How to Kill Off a Female Character Without it Being Gratuitous?

Eh. I'm just not interested in engaging with the anti-feminist torch-bearing mob today.

 

You're missing two factors:
That the frequency of woman dying as motivation device is more frequent than male deaths.
That black characters are killed earlier and more sympathetic "shocking" deaths happen later. (And, it means that black actors end up with smaller roles.

Your attempt to make this some sort of left wing conspiracy demeans the frequency that these situations have repeatedly happened. That's the problem, not that it ever happens. (And I'll bet you already understood that when you tried to make it sound like something else.)

 

A work can be great while still containing questionable content. The way Babs is treated by the narrative is literally the only mark against it, IMO.

As I pointed out, Alan Moore himself regrets his handling of it. I think that's all the evidence we need to draw a conclusion here.

The Wayne murders came up earlier; I don't think they qualify. While they definitely provide the impetus for Bruce to become Batman, they're not played for shock value. And Bruce's motivation is less "vengeance for Mom and Dad" than it is "Nobody else should ever have to experience this".

It's also worth noting that Thomas and Martha Wayne have been fleshed out quite a bit in surrounding material, and their deaths had an impact on the world beyond Bruce himself. Many of the programs they'd supported through donations collapsed due to shortages of funds, failure to catch their killer led to apathy and then corruption in the GCPD, and it's heavily implied their deaths led the man who would become Joker to adopt his nihilistic worldview. Folk started avoiding Park Row, causing business to dry up and the neighborhood to degenerate into the slum known as Crime Alley.

 

You're pretty much canceling out the Fridge Lady trope (one of which I never found all that offensive but whatever) because you aren't killing a female character to motivate a male character to do thing X. The fridging category successfully averted.

By the same token I could ask if "there's an effective way of killing a male character with a female protagonist, and it NOT coming off as a little misandrist?" The door swings both ways, except when framed that way, the question reads pretty damn absurd, and it - at the very least - should tell you you are overthinking this.

 

The way Babs is "treated by the narrative" is one of the foundational pieces of the story. If it didn't prevent the book from being one of the all time greatest D.C. Comics trades, then the "questionable content" isn't very questionable imo.

What? No. That's not how thinking people draw their conclusions. We use reason, and our own judgement, and we're not spoon fed what to believe by anyone as if we're babies. Alan Moore can be wrong, same as anyone else.

They came up because a few folks here have a problem with characters (male or female, adult or child) being introduced and killed as mere plot devices. If you've read through this thread you would know that.

If you're just going to limit your complaints to female characters, who are murdered/maimed before much development, largely for shock value and to motivate a male protagonist on a quest for vengeance, then I imagine examples for this trope won't be very easy to come by.

Ironically, the ones that come to mind—Braveheart and The Killing Joke, are considered beloved works of fiction. The film Gladiator crossed my mind, but even though his family were slaughtered without any development, and even though it sent Maximus on a quest for vengeance, I wouldn't characterize their deaths as shock value, as it was performed off screen.

 

@Fallow
Ok...

Well I have no idea what "I bet you knew that" means, so enlighten me. Are you inferring that I'm, what, trying to "trick" someone into writing something that offends feminists or whatever?

Secondly, you're absolutely wrong about Black Dude Dies First, and I have empirical evidence to prove it. In several of the most prominent and important Slasher movies, the first characters to die were WHITE people (the first Halloween, the original Friday the 13th, the original Nightmare on Elm Street) and in one case namely the first Halloween, if I recall, she never received dialogue while Black characters either survived (Night of the Demons, both Dawn of the Dead movies) or were primary protagonists seen throughout the movie (example: Jason Goes to Hell and Friday The 13th Part 8) and regardless this all ignores the reality that in such movies most or all of the cast dies anyway, i.e the Final Girl rule, and so who dies first or how is irrelevant since by default their lives are basically forfeit by the very structure of the genre.

Third and most important to this discussion, again why does it matter? Other than some kind of...I don't even know, "moral" argument? Like let's say that I did accept the reasoning that certain characters, male or female, were created solely to act as a prop whose death motivates the main characters...and? Like why is that an issue? Again, Bruce Wayne's parents, Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, Jason Todd, Bucky Barnes, Ned Stark, Iron Man's father, hell Superman's entire RACE, these people had no personalities or ideas or even dialogue in most of the cases given and existed solely to be the foundation for a revenge thriller. And? So? Why is that "gratuitous"? And what does their gender have to do with it, since I can find just as many cases of male "fridging" as female ones. The entire PLOT of the recent movie Widows (a great movie btw) was predicated on the idea that the main characters' husbands died in a failed Ocean's 11 cosplay so they had to finish the job. I'm summarizing the plot but you get the point. The main instance even brought up is The Killing Joke, which no matter which way you slice it did more FOR Barbara Gordon as a character than against it since previously she was basically just a stand-in for Batman but with a vagina. This story elevated her as a character, and yes as a prop for the plot, and as a result people today even know who Barbara Gordon is likely due to The Killing Joke...as opposed to, say, Lana Lang who most people barely even know beyond "that hot Asian chick from Krypton's Creek".

So even if we accepted the idea that somehow it was "gratuitous", it's in no way "dehumanizing", and if anything actually added to these characters by making their lives and yes, their deaths, have weight and meaning. Or put another way, would anyone really even know or give a fuck who Ben Parker IS let alone what happens in his life if he wasn't the guy who died so Spider-Man could do his thing? Cause somehow I doubt the MCU would be planning a three-movie spinoff about Ben and May Parker staring Robert Redford and Jane Fonda.

"Uncle Ben: Incontinence War"
"Uncle Ben: Age of Alzheimer's"
"Uncle Ben: Civil War Vet"

 

So anyway, back to the original concept...

There is, as demonstrated here, literally NO WAY to not "offend" someone today, there barely was back in the golden days of the 1990's when political discourse was still bound by sane human beings and watching South Park didn't make me question the structure of corporeal time because of how outdated their references had become. No matter what happens someone will be "offended" or find it "gratuitous" or call you some kind of an -ist or -ism.

Write the character and the story as fleshed out and well-rounded as possible, then if you have to or want to kill them off, and assuming it doesn't completely break the plot for no reason (I'm looking at you Last Jedi) then feel free to. Divorce yourself from any notion of "sensitivity", racial or gender or otherwise, and just have at it. That's my advice.

 

Who are the black main characters in those three films? Oh, there aren't any black main characters at all? Again - you knew that, and used films with no black main cast to make a point about black main characters. That's purposely deceptive.

You are making a political argument by cherry picking your "facts" to match your agenda. When black characters are in the main cast of slasher films, they are generally early victims not late victims. Late victims are the stars of the film with the most character development, audience sympathy and screen time.

It wouldn't matter, if the distribution of those victims was normal. But it hasn't been normal, which caused women to notice that their sex sure seemed to make a lot of appearances as corpses compared to men. And African Americans also took note that anytime they actually saw a black character in a horror movie that character was unlikely to last long enough to be memorable as much more than a corpse.


The practice of creating a character just to kill them off isn't the issue as much who we choose. If we keep choosing to primarily use dead women to primarily motivate men, it certainly makes it look like the author is either unaware of the history of the issue - or maybe prefers it that way.

The fact that other people have been victims in fiction doesn't change the fact that a preponderance of victims (especially ones introduced to the main storyline rather appearing as back story), are women brought in to the story simply to die. And the reason they are used is because romantic relationships require very little exposition to establish as important, while Daredevil is unlikely to go berserk because a guy he's been bowling with all summer gets killed. That's the reason women are chosen - but that convenience has caused it to be overused.

It doesn't matter if a feminist noticed the problem first or not. It is still a problem when fiction perpetuates a false stereotype that might have an unintended affect on people's attitudes. Thinking of women as helpless victims in need of male protection is as old as history - it ought to be something we unburden ourselves of. It's like talking about menstruation being "unclean" - we are no longer barbarians but educated, modern people.

 

No, it's not. The story doesn't rest on Barbara's feelings on what happened to her being ignored. There's even a perfect point for them to be touched on: when Batman visits her in the hospital. But that was wasted. It's all about Jim instead.

Now, there's a flashback to around this time in Simone's Batgirl series that treats it far better. I'll see if I can find the page. Edit: found it.

Spoiler

Your views on your own work have far more weight than anyone else's. I'd like to see you try to prove an author's regret over how they handled a plot element to be "wrong".

I've read the thread, and I haven't seen anyone suggest male characters can't get fridged. But this is a trope that primarily affects female characters. The deaths of Jason Todd (the second Robin) and one of Harley Quinn's boyfriends in her current series come to mind as male characters you can easily argue were fridged.

To me, the key components of fridging are:
1) shock value
2) narrative focus is given exclusively to how the protagonist(s) feel about it, rather than how the victim's loss impacts the rest of the world.
3) provides motivation for a route vengeance plot or fuel for the protagonist to angst over for a bit
4) as soon as the plot at hand, the fridged character is often swiftly forgotten about.[/SPOILER]

 

Well, can you two agree that it is always a "red shirt" that gets killed in "Star Trek"?

 

You've made my point for me. Thank you. The shocking act of violence against Babs, is a foundational piece of the story, while her feelings after the fact are not. Her feelings have been proven, through the book's massive appeal and critical acclaim, to be unnecessary for the story.

No, they don't. An author—just like any other person—can regret anything, but that doesn't mean their logic for doing so is sound. Surely you've considered the possibility that humans can be irrational when it comes to regret?

Alright. Again, other participants in this thread haven't used this standard. So you can't fault some of my examples for not meeting your standard when no one else was using it. Personally speaking, I don't have an issue with any one of those listed components. And I still don't have an issue when they're all combined.

I'm often turned off when I suspect things are done for shock value. But when done well, shock value certainly has its place in storytelling.

 

Lots of things are unnecessary for a story. That doesn't mean stories should be stripped to the bare bones of what's necessary to their plot. Doing that ends up very unsatisfying indeed.

And like I said, there's a point (the hospital scene) where you'd expect her feelings to be touched on. An obligatory scene, if you're familiar with that storytelling concept. What happened looms over it like an elephant in the room. Instead, that plot thread is left hanging. Which might have worked in a standalone AU, but doesn't work so well as part of the larger shared universe.

Yes, they do. Are we invoking Death of the Author here? Because that has to be the most detrimental literary theory ever put to paper.

Surely you've considered there's no basis to question Moore's reason?

Shock value has its place, but I don't think that place should be in motivation the vast majority of the time.

 

I think we're ascribing too much sinister thought to people possibly scrambling to latch onto a storyline that has already made money. It's like Taken and probably the hundreds upon hundreds of screenplays that followed. Are they following some dark inner motivation? Hardly, they're following the money. Something worked and
so they weave those tropes into their own story. Most writers follow format they don't venture very far into their own ideas.
Also I think sometimes the point is to dehumanize because this is, I would say at it's heart, a Western trope. The man isn't going off to avenge just out of love but guilt, hate, anger. It's not about the woman's death it's about his guilt of not protecting her, it's about feeling powerless and not receiving any justice. The reason there's no big flip side is women don't respond this way - maybe with a child and we've seen an uptick in that trope, but mostly women just mourn.
I think it can work - any trope can work - so long as you look at why the trope worked in the first place. Find your favorite story using this really break it down as to why it's different from the others.

 

No one has advocated for that. And TKJ has proven to be satisfying, to a great many readers and critics. You want more of Babs feelings? Okay, that boils down to a mere preference. It's the same as someone wanting TKJ to have more action beats. You're entitled to your opinion, but there's nothing objective about it. More importantly, no one needs to agree with you.

Death of the author? I have no idea what you're trying to suggest. Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Good thing for us, it's not used the "vast majority" of the time then.

 

You literally did:

"Her feelings...have been proven to be unnecessary to the story."

As if being unnecessary to the plot means that it shouldn't be there.

Being popular or having critical acclaim doesn't make criticisms of the work invalid (if it did, nobody could criticize the likes of Fifty Shades of Grey or Twilight), as you seem to think it does. Especially when many of the same people that like it share an overarching criticism: the way the narrative uses Barbara as nothing but a prop.

So you're not familiar with the literary theory? Because you're basically arguing it. "Moore's opinions of his own work don't carry any more weight in critiquing his work than any other individual's" is what you've essentially said.

I didn't say it was used the vast majority of the time, I said in most instances where shock value is employed, it shouldn't be used to provide motivation.

 

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

Have you had some really bad narrative or political "teaching" or why you even think that?

If you can make you story better in any way, then do it. If not, then don't do it.

 

A flaw can be a flaw even without any sinister thought.

 

It only did more for her in the long run because Yale and Ostrander rescued her from the scrap heap. Otherwise, DC was ready to shelve the character.

Like I suggested earlier, the original is definitely an example of fridging at its worst, but the work done by other writers--from Yale and Ostrander to Dixon, to Simone, to Scott--since then has made it into something very different.

 

No, I literally didn't. Stating the fact that Babs feelings proved unnecessary for enough of the public and critics to elevate TKJ into the tiers of DC Comics's most hallowed trades, does not, in any way, mean I'm saying that "anything unnecessary to the plot shouldn't be there." That simply doesn't follow.

If by valid you're implying that what you're saying is objective, then no. If you mean valid as in, you're entitled to you're opinion—an opinion no one needs to agree with—then yes. I would never argue otherwise. All I'm saying is, when you critize very successful fiction, be aware that the public has already cast their vote, and many of them disagree with you. You can rant why you might think Stephen King sucks, but he's a proven winner, so your rant boils down to nothing more that your opinions. Opinions no one need concern themselves with.

I'm not familiar, but that's my position. And?

And I don't think it matters if shock value is used to provide motivation or not, so long it's done well.

 

This would be an important argument if people didn't also vote for Twinkies, the National Enquirer, tramp stamps and meth in huge numbers. Slavery was popular. Human sacrifice was popular.

 

And the problem with meth and tramp stamps being?

 

The last two examples have moral arguments against them. I'm not sure what your point is with your other examples? You don't approve them? Who cares.

 

If we delve into this idiotic rabbit hole, then by the logic of "fridging" killing off ANY character who is a woman, or minority of any kind as Black Dude Dies First espouses, would render the story somehow forfeit, inherently tainted by this act. The fact that no one can see how this is LITERALLY how so many minority/female/both Mary Sue characters were created is absurd to me.

If you basically declare ANY female character or ANY minority character untouchable, then all concepts of criticism or actual logical assessment of the story becomes null and void--because we're delving into purely subjective criticisms here. And like I said, I said it to @Fallow and I'll say it to @X Equestris, what about all those other examples I presented. Empirical, objective examples of male characters being killed off purely to push forward a revenge plot or drive a character's backstory? Do they not count? If so why? What makes the death of Ben Parker any different than the crippling of Barbara Gordon? Why is one "fridging" and the other just backstory? Or Iron Man's father, or Green Arrow's father on the CW show? Or hell, let's talk about Last Action Hero, where the entire driving premise of the character Jack Slater's backstory is a serial murderer killed his son...sooo, how is that not "fridging"?

I mean if it genuinely is something that ONLY applies to female characters, then ok fine, but say that. Let's not pretend this is some kind of an ethical argument or, as @Fallow suggested...and you'll excuse me because I laughed so hard I almost had an epileptic seizure reading that, so I may slur my words here...because it's (INSERT CURRENT YEAR) we must "unburden" ourselves from any past notions of...I don't even know, not talking about maxi pads?!? I'm curious as to how that even emerged as a thought but ok, fine. My point is, this is just a feminist talking point, it has no objective meaning so either admit that and move on or don't try to browbeat everyone into some kind of faux outrage or shame parade about how we're all supposed to I guess talk openly about bleeding from vaginas or something? Because that's the same thing as killing off a character WITH a vagina? I guess?

I'm serious that post kind of threw me...

 

Maybe it would make sense for you to make another thread?

The originator of this thread seems to have a specific goal. He wants to avoid having a character that exists purely as a plot device.

You seem to be arguing against the thought process that led to that goal. You're arguing that it's fine to have characters that exist purely as plot devices. In fact, you seem to be coming close to arguing that it's wrong to try to avoid the purely-plot-device character.

But...the poster of this thread already has a goal. Is it your position that it would be wrong for us to try to help him with that goal?

 

So you ARE arguing that the poster's vision for his story is wrong, and he should follow someone else's vision.

Well, that's depressing.