From: Raymond E. Feist
Date: 20 January 2011
I can imagine a lot of things; I'm a writer. Why did I kill off Locky in Kesh? Because I was done with him as a character.
[edit]
Locklear is what is known in the writing biz as a "dramatic foil." His primary purpose is to provide a contrast to Jimmy. We meet him when Jimmy first becomes Arutha's squire. Jimmy is the thief propelled into a position of responsibility; Locklear is the son of privilege who expected to be there. How they deal with the events in the book give insight into Jimmy's growth. At the time of Locklear's death Jimmy was now James, and I didn't need Locklear around any more to develop James's character. Moreover, I had fashioned Locky as a smart, charming, but ultimately shallow man. It was his almost narcissistic nature that eventually got him killed. And I wanted it to be a very pointless and ultimately frustrating death for the reader. I overplayed that a bit, and didn't have enough reaction from James and the twins when they got word of the death, which I dealt when in the last rewrite.
From the reader's point of view a character is a character; from the author's a character is a means of propelling a narrative and each has a different task associated with his/her creation.
Best, R.E.F.
FAQ answers attributed to Raymond E. Feist are copyright by Raymond E. Feist.
It should also be born in mind that the answer given was only applicable on the date written, and to a specific question. You may find further, similar questions, in the FAQ.
