A would-be author who intends to write a series of novels might have a better chance of hooking an agent or publisher.
Why kill off good characters when you can leave them in the ether to be recycled.
A would-be author who intends to write a series of novels might have a better chance of hooking an agent or publisher.
Why kill off good characters when you can leave them in the ether to be recycled.
PS. I HATE curry.
Guess that makes me a xenophobe ;)
I'll be killing a character in Book 4. I debated long and hard over whether I should try to keep him alive, but no - he's got to go.
I killed a baddie in Book 2 but the villain from Book 1 is a real historical character who lived until 1816, so since it's only 1809 he has to live. Which is handy, as he appears in Book 3!
As for killing off a main character, that's a bit too drastic at this point in time.
I would say you need to serve the story you are writing first. If death is required, then death it is. If the story needs high stakes and consequences then these should not be undermined by the vague future possibility of a story.
Ritesh: I have flagged you.
The last time I read you, answering in Victoria's Writing Straight Q, your homophobic arguments were pulled loose by Victoria's observation of a gay character (Dumbledore) of a book you had used as an example (Harry Potter).
And now this...some characters "need to die. You would understand what I'm talking of, when you observe the death of Dumbledore."
Coincidence, or flagrantly disgusting homophobia?