Should "promised" arcs always be carried through?

[HareBrain]

I’ve written myself into a bit of a pickle and I’m posting this in the hope that a few comments might help me get my thoughts in order.

In the first book of my series, I set up a relationship between two characters, A and B, that I thought might go interesting places. Towards the end of book 2, A has just learned that B killed A’s friend back in book 1. So the stage is set for A seeking bloody revenge on B.

But, somewhat to my surprise, I’ve just had B killed, and I'm wondering if that's a bad idea.

His death feels “right” – it’s at least partly the result of his own weakness, it comes at a mini-climax point where something significant needs to happen, and the character list could do with a bit of thinning – but of course it derails the revenge arc I’ve set up. (And a couple of others too.) I’m wondering whether it’s bad form to kill off a character with “promised” threads unresolved. The more “promised” they are, the more unexpected the death, I guess, which might be a good thing. But of course there’s the risk of readers being disappointed and dissatisfied.

Any views on this, as readers or writers? (More in general than on my specifics.)

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If done well, then it's OK, if not the reader is annoyed and thinks the Author got lazy. Or it's on TV soap and the "star" has left or really died.

 

[Toby Frost]

My instinctive feeling is that if something is set up by the author, the payback ought to be proportionate to the setup. However, the payback doesn't have to take the form that would be expected, but if it doesn't, then its failure to do so shouldn't be brushed aside. That wasn't the clearest thing I've ever written, so, to give an example: say X kills Y's mother. Y decides to hunt down X to make him pay. The expected ending is that Y works through X's minions, gets close to him and confronts and kills him at the end of the story. Fine.

But say X falls off his horse while out pillaging and dies. Y, I think, needs to be suitably relieved/aggrieved/furious/overjoyed for the meaningless death of X to have meaning for the reader. That might involve Y realising that the epic quest for vengeance has been a waste of time, or has poisoned his life. Or Y goes to find proof that that's what happened. But something needs to be there. Even a meaningless death means something by virtue of its own meaningless (if that makes any sense at all).

At the moment, I'm planning out a subplot in which E cheats M out of her land. M goes to take revenge and right the wrong. I'm toying with the idea that, after not much success, a much worse villain tries to buy M's service by giving E to her. That could be much more interesting than just a straight-up fight between them.

 

[alchemist]

Are you imagining fans on forums going "He set up this big revenge plot and it went nowhere! WTF???"

Much as Toby said, you have to address the issue in some way even if it's not the expected outcome. Character A may go insane, railing against the gods for cheating her (I'll assume it's a her for now) out of her vengeance. Or she may have to work through her conflicting emotions and be a better person. Or she takes it out on somebody else. Or something else.

But as long as that plot goes somewhere, it can work.

 

[ratsy]

I think I would be okay with it as long as there was still some follow through. B must have had a good reason for killing A's friend so maybe A gets into that more. Do we see A feel an assortment of feelings over the death of B? Sadness and anger at the same time? I think there are things you can still explore and still have the readers stick with you through it all.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

1. You are still in time to adjust the set up in book 2.

2. Why can't some of it be resolved after the death. Isn't that the time of reflection, after all, and when big things come out of the ether?

 

[Brian G Turner]

I’m wondering whether it’s bad form to kill off a character with “promised” threads unresolved.

Not at all - Joe Abercrombie is particularly good at setting up expectations that a certain plot arc will develop, only to suddenly shunt it aside. Character death is a good way to do that.

If it feels right, then go with it. There's a difference between challenging a reader's expectations, and making them feel cheated.

 

[HareBrain]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I'll go with it and see what beta-readers say.

 

[Zebra Wizard]

The way you describe it, it reads more like

Should plot/character arcs always be predictable?

The story you have with these two characters sounds very interesting and refreshing.

Maybe I'm just sick of the whole, "protag sees the most beautiful person they have ever met so they will certainly bang and fall in love by the end of the book"

 

[KyleAW]

Maybe it is just me but if in the writing of something unexpected things happen, like important characters dying, then your subconscious is telling you something.

I remember a short story I wrote years back regarding a man and his wife on life support. Near the end I realised that she was about to die and I really didn't want her to, but no amount of rewriting made her survival feel right.

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather be surprised as a writer, who has to figure out how to steer the story after it has pulled itself out your hand. Especially when the alternative seems so sterile to me

 

[KyleAW]

"protag sees the most beautiful person they have ever meet so they will certainly bang and fall in love by the end of the book"

Much rather a tragic love that could have been than *ahem* falling in love...

 

[Ursa major]

One has to wonder how many "promised" arcs have bitten the dust in A Song of Ice and Fire** because one or other (or both/all!) parties involved have met unforeseen (by the readers) ends.


** - Or the Game of Thrones show, given that it has diverged quite a bit from the books by now.

 

[thaddeus6th]

In one book, I wrote a nice final scene for a character. It completed his arc of personal growth/growing up, fit perfectly with the wider story, and was really nice.

And then I decided he had no right to be happy, and abruptly killed him. I hope it came out of the blue for readers, as it did for me.

 

[J Riff]

Bring in a new hateful character and deflect the anger there? A cousin, a blackmailer, a ?
Isn't it fun when your characters run off and change the story mid-stream?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree with Toby.

I remember when I was watching Lost and every so often a character who was just becoming interesting to me would meet a sudden, meaningless end, because the writers said that they couldn't think of anything more to do with that character. That struck me as sheer laziness. Of course it allowed them to bring in more characters and situations, and drag the series out until all true inspiration was lost, and the last season was a mess.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Just because one of the characters dies does the plot arc have to die with him? Granted Ahab would have been beside himself if Moby had turned up belly up one day floating in the ocean after a heart attack, but I'm sure Herman could have written something that worked. The mad captain unable to accept that his whale was dead and ever hunting for him? The captain realising that it has happened going completely bonkers and attacking the crew? Or maybe a zombie great white whale?

Yes you can change an arc as you describe. What you will have problems with is just cutting it off dead. You still have to complete it in some way that satisfies the readers.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Wanderlog]

But, somewhat to my surprise, I’ve just had B killed, and I'm wondering if that's a bad idea.

To me, killing a primary character is ALWAYS a bad idea. It looks like killing your own child for the kick of it. It's might be acceptable only if you need to kill a secondary character (like a villain or the major evil antagonist), and even in this situation you should think twice before murdering hir.

However, it doesn't ruin your storyline in this particular case. Your A character can use the new knowledge as incentive for taking revenge on someone else (for example, a secret abettor of B). Or it might make him ponder over his own life and attitude to people. Or whatever. The main idea is, life goes on even after some people die. Whether you can properly use this plot turn, is up to you.

 

[KyleAW]

To me, killing a primary character is ALWAYS a bad idea.

I politely disagree. If you choose to kill them, then be really certain it is for a good reason. But, if the story's ends up killing them naturally you have to consider whether it actually is the right thing to do in that case. Events have lead to that moment so there was a logical progression for your subconscious to follow

 

[Vladd67]

If X is tracking Y for revenge and Y dies through a pointless accident then X has the mixed emotions of Yes he is dead but how much of his life has he wasted in the pointless search for Y?

 

[HareBrain]

Thanks again, everyone. After much racking of brain, I've decided to backtrack and spare him, not so much because I think the revenge arc needs to be played out, but for a couple of other reasons. One of them being that on reflection, I was in danger of letting him die partly because I wasn't sure what else he could do in the future (apart from become a target). As Teresa pointed out, this is not a good idea. But also, I have a soft spot for him and want him to redeem himself, and I want to see where he might end up.

But it's been a thought-provoking thread, so thanks for the contributions.