Hello! I'm writing a war novel where the central theme is "war brings out the best and worst in humanity". It focuses on the camaraderie rather than the actual fighting itself (there are battle scenes, but most of them are quick firefights). Sacrifice is considered the best of humanity, and I think the death of a central character would enforce that. However. I'm unsure of who it should be. It's written in First Person through the perspective of an infantryman, but I've noticed that I've accidentally used past tense words to describe curret states/thoughts of the main character, and that's what gave me the idea. Thanks! -Zach Wattpad: Exp3ditionary
It's strictly you're call. I personally prefer stories where the protagonist survives the story. One of my complaints with the Star Wars flick Rogue One is the lack of survivors. It's doesn't take away from a good story when the MC dies; it just leaves me wishing for a different outcome.
First Blood, the book that introduced John Rambo, killed Rambo in the final scene, and I don't think it took anything away from the story. No sequel, though.
I think it kinda killed the message of the story that he didn't die in the movie. Not only that, it opened the way for the sequels that were completely contrary to the feel and the message that the first story was trying to convey. Anyway, point I'm trying to make is, sometimes killing off your main character may be the best choice even if it isn't the easiest.
I've found a lot of stories that I love which kill the main character at the end. I agree about the sequels missing the point, but I actually liked Stallone pressuring the original film's writers not to make the message of the movie be "people with PTSD are monsters, and the only answer is to kill them." I'm writing about a post-traumatic serial killer myself, and from what I've read about the First Blood novel, the author could've handled it better.
Does it have all of Bruce Willis's one-liners in it? Tell me it has "yippie-ki-ay, motherfucker" at least.
Hello! I love this genre. I absolutely recommend you: 'All quiet on the Western front' - Eric Maria Remarque (German) It's a story in first person of the first world war (german side). I read it many years ago but it's readable in only a couple of hours. I took this from: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/allquiet/summary.html But here's a quick overview: "All Quiet on the Western Front is narrated by Paul Bäumer, a young man of nineteen who fights in the German army on the French front in World War I. Paul and several of his friends from school joined the army voluntarily after listening to the stirring patriotic speeches of their teacher, Kantorek. But after experiencing ten weeks of brutal training at the hands of the petty, cruel Corporal Himmelstoss and the unimaginable brutality of life on the front, Paul and his friends have realized that the ideals of nationalism and patriotism for which they enlisted are simply empty clichés. They no longer believe that war is glorious or honorable, and they live in constant physical terror...." This book will help you for the whole novel, but reguarding your question I think it is really interesting a dying MC. About his camarades, I hope some will during the book, if not it may be boring. Hope I helped have a great day!
AQoTWF is arguably one of my favorite books/movies about WWI. And yes, I'm planning on a few of the central characters, some I've even grown attached to, to "bite the bullet" in the last main battle. Thanks for the recommendation!
This is what I thought of when the subject was brought up. I read it in high school, voluntarily, and was rather shocked when the MC didn't survive. But I got why he didn't. And if you want the quintessence of this kind of thing, check out any of Shakespeare's tragedies. If the MC dies, it has to be cathartic. And feel inevitable.
It definitely shouldn't be your main character. To put it simply; it's been done. All Quiet On The Western Front is specifically an anti-war book, all about the death and meaninglessness of it all and that's fine. But not you. That's not your message. A better parallel for your work would be Storm Of Steel by Ernst Junger. He fought in WW1 and went through the same awful experiences but he came out of it quite differently. He didn't right the 'corrects' message about WW1 though which is why kids don't have to read his book, because he seems to think that he really got something valuable out of the experience. He's on a short list for the bravest people in the war (no mean feat) and his message is definitely much more about how war brought out the best in him while he also saw the worst in others. That seems to be closer to what you want here. Also, you shouldn't end on a death. It's cliché. Oh bam, just when you thought everything was ok! Have a close friend die close to the end in the climax, write it well, have meaning and have the main character struggle on and win. There is something to be said for writing a story in the traditional form.
ofcorse you can. but only do it if it is necessary. because main character dying unnecessarily really sucks.
ofcorse you can. but only do it if it is necessary. because main character dying unnecessarily really sucks.
Your call completely. But the best war movies are always the ones that end in some sacrifice or even an unexpected death. Take the movie wind talkers with nicholas cage. 100% made that movie an A+ because he dies at the end.
I realized that about 90% of the ideas I come up with ends with one of the main characters dying. While most or all of those ideas will never see the light of day, I'm sort of considering it to be my "happily ever after"! That said, if the death gives the right impact - do it!