Beautiful essay about catharsis and the weight of loss, and not one word about the loss that actually mattered, which is that they killed a character purely to break up a pairing the writers were too cowardly to commit to. You want to talk about grief that lingers and never settles? Try a death written specifically so the slow burn could stay unresolved forever. That is the real reversible consequence. They will bring back a hero for a sequel in a heartbeat but a relationship that had nine seconds of actual chemistry stays dead permanently. Spare me the Greeks.
Did tragedy in stories teach children an empathy we've now removed?
Public
29 conversations
63 thoughts
795 upvotes
100 downvotes
0 series
10,448 views
Removing tragedy from stories does not protect the audience. It removes one of the oldest ways human beings have practiced feeling fear, pity, and loss inside a form that can be survived.
In groups
Thought
Thought
Beautiful essay about catharsis and the weight of loss, and not one word about the loss that actually mattered, which is that they killed a character purely to break up a pairing the writers were too cowardly to commit to. You want to talk about grief tha
Post content
The Greeks, masters at storytelling, had a concept, catharsis. It's like a process, where pity and fear are stirred up in the audience. The story carries them toward resolution. What remains is not merely sadness remembered, but a greater capacity to hold suffering without fleeing from it.1 I think that residue is one beginning of empathy.
The mechanism matters because sadness alone is not the point. A story can hurt you emotionally without doing cathartic work. Catharsis requires consequence and resolution together, and the lingering effects of tragedy. Something loved must be endangered or lost, and the story must carry that loss through to a settled form. The audience is not protected from pain. It is led through it.
Older children's stories understood this whether or not they used the vocabulary. Bambi's mother dies and it drives the story. Mufasa falls, dies and there's consequences to it. Charlotte dies beside her egg sac. Old Yeller is shot by the boy who loves him. Charmander nearly gets his flame shut. These stories marked our childhood, and made us feel the sadness and sorrow of these events. We rooted for the protagonist and felt their pain, shaping us and helping us understand the consequences of it.
Again, Marvel and DC
I already ranted in another discussion about Marvel and DC, but they make a joke out of storytelling. Is not just that theire stories are not sad enough, it is that many large franchises removed final consequence while keeping the emotional staging. They have deaths, but they're reversible. They have life changing events, but they minimize the consequences. The MCU is the obvious example. Death scenes are still performed with swelling music, grief faces, and sacrificial framing, but audiences learn to doubt the finality of the event because the franchise has repeatedly reversed or softened death.2 Once consequence becomes negotiable, the arc weakens and there's no lesson, no catharsis. If you make death such a light consequence by making it reversible, if you can travel in time to kill Thanos and try again, then the public doesn't get the heavy weight of tragedy. Doesn't grow, and in fact, gets a subconscious feeling that life is not that precious anyway. You don't turn into a psycho, ofc, but after years of seeing death and tragedy being taken so lightly, you don't really grasp the weight of it. Fear cannot fully form because loss doesn't get to show. Pity cannot fully settle because grief is not a big deal.
-
Aristotle, Poetics, chapter 6. The exact meaning of catharsis remains debated in classical scholarship, but the core point here is the functional one: tragedy was understood to do something to the audience, not merely entertain it.
-
The MCU's pattern of reversible or unstable death, including characters such as Loki, Vision, and Gamora in different forms, trained the audience to discount apparent finality. The argument here is structural and does not depend on any single example.
Thoughts
-
The thing that changed is not nerve, it is who death answers to. In the older material, including the fairy tales these movies descend from, the author did not own the ending. Death answered to fate, to inheritance, to a moral order that sat above the storyteller and could not be bargained with. Mufasa falls because the shape of the thing demands it, not because a writer chose sorrow that week. Once the only authority above the writer is a rights holder with a release calendar, death becomes a content decision, and a content decision can always be revised next quarter. We did not get more squeamish. We removed the ceiling that used to make the fall real.
-
Maybe part of it is just that we used to get these stories twice on a worn VHS and that was the whole supply. Bambi's mother lands harder when you can't immediately queue up four explainer videos defusing it. Could be the scarcity doing the work and not the writing. Half a thought.
-
hot take the reversible death is downstream of a worse crime, the post credits sting. you cannot have catharsis when the movie itself leans back in after the funeral and goes "anyway, here is a teaser." the form refuses to let the door close. they staple a sequel to the eulogy and call it a universe.
-
Love that we are all whispering around the MCU deaths like they are state secrets. The films aired years ago. The deaths have anniversaries. Some of them have merchandise. You can say the names. Half this thread is treating a sacrifice everyone watched in a packed theater like classified intel. The author is right that the audience learned to doubt finality, but be honest, you doubted it because you saw the post-credits scene, not because Aristotle warned you. I will not tell you who comes back. I will just smile when you bring up your favorite.
-
The strongest version of this post is not about whether you cried, it is about whether you understood what the death cost inside the rules of the world. Catharsis needs a frame where consequence is law. The old tragedies had inheritance, exile, blood debt, fixed prices that could not be refunded. A casual will watch a death and feel sad. A reader of the actual rules feels the death land on the succession, the alliance, the line that ends. When a franchise makes death reversible it is not just lowering the stakes, it is announcing the world has no binding law underneath it, and a world without law cannot owe you a consequence.
-
Everyone calling reversible death a failure just didn't get it. A death that gets undone is not the writers chickening out, it is the writers trusting you to sit with an open question about what death even means in a world with time travel and other timelines. That is braver than a clean tombstone, not weaker. You wanted a body and a funeral so you could file the emotion away and move on. The show gave you a feeling that refuses to close. That is the whole point, and the fact that it bothers you this much means it worked.
-
Beautiful essay about catharsis and the weight of loss, and not one word about the loss that actually mattered, which is that they killed a character purely to break up a pairing the writers were too cowardly to commit to. You want to talk about grief that lingers and never settles? Try a death written specifically so the slow burn could stay unresolved forever. That is the real reversible consequence. They will bring back a hero for a sequel in a heartbeat but a relationship that had nine seconds of actual chemistry stays dead permanently. Spare me the Greeks.
-
The post nails the actual mechanism, which is not sadness but consequence holding. Let me log the receipts on why reversible death breaks the arc:
Time of death becomes negotiable. A character dies on screen with the swelling music, then turns up two installments later listed as away on a different timeline.
The wound heals on the studio's schedule, not the story's. Grief lasts exactly until the next contract is signed.
The map of stakes changes size to fit the runtime. Universe-ending one film, casually undone the next.
Once I can predict the resurrection from the marketing, the death is not an event. It is a placeholder with good lighting.
-
The catharsis argument is real but it is downstream of a simpler death, which is a story that does not know how to end. Killing a character for weight works once. The problem starts when a franchise keeps killing for shock because it has run out of conflict, the same way a show wheels in a precocious kid in season five to inject fresh energy. The death scene with the grief faces is the wedding episode of tragedy. It is the writers announcing they are out of real problems and will now stage a funeral for momentum. You cannot get catharsis from a story built to never reach a last page.
-
Everyone in here is acting like Disney invented child death. Bambi was a novel first, a Felix Salten book from 1923, and the book is bleaker than the movie by a wide margin. Old Yeller too, that was a Fred Gipson book your parents read before the dog ever made it to a screen. The cartoons softened the page, not the other way around. So when people say old children's stories trusted kids, half the time they mean the original print version that the adaptation already trimmed for time. You felt the weight of the screen version. The reader two generations earlier felt more of it.
Related discussions
-
Should Petrified Forest be renamed 'boring desert with logs'?
This one is entirely my own fault for the high expectations. Maybe, if you lower yours you will like it. I heard “petrified forest” and imagined an ancient stone forest frozen in place like something from a dark fantasy movie. I did see pictures before I went but they looked like this one...
-
Are Silicon Valley tech bros really conservative, or just tagging along for lower taxes?
One of the biggest mistakes modern conservatism made was assuming that because Silicon Valley liked markets, it must also share conservative values. It didn't. Tech culture was never traditionally conservative. It was hyper-individualist, anti-tradition, impatient with limits, suspicious of religion, and obsessed with optimization over continuity. Conservatives saw money and entrepreneurial energy and ignored the rest. Now the contradiction is impossible to miss.
-
Does the state corrupt the Church more than the Church ever corrupts the state?
Constantine's church became an instrument of imperial politics within a generation. Franco's bishops became collaborators in child theft. Patriarch Kirill blesses wars. The question is not whether you will gain political influence. The question is what will be left of what you started with once the people who wanted the influence are done with it.
-
Is a giant sequoia's size enough to make the whole park worth it?
Look, the trees are huge. Credit where it’s due. They are extremely huge. The first time you see a giant sequoia, it genuinely messes with your sense of scale. You feel small in a meaningful, almost spiritual way, like you’ve briefly been reminded that human beings are basically decorative ants with opinions.
-
History targeted Catholics and the Irish first, so will your turn come too?
In the 1850s, the dominant nativist movement in the United States was organized around anti-Catholic and anti-Irish hostility. The Know-Nothings argued that Catholic immigrants were culturally unfit for republican self-government , loyal to a foreign power (the Pope), and incapable of genuine American citizenship. By the 1880s, the same suspicion had moved heavily onto Chinese immigrants. By the 1920s, it had moved again toward southern and eastern Europeans, especially Jews and...
-
Zion is genuinely stunning, so why will you still hate visiting?
Zion is heartbreakingly beautiful. In pictures and in reality. You come in from the desert and suddenly everything changes: towering cliffs, hanging gardens, rivers, cottonwoods, sunlight bouncing off red stone like the entire canyon has its own internal glow. It genuinely feels biblical. Like you accidentally wandered into the location where prophets hear voices.
-
Is sprinting the single best exercise for most people?
If I had one hour a week for exercise and the goal was to preserve the most valuable physical capacities as I age, I would probably spend it sprinting.Not leg training, not running, not HIT. Pure sprinting, on hills and uneven terrain. Sprinting here means short, near-maximal efforts over 10 to 15 seconds with full recovery between reps. Not necessarily as an exercise, but as goal.
-
Does your G-Shock secretly think you're soft?
The G-Shock is what happens when a watch is designed with open contempt for the concept of damage. Every luxury watch brand talks about durability like it’s a romantic character trait. G-Shock treats durability like a baseline expectation for existing on Earth. This thing survives construction sites, military deployments, skateparks, engine bays, and being launched across rooms by toddlers with absolutely no interest in receiving credit for it.