Disliked Elements, Mechanics, and Tropes

[comradelenin]

@justme

No, but a lack of meaning is never a good thing

It’s better than bad meaning. You can get meaning elsewhere.

@justme

bringing that character back does nothing to fix it.

On the contrary! Having more characters to play around with gives you more options to take the story that aren’t complete dog water. I think Sasha being alive later would have changed things immensely.

@justme

In your AoT example, for instance, you don’t seem to take issue with the character death itself, but with the end it leads to.

Not so. She was my favorite character. The ending could’ve rivaled Shakespeare himself (who has written the only tragedies that I think are best AS tragedies) and that death would still be a deal breaker. The biggest impact it had on the series was a negative one on its sales numbers and for good reason.

It’s worth mentioning that the ending had many more deaths that really did add both because there was no time to see how it affected anyone or anything as well. My main point was more that the “meaning” the death had in the broader narrative was worse than nothing because everything it lead to was bad also, hence more meaning being a bad thing.

I’m not saying the ability to bring people back would have like, save the series, that example was more to illustrate how meaning alone is not good and can in fact be bad. Whether the author worked forwards or backwards to or from the conclusion doesn’t really factor into whether the meaning is good or bad.

I will say however that if they somehow introduced necromancy into the series, it’d be silly, but I can’t see a way it could’ve made things worse than they already were by that point. I genuinely don’t think a single out of nowhere idea could’ve made things worse than what the author thought was the logical and thematically appropriate ending for the series. You could have turned the dang thing into an idol anime and it wouldn’t be any dumber than what we got.

Like, again, I wasn’t saying resurrection was inherently plausible in the series, but a) I actually think it could be done plausibly and b) no matter how ridiculous it made things, not only would it not be any worse than what we got, but we’d at least have the consolation that the characters we loved got a satisfying, uplifting ending. Now we don’t even get that and also got nothing else to show for it.

Nonetheless my criticism of refusing to bring back characters is not one I’m actually leveling against AOT, it’s more leveled at when explaining a character coming back would be really easy but they go out of their way to explain why it can’t happen just so their death can stick. It’s why I mentioned robots. Sometimes it also happens if resurrection is already a thing and would normally work and they contrive to make it not work in one specific instance just so they can ax a character to raise the stakes.

@justme

It’s far better to have them change and develop as the narrative continues rather than resort to a resurrection in an attempt to brute force your way out of having any consequences whatsoever.

If the only way for a story to have consequences is for characters to permanently die, that is bad writing.

[LiliArch]

Having a story where characters are constantly in mortal peril but nobody ever dies doesn’t sound very good writing to me, either.

If you don’t want your characters to die, then maybe, I don’t know, don’t constantly put them into situations where they should die?

[comradelenin]

@LiliArch

Having a story where characters are constantly in mortal peril but nobody ever dies doesn’t sound very good writing to me, either.

That’s like, 90% of action stories. Diehard for example, one of the most acclaimed action films of all time, has death but not of main characters.

@LiliArch

If you don’t want your characters to die, then maybe, I don’t know, don’t constantly put them into situations where they should die?

Characters surviving life threatening situations is like, the universal constant of action media. Why do you need a character to die by gunshot to understand that gunshots are lethal?

[LiliArch]

@comradelenin

Why do you need a character to die by gunshot to understand that gunshots are lethal?

I have never seen/read an action story for adults where no one dies (note, no one, not just the main characters), so I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

[comradelenin]

@LiliArch

I have never seen/read an action story for adults where no one dies (note, no one, not just the main characters), so I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

I never said “no one”, I said likeable characters. Specifically ones were meant to be attached to. Obviously there’s going to be an otherwise high casualty rate in an active combat zone. It’s not the same thing. The issue is not death Itself it is who does the dying and the effect it has.

[lliiraanna]

@comradelenin

Why do you need a character to die by gunshot to understand that gunshots are lethal?

Human psychology is, in general, “yeah it can happen to others, but it’ll never happen to me/the ones close to me”.

Killing a character shows that, yes, it can and will happen to you and those around you. It’s a way of raising the stakes, making the characters (and the reader) treat the matter more seriously.

[comradelenin]

Eh. Still not really worth the tradeoff. I can’t think of a time I wasn’t taking things seriously until someone died and then immediately started enjoying myself more.

[LiliArch]

Well anyway, action stories usually also have a main character who has at least some skills to survive in the story, which means they don’t fit into the “there’s no way this charcter isn’t going to die” category anymore, which is the one I was (mostly) talking about when I talked about nobody dying despite being in constant peril being bad writing.

But I also was under the impression that the fear that some of your favourite characters are going to die is one of the thrills in consuming action stories. Well, thrillers at least. I’m not sure what all goes into the category “action stories”.

[comradelenin]

@LiliArch

But I also was under the impression that the fear that some of your favourite characters are going to die is one of the thrills in consuming action stories

I guess one could argue that but much like how monsters are often scarier if you never get to see them in full, the fear of these people dying doesn’t necessitate it to happen necessarily. Often when it does, it’s rather underwhelming and irritating more than anything.

[LiliArch]

We are either very different readers, or otherwise read very different stories, but that’s fine.

(Of course, I’m also a writer who puts the characters I love most through the worst wringer, so there’s that.)

[justme]

@comradelenin

It’s better than bad meaning.

I disagree. Even a “bad” meaning can invoke an emotional response and make you think. Something meaningless, such as a death and subsequent resurrection with no change in the status quo, just makes you think you wasted your time.

@comradelenin

She was my favorite character. The ending could’ve rivaled Shakespeare himself […] and that death would still be a deal breaker.

If that’s the case, then it seems your issue lies with the genre or tone of the story, not the quality of its writing.

@comradelenin

my criticism of refusing to bring back characters is […] more leveled at when explaining a character coming back would be really easy but they go out of their way to explain why it can’t happen just so their death can stick.

On that we can agree. Just as previously established worldbuilding shouldn’t be ignored in order to enable a resurrection, it also shouldn’t be ignored in order to prevent one. Both actions undermine the story’s internal consistency.

@comradelenin

If the only way for a story to have consequences is for characters to permanently die

I never said that. The point I was trying to make in the paragraph you quoted is that it’s better to recontextualize and build off of a poor narrative choice than to further undermine the narrative in an attempt to fix it.

[comradelenin]

I think it’s childish to be insulting people for not liking the tropes you like but that’s just me. This thread is literally called Disliked Stories, Elements, and Tropes not “opinions only I agree with”.

@justme

If that’s the case, then it seems your issue lies with the genre or tone of the story, not the quality of its writing.

Oh no, even people who loved the story’s general tendency to kill off lots of characters rather than liking it in spite of it hated the ending and this particular death. I’ve met like three people who enjoyed it.

@justme

it’s better to recontextualize and build off of a poor narrative choice than to further undermine the narrative in an attempt to fix it.

Only reason to build off something bad is if you lack the power to make it better.

[justme]

@comradelenin

Oh no, even people who loved the story’s general tendency to kill off lots of characters rather than liking it in spite of it hated the ending and this particular death. I’ve met like three people who enjoyed it.

As I said, I’m not familiar with AoT beyond the basic premise, so I can’t make a judgement on any particulars. I was referring to the fact that you indicated that your favourite character dying was a dealbreaker in and of itself. If that’s the case, violent stories with a darker tone aren’t going to be your cup of tea.

@comradelenin

Only reason to build off something bad is if you lack the power to make it better.

That’s my point. Once the character death has been made official, you can no longer just “make it better”. While drafting and editing? Sure, rewrite that thing as much as you want. Once it’s put out into the world and established as canon, however, any metaphorical rewriting of past events will merely weaken the narrative further.

[comradelenin]

@justme

Once it’s put out into the world and established as canon, however, any metaphorical rewriting of past events will merely weaken the narrative further

And that is our fundamental disagreement. I really do not believe this at all.

[lliiraanna]

Not all fiction is meant to be pleasant, though.
A good character death serves a purpose. Each character arc should have an idea behind it, an idea that the story then goes on to prove.
If your idea is, say, “being selfish leads to you being gradually abandoned by those around you, until you’re left completely alone & die because no one is there to save you”, then the character’s death does serve a purpose, even if it’s not a “good” ending.
Undoing the death, then, undoes all the gravitas of the situation. Yes, you might wish the character had survived. The character, at their final moments, also might wish they had survived - if only they did things differently. This is the point. This shows the consequences of learning the lesson too late, or not at all. It’s a warning.
Irl, you don’t always get a magical second chance, and such stories reflect that.

[Anarore_Kriptih]

Okay, but how in this situation are authors meant to learn how to do meaningful deaths and how to build on their consequences if they are not allowed to do anything less than perfect and only to characters you don’t like?

[Dryinspection]

I think its rather clear that the issue at hand is the fundamental disagreement in thought. While most people are still able to enjoy stories which end in tragedy, its my understanding that you do not at all. Meaning that irrespective of how well done a character’s death is, the loss of a likeable character to you would far outweigh the narrative and dramatic gain from their loss. And well. Id like to remind that this is completely fine. Different strokes for different folks, and I’d like to insure that with this background. That the discussion is based on the merits as opposed to whether someone should enjoy it. Even if they aren’t a fan of them.

With this I do want to mention that in stories that aren’t tragedies as well. Haphazard deaths and revivals can and do completely remove all tension. Even when its implied to be somewhat normal by virtue of precedence. My prime example of this is Sengoku Basara. Although quite near to my heart. Having watched the animes. There was quite a notable trait that really underscored every fight and really made it hard to actually fear your characters getting into big fights.

The amount of characters who get “killed” in the show is tremendous. With all the bells and whistles and dramatic music.

The amount of characters who ACTUALLY die. Is about one.

Every time the end rolls by. It returns to the status quo, and all but maybe the main villain are back. Because each of the characters are well. Made to be likeable and with unique enough designs and fans so as to make peoppe pissed no matter who dies. So what happens with this?

You get the extremely comedic event of constantly seeing everyone revive. Whether through faked death, literal demon revival, or a seemingly fatal wound isnt actually fatal. And by the end pretty much everyone is alive. Except the one person who actually died. This somewhat hurt because they were my favorite character and while saddened for their death. I was somewhat content with it happening since it set up the entire character of my second favorite character.

The end result of this is that by the end of the show. In spite of all the fights, battles, major growth and clash of beliefs. It all returns back to square one by the end. And it feels like NOTHING happened. Was it a happy uplifting ending? Yeah. A part of me was happy to still see my liked characters alive. But was it a good ending?

No. Nothing of note actually happened because every loss, sacrifice and victory was undone by the people being alive and well. Big fight between two long rivals where one finally gets the upperhand and sends the other six feet under? Showcasing a victory of belief over the other?

Didn’t matter. The other guy is still alive. Not by choice of the winner. But by merely surviving the should be fatal wound.

Big final battle with the literal two biggest armies the field has seen to date. With all the characters at odds fighting? A winner was secured after many tough fights. Each side having sacrificed many of their generals to ever close the gap to victory. Showcasing the deep loyalty and belief they had in their leader of choice and the lengths they go to. Practically showcasing the pointlessness of war as the goals ar-

Didnt matter. The wound didn’t end up being lethal. The loser is still alive and they’re back to fighting the winner again with all their sacrificed allies.

Did I enjoy seeing the characters I loved return? Of course.

But did the story feel good or satisfying in its conclusion? As though something of note had occured and was gained or lost? No. Because all that really happened is the writer dialed back time to square one while keeping all the events that happened.

This is Haphazard revival. Where the author seems to constantly backpedal on deaths to the point its lost all meaning. And despite there being precedent for revival like you mention with “Robots”. It was still a worse story for it. Sure. I’d have hated to have lost one of my all time favorites. But that wouldn’t make me hate them. That feeling of loss when you lose a character is a good thing. It means you like them. It means you care enough to feel longing.

The worst death isnt the one you wish you can turn back. Its one where you are apathetic.

[lliiraanna]

@Dryinspection

That feeling of loss when you lose a character is a good thing. It means you like them. It means you care enough to feel longing.

The worst death isnt the one you wish you can turn back. Its one where you are apathetic.

Well said.

Another thing to consider is the toll the death-resurrection would realistically take upon a character. Even moreso for repeated deaths, which frankly sounds like a great way to drive someone insane.

[Havenstone]

I’ve always resisted putting resurrection into my D&D gameworlds, since it seemed to me that a world where death was readily reversible (even if only for the rich) would be immensely psychologically different from ours.

A story/game that’s about that, exploring e.g. the toll of repeated deaths or the gaps between those who can afford resurrection and those who can’t, would be fantastic. But most fantasy worlds just have it as a way to bail characters out of an untimely end – an alternative to the fake-out “died offscreen” that lets writers wield the pathos of death without real consequence.

Anyway, @Dryinspection is totally right: not everyone finds the same tragedies cathartic, and that’s fine. @comradelenin is describing his narrative tastes. They’re not tastes I share – but expressing them on a forum thread, however pungently, doesn’t force any author to do anything.

[comradelenin]

@Anarore_Kriptih

Okay, but how in this situation are authors meant to learn how to do meaningful deaths and how to build on their consequences if they are not allowed to do anything less than perfect and only to characters you don’t like?

You understand that if you learn from mistakes, these still count as mistakes worth criticizing, right?

@Dryinspection

That feeling of loss when you lose a character is a good thing. It

I know some people may find that cathartic but I’ve never been one of them.