suicides in novels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grit

Also, this thread reminds me of the watchmen. It explores this theme of weighing one life against many. Rorsach is murdered for the good of the whole, to prevent global war and for all the right reasons. He isn't a particularly good person and yet it feels very wrong.

All the more satisfying when the news outlet finds his journal at the end.

---

Rorschach I wonder what this name mean. also what about his journal?

The name comes from the Rorschach ink-blot tests. I don't think you'd like the Watchmen cacian, much too dark for somebody who doesn't want suicide in novels :p

I would call him a good person, he is quite violent, but he uses violence for justice. (Getting slightly off-topic here...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

The name comes from the Rorschach ink-blot tests. I don't think you'd like the Watchmen cacian, much too dark for somebody who doesn't want suicide in novels :p

I would call him a good person, he is quite violent, but he uses violence for justice. (Getting slightly off-topic here...)

---

LOL thanks Volya I think I know what you mean although about the ink-blot tests what a weird thing to do to test people perceptions through random ink formations.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

That's not true. If bombing is an effective tactic (which admits of some doubt, but it's a reasonable hyopthetical), then it is certainly possible (indeed, it appears to have been the case in WW2) that Kamikaze attacks inflict MORE TONNAGE of Ships sunk (the goal of this type of bombing) per plane and pilot lost than conventional bombing. Why would a more efficient tactic in terms of inflicting damage on the enemy, which reduces the losses needed to inflict that damage be "too expensive to be sustainable --ever." This makes no sense.

---

Because both their conventional bombing methods and kamikaze attacks were hopelessly inefficient. Neither was sustainable. They needed a better way to attack shipping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

Because both their conventional bombing methods and kamikaze attacks were hopelessly inefficient. Neither was sustainable. They needed a better way to attack shipping.

---

That's certainly likely, since Japan used both tactics and lost the war anyway. However, we can't infer from this that using planes to attack shipping could never be successful. And if it were successful, kamikaze might be the most effective and efficient way to go (if you could persuade your pilots to do it.) I also don't think you can automatically assume that both Japanese tactics were "hopelessly inefficient" just because they didn't work in the long run. The tactics weren't sustainable because Japan lacked the resources of the U.S., not because their tactics were inefficient (although, of course, all tactics, given human fallibility, are less than perfectly efficient). Still, the best possible tactics don't always lead to victory against a superior force.

Take a look at the F35.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

at which point does suicide concept in novels become the ultimate sweeping weapon to a writer own confessional boot.
Is there a hidden meaning another agenda behind it?
I find suicide harrowing in books and the fact that its concept is made famous/infamous in many books is all the most uneasy.
'Romeo and Juliet' comes to mind 'Love in the Time of Cholera' is another.
Suicide is dynamically painful and is perhaps the focal point of weakness as far as writing is concerned.
To write is to create characteristics and ideas and to introduce suicide as an additive dose does the opposite it dismantles the kudos of inventive creativity.
Killing off a character a work of fiction in a suicide act sounds rather inquisitive. Why would a writer presuppose it to be acceptable or rational when in fact it demonstrates hopelessness an indisposition of characteristics ambivalent to otherwise amenable approachable likeable characters .
A character tragedy can reajust and start again. Different circumstances make for new changes much awaited for.
when I think suicide in books I think the 'throw in the towel' expression or giving up is another way of addressing it.

So the question is this

Is suicide rational for a story that could hold together beautifully even after a tragic or a loss?
'Gone With The Wind' is One'. No suicide just separation and time is your pillar.

---

But, how do these deaths affect the lives of the other characters in the story? Tragedy and death gives way to further tragic consequences...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by synodbio

But, how do these deaths affect the lives of the other characters in the story? Tragedy and death gives way to further tragic consequences...

---

It should lead to some resolution, but when it doesn't the art is bad.

I just saw the film Small Apartments based on Chris Millis' novel. One of the characters at the end commits suicide for no reason. When I saw that, I thought of this thread and thought that was a pretty lame thing to have a character do. The other characters in the story were doing stupid things as well mixed with "deep" sentimentality related to
"The Answer" at the end. The words "artsy-fartsy" and "juvenile" came to mind to describe the plot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1272886/

Why should suicide lead to some resolution in literature? It doesn't always lead to a resolution in life. Besides the fact the suicide is dead, and that's a pretty grand resolution. People frequently commit suicide with little or no warning signs. Occasionally even generally happy people off themselves in drunken depressions. It doesn't make sense, there is seemingly no reason behind it, but life is absurd, so why should literature be any less so.