In my current novel, I have a very important character "L", who's off-screen death in the first pages is the catalyst for the protagonist's entry into the story and all major events after. Now, three quarters of the plot later, I'd like to reveal to both characters and reader that "L" is not actually dead, but imprisoned by the antagonist the whole time. This revelation has a profound effect on several key protagonists, now also prisoners, as well as postulating a moral dilemma faced by my M.C. However, in order to bring closure to these characters and advance the plot, it "L" must die, and as it stands, die quickly. How soon is too soon for killing off a resurrected character? Is this even a good idea as far as tropes go? By "resurrecting "L" could I be weakening the power of her earlier "death"?
I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't want to read a story where a character that I thought was killed off was brought back only to be killed off quickly for realzies this time. It would feel like cheap emotional manipulation.
*cough cough* ...GoT...*cough* I hate resurrection stuff on dead characters unless it's a drastic item. If it's for convenience or weak dramatic tension I feel that it's awful. Truly hate it most of the time unless they are completely corrupted. The death is always cheapened by the resurrection unless the resurrection is to further corrupt and defile the character the reader had come to know.
I enjoy stories where a character is thought to be dead (for good reasons), but isn't. Maybe the reader is aware this character is still alive, but the other characters aren't. (In which case, the reader is waiting for the Big Reveal to happen—which creates suspense.) Maybe both reader AND other characters believe in the death. Then you create surprise. Wonderful surprise, if the character who returns is a positive character—think King Richard the Lionhearted, in the Robin Hood stories. Horrific surprise, if the character who 'died' was a bad 'un, and his return is not welcome. I'm not a fan of stories where characters die, then are 'miraculously' brought back to life, though. Happens a LOT in sci-fi TV series and Fantasies, doesn't it? Once in a very great while I can accept this story device, but not often. Once characters start dying for real, then being brought back, jeopardy is destroyed. A character dies? So what, if they can be brought back to life. Ho hum. In your case, @Urocyon , it sounds as if the problem might lie in revealing the person was not dead, but then killing him off right away afterwards. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, as you write (or edit) consider how this is going to affect your readers. It might be great for the plot development, but if readers are going to be annoyed, feel emotionally manipulated, disappointed, or unconvinced, it might not be such a great idea. What is the effect of this plot twist going to be? On the readers, not the plot itself.
I don't like resurrecting characters unless it's at a heavy cost (sacrifise to achieve it; happening naturally but with no memories centuries after etc.) Think about what you're aiming to have the reader feel through this. How would you feel if you were them and reading this? Previous answers suggest it might be unneccessary and risky. I agree. Try to think instead of alternative ways to achieve the emotional impact. Say, your characters get improsoned and they find out L had been alive but tortured for a while by the people keeping them captive. He had been alive when they started looking for him but has since perished. Would something like this acchieve your goals?
First, thanks to everyone who responded. @jannert @Wind Wild I should have been a little clearer, "L" didn't actually die, but the principle characters were led to believe she was killed. Very simply, a badly wounded "L" sets the plot in motion by ordering the other characters to flee without her and is subsequently captured and healed. No miracles, magic or zombification. This was where I was trying to go. My M.Cs discuss "L" intermittently throughout the story, each time painting a slightly clearer and perceptually changing picture of who and what "L" was each time. I was hoping that by doing so she would become a dynamic and fully fleshed out character to the reader without actually appearing again till the "Big Reveal". I've realized that currently she's killed far too quickly (only a few paragraphs!). By letting her live a few chapters longer and contribute directly the the plot in a different and very meaningful way, I wouldn't cheapen her previous disappearance and allow for a more satisfying sendoff. Does this sound like a better solution, or is bringing her back at all a mostly bad idea?
Bringing L back for longer before killing off for real does sound like it might work better, but have you considered an alternate way to remove L from the plot without killing her? Maybe she's badly injured and won't be able to contribute directly any more, but she could still be around to advise the characters? Or something along those lines. EDIT: Perhaps she was so badly injured during her captivity she's permanently stuck in an advisory capacity. A good way to reduce her impact on the plot while not making it all 'she's dead, now she's not, oh she's dead again'.
Hmm...what if she were comatose? Initially I was thinking that her definitive death would be a "coming of age" scenario for one of the MCs and increase the level of personal danger to the heroes as well as having other effects on the plot itself. Perhaps this solution would provide the same effects and also lend a sense of suspense to her fate. Then again, it might be too close to what happened to her earlier. I'm not sure if this could really work, but it'll require much more thought... As for her being severely maimed, I could see her being forced to retire and living in seclusion afterward. It should be noted that this is a Fantasy novel and "L" is an anthropomorphic wolf. I'd like to include somewhat realistic pack behavior while still being true to the characters themselves.
I think I always feel suspicious of 'off-screen' deaths, as it seems most of the time in books and on TV the only reason to have them off-screen is either because they aren't really dead or because the writer hasn't decided yet if they're really dead. For me, I think I would find it more satisfying and cathartic as the reader if I knew L wasn't really dead but you see the reaction of the protagonist to thinking she is, and rooting for them to find out the truth. Then just as you're feeling safe and smug that it all worked out, bam she dies for real which we weren't even expecting because we've got used to our dramatic irony and thinking that she's safe. Then we get to experience the devastation along with the MC who presumably had just been reunited only to lose her again. It's cruel but it would get the feelings going!
I see an 'off-screen' death as always an avenue to bring a character back. I never believe a character is dead until it is described in-scene. That being said, how you plan to do it is the thing, and that includes the death at the end. That is the culmination of the overall arc. To give more impact to the reader, you can have them get to know her in flashbacks. Maybe even have Interludes between chapters that are from her perspective in the past. Give her that added dimension. As to her death, if the main characters spend most of their time trying to get revenge/justice for her, then try and save her after finding out she is still alive, her death could come about by her saving them instead.
@making tracks As I was really going for the surprise, I hadn't considered allowing the reader to know "L" is still alive. I can see how foreknowledge could cause anticipation in the reader and allow her real death to be the surprise... I really don't mind playing hardball with emotions, the characters probably hate me for that! @Thom The main characters argue about "L' often, but flashbacks could cut down on or supplement the exposition (less tell more show), even though the conversations are dynamic. I'd really have to think if flashbacks from her perspective could be feasible though. Great suggestions, especially her death while saving the M.C.s. I like that.
As long as you foreshadow some kind of hint or way for the readers to figure out what would happen, even if it could only be reasonably pieced together in retrospect, it’d keep plot twists from feeling forced or unfair.
Not a fan of resurrecting character. If a character dies as part of a sacrifice and then they come back to life was it really a sacrifice? It feels a bit like fooling the audience and hoping the resurrection will be a shock, but it's done soon often that it's what we predict, a character staying dead is more of a shock to me now. Also, if it's a character we never meet, why would we care anyway? Not sure I see the point of "killing" a character we never meet, to find she's alive, only to then kill her for real. All "L" becomes is an impact character, a character purely there to forwards the plot and give the main characters the final bit of strength they need to defeat the bad guy. I think it's better when the will to fight comes from an internal change rather than an external one. But that's just my opinion.
First, thanks again to everyone for their input, much appreciated. @cosmic lights: I see where you're coming from, but "L" does make an appearance in the beginning chapter. In fact, she's the emphasis of the entire section and hopefully brings a lot of emotion and suspense to the story (I'll be posting this at one point in the Workshop, so we'll see.) Also, she's discussed from differing viewpoints throughout the story, hopefully investing the reader's emotion in her continued characterization, so it's not like she's completely absent. I agree that the "will to fight" is stronger from an internal source. One way I've tried to build complexity and nuance to certain characters, without confusing the reader, is by giving them multiple realistic motivations from both external and internal sources.
Wait, why? That seems like an odd requirement, especially for a character who was fake dead already. Honestly, I'm kinda against re-killing resurrected characters on principle. Seems to me at that point they deserve to survive. It's kinda like having a character win an amazing victory against all odds, then taking it away from them: It comes across as more cruel than just having them fail in the first place. Well, if she "dies" right at the start, it's not like the readers are going to be very emotionally invested in her. If it's apparent that her "death" was the inciting incident, they'll probably understand on some level that it was a plot point rather than an appeal to emotion. As such the "power" of her death may not be important. (To the reader, I mean. Obviously it's going to matter to the other characters.) My reaction would probably be something like: "Oh, cool. That one important character from the start that everyone has been talking about is still alive! This should be interesting." Pretty much. That sort of thing can come across as mean-spirited, and you don't want to antagonize your readers. Nothing grinds my gears quite like when I perceive that an author is actively manipulating story events for the purpose of making me sad or upset. I'm actually the other way around: I love resurrection plot devices. Especially if they're clever or meaningful in some way. Cheating death is awesome. I think this is only a problem if the author fails to raise the stakes accordingly. The characters may be dealing with problems so severe that simply dying a couple of times just isn't a big concern. One of my favorite shonen manga a couple of decades back was Shaman King, and towards the end the heroes had people who could straight up raise the dead, Jesus-style. Also, because of how everyone's powers worked, resurrected people came back stronger than before. Oh, and at that point they'd all been to the afterlife already, so they pretty much knew what to expect. However, their healers could only do the Lazarus thing a certain amount of times before running out of power. The problem was that towards the end they were fighting their way through this gauntlet of immensely strong antagonists, trying to get to the main villain before he could literally become God. If that happened, the villain would unmake all of humanity permanently. So, dying wasn't a problem and in some ways even beneficial, but they were working on a time limit with little chance to rest, the stakes were still extremely high, and they had to conserve power while making good pace and avoiding a TPK before even reaching the head honcho. They actually had strategy huddles discussing whether or not they could afford anyone to die in the next fight, or if a resurrection was worth having a stronger fighter in the round after that. It was kinda amazing because their priorities were well beyond just surviving. Well, yes, pretty much. It doesn't stop being a sacrifice just because the outcome wasn't sad. It's being willing to sacrifice your life that makes it heroic, not the fact that you actually die doing it. Like, if I willingly take a bullet meant for someone else, that is not a less selfless act just because I miraculously happen to survive, right? Self-sacrifice isn't a transaction, it's a matter of displaying bravery and nobility in the face of danger.
They did it in the one Star Trek movie, where Bones finds the magical anti-necrotic serum or whatever the hell it was. I was kind of ambivalent about that; it was emotionally effective for me at the time, but I'm pretty gullible emotionally and the serum was stupid. Whatever.
Ahh, the classic "fix all my episode's convoluted problems" serum. Just what the doctor ordered. I feel this same level of sarcasm in regards to resurrecting dead characters.
It always makes me wonder about the larger implications for that discovery which is almost never addressed, especially if there are sequels. Like, I'm reading/watching the sequel and I'm wondering why people are dying or having problems. You guys were pretty smart last time when you came up with an anti-plot potion but this looks like an improbable case of collective amnesia. Just give him the serum you retards, like you did last time.
Yes, but in this case, when a character is meant to have die (the sacrifice) it being willing or not, it's not satisfactory to the reader for them to suddenly have only been willing. Being willing to sacrifice your life and actually sacrificing it are on a different level to me. I'm willing to sacrifice my life for someone I love. That's great. But aren't most good people who love others? Laying down your life and actually going through with that to me are different. Both heroic. But on a different level. I'm still not keen on the idea of a character who's "dead" then alive, then dead again. It feels too done before and I've seen it too many times.
Thanks everyone! I believe I have a satisfying solution, but it'll be awhile before I can judge it's execution (no pun intended!)
