Print

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

[zombie killer]

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

[kaijyuu]

This is probably because there's some emotional investment in the character, and no one likes seeing characters they like die.


Wash dying in Serenity is probably an example of this in film.


(I don't think I have to warn about Firefly spoilers anymore)

[Frumple]

Ha ha ha. I've never even seen a single episode of Firefly. Thanks Kaij >_>

Not really sure if I ever will, though. I still instinctively cringe when I see the title. Bloody Anthony and that freaking book.

But yeah, that's mostly it, last I checked. People just get invested in a particular character for whatever reason, and then one of the major reasons they're involving themselves in the subject matter is removed and the bob's yer uncle. Even if the quality remains the same, the person in question is no longer as attached to the story and subsequently not as interested in expending the effort to acknowledge that quality.

Sometimes, though, quality does legitimately reduce -- especially in pieces that are heavily built off character interaction. Losing a character, especially a major character, can cut off or reduce major plot venues, ultimately leading to a less complicated and quite possibly less interesting story. 'Course, if the character is someone that's inhibiting the selfsame interactions, well...

[Sirus]

This is probably because there's some emotional investment in the character, and no one likes seeing characters they like die.


Wash dying in Serenity is probably an example of this in film.


(I don't think I have to warn about Firefly spoilers anymore)

Waaaaaaash ;____;

[Tiruin]

SPOILER TAGS ARE YOUR FRIEND 

PRESS THAT. D:

[Parsely]

I've only seen the first episode of Firefly, sadly. No worries about the spoiler though, I don't really plan on finishing it.

But I think the death of a major character in a show doesn't necessarily result in a loss of quality. The Walking Dead is an awesome example. The story gets far more interesting IMHO as the annoying/dickish/evil characters die, and its fun to watch the survivors reacting and changing when someone really important dies. Depending on how you felt about that character, it could make you feel differently.

So: Nope! I don't think the loss of a character, even a major one, always results in a permanent loss of quality.

[smirk]

Ha ha ha. I've never even seen a single episode of Firefly. Thanks Kaij >_>

Heheh. He's referring to an event in the movie, which... is not the series. So ye're fine. Watch the show!

There is a difference between a loved character dying in a way that adds to the plot, and said character dying because the writer wants to mess with their audience, though. I always got the feeling Wash's death was the latter.

[Frumple]

It's... the spoilers aren't why I don't intend to watch anything Firefly related. The name is why I don't intend to watch anything Firefly related. I read Anthony's book probably when I was like 8. It... someone that young should not have read that, and the effect hasn't faded. Trying to watch or read something with the same name... just the thought of it causes flashbacks I could really do without, ha.

[zombie killer]

It's... the spoilers aren't why I don't intend to watch anything Firefly related. The name is why I don't intend to watch anything Firefly related. I read Anthony's book probably when I was like 8. It... someone that young should not have read that, and the effect hasn't faded. Trying to watch or read something with the same name... just the thought of it causes flashbacks I could really do without, ha.

Try watching a movie called serenity

[smirk]

*Googles 'firefly + anthony'*

....oh. I see.   o_o

[GlyphGryph]

The thing is, though, the books in the OP started off as objectively terrible. Quite honestly, if the only thing going for your series is that the audience likes the characters, then yes - killing those characters off will result in a perceived (and arguably actual) loss of quality.

[Xantalos]

A Song of Ice and Fire.
/thread

[Steeled]

SPOILER TAGS ARE YOUR FRIEND 

PRESS THAT. D:

The movie is nine years old. NINE YEARS. I think the time for spoilers is a little over.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think it's more that they don't want to think about WASH DYING because even after all these years the emotional trauma of seeing WASH SENSELESSLY IMPALED AND KILLED BY REAVERS makes them sad. After all, this is about a film where WASH DIES BOOK DIES SERENITY IS ALMOST DESTROYED ZOE LOSES EVERYTHING RIVER REMAINS TRAUMATIZED AND INSANE MAL ALMOST DIES THE ALLIANCE GETS AWAY WITH IT JAYNE LIVES, so there's a lot of feels going around.

[Frumple]

That is some

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Snape kills Dumbledore

level shiznit right there, M.

So hey, ZK. That spoiler thing it... it didn't seem to work out. For the rest of them, I apologize. Your wishes as OP were immediately trampled, and you didn't deserve that.