The Sword and Laser discussion

When I read, I enjoy feeling danger for the characters. I like books where there are actual consequences. If the bad guys occasionally win, I'm cool with that. I'm not a fan of plot armor, so I can't take too many lucky breaks and close calls. Some people prefer these stories. They want an HEA and will turn away from a book if a popular character dies in the second act. After all, nobody wants to see his/her friends suffer. Where do you stand on this issue? Do you prefer to read to discover IF the heroes win or HOW will they win?

Does the thought of a suicide mission immediately make you skip a book because you don't want your characters to go through heartbreak? Does the execution of a suicide mission with 100% survivors make you scoff and leave the world with a bad taste in your mouth? Does it depend on your mood or the world you're reading about?

Both types of books are valid. Some just want cozy entertainment. Others want to feel their own adrenaline surge during a daring escape. For me, WILL they win is more fun. What say you?

HEA = happily ever after?

Depends on my mood, but also the book. Years ago I was reading a Lawrence Watt-Evans Portal Fantasy book that was goofy and zany and then out of the blue he killed the protagonist’s preteen daughter. It was a complete 180 from the rest of the book. When I said to him, essentially, “what the actual hell, man?” he took great umbrage with my opinion and told me if we ever met he’d spit on me. (This exchange happened on Usenet, so it probably still exists somewhere.) It was only once several others chimed in with the same reaction did he grudgingly admit it wasn’t the right call.

There are plenty of books where killing a 7-year-old might be germane to the story (the death of the 15-year-old daughter in Recursion is extremely important, for instance), but as Brandon Sanderson says, you have to set expectations and then fulfill them.

I don’t really expect a tragic Romeo and Juliet type of ending in a RomCom, for instance, which is why I typically don’t like horror in my comedy: it violates my expectations. But everyone dying at the end of The Dirty Dozen, The Thing or Star Wars: Rogue One is fine. Half the cast getting killed in The Wild Bunch, The Magnificent Seven and The Walking Dead is expected. If there was a shootout at the end of When Harry Met Sally, it would’ve caused a riot.

It depends on the story. If it's a character I'm super invested in i have been known to go to the end of the book to see if they live. i don't seek out books like that but if its well done it adds depth to the reading , like the Dune series.

If it makes the story better, anything goes. But it needs to be more than just gratuitous violence.

Tassie Dave wrote: "If it makes the story better, anything goes. But it needs to be more than just gratuitous violence."

Popular media example... Avengers Infinity War and Endgame. It would have been unbelievable for all of them to survive such an event, but the deaths felt earned in the story.

Trike wrote: "HEA = happily ever after?"

Yes.

Tassie Dave wrote: "If it makes the story better, anything goes. But it needs to be more than just gratuitous violence."

It doesn't have to be purely for violence. The Bad News Bears ends with the "bad guys" winning. It's one of the greatest movies ever. If they'd used the happy ending, the story would suffer.

Rick wrote: "Popular media example... Avengers Infinity War and Endgame. It would have been unbelievable for all of them to survive such an event, but the deaths felt earned in the story. "

I argue the casualties didn't go far enough (given the stakes). Some will say it was terrible BECAUSE they lost people. Others would have liked more. Some found the happy sweet spot. However, this was clearly a case of HOW will they win, and I enjoyed it. GoT is probably the best known example of WILL they win?

Phillip wrote: "Rick wrote: "Popular media example... Avengers Infinity War and Endgame. It would have been unbelievable for all of them to survive such an event, but the deaths felt earned in the story. "

I argu..."

Talking about how many and who died is fruitless. But Endgame did kill some, which made it feel more true to what would really have happened. People who wanted everyone to live want Marvel heroes to be able to fight universe altering villains with zero risk - that feels childish to me.

On the other hand, I dislike character deaths done simply for shock value or to up the body count so readers will go 'ohhh how DARK....'. That also feels childish.

Nobody stays dead in comics. Tony Stark's death in Avengers Endgame was just so perfect that I wanted to cheer. Through tears. If that were comics though he'd be "dead" for about six issues before coming back.

Then there's, say, Joker. He kills so often and so viciously that it's ridiculous. Any responsible superhero would have offed him decades ago.

In books, I grow tired of the endless mayhem of an Alastair Reynolds book and even the hardest of hard SF can't save them for me. Peter Hamilton is far better at sparingly using violence, even as he handwaves around things like the galaxy's central black hole. Minimal, poignant use of death and the chance of it in the Pern novels helped make those for me.