Question

[cleolinda]

A Formspring question (yes, I do sometimes answer those still, although I have a backlog of 80+ now) that I don't know how to answer:

I don't usually get emotionally involved in fictional stories, but I have been strongly affected by the death of my favorite character. (The story is not Harry Potter, by the way.) How do I move on from this? I am feeling genuinely depressed about it.

I got really upset when Philip Pullman killed a character off in one of his series--but more because it seemed so incredibly senseless, and it was right the red hot second after a relationship had finally come to fruition. I didn't get depressed over it, though--I just refused to read the next book, because I was terrified (as a reader, I mean) what he might do next. I know people got upset over the Harry Potter deaths (MARK, YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO READ THE COMMENTS), but--well, I'd already read the His Dark Materials trilogy Pullman also wrote, and all of these books together convinced me that he had no writerly mercy at all, and I just wasn't ready to put up with what he might do next. So maybe I'll go back and finish that series, I don't know. But it was genuinely I am afraid what he might do next rather than THAT WAS MY FAVORITE CHARACTER, GO TO ALL THE HELLS. So I don't really know how to answer the question of emotional investment. Thoughts?

(Yes, we can include the works of Joss Whedon.)

Comments

[outlineofash]

I've felt suckerpunched and shaken by character deaths before. And implied character deaths where the "Well, they could always survive" option is the worse of the two. I just kind of... trudged along until I stopped thinking about it. I will say that reading or viewing a character death a second time usually helps me. Creates more of a "Well, there it is" feeling to replace the initial "ARGH."

[ailelie]

I get frustrated when characters die or some other catastrophe happens right after a romantic or familial plot line has finally worked itself out. A lot of story potential is lost. In a way, it feels like the writer is taking the easy route out. This way they don't have to deal with a how a relationship would affect the characters and plot *and* they get an emotional response).

Plus, I feel like the writer is jerking me around for the fun of it or to manipulate me into feeling. If one writer does this over and over, I lose interest in his/her work. I stop getting invested because I tire of the manipulation and lack of resolution on personal plots. (aka I no longer care about a lot of Joss Whedon's work. I like his ideas, but I no longer see a point in caring about any of his characters or shipping them.)

I can tolerate this in most Asian dramas because it is such a trope I know it will work out. I've learned that the resolution of a personal plot is really just the rising action. The interruption is the climax and then the healing after that the falling action. (Vs. a lot of US media that puts the resolution at the climax. The characters get together-- now what? They've lost one of their plots and sources of tension. So, death and destruction. Maybe there is healing after and maybe there isn't.)

[hokuton_punch]

I've had a rough time with that on occasion, though it happens more often with stories that have a visual or auditory element (manga, anime, videogames) that can add an extra punch to the heart. *coughKingdomHeartscough* I still have trouble dealing with some, really, but writing fic can actually help sometimes - not even necessarily "character lives instead!" fic, or fanfic for that matter, but anything that helps get the feelings out can be useful.

Otherwise? Just time, doing some favorite activities, reading comfort stories... whatever helps you with grief for real people, really.

[vehemently]

I know exactly which Pullman novel you're talking about. And I think part of the point of that death was to declare no holds barred for the remainder of the book. (It carries over quite a bit into the third, which is also in some clear ways an early rehearsal for some themes and characters later used in His Dark Materials.)

I also think that Going There in book #2 meant that a considerably fluffier book #4 felt like a big ugly lie; it was a retreat from brass tacks, at just a moment that they would have been appropriate.

(He wasn't my favorite character, but I did like him a lot, and I recall considerable capslocking upon his demise. Or really, I turned the page and was like, "What? What? Wait, no --" and had to go back and re-read the end of the previous chapter because I was sure I'd skipped a couple of pages by accident.)

[cupcake_goth]

There are character deaths that have hit me hard, and characters that I have grieved for. But the one that sticks in my memory as making me incredibly angry and pulling me out of the story entirely was in the movie Serenity. (Hey, you said the works of Joss Wheadon were open.) It felt very DEATH IS PASTDE ON, very "see how I can manipulate you viewers, muah-ha-ha!", and not like a sense-making part of the narrative. It really did jolt me out of any sense of enjoying the movie.

Yes, I know, "kill your darlings", showing that no one was safe, blah blah blah. I get that. It still felt deliberately mean-spirited, and I haven't watched the movie since I saw it in the theater.

[amaliedageek]

+1

[highways]

I felt the first death in Serenity was actually a lot more manipulative than the second--I could actually swallow the death of a major character in a huge action sequence, even if the character is a fan favorite, because well, with that much going on if someone didn't get hurt it'd almost feel like cheating.

But a mostly offscreen death, complete with a final monologue that barely makes sense and we don't even get to see said character's MOMENT OF AWESOME? And his whole purpose was just to motivate our protagonist, apparently? And his death left a ton of stuff unresolved? Yeah, so not on, Whedon.

[farasha]

I agree, I was always more upset at this death than the second one. I mean, I cried like a stupid little baby at the second one but the first just made me mad.

Which to think about it, is what Whedon was probably going for. The Operative is supposed to be a monster, pure and simple. You're supposed to hate him and the regime that created him. As a writer, I think what Whedon did here was very successful. Even if I don't like it.

spoilers for Serenity

[highways]

Haha, it just made me mad -- I thought Wash's death was more successful in a writerly way, because it showed how random deaths can be in a battle and you don't always get a chance to say goodbye. With Book ... another thing is the race issues in Firefly bug me a lot, so sacrificing a COC for like nothing beyond giving our white cowboy hero a dramatic cowboy moment really rubs me the wrong way.

Honestly this is sort of my answer to the original question -- you can kill off a character I love and I will accept it, but don't do it in a way which makes me think the writer(s) never cared about them in the first place. Book's death left so many unanswered questions about his history that I'm pretty sure Whedon must not have found them interesting, which sucks because I really did. (See also: Supernatural).

[azurelunatic]

I know the exact Philip Pullman moment that was. I was prepared for it, because the summaries of the following books spoiled me, and I was glad of it. The rest of the series is good. He's still got very little mercy, but perhaps a smidge less cruelty.