So, I never watched the show above.  The ‘elevator death’ episode came out in March 1991 and I was 10.  I did hear shows having surprise deaths as I grew up and people usually referenced this event.  Not to mention it made a lot of people terrified of stepping onto an elevator too early even if they hadn’t seen the episode.  Guess this is the 1990’s version of ‘Final Destination’ where you get nervous behind a truck hauling logs or really any long pieces of wood.

Anyway, the concept of a shock death of a popular character isn’t new.  Some series even made a bulk of their reputation off suddenly killing off characters, who tended to be the heroes.  Makes sense since eliminating villains at a fast rate could bring the story to a fairly quick finale.  Heroes tend to have a stronger connection to the readers too, so their deaths will hit harder.  That’s the point of this, right?  To create an emotional impact that has the audience thinking and speaking about it long after they walk away.

In more recent years, I think authors have overused this shock death.  They’re very quick to pull the trigger, which results in characters with flimsy connections to the readers being eliminated.  Think of it like picking a fruit off a tree just before it fully ripens.  It might not taste horrible or even truly bad, but you will have missed the best time to eat it.  The reader won’t care as much about what’s happened and may even walk away from the story for a while.  Not so much physically as mentally where they just keep reading along with a weakened sense of attachment.

Another mistake that I’ve seen made is that newer characters are eliminated in shocking ways instead of older ones.  This comes from wanting to maintain a high body count reputation, but not being able to kill off central characters.  Reaping heroes shouldn’t come at the cost of the story, so this makes sense.  Yet, you run into a situation where readers don’t bother getting attached to new characters because they fully expect them to die.  Now, you’re back to the unripe fruit situation, but it’s worse because the fruit will never ripen.  (Note: I’m not hungry or eating fruit while writing this. It’s just what popped into my head.)

So, timing and emotion can be everything, especially if the goal is to revitalize the series after a while.  The death of a beloved character is a double-edged sword, but it can erase staleness.  Yes, people who loved the character might send death threats because we live in a time of unhinged anonymity.  Others will be more sensible and consider walking away, but that can be prevented if the character is mourned and their demise means something more than shock value.

This would add a third factor: Aftermath.  If you have a character die and then everyone moves on without a care, you’ve wasted an opportunity.  The death of someone they know can help the other heroes change either for good or bad.  Some may focus on vengeance while others consider giving up out of grief.  The aftermath can last for the rest of the story too if you make sure it doesn’t interfere with the overall story.  For example, the shock death can drive the survivors to push forward or even alter their plan to avoid another disaster.

Personally, I’m very cautious about killing off major characters.  Secondary ones become fair game, but I try not to do real shock deaths.  There’s always a purpose within the story for them to die instead of ‘the world is a dangerous place’.  My reason for this is because I feel that Windemere can be shown as dangerous without a high body count.  People die there, but I’d rather show the danger and how it can be survived even if one doesn’t get out in one piece.  A death also means I have to take time on mourning and grief because I don’t like having people witness such a thing and move on.  Seems callous and cruel, which doesn’t fit any of the stories I’ve written so far.  If it makes sense down the road, I’ll do it, but that hasn’t happened yet.

What do other people think of ‘elevator shaft’ deaths?