5 Very Scientific Reasons Why Authors Kill Your Faves

As writers, we've all heard it before:

•  Kill your darlings
• Sometimes the one you love have to go
• Kill to impact

etc, etc.  Us writers are told to kill off characters as though they're a part of some literary version of Battle Royale. It can be hard for readers to understand, but it's a necessary evil.

As readers, we usually stare at the page in what can only be described as your-mom-told-you-santa-wasn't-real then-proceeded-to-destroy-all-of-your-presents-and-laugh-at-your-pain horror. Why did the author do that? Do they hate us? What have we done to deserve this?

To help bridge the gap between readers and writers, I shall explain 5 very scientific reasons authors kill off characters. These answers are completely true and were conducted at the Anah Research Institute for Higher Learning.

1. Your pain gives them strength

It's no secret that the tears of the innocent (and maybe the half-innocent) is what gives writers their secret power. Speaking from experience, I down a bottle of your-mom-told-you-santa-wasn't-real then-proceeded-to-destroy-all-of-your-presents-and-laugh-at-your-pain horror tears every night.

2. Your pain also gives them more money

How many times has your favorite character been killed off at the end of the book, then you flip the page to see YOUR PAIN: THE SEQUEL COMING OUT IN 2099? Too often. This ploy enrages you and forces you to buy the next book, in a desperate attempt to see if any of the other less exciting characters have figured out necromancy. Your pain has helped contribute to the author's meager check each month.

3. They meant to kill off another character, but made a typo

See actually what actually happened was that Bob was supposed to die. Not Fob, Bob's infinitely more attractive and charismatic twin brother. The poor author made a typo, and only discovered it in the book's final stages before publication. 

4. They thought you would like it

The young author, in their misguided attempt to create a literary classic, thought that you would appreciate them eliminating the only decent character in the entire book. Surely you would be able to see the literary significance of such actions. Your heart would swell in pride at their courage.

Not.

5. The author thought it was necessary

As we have all come to learn, this is probably the dumbest reason. What happened to All was well? Happily Ever Afters?  And not a single thing went wrong ever again? Clearly these authors have learned nothing about the finer details of writing literature. It's never necessary to kill off a character, especially when you have writer powers to save them!

So, what do you think? Did this study cover all of the bases or are their more reason to why authors are off their rocker?