On the power of death in fiction

Death in real life is rather a potent thing when it is happening to ones you know. Its impact upon an individual lessens though, the more distant it becomes and also the more someone becomes used to the idea of people dying. But death nearly always remains a big kick to the heart for those watching loved ones leave them.

In fiction death is somewhat similar. The deaths of main characters we're close to and wrapped up in are the most potent. Then come those we see as red shirts of even the rattled off stats that result from Darth Vader blowing up a planet. These deaths mean little to us except as plot devices and sometimes points of humour. The further from the main character the death is the less we care. Purely because it is through the main character's eyes that we see the world.

In this way the vast majority of deaths in fiction mean almost nothing to the reader or watcher. They are just things that happen and the drama of a scene comes mainly from the main character's reactions or even their ability to avoid death while everyone else succumbs. Death in this instance is nothing much but a plot device or a reflection of reality so we can understand our own.

Which leaves the most contentious problem with death. That is the death of a main character. In modern fiction, with all its varieties, there is a distinct possibility for the character to die, nearly die or die multiple times on a reader or viewer. Traditionally the deaths of main characters are used to tie up a story and the near deaths to create drama and demand our attention as the problems revolving around the near death are resolved.

This is what we've expected from our fiction for most of our reading and watching history. And by our I mean all our storytelling history. Only occasionally would a character die more than once and in such cases it was less for drama and more for the point of maintaining mythology or highlighting a power structure. The repeated deaths weren't solely for the sake of creating drama that entangled the audience further in the story.

Today, as you can guess from previous remarks, there is a plague of never dying yet constantly dying characters. They die for cliff hangers. The die multiple times in a row so that their real deaths have more impact than their previous ones or the deaths of those around them. And they die and return continually so that the story can continue and be cashed in on. 

Now here's where main character deaths become a little strange in their impact. There is a large response to the first deaths of course, as can be expected when someone fairly close to you dies. This is because of the identification and connection many of us build with main characters. But this uproar at a character's death diminishes as the character continues to die and return. The connection we build and our understanding of their situation is gradually severed as none of us in reality have such luxuries. At best someone resuscitates us one or two times and we suffer. Rarely do we come back kicking and fighting and totally whole again.

To the audience, the main character's importance slowly becomes like that of the video game POV character. We end up counting damage and expecting monsters to pop up to blast away. We sit back and become lulled by the repetitiveness of the story. The reasons we continue to watch or read become less drama orientated and more to just find out how it ends, to continue our lifestyle patterns of sitting down at a certain time of day and watching a certain show, because the characters are known while other stories demand we restart with new ones.

When a character dies not just once or twice but six or seven times, maybe even more, there is little sympathy or empathy left for most of us. In fact, there's a little relief that the story is finally wrapped up. Or that the character can be changed so the story moves on with a so called fresh start. To overcome this relief the writers and creators of such stories try to recreate the impact of the main character's first death by making the final one special is some way.

Stringing out the final death scenes, killing them to have them pop up again to be killed once more, creating stranger and stranger death scenes are all ways of making sure the impact returns to what it once was. Unfortunately, such devices don't work well. We are shocked, maybe, when they pop up again but only because of the adrenaline rush and not the event. We get tired mid strung out death scene and begin to not care whether they end up dying properly or not so the final impact is one of relief, detached acceptance or what can be rather accurately described as a state of "meh". And finally with stranger death scenes we become a little too interested in how they die more than the fact that they die.

So with this bland result becoming known some writers have gone to the extent of killing of their characters one after another. The deaths aren't repeated but rather happening at a rate faster than we're currently familiar with, drawing us in by way of curiosity over who's going to bite the bullet next if not for the various character's actions while they're fleetingly alive. This is all well and good for a while but some audience members will become detached from a story once their favourite character dies as they just don't give a damn about the others and some audience members will detach from the story because there's just too much to keep track of, too many characters disappearing and too many high tension points that cause stress. Where's the point of relaxation if the multiple death's are written well? The impact of maintaining of an increased level of tension is another matter to write about but I will say that when it is created through the application of death that it can be wearing on the system. And wearing is just a step to the side of tiring with a similar result.

All in all, it has actually come to the point where I don't recommend the use of repeated death as a way of creating drama. Death's impact is always greatest in its first instance. Its power only remains for about one more turn but that turn needs to be final. Its impact is also increased by the fact that it isn't a daily or weekly occurrence. This does mean that the art of storytelling has to take a bit of a step back as far as many of those writing and creating now are concerned. But really, the devices we use to repeatedly bring back characters, like time travel and magic and futuristic medicine remain and can be used at any point to create drama that doesn't involve the main characters repeatedly dying. Remember, this applies to main characters only so the mass deaths of red shirts and the unknown can continue on as usual as far as I'm concerned.

Although, just how many times can New York be destroyed before we just don't give a damn?

Oh, and just as a little note: the story is about life not death. There isn's as much in death as there is in life unless you're into writing on mythological subjects.

Writers, artists and death

Writers and artists often work against death and can even sometimes be tricked by so-called fate and death from the rewards of their own labour. They can become so obsessed with death that it permeates every work they create and can cloud their interaction with the rest of the living, tainting their words with bitterness and resentment.

But death's impact on the writer and artist generally isn't what we tend to make it out as. So what's going on?

Writers and artists work to express their life and opinions before death takes the ability to do so from them. They sometimes feel the desperate urge to express themselves and pass on their knowledge because of a lack of children or family to impact. Sometimes they feel the need to express themselves in such formats as they aren't so good at expressing themselves in others. And sometimes it is just ego pushing them to express their view of the world in a manner said to be immortal. The most laughable thing about all this is that most of what is written or created is lost or reduced in impact not long after its creation and definitely so after the writer or artist has died.

So why is there still an urge in writers and artists to 'immortalise' our views of the world and our existence through writing and art? Probably because there is a little myth or hope, whatever you'd like to call it, that the struggling and unappreciated artist or writer will one day and be seen as a genius their toils vindicated. Much good it will do any of the writers or artists because they'll be dead and well, I'm a believer in there being nothing after that. Even if there was, you're unlikely to be around to enjoy the rewards or even know that such a thing has happened. Only if you became a ghost, ghoul or zombie would you have a chance but to me that is another version of hell and I'd be far more concerned with stopping such an existence than seeing my life's works lauded.

Just because a few masters of the art and writing world went unacknowledged or under-worshiped in their time doesn't mean that every writer or artist is worth so much more than they are. Nor their creations. Sure, there are plenty of under-appreciated artists and writers in the world of multi-media, mass sales, technological progress and the global word - in fact most are - but that doesn't mean that every under-appreciated artist or writer is a master.

Under-appreciated artists and writers = Masters

Masters = Under-appreciated artists and writers

The equation doesn't work no matter how you look at it.

In truth only a few artists and writers worth their salt have been under-appreciated in their times and mostly because they were outcasts of some sort or another and so unsocial or not to be socialised with. Being cut from cultural and social contacts had a far greater impact in a world without multi-media than it does in one with it. Nowadays, if you have a stigmatised mental illness, an unsightly growth, a generally unlikable or unacceptable viewpoint or even a bad attitude you can still get out there and market in one way or another. Without multi-media most of these people would have been cut off from the greater social connections and so wouldn't gain the great market that they'd like. While most people say they like a quirky artist but most also only like them from a distance and don't want to deal with the realities. Multi-media allows and creates that distance which makes it work for the writer or artist as well as the audience. With everyone fairly comfortable in their accessibility and inaccessibility levels there isn't much standing in the way of a quirky artist or writing achieving fame and fortune or any type.

But gaining fame and fortune after death has happened often enough with the masters of the past that the current set of writers and artists still live in hope (sometimes turning into virulent anger) that their works will achieve such for them even when they fail to do so now. There are some who say that only the true masters will ever be properly appreciated after death. But it wasn't their death that brought about fame. It was the posthumous discovery of their work and the presentation of their work by another that did the trick. And likely that someone had connections and wasn't bad at sales. Otherwise, the works would still be undiscovered. Death in this case is a facilitator to gaining an unlikely audience and sales manager. It isn't the death of the artists that is needed though. Just go search for an unlikely audience or sales manager rather than taking a knife to your wrists.

It can be said that most well-known to famous artists and writers do get an increase in sales immediately after death but that spike in consumption and popularity does not last long. Not unless you truly are worth your place in history and pop-culture. For writers of late you're talking an Isaac Asimov or Douglas Adams level of impact. Big, in other words. Creators of genre and genre trends, not just good writers or published writers. Otherwise, your spike in sales and fame will drop away within weeks (if your lucky) and you and your works will proceed to fall into relative obscurity - a fond memory for some, a book on the shelf for others or a painting above the mantelpiece that will stay there for the next forty years and then passed on to whomever will have it next.

Are you suddenly feeling sad?

Don't be. The people you want to have the greatest impact upon, after all, are the ones most likely to keep copies of your works and forever say "I knew so and so" or "There was a writer in the family and s/he wrote ...". Your friends and family are truly the ones you want to appreciate your works the most, the ones you truly want to be remembered by forever. And they are the ones most likely to do so.

They say that creating art and writing is like birthing a child. Well, the physical pain is less and the mental strain can be shorter per book or artwork but if you make a career out of it do expect your brain to be almost permanently muddled and your time sucked away by a black hole you never thought existed before but are now sure resides somewhere between your eyes and your writing material. You can also expect to lose social contacts, become mostly a house or workshop bound person meeting crazy and constant deadlines while waiting on those dreaded report cards that tell you if your baby is genius or just plain dumb. Oh, and don't forget the expenditure is high and the rewards low. Most of the time you won't be recognised for your work at all and in fact the vast majority or us will produce what others will call "average". Welcome to motherhood.

So if the art and writing created is a child and you its mother then you want those closest to you in the real world, not fantasy land, to accept and love your work. You want them to be proud of knowing you and knowing your work. And in most cases this little dream will come true. This is where most writers and artists will receive their just rewards in the end and it is a comfortable dream indeed. It means for the writer that your works will always have shelves and your words will always be read by those important to you rather than mulched for another person's set of words. It means for an artist that your paintings, sculptures and drawing (etc.) will have homes and been seen and appreciated rather than gathering dust in an attic or destroyed for more room.

One day your friends and family might point to a picture that seems to them like this to us and say "See that person there? S/he wrote that book over there" and point to a shelf with your book sitting on it.

The dream is both great and small but it is a dream achievable by most of us, whether we achieve wider fame or not, before death or after. So you may as well create with a small part of your mind towards those most important to you rather than on that award or giant cheque. Only one or two out of hundreds will receive any given award or cheque while all those hundreds will receive proud acclamations from friends and family. Be happy with what you can receive and don't get too greedy because if you do you'll likely just end up miserable.