On Re-Animating The Dead (in fiction, obviously)

It's often said that what is dead may never truly die. This is of course a part-truth. Death is death. My poor beloved cat won't suddenly re-appear outside my room to beg for food . But Terry Pratchett's last book has just been released and it's shot up to the number one bestseller despite Terry losing his defiant battle with Alzheimer's earlier this year. His name is still everywhere. He's dead, but certainly not forgotten - something we all aspire to.

Rock on man. Rock on. 

But there's another saying: what is dead is never actually dead in fiction. The writer is a god of his/her own made-up universe. If s/he wants to take up necromancy and call upon the unholy spirits to bring their characters back to life then s/he can because s/he is god. The writers plain is an extremely flexible environment that can be re-tooled as the creator sees fit. And this includes bringing characters back to life so their story can continue.

I hate this trope. Death is such a concrete, finite part of existence. In fact it's the end of it. A force so terrible it almost transcends into beauty - like staring into the eye of a storm. Wantonly bringing people back to life completely devalues it. If Gandalf comes back from the dead to finish his mission, then he's never going to die until his mission is completed. He's become immortal, and therefore a god who I have no interest in rooting for because it's certain he'll suceed. And surely that means if Frodo dies then he'll come back to life as well because he too has a vital mission?

I'm so glad Game Of Thrones thus far hasn't introduced Lady Stoneheart, because she made no sense in the A Song of Ice and Fire books that the TV show is based on. If people can be bought back to life then why doesn't everyone do this all the time? This is a fantasy series famous for introducing multi-dimensional characters only to brutally murder them as the power of this kingdom shifts towards an ultimate goal. Re-animating the dead only serves to completely undermine all this. I personally want that major character who died at the end of the last season/book to stay dead just because if s/he springs back to life then it'll completely ruin what this series is about: people we love dying horribly.

Not to mention that Lady Stoneheart joins the ever-growing number of characters in the books that quietly do nothing. She really doesn't have an ultimate purpose in this world and bringing her back only serves to distract from all the plotlines that do have a purpose. So why bring her back at all? What was the whole point in ressurecting her if she's not going to do anything?

The same applies with Gandalf The White. If I was Samuel Jackson, I would've cut him out of the films. Gandalf The Grey has a perfect character-arc. He begins as a wise yet irresponsible wizard who smokes a suspicious substance in his pipe. He's a multi-layered character who we ultimately look up to because of how intelligent he clearly is.

"Us wizards only get the best stuff..."

As he discovers the true nature of Bilbo's ring, he realises what this could mean for the fate of Middle Earth. He's forced become a much younger and responsible man as he must set Frodo on his way whilst also trying to resist the power of the ring. He's very much a relic of the past as he can only really serve as a walking Middle Earth Wiki in his grey form. Eventually however, he helps drive our heroes onward in their quest and although his journey is cut short, he goes down defeating The Balrog of Morgul - sacrificing his life so the quest to defeat Sauron may continue.

His role as a quest-giver and helper is fulfilled. He's set in motion the trilogies events and Tolkien clearly realised that having Gandalf around after this would just ruin everything. "Oh no! We're faced with an evil monster. Wait; don't we have an all-powerful wizard in our party? So we do. Problem solved!"

Tolkien realised that having Gandalf around would remove all the tension. That's probably why the Fellowship splits at the end of the first book as if the whole party simply walked into Mordor then there wouldn't be any sense of danger. Frodo and Sam wouldn't be so vulnerable if they had Aragon and Legolas constantly by their side. Gimli would've probably just put an axe through Gollum's head if he'd been with them.

"A novel that doesn't constantly reference The Bible?
WHAT WIZARDRY IS THIS!?"

...so why the buttered crumpets on a crucifix did he bring Gandalf back to life? It reminds me of Doctor Who when they introduced the character of Davros in Genesis Of The Daleks (regarded as one of the best Doctor Who episodes) and gave him a brilliant single-story character-arc that culminated in him being EXTERMINATED by his own creations in beautiful display of irony. Cut to a few seasons later and the show decided to bring him back from the dead because fans liked him so much...even though it completely ruined everything.

Gandalf The White is wizard-Jesus; a perfect being dispatched from a higher power to bring peace to the land. He's younger, more powerful, and draped in white - symbolising purity and divinity. He is the Deus Ex Machina of Lord Of The Rings; a plot-device pulled from the butts of gods.

Whilst Gandalf The White does play an active role in the rest of the story...he's pointless. His narrative arc has been fufilled and so he can't do anything other than continue to be a walking Wiki. He rushes in to save The Battle of Helms deep, but surely Erkenbrand could've fufilled the same role. In fact, the Two Towers film changes it to Eomer - so why couldn't Eomer have done this by himself? He had a duty to his kingdom, he didn't necessarily need Gandalf to ride in and say: "your father's up a certain creek. Get your ass back there."

Compare this to Dumbledore. Whilst the Harry Potter series has a bit of a problem with death, re-birth, re-death, re-re-birth and other contrivances; Dumbledore dies and stays dead. In fact, he spends the entirety of the second to last book with a cursed hand that'll eventually spread across his entire body...which kind of makes Harry look like a jerk considering he's worrying about potions and puberty whilst his only true mentor in life is slowly dying.

Dumbledore's character-arc is also great. He starts as an old eccentric who encourages people to sing a jolly nonsense song during feasts. He's also similar to Yoda in that he's comical in appearence but behind his frail exterior is an immense magical force. He could probably make your brain explode in a snap of his fingers, but he's too wise to resort to such measures. He's such a strong symbol of benevolence that during the final act of the first and second book he leaves Hogwarts for contrived reasons just so the only people qualified to save the day are three kids.

Yeah, so Dumbledore has his stupid moments too. Why does he know so much about Voldemort when he's unable to see that Quirrel's possessed? Why doesn't he discover the Chamber of Secrets when all he needed to do was ask the ghost of the girl who'd been murdered? Why does he place one of the worlds most sought-after magical artefact's and have it guarded by deadly traps in a school full of kids who could easily find it's location...and do. Why does he let Harry enter the Triwizard Tournament when it's clear Harry didn't volunteer and obviously someone's trying to kill him?

"I can't wait until the last book where I blow stuff up at last..."

But ultimately we love this man. He becomes more sincere as Voldemort's power grows and he struggles between doing what it right and what is kindest. He should've told Harry everything he needed to know right away, but he was afraid of shattering Harry's innocence. Is it right to try and make an eleven year old understand the true nature of evil? At what age is it right? This torment Dumbledore faces makes him appear more than just a mentor to Harry but an actual human being. Even though everyone knew he was going to die not because it was leaked but because it was so obvious, people were still in tears.

And the reason why it was obvious was because come the penultimate book it's clear time's running out. Would Harry's final journey be so intense if they had an elder god sitting in the tent with them? Granted, he would've livened up those slower chapters in the tent with some humorous anecdotes - like going on a caravan holiday with Stephen Fry. But his purpose had been fufilled. He'd already given Harry a vital piece of infomation and now it was just a case of educating him further about how to destroy Voldemort

Also, JK Rowling proves you can kill characters and still have them play a huge part without bringing them back to life. In the final book, infomation is revealed about Dumbledore which causes Harry to start doubting his mentor. He told Harry all he could in the short space of time given, but Dumbledore was forced to leave key parts out or else Harry might've turned against him. His grand plan becomes almost a question of faith, and refreshingly it doesn't turn out that Dumbledore is a saint. He has a dark past that he cannot escape from but ultimately we forgive him for considering how much he regrets it. All this we find out whilst Dumbledore lies in a coffin - and not in a Dracula sense.

Going back to A Song of Ice and Fire, George R.R Martin actually does this too. Ned Stark, the closest thing this series comes to a truly 'good' character, is killed at the end of the first book (oh, spoiler warning I guess). But his death hangs over the rest of the series. Not only does his revelation that Joffrey has no legitimate claim to the throne set in motion four other people to declare themselves king and begin a massive war, but the Stark family is forced to go their seperate ways whilst trying to live up to their father's name. Ned Stark shows that honesty doesn't win in this world. He loses because he doesn't understand and therefore cannot anticipate betrayl. His death is a constant warning to the other characters of what happens if you keep your enemies too close; a lesson his sons learn the hard way.

You don't need to bring characters back. Just make them so strong in life that their legacy continues in death - just like in the real world.

Image sources: 
http://thegg.net/general-news/terry-pratchett-has-left-us-the-legacy-of-discworld/
http://giphy.com/gifs/gandalf-87KBDBw3r339e
http://www.justmemes.com/category/random-pictures/funny-pictures/page/7/
http://hermionejean.co.vu/tagged/hptitles
http://seanbeanonline.net/forums/index.php?topic=3432.440