Shuffling off this mortal coil

  

I suppose that's what writers tell their characters. I don't make a habit of offing my creations--at least not the ones who have become interesting and integral to the story. However, we occasionally fall upon times that try the writer's soul, when a beloved or captivating character must become referenced only in the past tense. 

Should the character's demise be played out on stage, or merely reported by messenger number three or via a sad dispatch from the front? I'm in favor of the matter getting stage time, provided that it's meaningful. If I've gone to the trouble of creating a name and backstory and linked the character's tale to the hero or plot, that character deserves a demise worthy of the role. More importantly, beyond what any character deserves, the reader has earned the scene. If the reader has had any chance to get attached to the individual, the reader needs understand that the dissolution fulfilled some purpose, that the sacrifice ennobled the character, revealed a flaw, or that the progression of the story required it. Such matters merit the stage--and should make for great reading.

A major character's expiration demands at least one good scene, if not a series of scenes with a foreshadow, a build up, and terrible climax. A little dialog or soliloquy adds a meaningful touch and can provide closure or resolution to some lingering question--or not. Final words cut short or imbued with ambiguity may provide more questions to be resolved later--and the generation of intriguing questions often drives interest and deeper meaning in the story. Remember the Trauma, the Drama, and the Dream, my three keys to great stories.

Naturally, I now think of a character whose demise did not get a full treatment and think I could've handled it better. On the other hand, I recall some characters who crossed the threshold of immortality and feel a sense of satisfaction with their final scenes even though they will be missed.