Retconning events, bringing characters back to life

Strongbear · Jan 5, 2008

Do you ever think in hindsight that you shouldn't have killed certain characters off? Or that you shouldn't have done some things in a certain way?

What happens if you are writing a sequel? Do you leave those characters dead or find some way to bring them back (assuming that it's not a sci-fi/ fantasy genre)?

What are the ways people have gotten round this without it looking too implausible or far-fetched?

For example, if someone seems to have died in an accident (and witnessed by someone else) and other characters later refer to that person as having died, if that person comes back later on would that seem like you've just pulled something out of a hat to retcon events?

Any suggestions?

Thanks

ChaosTitan · Jan 5, 2008

Sometimes you're stuck with having a dead character, and there is no way around it. Sucks, but true.

However, here's an example from my own experience. I'm co-writing a series with a good friend, and we just finished the third book. We had decided long ago that one of the main characters was to meet her "death" in this book, in order to further later, planned plot points. We knew she had to appear and be believed dead by the other characters and the readers (since the fact that she's alive will come out in later books and hopefully be a big surprise), so it was carefully constructed. Details were carefully chosen.

I think we pulled it off, so that when she comes back later on down the road, it won't seem like a retcon or a cheat. The reader will be able to go back and say, "Oh! Okay, I missed that."

In a wildly different arena, I'm very curious about this season of FOX's "24." (SPOILERS!)
Two seasons ago, they killed off one of my favorite characters. Dead, on-screen, Jack all teary-eyed. His death was avenged Jack Bauer-style. Time passes. Well, this season, he's back as one of the bad guys. *boggle* I'm curious to see if the writers have pulled off a believable retcon for this, or if it will just make me weep with silliness.

Strongbear · Jan 6, 2008

ChaosTitan said:
Sometimes you're stuck with having a dead character, and there is no way around it. Sucks, but true.

However, here's an example from my own experience. I'm co-writing a series with a good friend, and we just finished the third book. We had decided long ago that one of the main characters was to meet her "death" in this book, in order to further later, planned plot points. We knew she had to appear and be believed dead by the other characters and the readers (since the fact that she's alive will come out in later books and hopefully be a big surprise), so it was carefully constructed. Details were carefully chosen.

I think we pulled it off, so that when she comes back later on down the road, it won't seem like a retcon or a cheat. The reader will be able to go back and say, "Oh! Okay, I missed that."

In a wildly different arena, I'm very curious about this season of FOX's "24." (SPOILERS!)
Two seasons ago, they killed off one of my favorite characters. Dead, on-screen, Jack all teary-eyed. His death was avenged Jack Bauer-style. Time passes. Well, this season, he's back as one of the bad guys. *boggle* I'm curious to see if the writers have pulled off a believable retcon for this, or if it will just make me weep with silliness.

Yeah, I suppose sometimes you are stuck with a dead character.

But if I were to bring one back to life somehow, any ideas for a believable way in which this could be done?

Supposing, for example, someone were to die in something like a landslide or cave in. Then others later on in the novel just mention that the person is dead. Does that sound conclusive to people here? Or could that possibly leave the door open for that character's return? Would that make people groan?

What do people think?

I don't know if people saw the last season of Alias where Michael Vaughn (Michael Vartan) was killed in the first or second episode and seemed to die quite conclusively in hospital. Later on though towards the end of the season he returned - I think it was revealed that his death was faked. Now in real life, the reason his character was written out of the show was because Ben Affleck was apparently getting jealous of him remaining on the show with his new wife Jennifer Garner, but later brought back because ratings were dropping.

If you didn't know the real life circumstances, would that Alias scenario sound a bit far-fetched to you and somewhat silly?

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 6, 2008

I think that Sherlock Holmes is the benchmark. Holmes was seen struggling with Moriarty, and falling over a precipice into Reichenbach Falls. Then it turned out he wasn't actually dead, yadda yadda yadda.

Well, people have, in actual fact, fallen over precipices into waterfalls and lived. And given that Holmes was in astonishing physical condition, an experienced rock-climber, etc., and that all of that had been established before, it wasn't TOO horrible that he survived an event that would have killed the majority of human beings.

So if you have a landslide or cave-in, and someone in recorded history HAS survived something similar, and your character has some pre-established advantages over the average person, then it's not too much of a jaw-dropper if he or she turns out to have survived.

If it's less believable than the survival of Sherlock Holmes, don't try it.

Claudia Gray · Jan 6, 2008

At this point, I plan for everybody who dies in the Evernight series to stay dead. (Save for those who are turned into vampires, but that's not quite the same thing.)

I'm definitely not opposed to retconning as a reader/viewer; if the retcon offers up a lot of fun possibilities, and the explanation doesn't insult my intelligence, I say, more power to you. As a writer, I want very much not to need it, but I'll never say never.

katiemac · Jan 6, 2008

Supposing, for example, someone were to die in something like a landslide or cave in. Then others later on in the novel just mention that the person is dead. Does that sound conclusive to people here? Or could that possibly leave the door open for that character's return? Would that make people groan?

What do people think?

I don't know if people saw the last season of Alias where Michael Vaughn (Michael Vartan) was killed in the first or second episode and seemed to die quite conclusively in hospital. Later on though towards the end of the season he returned - I think it was revealed that his death was faked. Now in real life, the reason his character was written out of the show was because Ben Affleck was apparently getting jealous of him remaining on the show with his new wife Jennifer Garner, but later brought back because ratings were dropping.

If you didn't know the real life circumstances, would that Alias scenario sound a bit far-fetched to you and somewhat silly?

I watched the show when it was on. I was angry when they killed off Vaughn's character (knowing the real-life events that drove them to do so), and so I was generally pleased when he returned for the series finale. That being said, it was pretty ridiculous, and it was not the first time the show had brought people back from the dead before, in similarly ridiculous scenarios.

I agree fully with ChaosTitan -- I think a "suprise! he's alive!" moment can really only work when it is planned as such. I've read many stories with resurrected characters, and many of them rang false. In fact, I almost attempted to do this myself but then realized bringing the character back truly spoiled the moment and impact of death. I didn't want to do that.

In regards to your question, about the landslide, the situation depends. I'm of the camp that, if the death is huge, needs to "see the body" to believe it. If it's a minor character, you may get by with readers believing it, but you may also confuse them. ("Wait, he was dead?" "Yeah, it was mentioned on page 33...") Then again, for a rather significant death of a lovable character, sometimes a body isn't enough. Think of the characters in Harry Potter, which for some time quite a few people refused to believe had really died.

Claudia Gray · Jan 7, 2008

katiemac said:
I watched the show when it was on. I was angry when they killed off Vaughn's character (knowing the real-life events that drove them to do so), and so I was generally pleased when he returned for the series finale. That being said, it was pretty ridiculous, and it was not the first time the show had brought people back from the dead before, in similarly ridiculous scenarios.

I agree fully with ChaosTitan -- I think a "suprise! he's alive!" moment can really only work when it is planned as such.

I didn't find it ridiculous, because his return WAS planned, as was pretty obvious all along. And I think a lot of people think they know the real-life events behind it, but don't.

narnia · Jan 7, 2008

Furthering my Education...

Pardon me while I embarrass myself....

What does it mean to 'retcon'?

Thanks.

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 7, 2008

narnia said:
Pardon me while I embarrass myself....

What does it mean to 'retcon'?

It's a term from the comic-book world. "Retcon", as a noun, is short for "retrospective {or 'retroactive'} continuity." It's when one writer goes back and changes the history of a character.

Here's an example: When the Justice League was created, Superman and Batman were depicted as founding members by whoever was writing/editing the series at that time.

Then someone else decided that it would be more interesting if the Justice League was a group of superheroes who had a bit of an inferiority complex regarding Superman and Batman and their headline-grabbing. So they wrote the series that way for a while.

Then another person decided that the whole "Justice League is the David to the Superman/Batman Goliath" thing was ridiculous. So they went back to the original idea, of Superman and Batman being Justice League founders, and wrote the series that way.

In fiction, "The Return of Sherlock Holmes" is the most classic example of retconning. Sherlock Holmes turns out not to have died in the tumble over Reichenbach Falls; instead, he survived but allowed the world (and his best friend, and his brother) to believe he was dead so that he could destroy the powerful underworld network Moriarty had created.

narnia · Jan 7, 2008

Thanks IceCreamEmpress (you do know I gain weight every time I read your username..)!

Ah, I don't feel so dumb now. I was a voracious comic book reader in my younger days, so your explanation makes perfect sense.

Thanks for giving me with an opportunity to learn something new!

~grace~ · Jan 7, 2008

IceCreamEmpress said:
I think that Sherlock Holmes is the benchmark. Holmes was seen struggling with Moriarty, and falling over a precipice into Reichenbach Falls. Then it turned out he wasn't actually dead, yadda yadda yadda.

Holmes is indeed the benchmark, but not to be nitpicky...

Nobody saw Holmes fall. They saw and misinterpreted the clues Holmes left. Holmes threw Moriarty over the edge, realized it would be easier to clean up Moriarty's crew if everyone thought he was dead, and left a misleading letter and then climbed up the mountain a bit to watch Watson and the police misinterpret footprints.

At least, that's what Doyle said after the fan outcry at Holmes's death.

So I think that's the way to do this properly--kill the character in such a way that there isn't actually a corpse (those are hard to undo) and the death seems final but the facts could be open to interpretation.

Strongbear · Jan 7, 2008

~grace~ said:
So I think that's the way to do this properly--kill the character in such a way that there isn't actually a corpse (those are hard to undo) and the death seems final but the facts could be open to interpretation.

In Alias, there was a corpse in the case of Michael Vaughn. He had been clearly shot in the chest several times and appeared to flatline in hospital. Sydney Bristow's grief seemed real, even when she was by herself (where you would think she would be able to drop the act). Later it was revealed that Vaughn had been given sodium morphate (does that actually exist btw) a drug that slows the heart down to simulate death so that he could appear to be dead to those who were after him.

Of course, some writing can get round difficulties even with a corpse (eg if a body were planted with DNA so that the forensic specialists mistakenly identified it). And certainly some genres (sci-fi, comic book etc) would have no difficulty finding some way to actual revive a dead character.

The question is whether the reader/viewer will accept the explanation or whether it will seem rather contrived.

ClaudiaGray said:
I didn't find it ridiculous, because his return WAS planned, as was pretty obvious all along. And I think a lot of people think they know the real-life events behind it, but don't.

Was it really planned though? Or was it an after thought because of ratings? Sure, it can be explained within the internal logic of the plot that it was for reasons to lead his enemies astray, but it did seem to ring of silliness when he did eventually reappear. It didn't seem essential to the plot but more of a fan-directed encore for the character. I'm not sure his return really added that much to the overall plot.

katiemac · Jan 7, 2008

Was it really planned though? Or was it an after thought because of ratings? Sure, it can be explained within the internal logic of the plot that it was for reasons to lead his enemies astray, but it did seem to ring of silliness when he did eventually reappear. It didn't seem essential to the plot but more of a fan-directed encore for the character. I'm not sure his return really added that much to the overall plot.

After seeing an interview with Vartan, it was my understanding he was asked to leave the show for good. They then killed off the character, but brought him back for the series's end. I don't know what drove them to bring him back, since the ratings had been quite low for some time. Whether or not the situation was planned, I found it contrived. But I accepted it - the series, like I mentioned before, was known for bringing characters back from the dead.

And that's a problem I think many authors face - readers are very aware that what they are reading is fiction, and does not necessarily hold to the same rules as reality. It's become commonplace to kill off characters for ratings or elements of surprise, or to show that even main characters are not "safe." However, it's just as common for these characters to return from the dead. There has to be balance so that the readers can still believe in the stakes (if no one can die, where's the tension?), while trusting that the author is not manipulating their emotions.

slcboston · Jan 7, 2008

What, no one actually *read* Jurassic Park and then the Lost World?

End of JP: Malcolm's dead. We don't see the corpse, but sad looks are exchanged, etc, etc.

Beginning of LW: Malcolm's NOT dead. Only explanation: a Mark Twain approach and "I got a better doctor."

Contortions are not necessary. It's almost always possible to come up with some explanation. Coming up with one that isn't cliche (it's not me, it's my twin!) is a little trickier.

David I · Jan 7, 2008

Strongbear said:
The question is whether the reader/viewer will accept the explanation or whether it will seem rather contrived.

That is indeed the question. And readers of novels have more time to think (and possibly higher standards to begin with) than say, television viewers.

Readers of comic books tend to be more accepting even if they are skeptical: Yeah, yeah, his memories have been stored on a chip and he's been cloned from a sample of his hair and his memories have been reinstalled...c'mon, get on with it...

Strongbear · Jan 7, 2008

So let me throw this out to others here. If a character isn't seen to actually die in a story and it looks ambiguous anyway, even though others may assume the person is dead, then if they are brought back for a sequel that wouldn't look like a retcon at all? Would people even really be that surprised that they are back since you do get recurring villains? Readers may have actually been expecting the character(s) to show up again and might be disappointed if they didn't.

On the other hand, I'm guessing it will look more like a retcon if a character is actually seen to die, and that's where one's credibility as a writer could come into question if it isn't handled very well (eg like that classic example of an entire season of "Dallas" being a dream, at which point the series was said to have jumped the shark and viewers could no longer take the series seriously). Would I be correct?

Stormhawk · Jan 7, 2008

It's surprised me that no one has mentioned Ian Malcolm yet...

Retconning events, bringing characters back to life

Strongbear

ChaosTitan

Around

Strongbear

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago

Claudia Gray

katiemac

Five by Five

Claudia Gray

narnia

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago

narnia

~grace~

the good old days

Strongbear

katiemac

Five by Five

slcboston

Pasture-ized

David I

Strongbear

Stormhawk

Angry Bunny Girl