It's a simple question really: If there's a story where it's possible to bring people back to life, then does the story lose all sense of tension?

Depends on how people can be brought back to life.

How easy is it to perform?
What does it cost?
->Ex: In Merlin to bring someone back to life another person must sacrifice themself.
Are there ways to stop it from working?
Are there any other effects of the death?
->Ex: Doctor Who, when he dies he regenerates. Basically becoming a new person, so in a sense that last doctor you loved is dead personality wise.

Then for the death itself they could of had an agonizing terribly painful death.
That would still hold meaning regardless of Resurrection.

Depends. If it's a death without consequence it destroys the tension. If the death still holds consequence, then it will hold an appropriately equal level of tension with it based on how likely it is to occur within the parameters of the story.

For example (gaming): Death in a lot of video games holds no consequences other than having to load the game. It can be frustrating but it's hardly the end of the world, especially since most games let you choose when and where to save and load. Now take Dark Souls, a game that doesn't let you save/load and will ruthlessly slaughter you, causing you to lose experience and progress. Death suddenly has consequences attached. There is a palpable tension in Dark Souls when faced with death--especially if you have a lot of experience to lose--than in, say, Mass Effect, where you just load the game and try again with a different approach.

Or, take X-Com. Deaths suck but you can always reload unless you toggle the "Ironman" option in the latest edition, which prevents loading the game past the current turn. Suddenly all your squaddies' deaths hold impact, especially if you renamed them to RP characters or living people.

It's why nobody talks about or cares about Sheppard's dramatic death at the beginning of Mass Effect 2. It was a death that was, for all practical purposes, without consequence to the player. It had no impact on how they played the game, it limited no options, and it was entirely out of their control as a contrived way to start the story.

To summarize: The greater the consequences attached to death, even if the death is reversible or temporary, the greater the tension one will derive from it. Especially if the consequences are permanent in some manner, like you could bring someone back from the dead but they would lose all their memories, or bring someone back from the undead but only as a walking corpse, etc.

I'd like to think about this and reply in more depth later, but the first thought in my mind is "no". Mainly because death is not the only cause of tension in stories. Hypothetically, a character could be brought back to life, but their marriage to their wife could still slowly crumble into nothing. Inserting necromancy into, let's say, Fitzgerald's work, would be bizarre and would somewhat ruin the tone of the story, but would not eradicate the sense of tension in the relationships and the downfalls of the characters.

Death as anything other than an end to a character seems more an attempt to comfort the all too human anxieties surrounding our end. We each are promised death, but many flock to notion that a omnipotent deity or advanced scientist will somehow bring us, or a part of us back. Or that our legacies will survive via our children or works. Either way, we fear the end and hope desperately for something otherwise. I find stories that deny a true death tap into our hope in way that can be dreamlike. Doctor Who was an example used already. The character is in themselves a dreamy figure in that death is a temporary, superficially changing thing. They are deep, emotional, intellectual, and come with a range of challenges and successes that is all too human, however, the last bit that makes them awe-inspiring is their lack of coherence to our biggest rule -- all things die. I don't mean to say that Doctor Who does us a disservice in its fantasy, I love it, but we should definitely separate that bit out and remember to face ourselves. as we consume these stories.

I think it's important because people are historically very bad at discerning fantastical stories worth knowing and literal truths. We take cultural histories and stories known to be meant to teach symbolically and we swear by them as fact, we even kill for them. Too many of us are just sad, grasping at anything to convince us that life is more even when that form of salvation exists down other paths. So I say taking the death out is a great tool for some stories. I also warn that doing it taps into us like speaking about sex. There's something deep within us that keys up to the topic of death and is willing to believe just a bit more. After death is conquered in the story and your belief soars beyond one of the greatest limitations our world offers, I doubt too many other obstacles will provide the same level of tension.

Gotta say though, I found the Night Angel series as a great story that conquers death yet continues to wind one up. Check it out!

If a person dies in chapter 6, and chapters 7-9 are about how the hero eschews his duties to bring that person back, and then you find out how much worse things got because of it. The death not only was important, but a powerful point of the plot.

Some pretty great posts in this topic, well done, everyone.

Generally, in say a roleplay capacity, I'd put reversing deaths into the cop-out category. The death of a character should be something that's a huge impact,nt a temporary inconvenience.

Look at super hero comics and movies and games. I actually had an issue from Spider-Man from like 97 or 98 that he died from long-term illness relating to the whole radioactive spider bite, and his cousin Ben (I think? I remember) took up duties as Spider-Man. Because none of you reading this knew about that, it kind of shows how big of a deal it was. It was like when he revealed his identity publicly during Civil War. They retconned that shit so hard it didn't matter. There's no lasting consequences in Marvel, and I am pretty sure they're going to bring Captain America back from the dead if they haven't already.

It shouldn't be used as a cheap emotional plot point that you don't stick by. If you aren't going to tolerate murdering your beloved character, just don't do it if you can't commit.

Equivalent Exchange. That fundamental law is binding to the basis of all things. Nothing may be spawned from nothing after all...* Que dramatic theme*

Cayden Black said
Equivalent Exchange. That fundamental law is binding to the basis of all things. Nothing may be spawned from nothing after all...* Que dramatic theme*

Yes, a lot of people have read/ watched FMA, too.

I havent. I dont watch anime

Blue Tempest said
I havent. I dont watch anime

That's ashame. I think that you may even like a fair bit of it. I recommend Sword of a Stranger or Moribito.

No. There's an implicit disbelief in storytelling about the hero's mortality -- he's not supposed to die, he's not going to die, and if he does die there's a trick to it, or there's justice coming, etc. That's part of what shocks/frustrates people about the ASoIaF series -- Martin doesn't abide by the rule that characters can't die until their story arc is complete, and it's very difficult for readers to handle it.

Which brings me to the point that you typically can't 'cheapen' death in fiction, because death in fiction is already inherently cheap. Heroes don't die unless it's in slow motion; nobody's gone until they get their last words; they're not in any danger until their Chekov Gun is out of bullets. Resurrections aren't any worse than any of the usual bullshitty death tropes. You can certainly do it in such a way that it detracts from the story (Thor movie comes to mind, but that whole thing was an abortion), but it's not automatic.

Brovo said
Depends. If it's a death without consequence it destroys the tension. If the death still holds consequence, then it will hold an appropriately equal level of tension with it based on how likely it is to occur within the parameters of the story.For example (gaming): Death in a lot of video games holds no consequences other than having to load the game. It can be frustrating but it's hardly the end of the world, especially since most games let you choose when and where to save and load. Now take Dark Souls, a game that doesn't let you save/load and will ruthlessly slaughter you, causing you to lose experience and progress. Death suddenly has consequences attached. There is a palpable tension in Dark Souls when faced with death--especially if you have a lot of experience to lose--than in, say, Mass Effect, where you just load the game and try again with a different approach.Or, take X-Com. Deaths suck but you can always reload unless you toggle the "Ironman" option in the latest edition, which prevents loading the game past the current turn. Suddenly all your squaddies' deaths hold impact, especially if you renamed them to RP characters or living people.It's why nobody talks about or cares about Sheppard's dramatic death at the beginning of Mass Effect 2. It was a death that was, for all practical purposes, without consequence to the player. It had no impact on how they played the game, it limited no options, and it was entirely out of their control as a contrived way to start the story.To summarize: The greater the consequences attached to death, even if the death is reversible or temporary, the greater the tension one will derive from it. Especially if the consequences are permanent in some manner, like you could bring someone back from the dead but they would lose all their memories, or bring someone back from the undead but only as a walking corpse, etc.

Spoilers for Mass Effect if you haven't played and intend to ahead:

Going back to Mass Effect for a minute, I was just thinking about it, but you're looking at that from a player perspective. Any game that lets you reload can apply to that, but Mass Effect was actually pretty good for character deaths that could have been prevented if you did the right thing, but your team can die if you don't do things right. Like Wrex in ME1, not upgrading the Normandy in ME2 as well as picking the wrong people to do certain duties on the suicide mission, and quite a few variations in ME3 like not being able to talk the Virmire survivor into trusting you about Udina, if Thane died in ME2 than it's Kirrahe who dies in ME3, and if both were dead by ME3, then the salarian Councillor gets assassinated, sabotaging the genophage with Wrex still alive has him confront Shepard, forcing Shepard to kill him. Mordin is almost guaranteed to die in ME3 unless you do some very specific things leading up to it, and so on so forth. Mass Effect kind of handles death with a sudden and rather unpreventable finality if you don't do things the right way well in advanced, and simply loading a save often can't prevent someone's fate from coming to pass, unless you wanted to replay the entire game.

Dervish said
Spoilers for Mass Effect if you haven't played and intend to ahead:Going back to Mass Effect for a minute, I was just thinking about it, but you're looking at that from a player perspective. Any game that lets you reload can apply to that, but Mass Effect was actually pretty good for character deaths that could have been prevented if you did the right thing, but your team can die if you don't do things right. Like Wrex in ME1, not upgrading the Normandy in ME2 as well as picking the wrong people to do certain duties on the suicide mission, and quite a few variations in ME3 like not being able to talk the Virmire survivor into trusting you about Udina, if Thane died in ME2 than it's Kirrahe who dies in ME3, and if both were dead by ME3, then the salarian Councillor gets assassinated, sabotaging the genophage with Wrex still alive has him confront Shepard, forcing Shepard to kill him. Mordin is almost guaranteed to die in ME3 unless you do some very specific things leading up to it, and so on so forth. Mass Effect kind of handles death with a sudden and rather unpreventable finality if you don't do things the right way well in advanced, and simply loading a save often can't prevent someone's fate from coming to pass, unless you wanted to replay the entire game.

I meant like bringing back someone from the dead as being apart of the story itself.

Dervish said
Spoilers for Mass Effect if you haven't played and intend to ahead:Going back to Mass Effect for a minute, I was just thinking about it, but you're looking at that from a player perspective. Any game that lets you reload can apply to that, but Mass Effect was actually pretty good for character deaths that could have been prevented if you did the right thing, but your team can die if you don't do things right. Like Wrex in ME1, not upgrading the Normandy in ME2 as well as picking the wrong people to do certain duties on the suicide mission, and quite a few variations in ME3 like not being able to talk the Virmire survivor into trusting you about Udina, if Thane died in ME2 than it's Kirrahe who dies in ME3, and if both were dead by ME3, then the salarian Councillor gets assassinated, sabotaging the genophage with Wrex still alive has him confront Shepard, forcing Shepard to kill him. Mordin is almost guaranteed to die in ME3 unless you do some very specific things leading up to it, and so on so forth. Mass Effect kind of handles death with a sudden and rather unpreventable finality if you don't do things the right way well in advanced, and simply loading a save often can't prevent someone's fate from coming to pass, unless you wanted to replay the entire game.

Played it, but yeah, this isn't about the other deaths in ME, this is about bringing someone back from the dead and how that can impact the narrative and, well, the impact of death.

I used ME 2's opening as an example because you have literally no control over whether you live or die, and regardless of the fact that you do actually die, fall into a planetary atmosphere after suffering emergency decompression and presumable splat against the surface of the planet they reincarnate you and the only lasting consequence is a scar on your face that is apparently affected by whether you're a nice guy or a raging dick.

The death had no consequence on the story. Shepard is still alive, Shepard can still do everything he did before, and aside from a cosmetic effect Shepard is otherwise not in any way, shape, or form affected by the experience of spacial decompression, falling into an atmosphere, and hitting a planet from orbit at terminal velocity aside from the occasional "oh yeah I'm not dead guys" moment. Which, while funny, again, holds little consequence and no long term effect.

tl;dr: Mass Effect failed to wield a Jesus Arc properly by ignoring the latter half of it. Kind of like how it ignored having a quality ending, but I digress.

As I said above. Death has tension if actions have consequence: If the character's death and reincarnation causes a long lasting effect on the world in some manner (ex: the main hero sacrificing a village and becoming evil to bring their lover back from the dead) then it had a lasting consequence, not necessarily on the person who was dead, but on the world itself and the people they once knew. :p

Brovo said Kind of like how it ignored having a quality ending, but I digress.

To be fair, they were rushed by EA.
By a whole year from what I recall.

Plus they half-made up for it when the free expansion DLC on the ending later.

Magic Magnum said
To be fair, they were rushed by EA.By a whole year from what I recall.Plus they half-made up for it when the free expansion DLC on the ending later.

To be fair, I was cracking a joke. :p

Blue Tempest said
It's a simple question really: If there's a story where it's possible to bring people back to life, then does the story lose all sense of tension?

Well, provided life/death follows newtonian laws, then bring them back to life entails either sacrifice, or killing the baddie once and for all.

Which gets wierd if by 'bringing back' actually means 'inhabit host'.