 |
| Photo credit: Superburschi on Flickr |
I'm sure most of you have encountered this phenomena in a book—and if you haven't, you almost certainly have seen it in a movie: the protagonist (or an otherwise beloved character) is presumed dead, then—TA DA!—by some miraculous feat/magic/loophole/bending of time and space the character turns out to be alive.
I sort of have mixed feelings on the whole just kidding, he's not dead thing. On one hand, it usually turns out to be either a character that we absolutely adore, so I'm normally pretty happy that said character survived, if only because the alternative is slightly horrible. On the other hand, the technique sometimes feels like cheating.
That's not to say that every character revival ever written is cheating, and so it should never be used—I think when handled well, character revivals can be a great way to play with the reader's emotions. However, if you aren't careful, character revivals can start to cheapen death within the story.
What I mean is this—when the character revival trick is overdone, readers start to expect it. Future character deaths become less meaningful because readers begin to anticipate that chances are, the character will be revived later on. It's not permanent—it doesn't mean anything.
And even if the revivals aren't overdone, it's very easy for a character to start to feel invincible after cheating death. After all, if he can't die, that's one less thing for the reader to worry about.
I'm not saying that I don't enjoy the occasional character revival (particularly when they save my favorite characters), nor am I saying that I've never (or never will) write a character revival—as I said earlier, I think there's a time and place for them and that they can be effective, when done carefully.
But as writers, it is something we have to be careful with if we don't want to risk cheating our readers.
So what do you think? Should character revivals be used? Do you enjoy reading or writing them, or do they make you feel cheated? Don't forget to share your thoughts in the comments below!
That's not to say that every character revival ever written is cheating, and so it should never be used—I think when handled well, character revivals can be a great way to play with the reader's emotions. However, if you aren't careful, character revivals can start to cheapen death within the story.
What I mean is this—when the character revival trick is overdone, readers start to expect it. Future character deaths become less meaningful because readers begin to anticipate that chances are, the character will be revived later on. It's not permanent—it doesn't mean anything.
And even if the revivals aren't overdone, it's very easy for a character to start to feel invincible after cheating death. After all, if he can't die, that's one less thing for the reader to worry about.
I'm not saying that I don't enjoy the occasional character revival (particularly when they save my favorite characters), nor am I saying that I've never (or never will) write a character revival—as I said earlier, I think there's a time and place for them and that they can be effective, when done carefully.
But as writers, it is something we have to be careful with if we don't want to risk cheating our readers.
So what do you think? Should character revivals be used? Do you enjoy reading or writing them, or do they make you feel cheated? Don't forget to share your thoughts in the comments below!
22 comments:
You're absolutely right. Character revival really needs to be done well, or not at all. If I read another book where a character comes back from the dead to save the protagonist just in the nick of time (read: deus ex machina), I'll definitely hesitate to pick up another book by the same author.
Though I loved the film, just think of Terminator II, when Arnie resurfaces on that giant cog to blow apart the liquid metal man and ultimately send him plunging to his splashy, inside-out death. How different would the film have been if John's mother didn't run out of ammunition moments prior? What if she had dived off the ledge, sacrificing herself to save John? Arnie could have lumbered over the cog, bid his farewells and melted away later, couldn't he? (probably not. lol)In my current WiP, I have deaths planned for several characters, but (spoiler alert) none of them are going to be coming back from the grave!
This post immediately made me think of Buffy/Angel. When Angel came back, I loved it. I couldn't stand that he had died. On the other hand, when Spike came back on Angel after dying on Buffy, I had a hard time wrapping my head around it. The explanation just didn't sit as well with me. Plus, even though I liked the way they'd developed him as a character, I was ok with him being gone. Of course, once I got used to him being back I liked it, but it just didn't ring true for me at first.
It's very rare that a character revival doesn't seem cheap to me. I have a very powerful object lesson from my own experience. A long time back, I was running a tabletop RPG and killed off a very beloved character. A couple of the players begged me to bring him back, they were so upset by his death. So I did -- and no one cared. Undoing his death undid all that emotion, too.
I think the exception is when a character's arc involves rebirth from the very beginning, such as Capt. Sheridan in Babylon 5. But don't revive them because fans demand it, or because you killed them and then found out you liked them too much.
A think a good rule of thumb is: One revival only.
I think if you bring a character back, it should have consequences. They should be changed by the experience. You don't just lightly die and come back; even if the rules of your setting it can be done, it shouldn't be a casual thing. Unless you have a setting in which revival is a casual thing for everyone, in which case you need to think of the consequences for the society you're writing.
Gandalf is brought back in LOTR, but he is not brought back the same. He is changed by the experience, profoundly so -- and thus, it doesn't feel cheap to the reader.
It happens and seems to be accepted, but I must admit I don't really like it. I mean on the vampire diaries there seems to be so many different levels of dead my head can't cope. In my opinion coming back from the dead is often a cop-out. I mean dead is dead. The reason we grieve so much when someone (even a character) dies is because of the finality of the state and it does cheat a reader of their emotional buy in.
Saying that I have a character who is presumed dead, who will turn up alive and well (after a long period recovering from his injuries) - but hopefully it has a realistic explanation. Otherwise you'll end up with the infamous Bobby Ewing in the shower scene... which ended up being just a very bad dream for the writers and viewers.
I agree with you entirely, Khai--if it's not done well, you'll do more harm to your novel than if you'd just left the character for dead. Unfortunately I haven't seen Terminator II (embarrassing, I know), so I can't really comment on that, but it sounds like a good example. I think. Moving on. :D
My simple answer: no. I read the MS of someone who did this, and I just couldn't take the death seriously. As a reader, I feel like the writer is playing games with me by wringing out my emotions and then saying "oh, surprise! He's back." I remember everyone had a lot of fun guessing about whether Dumbledore was coming back in Harry Potter, and I was surprised to find I was GLAD. I probably won't ever revive any of my characters, and I very rarely read a book in which I'm happy it's happened.
lol And I thought I was giving an example that wouldn't act as a spoiler for anyone! Sorry, Ava! :(
No worries!
Great example, Michelle! Revivals are definitely difficult to pull off effectively--and as you experienced, without the proper explanation, it can easily start to feel contrived.
You make a fantastic point, Dan--and I especially love that last sentence. If a character revival is essential to the plot, then it could work as long as it's done carefully and explained well. If the character revival isn't essential to the plot (as in those cases when you just can't bring yourself to keep the character dead, etc.), then you'd be much better off letting the character rest.
One revival is difficult enough to pull off, but any revivals after that becoming increasingly difficult to make believable.
That's a really interesting thought, Morven, and I think that's a great way of adding depth and realism to it. You're absolutely right that Gandalf doesn't go through his experience unscathed, and I think his metamorphosis helped readers to continue to suspend their disbelief when he returned.
While I think there are instances when it can be done well, what you describe about the finality of death is exactly what I mean about cheating the readers. You're absolutely right that a large part of the reason that we grieve the dead is because of the finality of death, so cheating death can completely undo those emotions. I also agree that if you do choose to use a character revival, it has to be well-explained, or else you risk more than a couple upset readers.
The interesting phenomenon with the Harry Potter series was that while there wasn't a precedent set by reviving characters (unless you count Voldemort, I suppose), when major characters died (i.e.: Sirius Black and Dumbledore), people almost expected them to be revived. I suspect it partially has to do with the magical world of the Harry Potter series and partially with the fact that the characters were fan favorites, so readers hoped they might return.
I am thinking about this for one WIP. I killed him off and realized I kind of need him. This character was first in line to the throne until he was murdered by his second brother, forcing the third brother to take the throne and stop the second brother. But... for another plot device, I could show the third brother's reluctance to rise to power (his character is so free and liberal, he hates politics anyway) that he might try to resurrect his older brother to dire consequences. Something involving demons or tyranny would be nice.
I'm certainly not against using a revival to create more problems, rather than solving them (or making fans happy). I think if done well, that could be interesting. :)
Thanks! Now I'm researching to see if it's been done before.
I'm sure it has--just about everything in writing has been done in one form or another. Best of luck!
Great blog post, Ava. I get really annoyed by seeing this in TV and movies all the time. This particular thought of "one revival only", though, reminded me of one exception that made it really comical: In Stargate SG-1 with Daniel Jackson popping back in every time he dies. That took skill to be so blatant with it is was funny.
Thanks, David! I haven't seen Stargate (at least, not regularly enough) but that does sound pretty funny. :)
Otherwise though, I do agree it can be a little annoying. It makes me never trust when a character dies unless it's a show that is explicitly known for killing off characters permanently (i.e.: Game of Thrones).
Post a Comment