Killers who don’t kill the main character

Submitted by missblissful70 t3_10m6k84 in books

I have been reading thrillers lately, and I have noticed that these psychotic killers often warn off the main character with notes, or they hit her in the head, and knock her out, but don’t kill her. I understand that you want the main character to live; but if the killer is psychotic, wouldn’t he kill her despite the consequences? The last one I read, the killer did a number of things to warn off the main character, including telling her he’d kill her child. But she survived the book. Has anyone else noticed this? It makes me laugh sometimes.

11

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GuestCommenter12345 t1_j61wi6v wrote

Now that you mention it, YES! In TV shows and movies, the villains never kill the main character because they are so full of themselves and explaining why they are superior, giving the main character time to get out of what looks like a sure death for a lesser victim (James Bond, Wild Wild West,etc.). Now that I think of it, it is the same in books! If the bad guy just shut up and pulled the trigger there would be a lot fewer main characters out there. Thanks for pointing this out.

6

Rlpniew t1_j624y0r wrote

This has been brought up before, although it is a valid point. It was most famously discussed in Austin Powers.

5

mirrorspirit t1_j625fnt wrote

Sometimes it works the other way. The main character is the main character because they survived the killer.

Other times it's because the killer is too attached to the main character and gives a reason like they want the MC to suffer more or they need the MC to understand why they've been targeted. In some romantic suspense, the killer doesn't plan to kill the MC, just everyone around (usually) her so she has no one else, and they can have her to themselves. Then when she doesn't cooperate, then she has to die.

Sometimes it gets kind of convoluted. And sometimes, especially in true crime cases, it can be scary how the killer formed this fantasy in their head that revolves around them getting everything they want.

8

Autarch_Kade t1_j62l5tx wrote

Yeah, it's pretty bad. The stakes should be the same. If the killer has the chance, they should intend to actually kill the main character.

Any kind of "close calls" should involve inconvenient locations (like they were in public at the time), or the killer themselves being severely wounded, or police currently close enough to hear sirens and see lights (not enough time).

We know the main character is likely to survive as the story wouldn't be following them otherwise, but it shouldn't be so silly about how it accomplishes that.

5

TheChocolateMelted t1_j62u7f8 wrote

Fully understand where you're coming from. There's one exception I'm aware of, where the refusal to kill the main character is tastefully and sensibly done: >!The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris!<. His refusal to kill her fitted in entirely with the respect he developed for her over the course of the novel. It would have been a disappointment if he had gone after her.

2

zeroniusrex t1_j62x91m wrote

I read one where the killer did kill the main character. Only it turns out that she wasn't, obviously. Because the book kind of would have ended at that point.

2

AggravatingBox2421 t1_j63r1b6 wrote

Yes! I finished a book an hour ago where the main character uncovered the killer, who said outright that he’d let him go. It made no sense!! Plot armour sucks!

1

Rlpniew t1_j6468uo wrote

In the film Goldfinger - I can’t remember if the scene was in the novel because it’s been 50 years (!) since I read it - why does he put Bond on that laser thing instead of just killing him outright? (For that matter, why does he spend the money to come up with that elaborate moving model of Fort Knox to explain his plot to the underworld guys when he’s going to kill them all anyway?)

2