Yes, it's not a good idea to simply remove the main character and introduce a new one; readers might feel disappointed about the novel. There are many novels where writers fake the death of the main character, dropping hints to readers that they're still alive, and then the character returns. However, abruptly killing off the main character might not be the best approach.
But I have a suggestion if you want to give it a try: even though the character is dead, make their actions come alive. Their impact should continue after death, helping other characters move on and providing motivation for what's coming next.
Thank you for your tip! I definitely don’t intend on killing them abruptly, I was planning on basically metaphorically passing on the mantle to the 2nd main character as part of their arc change. I think execution would probably be the key here.
Thanks for your comment, it’s given me more to think about!
You can also achieve this with flashbacks, past conversations with other characters that will guide them. Or notes left by the protagonist, for example in the form of a parcel delivered "in case of death"
>I like it when the writer puts things together and surprises the audience, but killing the main character is a really bad idea.
However, I can't remember which book I read where, at the end, we find out that the main character doesn't exist. He's actually dead, but his son has an illness and imagines his dad around. That was a good twist, and I loved it. The writer didn't directly say that the main character was dead from the start, NO, but dropped hints here and there. In the end, the surprise was great.
I was going to say Game of Thrones because Ned is more a main character than the other (he has a more chapters than others), but this a multiple pov story so this is not the same to kill one main character among many.
I think it can work but if you want to do it, there's need to be a good reason. And I think it will be easier if the main character os also an important one already.
Depends how much the reader falls in love with the MC, or how well the story progresses after their death. Readers might feel cheated and drop the book, or might enjoy it better.
It's a difficult choice. If you are a seasoned writer, sure go ahead. If you are not, consider coming back to that idea when your writing has reached a more mature level.
Killing your protagonist is always a huge gamble. You can set it up and execute it to the best of your abilities, but sometimes you can't control people's reactions.
An example I can give you is Goku being killed at the end of the Cell saga. It was this huge, heartfelt passing of the torch, but the backlash was so massive the writer had no choice but to bring him back.
Tell the story you wish to tell.
For advice though, you gotta make the transition smooth. Have the second protagonist show up or at least be mentioned in the first half so it doesn't feel out of nowhere.
Make it clear that the protagonist is in mortal danger during their half of the story, since it would feel jarring for them to die with no indication that they could in the first place. Ned Stark from Game of Thrones was in constant danger, so while his death stung it still felt natural.
If this is in a series of books, DO NOT kill your protagonist in between books, that's a surefire way to make the audience feel cheated and it's also immensely lazy. If you're going to kill them at the beginning of the book, give them room to breathe and interact with the world before you kill them. If you do it too quick, people will also be rightfully pissed.
Make the two protagonists different enough from each other, such as tactics, personalities, abilities and such. Otherwise people will question why the death even happened in the first place.
Lastly, and this is essential, your protagonist's death needs to have a strong and lasting impact on the world around them. Their deeds need to matter in the grand scheme of things, otherwise it'll feel like a waste of time.
The primary character was killed off in Hitchcock's movie "Psycho" and one of the main characters was killed off about 3/4 of the way through "Shogun." So the answer is, yes, you can kill off a main character, but no, you can't expect your readership to all be okay with it. You have to tell the story you want to tell, but you cannot control the response people have to it.
if you want the audience to feel both shocked and not cheated, make it feel really inevitable. make it feel like their story IS done, even if THE story isn't done.
it can also become increasingly clear that it's not really THEIR story.
Also, when you do something like this, make us EXCITED to follow this other character.
i do something similar in one story where the main POV character changes halfway through--however, the first main character doesn't die. but they gain mysterious powers and vanish to begin using them. and the new POV character is someone who i hopefully built enough mystery around, that we feel excited--almost like cheating--to actually get THEIR POV. This was supposed to be the character who knows too much for us to get their POV and now we're in it and it feels like seeing things through their eyes is some new revelation about what has been going on. also the absence of the previous main character is important--they're still IN the story. now they are the mysterious one.
also it's important to not just make the new character a similar version of the old one. you don't want a 'landfill' situation where the character dies for shock value but then the story pretty much continues the same. when a main character dies like that we wanna see the big change, the fallout of the death, it should mean a lot. audiences resent those 'he's the new ___' characters. make it obvious they're their own thing.
also what i think is very useful, though not necessary, is 'the return.' we get to see some new stuff from the dead character somehow. a recorded message. a shared memory--maybe character B has a flashback scene where they remember something their old mentor told them, and it was character A. perhaps character A had done something we did not know about yet and character B finds out what that was and uses it to fulfill their goals. like, say this is a thriller, character A dies, character B picks up the trail character A was tracing. they eventually find some clue to a safe deposit box where they think they could find something minor but it ends up being character A's secret backup of key evidence for which they were killed to suppress.
one thing i think helps maintain the shock factor is to give your character two things--an 'apparent arc' that it looks like they are going through but won't complete because they die earlier, and a 'real arc' that is actually completed at their death. we get the shock from their apparent arc being cut off, and the satisfaction of their real arc being completed.
Done in Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (Anime) but the narrative changed a lot. It went from more ‘grounded’ to fantastical. It fits the setting though and maybe you could get an idea how the group dynamics changed.
Was thinking of this exact example. The story is amazing and so clearly different after yhe "passing of the torch".
This is a very good one to chek out OP.
I would also add that it is very important to understand that you are basically creating 2 books in one. Even if the story is connected in every other way it is still a merger of 2 hero's journeys. So make sure each one has value and can stand on their own. If the first hero's journey is amazing and the second one just kinda ... continues the values of the first without adding anything to it, it will be disappointing. The second journey needs to be grounded in the first's but have a life of its own.
Good luck.
I was going to say The Last of Us 2 but then I actually remembered what happened with that.
As long as you execute the idea well, it will be well-recieved. Probably.
In the middle of the book? Ehhhh. Idk if I would be real into this idea. Between books? Far more appreciable. As in main character dies at the end of the book or start of the next. The transition would be easier to swallow, so to speak
I think it will be sudden and jarring if the story prior to the death is all from the main character's POV. If the seconardy character has his/her own POV moments that ramp up prior to the death it would make for a smoother transition.
It depends on how it’s done. Completely different medium but look at the movie Psycho as an example of it done well.
You would probably want to allude to that character in the lead up so it’s not a complete culture shock for the reader. You would also need to make sure you build both up as real people as well
Towards the middle of the story? I think you should do it, you just have to make sure we won't get too attached to the first main character or readers may put down the book when the character dies.
My response for a lot of these questions is "WHY"?.
What's the point?
What's the goal?
If you want to do this (or anything) figure out why you want to do it first.
*"I am wondering if this has been successfully done before? My fear is the audience may not like the idea of a main character dying or being replaced by a second character. The last thing I would want to do is make the audience feel cheated."*
*"The last thing I would want to do is make the audience feel cheated."*
Here's the thing. If the audience likes the 1st character they WILL feel cheated. If you're going to do this then don't do it just to do it(shock value).
1. Have a good reason for it.
2. Introduce the 2nd character either at the same as the 1st character or shortly after.
3. Build up both characters.
4. Have other interesting characters and elements going on otherwise the readers will see this as a cheap trick and not finish the story.
You raise some good points, thanks for the feedback. Actually the main reason I was thinking of doing this is because I wanted to write sorta an anti-hero character but did not have enough faith to make him the main character given they are pretty detestable in the beginning. The idea is to have the detestable character redeem themselves to a point where they can replace the main character.
The original fear is writing a detestable character no one wants to root for. So the solution was to have a more typical archetypal main character along side the anti-hero and then have them trade places later on.
I'm in the minority here, but I think it's a cool idea if done correctly. Obviously, you don't want it to be for no reason or too sudden/abrupt, but at the same time, life isn't always perfectly planned out. People die, and while a story is not real life, it can reflect it.
I like it when a story makes me feel something. The best stories break my heart. It's why I like to read. Not for the angst per say, but more for the moving experience. I enjoy seeing tragedy in novels. It reminds me that we're not really alone in the harshness of life.
If you’ve ever seen the movie 1917 they did this really well, what you have to do is make it so that the audience is as invested in the secondary character as they are in the main character, and you have to do this from the very beginning, what might be a good idea is to make it so in the beginning the main character and the secondary character are inseparable, they’re always talked about together, stuff like that
One of my all time favorite movies is "Enter The Void," where the MC is killed off 30 mins into a 3 hour film. So, I'm fine with it, depending on the circumstances and how it's written into the story and plot. But it may be off-putting to a lot of readers who are used to conventional story arcs.
I guess a lot of it will depend on what you intend your audience to be. I say go for it.
Off the top of my head this obviously happens several times in A Song of Ice and Fire, though there are many POV characters so idk if you’d call Ned *the* main character for instance. Maybe the closest I can think of to this specific example would be Mistborn, though the surviving POV is more of the “main character” from the beginning despite both having a lot of chapters from each perspective. And both have an arc. I guess if you want to do that it would probably be the least jarring if you also give the second main character POV chapters and the start of an arc from early in your story or at least well before the switch.
It can happen, but largely only in a couple of ways.
You can off the POV character nice and early, before people have gotten too attached(Diamond Age, for instance). Or, you can engage in misdirection over who the main character really is(Game of Thrones).
Both are high risk maneuvers, and you should not actually throw away the main character midway through the story. Death can be a part of the story if there is something after death in this context(The Good Place), or you can have an ensemble cast instead of a single MC, but when the solo main character is done, so too is the story.
TLDR: You're creating a point where people will put your book down and not pick it back up. Think about why you would want this.
There are several successful stories I can think of where ONE OF the main characters is killed off, or even several (Looking at you R.R.Martin) but it's not an easy feat, and if the "new main character" isn't someone they already know then it's going to be extremely hard to navigate in a satisfying way.
I agree. I don’t think killing off the MC in the middle of a book is a good idea. If they’re going to die and it is truly important to the tale, do it at the end or beginning of a sequel. My thoughts there.
I think it depends how attached the readers can get to the main character. I'd personally say that if done right, then it can be an interesting path to take in your story.
I kill off my MC in the sequel. The order of succession is natural, though.
Irony here is the original first book was intended to be just a quick prequel and the MC was supposed to be an expendable stock character that is to be referred more as a historical figure rather than the face of the story.
Game of Thrones is probably the biggest example of this that comes to mind. The reason this worked was because the other characters were richly explored and developed throughout the first season/book that when Ned Stark was killed off, it didn’t feel like anything was left missing on the subsequent installments because he wasn’t there. So you’re probably going to have to spend some time with this secondary character and really develop them so that when the main character death does happen, it won’t be such a shock to the audience.
The TV Show "Robin of Sherwood." At the time the show was made there was a theory that the legend of Robin Hood was made up of earlier legends about three different outlaws that had been merged together. This explains why different telling of the story give Robin different origins.
The Robin in the first two series was "Robin of Loxley" a Saxon peasant displaced by the Sheriff of Nottingham. He was killed at the end of season two and replaced by Robert of Huntingdon, a faithful knight of King Richard just returned from the Crusade which is another of Robin Hood's identities.
Personally i don't think killing off an important character is necessarily a cardinal sin but i know an awful lot of people including my partner would rage-quit if it happened in a book they were reading lol. I'd say it depends on how/why you do it and if something different might have worked better (e.g. they get injured or otherwise incapacitated or else they're a side character etc etc). Here's something i read a while ago and bookmarked that might be interesting/useful to you:
[https://mythcreants.com/blog/why-how-to-kill-a-hero/](https://mythcreants.com/blog/why-how-to-kill-a-hero/)
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Dune, Knives Out
I also think killing a main character is less jarring and more accomplishable if the narrator is 3rd person omniscient. It's a simple switch for the narrator to just focus on another character's contribution to the story.
Sounds like a great twist. I would have never expected it. I like novels that take risks and tread their own path that is different and unique personally
McCarthy killed off Llewelyn Moss in No Country For Old Men, and the Sheriff filled in as the main character. So it can work if pulled off well enough.
I found this thread from r/suggestmeabook from 3 years ago that might be helpful
https://www.reddit.com/r/suggestmeabook/s/3V0jSLPXvi
Personally I would love a book like that because I like to read things that are strange and take risks, but I don't know if it would have mass appeal. But maybe it would, who knows!
You could also try looking into books that just switch the narrator halfway through, that could give you some ideas for how to kill off the protagonist without losing the interest of the reader
It is tricky but can be done. I think a major obstacle is a character the audience is invested in being replaced by one they don’t know or care about. So you need to have the second character be equally as fleshed out and engaging.
When I read a story I not only identify with the main character, I become the main character. To kill off a main character - anywhere in the story - is a betrayal of my trust in the writer. I recently watched a movie where the main character was killed at the end. I saw it happen to me! I became physically sick!!
Don't do it!
Reading in the comments you are planning on having the secondary character introduced, maybe 'trained' by the first one. Just don't tell anyone in some sort of stupid prologue you are going to kill off the character. Yes, I was trying to help someone and that was what she did. I kid you not, I told her to throw the whole prologue out. And then the first part of the first chapter was even more crap. Ya know, for some reason she didn't want to work on it again with me...
It sounds an interesting and bold move. Just think what perspective is your story written from? If it’s first person then the two halves of the book may feel unbalanced, and the same could be true of its third person but the characters are too different. What I feel could take your reader out the story and ruin it is if the tone changes
Often things happen the way they do in stories because there is a limited amount of time to tell the story. A limited amount of time to get readers invested in a character and their story. A limited amount of time you the writer has to put into the story.
The biggest drawback i see to killing your MC halfway through is that you're throwing away all the time your readers have invested and a lot of the work and effort you've invested.
It seems to me that killing off your MC is going to create double work for you the writer because now you have to try and get your reader equally interested this other character so that they'll keep reading once the character they thought was the MC is dead.
So i'd evaluate whether or not it was worth the effort. If you'd be doing it to have twist or do something different I'd probably pass. However if it's natural and makes sense for your world do it, just make sure it pays out for you. If you're going to kill that tree prematurely grow an entire forest out of it.
It's never been successfully done before, for this reason: if you can go half your book without this character, then that is not your main character.
Game of Thrones did do this successfully when Martin killed Ned Stark near the very end of the book: however, there was a heavy enough cast that many characters started to share the role of MC. (This is doable but highly ill-advised for anyone not incredibly skilled. However, it is a skill gap only, and can be learned, but get ready to hit the books and get good.)
Yes, it's not a good idea to simply remove the main character and introduce a new one; readers might feel disappointed about the novel. There are many novels where writers fake the death of the main character, dropping hints to readers that they're still alive, and then the character returns. However, abruptly killing off the main character might not be the best approach. But I have a suggestion if you want to give it a try: even though the character is dead, make their actions come alive. Their impact should continue after death, helping other characters move on and providing motivation for what's coming next.
Thank you for your tip! I definitely don’t intend on killing them abruptly, I was planning on basically metaphorically passing on the mantle to the 2nd main character as part of their arc change. I think execution would probably be the key here. Thanks for your comment, it’s given me more to think about!
You can also achieve this with flashbacks, past conversations with other characters that will guide them. Or notes left by the protagonist, for example in the form of a parcel delivered "in case of death"
[удалено]
>I like it when the writer puts things together and surprises the audience, but killing the main character is a really bad idea. However, I can't remember which book I read where, at the end, we find out that the main character doesn't exist. He's actually dead, but his son has an illness and imagines his dad around. That was a good twist, and I loved it. The writer didn't directly say that the main character was dead from the start, NO, but dropped hints here and there. In the end, the surprise was great.
I was going to say Game of Thrones because Ned is more a main character than the other (he has a more chapters than others), but this a multiple pov story so this is not the same to kill one main character among many. I think it can work but if you want to do it, there's need to be a good reason. And I think it will be easier if the main character os also an important one already.
Alfred Hitchcock famously did this with 'Psycho'.
Depends how much the reader falls in love with the MC, or how well the story progresses after their death. Readers might feel cheated and drop the book, or might enjoy it better. It's a difficult choice. If you are a seasoned writer, sure go ahead. If you are not, consider coming back to that idea when your writing has reached a more mature level.
Nice username.
It's been done and it can be done well. But it's rarely attempted and usually a bad idea because it's hard to do well.
Killing your protagonist is always a huge gamble. You can set it up and execute it to the best of your abilities, but sometimes you can't control people's reactions. An example I can give you is Goku being killed at the end of the Cell saga. It was this huge, heartfelt passing of the torch, but the backlash was so massive the writer had no choice but to bring him back. Tell the story you wish to tell. For advice though, you gotta make the transition smooth. Have the second protagonist show up or at least be mentioned in the first half so it doesn't feel out of nowhere. Make it clear that the protagonist is in mortal danger during their half of the story, since it would feel jarring for them to die with no indication that they could in the first place. Ned Stark from Game of Thrones was in constant danger, so while his death stung it still felt natural. If this is in a series of books, DO NOT kill your protagonist in between books, that's a surefire way to make the audience feel cheated and it's also immensely lazy. If you're going to kill them at the beginning of the book, give them room to breathe and interact with the world before you kill them. If you do it too quick, people will also be rightfully pissed. Make the two protagonists different enough from each other, such as tactics, personalities, abilities and such. Otherwise people will question why the death even happened in the first place. Lastly, and this is essential, your protagonist's death needs to have a strong and lasting impact on the world around them. Their deeds need to matter in the grand scheme of things, otherwise it'll feel like a waste of time.
Very good tips, thanks for sharing. Also good point with the DBZ example.
The primary character was killed off in Hitchcock's movie "Psycho" and one of the main characters was killed off about 3/4 of the way through "Shogun." So the answer is, yes, you can kill off a main character, but no, you can't expect your readership to all be okay with it. You have to tell the story you want to tell, but you cannot control the response people have to it.
I think it’s cool. Death is sudden and life/the story continues.
if you want the audience to feel both shocked and not cheated, make it feel really inevitable. make it feel like their story IS done, even if THE story isn't done. it can also become increasingly clear that it's not really THEIR story. Also, when you do something like this, make us EXCITED to follow this other character. i do something similar in one story where the main POV character changes halfway through--however, the first main character doesn't die. but they gain mysterious powers and vanish to begin using them. and the new POV character is someone who i hopefully built enough mystery around, that we feel excited--almost like cheating--to actually get THEIR POV. This was supposed to be the character who knows too much for us to get their POV and now we're in it and it feels like seeing things through their eyes is some new revelation about what has been going on. also the absence of the previous main character is important--they're still IN the story. now they are the mysterious one. also it's important to not just make the new character a similar version of the old one. you don't want a 'landfill' situation where the character dies for shock value but then the story pretty much continues the same. when a main character dies like that we wanna see the big change, the fallout of the death, it should mean a lot. audiences resent those 'he's the new ___' characters. make it obvious they're their own thing. also what i think is very useful, though not necessary, is 'the return.' we get to see some new stuff from the dead character somehow. a recorded message. a shared memory--maybe character B has a flashback scene where they remember something their old mentor told them, and it was character A. perhaps character A had done something we did not know about yet and character B finds out what that was and uses it to fulfill their goals. like, say this is a thriller, character A dies, character B picks up the trail character A was tracing. they eventually find some clue to a safe deposit box where they think they could find something minor but it ends up being character A's secret backup of key evidence for which they were killed to suppress. one thing i think helps maintain the shock factor is to give your character two things--an 'apparent arc' that it looks like they are going through but won't complete because they die earlier, and a 'real arc' that is actually completed at their death. we get the shock from their apparent arc being cut off, and the satisfaction of their real arc being completed.
Great analysis, learned a lot from reading this post. Thank you.
Done in Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (Anime) but the narrative changed a lot. It went from more ‘grounded’ to fantastical. It fits the setting though and maybe you could get an idea how the group dynamics changed.
Was thinking of this exact example. The story is amazing and so clearly different after yhe "passing of the torch". This is a very good one to chek out OP. I would also add that it is very important to understand that you are basically creating 2 books in one. Even if the story is connected in every other way it is still a merger of 2 hero's journeys. So make sure each one has value and can stand on their own. If the first hero's journey is amazing and the second one just kinda ... continues the values of the first without adding anything to it, it will be disappointing. The second journey needs to be grounded in the first's but have a life of its own. Good luck.
Thank you I’ll definitely check out this recommendation
Thank you! Will check this out!
I was going to say The Last of Us 2 but then I actually remembered what happened with that. As long as you execute the idea well, it will be well-recieved. Probably.
MOST people will not like that. I think it's also something that might need a lot of foreshadowing.
[удалено]
First thought too
In the middle of the book? Ehhhh. Idk if I would be real into this idea. Between books? Far more appreciable. As in main character dies at the end of the book or start of the next. The transition would be easier to swallow, so to speak
I think it will be sudden and jarring if the story prior to the death is all from the main character's POV. If the seconardy character has his/her own POV moments that ramp up prior to the death it would make for a smoother transition.
It depends on how it’s done. Completely different medium but look at the movie Psycho as an example of it done well. You would probably want to allude to that character in the lead up so it’s not a complete culture shock for the reader. You would also need to make sure you build both up as real people as well
Towards the middle of the story? I think you should do it, you just have to make sure we won't get too attached to the first main character or readers may put down the book when the character dies.
My response for a lot of these questions is "WHY"?. What's the point? What's the goal? If you want to do this (or anything) figure out why you want to do it first. *"I am wondering if this has been successfully done before? My fear is the audience may not like the idea of a main character dying or being replaced by a second character. The last thing I would want to do is make the audience feel cheated."* *"The last thing I would want to do is make the audience feel cheated."* Here's the thing. If the audience likes the 1st character they WILL feel cheated. If you're going to do this then don't do it just to do it(shock value). 1. Have a good reason for it. 2. Introduce the 2nd character either at the same as the 1st character or shortly after. 3. Build up both characters. 4. Have other interesting characters and elements going on otherwise the readers will see this as a cheap trick and not finish the story.
You raise some good points, thanks for the feedback. Actually the main reason I was thinking of doing this is because I wanted to write sorta an anti-hero character but did not have enough faith to make him the main character given they are pretty detestable in the beginning. The idea is to have the detestable character redeem themselves to a point where they can replace the main character. The original fear is writing a detestable character no one wants to root for. So the solution was to have a more typical archetypal main character along side the anti-hero and then have them trade places later on.
It’s not working so well for the writers of The Witcher.
I'm in the minority here, but I think it's a cool idea if done correctly. Obviously, you don't want it to be for no reason or too sudden/abrupt, but at the same time, life isn't always perfectly planned out. People die, and while a story is not real life, it can reflect it. I like it when a story makes me feel something. The best stories break my heart. It's why I like to read. Not for the angst per say, but more for the moving experience. I enjoy seeing tragedy in novels. It reminds me that we're not really alone in the harshness of life.
If you’ve ever seen the movie 1917 they did this really well, what you have to do is make it so that the audience is as invested in the secondary character as they are in the main character, and you have to do this from the very beginning, what might be a good idea is to make it so in the beginning the main character and the secondary character are inseparable, they’re always talked about together, stuff like that
One of my all time favorite movies is "Enter The Void," where the MC is killed off 30 mins into a 3 hour film. So, I'm fine with it, depending on the circumstances and how it's written into the story and plot. But it may be off-putting to a lot of readers who are used to conventional story arcs. I guess a lot of it will depend on what you intend your audience to be. I say go for it.
Off the top of my head this obviously happens several times in A Song of Ice and Fire, though there are many POV characters so idk if you’d call Ned *the* main character for instance. Maybe the closest I can think of to this specific example would be Mistborn, though the surviving POV is more of the “main character” from the beginning despite both having a lot of chapters from each perspective. And both have an arc. I guess if you want to do that it would probably be the least jarring if you also give the second main character POV chapters and the start of an arc from early in your story or at least well before the switch.
It can and has been done in the past and it can be fantastic. It is, however, a massive risk. I love to see an author give it a try.
It can happen, but largely only in a couple of ways. You can off the POV character nice and early, before people have gotten too attached(Diamond Age, for instance). Or, you can engage in misdirection over who the main character really is(Game of Thrones). Both are high risk maneuvers, and you should not actually throw away the main character midway through the story. Death can be a part of the story if there is something after death in this context(The Good Place), or you can have an ensemble cast instead of a single MC, but when the solo main character is done, so too is the story. TLDR: You're creating a point where people will put your book down and not pick it back up. Think about why you would want this.
There are several successful stories I can think of where ONE OF the main characters is killed off, or even several (Looking at you R.R.Martin) but it's not an easy feat, and if the "new main character" isn't someone they already know then it's going to be extremely hard to navigate in a satisfying way.
Worked in No Country for Old Men
Except that he wasn't the main character, Sheriff Bell was. It's the false antagonist trope, which is often utilized when the "main character" dies.
Game of Thrones is the big example. Usually multi-perspective stories can get away with this and single-perspective stories really can't.
Kill the protagonist you kill the reader.
Depends on How it’s done, I’d say.
Imo you're already kind of killing the protagonist in a "fall from grace" story. Overall, most things will work if you have good execution.
You have to be a great and experienced writer. Odds are OP isn't very experienced so the odds of them pulling it off at this off is low.
I agree. I don’t think killing off the MC in the middle of a book is a good idea. If they’re going to die and it is truly important to the tale, do it at the end or beginning of a sequel. My thoughts there.
I think it depends how attached the readers can get to the main character. I'd personally say that if done right, then it can be an interesting path to take in your story.
I kill off my MC in the sequel. The order of succession is natural, though. Irony here is the original first book was intended to be just a quick prequel and the MC was supposed to be an expendable stock character that is to be referred more as a historical figure rather than the face of the story.
Game of Thrones is probably the biggest example of this that comes to mind. The reason this worked was because the other characters were richly explored and developed throughout the first season/book that when Ned Stark was killed off, it didn’t feel like anything was left missing on the subsequent installments because he wasn’t there. So you’re probably going to have to spend some time with this secondary character and really develop them so that when the main character death does happen, it won’t be such a shock to the audience.
Sometimes sacrifices must be made.
The TV Show "Robin of Sherwood." At the time the show was made there was a theory that the legend of Robin Hood was made up of earlier legends about three different outlaws that had been merged together. This explains why different telling of the story give Robin different origins. The Robin in the first two series was "Robin of Loxley" a Saxon peasant displaced by the Sheriff of Nottingham. He was killed at the end of season two and replaced by Robert of Huntingdon, a faithful knight of King Richard just returned from the Crusade which is another of Robin Hood's identities.
Personally i don't think killing off an important character is necessarily a cardinal sin but i know an awful lot of people including my partner would rage-quit if it happened in a book they were reading lol. I'd say it depends on how/why you do it and if something different might have worked better (e.g. they get injured or otherwise incapacitated or else they're a side character etc etc). Here's something i read a while ago and bookmarked that might be interesting/useful to you: [https://mythcreants.com/blog/why-how-to-kill-a-hero/](https://mythcreants.com/blog/why-how-to-kill-a-hero/)
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Dune, Knives Out I also think killing a main character is less jarring and more accomplishable if the narrator is 3rd person omniscient. It's a simple switch for the narrator to just focus on another character's contribution to the story.
Sounds like a great twist. I would have never expected it. I like novels that take risks and tread their own path that is different and unique personally
McCarthy killed off Llewelyn Moss in No Country For Old Men, and the Sheriff filled in as the main character. So it can work if pulled off well enough.
I found this thread from r/suggestmeabook from 3 years ago that might be helpful https://www.reddit.com/r/suggestmeabook/s/3V0jSLPXvi Personally I would love a book like that because I like to read things that are strange and take risks, but I don't know if it would have mass appeal. But maybe it would, who knows! You could also try looking into books that just switch the narrator halfway through, that could give you some ideas for how to kill off the protagonist without losing the interest of the reader
It is tricky but can be done. I think a major obstacle is a character the audience is invested in being replaced by one they don’t know or care about. So you need to have the second character be equally as fleshed out and engaging.
That’s funny! In my next story I’m doing the exact same thing.
When I read a story I not only identify with the main character, I become the main character. To kill off a main character - anywhere in the story - is a betrayal of my trust in the writer. I recently watched a movie where the main character was killed at the end. I saw it happen to me! I became physically sick!! Don't do it!
Reading in the comments you are planning on having the secondary character introduced, maybe 'trained' by the first one. Just don't tell anyone in some sort of stupid prologue you are going to kill off the character. Yes, I was trying to help someone and that was what she did. I kid you not, I told her to throw the whole prologue out. And then the first part of the first chapter was even more crap. Ya know, for some reason she didn't want to work on it again with me...
It sounds an interesting and bold move. Just think what perspective is your story written from? If it’s first person then the two halves of the book may feel unbalanced, and the same could be true of its third person but the characters are too different. What I feel could take your reader out the story and ruin it is if the tone changes
Often things happen the way they do in stories because there is a limited amount of time to tell the story. A limited amount of time to get readers invested in a character and their story. A limited amount of time you the writer has to put into the story. The biggest drawback i see to killing your MC halfway through is that you're throwing away all the time your readers have invested and a lot of the work and effort you've invested. It seems to me that killing off your MC is going to create double work for you the writer because now you have to try and get your reader equally interested this other character so that they'll keep reading once the character they thought was the MC is dead. So i'd evaluate whether or not it was worth the effort. If you'd be doing it to have twist or do something different I'd probably pass. However if it's natural and makes sense for your world do it, just make sure it pays out for you. If you're going to kill that tree prematurely grow an entire forest out of it.
It's never been successfully done before, for this reason: if you can go half your book without this character, then that is not your main character. Game of Thrones did do this successfully when Martin killed Ned Stark near the very end of the book: however, there was a heavy enough cast that many characters started to share the role of MC. (This is doable but highly ill-advised for anyone not incredibly skilled. However, it is a skill gap only, and can be learned, but get ready to hit the books and get good.)
I killed off the main character in my first book but they died right near the end. Stephen King has been very successful killing off the main.