The Best Deaths in Science Fiction and Fantasy

(This whole post is full of spoilers.
You have been warned.

Now I know I did a post about being severely depressed awhile back, but nobody worry. This was triggered by a Facebook group that I'm in. (It's called Hogwart's Pensieve and if you love Harry Potter, goofy little fun activities and trying to win the House Cup you should join. I won't tell you what house I'm in because we're not supposed to recruit for specific houses, but if you join you'll see me there.) So know, I'm not like backsliding or anything however...

I've read a lot of books over the years. Most I enjoyed. Some I didn't. One I threw across the room and then gave to my sister who passed it on to my niece. (Why do people like Stephanie Meyer again?) I've noticed over time that there are many things that an author can throw into a story that have a big emotional impact: triumphs, defeats, first love, weddings, births, etc. But the one I want to talk about today is death. (Yes, that's why I wrote that first paragraph.)

In the Pensieve one of the Saturday activities was to write the death of one of the characters that passed at the Battle of Hogwarts (we had a few choices of which one) and I chose Fred, because out of all the deaths I've read, it hit me harder than any other, save one: That of Sturm Brightblade in The Dragonlance Chronicles. It got me to thinking though: There are a lot of deaths in a lot of books and a lot of shows/movies (and if we're counting movies we have to include the death of Spock in The Wrath of Khan) but there are few that really hit me the way those two did. So I set about trying to figure out why.

The death of Dumbledore sucked, but it was expected. His hand was rotting off and he was as old as the hills. Also, if you've ever studied story-telling in general you know that the mentor always gets it in the neck. Dumbledore was statistically overdue for an Avada Kedavra to the face. Falling from the tower has always seemed to me to be a bit extreme, but at the end of the day, it worked.

Obi-Wan Kenobi's death was kind of wasted. It could have been so much more if he had been around longer. Ditto the death of Yoda. Really, the only death in all of Star Wars that affected me was the death of Luke, and I'm not supposed to admit that out loud because I'm the only person who liked that movie. (Or at least it seems like it.)

Star Trek didn't lose many main big characters over the years, and no, redshirts don't count. Three come to mind. Trip (in the last episode), Jadzia Dax (in the last season) and Tasha Yar (in the first season). I may very well be missing someone. But the fact remains that Trip's death occurred too close to the end to really have the impact it should have, Tasha's death was almost pointless and happened due primarily to real world concerns (she hated the show) and Jadzia's...

Well, okay that one hurt. I loved the wedding with her and Worf. She was played by an awesome actress and she was a wonderful and valiant person. Then they brought Dax back as Ezri and... Uhhh..

What?

Yeah, I know, Trill, symbiote, whatever.

She was gone, but she wasn't but she was. And the slug that lived in her stomach got to continue. That one was so confusing it almost doesn't count as a death and yet it does, because the Jadzia half of the personality was gone.

Don't get me started on Firefly. Wash got hosed. Why they thought they needed to kill him off under those circumstances is beyond me. Whatever. I have Reavers. You hate Reavers. Even the Shepherd hates Reavers. But still that never should have happened when it did.

And of course there hasn't been a comic book death that mattered since the 90s. Yeah, so Hero A died and he took Hero B with him. Oh well, they'll both be back in six months. I get that the Death of Superman sold so well and so did his comeback but at some point you'd think they'd realize that it doesn't work anymore.

Uhh...

Sorry, you can have your soapbox back. I'm done using it.

And listen, if you're a fan of the Battletech novels and approve of what they did to Grayson Carlyle, you're not really a human being. I get the fact that they needed to kill him for the story to go forward, but dude. Really? REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?!?! THE MAN WAS THE WARRIOR'S WARRIOR AND HE DIED IN A HOSPITAL BED OF CANCER? ARE PRETEND BULLETS THAT EXPENSIVE!?!??!?! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

*SIGH*

Sorry. Carlyle was a personal favorite and he Really. Got. Hosed. I mean, I get the fact that George Patton (all private slapping and bad quote making aside) was the best general the US had in World War II and he got done in by a car accident. That was real life. Can my story-books please have story-book deaths for the big-timers? Please?

A well done death can stay with you forever though and it makes the story SOO much better. Seriously. Think about it this way:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was released in 1982, and nearly forty years later (am I really that old?) it's still remembered by most Trek fans as the best Trek movie EV-AR! And there was a lot of action and some ugly bugs. There was an evil villain. Khan and his dreams of a Master Race were very Nazi-esque. There were good heroes: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. I'm not denying any of that. Despite all of that what do most people remember about that movie? One scream and a speech. Let's not pretend that “KHAAAAAANNNNN!!!!” was anything other than classic Shatner. We love it because it's the actor that we love being the character that we love.

But what do people remember just as much? They remember Spock on his knees, his face covered with red splotches saying, “I have been, and always shall be, your friend.” The emotional impression, the lasting image, is of a great man breathing his last on the engineering deck while saving all of his friends. Now, we all know that he came back in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, but think about this: Which film is remembered as the better one? Who talks about when they actually found Spock? Wasn't that the whole point of the film?

I don't know how many of you have read the Dragonlance Chronicles, but if you have you remember the death of Sturm Brightblade, once dishonored, admitted to the knighthood on someone else's honor, not allowed to wear his father's armor and yet elected as the leader of the Knights of the Crown. When the Knights of the Sword and of the Rose had gone off to get themselves massacred, he had split the knighthood in an attempt to accomplish his mission while saving his men. When his men needed time, he went to the battlements and faced a dragon alone armed with nothing but a spear. Needless to say, he lost. Yet, his death ignited the Knights and made them heroes again. And it just so fit Sturm so well. He lived for the day when the knighthood would embrace him and the people would embrace the knights. He loved Huma and wanted to be everything Huma was. He achieved all of that. It was perfect. This one hurt to read, but without his sacrifice that whole trilogy doesn't work. If Hollywood ever gets off its hindquarters and decides to make good movies again, they need to make the Dragonlance Chronicles, either as live action or a cartoon. (And yes, I'm aware that Dragons of Autumn Twilight was made as an animated film. I haven't seen it, but I've heard bad things. I want a GOOD Dragonlance conversion.) This was one of two deaths in all of the literature that I've ever consumed that made me put the book down and back away for a second.

Est Solarus Oth Mithas, Sturm. You died like a man.

But the death that really got me thinking about writing this whole godforsaken mess was the Death of Fred Weasley in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The death was one I never saw coming and it was a straight-up kick in the teeth, but it's one I hadn't dwelled on much. Fred's was the other death that made me put the book down and walk away and I went two nights straight without sleep when I had to work the next two mornings because I couldn't wait to get to the end. I was that fascinated. It's just that so many characters went down in that last fight. It was like reading Military SF for a bit there but that makes sense because the characters were at war.

But what got me back into thinking about it was my time in the aforementioned Hogwarts Pensieve. Every term we have a set of daily themes that changes. Last term Tuesday's theme was Twin Tuesday. I logged on that day excited. I've always loved the twins because of their genius (and let's face it, they invented an entire shop full of gags and jokes) and their sense of humor. The staff encourages everyone to post something about each days theme and they award House Points to everyone who does so. I logged on expecting to see a bunch of one-liners and pranks.

What I got was a bunch of “Poor George lost his brother.” I was a bit put off for a second, but the I realized that everyone who had posted something about that was right. Not only that, but I remembered when I had read it. Fred dying while fighting along his brothers Percy and Ron as well as Harry and She Who Would Be Sister-In-Law was unexpected, abrupt, unfair and shocking. In short, it captured the feeling of losing someone you love quickly really well and I can speak from experience. My father drowned in a boating accident. I had plans with him the next day. The feeling for a literary character wasn't as intense as losing my father was, but it was similar. In a way, I've always kind of felt jealous of Ron and Percy because they got to be there at the end where I didn't.

I write fiction, although I have a problem finishing things. I have a tendency to see another idea and be like “Ooh, shiny.” I honestly hope that one day I can put together something as intense as the death of Fred or the perfection of the death of Sturm. I don't know how they did it, but it all worked out.

If you've got a favorite/most hated character death leave it in the comments. I'm always looking for a new perspective or something new to check out.

A few of the above mentioned products are available at the links below:

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

(Warning: Spoilers will abound. I'm trying to review a whole series here. It's not going to work if I don't. If you're one of the three people on the planet who a.) want to see this series unspoiled and b.) haven't done so yet it might be a good idea to find something else to do.)


Yes, I know that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is a seven season series and that trying to cover all of it in one blog post is freaking nuts. Nobody ever said I was sane. That much being said, I just finished watching the series last week (and I haven't finished reading Trickster Noir yet) so I thought I'd share my thoughts. And what the hay? I'm declaring this a case of authorial fiat. As the author of the blog I decided I could do this.

ST:DS9 has always been treated as the unwanted stepchild of the Trek family and, in my humble opinion, for good reason. DS9 was a damn fine show. First and foremost it was a form of entertainment, but it went hard against social issues and didn't flinch. I may not always have agreed with the way a given problem was portrayed, but that was up to the producers of the show, with some help from the actors and directors. The cast was awesome, the plot-lines epic and the special effects amazing for a TV show. The heroes were heroes. The villains were scum. Wars were waged. Lives were lost. For only the second time in the history of Trek we lost one of our main characters. (Nooo!!! Bring back Jadzia!) With all of that being said, it still didn't fit with the rest of the series.

Gene Roddenberry specifically stated that he wanted his show to be optimistic in nature. There is a need for villains in this type of a show, and he recognized that, but he wanted the main focus to be on his characters and their struggles. The Klingons, for example, showed up more often than intended. They were supposed to be used in one episode of ST:TOS and then forgotten. The Klingons show up throughout the series as do the Romulans, the Jem'Hadar, etc. The other Trek series always managed to  largely avoid the questions of religion and spirituality. DS9 featured Ben Sisko, the Emissary of the Prophets of Bajor. Overall though, this is the series that brought a true war to the forefront of the Star Trek universe. This was the show with a setting that was truly dystopic, with an abused planet full of damaged people front and center, the title space station that always broke down and corruption everywhere. No other Trek series could have followed the doings of Quark, the corrupt Ferengi businessman, and Security Officer Odo quite so closely.  No other Trek show featured an enemy so insidious that they could look you in the face and you wouldn't know it was them. No other Captain could have taken the actions Sisko did in "In the Pale Moonlight" and dealt with it as well. This series stepped outside of everything that was Trek and it still carried the title. Yes, I loved it. No, it wasn't Trek the way I've always thought of it.

Any Trek fan with a function brain cell and five minutes to think about their hobby knows that Star Trek has always been about examining social issues. Roddenberry said it himself. This show was no exception and it managed to take on a lot of themes that the other Treks didn't. DS9 featured the Dominion War and the Marquis. It had the Bajoran Resistance and the Federation/Klingon War. This was a show that could consider questions about what was appropriate in war. This was a show that examined what it would take to stop a nuclear war (rephrased as a renegade Federation officer who used biogenic weapons) and whether or not lying was acceptable in diplomacy. Casualty reports became a regular part of the show in the sixth and seventh seasons. The cost was counted. The fight raged on.it added up to an epic background. The characters took center stage and rightfully so. Good stories are, after all, about people. The technology still did

As always, technology played its role. A new class of weapon was deployed. The USS Defiant debuted a new type of starship armor. Self-replicating mines were sewn. Holosuites were featured. All of its job of providing the hook that the rest of the series hung on.

From beginning to end, the series kept up the pace. DS9 was the first Trek to feature multiple story arcs throughout individual seasons. The multiple appearances of the evil slimeball Gul Dukat never disappointed as he was always an equal opponent. There was a rebellion from within the Federation. A ship full of cadets took on the Dominion solo. Kai Winn was a member of the not-so-loyal opposition and an effective balance to Sisko's religious authority as the Emissary.

In any series this long, there are going to be disappointments but they were far outweighed by the good points. Other wrinkles added fun for some while being less entertaining for others. The Ferengi come to mind in the respect. Overall though, it doesn't get much better.

I am not going to try to go over all of the characters in seven series of DS9. I'll list a few favorites though:

Odo, the security officer. A shapeshifting police officer who would have been ruthless if Sisko had left him. He lived by a code though and he seldom deviated from it.

Major Kira Nerys was the second in command of the station, a highly religious individual and a hardcore asskicker.

Jadzia Dax was the science officer and  a bit quirky, being a Trill with multiple lifetimes worth of memories. She was one of Sisko's best friends and Worf's wife. She died a warrior's death at the hand of Gul Dukat.

Quark: The Ferengi bartender. A no-holds-barred capitalist. He develops a heart by the end of the series, but he never forgot the Rules of Acquisition.

I could go on but I won't. It's been a long day already. Suffice it to say that for anyone SF fan with a philosophical and/or spiritual side this is a must see. DS9 has caught some crap from Trek fans as well as fans of Babylon 5. It doesn't deserve any. Watch this series. It will entertain you. It will make you think. It will make you want more. And then, when it's over, it will leave you satisfied even if you feel a bit melancholy. It's worth your time.

Bottom Line: 4.9 out of 5 Wormholes

Star Trek: Deep Space 9
Paramount, 2004