So this is what ticked most of us off about Allegiant, right? I mean, who DOES that, unless they want to get lynched by a mob of angry book fans? History has proven it: killing off a character everybody cares a lot about works only rarely. It didn't work for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when he killed Sherlock Holmes, and it doesn't work in the Divergent series. Jeez, J.K. Rowling even didn't keep Harry dead! So why do authors kill off some of their best characters?
Of course, there are some exceptions to the rule. Sometimes a main character's death serves to show just how unfair life can be, sometimes (thinking of John Green's The Fault in our Stars, one of the world's most brilliant book). Those passages are made to make us feel emotion. Now what I don't like is the "Such and such dies. The End" main characters kill-off passages, because it just feels as if the author was lazy and just made the character disappear in the "Poof! Character who was there one second ago just got wiped of the surface of the Earth" way.
But sometimes death is a better fate than what the authors do to keep the characters alive. Well, it certainly trumps things like, ah, you know, amnesia, or craziness, which are usually both examples of authors being lazy.
Ah yes, another point. DEFINITELY KEEP YOUR CHARACTER DEAD IF YOU ARE PLANNING OF MAYBE MAKING THEM REINCARNATE.
Usually I put the book down as soon as I see that a (dead) character is going to come back from the dead, but with his/her memories and not in their own bodies. Once again, a certain author mentioned in previous post is a shining example of what to do if you want me to start retching. Yes folks, it's THAT bad.
Anyway, the point is: don't be lazy. People usually like good endings, and throwing away the life of the character you made us care about doesn't cut it. So, unless it has a good reason your audience will understand and can't be avoided, please pretty please pretty pretty please DO NOT DO IT.
Please.
No comments:
Post a Comment