When The Hero Can't Kill But The Villain Has To Die

all right Charlie let's do [Music] this you're my boy [Music] blue of all the souls I have encountered in my travels his was the most human hey guys death is not new for any of us paradoxically death is the one aspect of life that I think links us all together and it's because of that that death more than any other storytelling device is the most common impactful and easily understandable tool that a writer can employ as a therapist I have walked intimately with those journeying through a death struggle and all the coping that comes with it and as a manuscript editor I've worked with brilliant writers hoping to tell a story that might soothe their own hurting hearts or to help others who are going through a similar hardship but just because we've all been affected by death that does not mean that death affects us all in the same way and due to each of our unique relationships with death how we react to it in our stories is also unique and very personal yet that also calls upon writers to understand the multifaceted nature of depicting death and killing in stories and also how to do it correctly whether we think of it actively or not storytelling is essentially just a writer conveying their world viiew and outlooks just through a sequence of events instead of direct advice and for a writer to convey these messages especially concerning death and killing they should have a firm understanding of the complexities involved some stories seek to answer why do we kill people is killing ever right who deserves to die and who deserves to live How Deeply should I think about death at all well I may not reach definitive answers to these questions in this video These are important topics for both storytellers and consumers of fiction to investigate so that they are not blindly led into a belief on death that they haven't critiqued yet so today what I hope to do is use my background as both a psychologist and a story Editor to dive deep into the death dilemma that exists in writing there will undoubtedly be spoilers in this video but I've done my best to make sure that the examples used are more than 5 years old and I'll put a spoiler marker for the up material in the corner of the screen so you're all prepared to click off just in case lastly I want everyone to just take care of themselves watching this video killing and death is a heavy subject and we will be diving into some pretty sensitive topics for some of you who have experienced these tragedies firsthand it's a long video so take a break if you need it get some air make sure you're comfortable now without further waiting let's get down to business [Music] if we're going to talk about death and storytelling we can't do that without first establishing what it means and no I'm not talking about the meaning of death in an existential sense I know no more of the meaning of death and I do the meaning of life if if I did I wouldn't be on YouTube what I'm talking about is the meaning of death as it relates to narratives see the great thing about storytelling is that while it is definitely an art and impacts us emot Ally like any AR can it's also quite nearly a science storytelling and its effects on those of us that interact with it is observable repeatable and improvable so with that said how does Death fit into the storytelling equation well it's actually a bit of a variable obviously the most simple understanding of death as a literary technique is that much like in real life it removes a person from the story that's it they're gone death is how a Storyteller enacts subtraction for the equation that is the narrative screenwriting master and narrative theorist Robert mcke would call this a negative value charge the removal of some piece of the plot that changes a person's interaction with the fiction but the fundamental difference between deaths and fiction and those in reality is that death in storytelling is not random or at least it shouldn't be narrative death is planned a wise writer will use death to remove a character from a completed storyline even even this language it might sound strange to some as characters are meant to be representations of people and therefore never are completed but we must conceptualize these thoughts differently when thinking of writing as a science characters are at their core tools Each of which were created to accomplish a purpose in the narrative usually fitting under specified archetypes this could be acting as the chosen one the mentor the street man the comic relief the redeemed villain the Fallen Hero and so much more some characters complete the goal for the archetypal role that they occupied and are then repurposed by a writer to occupy a new role and fulfill a new goal storytelling and the characters within can be infinite and evolving in this way however some characters have fulfilled their purpose and achieve their goal and cannot be meaningfully repurposed at all some characters literally do become complete and don't offer anything more to a narrative by way of development or interacting with the conflict when characters like this persist in a story without any recognizable purpose they can come off as stagnant or a drain on the plot some writers will simply choose to remove Focus from these characters as in send them away somewhere or allow them to start some Quest completely unrelated from the overarching conflict in all these options though the effect is still the same the completed character who has served their purpose is removed from the narrative and get the [ __ ] out of my town still there is an even more simple and impactful way to remove such characters death when a character has come to the Natural conclusion of their development and contributions to the plot their final untapped quality as a narrative tool is to die now I understand this sounds incredibly cynical but there is a storytelling reason for it when a character has completed their journey and accomplished their goal that almost always means that they stand as an idealistic example of the traits they embody that is the entire purpose of them having completed their Journey they've fully actualized as a character because of that when a completed character dies they effectively become a martyr for their ideals allowing the beliefs that they held and the goals that they accomplished to live on and the other characters that survive them in many narratives if not most when a character dies it is up to the remaining characters to adopt their traits and continue on their memory in this way removing a completed character from the plot by killing them takes the qualities that they embodied singularly and spreads them onto the other characters in effect their death coats the entire narrative in their likeness making them more influential and meaningful in death than they ever might have been in life you can't win Darth if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine instead of the writer just sending them away or removing Focus from the character the full potential of their narrative power is utilized to push the story forward and provide opportunities for development to the other characters but obviously not all characters die after being totally complete in fact I would say it's quite a rarity in a more widespread use of death and fiction is simply to change the story as a whole by removing a pivotal character through killing them because these characters were unfinished in their Journey development or role fulfillment this definitionally causes the storyline to shift in an unexpected sometimes drastic way usually writers who use death to change the storyline as a whole were doing it as a way to subvert the consumer's expectation of where the plot events would go the character was written to die they were not designed to be complete however that does not make them any less valuable it only means that the character's purpose was to set certain unexpected plot relevant events in motion but not to see them through in other cases a writer might use the deaths of less important characters to great effect sometimes narrative death is used to make a commentary on death itself or the fragility of Life some stories take a close look at evil or corruption and will then use a secondary character's death to show just how meaningless life and death is to the antagonist leave the gun [Music] take this also works to show the fine line that the protagonist and heroes walk in order to stay alive while in conflict with this villain in a similar sense death might be used early on in a narrative to set the tone of what to would expect going forward tone being the overall mood seriousness and Outlook of the narrative death used in the introduction of a narrative will often be a writer's way of preparing a consumer for difficult topics and Journeys going forward likewise early death can be used as a tool to show the vulnerabilities of a character in a specific narrative such as when a child is killed to show that no one is safe But ultimately the most common and impactful method of using death in storytelling is to close the narrative in this case death would be used to either remove the antagonist and therefore the conflict or it would be used to remove the protagonist and therefore the struggle against the [Music] conflict once there is no conflict to interact with or no interaction with a conflict the plot is effectively over of course the death of a protagonist or antagonist is a massive thing in a story and usually takes place during the climax [Music] by definition climaxes are the height of excitement tension and investment in a narrative and everything after is the calmer resolution that reflects on the end state of the story by ending the story alongside the death of a protagonist or antagonist the consumer feels in sync with the Rises and Falls of the narrative and can find a closure in the circumstances so by breaking down all of these ways that death is used as a tool for writers there's also the consideration of how characters can kill with no consequences killing in fiction has a starting point of being unrelatable to a viewer relatability in a narrative sense is the ability for a person to put themselves personally in the shoes of a character who is making decisions I'm clever and free-spirited and a little bit sardonic but not so much that it's off-putting I have vulnerabilities like everybody else but just enough to make me relatable most people have never killed in their lives at least I hope not nor have ever been in in a position to kill or wanted to kill in fact most people are against murder and would not choose to do it even if given the option this means that killing automatically is an alienating action for a character to employ in a story in order to counteract this a writer must then make the killing understandable the understandability of an action is how well a viewer can recognize the logic and necessity of it characters do things we may morally disagree with all the time I'm ordering you to come with me security to the bridge Commander you going to stand by and do nothing while she commits murder but we may excuse that action or even celebrate it if the writer makes the decision understandable enough a great example of this is Dexter he's a literal serial killer but he is one who hunts down other Killers I doubt any of us could actually relate to this but we can all understand Dexter's actions which makes us able to accept them keep in mind though relatability and understandability is all subjective what some people might relate to others might find completely foreign what some people might understand some people might be completely confused by these metrics of Storytelling are a spectrum one which a writer can only hope to execute well enough to convince the audience that comes admittedly these considerations are a tad high level when it comes to writing Concepts there are some stories that contain scenes of great violence but don't mean to really interrogate the morality relatability or understandability of killing at all for these stories It's usually the main characters who are put in a position where they must battle dozens of foes across the narrative killing large portions of them but doing so while needing to remain likable and inspirational to an audience the most basic of these writing strategies is executed in either man against nature or man against the supernatural but women are certainly invited too not just men man against nature can be understood as the Hero characters who must remain likable killing some type of natural or animalistic entity to survive this might be wolves Lions snakes crocodiles or anything else that might try to make a meal out of you keep in mind this is fundamentally different than poacher characters who go out of their way to kill animals some of them even endangered species potra characters are usually immediately disliked by audience even if they don't kill an animal during the event of the plot itself we just don't like poachers however characters who kill animals to survive in the wild are easily accepted and the death they caused is not investigated on a moral level this is because they are the victims of violence looking to protect themselves rather than the enactors of violence who seek out animal victims the other side to this is man against the supernatural which has a Nuance of difference that can really change how you see the story if the hero character is killing zombies vampires Ghouls and other bumpy things in the night they can kill without losing likeability and the death they cause can go uninvestigated as a bonus characters fighting against these enemies can be poachers meaning that they can be the aggressors and seek out the violence rather than being victims of it the assumptions in these types of narratives is that the supernatural enemies are basically soulless and therefore should Garner no consideration as far as being killed their deaths are meaningless from a moral level and in some narratives these supernatural creatures are innately evil and must be killed for objective good to Prevail basically they are not people nor do they have any relatability or understandable qualities their deaths don't strike an emotional cord with the viewer and do not interact with any trauma of real world death that a viewer might bring in on a similar note the man against the supernatural technique is closely related to another narrative tool that allows Heroes to kill without consequence henchmen murder in many narratives contained within the Science Fiction and Fantasy genres the likable hero character will be in opposition to a hyper powerful antagonist but before they can reach him they must fight against dozens of henchmen these henchmen who are sometimes Orcs sometimes robots or sometimes demons are narratively canona that the viewer shouldn't care about at all or think deeply about their deaths are meant to mean nothing to you since these henchmen stand on the side of evil a viewer will automatically think that it is morally permissible to kill them and keep on liking the hero through stints of mass murder again the foundation here is since Orcs or robots or demons aren't people with souls or wants their deaths don't matter interestingly enough though killing henchmen without consequence is not exclusive to Fantasy and sci-fi contradictory to most of what I just said modern action adventure narratives will have human henchmen be murdered by the hero as well yet somehow the hero remains like able and the murder they commit remains acceptable and calls for no deeper interrogation of the moral implication this is able to be accomplished by some neat psychological tricks employed in the writing first in use here is the principle of the ingroup or outgroup it is a natural human instinct to give favor and protection to those on our side the more we relate to and empathize with an individual the more we see them as ourselves this is the ingroup which we are predisposed to seeing favorably conversely the hman and the villain they work for represent the outgroup which in most fundamental psychological senses represent a group that competes with yours for survival resources and long-term success the outgroup is characterized by their physical cultural or ideological differences from the ingroup in more simple terms the more different other individuals are from the people in our ingroup the more easily we will perceive these different people as an outgroup this links directly with how most henchmen are presented in narratives usually henchmen are depicted as being unrecognizable and inhuman as possible in fantasy this often occurs by being monstrous disgusting diabolical or just repulsively ugly in sci-fi this turns into depictions of robots or aliens with significantly altered Anatomy whether it be through different skin eyes limbs or facial features henchmen in the outgroup are designed to feel innately foreign making the ingroup's opposition to them feel natural and therefore Justified when we kill them what's incredible is that in the action adventure genre narrative ingroup and outgroup becomes even more simple in such fictions the outgroup doesn't have to be mystical or mechanical they can just be human in many cases their faces are obscured or their eyes are covered so we don't empathize with them like the ultra famous Stormtroopers but some stories don't even do that as long as the outgroup is established to be a significant enough threat to their survival of the ingroup and is it at least somewhat different they can just be regular guys getting gunned down many modern action narratives will have the protagonist mercilessly slaughtering dozens of enemy combatants who are just like dudes like the rest of us yet as Watchers we still remain in a position of liking the hero and not thinking too hard on his killing this is because there is one more psychological and narrative component at work in this scenario The Selective pacifist I warned you finally a selected pacifist is a person who would otherwise not resort to violence if given the chance but has been made to be violent because of the henchmen and the antagonist a selective pacifist in a narrative utilizing in-groups and outgroups can be written in such a way to have free reign in causing death and harm to his enemies I sure you don't want to do this it effectively works as a cheat code for writers to have their violence but not make its enactment a stain on the hero's honor or morality however there are limitations to what can be done and some contemporary fictions have even sought to subvert and interrogate these tropes both the MCU and the Uncharted series staked multiple entries on the killing of hundreds of nameless henchmen but later entries make a note of deconstructing The Killing to become consequential the entire point of Civil War was the interrogation of what the deaths that the Avengers caused actually meant and who they actually hurt his name was Charlie Spencer you murdered him in sovia not that that matters in the least to you when Drake confronts the villain in Uncharted 2 he has to reckon with his actions compared to the Vil out group no compassion no mercy go the last of us to sought to humanize the outgroup by putting you in the shoes of Abby and making them more human because they become your ingroup there have been moves to recontextualize the Orcs And droids from early fictions concerning the Orcs George R Martin has written about King Aragorn and said and what did he do with all the Orcs did Aragorn carry out policies of systematic orc genocide did his Knights go into the hills and kill all the Orcs even the little baby Orcs or was there orc Rehabilitation going on trying to teach the Orcs to be good citizens and if the Orcs were the result of elves could Orcs And elves inter marry the phenomenal Channel pop culture detective made an entire half an hour video on the tragedy of Star Wars droids their experiences even the social allegories that might have had to Slaves slowly but surely we are entering into an era of contemporary fiction where ingroup or outgroup mental is starting to crumble as we see others as more like us and therefore their deaths as less justifiable Eastern fiction has been deconstructing this narrative Trope for a while now arguing that those opposite us are not innately evil and deserving of death but possibly just misunderstood while killing without consequence is still a large part of contemporary fiction and probably will remain that way the landscape of writing death is also quickly becoming more complicated for writers still as much as things change they're also has been a doubling down on depictions of the hero's killing and in these instances the killing is actually meant to make us like the heroes more when a writer is truly skilled they can actually use death and killing as a way to make us love a [Music] character s since storytelling ultimately still amounts to a psychological Endeavor of getting a consumer invested and reactive there is no mental motivation more powerful than disdain when you dislike a character you wish to see them punished and there arises a need inside of you for the severity of the punishment to fit the crime in many cases the character you dislike will be the villain or the antagonist which is a very purposeful Choice by a writer likewise this villain character will usually be very powerful or protected and will also be unrepentant for the Terrible Things They have done these aspects of antagonists are purposely chosen to make you as invested as possible into seeing them get what's coming to them but naturally there is no system set up in the setting of the fiction to deliver such rightful punishment so instead the protagonist or Another Hero character who has been wronged by the villain becomes Vengeance incarnate their mission becomes to enact retribution on the villain and time after time we love them for it to understand this we must recognize the subtle differences why we excuse killing for some characters and why we love killing when others do it in the previously mentioned narratives where characters kill without consequence most are in a position where they would rather not kill but do so because they have no choice furthermore the antagonist they oppose is usually committing evil in a general sense such as taking over the world or destabilizing Society neither the protagonist or the viewer has been harmed by the villain in any personal way except for whatever circumstance thrust them into the conflict and even then it might not have been the villain that personally did the action such as when Luke's on an uncle were killed just not by Vader or the emperor specifically all these factors come together to create a scenario where a selective pacifist is fighting reluctantly against a generalized evil movement or idea and when the selective pacifist kills we don't think less of them because the system created by the villain gave them no other choice you can think of this type of narrative as the stereotypical good versus evil plot and the only reason the hero kills is because when good men do nothing evil prevails the hero is fighting against the villain mainly because it's the right thing to do however this is fundamentally different from the heroes who are Vengeance incarnate often called anti-heroes these characters are not fighting against a generalized evil movement nor are they opposed to the villain because it's the right thing to do Vengeance incarnate characters take up their position because they have been personally harmed or threatened by the villain and in the best case scenario for investment the viewer has also been harmed or threatened in the same way Vengeance incarnate characters are not pacifists they actively seek violence against the villain and show little Mercy towards them and the reason we like these characters more for their killing is both narrative and psychological in a world where the corrupt and Powerful so often get away with harming the weak Vengeance incarnate characters represent a scenario where wrongdoers are immediately and overwhelmingly punished they represent the embodiment of karma of evil actions having inarguable consequences the most important aspect of these Vengeance incarnate characters is that narratively they are used as the aftermath and reaction to a genuine exploration of death and the pain in bir Rings the villain has usually killed some characters or caused some tragedy that hits home for the viewer and the narrative also might give the viewer time to mourn and process their emotions but soon after once the shock and sadness is gone and the anger only Remains the Vengeance incarnate character steps into action to deliver the consequences that we so desperately want for the villain A Song of Ice and Fire readers might recognize lady stonehart as an exact depiction of this type of character even in these moments though we must remember that killing is still occurring and there is a morality to be investigated we must reflect on that reality and ask why is it that killing is abor and a last resort in some situations while in others it is applauded and craved when death is caused for reasons we don't agree with it is evil but when death is caused for our own Vindication it is acceptable some contemporary fictions explore this very moral quandry when faced with the opportunity to take lethal Vengeance for the wrongdoing perpetrated against them some characters realize they are no more justified in their killing than the villain was in theirs and I'm not here to definitively answer these questions as I've said for each individual has to reckon with them themselves but I will say that storytelling and therefore storytellers have a responsibility to explore when if ever killing is truly Justified and if we should take solace in it using violence killing and death to endear us to a character especially those representing our interests is a powerful tool there's no doubt it mimics the real world agulation that we could feel for wartime Heroes and Defenders of the public but we must also be cognizant that these same storytelling techniques that make us admire the hero can also be used for the villain one of the most interesting and engaging modern-day antagonists is the villain with standards these are villains who abide closely to a personal set of rules or ideas and by holding these convictions they show restraint in what actions they will or will not commit these antagonists while clearly on the wrong side of morality become likable by a viewer because their standards make them understandable and if done well enough even relatable in the same way that a selective pacifist hero is brought to kill because there was no alternative the villain with standards presents as a character who only does evil because a more evil Society or system has pushed them to that point Gus Fring from Breaking Bad is an excellent example of this he is a calm composed man who has strict standards that he follows which makes him likable no more children understand and you you keep the peace but the show never allows us to forget that he is corrupt this becomes a much simpler matter I will kill your wife I will kill your son I will kill your infant daughter Thanos fits here well too he loves and protects Gamora showing us the emotional standards that he holds himself to but will still do whatever evil action is necessary to accomplish his goal one could even argue that the dark Knight's Joker is a part of this character archetype his standard is that everyone is secretly evil and their attentions simply need to be revealed and the killing that endear us to him is his violence against the mob there's a reason his first two scenes of killing are not against Batman or police his introduction makes him a villain to the villains and we can therefore root for him the Joker's standard is that he cannot be bought or persuaded against his mission and he continues to efficiently and ruthlessly antagonize the villains for the rest of the film The Villain with standards often becomes so likable because their standards make them complex and gray The Killing that they enact is a marker of their effectiveness as an antagonist and the more effective as an antagonist they are the more dramatic a story becomes and the more invested we become in some cases the villain can end up more engaging than the main character however liking a villain is not typical in fact the opposite is really true most of the time most writers and narratives hope that you detest the antagonist for the promise of their demise is what will keep you coming back to accomplish this goal a writer must do their work early for the first impressions are the most important but what tricks are a Storyteller using to make us dislike a character from the get-go well there are a few specific ones that pop up in storytelling both classic and contemporary and they do very well in making us hate the villain I can't stop I can't stop I can't stop I can't stop I can't stop I can't stop Robin robit the first and possibly most utilized approach is that to have the villain kill someone close to the main character there are a few other steps involved in this though first your hero must be likable a consumer must find them immediately sympathetic relatable and understandable your hero character should be admirable if not to make the viewer want to be like them to make the viewer want to have them at least as a friend the reason this is important is that the viewer must become personally invested in the success and happiness of the hero character when this happens the viewer empathizes with the hero such that what makes them happy makes the viewer happy and what makes the heroes sad makes the viewer sad through this constructed empathy when the villain kills those close to the hero we then feel the same hate for the villain that the hero does the death affects us deeply because it affects the hero who we empathize with deeply a death that occurs like this might also be utilized by the writer to explore the grieving process mourning survivors guilt and any residual trauma that the hero might deal with this is a more genuine look at killing and death that covers the entire narrative in its shadow still this is a sizable amount of work for any writer to do in such a short time if a writer wants to accomplish a similar outcome and less time and effort they can fall back on the oldest trick in the writing book have the villain kill a child or a dog pretty much universally humans have an innate affection for children and pets they are viewed as innocent and Beyond targets for harm it's just a natural evolutionary response this means a writer has to do no work to endear you to such characters or make you feel empathy with them you just naturally do so when a villain kills these defenseless harmless characters your lizard brain fires on all cylinders telling you that the villain must be so evil and so different from you that they deserve your hatred whoever could hurt a baby or dog must be so detestable and alien that you shouldn't empathize with them or like them even in these circumstances though these kind of extreme examples of violence to make you hate a villain some narratives wish to challenge our immediate instinctual response to hatred of these actions many popular stories will show a villain killing a child or at least attempting to causing you to hate that villain how old are you boy 10 10 the things I do for love only to redeem them through character development this hypothetically should cause viewers to reflect upon their own biases for who they accept killing from is killing a child or a dog excusable if it's from a person you like are these people actually innately bad or are they actually redeemable and good and shouldn't be judged for one action should they be forgiven or redeemed at all I'm sorry for what I did to you you weren't sorry then you were protecting your family I'm not that person anymore each narrative and writer will have their own answers to these questions but the nuanced inquiry into death and killing Still Remains yet an interesting Wrinkle In writing especially modern writing that has seen arise in children focused fiction is a writing philosophy that a hero cannot kill at all from One Professional to another if you're trying to scare somebody pick up at a spot from this height fall wouldn't kill me I'm counting on it a narrative counterculture has persisted for years now that killing in any capacity for any reason is unacceptable for a morally good character this counterculture is a repudiation of the long-held narrative message that killing out groups henchmen or villains is Justified the hero often has a hard moral line that they believe if crossed makes them no different than the villain they fight against this narrative messaging seeks to instill in its Watchers the morality that all killing is bad and that the cycle of killing and death should not be started nor be continued I had him will you just did we never signed up for we said we'd catch the guy that's it however there is some Nuance in how this can play out within narratives sometimes this thematic message against killing can be covert this means that the hero never openly States their aversion to killing instead the violence that they perpetrate against the henchmen and the villains is non-lethal and leaves them unconscious or incapacitated the covert messaging here was that the hero was able to achieve his goal of saving the day without stooping to the villain's level of killing it's a narrative message of maintaining personal standards even when abandoning them might be more effective then you have the overt message where the hero character will just flatly state that they will not kill because of a moral or personal standard the narratives they are in will frequently put them in a position where they are tempted to kill or even urged to kill by others and the conflict therein will be whether or not they maintain their anti- killing values writers choosing this path must take special care with these characters though they can come off as overly idealistic preachy and naive if the viewer feels their aversion to killing is causing more harm than good this is actually the basis of an entire argument happening within the Contemporary fictional space remember all storytelling at its core is a writer delivering their philosophies morals and personal outlooks to you while some storytellers freely acknowledge that a total abstinence from killing would be a huge benefit in an Ideal World those same storytellers would argue that the unfortunate reality is that we do not live in an ideal world but the real world and as such the stories we tell should reflect real world morality and circumstances these storytellers create narratives that recognize the terrible nature of death and killing but posit that it would actually be more just to kill an unrepented dangerous villain than to leave them alive to cause further harm to others their message is that in the real world it's irresponsible to Value personal idealism over pragmatism when the latter would save lives no matter how personally devastating it might be to an individual's moral identity furthermore there have been critiques of the anti- killing Heroes themselves arguing that the only reason they were able to remain morally pure is because the fictional setting bends to their ideals anti- killing Heroes like a and Batman defeat their enemies with overwhelming Force leaving the explanation in Universe to be that the villains are knocked out but if we look at the violence they enact in any genuine way we can understand that they are most certainly killing entire skits have been made calling about the hypocrisy of Batman for example an even more egregious offense is when narratives depict Heroes mercilessly killing henchmen but then also refusing to kill the villain in order to maintain the moral High Ground in most cases the hero has defeated the antagonist and rendered them defenseless but the fear of traditional writers is that the hero wouldn't be likable by the audience anymore if they murdered the villain again this ignores all the violence and killing that the hero did to the faceless henchmen across the store since the villain still needs to die a common Trope is for the hero to commit murder By inaction basically the hero resolves not to kill the villain but not to save them either you can't defeat me no I know Theon the implication here is that as long as the hero doesn't personally pull the trigger he isn't responsible for the death in many fictions especially those targeted at children and there is a narrative necessity for the villain to be punished in some way for their bad action since storytelling is again a display of moral messaging in personal outlooks many writers actually wish to convey the evil is its own downfall hence instead of the hero killing the villain the villain is responsible for their own death in some way this is the execution of a reap what you sow narrative where those on the side of good are rewarded with their heart's desire while the villains are V quish by their own hand enacting a sort of cosmic Justice this allows the hero to keep their hands free of blood and therefore likable by the audience while also showing why the viewer shouldn't be like the villain still it's not always good enough to show a villain Dying by their own hand some narratives go one step further by featuring a message that not only will evil people die they will die in just as much pain as they caused others this is a narrative technique called the karmic death and possibly the most high-profile representative of this storytelling style is Disney Let Me Explain no you don't understand no I didn't mean no [Music] no we all have a Disney villain death that immediately comes to mind because let's face it these were brutal but even while being brutal there was a significance to the ways these villains died as we talked about because the narratives are aimed at children many of which don't have the ethical complexity to ponder on the nature of death the messages surrounding the villain's demise are simple hero good and lives villain bad and dies because their own evil plans in this Simplicity still lies Nuance you may recall that many of the Disney villains fell to their deaths speaking from a strictly artistic and tonal perspective this was so that the animators could hide the dead body of the villain in some obscurity because you kind of don't want kids seeing a corpse lying on the ground but from a thematic narrative perspective the fall is symbolic of a literal fall from the Heights and power that the evil actions that they did afforded them Falls in storytelling are universally recognized to be a quintessential depiction of a loss of authority often associated with descending into the Afterlife with a hellish punishment Disney even chose pass to move symbolism and depict this quite quite literally with Claude frolo Who falls into a pit of fire that is very obviously supposed to be hell still if there is no fall the karmic death is still brutal meant to be a harrowing example to the viewer of the consequences of evil actions the fall might be replaced by the villain getting horrifically gored or mulched by a jet turbine or eaten alive by hyenas or just literally being dragged screaming into the Afterlife whatever the case may be karmic deaths are predicated on the idea that the villain's own plan caused their death and whatever they got they deserved we are not meant to feel sympathy for their experience or mourn their death even though these fictions are largely aimed at children the message is an undoubtedly heavy one some people deserve to die horribly this message comes in even greater frequency when stepping into adult fiction a narrative will set up a character to be so hated that we viewers Will Rejoice not just at their death but also at their tremendous suffering there is a catharsis and a closure that we feel from watching a person who has caused so much pain meet their end in pain but just as there is a counterculture against other types of fictions that excuse or accept killing so too are their narrative arguments against celebrating karmic death I can't kill you [Music] [Laughter] [Music] both contemporary and classic fictions argue that the violent deaths of these villains should not be viewed as natural justice but as a tragedy as all loss of life should be viewed this argument is that since people are multifaceted and continuously evolving no one is ever deserving of a permanent end because through living they gain the opportunity of redemption and so often in Nar with this message Redemption is closely linked to self-sacrifice instead of the villain Dying by happen stance or their plan backfiring or by some Cosmic Force they take their lives into their own hands and fight against the very system of evil that they empowered Anakin massacred women and children and even the padawans that looked up to him but dies fighting back against the emperor that had seduced him into darkness terara betrayed the tea Titans and plunged her City into death and desp IC control but she rebelled against Slade and sacrificed herself in order to stop him there are multiples examples of narratives like this that employ a horrific villain but argues that karmic Justice comes not from them being killed but from them evening the scales by vanquishing the very evil they brought even at the cost of their own life these characters who sacrificed themselves after villainy are often beloved by viewers or at least admired even though the only difference between between them and the more hated villains is that they lived long enough to see the error of their ways again I'm not here to make definitive moral statements about which argument is correct I am simply here to present the differing narrative message on how to view death and killing I know this is the right thing to do you've got to trust me but the saans killed Yamcha andn JSU I can't let him get away don't do it K I know it seems like justice but that's not right like I said at the very beginning of this video this subject matter has the potential to be deeply personal to Consumers of fiction and it's the responsibility of a writer to properly understand the influence they wield when touching upon the matters death in storytelling has always been what evokes the most emotion in who interacts with fiction mainly because real world death leaves you raw and without closure all other harm that befalls you can be recovered from can be guarded against and prepared for but death is final it has the paradoxical qualities of being fully permanent but also completely open-ended as the remaining potential of the deceased will forever be unknown it is these circumstances that bring out the highest level of emotion and therefore investment in those that interact with fiction because ultimately even though we have spent the last near hour talking about death and killing making us love or hate or celebrate or mourn the true underlying Factor here is death and killing make us feel any of you that have watched up could feel what Carl felt after watching the death of his wife even if we only experienced a fraction of the pain he endured we understand him and the premise of his entire Journey going forward we felt Joel's pain at the beginning of the last of us we felt Annie's pain in hereditary we felt aia's pain in Game of Thrones we felt A's pain at learning of the death of his people and these stories it is our empathy for the characters that endear us to them but death in storytelling is not all about pain while that is the most powerful of the emotions that often arise it can also pave the way for inspiration and admiration when the crew of the Normandy embarked on what amounted to a suicide mission they didn't do it for a personal gain but for the good of the universe as a whole and when some of them lost their lives your friends and allies that you had spent dozens of hours with you remember them proudly for their bravery and sacrifice when Commander Irwin charged into battle against the Titans and gave his life for Humanity we remember him fondly for his leadership and heroism we think of how we can more closely embody the traits and qualities set forth by these characters how we can move forward in our own struggles by the example they set of course we still feel sadness at their loss but it doesn't compare to the gratification that we get from having simply borne witness to them and as a final note to this video death in storytelling can sometimes act as a load star to guide us healthfully through a process of grieving remembrance closure and celebration black panther 2 wasn't just a mournful ballad for chachala in universe and Chadwick Boseman in real life it was a Beautiful Eulogy that allowed us to bask in the memory of the man we loved and the character he embodied Paul Walker and ker fiser died during the filming of their final movies but the storytelling surrounding the characters they played gave us an opportunity to remember what they accomplished and loved in life death will always be a touchy subject to include in writing because the experience of those writing it and the experience of those receiving it will always be different we each have our own unique perspective on death and want to spread our own unique message about it and regardless of the message that you wish to tell it is important to understand death not just as a narrative tool but as a fundamental part of The Human Experience investigating our mindset on killing and death is imperative for both creators of fiction and consumers of it for it is only by understanding how such stories are told that we can properly receive and pass them down to those who come after even our own deaths anyway thanks for watching literally all the way to the end of this hourong video if we like what you heard leave a comment like And subscribe if you really want to be homie check out my patreon check out my books on my website and check out my editing service that I offer we're also now doing line edits copy edits and proof reading as always it was a pleasure and I'll talk to you all again soon [Music]

Channel: Savage Books

Views: 65,314

Keywords:

Id: GhmieI9PAHE

Length: 49min 52sec (2992 seconds)

Published: Sat Jun 08 2024