![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatRather bored today, at work, mostly. Spinning my wheels. I need a new interesting work project. But must be patient. Same with apt searching - have hit the proverbial dead end, so must be patient there as well. Work on book, go back to the gym.
Spending time on lj when I'm bored - gets me into trouble. Because I'm an opinionated bitca as you all well know, often bluntly honest, and....well. Thought about writing this post about something else that is pinging on my mind at the moment, but I remembered this meme that I saw weeks ago on my flist - which is actually a far better way of discussing the topic.
Before I start? I actually find character death interesting in stories, because it is such an essential part of life. And I've written about it a lot. One of my biggest pet peeves regarding fandom is the whinging of fans regarding character death, particularly character deaths that I feel have been done well and are integral to the story and make story richer and more worthwhile. It's also why I think, sometimes, shipping can interfere with our appreciation of a story. That said, I do think this meme touches on some button pushing topics.
1. Do you dislike fiction or art that depicts people dying?
Short answer? Of course not.
**Do I like it or tolerate it?
Long answer? Years ago, I won a short story contest at college - writing a tale about a 40 year old man struggling with the on-coming death of his mother. He's on a plane, traveling, and the woman sitting next to him has a heart attack and dies. The emotions he feels are uncomfortable ones. The story was entitled "Just a Bunch of Clouds". Upon reading the story - my creative writing teacher looked at me and stated - "you are a very interesting writer - you want to examine the difficult emotions most people shy away from, to delve into the gray areas." When I showed the story to my father, who was grappling with the on-coming death of his own mother, it made him uncomfortable, he could not share it with his relatives.
My favorite episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer - the only one I rec'd to my mother, when I was explaining why I fell in love with the series? Was the Body. It of all the episodes in that series felt the most honest, the most emotionally real, and the most unsafe. And it was at the same time incredibly comforting. I'd lost my favorite Aunt just a few months before and that episode showed in detail how I felt.
People view stories differently, I guess. For me? They've always been a means of coping with things I'm struggling with internally. A way of finding answers. A message from God through another's mind, if you will. A way of asking new questions. For me - the good stories, the one's worth remembering and sharing include as a necessity people dying or at the very least the possiblity or threat that they could. Yes, it is obviously a mood thing. And no, I'm not a fan of gratutious character death - ie. the infamous let's hit the character with a bus or kill them off because we have no idea what to do with them any longer. Character death in a story should carry a weight, the same weight it does when a person dies in our lives. As is so well depicted in Thomas Mann's Death in Venice and the film of the same name...or in Whedon's The Body, or in the horror film "Don't Look Now" - which is about a couple grieving the loss of their child. It's not watching them die or their death itself that is traumatic, so much as the empty space left afterwards. The inability to quite grasp that this person, who was once there, is not. Stories are our way of sharing that feeling with each other, feeling less alone. Knowing that we aren't the only ones who feel rage and pain and guilt when it happens. And a way of understanding those feelings better.
2. How do you feel about ratings/warnings when it comes to depictions of violence or death?
No opinion one way or the other. I've used them. They don't stop me from reading. I think they are there to protect those who can't handle such things. Which makes sense.
3. Does what you'll consume vary depending on the medium or author?
Absolutely, plus again on my mood. There are some authors I can't read - *cough*BretEastonEllis*cough* and others who I find myself searching for...which can be problematic, because often they will disappoint sooner or later.
4. To what extent do you think what you produce or consume is affected by personal/cultural/religious views/beliefs you have concerning death?
Not that much. I tend to be fairly flexible. Will state that I am a bit turned off by overtly sentimentalized/preachy religious texts - ie. Oh I had a near-death experience and saw God or Jesus saved me!! The Lovely Bones irritated me for example. But other than that, am fairly flexible and like to see different perspectives.
5. Are there any characters/groups of characters (apart from the 'bad guys') that you are happier to read dying than others?
For me? It's always about the story thread. If it works for the story thread - sure kill them off, if it doesn't don't. The character's death should further the plot or character arcs or theme, not just be killed by the proverbial bus.
Do I enjoy certain characters dying more than others? Eh. Well, again depends on the story and their
role in the text. I will admit that if a character is irritating me or feels pointless, I may root for them to get killed. Just to get rid of them. For example - I admittedly could not wait to see Caleb get killed on Buffy or Warren Miers for that matter. But was rather disappointed to see the end of the Mayor.
6. In terms of fiction, is there such a thing as a 'good death'? How would you define that?
A good death in fiction to me is one which feels organic to the story in question. This doesn't mean only the characters with no more potential should be killed off, or that the death should get central focus. Sometimes you can make an important story point by treating the death in question as something the other characters can't dwell on, that comes as a surprising shock to audience and characters alike. (I stole this response from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
selenak, because I love it. And wholeheartedly agree. )
I'm going to give an example, rather two examples of controversial character deaths that I think are good fictional deaths based on what is so aptly stated in bold above, which not only further the story, but further characters, all the characters, and track backwards as well. These are two deaths that came as shocks to both characters and audience alike and neither can dwell on or deal with and want to look away from.
1. Tara - in Buffy. Highly controversial death. She was important to Willow. And her death is actually accidental. Warren Miers did not intend to kill Tara. And it further's the arcs theme about male violence and male power and how it can destroy. Rape life. It also furthers the overall story's theme about guns - which are shown to be a bad idea from the beginning. But how it affects each character's arc is rather important - Willow is confronted with an event she can't magic her way out of and goes insane as a result, Buffy is confronted with a villain she can't defeat and is in some respects far worse than the vampires and demons, and far more real and at the same time to the audience almost ordinary, and Xander is confronted with a sense of powerlessness. It re-examines the characters and their story and is built up quite well.
2. Jake Webber/Spencer in General Hospital. This is a long-running daytime soap opera, so I won't go into too much detail it will take 20 pages and humiliate me in the process (I'm well aware that 90% of my flist thinks soap operas are dumb - that's why I rarely talk about them - life is too short to be blasted for my guilty pleasures. So I'm sort of trusting you guys to refrain from doing that, okay?? Also, admittedly taking a huge risk doing this - b/c the folks who have seen this show hate this story arc and think it is insane. I'm in the minority (but am wisely not part of an online fandom related to it - soap fans are bug-shagging crazy.).), but in the story - the little boy is killed by running out into a busy road after dark. He's about 4 and was depicted as rather fearless. His mother is harried and distracted. She's a single Mom, and her ex-husband who was supposed to take care of the boys - canceled because he was busy doing something else (green card wedding with new girl-friend). Anyhow - six to seven drivers are clocked by a traffic camera on the road. All six are distracted. One is driving over the speed limit. One, a bad driver on a good day, is rushing to the hospital while talking on her cell phone. One is busy flirting with his new wife. One had several drinks, but hey, he always drinks, so he's sober and he's rushing to his son's wedding. One is suffering from severe migraine headaches and pulls off the road eventually to handle them. (all are connected to each other and the boy in some way). The boy, Jake, is rushed to the hospital. The doctors try to save him. Can't. He's declared brain dead. They donate his kidney to another child in the story. And then find out, that the driver who hit him is the father of Jake's adopted dad (Lucky) who is a father to the boy and was supposed to have the kids that night. Lucky's father who unknowingly hit Jake (he didn't see him and did not know he did it until Lucky shows him the proof), Luke Spencer, the original bad boy with heart of gold, is an alcoholic. Throughout the history of the show - spanning 20 years, Luke is shown drinking constantly. He tells his son he can handle his liquor after all he has been drinking since he was 12. And in every episode, we see him drink. Since the 1970s, Luke has been shown drinking a lot. His current wife, Tracy, keeps trying to take booze away from him at different points. And when he hears that he did hit Jake, which comes as a complete and utter shock to him - the first thing he does is reach for a drink, and where is he? Behind his bar. His father was a drunk - who beat him and his sister. And his son is recovering addict. It runs in his family. Addiction does. And..over 20 years ago, he raped his true love Laura while "drunk". The hit and run (which really isn't a hit and run - so much as someone who hit a kid and did not know it) changes the characters - it forces all of them to take a hard look at Luke's alcoholism which they've been enabling for years. It also puts the audience in the uncomfortable role of looking at character that they laughed at when he did his drunken sprees in another way. The story examines a topic that most people want to see in strictly black and white lines, in a gray manner - as far from clear-cut. We want the bad guy to be the hit and run driver. We want revenge. We don't want to blame alcohol. Drunks aren't funny - drunks kill. Ouch. It's not a safe story. It's a very painful story. Everyone online hates it. Are there problems with this story? Sure, it's a daytime soap opera - they are written too fast to be anything but flawed.(Try writing a twenty-thirty page script in less than five hours, no editing, and film the next day and see how well you do?) There's a kidney donation sub-plot that I don't think works that well and wasn't built up to very well, but I can see why it was added. But the death of Jake and the long-term implications are brilliant - that's the type of story soap opera's do well - because they have the time to examine it fully, look at all the angles, and see the complexity. But it is painful. But sometimes dealing with painful things through a fictional context can make it less painful. Other times, it can be more so. It depends.
EXamples of poorly done deaths - include Grey's Anatomy's - death of George by the proverbial bus.
Which felt a bit too melodramatic for words and didn't further the characters that much. Another is ER's killing of the head doctor by a helicopter - beyond dumb. I laughed during it. That's how bad it was. OR Alias' killing of Lauren.
Not all character deaths need to be major. They can feel seemingly...innocuous...or small. Not noticed at first. Sometimes the less dramatic ones are the most moving - Joyce's death in Buffy continues to be the most moving. Yet it happens off screen, all we see is her body. She's dead when Buffy finds her. Or for example - Leo McGarry and Mrs. Landauham's deaths...which happen off screen but are major and have a subtle and painful affect.
7. Do you prefer deaths to be explicitly depicted or to happen 'off-screen', if at all?
Depends on the story. In the case of The West Wing - off-screen deaths worked very well. In the case of Buffy - not so much, because characters had a crazy way of coming back. This is also true of most genre series. So depends. Same with fiction.
I'm not crazy about graphic or gory deaths - which Stephen King likes to do and George RR Martin (Song of Ice and Fire is a gory series). I think less is more.
8. In general, do you have a preference/anti-preference for the perspective from which a character death is written/discussed, be it the dying person, the killer or a bystander/someone else?
No, I don't. I've written it from more than one pov, and have read it from more than one pov. The only thing I liked about The Lovely Bones was the concept of the dead girl telling the story, for example. Also, I'm a fan of multiple povs.
9. Are there any forms of violence you're more/less comfortable with than others?
I can't watch Torture Porn - a horror film trope. I also have problems with seeing the human body eaten by anything. That type of violence bothers me - which may explain my difficulty with zombie movies. Sexual violence doesn't bug me that much in film - it depends on how they depict it. I'll give you examples of what I can't watch: Irreversible - a French film that has a 20 minute gange-rape sequence in reverse (I can't watch that, just hearing the description of it makes me cringe). Also can't read Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho which has several graphic rape sequences, one I will not tell you because I won't curse you with the image I can't get out of my head and made me want to throw the book in the garbage can and scream at any one who I see reading it. And finally, a scene in Criminal Minds - which made it impossible for me to watch that series - was in the first season, about second or third episode, about a serial rapist who paralyzed his victims with spider bites, before raping them. That type of violence I can't watch. Oh, and I can't watch Nightmare On Elm Street - the Johnny Depp death scene in the original still gives me nightmares.
10. Are there any situations in which you think a death cannot/should not be 'bought back' either through resurrection or soap-style coma/amnesia retconning?
Absolutely. It's too often used as a plot-device, particularly in serialized dramas. It's gotten to the point that I don't believe the writer when they kill off certain characters. Sometimes, depending on the genre, it works and makes perfect sense - ie. in Sci-fi tv series or Fantasy, where death often leads to another existence - as either a vampire, ghost, or ... But more often than not it cheapens the death and storyline. It should be done carefully.
11. Will you produce/consume depictions of the afterlife/dimensions or realities beyond our own that are usually accessed through death?
Yes.
12. Does it matter to you whether the afterlife depicted is positive/'heavenly', neutral or negative/'hellish'?
It depends on the individual execution. Example - Supernatural the tv series plays around a lot with the after-life, depicting both positive and negative aspects, which feel like metaphors for our current existence. Buffy and Angel likewise played around with it, depicting different versions.
In all three cases - the depictions were part of the mythology.
Lost in contrast felt a bit cheap in its depiction and sort of...like a retcon, it didn't quite work within the boundaries of the tale nor track back. I had more troubles with it. Same with BSG, which also felt like its depictions of the afterlife cheapened the tale and didn't quite track.
13. Does it make a difference whether the characters depicted in these realities have died or are 'just visiting'?
Not at all. Execution is key.
14. Do you have any pet hates when it comes to depictions of death?
When it is done cheaply. Or it is a character that the writers have either gotten bored of or they just need to kill off someone and pick a character that no one cares about and has no effect on the story. Soaps do this a lot as do sci-fi shows - a la Star Trek - where they have to show people in peril and so kill off the red shirts that no one remembers. STNG surprised me by killing off a major character - that's seldom done. Soap operas will often have big disasters and threaten to kill off major players who would affect the story and further the plot arc, but chicken out and kill someone who is a supporting player or a recurring one, and whose death does little to further things.
This makes death feel cheap. And it's not. You can write the death well. So a lot of it is in the writing or how the person writes it.
Example: When I took writing courses - I was always warned not to kill a character by having them get hit by a bus. This was actually a metaphor for randomly killing someone off and not showing the repercussions, or building up to it. While, yes, people get killed by buses all the time (particularly in NYC lately), in a story - you need to do more, stories are heightened reality.
The reader is suspending their disbelief, they are entering your reality. So you have to work a bit to convince them. So for example - even though your grandfather survived three brain tumors, you might want to just give him one, because your reader's experience may vary from yours.
Less is always more in fiction, I think. Particularly when it comes to death scenes and killing characters.
My other pet peeve was listed above this meme and concerns fans. Fans have an odd way of looking at characters in stories that often bewilders me. They act as if the people in the tale are their best friends or relatives, real people, and/or their property. Not all fans, but quite a few and often the most vocal. IF for example a fictional character who happens to be a child dies - the fans act as if the writer committed a horrible crime and actually killed a child. Uh no. Children die. And often stories can help us deal with it - show us how it happens and that it is random and it is painful, and help us cope. Pretending this doesn't happen is not the best way. That said, I do understand how hard it is to watch something that hits close to home - I couldn't watch 24 or any films that dealt with terrorists after 9/11 for about five to six years. And avoided films that had buildings explode. It was a trigger. I get that. But I didn't rail at the people showing this. And as time passed, I was able to watch it again. Also, there are admittedly stories that use death in an exploitive manner to grab ratings. But sometimes the stories are done well and do examine a necessary and important topic. I don't think it is as clear-cut as many fans want it to be. At any rate...this tendency irritates me. But I also realize it is based on pure and deep emotion and you can't argue with emotion. Eliciting that type of violent emotion - often means the writer did something brave and well. Not always, of course, but often. Which is why art can at times feel like
performing a tight wire act without a net.
15. What do you wish more stories containing character deaths would include?
Interesting aftermaths and and in-character consequences. Also the deaths in question should be written in a way that makes character sense.
Two examples of how I felt it was done badly? BSG, Alias. But there are others - such as Grey's Anatomy and ER - which should have known better, after all they are hospital dramas they do death weekly. I'm more willing to give genre shows and soaps a pass on this, but regular prime time dramatic series - I expect more from.
Example of how it is done well? The Body - Buffy, and Tara's death also in Buffy. Another example is
Jake Spencer's death - in GH (although being a soap, much like Being Human, they will most likely do overkill - in that it will be examined from every angle imaginable, and talked to death. But I sort of like that...so it does work for me, not everyone else though.)
Spending time on lj when I'm bored - gets me into trouble. Because I'm an opinionated bitca as you all well know, often bluntly honest, and....well. Thought about writing this post about something else that is pinging on my mind at the moment, but I remembered this meme that I saw weeks ago on my flist - which is actually a far better way of discussing the topic.
Before I start? I actually find character death interesting in stories, because it is such an essential part of life. And I've written about it a lot. One of my biggest pet peeves regarding fandom is the whinging of fans regarding character death, particularly character deaths that I feel have been done well and are integral to the story and make story richer and more worthwhile. It's also why I think, sometimes, shipping can interfere with our appreciation of a story. That said, I do think this meme touches on some button pushing topics.
1. Do you dislike fiction or art that depicts people dying?
Short answer? Of course not.
**Do I like it or tolerate it?
Long answer? Years ago, I won a short story contest at college - writing a tale about a 40 year old man struggling with the on-coming death of his mother. He's on a plane, traveling, and the woman sitting next to him has a heart attack and dies. The emotions he feels are uncomfortable ones. The story was entitled "Just a Bunch of Clouds". Upon reading the story - my creative writing teacher looked at me and stated - "you are a very interesting writer - you want to examine the difficult emotions most people shy away from, to delve into the gray areas." When I showed the story to my father, who was grappling with the on-coming death of his own mother, it made him uncomfortable, he could not share it with his relatives.
My favorite episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer - the only one I rec'd to my mother, when I was explaining why I fell in love with the series? Was the Body. It of all the episodes in that series felt the most honest, the most emotionally real, and the most unsafe. And it was at the same time incredibly comforting. I'd lost my favorite Aunt just a few months before and that episode showed in detail how I felt.
People view stories differently, I guess. For me? They've always been a means of coping with things I'm struggling with internally. A way of finding answers. A message from God through another's mind, if you will. A way of asking new questions. For me - the good stories, the one's worth remembering and sharing include as a necessity people dying or at the very least the possiblity or threat that they could. Yes, it is obviously a mood thing. And no, I'm not a fan of gratutious character death - ie. the infamous let's hit the character with a bus or kill them off because we have no idea what to do with them any longer. Character death in a story should carry a weight, the same weight it does when a person dies in our lives. As is so well depicted in Thomas Mann's Death in Venice and the film of the same name...or in Whedon's The Body, or in the horror film "Don't Look Now" - which is about a couple grieving the loss of their child. It's not watching them die or their death itself that is traumatic, so much as the empty space left afterwards. The inability to quite grasp that this person, who was once there, is not. Stories are our way of sharing that feeling with each other, feeling less alone. Knowing that we aren't the only ones who feel rage and pain and guilt when it happens. And a way of understanding those feelings better.
2. How do you feel about ratings/warnings when it comes to depictions of violence or death?
No opinion one way or the other. I've used them. They don't stop me from reading. I think they are there to protect those who can't handle such things. Which makes sense.
3. Does what you'll consume vary depending on the medium or author?
Absolutely, plus again on my mood. There are some authors I can't read - *cough*BretEastonEllis*cough* and others who I find myself searching for...which can be problematic, because often they will disappoint sooner or later.
4. To what extent do you think what you produce or consume is affected by personal/cultural/religious views/beliefs you have concerning death?
Not that much. I tend to be fairly flexible. Will state that I am a bit turned off by overtly sentimentalized/preachy religious texts - ie. Oh I had a near-death experience and saw God or Jesus saved me!! The Lovely Bones irritated me for example. But other than that, am fairly flexible and like to see different perspectives.
5. Are there any characters/groups of characters (apart from the 'bad guys') that you are happier to read dying than others?
For me? It's always about the story thread. If it works for the story thread - sure kill them off, if it doesn't don't. The character's death should further the plot or character arcs or theme, not just be killed by the proverbial bus.
Do I enjoy certain characters dying more than others? Eh. Well, again depends on the story and their
role in the text. I will admit that if a character is irritating me or feels pointless, I may root for them to get killed. Just to get rid of them. For example - I admittedly could not wait to see Caleb get killed on Buffy or Warren Miers for that matter. But was rather disappointed to see the end of the Mayor.
6. In terms of fiction, is there such a thing as a 'good death'? How would you define that?
A good death in fiction to me is one which feels organic to the story in question. This doesn't mean only the characters with no more potential should be killed off, or that the death should get central focus. Sometimes you can make an important story point by treating the death in question as something the other characters can't dwell on, that comes as a surprising shock to audience and characters alike. (I stole this response from
selenak, because I love it. And wholeheartedly agree. )I'm going to give an example, rather two examples of controversial character deaths that I think are good fictional deaths based on what is so aptly stated in bold above, which not only further the story, but further characters, all the characters, and track backwards as well. These are two deaths that came as shocks to both characters and audience alike and neither can dwell on or deal with and want to look away from.
1. Tara - in Buffy. Highly controversial death. She was important to Willow. And her death is actually accidental. Warren Miers did not intend to kill Tara. And it further's the arcs theme about male violence and male power and how it can destroy. Rape life. It also furthers the overall story's theme about guns - which are shown to be a bad idea from the beginning. But how it affects each character's arc is rather important - Willow is confronted with an event she can't magic her way out of and goes insane as a result, Buffy is confronted with a villain she can't defeat and is in some respects far worse than the vampires and demons, and far more real and at the same time to the audience almost ordinary, and Xander is confronted with a sense of powerlessness. It re-examines the characters and their story and is built up quite well.
2. Jake Webber/Spencer in General Hospital. This is a long-running daytime soap opera, so I won't go into too much detail it will take 20 pages and humiliate me in the process (I'm well aware that 90% of my flist thinks soap operas are dumb - that's why I rarely talk about them - life is too short to be blasted for my guilty pleasures. So I'm sort of trusting you guys to refrain from doing that, okay?? Also, admittedly taking a huge risk doing this - b/c the folks who have seen this show hate this story arc and think it is insane. I'm in the minority (but am wisely not part of an online fandom related to it - soap fans are bug-shagging crazy.).), but in the story - the little boy is killed by running out into a busy road after dark. He's about 4 and was depicted as rather fearless. His mother is harried and distracted. She's a single Mom, and her ex-husband who was supposed to take care of the boys - canceled because he was busy doing something else (green card wedding with new girl-friend). Anyhow - six to seven drivers are clocked by a traffic camera on the road. All six are distracted. One is driving over the speed limit. One, a bad driver on a good day, is rushing to the hospital while talking on her cell phone. One is busy flirting with his new wife. One had several drinks, but hey, he always drinks, so he's sober and he's rushing to his son's wedding. One is suffering from severe migraine headaches and pulls off the road eventually to handle them. (all are connected to each other and the boy in some way). The boy, Jake, is rushed to the hospital. The doctors try to save him. Can't. He's declared brain dead. They donate his kidney to another child in the story. And then find out, that the driver who hit him is the father of Jake's adopted dad (Lucky) who is a father to the boy and was supposed to have the kids that night. Lucky's father who unknowingly hit Jake (he didn't see him and did not know he did it until Lucky shows him the proof), Luke Spencer, the original bad boy with heart of gold, is an alcoholic. Throughout the history of the show - spanning 20 years, Luke is shown drinking constantly. He tells his son he can handle his liquor after all he has been drinking since he was 12. And in every episode, we see him drink. Since the 1970s, Luke has been shown drinking a lot. His current wife, Tracy, keeps trying to take booze away from him at different points. And when he hears that he did hit Jake, which comes as a complete and utter shock to him - the first thing he does is reach for a drink, and where is he? Behind his bar. His father was a drunk - who beat him and his sister. And his son is recovering addict. It runs in his family. Addiction does. And..over 20 years ago, he raped his true love Laura while "drunk". The hit and run (which really isn't a hit and run - so much as someone who hit a kid and did not know it) changes the characters - it forces all of them to take a hard look at Luke's alcoholism which they've been enabling for years. It also puts the audience in the uncomfortable role of looking at character that they laughed at when he did his drunken sprees in another way. The story examines a topic that most people want to see in strictly black and white lines, in a gray manner - as far from clear-cut. We want the bad guy to be the hit and run driver. We want revenge. We don't want to blame alcohol. Drunks aren't funny - drunks kill. Ouch. It's not a safe story. It's a very painful story. Everyone online hates it. Are there problems with this story? Sure, it's a daytime soap opera - they are written too fast to be anything but flawed.(Try writing a twenty-thirty page script in less than five hours, no editing, and film the next day and see how well you do?) There's a kidney donation sub-plot that I don't think works that well and wasn't built up to very well, but I can see why it was added. But the death of Jake and the long-term implications are brilliant - that's the type of story soap opera's do well - because they have the time to examine it fully, look at all the angles, and see the complexity. But it is painful. But sometimes dealing with painful things through a fictional context can make it less painful. Other times, it can be more so. It depends.
EXamples of poorly done deaths - include Grey's Anatomy's - death of George by the proverbial bus.
Which felt a bit too melodramatic for words and didn't further the characters that much. Another is ER's killing of the head doctor by a helicopter - beyond dumb. I laughed during it. That's how bad it was. OR Alias' killing of Lauren.
Not all character deaths need to be major. They can feel seemingly...innocuous...or small. Not noticed at first. Sometimes the less dramatic ones are the most moving - Joyce's death in Buffy continues to be the most moving. Yet it happens off screen, all we see is her body. She's dead when Buffy finds her. Or for example - Leo McGarry and Mrs. Landauham's deaths...which happen off screen but are major and have a subtle and painful affect.
7. Do you prefer deaths to be explicitly depicted or to happen 'off-screen', if at all?
Depends on the story. In the case of The West Wing - off-screen deaths worked very well. In the case of Buffy - not so much, because characters had a crazy way of coming back. This is also true of most genre series. So depends. Same with fiction.
I'm not crazy about graphic or gory deaths - which Stephen King likes to do and George RR Martin (Song of Ice and Fire is a gory series). I think less is more.
8. In general, do you have a preference/anti-preference for the perspective from which a character death is written/discussed, be it the dying person, the killer or a bystander/someone else?
No, I don't. I've written it from more than one pov, and have read it from more than one pov. The only thing I liked about The Lovely Bones was the concept of the dead girl telling the story, for example. Also, I'm a fan of multiple povs.
9. Are there any forms of violence you're more/less comfortable with than others?
I can't watch Torture Porn - a horror film trope. I also have problems with seeing the human body eaten by anything. That type of violence bothers me - which may explain my difficulty with zombie movies. Sexual violence doesn't bug me that much in film - it depends on how they depict it. I'll give you examples of what I can't watch: Irreversible - a French film that has a 20 minute gange-rape sequence in reverse (I can't watch that, just hearing the description of it makes me cringe). Also can't read Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho which has several graphic rape sequences, one I will not tell you because I won't curse you with the image I can't get out of my head and made me want to throw the book in the garbage can and scream at any one who I see reading it. And finally, a scene in Criminal Minds - which made it impossible for me to watch that series - was in the first season, about second or third episode, about a serial rapist who paralyzed his victims with spider bites, before raping them. That type of violence I can't watch. Oh, and I can't watch Nightmare On Elm Street - the Johnny Depp death scene in the original still gives me nightmares.
10. Are there any situations in which you think a death cannot/should not be 'bought back' either through resurrection or soap-style coma/amnesia retconning?
Absolutely. It's too often used as a plot-device, particularly in serialized dramas. It's gotten to the point that I don't believe the writer when they kill off certain characters. Sometimes, depending on the genre, it works and makes perfect sense - ie. in Sci-fi tv series or Fantasy, where death often leads to another existence - as either a vampire, ghost, or ... But more often than not it cheapens the death and storyline. It should be done carefully.
11. Will you produce/consume depictions of the afterlife/dimensions or realities beyond our own that are usually accessed through death?
Yes.
12. Does it matter to you whether the afterlife depicted is positive/'heavenly', neutral or negative/'hellish'?
It depends on the individual execution. Example - Supernatural the tv series plays around a lot with the after-life, depicting both positive and negative aspects, which feel like metaphors for our current existence. Buffy and Angel likewise played around with it, depicting different versions.
In all three cases - the depictions were part of the mythology.
Lost in contrast felt a bit cheap in its depiction and sort of...like a retcon, it didn't quite work within the boundaries of the tale nor track back. I had more troubles with it. Same with BSG, which also felt like its depictions of the afterlife cheapened the tale and didn't quite track.
13. Does it make a difference whether the characters depicted in these realities have died or are 'just visiting'?
Not at all. Execution is key.
14. Do you have any pet hates when it comes to depictions of death?
When it is done cheaply. Or it is a character that the writers have either gotten bored of or they just need to kill off someone and pick a character that no one cares about and has no effect on the story. Soaps do this a lot as do sci-fi shows - a la Star Trek - where they have to show people in peril and so kill off the red shirts that no one remembers. STNG surprised me by killing off a major character - that's seldom done. Soap operas will often have big disasters and threaten to kill off major players who would affect the story and further the plot arc, but chicken out and kill someone who is a supporting player or a recurring one, and whose death does little to further things.
This makes death feel cheap. And it's not. You can write the death well. So a lot of it is in the writing or how the person writes it.
Example: When I took writing courses - I was always warned not to kill a character by having them get hit by a bus. This was actually a metaphor for randomly killing someone off and not showing the repercussions, or building up to it. While, yes, people get killed by buses all the time (particularly in NYC lately), in a story - you need to do more, stories are heightened reality.
The reader is suspending their disbelief, they are entering your reality. So you have to work a bit to convince them. So for example - even though your grandfather survived three brain tumors, you might want to just give him one, because your reader's experience may vary from yours.
Less is always more in fiction, I think. Particularly when it comes to death scenes and killing characters.
My other pet peeve was listed above this meme and concerns fans. Fans have an odd way of looking at characters in stories that often bewilders me. They act as if the people in the tale are their best friends or relatives, real people, and/or their property. Not all fans, but quite a few and often the most vocal. IF for example a fictional character who happens to be a child dies - the fans act as if the writer committed a horrible crime and actually killed a child. Uh no. Children die. And often stories can help us deal with it - show us how it happens and that it is random and it is painful, and help us cope. Pretending this doesn't happen is not the best way. That said, I do understand how hard it is to watch something that hits close to home - I couldn't watch 24 or any films that dealt with terrorists after 9/11 for about five to six years. And avoided films that had buildings explode. It was a trigger. I get that. But I didn't rail at the people showing this. And as time passed, I was able to watch it again. Also, there are admittedly stories that use death in an exploitive manner to grab ratings. But sometimes the stories are done well and do examine a necessary and important topic. I don't think it is as clear-cut as many fans want it to be. At any rate...this tendency irritates me. But I also realize it is based on pure and deep emotion and you can't argue with emotion. Eliciting that type of violent emotion - often means the writer did something brave and well. Not always, of course, but often. Which is why art can at times feel like
performing a tight wire act without a net.
15. What do you wish more stories containing character deaths would include?
Interesting aftermaths and and in-character consequences. Also the deaths in question should be written in a way that makes character sense.
Two examples of how I felt it was done badly? BSG, Alias. But there are others - such as Grey's Anatomy and ER - which should have known better, after all they are hospital dramas they do death weekly. I'm more willing to give genre shows and soaps a pass on this, but regular prime time dramatic series - I expect more from.
Example of how it is done well? The Body - Buffy, and Tara's death also in Buffy. Another example is
Jake Spencer's death - in GH (although being a soap, much like Being Human, they will most likely do overkill - in that it will be examined from every angle imaginable, and talked to death. But I sort of like that...so it does work for me, not everyone else though.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-30 03:54 am (UTC)EXCEPT when it is dragged out as endless sentimental slop like in Terms of Endearment (I was DYING for Debra Winger to just die already in that ... but on the other hand I was moved by her death in 'Shadowlands'). I finally just gave up on 'Million Dollar Baby' as unwatchable.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-31 12:28 am (UTC)For me - I'm mostly interested in how the death in a story affects all the story threads. Shadowlands - I can't remember very well, even though I saw it. I think because the death in it was more thematic than really a true exploration of character - it was about losing a spouse and a man's struggle with his faith and belief in God. I'd seen it done before, and it didn't stick with me past that. So while a good film, I guess, not one that resonated or I remember. Terms of Endearment - which I saw several years before Shadowlands with my mother and a friend of her's in the movie theater and my mother ranted about...haunts me. At the core of it is a mother/daughter relationship that is rather intense. The mother is so afraid of her daughter dying, she even almost jumps into her daughter's crib at birth, then
later - you see her crawl into bed with her daughter as she is dying. At the heart of this tale is the worst thing that could happen to the mother is her daughter's death. Terms of Endearment is about the mother more than the daughter - and the pain of losing a child and not being able to prevent it. While Shadowlands was more about faith...not really about loss as I vaguely remember it - which is why it didn't resonate in quite the same way. Million Dollar Baby - also is a tale in which we see the worst thing that could happen to a character and they handle it. I like seeing this in tales - because it shows how the characters handle it, how they survive or flail. This horrible thing exposes strengths and flaws. In Million Dollar Baby - Clint Eastwood's character is a boxing trainer, he is brilliant, but refuses to train another boxer, he is afraid, because his last champion was killed in the ring. Hillary Swank talks him into training her, she beats him down. And at the core - once again is a father/daughter story. He is estranged from his daughter and Hillary Swank's character slowly becomes that surrogate. This man who is against euthansia, who can't endure losing another fighter - is suddenly faced with Hillary Swank's character's being paralyzed from a fight in the ring. She can't move, at all. And she begs him to kill her. And he does. And
it is the most painful thing in the world for him, but it is the choice they make, and we see why and makes sense for those characters...you can see why they did it. And how he handles it.
Those difficult emotions? Are what intrigues me in stories. I love to see all the angles.
Don't know if that makes sense?