On Character Death

Characters are what make a story. No characters, no story. For the most part–I am sure you could find some sort of experimental French novelist who proves me wrong, but let’s go with the mostly characters involved sorta stories. When we sit and write a story, we write it from the perspective of the people who are there for the whole story. Sometimes your character dies at the end, thank you Shakespeare, but for the most part your main character is the one who is there for most of the story.

Character death is important, just as a character needs a reason to exist, they should also have a reason to die. But I was going for realism you say. There is nothing wrong with realism. People die every day for lots of different reasons. Your story is not the real world. Just as we do not write dialog the way people really speak, we should not kill people the way they really die. The biggest thing with this is the shock factor. You know this death. Everything is going great, the trees are signing, birds flying, and then BANG, sniper from 1000 yards pops off one of your main characters. This is not to say that a sudden death is a bad thing, but when it does happen there are somethings you should keep in mind.

First is the setting. Have you established a setting where snipers are there and can shoot at 1000 yards? Another issue is timing. Why here? Why now? If you have established this setting throughout your story, then why was it at this moment that your character was offed?

The movie Jurassic Park II had a scene like I am talking about. Your two heroes take a spill over the cliff in their camper. The back-up character jumps in an SUV, ties off the trailer and starts to pull them up. In comes the T-Rex. There is this intense, and long, scene where the back-up guy is pulling up the heroes and dodging the dino. For these minutes you are cheering for him. Then as soon as the heroes are safe, he gets eaten. But that is real! You may be screaming. No, what would have been real would be the camper ditching over the cliff and the heroes dying. What the author did was make me care about this guy so that his death would have purpose. But it didn’t, it just increased dino-body count

Counter-example is in Aliens. As the marines are retreating and fighting off the wave of attackers, the floor opens up and an Alien grabs Hudson, an established character. He was a Marine. He was in battle. Marines die in battle. There is your realism.

When in the story your character dies is also important. Does the death further the plot? Ok, so what if you are sure that this the moment where your character dies. It is important here. Now, let’s talk about method. Sniper at 1000 yards? Why? If you are going for the shock death, then again I refer back to setting. If not, then could there be other ways? Just a normal firefight, with normal soldiers, instead of your super shot? Crash on getaway? Self Sacrifice? Why did you choose your method? Also, do not forget, if you are going for realism on your death, sometime people get killed, then you have to go for realism on your method too. If in your setting snipers who can hit things at 1000 yards are a dime a dozen, then go for it. And if you are so hitched on realism, how is your characters’ health? Could they have a heart attack? Stroke? What about being hit by a drunk driver? Asteroid? The method is as close to the plot as the death itself. If your character steps off the curb and gets hit with a bus, which is real, how does that move the plot? If they are being chased by someone (or something) and it gets the jump on them, does that time make sense? What about the previous story? Did your character survive a 70 ft fall in between spikes, but then later gets killed by a blow to the head?

So yes, Hamlet dies, Romeo and Juliet die, but did they die for a reason? The answer is yes. But my story is different. I know, they are all different. I am not trying to be Gospel. I am trying to make you think. When you kill off a character, is there a reason? A purpose?

Poetry on a Pedestal

At some point in your past one of your teachers dragged a large pedestal out into the middle of the classroom. She then stood on it, complete with royal music and halo-esque light and said “We shall now read from this sacred book of poetry.” From then on, you have this view that poetry is something complicated, something off, something that has to be studied.

Poetry is not something to be hidden away; to be enjoyed by a select few that sit in hardwood offices, drink Lattes and read poetry because they ‘get it’. There is nothing to get. Poetry is language, it is words, it is sound and rhythm, if you speak you can read poetry, if you breath you can understand it.

Those fancy terms you learned in English class: alliteration, metaphor, assonance, hyperbole, etc, they are about style, about form, they are about structure. They are not, however, part of ‘liking’ or ‘getting’ poetry. You can be able to dissect a poem down to each literary device used, to the symbolism, even to the etymology of the chosen words. These things will help you APPRECIATE a poem. But liking it? That is something different.

Read it. Try it out loud. Listen to it. You will like the poem or you won’t.

Does that make these literary devices useless? No. They are still the tools of the trade, the blocks that constructs poems. However, the poet does not (usually) sit and say “In this verse I shall insert a metaphor and precisely four occurances of alliteration.” The poet is writing, picking what they like, taking away what they don’t. Dissection is not a part of the creative proccess (again, usually), so don’t think it is a part of the reading process.

So go, read a poem.

What if Train: Apple and Yahoo

(So I started this before Microsoft’s Bid this weekend. Figured I’d finish it anyway)

Recently, Steve Jobs went to a Yahoo conference and gave a speech to Yahoo about themselves. He told them “The company with one of the largest Internet user bases can do and achieve anything…” Steve Jobs was giving Yahoo a pep-talk.

So this has made me start to wonder. Let’s take a trip on the what-if train, shall we?

What if Apple wants to buy Yahoo. Microsoft has has MSN for quite some time now. While Apple has .Mac, it pales in offerings as compared to Google or Yahoo. Yahoo has the componets already. Not to meantion, Microsoft has expressed a desire to purchase Yahoo. Apple would be wise to prevent Yahoo’s aquisition by Microsoft.

Yahoo has made great efforts in the Mobile internet offerings. Apple has the phone, Yahoo has the services, the two put together would create a great package for iPhone users.

And the thought of intergrating iPhoto and Flickr makes me giggle.

Ok, so let’s not go quite that far on the What if Train. What if Apple is looking to partner more with Yahoo? They already have Yahoo on the iPhone and integrated into the Leopard Address Book (iCal and iPhoto next?), Apple could certainly use a company like Yahoo to provide more Mac specific tools for its users.

Let us not forget Zimbra, which fits into both of these senerios. Zimbra, the opensource groupware program is one of the leading competitions for Exchange. While the Zimbra team is making efforts to increase Mac compatibility, it isn’t quite the Windows+Exchange package. Zimbra + Mac OSX Server + Pretty GUI Admin panels and you have an option for those people who don’t want Exchange. Plus, Zimbra is already compatible with the Blackberry, adding iPhone capability would turn the iPhone into a full-fledged business machine.

In the end, this is just a ‘What-if’. In the end, Apple probably has no concern either way over Yahoo!. Despite some integration features, such as Flickr – iPhoto, messeger – iChat, (probably many more) the addition of Yahoo wouldn’t be worth it to Apple. Yahoo certainly should start providing more interoperability between their services and Macintosh users (hint hint), which would pull users their way, who, let’s face it, are left out a lot of the time.

And maybe Mr. Jobs was just there to give a pep-talk.

But, what if?