The temporatory state of death in comics
I'm a pretty big DC fan, and they are notorious for killing and bringing back characters, such as Superman, Jason Todd (Batman's second Robin), Bruce Wayne, and more.
Warning: Jason Todd spoiler ahead...
I didn't like Jason as Robin (who he died as), but love him as the Red Hood (who he became after his resurrection). I didn't vote, but I would've in favour of killing him. So I'm pretty torn on his resurrection. His death is one of the single most impactful storylines in the Batman universe (another being Barbara's spine, which might be worth its own discussion...). It changed Batman, how other heros viewed Batman, generally changed the feel of the safety of pretty core characters for the reader. And I wanted to keep all that. I liked that Batman that has to take responsibility for putting a child in danger and getting him killed. I liked that shadow that Jason's death cast on the Bat family and the way it haunts them.
However, I really enjoyed Under the Red Hood, and it remains one of my favourite arcs. And in the new 52, the mending of Jason's relationship with Bruce, and the other Robins. He's the black sheep that works great to contrast Batman (Bruce and Dick's).
Though I enjoyed the stories that are only possible through resurrection (or rebooting), I can't help but feel it takes too much away from the original story, and in many ways disrespects the original work and its reception. And what use to be a devastating turn in plot, is just an almost ridiculous trope.
How do you feel about resurrections in general? How does it change when the stories are supernatural? Any other Red Hood fans?
You might recall that comic book deaths and resurrections predate comic books. Arthur Conan Doyle tried killing off Sherlock Holmes, but eventually brought him back because the fandom wouldn't accept it.
Oh definitely, and I'm not at all suggesting it's limited to comics. I just feel that comics are probably really notorious for doing it. To the point where no one cares if someone dies in a comic (DC or marvel, specifically) because there's an automatic assumption that they'll be brought back somehow. In my experience, this is not true in other mediums, though it can be.
They probably are, but I have to admit that I'm not really that familiar with comics. I didn't grow up reading them as a kid; by the time I was of an age to get into comics I was already reading sci-fi, fantasy, and horror novels aimed at adults. The only comics I had as a kid were odd issues of American Flagg and Doctor Who that I got from my grandparents as birthday presents. I ended up circling back to comics via manga as an adult, but never really got too deep into either because $$$. Getting caught up on a long-running manga like Gunnm or Berserk is expensive, and getting deeper into DC or Marvel continuity than is possible using Wikipedia is even worse.
That said, I think the reason characters die (and return with new identities) so often is that when you're writing comics you've got to crank out content on a monthly basis. You need to sustain a paying audience, and sustaining a paying audience means sustaining suspense. Killing off various members of the supporting cast, even if only apparently, is a valid method for sustaining suspense until people stop taking it seriously.
I know this from experience; in 2014 and 2015 I wrote novel as a weekly serial (in 66 installments) called Silent Clarion. You haven't heard of it because I'm shit at marketing (and not much shakes as an author, either, to be honest).
Writing a novel is hard. Writing a serial is harder still. Writing any sort of serial using famous characters and settings with a pre-existing fandom that will howl for blood if you get it wrong isn't the sort of job I'd want to take on.
I think you make a really good point about serial media. There is definitely a need to almost cliffhang every single issue, and there are only so many things you can do. So we end up with deaths, resurrections, and in the current DC run, weddings.
Sidenote: and yeah...getting into DC and Marvel can be difficult. This is an issue DC and Marvel run into lots, which is why they reboot the universe every so often. Usually resulting is readers' favourites being brought back to life, or somehow fixed. Which, in the case of author's like Arthur Conan Doyle, I prefer they don't. But a difference between novels (excluding Dragon Lance type ones) and comics is that comics constantly change writers.
And eventually divorces, since art tends to imitate life when life fails to imitate art. :)
There's also much more collaboration in comics. You usually have writers, editors, and artists working together and hammering out storylines. A novelist often works alone, at least at first.
Honestly a divorce would be interesting to read in a comic. Otherwise if someone doesn't end up murdered and stuffed in the fridge, that would be an improvement.
As for the collaboration, they also often have to keep continuity with other things happening in the universe too. DC comics recently relaxed that requirement.
re "fridging": I agree, even though I've done it myself despite knowing better and showing one of the antagonist's friends remonstrating with them before the fridging and trying to persuade them that it won't work. (What the antagonist's friend doesn't know is that the person being fridged wanted help faking their own death.)
Likewise, it would be interesting to see superheroes cope with divorce. If Tony Stark can struggle with alcoholism (the "Demon in a Bottle" arc), why can't Clark Kent marry Lois Lane, only to have Lois file for divorce because Clark is too busy being Superman to be her husband?
It would definitely be interesting to read, especially since most break ups in comics tend to be someone just "walks away". I would love to see something way less clean.
Like Bruce Wayne paying alimony and child support?
Do you watch much science fiction or fantasy television? I know you watch 'Buffy'! It's not just comics. ;)
Oh too much :)
I thought it would be good limit the topic a bit since I am posting in ∼books, but I am definitely interested in discussing other media too.
If you're a writer, and you kill off a character and then resurrect them a few minutes/episodes/issues later, then that tells me that you (the writer) weren't ever invested in that characters death to begin with. It immediately becomes cheap, as now I know you only did that to quick throw some easy drama in my face.
I think it's prevalent in comics because comic writers are stuck in a tough spot. They need to raise the stakes to give the audience a sense of danger and investment, but at the same time they are working with timeless and beloved characters.
How do we make Doomsday look tough as shit? Well, let's just have him kill Superman. But now everyone is pissed that we killed Superman- Well, that's okay because we'll just pop his body into the Fortress of Solitude and boom! He's alive. Do that enough times, and it becomes cheap and easy, just like I was saying before.
So what makes Red Hood different? I think it's a combination of a couple different things.
So if you treat death lightly, it won't have any impact; doubly so if you decide to negate that death. You can't do it arbitrarily, or that heaviness goes away and becomes meaningless.
For example, in the Infinity War movie... SPOILERS BELOW Y'ALL.
Which deaths felt heavier, half of all the Avenger's at the end of the movie, or when Thanos threw Gammora off a cliff to get an infinity stone?
Maybe it's an unfair comparison. Maybe some will disagree with me. But let's be real here. Audiences are smart. We know Spider-Man isn't dead. We know Doctor Strange isn't dead. It's a nice set-up for the next movie, but that's about it. On the other hand, Thanos choosing to kill his adopted daughter because he believes so sternly in his cause? There's conflict, there's consequence, and honestly, I'm more apt to believe she's dead for good (For the record, I don't think she's dead for good, but her death certainly feels more "real" than the rest).
Anyways, there's my input. Sorry if I got rambly at some parts. I feel like when I write out long shit on the internet, the thoughts in my brain are like fish in a pond that I'm trying to grab with my bare-hands. I just reach into a thick group and hope I pull out what I want. Plus, I love any chance to talk about comics.
I think this requires that the audience believe that Thanos actually loves Gamora. He was able to convince the forces guarding the Soul stone, but I don't buy it. People convincingly fake their emotions on a regular basis.
I don't think that's the case. I think the forces guarding the Soul Stone are magical forces that know for certain whether it's there. I don't think it was possible for him to "fool" those forces.
Maybe not, but I think there are bigger problems with Thanos and his motives than just whether or not he really loved Gamora like a daughter.
There's the whole "Let's solve overpopulation by killing off half of every inhabited world's population in a murder lottery" thing. I doubt Thanos himself actually though this through or considered the possibility that the survivors would have more children and eventually make up their lost numbers.
At least in the comics Thanos was trying to impress the goddess/personification of Death, but that motive is nowhere to be found in the movie. It's still pretty ridiculous because there's no point in committing mass murder to impress Death when everybody dies eventually, but it's better than turning Thanos into some kind of cosmic neo-Malthusian eco-activist.
In the movie, he did think about that. Having children wasn't the problem. The problem was a matter of resources and the inefficiency of having so many beings that couldn't properly foster those resources. He even said himself that halving the population on his home planet created a paradise as the remaining people could think more sustainably about the future and about the how the population could grow again from there. I think it's a parallel to what's going on in our world right now.
If you really want a plot hole, you have to realize that, instead of halving the population of the universe, he could have just doubled all the resources or the size of the universe or anything else. If he's really as god-like and unstoppable as they made him out to be, nothing should be off limits for him.
It's like you're reading my mind! The points you listed are the exact reason I picked Jason as my example. I honestly feel his is the best resurrection.
This is definitely what sets apart a good plot twist and a cliche. Superman's death by Doomsdat had his resurrection planned alongside of it, which it probably why it feels cheap. His death in All Star, which was contained, so no resurrection, was so much more impactful.
Jason, was intended to stay dead and like you mentioned did for decades, and until a new writer entered. And one of the most important things they did when they brought him back was changing his dynamic with Batman. They threw status quo out and broke his relationship with Bruce (and for many years beyond repair). And my personal love of his character was that it's unclear if bringing him back made him into the Red Hood or if that was always who he was going to be.
Edit: I noticed I kinda just rehashed what you wrote, which wasn't really my intention. Guess, I am just saying - I strongly agree!
Ha, I mean, I basically rehashed some of the stuff that you said too. I bet we could both sit here for hours talking about comics and parroting each other because comics are the shit.
I bet we could :)
I think this is really what's important here. Jason died. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. All the emotion, all the consequences, and all the associated thoughts with Jason came out in the books and it made for interesting reading. It's not like Batman can say "Jason never died" because he's been resurrected now. He did die. There was time lost that will never come back. I'd even say that Red Hood is a completely different person from Jason if not for the fact that these exact same feelings (from dying as Jason) are what drives him now and made him the character he is now. The thing that made it so impactful was that he died and was gone for 20 years.
Now, contrast that with the "Death" of Superman. I'm a huuuuuge Superman fan. He's by far my favorite character and I loved the whole "Death of Superman" arc in the comics precisely because the "Return" storyline really asked people to define what Superman was as a character. As a kid, I was on the edge of my seat every issue and felt so triumphant when Superman finally came back. As an adult, though, it feels pretty lazy and I can't help but think that Superman didn't actually die. He was in "stasis" or whatever BS explanation they gave for it and him coming back so quickly made all the emotions felt by the other characters kind of empty. I mean, they were real for those characters at the time, but they feel trivialized for readers because we're all expecting Superman to come back and, of course, he did. There's no gravity there. I actually would have been totally OK with DC just cancelling the Superman books for a few years and doing nothing but Elseworlds Superman stories for a while or if they had kept going with other characters. They just didn't do a great job of making any of the other characters relatable or important to readers and that sucks.
Infinity War is another good example. It's hard to feel bad when you know for sure that certain characters are "coming back". It really downplays the weight of what happens. Good writers will find creative ways to keep things going.
For Batman and Superman comics, one of the biggest issues with bring them back is probably that the story can never advance beyond a certain point. If Bruce or Clark actually died, we can get new Batman and Superman stories. And yes, I don't believe killing Clark and replacing him with convergence Clark counts as true death. That's just sidestepping resurrection slightly.
I guess that depends on how literally you define Batman and Superman by the people that they are. I, personally, like stories more when they explore the idea of what it means to be "Batman" or "Superman". The only time I really care about the backstory of Clark Kent, since it's been overdone to death, is when they explore what it means to be, at the heart of it, a human being with god-like powers. Batman is the same way. The parts of the series where they explore different people being Batman and what their motivation is (Knightfall, for example) are way more interesting to me than the constant exploration of why Bruce Wayne chooses to dress up like a bat.
Each superhero has things that define them and I think those definitions can fit multiple people. There are a lot of stories to tell about those heroes, it's just annoying to me that comic writers have to come up with new stories every month just to sell books. It gives us a lot of filler stories rather than well-thought-out stories that have some kind of meaning or gravitas.
I'm just up for a good story, whatever that may be. I just find that because Bruce's Batman and Clark's Superman are so well established already, their stories are a bit more limited. So yeah, I agree with you on the constant exploration of Bruce's motivations.
Though to be fair, I did enjoy New 52 Batman, though the whole Bat family felt weirdly young to me (which probably says more about my age than anything else). But no one grows beyond a certain amount.
I honestly really liked Dick Grayson's Batman paired with Damien's Robin, and was really sad they ended that.
And it's even worst that DC's doing the twice a month release for major titles.
See... I didn't even know that Dick Grayson became Batman so that was news to me. The only change in the mantle I ever read was Azrael in Knightquest/Knightfall/Knightsend.
If you're ever interested in reading it, look for "Batman RIP" reading order. Batman RIP includes leading up to, Bruce's death and various people's mourning him. Dick's story really starts after Bruce's "death" in Final Crisis, so Battle for the Cowl is a good place to start. His run as Batman pretty much ends in New 52. They exist before DC tried to clean up comics, so the stories are everywhere. Still, who doesn't like seeing a fun Batman?
Also worth mentioning, "resurrections" happen pretty much just as frequently outside of comic books too, they're just handled differently.
Whenever someone is trapped in a building, and that building explodes, oh no! The person inside is dead... Oh wait no, apparently he jumped out of a window off-screen.
That's definitely true. It is a pretty used trope. One way that I prefer it is when reader/audience knows the person's not dead but characters think they're dead.
I think deaths for main characters in comic books are dumb when they get resurrected. It’s gotten to the point where every single “death” arc has no meaning because you know they’re going to come back.
Honestly the twist now would be if they stayed dead.
I just brought this up in a discussion on Buffy. My opinion is that as soon as resurrection is an option, drama diminishes as consequences become meaningless, and heroism vanishes as sacrifice becomes meaningless.
Chris Claremont got a promise from Marvel that they would never bring Jean back, so the Dark Phoenix story would remain powerful. They eventually brought her back, and the story is weakened for it. Nothing in the story changed, but the way the reader interprets the story changed.
Further, the audience feels manipulated when a character is brought back. All the pain and loss they felt is exposed as a trick and suspension of disbelief is shattered. The return of Starbuck in BSG is usually identified as the the point it ceased being good.
Starbuck's death rubbed me the wrong way in the first place. I recently started rewatching for the first time so I'm hoping that returning perspective changes things for me, but man. I'm not gonna say the last season is TERRIBLE by any means, but it really doesn't have any of the things that I loved about the first couple seasons.
I was actually thinking of this topic for a while, but it was your comment in the Buffy post that finally got me to post this. :)
I do think there is a difference in handling death and resurrection in supernatural stories. However, I feel comics in general rely too heavily on these tropes too and it really takes away from the story. Your example of Dark Phoenix is a great example.