Back from the Dead

I loathe resurrections. If an author puts the reader through the emotional experience of a significant character's death, I think it is cheap, tawdry, and contemptible to bring the character back, in any form at all (ghosts, voices from beyond, appearances in dreams, necromancy, visions, anything.)

IMHO

I generally don't bring characters back from *actual* death that often (as in, only one character in seven books so far actually died and came back to life, and he was a super villain who transferred his spirit into a new body), but I've had quite a few characters (especially villains, but occassionally the heroine as well) seem to die only to survive and come back. The heroine even makes a joke about that in a later book.

Then there's the idea what's fatal to a human may not be to another sort of creature, like a regenerating monster regrowing its head. That's not quite death per say, but pretty damn close...

It also depends on if you really consider bodily death as *final* death in fantasy, and what about undeath (I had a ghost in another book)? In terms of the guy from the first example, he was so uber he was worshipped as a god, and he came back twice, so the idea was pretty much that he was so powerful as to sort of be beyond death, to a point (he needed special circumstances to will his spirit into someone else's body).

To sum it up, it depends on the setting. Like something that's really serious is not the same as a romp where the main villain is the "immortal dark lord Darkdread" and comes back every 100 years to plague the land... My earlier example is low magic, and coming back from actual death is not something that should happen often, but it's also a world where insane physical prowess is not so uncommon, so characters may survive stuff you wouldn't expect a normal human to.

I don't know if that was helpful, but that's my take.

With enough foreshadowing, and if the character pays a high enough price for doing something so unnatural then it can work

If a character dies, they should stay dead. Like Vomaxx said, resurrections are cheap writing. The only way I think a character resurrection would work would be if the resurrection made the character evil or callous or psychotic, something along those lines. Even then, you'd have to handle it very carefully. If the character was killed, then came back as a pure figure, I'd stop reading.

It really depends on how they come back from death too. If it is too common...then death itself becomes meaningless and charachters do stuff that reflects that.

Personally, several of my WIP have to do with resurrecting the dead. Of course, I have an extremely high price to pay when it happens.

Coming back from the dead is cheap. Death is an absolute truth no matter what universe your in. People, plants, and animals all die. Nothing can change that. If something comes back from the dead it will create an inbalance in nature that could ultimatley end in destruction.

The only way the resurrections are possible is by a trade. one life for another.

At the least, it is overdone.

It can be done well or poorly, but I've seen it in at least 3 of the major series right now. It lessens the impact of major character death, and absolves the author of making a hard choice to permanently lose a favorite character.

Death is a harsh reality, and people do it every day. Staying dead is the least they could do for us.

it all depends on how you handle it, and, largely, on how dead is dead? People who would have been considered dead fifty years ago are brought back to life everyday. Right now, cryogenic suispension doesn't work because freezing ruptures cell walls, but there are many mainstream scientists who believe this problem will eventually be overcome.

Use your own judgement. There will always be those who scoff, there will always be those who hate any form of resurrection, there will always be those who sneer, and who cares? No one is that intelligent, or knows that much.

And there will also always be millions who love what you're doing, if you do it well enough. Tell the story you want to tell, and never ask anyone their opinion. If they don't like whatyou;re doing, let them write their own story.

For me, dead is dead unless the rules of the world state that resurrection is possible. I also agree with Euan that the death/resurrection should change the character in a major way, or else it's cheap and useless.

In season six of "Buffy," I bought that they could bring Buffy back to life with magic, because the series set up those boundaries throughout the previous five seasons. Her resurrection changed her perspective on life, and it resonated through the final two seasons of the series.

Stephen King did a fantastic job (in my opinion) with this in "Pet Semetary." For Gage and Rachel, dead was dead. "Sometimes dead is better," is one of my favorite quotes. Their bodies were resurrected, but they were controlled by something evil. Their essences (or souls, if you will) were gone.

I've toyed with that concept in my finished novel. One of the supporting characters dies, and it's tragic. Her body comes back to life, because it was "designed" to. But the essence/soul of the character is gone. The shell that remains and walks and talks is not her.

Comic books in particular are notorious for overplaying the death/rebirth card. From Jean Grey to Superman, you just can't seem to really kill anyone anymore. In the last few years, DC Comics gave us the tragic death of Donna Troy (the original Wonder Girl) only to have her come back to life (again) just in time for the newest Big Universe Crisis.

If the death and rebirth is important to the story, and it leaves the character changed, then go for it. If it's just a stunt to tug our heartstrings out, only to pull a "Psyche!" on us, don't do it. The former will love you; the latter will hate you.

chaostitan said:

Stephen King did a fantastic job (in my opinion) with this in "Pet Semetary." . . . "Sometimes dead is better," is one of my favorite quotes. Their bodies were resurrected, but they were controlled by something evil. Their essences (or souls, if you will) were gone.

Click to expand...

That was the book I was trying to remember. I knew I'd read the idea somewhere. Yes, that kind of resurrection worked brilliantly.

I don't mind resurection much. I only hate it when the author uses it as a kind of Deus Ex Machina because he can't seem to find another way to make the story fall in place. I could murder for that.

A question to those who hate ressurection: do you count a fake death as you would an actual one? I don't mean where the narrator explicitly states that the character is dead, then contradicts that and shows they were alive all along. I mean when someone is strongly implied to be dead, and then shown not to be. Would this be considered a cop out too? (Assuming the character's survival is explained) Remember it's not somebody dying, but the reader and/or other characters being fooled into thinking so.

Example:"The cold steel of the sword slid through her breast, and the yielding flesh of her heart embraced the blade. The pain darkened her eyes, and she felt herself falling, falling over the edge of the cliff towards the rocky teeth of the earth which waited an eternity below. Her body shattered against the unyielding stone, but she felt no more pain, there was too much already to comprehend... She tried to squint, to see what that was which blotted it out the sun above her. It was the dragon. The dragon, a living castle of scales like mithril shields, set down upon her destroyed form, and there was nothing more to do."

Say after that, her friends don't find a body, but saw what happened so they hold a funeral for her and everybody is devastated by grief...

And then in the next chapter, she catches up with her allies on the road and says, "There's a dead Dark General and his dragon back there. Did somebody remember to keep his stuff for me? I'm feeling a little tired right now, and I'd like a reward for my trouble." And then she goes on to explain that she got up and kicked butt- would this count as ressurection? PUTTING ASIDE the level of ridiculousness of her durability- assume it's been established or at least strongly hinted at that she IS that durable.

And no, this is not an actual scene from one of my stories, but it could be (it's an altered mismash of several scenes, actually).

Also, a lot of people seem to be considering death only in terms of sympathetic characters dying. What about a villain coming back from the dead to show just how unstoppable they are and how the heroes' efforts are?

Or a character introduced by coming back from the dead- as in he was not there before, but comes into the story by ressurecting (eg. dark lords)?

Finally, another idea which is not actual death per say but relates to this topic- what if is your consmology, the realm of the afterlife is physically connected to the mortal realm, and a character physically moves between the two? Example would be someone dragged into hell through a magic portal (not actually dying to go there, but taken while alive) and then walking and swimming back out the long way. This, of course, would not be an everyday feat, it would be something reserved for the greatest of legends...

All just ideas from my crazy world of super epicness...

Like James said. Write what you want to write. However, if you want to see an example of a lame resurrection take notes from R.A. Salvatore. He cheesed up a perfectly good death and, at least for me, made the rest of that series kind of pointless to read from then on. A great example, already mentioned, Steven King's pet cemetery. But, arguably perverted resurrection was the major theme of the book. To me, that made it more acceptable. It wasn't just some last ditched effort to save a character he might have killed off in a prior book.

I think it is cheating. Unless there is a very good reaosn for it (your novel features ghosts, a person who deals in dark magic and "reanimates" rather than truly living again.) Also, if you are going to bring a person back, there should *at the time of their supposed death* be suspicion that they are not in fact dead.
I used to read Patricia Cornwell (mystery/thriller for those who never step out of this genre) and when she brought a main character back to life after being dead for like three books the series bombed. She's been getting two stars on Amazon ever since . . . course she also makes the NYT bestsellers list too so . . . <shrug>
But I think it's cheating!
Maprilynne

Just as bad is bringing in the heretofore unknown twin of a supposedly single child whose duty is to then step into the shoes of the vanquished brother or sister and carry on the fine tradition of whatever the sibling did.

DaveKuzminski said:

Just as bad is bringing in the heretofore unknown twin of a supposedly single child whose duty is to then step into the shoes of the vanquished brother or sister and carry on the fine tradition of whatever the sibling did.

Click to expand...

Tasha Yar/Commander Sela, anyone?

I keep hearing the phrase "No one ever really dies in science fiction." Death ought to have consequence, or at least be feared.

DamaNegra said:

I don't mind resurection much. I only hate it when the author uses it as a kind of Deus Ex Machina because he can't seem to find another way to make the story fall in place. I could murder for that.

Click to expand...

But then, if a person could be resurrected after you murdered them, what would be the point?

@glutton

For the scene you describe (woman last seen being crushed by dragon): well, yes, you could do that, but why would you? If the battle is important, then it probably needs to be shown. Having important actions happen off-stage is (to me) intensely irritating. On the other hand, if it isn't important, then why is it in the book?

I can remember several instances of something similar, when a character was left for dead, but then turned out not to be. I'm fine with that, but the sequence you describe seems a tad pointless to me.

As for the other types of resurrection you describe, well, yes, you could resurrect a villain when they get killed, but why would you? If it's just a transparent device to cover your need for an antagonist, then I'd think it wouldn't work. If the villain is somehow changed by the experience, then maybe. I'm working on a short story at the moment where a thief kills the owner of a gem. Each time the owner dies, however, he comes back to lfie, becoming more and more monstrous with each death. The resurrection of the villain provides the driving force for the plot of the story.

Tolkien did it well....Lewis screwed up...(in my opinion).

Resurrection is a recurring issue in most epic fantasy stories, hell even sci-fi. They brought Spock back in the movies and numerous authors bring back their favorite characters. IMO it all depends on how they went out and was this a planned resurrection. When I saw this thread I immediately thought about the WotC books that RA Salvatore writes, the Drizzit novels. Earlier in the series, Bruennor the dwarf cheated death though everyone thought he died it wasn't a resurrection. For numerous books he fought along side his comrades and cheated death again and again, until the last couple of books. The most recent trilogy had him on death's door until he miraculously popped back up in the dwarven kingdom's time of need. As I read this I saw a climatic battle coming, one where Bruennor would win then ride off to be with his god. It had all of the signs until Drizzit swooped in and fought the big fight and Bruennor still lived! That left me feeling cheated. I was ready to say goodbye to an old friend and had that yanked out from under me.

So what's my point? It all depends on how the author invests in the story and characters. If there is a chance and it's hinted, by all means bring them back but if it's set up as the ultimate show down don't wring out the reader's emotions and then leave someone alive, it just leaves a bitter taste in the reader's mouth. Did mine.

Euan H. said:

@glutton

For the scene you describe (woman last seen being crushed by dragon): well, yes, you could do that, but why would you? If the battle is important, then it probably needs to be shown. Having important actions happen off-stage is (to me) intensely irritating. On the other hand, if it isn't important, then why is it in the book?

I can remember several instances of something similar, when a character was left for dead, but then turned out not to be. I'm fine with that, but the sequence you describe seems a tad pointless to me.

As for the other types of resurrection you describe, well, yes, you could resurrect a villain when they get killed, but why would you? If it's just a transparent device to cover your need for an antagonist, then I'd think it wouldn't work. If the villain is somehow changed by the experience, then maybe. I'm working on a short story at the moment where a thief kills the owner of a gem. Each time the owner dies, however, he comes back to lfie, becoming more and more monstrous with each death. The resurrection of the villain provides the driving force for the plot of the story.

Click to expand...

Um, I wasn't thinking well when I wrote the example scene. In an actual book, I would probably have it that the woman beats the enemies first only to have the dead dragon fall on her and crush her... or something. That would solve the offscreen battle problem, and still preserve the supposed death part.

Though I have had a couple of important characters die or get mortally wounded offscreen while telling the story from the viewpoint of a specific character who didn't see it. Important, certainly, but the POV person doesn't know about it, so the reader kind of gets to share her shock, when she finds out. The last feat listed is pretty much the same way- we switch viewpoint characters so we don't see what's going on with the person in hell, and that person later tells the story of what happened. POV is fun for me to play with, in general.

The first example of villain ressurection isn't to cover the need for an antagonist, it's to emphasize how pointless and futile the heroes' efforts are, that even after the most epic battle in the book all their efforts amount to basically nothing. I could have just had the villain survive the fight, but his death was to give a sense of false hope/triumph. But then, there is a twist where the villain changes, though it's not really because of coming back from the dead, but because of his experience of actually losing fair and square in single combat (it never happened before) which changes his outlook on life.

The second example (introducing a character by having him resurrected) is about the same guy, and he came into the story BY coming back to life- ie. when the story began he was dead, he wasn't a guy who got killed during the story and came back. So I don't know if that would even count in terms of the kind of ressurection most people are talking about- it's not an existing character, it's a new guy coming in by returning from the dead. He was basically worshipped as a god after his initial historical death, and this is like the second coming basically.

@Pike: Well, I'm of the view both as a writer and a reader there's always a chance, so I rarely take any gloomy outcome as a foregone conclusion. Example would be something like a prophecy saying the world will be destroyed by some ancient evil god, and the only way to stop it is to kill some innocent kids destined to release it- my answer wouldn't be "certain tragedy either way", it would be "time to kill the ancient evil god". But that's just me, I'm an optimistic sort. Never settle for less than the best!

Resurrection and faking death need to be handled deftly.

I am against it, in almost all forms. It smacks of misleading and cheating your way into emotional or dramatic elements.

Robert Jordan has his main character defeat and kil the same enemy twice, then still brings him back to life because no one else can resist the MC. While it may fit the working of the world, that resurrection is possible and time is cyclical etc, it does make for frustrating reading. Where is the tension and anger if the same battle is fought, and the outcome is already slanted towards the protagonist? It smacks of a one-trick toolbox.

Robin Hobb faked the death of a character well - his identity put him in dagner, and there was a group of conspirators that were able to fake his death. And the character had to remain in the shadows for the rest of his life. The reader knows this, and the tension becomes more palpable, there's no surprise or twist. His false identity was known to few characters, and was only revealed to those he loved most after 4 books.

George RR Martin is doing it well, so far. Two characters (that we know of) have been resurrected. It can only happen shortly after death, and they are profoundly changed. One seems to have died many times, losing more of himself each time until it was no longer feasible. There are also undead of different varieties, but much remains to be seen about these. To date, the most moving and politically important deaths have been permanent. Some characters are believed dead, but the fake is exposed to the readers, but not other characters. And, possible deaths occur off-screen, leaving a sense of mystery, and not certainty that is sudddenly reversed because the author needs a twist.

I know there's more I can think of, but even Martin is pushing my limits with the amount of resurrection. We'll see if he tapers off.

One word: "No."

It really cheapened the Jesus story.