DEATH ≠ GOOD WRITING

​I've been saying this for ages, ever since I finished Hunter x Hunter. Just because a character dies doesn't mean the writing is good. It all depends on execution. Gon for example didn't die, but he received consequences for his transformation. And imo that was a more interesting and satisfying conclusion than death, especially since the transformation wasn't meant to be satisfying or victorious.

The saddest part, to me, is how people believe that death is THE way to bring tension to a story...

Honestly for me death is like a cheap way to sympatise with a character in a story, it doesn't matter how sad the moment is if the writting is garbage the "death scene" is gonna be garbage. Sometimes it can work others don't.

To be fair "CESAAAAAAARR!!!" was telegraphed from a mile away, but no one in Golden Wind was. They shook things up by at random intervals telling the back story of literally every main character except Trish kind of. You knew someone was going to die, but tbh you didn't know who. And even when death came around for Bucciarati and he came back you didn't initially know what was left of his existence was going to be Hell essentially living on in a walking corpse. They foreshadowed something was wrong with him after he was revived, but you didn't know he was slowly rotting away until a piece of his arm fell off and he didn't even notice and they outright said he was undead. The only other real indication before hand was him not noticing a pin prick and for all we know that could have just been a byproduct of Bucciarati being revived and he wasn't slowly decomposing.

"death doesn't mean good writing" danganronpa fans: nervous sweating

Bruno is aware that he's a walking corpse, he admitted it to Giorno during the car ride. I don't know if you forgot it or misinterpret that scene, Kamen.

One issue is that they always go for the CLOSEST one, when in reality the death of someone you only interacted with once can destroy you. You still have to connect them, but then it's dealing more with guilt. A 'they are dead because of me' even if in reality there was nothing you could have done, or you didn't even cause anything. Speaking from personal experience, I have(or at least had) survivor's guilt over something I couldn't have done anything to change, but because statistics point towards me should have dying like they did I feel guilt that I survived but they didn't.

I think in Penny's case,what would've made her revival a lot less cheap is if she got revived,BUT had no memories of Ruby or their time together. It makes it so that there's an actual cost to the revival. It makes sense for the character since she's a robot and her original body got shredded so there would be damage to vital components(and maybe there wasn't time to make a backup of her memories),and it would've made for interesting character development with Ruby as she tries to reconcile her own memories of Penny,with this person that only looks like her.

There are "writing tips" that I see a lot where someone's just -- "If you're stuck in your story, then kill off a character!" And I can't tell you how much I disagree with that. Death should not be an easy out imo.

Man, I have so much to say about this...the amount of times I quit a story because a decently bearable character died for plot progression is too high. Death =/= mature, if you kill a character and theres no aftermath then the death holds no weight.

If you kill a main character you HAVE to do it with FEELING and not for "heehoo lookit the sad scene." unless the whole thing has that heehoo feel then it's valid.

... OK, wroting tropes that are seen as good are not good because they are. It's based on how you manipulate it. A master writer can convert a cliche into something great. Another example would be wendigos. EDIT: Yes, this means "power of friendship" can be good if utlized perfectly.

People die when they are killed.

Oh I got another perfect example of a dumb death. Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean 5. The dude literally sacrifices himself for his daughter, which he has a small amount of screentime with in the film, and he manages to kill the film's villain. After watching it a second time when it was released in theaters, Barbossa didn't need to die. It felt cheap

The issue with death in media nowadays is that the character move on all too quickly. A book that really handled it well is The Fantasy of Ash And Grimger. To give an example, a character dies in volume 3, however the effect of said characters death last the whole of volume 4, and sometimes even after that. Highly recommended the novel series

I actually wished that when the brought Penny back, she would still have the same voice and powers, but when she saw Ruby she would say "who are you?" She was resurrected so to speak but none of the old Penny's memories.

Learn the rules like a student, so cou can break them like an artist.

looks at Phoenix Wright and what it did with Mia You did good, kid.

JOJO SPOILERS. I think the bigger example of what you’re talking about in Jojo would be Kakyoin rather than Bruno cause at least his backstory happened a while before his death, While Kakyoin the person that has traveled with the group since the start gets his AS HES DYING. We literally here nothing about him other than he likes wrestling and eats cherries like a sexual deviant but the impactful character stuff happens right as he’s dying. Or with the revival thing Avdol who dies comes back and dies again. I love the show but it’s use of death is very flimsy at times.

“Death ≠ Good Writing” Shows Bubsy 3D Death Animation in the opening I clearly see nothing wrong with this. Bubsy dying is good writing. The less puns the better.