Tara's Death - Was it really necessary?

[The Night Lord]

Tara was shot. A natural death. No coming back from that. Only if you've died a mystical death can you be resurrected. Like Buffy and Kennedy...still wondering how the hell Kennedy died a mystical death and came back. Why couldn't she just stay dead?

[ambersknight]

Kennedy died a mystical death? When? I presume you are discussing season 8 there.

As for the whole "Tara couldn't be brought back cos it was a natural death", I would argue a bullet is hardly a natural death but even given that conceit we re-enter the fact that canon says otherwise but I'm not going through that argument again as I've stated my position on that a couple of times now.

[wenxina]

A bullet through the chest is hardly a supernatural death.

[ambersknight]

No but I wouldn't call it a natural death either. A mundane death is probably a more accurate title.

[wenxina]

I think the distinction made was "natural" vs. "supernatural". A gun shot wound, impalement, run over by a bus, heart attack, cancer, AIDS, hepatitis, malaria, typhoid fever, bird flu, swine flu, choking on food, drowning... all mundane, yes, but also natural causes of death. Having your soul ripped out of your body by a pulsing vortex... not so much.

As for Kennedy dying a mystical death, it happened behind the scenes... still awaiting more info on that for anything conclusive on the hows and whys. And yes, S8... or rather pre-S8, since it's first referenced in "TLWH".

[ambersknight]

Okay, but it still(as I've argued before and won't be repeating the argument again) goes against canon to say someone can't be raised back from death by bullet.

I don't read season 8, hence why I was wondering.

[Mathieu]

Jun 10, 2009 7:16:20 GMT -5 @ambersknight said:

No but I wouldn't call it a natural death either. A mundane death is probably a more accurate title.

You seem a little hypocritical to me on this debate. I'm trying to find the right word for it in English... You know, when somebody absolutely knows that they are wrong but still will refuse to admit the truth for whatever reasons? Two-faced? I would definitely accuse you of "mauvaise foi" in French. Bad faith that is.

[ambersknight]

Hardly two-faced. How can I be hypocritical when I've remained absolutely on point all the way through. Don't understand you at all. To disagree with me is one thing, to call me bull headed or disingenuous is quite something else and I take considerable offence at it.

[Mathieu]

Jun 10, 2009 11:11:36 GMT -5 @ambersknight said:

Hardly two-faced. How can I be hypocritical when I've remained absolutely on point all the way through. Don't understand you at all. To disagree with me is one thing, to call me bull headed or disingenuous is quite something else and I take considerable offence at it.

Sorry, two-faced is probably not the right term in this context, but disingenuous sounds like you indeed :-).

I'm not putting into question the fact you stuck to your same argument all along, you've been very consistent. But when you start saying Tara's death was not a natural death... I'm scratching my head in disbelief.

[ambersknight]

Its hardly disingenuous to say someone getting shot is not a natural death. Dying of old age is a natural death, pretty much anything else isn't. That doesn't mean I was in any way suggesting her death was supernatural (at no point did I claim that) only that it was not natural. See what I mean now? Being hit by a car isn't a natural death. I would call it a mundane death in that it happens but is not a natural way to die.

Does that make sense or are you still going to accuse me of being disingenuous?

[Midnight Butterfly]

Jun 10, 2009 9:59:57 GMT -5 said:

WOW I just love these types of roundabouts;



No its really not out of context to the thread.

Ahaha. Do they really make round abouts like that? Thats the kind of stuff that scares me from learning how to drive
Thanks to you Evilwillowrocker I will be walking to Uni in the future, hope you happy .

[Mathieu]

Jun 10, 2009 11:44:46 GMT -5 @ambersknight said:

Its hardly disingenuous to say someone getting shot is not a natural death. Dying of old age is a natural death, pretty much anything else isn't. That doesn't mean I was in any way suggesting her death was supernatural (at no point did I claim that) only that it was not natural. See what I mean now? Being hit by a car isn't a natural death. I would call it a mundane death in that it happens but is not a natural way to die.

Does that make sense or are you still going to accuse me of being disingenuous?

Ok I need Wenxina to weigh in now as he is the scientist here! But in my opinion it is still a natural death. If you get shot in the head, your brains stops functioning, if you get shot in the chest, your lungs might stop functioning, plus the loss of blood... It all sounds natural to me.

Ok let me check on Wikipedia...

"In medicine, death by natural causes is a loosely-defined term used by coroners describing death when the cause of death was a naturally occurring disease process, or is not apparent given medical history or circumstances. Thus, deaths caused by active human intervention (as opposed to the failure of medical intervention to prevent death) are excluded from this definition, and are described as unnatural deaths."

Other interesting link: www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/final_report/annex_a/chapter_18_12.htm

And I guess that proves your point Ambersknight!

[ambersknight]

Yeah, I guess it would have been smart of me to use the term "unnatural death" rather than mundane, saved a lot of hassle but I guess the point was that Tara getting shot wasn't a natural death. It wasn't a supernatural or mystical death, but it was an unnatural one.

[wenxina]

Semantics... *shakes head and rolls eyes* First rule in arguing... always make sure you're arguing about the same thing... otherwise, well, that illustration up there pretty much sums it up.

[Rebecca]

Jun 10, 2009 7:50:32 GMT -5 wenxina said:

I think the distinction made was "natural" vs. "supernatural". A gun shot wound, impalement, run over by a bus, heart attack, cancer, AIDS, hepatitis, malaria, typhoid fever, bird flu, swine flu, choking on food, drowning... all mundane, yes, but also natural causes of death. Having your soul ripped out of your body by a pulsing vortex... not so much.

As for Kennedy dying a mystical death, it happened behind the scenes... still awaiting more info on that for anything conclusive on the hows and whys. And yes, S8... or rather pre-S8, since it's first referenced in "TLWH".

This. I think you summed that up rather succinctly, Xi.

[henzINNIT]

Tara's death kinda feels like a retread. We'd JUST done the "lost a family member, life is crappy" thing the year before with Joyce, and we'd also JUST done the "Tara's been battered by the villain and Willow gets mad" thing a couple of episodes later. The poor girl did a lot of suffering.

[Just Willow]

Jun 10, 2009 11:44:46 GMT -5 @ambersknight said:

Its hardly disingenuous to say someone getting shot is not a natural death. Dying of old age is a natural death, pretty much anything else isn't. That doesn't mean I was in any way suggesting her death was supernatural (at no point did I claim that) only that it was not natural. See what I mean now? Being hit by a car isn't a natural death. I would call it a mundane death in that it happens but is not a natural way to die.

Does that make sense or are you still going to accuse me of being disingenuous?

Just to put this out there: Osiris defined a natural death as a `human death by human means.`

[buffyfan21]

Wow, let's steer this conversation back to the topic at hand shall we....

I wish Tara's death had never happened, but I if you chose to think about it in terms of storytelling, I do think it was a necessary evil in terms of moving the plot along. I don't like saying that Tara's death was used simply as a plot device, but if you think about realistically, that's exactly what is was. Tara's death pushed Willow further into her magic addiction and was the thing needed to send her off the deep end. I don't think Joss really likes killing off any of his beloved characters, but he does so because it is essential to the story he is trying to tell.

I argue that Joss has never killed off a character without some underlying cause or reason, he does so because it serves the story being told and propels the overall plot along. Every death was played out to serve a need. Take Joyce's death for example, as much as I love her character and hated to see her go, I understand, at least in terms of the story, why Joss killed her off. Joyce's death moved Buffy's story along just as Tara's death did with Willow's.

Do I hate that beloved characters like Tara were killed off? Yes indeedy. Do I wish that Tara and Joyce and Jenny and all the others could have stayed around forever? You bet! For one thing, it would have been a much happier ending that way! But alas, it was never really about happy endings.

Tara's death and the death of all the others was done in the service of great storytelling. Sometimes telling a great story means doing some unpleasant things in terms of plot.

So, do I think that Tara's death was necessary? In terms of the overall story I would argue yes. Now, if we are talking in terms of the realistic aspect, then I would say absolutely not because all Tara's death brought to Willow was pain.

Hopefully my rambling makes sense to someone...

[ambersknight]

But as I have argued, buffyfan, I don't think it was necessary because I personally don't think the magic addiction storyline was strong enough to justify such a rash action. I personally think Joss just did it cos he wanted a shock for his audience. No artistic merit, just a jump start. I stand by my belief that it was inane, lame and a terrible re-hash of previous seasons which were done much better.

[henzINNIT]

A magic abuse story doesn't need Tara to die to be work, especially as the writers decided to make it into a simple drug addiction. It was a quick way to throw Willow into a dark place (as they did the year before).