what You could take Virgil's approach here and have the first one die and the second attempt to avenge him, only to die himself.

This, in itself, could spur on something else that happens in the book, probably something involving the main character(s).

[Catskin]

Having Gorudd die will be more dramatic, it will help make it feel like the battle is, in fact, a battle (and not, say, a video game simulation of a battle).

On the other hand, where does this scene fall in the novel? Any future plans for Gorudd? If it turns out later that you want him back, you can always go back to this scene and edit.

[Rare Pink Leech]

It really depends on a number of things: do you have any plans for Gorudd in the future? Do you have any plans for Tretch in the future? If you have plans for Gorudd, it's probably best not to kill him. If you have plans for Tretch, especially giving him a more prominent role, then Gorudd's death could give him some good character development. Of course, Gorudd surviving could develop him into a character jaded by war, and allow you to take it from there.

Other considerations are the style of book (books?) you want to write. Is it aimed more towards and older or a younger audience? Will characters find themselves in danger but generally come out alive? Or will named and developed characters die to show that this stuff is real? This is a big decision. Sure, tons of soldiers may die in battle, or cities may be slaughtered and nations fall, but they're all faceless - actually killing characters you've named and given some thought to personality and relationships is a completely different thing. Truly minor characters don't really count - giving someon a name and throwing in a few token scences isn't the same.

This is personal opinion, but I find it boring when characters never die - it drains much tension from the plot. Not that characters necessariy have to drop like flies - for instance, one character could constantly survive impossible situations, leading people to believe he/she has Plot Armour, only to suddenly kill them off.

[reorith]

claim to kill him off, but then have him come back to save tretch at some point.

[Semidi]

Have him live but in the incredibly crippled state of someone who has been burned with what appears to be napalm. That'd be my advice as you can 1. keep him as a character, 2. have the possibility for some cool commentary on the horrors of war, 3. develop him more as a character (bad-ass army dude now can't live without assistance), 4. let your other character interact with him for more character development. Hell, you could even give the smaller character a quest as he looks for some way to help his brother.
--just a thought
Really, the best advice I could give would be to let the book take you where it wants to go rather than take the book someplace where you want to go.

[warty goblin]

I'd go with the hideiously injured route as well. Fantasy novels have plenty of miraculous recoveries, and lots of dead minor major characters, but crippled characters are somewhat rarer and more interesting IMHO.

[rubakhin]

You're not giving us much to work with here. The nice thing about literature is that the morally sound has no intrinsic value when compared to the morally horrible - should he rape the girl, kidnap the bride? Whatever works best in the context of the story.

Being a Russian writer who likes to uphold the crushingly depressing aspect of my heritage, I prefer to kill off characters whenever possible, but think firstly about what you believe you'll be able to write most effectively, and secondly about what impact either option is going to have on the story. Can you write a good death scene, or are the trusting, intimate moments of healing more your thing? Is his death going to create some new motivation or perspective on life in the characters? Or is, for instance, Tretch going to regain some lost humanity by nursing him back to health? Also, consider the ramifications of keeping him alive. He will almost certainly be badly scarred and might have some long-lasting nerve damage. (Honestly, if you want to go down the path of least resistance, you might as well kill him off just to avoid doing the research. :smallwink:)

[thubby]

kill him and make him stay dead, it will get you around the age old "plot armor" by making your characters seem mortal, which adds to immersion, drama, and the business driving speculation.

[Sir_Norbert]

I can see why you can't decide -- both ways could be very emotionally powerful if written well.

Therefore, don't decide. Wait until you get to that scene before putting anything down on paper, and when you get there, go with your first thought without hesitation, whatever feels natural.... and go back and change it if you realise later that you decided wrong.

When I was writing the first draft of my novel, I had most of it planned out, but I found myself making huge changes on the spot when I got to certain crisis points. Admittedly, none as big as whether a character lived or died, but I did have one character revealed as the villain's accomplice who was originally intended to be innocent. Someone -- I can't remember who -- said, "First drafts are for finding out what your story is about."

[Vella_Malachite]

Thanks, guys.

The scene is really towards the end of the story, and I'm not planning on a sequel, so future development is only going to be a couple of pages.

Gorudd actually is quite a minor character; he is only there for a few chapters, so killing him off won't be too big a thing; it's not like he's overly instrumental to the plot; Tretch is a bigger character.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards killing him because it is more impacting. This war is real, the world isn't perfect, people who matter die, etc, etc, plus I'll get an emotional reaction from Tretch. Tretch is quite innocent and has many illusions about the glory of war, so I figure I'll get some good stuff out of that. That sounds like I'm a horrible person, doesn't it? I'm not. It's just I can't justify killing any other character and I really need something to stop it being fairytale material. I could kill off the Guardian, but I need him to help Tretch.

[Kaelaroth]

Hi.

Possibly you could do a Buffy scene on them? G is injured, but T nurses him back to relatively good health. However, several days later, T returns to find G dead on the floor, after either exceeding himelf, a suicidal act, or merely a random event.

This would shatter his illusions, possibly induce survivor's guilt, and really add something to his character. Just a suggestion. Good luck!