Last night, a certain TV show I watch killed off a character. I’m deliberately not naming the show or the character. Though if you pay attention to my feeds, you may know what show and which character. This character’s death was pointless and unnecessary. As was the character’s “sacrifice” of getting captured leading to their death, since their sacrifice was entirely in vain.

I have no problem saying this: it is very rarely ever a good idea to kill off a character. In the rare cases where it’s acceptable, certain very important qualifiers really need to be followed.

Let’s start by looking at the justifications. Then why those justifications are wrong. Then where exceptions can be made, and how.

Justifications

The most common misguided justification for character death is that it shows the stakes of the story. The logic here is that by having a character die, you’re demonstrating the threat level of some big obstacle or villain. You’re showing what characters in this situation are risking. The secondary justification is motivation and character development for other characters. In theory, this character’s death will deeply affect characters tied to the dead character. It’ll give them a hard push to really take down the threat. It’ll make them re-evaluate their lives and priorities. It might create new relationships and bridge gaps in ones that exist.

Why they’re wrong

… The notion that character death is needed for any of this to happen is a lie.

You want to show how dangerous a villain/obstacle is. You want to give other characters an additional motivational push or some introspection. Why does death have to be the catalyst? See, there are so, so many other things that can be done besides death. Physical torture. Psychological torture. Public humiliation. Body or mind control. Downright maiming. These are just examples. Any one of these things could be used to do the exact same things given as justifications as character death. In some cases, they could be even more powerful than character death. Have a character who’s claustrophobic? Have the villain lock the character in a tight box for days to weeks.

A character can be put through their own personal hell and not die. And here’s the key: going a route other than character death means you’re not throwing away story potential for no good reason.

When you kill a character, you’re killing a lot more than the character. You’re killing every single potential plot thread that character had to offer. You’re killing storylines you haven’t even learned could exist yet. Putting the character through hell may be painful and cruel, but it’s damn good writing if done right. You just have to be smart and talented enough to figure out what the right approach is.

It’s at this point that I note whether or not the “personal hell” angle is appropriate really depends on the fictional world and tone. But if you’re considering pointless character death for “shock value,” then personal hell is already on the menu.

Exceptions

However, there are exceptions where character death might apply. Examples will be easier for me here.

I’m not a Game of Thrones person. I don’t watch the show or read the books. However, as a human being living in the 2010s, I’m aware the show is popular and is infamous for character deaths. So here’s what I can piece together: on Game of Thrones, a character’s death is an event. It’s a Big Deal ™. There’s, as far as I know, masterful writing leading up to the death accompanied by said death being the key focus of the episode. In the case of at least Hodor, you get a very strong sympathetic understanding of who he is and where he’s been before he dies.

Now let’s look at Walking Dead, which I do watch. There’s character death abound on that show. And yes, some characters die with relative ease because they have very minor roles. However. With any death of a character you’ve come to know in any meaningful way, you get a lot of emphasis on who the character is and their journey. You’re given a chance to stay with them in their final moments. Who they are and what they did while alive is explored deeply.

What do these approaches to character death offer? Catharsis. You get to say goodbye to this character you invested so much of your thoughts and feelings into. You get a send-off, like therapy or debriefing of a sort, that says: yes, we know we’re killing future story potential here. We know that. But we’re going to make absolutely sure to honor and respect the feelings you’ve invested in these characters. We are not going to treat these characters – and the feelings you’ve poured into them – like they’re worthless and disposable.

Look at Barb from Stranger Things as a final example. That character death was a huge mistake, regardless of justifications for it. However, the showrunners for Stranger Things still ended up making her death a huge deal for season two. Fans raged, knowing they lost something great and it wasn’t given due respect. The showrunners realized that those fans needed a form of catharsis, and gave it with season two.

Conclusion

The point is this: if you’re going to do character death, you better have a damn good reason for doing it, and it better have sufficient catharsis.

If your only reason for doing it is “shock value” and “showing stakes?” Then you’re doing it wrong. Very, very wrong.

Character death is cheap, lazy writing. It’s the writer deciding that actively killing off story possibilities is easier than having to work for that drama. It’s the writer saying “I know some people out there like this character, but fuck ‘em, the sacrifice of this character will benefit the characters I think actually have some value.” It is also, in effect, punishing readers/viewers/players for daring to give a shit about your story. You’re ripping away something they care about solely because it makes your job easier.

That is all I have to say on this subject at the moment. I hope to see much, much less of pointless and unnecessary character death in the future, and much more of actual good writing.