On character and caring: death
On Character and Caring
So you want to be a writer, yes? Write novels that leave a lasting impression? Do you plan to jerk the emotions of your readers in an unforgettable tumble of love and tragedy? It's tougher than it looks. Ask any writer for advice, and if they don't say "Show, don't tell," then they will tell you to write truth, because phoniness shows like the third trimester under a tight wedding gown.
1. Tears: Death is only the beginning.
Do you remember the stories that made you cry? The faithful dog died. The noble hero sacrificed himself to save the rest. The star-crossed lovers died rather than live without each other. The slow cancer or the sudden crash ended that young life too soon.
You have a great idea! The ultimate tearjerker in three concise parts. Chapter one: Girl's loved grandfather dies (page one) as she lays dying of cancer, death rattle imminent. Chapter two: her boyfriend dies trying vainly to save her dog from the oncoming garbage truck, but they are both flattened into a stinking mess. Chapter three: she dies alone, waiting for her parents to tell her why so many cars are rubbernecking outside their driveway. The parents die within the hour because that garbage truck was actually carrying medical waste which leaked into their water supply.
Good elements, but you have a few problems here. Amalgam is not the answer. If you try to cram in too much, the only tears you'll get will be of laughter. You must be sure that it doesn't come across as a checklist of crying points. The death of the faithful dog belongs with that young, free, abused country-kid who has got no one and nothin' else in the world. The city girl, as cancerous as she is, would forget the dog's death if her boyfriend died at the same time. Mix styles with caution. They are volatile. The reader is always happy to put the book away as pulp fiction - drivel, in a word.
In this plan, the order is all wrong. If you begin by explaining the girl's deathly disease, the reader won't even attempt to let herself get attached to the character. Illness must be kept for a surprise (though have caution when revealing illness - it often seems contrived) or the reader would write off the dying girl as a temporary character, because it isn't a leap of logic to calculate how long she'll last.
As to that grandfather, since he died on page one, no reader will care (except perhaps a twinge of remembrance for their own dead grampy.) The other characters can be as sad as you make them, but the reader never got to know gramps, so any sadness would be sympathy for the other character's emotional suffering. Sadness at the death of a non-character is weak, and pollutes the atmosphere, as you must have something blindingly happy happen as a foil to the upcoming tragedy.
You, as a writer, may develop feelings for your characters and keep alive those you like, killing those who are less appealing, less developed. That is a mistake. Life has no such rules, so it smacks of phoniness. Just remember that the reader only cares if losing a character is like losing a friend. The death of a cardboard cutout won't work for tears.
Contrasting that point, in chapter three, everyone important is dead, so there's no one left to grieve. In a functional story, the girl should be crushed (emotionally) that her boyfriend was crushed (literally), and her boyfriend should be crushed (emotionally) that his girlfriend finally succumbed to that dread wasting disease. But they both lay dead, and you can't see their anguish. If no one is left alive to be sad, why should the reader be? All those protagonists are together in one big happy party in heaven, since you've built them into such wonderful people. A character has to remain suffering for the tragedies that occur.
Death is not simple. In real life, people get hysterical at the loss of a friend or loved one, not just because the person dies, but because they are reminded of everyone else they've known who has died, and they're reminded of their own mortality. If the book cuts off at the act of death, and no one is left to feel the consequences, why should the reader read it? Make the reader care about those who die, about those left behind, and do it in a believable fashion.
So you want to be a writer, yes? Write novels that leave a lasting impression? Do you plan to jerk the emotions of your readers in an unforgettable tumble of love and tragedy? It's tougher than it looks. Ask any writer for advice, and if they don't say "Show, don't tell," then they will tell you to write truth, because phoniness shows like the third trimester under a tight wedding gown.
1. Tears: Death is only the beginning.
Do you remember the stories that made you cry? The faithful dog died. The noble hero sacrificed himself to save the rest. The star-crossed lovers died rather than live without each other. The slow cancer or the sudden crash ended that young life too soon.
You have a great idea! The ultimate tearjerker in three concise parts. Chapter one: Girl's loved grandfather dies (page one) as she lays dying of cancer, death rattle imminent. Chapter two: her boyfriend dies trying vainly to save her dog from the oncoming garbage truck, but they are both flattened into a stinking mess. Chapter three: she dies alone, waiting for her parents to tell her why so many cars are rubbernecking outside their driveway. The parents die within the hour because that garbage truck was actually carrying medical waste which leaked into their water supply.
Good elements, but you have a few problems here. Amalgam is not the answer. If you try to cram in too much, the only tears you'll get will be of laughter. You must be sure that it doesn't come across as a checklist of crying points. The death of the faithful dog belongs with that young, free, abused country-kid who has got no one and nothin' else in the world. The city girl, as cancerous as she is, would forget the dog's death if her boyfriend died at the same time. Mix styles with caution. They are volatile. The reader is always happy to put the book away as pulp fiction - drivel, in a word.
In this plan, the order is all wrong. If you begin by explaining the girl's deathly disease, the reader won't even attempt to let herself get attached to the character. Illness must be kept for a surprise (though have caution when revealing illness - it often seems contrived) or the reader would write off the dying girl as a temporary character, because it isn't a leap of logic to calculate how long she'll last.
As to that grandfather, since he died on page one, no reader will care (except perhaps a twinge of remembrance for their own dead grampy.) The other characters can be as sad as you make them, but the reader never got to know gramps, so any sadness would be sympathy for the other character's emotional suffering. Sadness at the death of a non-character is weak, and pollutes the atmosphere, as you must have something blindingly happy happen as a foil to the upcoming tragedy.
You, as a writer, may develop feelings for your characters and keep alive those you like, killing those who are less appealing, less developed. That is a mistake. Life has no such rules, so it smacks of phoniness. Just remember that the reader only cares if losing a character is like losing a friend. The death of a cardboard cutout won't work for tears.
Contrasting that point, in chapter three, everyone important is dead, so there's no one left to grieve. In a functional story, the girl should be crushed (emotionally) that her boyfriend was crushed (literally), and her boyfriend should be crushed (emotionally) that his girlfriend finally succumbed to that dread wasting disease. But they both lay dead, and you can't see their anguish. If no one is left alive to be sad, why should the reader be? All those protagonists are together in one big happy party in heaven, since you've built them into such wonderful people. A character has to remain suffering for the tragedies that occur.
Death is not simple. In real life, people get hysterical at the loss of a friend or loved one, not just because the person dies, but because they are reminded of everyone else they've known who has died, and they're reminded of their own mortality. If the book cuts off at the act of death, and no one is left to feel the consequences, why should the reader read it? Make the reader care about those who die, about those left behind, and do it in a believable fashion.
