Deathly Importance--A Blog

I saw Stranger than Fiction a few months ago. I liked it. And Will Ferrell can act as something other than a bumbling idiot. Who knew?

Anyway, the story eventually boils down to that Emma Thompson’s character has written a book. Unbeknownst to her, her character (Will Ferrell) is an actual living, breathing person whose life is being dictated by her plot. The book plot says that Will’s character must die.

A literary agent tries to help the author and the character. He says that the ending with the character’s death will be a masterpiece of literature. The ending that spares him is weaker.

My question is this: is death required to make a story great?

Why was the ending with the character’s death better? Because it makes the story more tragic: the character dies just as he is discovering a new life? Or because it’s the accepted formula for a great work?

The Iliad, for example, is one of the world’s oldest epics. One of its heroes is Achilles, who goes to war knowing there’s a prophecy about his death at Troy. He is hailed as a great hero by many for fighting in the face of certain death. Would he have been a lesser hero if he fought just as valiantly and survived?

Regarding Shakespeare, would the idea that our lives are beyond our control be less obvious if the odds had worked out in Romeo and Juliet’s favor? Would Hamlet not be a weaker study in revenge without fewer deaths? Could a tragedy still be a tragedy without death?

I don’t know. I’m just a lowly biochem major. But, to me, it’s an interesting thought.



Deathly Importance I saw Stranger than Fiction a few months ago. I liked it. And Will Ferrell can act as something other than a bumbling idiot. Who knew? Anyway, the story eventually boils down to that Emma Thompson’s character has written a book. Unbeknownst to her, her character (Will Ferrell) is an actual living, breathing person whose life is being dictated by her plot. The book plot says that Will’s character must die. A literary agent tries to help the author and the character. He says that the ending with the character’s death will be a masterpiece of literature. The ending that spares him is weaker. My question is this: is death required to make a story great? Why was the ending with the character’s death better? Because it makes the story more tragic: the character dies just as he is discovering a new life? Or because it’s the accepted formula for a great work? The Iliad, for example, is one of the world’s oldest epics. One of its heroes is Achilles, who goes to war knowing there’s a prophecy about his death at Troy. He is hailed as a great hero by many for fighting in the face of certain death. Would he have been a lesser hero if he fought just as valiantly and survived? Regarding Shakespeare, would the idea that our lives are beyond our control be less obvious if the odds had worked out in Romeo and Juliet’s favor? Would Hamlet not be a weaker study in revenge without fewer deaths? Could a tragedy still be a tragedy without death? I don’t know. I’m just a lowly biochem major. But, to me, it’s an interesting thought.

Back to Blogs Sarah's Sanctuary