Should protagonists be killed for no reason?

[Onyabloke]

I am currently reviewing a book (no name, I don't want to be a spoiler) but one of the main protagonist's family has just been killed.
It appears to be a gratuitous killing, it has not advanced the plot other than to prove that the villain could. The grief over their death similarly has done nothing to the story line.
I wondered if authors have a responsibility to keep people we have been introduced to and maybe like, alive unless there is a plot perogative to the contrary.
I remember reading a book in which a captive worked hard for her release. She concluded she had not been the first to be abducted and potentially killed she determined her food was drugged and left messages for those who may follow. After she had shown her worth as a character she was killed. Even years after reading the book (so long ago I forget the title) I still feel let down.
Should we keep worthy people alive?

[justiceuma]

Well, sometimes the author just understands the demand for tears in the eyes of a reader and anger in another... The death of a protagonist is usually designed to leave a message of legacy and sometimes revenge, so it all depends on what the author was driving at

[nfdaniel85]

Anyone who has experienced a sudden and unexpected loss knows that worthy people are never immune from death. Only the good die young, ya know. I think it's very daring and realistic to kill good characters for no reason. It sucks and it's sad, but that's life.

[Onyabloke]

That's true life doesn't reward the deserving only those with a good genetic inheritance. But what about Chekhov's gun? The dramatic principle that states that every element in a story must be necessary. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.

[Lincolnshirelass]

This is a very interesting question. Obviously none of us like to 'lose' a favourite character, but that does happen in life, too. I would say I would not respond positively to any gratuitous death, especially a violent one, just for effect or sensationalism, but would give it (and the author) a chance to see if in the long term it's necessary or 'right'. I have to admit to a slight squeamishness about the number of children killed in 19th century children's books, but it did reflect the times ....

[Mailis]

I dislike fictional deaths like that. I want to believe in justice and happy ending, and not be emotionally manipulated and drained until I'm numb when I finish the book. But this is my taste in books, and I am quite certain that there are people out there very much so seeking out tearjerker stories with shock value scenes.

[Onyabloke]

That's a good point. We invest in the author's world, I think there is a compact between writer and reader. For example, you wouldn't expect graphic sex or violence in a cozy mystery. Nor should you expect people in whom you have made an emotional investment to be wiped out on a whim.

[Kieran_Obrien]

All depends on how you interpret it, but sometimes if a villain kills off a main character, or someone close to the main character, it can be a display of power, a threat, a warning that any characters can die... GRRM does it well, I never feel like any character is safe and it keeps things tense while reading!

[Myah Schultz]

I think that in some cases, killing off characters can make for a poignant story that illustrates the fragility of life. However, I often feel like killing a character for no apparent reason is kind of lazy. It's probably the easiest way to elicit an emotion from a reader. I think random character killings should be used sparingly and should be written carefully.

[DustinPBrown]

I've always lived by the rule that everything in a story needs to be doing two things at once. If it's not, cut it out. So if you have a line where you describe that the protag is eating his salad, it had better advance the plot or set up the setting or build character or something else besides just describe a salad being eaten. With that in mind, I think something as big as a death should be treated very, very carefully. If the death doesn't even do one of those things, then the author is just throwing it in to try and twist the readers' hearts, which is a cheap tactic in my opinon.

[Arrigo_Lupori]

It depends what is meant with "for no reason"..
My gut response would have to be yes, definitely kill protagonists suddenly, however, there has to be context around the kill. If the protagonist is an office worker in New York, it's unlikely that he'll ever get killed by a venomous snake.
What I mean is, as you said, the death of the character should provide for a thrilling and unexpected turn of events.. It shouldn't just come up as a random thing that happened in the book.

[SparklesonPages]

That’s a great question. It really depends on the plot but I feel like I’m invested in the protagonist by the book’s end and it really can throw you off when they get killed off.

[Jeyasivananth]

No definitely not, unless the plot justifies itself.

[mnmueller]

You pose some really interesting questions. First of all, the grief of the character is dealt with, but it has no impact on anything else? I know a number of murder mysteries I've read involve a short introduction before the murder takes place to help create interest in and sympathy for the victim. It doesn't sound like that was the case, here. To me, killing someone off without it being tied to the plot feels like they took the quickest way to heighten emotion or create sympathy for the surviving character. For me, it makes the character feel less like a character and more like a plot point. It throws me out of a story and I end up having a harder time relating to the character or the story. There was a trend in comic books for awhile where significant others of heroes, usually females, were killed off or damaged in such a way that they lost what made them special, all for the sake of creating tension and drama for the hero. This sounds similar.

I think that major events in a story need to have more than one reason and especially so with something as important as death. That being said, I don't think the author has any responsibility to write what people might want. They can't really guess what people want, so they'd have to take a poll, and not everyone would be happy with it anyway. Authors need to write the story they want to tell, if only because the story usually makes more sense that way. When an author tries to engineer something to happen for affect rather than as part of the story, it usually feels jarring to me and throws me out of the story.

It seems to me the story you read before did exactly what the author probably intended. You cared about the character and thought well of her. Even years later, you are affected by her fate. This brings up another interesting point, though. What merits would an author need to deem somebody worthy of life? How would an author then determine who, if anyone, should die?

I don't like to read stories in which main characters or prominent secondary characters die. When I reach for a book, most of the time I'm looking for an escape from reality. The exceptions are when I'm trying to learn something. So while I know random unexplainable deaths are a tragic part of life, I don't really want them happening in my books. I don't think it is an author's responsibility to provide me with that, though. I just need to find the books that have the stories I want to read.

[rave_2]

If it's necessary to the plot, then killing the protagonist may need to happen. But for no reason? No.