Death - What Is It Good For?

Okay, funky late night theory rambling time is here.

This one's been inspired by various tweets I've seen recently, some saying that death is in fact one of the least interesting set of stakes available in stories, and another saying the sign of a good combat scene was the idea that death was believable. I'm not saying these positions are diametrically opposed, or that they're absolutely talking about the same thing, or that there aren't unspoken corollaries in agreement; nevertheless, there is at least some sign of opposing view points here.

I think in this instance, it is possible these are representations of different schools of thought as to what the reader wants out of the story. For those who want to see a character-led story, character death's main effect is to remove arcs. It is undesirable unless it is the natural end of the arc and/or creates a stronger arc for a more important arc (the latter of which is often criticised as lazy storytelling). Sudden shocking deaths rarely come at the natural end of the arc, because informed readers can spot those arcs and their expectations change as they reach the end.

However, for a plot-led story, the possibility of sudden shocking death is important as it increases the potential complexity of the plot. No option is closed off. No character too important. It also adds a visceral, in the moment immediacy to the action that perhaps isn't as important to those here for character-led.

It is of course possible to combine both, particularly in the hands of authors skilled enough to disguise arc ends in a way that readers do not expect them, yet believe them once revealed. I'd argue doing so is GRR Martin's foremost claim to genius. Even there though, I believe repetition has dulled impact.

The point of repetition is a crucial one for why death is often seen as one of the least interesting sets of stakes; it is also one of the most common. The commonality of it mean that for many readers, it doesn't need to be there, or that it can be paid lip service to. In terms of decisive battles, it becomes all Whodunnit vs Howdunnit. We know the protagonist wins, we just want to know how and why. Is it thanks to advice from an enemy turned friend in a fight they'd never otherwise win? A display of heart and courage against all odds? The result of simply being better once all the lies and misdirections are done? The satisfaction is not in the risk of death, but the revelation of the character's arc. We're back to character-led again.

This is probably not as simple as I'm making it out to be. There's also no wrong answer and insofar as there's a right answer, it's both. Yet both isn't always possible and one needs to be given priority. And there is a right answer as to which to give priority to insofar as it must meet the expectations set by the story to date. Thrilling danger but no resolution will not satisfy a character-led story. Formulaic fights with big emotional moments aren't quite what the doctor ordered for plot-led.

There is one final observation and that is - the bigger the cast, the more present the danger. James Bond is never in danger as he's always the only character who gets more than 20 minutes of screen time from film to film. Conversely, Song of Ice and Fire felt very dangerous thanks to the knowledge no one character will carry the plot. And again, we're back to the big division - plot vs character.

Maybe.