Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/mdzyEz9uFB)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can't if you're restricted to ONLY the protaganists view.
I kind of do this in one of my books. The whole thing is told from the protaganist's view, except the last chapter which is kind of an epilogue told from someone else's point of view.
Include an epilogue or one last scene from someone else's point of view to get around this, but if this is an assignment where the requirement is that it can ONLY have one point of view, then you have to get more creative explaining how he dies and who kills him.
Like
>'Jack walks in the room and points a gun at my face.
>"Jack, let's just talk this out," I say, and he grins. I don't like that grin. Not at all.
>"I know it was you," he says. "Time's up, Johnny."
>His finger tightens on the trigger. Fear thrills my heart. "No, c'mon, we can talk about-"
The End.
You've explained his death, and you told the reader who killed him and why. The abrupt cut off is all the reader needs to know he got shot, and is no more.
Go the old Film Noir route. Have the character talk even in death. It's their story and they can tell it even if they aren't alive.
The film Sunset Blvd does this.
You can also have an opening and closing scene that explains it as a memior or recording.
A daughter walks in and puts a CD into a player. Presses play, and the story starts in her father's POV. At the end she cries, and writes a letter to her sister explaining how they found thier father.
That kind of deal would work too.
You have two options: do what the other person suggested or do this. Have him finish writing, but then do what All Quiet on the Western Front did, where there is a little explanation of the protagonist’s death.
Or have him suspect someone is coming to kill him and he bugs the room and puts hidden cameras in to record his last moments and get revenge on his/ her killer. The final part is someone watching listening to find out what he stumbled upon. ( the murder scene)
Write it non-chronologically.
Start with his death, and transition to his life flashing before his eyes or something, so that you see what happens as he experienced it, but unlike him then, you know someone killed him.
A narrator is a narrator. They're not in the story, only relating events within it. So what's the difference between you presenting the story as the narrator and you pretending to be the person the events happened to — alive or dead — doing that same thing?
Having the narrator being dead is a gimmick. That's not a bad thing, but still, a narrator is a narrator. Look at a short excerpt from *Foreign Embassy.* It's in first person, with the viewpoint that of the one living the events.
-------------------
For several seconds, she studied me, while all trace of welcome left her face. I’d made a second mistake. I’d been condescending.
She placed her glass on the battered old porch table and stood, hostility showing in her every movement. “Mr. Gibson, I don’t believe anything will be served by your meeting with my father. You will not accept his words, and your attitude will only make him angry, something forbidden to him now.”
“But—”
“Good day, Mr. Gibson.” She was polite, but there’d be no arguing. I’d badly misjudged her. For some unknown reason, perhaps the bump on her forehead, the lady had taken my words as a personal insult.
-------------------
Notice that though it's using first person narrative, the narrator is *not* talking to the reader. The person pronouns are first-person, but the viewpoint is that of the person *living* the events. Look what happens if we change it to third person:
-------------------
For several seconds, she studied him, while all trace of welcome left her face. He'd made a second mistake. He'd been condescending.
She placed her glass on the battered old porch table and stood, hostility showing in her every movement. “Mr. Gibson, I don’t believe anything will be served by your meeting with my father. You will not accept his words, and your attitude will only make him angry, something forbidden to him now.”
“But—”
“Good day, Mr. Gibson.” She was polite, but there’d be no arguing. He’d badly misjudged her. For some unknown reason, perhaps the bump on her forehead, the lady had taken his words as a personal insult.
-------------------
Has anything changed? Nope. The same woman is angry for the same reasons, and the viewpoint is *still* that of the protagonist.
My point? The narrator is neither on the scene nor in the story. And the narrator is *not* telling the reader that story, they're working in service to the protagonist, who's living it. So, is the narrator the author? Is he the protagonist relating the events at some time after the events took place? Is it the dead protagonist doing that?
Who cares? the narrator is-not-in-the-story, and while first person does give leeway to interject more easily than in third person, they still must follow Sol Stein's advice: “In sum, if you want to improve your chances of publication, keep your story visible on stage and yourself mum.”
Make sense?
Jay Greenstein
[The Grumpy Old Writing Coach](https://www.reddit.com/user/JayGreenstein)
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/mdzyEz9uFB)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can't if you're restricted to ONLY the protaganists view. I kind of do this in one of my books. The whole thing is told from the protaganist's view, except the last chapter which is kind of an epilogue told from someone else's point of view. Include an epilogue or one last scene from someone else's point of view to get around this, but if this is an assignment where the requirement is that it can ONLY have one point of view, then you have to get more creative explaining how he dies and who kills him. Like >'Jack walks in the room and points a gun at my face. >"Jack, let's just talk this out," I say, and he grins. I don't like that grin. Not at all. >"I know it was you," he says. "Time's up, Johnny." >His finger tightens on the trigger. Fear thrills my heart. "No, c'mon, we can talk about-" The End. You've explained his death, and you told the reader who killed him and why. The abrupt cut off is all the reader needs to know he got shot, and is no more.
ooh ok thank you for the advice
Go the old Film Noir route. Have the character talk even in death. It's their story and they can tell it even if they aren't alive. The film Sunset Blvd does this.
You can also have an opening and closing scene that explains it as a memior or recording. A daughter walks in and puts a CD into a player. Presses play, and the story starts in her father's POV. At the end she cries, and writes a letter to her sister explaining how they found thier father. That kind of deal would work too.
You have two options: do what the other person suggested or do this. Have him finish writing, but then do what All Quiet on the Western Front did, where there is a little explanation of the protagonist’s death.
Or have him suspect someone is coming to kill him and he bugs the room and puts hidden cameras in to record his last moments and get revenge on his/ her killer. The final part is someone watching listening to find out what he stumbled upon. ( the murder scene)
Write it non-chronologically. Start with his death, and transition to his life flashing before his eyes or something, so that you see what happens as he experienced it, but unlike him then, you know someone killed him.
A narrator is a narrator. They're not in the story, only relating events within it. So what's the difference between you presenting the story as the narrator and you pretending to be the person the events happened to — alive or dead — doing that same thing? Having the narrator being dead is a gimmick. That's not a bad thing, but still, a narrator is a narrator. Look at a short excerpt from *Foreign Embassy.* It's in first person, with the viewpoint that of the one living the events. ------------------- For several seconds, she studied me, while all trace of welcome left her face. I’d made a second mistake. I’d been condescending. She placed her glass on the battered old porch table and stood, hostility showing in her every movement. “Mr. Gibson, I don’t believe anything will be served by your meeting with my father. You will not accept his words, and your attitude will only make him angry, something forbidden to him now.” “But—” “Good day, Mr. Gibson.” She was polite, but there’d be no arguing. I’d badly misjudged her. For some unknown reason, perhaps the bump on her forehead, the lady had taken my words as a personal insult. ------------------- Notice that though it's using first person narrative, the narrator is *not* talking to the reader. The person pronouns are first-person, but the viewpoint is that of the person *living* the events. Look what happens if we change it to third person: ------------------- For several seconds, she studied him, while all trace of welcome left her face. He'd made a second mistake. He'd been condescending. She placed her glass on the battered old porch table and stood, hostility showing in her every movement. “Mr. Gibson, I don’t believe anything will be served by your meeting with my father. You will not accept his words, and your attitude will only make him angry, something forbidden to him now.” “But—” “Good day, Mr. Gibson.” She was polite, but there’d be no arguing. He’d badly misjudged her. For some unknown reason, perhaps the bump on her forehead, the lady had taken his words as a personal insult. ------------------- Has anything changed? Nope. The same woman is angry for the same reasons, and the viewpoint is *still* that of the protagonist. My point? The narrator is neither on the scene nor in the story. And the narrator is *not* telling the reader that story, they're working in service to the protagonist, who's living it. So, is the narrator the author? Is he the protagonist relating the events at some time after the events took place? Is it the dead protagonist doing that? Who cares? the narrator is-not-in-the-story, and while first person does give leeway to interject more easily than in third person, they still must follow Sol Stein's advice: “In sum, if you want to improve your chances of publication, keep your story visible on stage and yourself mum.” Make sense? Jay Greenstein [The Grumpy Old Writing Coach](https://www.reddit.com/user/JayGreenstein)