Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Still, I'd feel pretty annoyed if I was reading a Sherlock Holmes book and that happened.

Aha, so the butcher kept the keys in his backpack the whole time! Okay, so, Sherlock's going to him, I bet the twist is that... Wait, the cops arrested him? The whole mystery is solved in fifty pages? And the rest of the book is just blank pages? I paid for this?

I'd think the blank pages were where I was supposed to write my notes.

[Fniff]

Wouldn't that require skipping ahead which only people who want to spoil themselves would do?

[darkflagrance]

You guys do know that Holmes dies in one of his books? In a struggle with the antagonist of the day who is out to end him, no less. He is hardly the best example.

[Fniff]

Actually, that's a good example of a satisfying death. He didn't just get shot by some random criminal, this was a showdown with his arch nemesis which he also sort of won.mof course Victorian England got really angry about it but that's parr for the course with Victorian England if anything slightly outside of social norms happens.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

[Victorian Anger Exacerbates]

[Neonivek]

Actually, that's a good example of a satisfying death. He didn't just get shot by some random criminal, this was a showdown with his arch nemesis which he also sort of won.mof course Victorian England got really angry about it but that's parr for the course with Victorian England if anything slightly outside of social norms happens.

Which was a pointless death only created so that there were no more Sherlock books... and even then the creator brought him back to life later.

[Fniff]

Really, all book deaths are pointless. Because books aren't reality.

[Tack]

Sometimes book deaths can't happen soon enough.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

What about book-related deaths? As in, someone buried alive when, maneuvering the their house full of stuff, a hoarder disturbs a wall of old encyclopedias and cries out once in terror as it crashes down in a bludgeoning, suffocating avalanche. Found three weeks later, skeletonized by two well-fed cats.

[MorleyDev]

You know, I do think Sherlock's death is one that shoulda stuck. The whole character dynamic between Sherlock and Moriarty is one of matter and anti-matter, they are alike but opposites. When they collide, they annihilate and they cause a lot of collateral damage in the process. Anything else feels cheap and unfulfilled to me.

Though I guess it's always possible Sherlock's tragedy is his survival.

A lot of Sherlock clones lack the commitment to go through with this annihilation too, many don't even get a Moriarty they can fight to try and avoid this problem and milk the show for as long as possible, such as disease for House, but it always results in the show becoming stale and dying ungracefully.

Often I actually think the fear of killing off a main character, or giving them a fittingly unhappy ending, can hurt a show. Dexter as a series would of been so much better if they either killed Dexter at the end, had him caught and sent to death row, or heck even if the ending had just panned back to reveal his kill tools and a kill room to show he hadn't escaped his darkness. Instead, it just felt like "Hey he's free of his need to kill now! And he's a lumberjack! Because reasons."

[Playergamer]

I have noticed a trend in books. If a main character dies in the book, then it is percieved as a major drop in quality. For example, in a trilogy the main character dies in the last book

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

allegiant

(veronica roth) and, despite the fact that I saw the quality remain constant, a friend of mine described the first book as good, and said the 3rd book was terrible. I have found this happen when I read the book

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

the royal ranger

(John Flanagan) which was the twelfth in the series. I found the writing to be on par with the rest of the books, but I felt it was worse because the main characters wife (a somewhat minor character) was killed just before the beginning of the book. What do you think? Do you think that killing characters makes the quality drop immensely, or do people just percieve it that way?do you have any examples? Also, please use spoilers

Aw, dude. We can easily guess what series- wait, what?

but I felt it was worse because the main characters wife (a somewhat minor character) was killed just before the beginning of the book.

Zoom.

the main characters wife (a somewhat minor character)

(a somewhat minor character)

You are dead. DEAD.

(But seriously, if you give the author (who writes two series', one of which is only 3 books long) and the book number, it doesn't really matter if you spoil the title.)

[Fniff]

You know, I do think Sherlock's death is one that shoulda stuck. The whole character dynamic between Sherlock and Moriarty is one of matter and anti-matter, they are alike but opposites. When they collide, they annihilate and they cause a lot of collateral damage in the process. Anything else feels cheap and unfulfilled to me.

Though I guess it's always possible Sherlock's tragedy is his survival.

A lot of Sherlock clones lack the commitment to go through with this annihilation too, many don't even get a Moriarty they can fight to try and avoid this problem and milk the show for as long as possible, such as disease for House, but it always results in the show becoming stale and dying ungracefully.

Often I actually think the fear of killing off a main character, or giving them a fittingly unhappy ending, can hurt a show. Dexter as a series would of been so much better if they either killed Dexter at the end, had him caught and sent to death row, or heck even if the ending had just panned back to reveal his kill tools and a kill room to show he hadn't escaped his darkness. Instead, it just felt like "Hey he's free of his need to kill now! And he's a lumberjack! Because reasons."

Common in videogames with multiple endings. I actually prefer Metro Last Light's "bad ending" because it makes sense for Artyom's journey and the general atmosphere of the Metro series. Just because you made friends with the kid of the enemy you nuked to shit this one time does not mean they're going to ride in and save your ass. And more often then not the outnumbered and outgunned underdog loses horribly, resulting in a pyrrhic victory at best. However, you can also completely rob the other side of what they wanted and ultimately save everyone by sarificing yourself and the most powerful weapons cache on the planet, which I think is damn cool and actually more badass then getting your behind saved by your worst enemy.