: Is it okay to kill a main character? I am a young author writing a fantasy series. I started this book with a light bulb idea late one night while reading Peter Pan. I didn’t know anything

Vote Up Vote Down

Flip a coin. Heads he lives, Tails he dies. That way neither you nor your reader can predict if he lives or not.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Try reading Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn Trilogy.
Spoiler Alert
One of the main characters gets killed in an epic battle at the climax of the first book. However, he then becomes a martyr and god to the people so his influence lives on, while other more subordinate characters rise to become main characters in their own right in later books. Really effectively done, and makes for an excellent bit of variety in the series without losing the continuing storyline.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

And they never recovered the body...
I'm a big fan of the 'mysterious death' scenario. I've even seen games that integrate this into the rules. In this case, as the MC defeats the hero, he/they go plummeting downward into the clouds over the sea. The body(ies) is/are never recovered. This way, readers who also love the MC can hope he's really NOT dead, and hints that he IS alive can crop up as a subplot in your series. You can even have someone people think is the MC, or someone who believes themselves (mistakenly) to be the MC. I personally wouldn't ACTUALLY let him live, but the option is left open. Bringing him back from the dead violates story causality (usually), but can be pulled off with the right justification.
It also means that as your plot progresses across multiple books, you can reserve the right to change your mind. Once you say definitively "He's dead and splattered across the pavement," there's no going back. If his soul and body may be imprisoned by a sea ghost, this can be an object of quests, character angst, and all sorts of great literary stuff.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Yes, it is okay to kill a main character.
But be careful, readers experience the story you've written through your characters. Killing a character could effectively shut one the windows your reader views the world though.
However, there's nothing about death which forces a character's presence to vanish from your story and your reader to lose that vehicle of experience. There are many tools at your disposal, including flashbacks, time travel, the supernatural, journals, videos, prologues, and the list goes on.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Simply put, it's okay to kill the main character.
There's just one thing to worry about, make sure that you don't make it to where the character dies because they die. The reader shouldn't walk out thinking "What was the point of reading the story if he was going to die?". If this is what you get out of readers, then your character, no matter how well built and complex they are will fall flat to some degree.
In short, don't make the character die meaninglessly.
First, there has to be a reason the character died. This isn't exactly a spoiler since the character says they'll be killed at the beginning of the book but in Magnus Chase and the Sword of Summer, Magnus Chase dies in the book. This sets up interesting plot points in the rest of the series and actually makes sense.
While you don't necessarily have to use death as the reason the book is the way it is, it should still affect other characters in some way and not be pointless. There has to be a reason a character dies, and it's difficult go back. While resurrection can be done well, for the most part, it's just completely anti-climatic.
Think of the following questions:
Why does the character die? What does it do to the plot and does it make sense? If I were to incorporate the character's resurrection, can I do it well? Will this be a better conclusion for the character than an ending where they are alive?
In conclusion, it's completely fine to kill the main character of your book. Just don't let it be meaningless.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

You need to ask yourself what kind of story are you trying to tell, what are the themes and the core messages. Then ask yourself whether the ending including Dylan's survival contributes or detracts from those things compared to an ending including his death. How do your characters grow, learn, and change over the course of the story? What is Dylan's role in the plot, and in the growth of the other characters? How is it going to affect the other main character if he dies? How about if he lives? Does him living add to the plot, character arcs, and themes somehow, or is the only reason you are waffling about killing him because you have grown attached? Is there an additional active roll for him to play in the plot that couldn't easily be filled by the other characters? Ask yourself all these questions, and try to look at it objectively.
I've had to admit to myself before that a character I liked no longer had an active purpose in the plot and that it would create much better tension if I killed them (even though my romantic heart wanted them to live and marry another character!) Conversely, I've reversed the decision to kill a character before when I realized there was a new direction I could go where they lived that actually had more plot, conflict, and interest then my original intentions. So it really depends on the circumstances, and where you are going with things.
One author I read originally planned for the lead in his series to die at the end, but reversed that decision when he moved up events that were supposed to happen later originally (and he also admitted he was afraid all his fans would come after him with pitchforks if she died, since she was everyone's favorite! Which is also a somewhat valid reason, given that fans are the ones who buy your books!)
P.S. Adhering to realism is a good policy (and when you are being strictly realistic and then back off it can be glaringly obvious, like how in Game of Thrones at the beginning main characters died left and right, then at the big battle at the end none of the main cast died and all the fans called them out for the unlikelihood of that) but sometimes you need to recognize a little step back from realism can be a good thing, too. Many people read books to enjoy new places and experiences (fantasy, sci fi, magic systems, all very realistic, yes?), or to escape their own boring, depressing reality (why do you think many women devour sappy romance novels? Swoon). So it really depends what you are trying to write and convey to your reader. Generally "suspension of disbelief" is where we consider the line between realistic and not in writing to be: basically, will the reader be happy to just accept this and go along even if it isn't 100% realistic, or are they going to find it hard to believe and jarring? It can be a delicate balance to strike.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Heck yeah, you can kill a main character. If you've read the Harry Potter series,
Spoiler alert if you haven't
The Goblet of Fire opens up with a character who quickly becomes central to that books story line. Cedric Diggory was created as a mostly perfect character, (very likable, handsome, nice) specifically so that when he was killed at the end of the Goblet of Fire it set a precedent of how bad Voldemort really is and increases the seriousness in the books following.
Cedric of course was not a main character but quickly became an important character.
I would Definitely say that it's fine to kill a main character and there are a lot of other books out there that do it. Just make sure their death is impactful to the reader, the storyline and the other characters.

(0)