Unbreakable rule or room for interpretation?
Discuss.
PS: To the anonymous lurker I discovered yesterday… hey!
 |
25 Responses to “"Don’t Kill the Dog"”Leave a Reply |
|
|
Syndicate  Subscribe to this site's RSS feed. Sitemeter 
|
|
 |
September 18th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Dunno. Context for this question?
My villain killed a cat once and I took it out b/c Kel was horrified. People do react strongly. Then again, in Stephen King’s story Secret Window, the villain kills a dog. (That’s on purpose, so that Reader will hate the villain.) Then again, he’s S.K. I am not. =)
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
no context, aside from the well known writing rule about “don’t kill the dog” — I believe it was Stephen King who talks about the grief he once got for doing so in a book and how he’ll never do it again!
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Funny thing is that I put a dog in my ms because I know how often people can really associate with and love a dog character (strange, I know, but think about all of Jenny Crusie’s dogs!). And then it was a nightmare because I kept forgetting he was there and had to go back and specifically write the dog back in (and had lots of people say they love the dog).
But, the dog gets his in the second book if it ever gets written
I think if you kill the dog and it really really really really fits with the story, then go for it – that can be really powerful. But expect flack for it too!
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 8:49 am
He kills a lot of dogs, doesn’t he? Secret Window, Cujo, Pet Sematary… then again, I think the majority of those (if not all) were written pre-fame. To my knowledge he hasn’t done it recently. Interesting. If even S.K. doesn’t do it… Must be some serious backlash.
For me personally, it would depend on circumstance. If someone killed a pet for no reason, I prolly wouldn’t like that. But if a villain killed a pet for a motivated villain-reason, I would accept it. If a hero killed a pet, it would also have to be a darn good reason.
Then again, I recently read a book where the hero was killing people for revenge and I was OK with that, so maybe I’m not the best judge. =)
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I’m in the middle of “Company Man” by Joseph Finder…the family dog was killed in bloody fashion and discovered in the pool by the kids…it provides motivation for the worried widower father who is afraid the kids themselves may be next, and when the schizoid nut comes to his door in the middle of the night believes he has to shoot him in order to save his family.
From there on it seems to be a riff on “Crime and Punishment”, as he gets involved with the vic’s daughter while a determined cop tries to get the goods on him. Dunno yet how it turns out, but I’m hoping for the best.
Was the dog’s death necessary? In Finder’s context (at least he provides one, Diana!
) I think it was. The reader realizes that the schizo is dangerous and unsympathic (however non-responsible for his actions he may be), and it gets us right into the thick of things.
It may be that the death of the dog obviates worse things that might have come (everyone, including his daughter, seems to agree that the dog-killer was a very troubled man who is now no longer suffering). So yes – I think there are occasions when we can say with relief, along with Oliver Goldsmith, “The dog it wes that died.”
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 9:05 am
The moment the dog dies I would stop reading, throw the book away and never buy anything by that author again. Not that I feel strongly about this topic or anything.lol.
IMHO there’s an unwritten contract between author and reader not to kill the dog. The only exception would be a dog in a series that dies of natural causes after a long life in a long succession of books — I mean, really, your couldn’t expect Spenser and Susan Silverman’s Pearl I to live forever.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I kill the dog in my YA. In fact, the my male lead kills his own dog. Okay, a clarification: The dog is sick and dying. I think I can get away with it.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I can think of a few books I loved in which the dog (or dogs) dies. Where the Red Fern Grows for one. Old Yeller. (Okay, I’ll admit I’m still not over Old Yeller.)
I think people say “Don’t kill the dog” because a dog will only ever really and truly be a victim. We all hate it when helpless creatures get killed needlessly. Dogs will never understand what’s happening to them; they only want to love you and be loved in return. I think dogs are so powerful because of their selfless devotion; you probably won’t get the same reaction about a cat. (Although I’m sure cat people would disagree.)
I had the same reaction as “dog death” to Hedwig’s death in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I will never, EVER forgive J. K. Rowling for that. (Even now I start boiling with anger.) Hedwig acts as the “dog”: she is Harry’s pet, with her own personality and intelligence, but nevertheless a creature he had to care for.
So I guess “don’t kill the dog” remains true. I guess the only exceptions I’ll allow is if it would be kinder to put the dog down or if the dog dies of natural causes. (There are others, of course, but they’re a VERY VERY fine line to walk.)
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Creepy that you mentioned this today… Someone made a “don’t kill dogs” allusion in my Administrative Law class last night, and I had it going through my head all night.
Killing a dog (or a helpless kid for that matter, SK said he was never going to do that, but look at Pet Cemetary; I think once an idea gets ahold of him, I’m not sure he can stop himself) makes a story really, really dark. But if you want people to think of you as “real”, “dark”, and “horrifying”, by all means…
Thanks for hosting a lovely cheerful chat, Diana
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I’m with Erica. It all depends on the circumstances and how the act fits into the story. There has to be a darn good reason, and if there isn’t the author is breaking the reader’s trust.
As for Old Yeller, I prefer the book Big Red. Much better book and the dog doesn’t have to die.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Having an ill dog put down is one thing, but “killing” it is another.
I quit reading Stephen King’s book (Needful Things) when I got to that point. Good writing, but I can’t stomach it. I don’t hate him for having written it, though.
I wish I could spill the beans about my heroine, but I can’t. She would have A LOT to say about this subject.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I think part of what’s informing response to this axiom–and part of what informs the axiom itself–is the cloudy perception most people have of the process of nature. At least to me animals are not automatically sympathetic; if that’s why you’re including a dog, it seems like a ridiculous cheat to graft a cliched trope onto a manuscript that needs to generate sympathy in some less artificial manner.
Animals, including domesticated animals (and I’d place humans in both categories), are sympathetic because of the content of their actions or what we learn about their internal states.
It would be interesting to see if there are similar narrative attitudes in primarily agricultural societies, or if this is a product of the peculiar mindset of the post-industrial world.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Killing a dog would have to depend on the story and context.
Now, killing a child… that author just might get hate mail from me. LOL!
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
“The curious incident of the dog in the night-time” begins with someone killing a dog. Not only that but you know the person who did (at the end). And it works in the story. And I don’t think it makes you hate them because of it. I think you sort of feel sorry for their situation. Somehow it works in that story. In general I think if it works to build/emphasize a plot point, it’s ok.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Generally, I’ll stop reading or watching when an animal is killed. I love Holly Black–I adored Tithe–but I put Valiant down after the scene with the cat and haven’t read anything from her since. Neal Stephenson? Don’t read anymore. And so on and so forth.
I guess it’s because 1. I volunteer in animal rescue and see the worst that animals endure all the time. I don’t want to be reminded of it in fiction. And 2. It’s usually a cheap way for a writer to show how bad a character is. It reminds me of revenge movies where a man’s wife/girlfriend is killed just so he has a reason to go around shooting/beating up people–the woman is completely expendable. I don’t believe that animals (or women) are expendable, so when a writer treats them that way just to make a point…
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Does it depend on how involved the dog is in the story?
My MCs arrive back at a village that has been attacked, and the first thing they encounter is a boy mouring his dead dog, which was shot (along with other livestock) by the attackers.
The reader has never met or seen the dog before this scene, so there’s no reader attachment. Neither do they see the dog actually being killed – it is dead when they arrive. I included it to show realism (this is in the seventeenth century) and the seriousness of the situation.
But am I asking for trouble?
For the record, I have also worked in animal rescue (both local humane society and breed rescue programs) so I don’t take it lightly. And I don’t think I could kill off a pet (be it dog, cat, etc.) that had been involved in the story. I’m always the one going “but what about the cat?!” during movies, etc.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Also, later in my book there is a scene where a mother and young child die of measles, as witnessed by the MC. (Again, this is seventeenth century.)
It’s not a throwaway scene by any means; the MC is deeply affected. And the later resolution to the entire story depends in part on a decision made because of that impact.
I’m just trying to stay true to my period, and firmly ground the reader in the reality of life in that time. People died of illnesses we can now vaccinate for. Animals were shot. It’s not pretty but if I want them to understand how the MC feels about this time I think it’s something they need to see.
I guess I’m really in for it now?
I just got done reading The Bronze Horseman by Paullina Simons and a large chunk of the book involves the death of hundreds of thousands of people in Leningrad during the German blockade of WWII. The MCs entire family is shown dying one by one of starvation, along with young mothers with children described dead and frozen in the streets.
Diana Gabaldon frequently includes horrific scenes of death, disease, etc. in her novels because, again, that is the reality of the time she’s writing about.
Now, I’m not trying to hold myself up to them as a writer and say “if they can do it, so can I.” But I think we’re doing it for the same reasons.
But are those reasons good enough for the reader?
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
This has been a totally fascinating conversation for me. I’m usually with Phyllis — can *not* stand when the dogs are killed off in books. Strangely enough, cats don’t bother me so much. I loved Valiant.
However, I hated all the “dead animal” books they forced us to read in grade school. The Yearling, The Red Pony, Old yeller. I remember decided that I really, absolutely, unequivocally and unrepentingly HATED Steinbeck when I read The Red Pony and then the Grapes of Wrath in quick succession, and even the dog dies in the latter. To this day, I won’t read anything by Steinbeck, even though people tell me East of Eden and Travels with Charlie are great. And isn’t Charlie a dog? Clearly Steinbeck was an animal lover.
The dog in Carrie’s book is great.
As for “what part does the dog play” — I think the advice is not meant re: “curious incident” books, where the whole plot hinges on the dead dog, or even books where they come upon the dog already dead, but the type where, as mentioned, the animal dies to “prove it’s serious.” Especially if it’s a lovable “character” animal (Carrie mentioned Jenny Crusie’s dogs.)
I have a very vivid memory of seeing Independence Day in the movie theaters. So the aliens land and start blowing shit up, adn thousands and millions of people die, and then the stripper girlfriend of Will Smith’s character pulls her baby son out of the car as the alien bomb flames are SHOOTING down the tunnel, and, all kick ass, bashes down the door of the janitor’s closet or whatever and hides, and starts SHOUTING for her labrador retriever, who, being an obedient pooch, takes a flying leap into the closet JUST as the hideous flames of death come barrelling by…
And everyone in the theater cheered. Like, CHEERED. Millions of people dead in LA and Manhattan and DC and wherever else, but cheer, because the dog is okay.
And yet, even as I thought it was silly, I realized that if the dog had burnt to a crisp, I would have walked right out of that theater. So yeah, I’m there on “don’t kill the dog.”
Regarding flightless’s query, that’s interesting. Certainly, I kill heaps of animals in my book (it is, after all, about unicorn hunters), but I think there’s a difference between animals, wild, domesticated, etc., and PETS.
However, it’s been interesting to see people’s strong, strong reactions to this.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Well, Jenny, I think that’s the whole point. It’s not about killing people in horrific ways. Stephen King’s whole argument is that he’s killed the entire population of the world several times over in his novels, but he never got hate mail the way he did when he killed a dog.
I think of books i read — The Grapes of Wrath, the death that bothered me most was the dog’s. And HOW I LIVE NOW, where people die left right and center, where the main characters ARE starving to death…what really drove it home for me is when they find their pet goat starving to death…
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
jj, I will *never* forgive you for revealing a BIG THING about the newest and last Harry Potter book in a blog where it wasn’t even being discussed. I came along to read about killing/dying dogs and had the book ruined.
Sigh.
Guess it’s my fault for not wanting to buy a hardback copy….
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Diana, and others:
How did you feel about the dog-killing scenes in A Fish Called Wanda?
They were done like cartoons, but they still REALLY bothered me. My husband could never understand why I got so upset about the dogs. (not to mention the fish…)
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Just don’t. It’s one of those things. I think Haven Kimmel had dogs being hurt or killed in one of her books…I read an interview where she expressed her frustration that that was all anyone talked about when they mentioned the book.
If something must die in the story, kill a lizard or a guinea pig.
[Reply]
September 18th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Where the Red Fern Grows?
[Reply]
September 19th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Hey, he killed the dog in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night. In fact, that was the inciting incident for the entire story.
I think you can do anything and that someone’s going to complain no matter what you do.
[Reply]
September 19th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Kris Eton, I’m so very sorry! I guess it was rather dumb of me to assume that nearly everyone had read it.
…if it makes you feel any better, there are loads of other things that happen that sort of eclipse that (although, not really for me) because it, uh, happens very early on (like in the first 100 pages).
[Reply]