Forum: Author Hangout

You probably should kill off the wife rather than leave her around to possibly be a character, if you aren't going to use her in some way. The gun over the mantle objection, although that is for drama, not stories.

Historically some sort of plague or illness is likely or death in childbirth. Or put her in a hospital, the operation was a success but the patient died.

If they just divorced but she moved to Australia (chosen as a place a long way from here, I could use New Zealand but that is harder to spell) you can justify her absence from the story. But then the temptation, at least for the reader, is to think about bringing her back, to be an obstacle for the heroine and the hero getting together. And then you might as well write a Romance. A form somewhat less popular with SOL readers than the general public, who buy stories instead of reading them on line.

Historically some sort of plague or illness is likely or death in childbirth. Or put her in a hospital, the operation was a success but the patient died.

You mention that she's dead so readers aren't wondering if she'll show up. I see no reason to mention how she died unless it is important to the story somehow.

I guess my point was more about keeping the wife's events simple as to not draw unnecessary attention to her non involvement in the story. While I think your ideas are creative and lean toward the humorous side, none of them would go unnoticed, which would be the goal, unless you specifically wanted to draw attention to it for one reason or the other.

The cause of death can have a beneficial side effect in that it can explain why the widower has more money (from insurance claim) or is intolerant of drunk drivers, or whatever, so the reason he is single can be important to the background.

Take your pick, I've got thousands more if you need them!

I don't. She's dead. why/how isn't relevant to the story.

I don't. She's dead. why/how isn't relevant to the story.

Exactly. Well put.

Not that your points lack validity, but does using cliches really mean the writer is weak? Can the writer not use those cliches and prove himself with the other aspects of writing?

Once again, I only ask, because maybe it's the author's intent not to draw attention to the wife at all. To make her part of the story as obscure as possible so that he can focus on whatever the story is about. By being creative with her absence in any way, the story automatically draw the reader's attention away from either the plot, or the story and make her disappearance or absence a focal point. What if that's what the author is trying to avoid? Would you still be annoyed and judge him/her poorly?

At the other extreme, authors who aspire to bother dead-tree publishers need all the freshness and originality possible in the hope of gaining an edge in a dog-eat-dog market.

From what I see on store shelves, in terms of popular fiction, the dead tree publishers love formulaic crap.

An agent told me not long ago that the market for American teen vampire stories is beyond saturated

And yet they still keep publishing them.

There seems to be an awful lot of both in the US and it strains credulity.

Why does it strain credulity? Both are significant causes of death in the US.

In fact, in the US for women between the ages of 35 and 84, cancer is the leading cause of death.

The next most likely cause of death for adult women in the US is heart disease, so maybe authors should throw in more heart attacks.

http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2013/womenall_2013.pdf

DUI related vehicle accidents kill almost 10K people in the US annually half of that number would be women.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

In this case, 'showing' would include demonstrating how he feels by how he reacts. But giving details about how the wife died is purely 'telling', you're telling the readers what happened to the wife rather than fully exploring the topic.

I'll say this once again, I'm not one of those authors who believes that 'telling' is never appropriate. Quite the contrary (in my opinion). I think it is perfectly okay to 'tell' sometimes. In the case of the dead wife, I guess my presumption is that she died a long time ago (I write sex stories, so if she died recently and the protagonist immediately went out and started screwing other women, he would automatically cast a shadowy and evil persona to the reader). Because she dies 'a long time ago' I wouldn't 'show' any emotions from the protagonist. I would simply state, 'she died of cancer X number of years ago', or something to that effect. In this case, I see no reason to 'show' anything. Telling is sufficient to get the job done and makes quick work of establishing the protagonists current environment without making it a drawn out ordeal, which would only serve to slow the story down unnecessarily.

That's why I prefer the KISS principal: keep the backstory as simple as possible. Why introduce cancer when 'lack of interest' is easier to accept. In the case of a traffic accident, I'd expect the husband to respond oddly whenever they went for a drive. By tossing in a throw-away line, you're potentially introducing unanticipated complications in the readers' minds.

I guess I'm a little confused now. My mother died of cancer four years ago. When it happened, I was distraught. I loved my mother very much and I grieved for her deeply. Now, it is four years later. I still think about my mother, but my grieving process is over. To me, stating that she died of cancer is a matter of fact. It is not complicated in any way and I accept this fact easily. It is not a point I would belabor if I were telling someone a story about myself. If her death was pertinent to the story I was relating, I would simply state that 'my mother died of cancer four years ago' and then I would move on.

I actually disagree with your statement that 'lack of interest' is easier to accept. lmao. If I had a wife who left me because of 'lack of interest' I think that would bother me for a long time. If I were the one who 'left her for lack of interest' I would think that would raise questions as well. I don't think that is a simple explanation at all. Quite the contrary. I think that explanation demands more explanation than using a cliche that most people can relate to. Having a loved one die of cancer is something so common, that there are probably not many people who couldn't put themselves in that pair of shoes. Having someone leave them because of 'lack of interest' is far more unique. I've never heard anyone say, "he left me because he lost interest. I guess that means I'm boring." Ouch... that hurts.

It would be a unique story if the child were born 3 years after the mother died. I have heard of women giving birth after they were declared brain dead, kept alive with machinery, but to conceive a child after death would be very rare. A uterus on life support, using eggs from a dead woman to form the embryo would be science fiction, as far as I know.

I'd expect the husband to respond oddly whenever they went for a drive.

If he's still reacting like that in a way that would be obvious to complete strangers more than a year after his wife's death, he needs psychiatric help.

If someone doesn't act grief struck, then it's hard to believe his wife died of cancer or was killed by a drunk driver.

My presumption would be that the wife died some years before the story starts, so he has had time to recover from the grief.