David is amusingly outing himself as to how far behind the comics times he is...

I loved that Barry-not-Barry storyline, though. Waid-era Flash was the shit.

IIRC, Barry's the one character with a 'dead for good' stamp per DC editorial.

How do you know if you didn't read it?

As a matter of storytelling principle, I think it's a bad idea. It's the crackpipe of cheap narrative. It jerks people around. It's like putting a child in jeopardy. And it really diminished my love for Farscape. I didn't feel anything when Zhaan died - and she was a character I really liked. But they'd just killed off and resurrected Aeryn within the previous episodes.

Same with Buffy?

A bit less. For better or worse, Joss made her pay for it with an entire season of angst. So while death wasn't as consequential as it is in real-life - it wasn't inconsequential either. Angel got pooped out of Hell and had a couple of episodes of nightsweats and that's it. They never even really alluded to his 200 years in hell that much.

I don't think the killing (or killing and resurrecting) principle is a bad thing. I think doing it crappily is a bad thing.

They never even really alluded to his 200 years in hell that much.

And usually only then for a cheap laugh. Some REALLY funny cheap laughs, but yeah.

Angel got pooped out of Hell and had a couple of episodes of nightsweats and that's it. They never even really alluded to his 200 years in hell that much

But Angel going to hell for a couple centuries wasn't about Angel. It was about Buffy, and as such, had narrative consequences for the remainder of the series WRT her ability to open herself up and trust.

You could argue, I suppose, that it would have worked as well if he'd stayed dead, but I don't think it would have, because an Angel remaining dead is one where your friends aren't looking and saying that it all turned out okay anyhow.

Stargate kills their people (or duplicates) as much as any show I've seen -- and it still gets me. And they're not even an example of stellar writing. Whether or not they come back, the death is painful and wrong (or noble and wrong, but still with the wrong).

I don't think the killing (or killing and resurrecting) principle is a bad thing. I think doing it crappily is a bad thing.

Well, and doing it often. If a character is killed, I want it to mean something. Which is why I don't want to see Jason Todd return. (Do we know who's Red Hood yet? I haven't been reading the Batman title.)

Of course, I'm curious about Firestorm (another title I don't read), because his eponymous title is still going even though Shadow Thief killed him. (It's the whole Show-Called-Buffy conundrum.)

I'm curious about Firestorm (another title I don't read), because his eponymous title is still going even though Shadow Thief killed him

It's not still going. It's a new title, starting over from #1, with a new Firestorm.

I also think that killing a character often can be done well. Gets harder, but if you're killing them for good narrative reasons, there can also be good narrative reasons to kill them a lot.

David is amusingly outing himself as to how far behind the comics times he is...

It's not like I don't have references and little history capsules bookmarked either. But fuckety it's convoluted. I'm just not committed to relearning my post-Crisis continuity, especially when they fuck with it so much.

Probably explains why I enjoy The Outsiders or JLE more than most superhero titles. So many new characters, I don't have to worry about the backstory.