Talk:Kuuderika/@comment-2607:FEA8:55E0:6E7:D9A3:CE5C:812:F1D0-20180404024731/@comment-36676058-20180823200055

"If Maruyama didn't build a sense of investment in her character, her death wouldn't be felt as keenly." Look at the way other literature and works of fiction are written. In commonly-accepted guidelines and advice for creative writing, killing off a character after considerable story focus and after intentionally getting the audience to worked up in sympathy in their plight - without resolving their plight - is a big no-no. I usually advocate 'breaking the mold' in fiction, but not when it taunts the audience so much and makes them feel so betrayed.

Yes, it is acceptable to kill off a character fans love - even a major character. But there is a right and and wrong way to do that. For such a character, the death has to have some meaning. Even in Greek tragedies the deaths of loved characters have meaning. Otherwise, the death rings hollow and it feels like the author is poking fun at the audience for even having feelings for the character.

'"A red herring would have been if Maruyama left it uncertain whether or not she actually died, as happened with Calca." 'I'm usually against leaving a plot or a character's fate unresolved. However, in the case of Arche and ESPECIALLY her young, innocent sisters, that would have been much preferable. Like I said, the author could have left it to the imagination. Granted, you can't please everyone. But, at least that way, both sides (those for and against killing off these characters) could have it their way through imagining their fate.

Let me ask you this: How important to the enjoyment of Overlord as a whole is the fate of Arche and her sisters? Does it mean everything to you? Well, I can say honestly that Arche's fate and, especially, the fate of her young sisters pretty much ruins Overlord for me in it's entirety. (Well, both this and how what Demiurge called "sheep" actually referred to human skin and meat. Way too much info!)

"But leading you to care about Arche and be invested in her character and hoping she could be saved was not a red herring, it was the entire point." Perhaps "red herring" is the not most appropriate term. But you can't deny that the author very strongly led the audience to believe one thing (that Arche was a character of significance that would likely survive in one form or other), only to do the opposite. It played with the audience's feelings and then betrayed those feelings.

"...Artistically, it was simply a failure." First, I'm not sure that I'd call it a fate worse than death. Being a living host to parasites that slowly eat you from the inside out - that is worse than a merciful death. I'd also argue against the label of "bad porn". But, really, that comes down to taste and preference. And I can't agree about the LN taking Arche more seriously because I felt it did just the opposite. It trivialized both the characters' very existence and the audience's feelings.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Though, I still say that the main reason the LN focused on Arche that much is because it seemed preferable to recycle as much of the character as possible from the WN. If Arche was new to the LN and did not exist in the WN, I'm sure her story would've been much shorter (if she existed at all).

I'm just sad that I lost my enthusiam for Overlord. I used to be quite a fan. But not anymore. I realized it was dark stuff from the start and I realized that Ainz was a villain. This was a refreshing change and I did not have a problem with it... at first. But, for me, it crossed a line. I do understand that schadenfreude is a big part of the appeal. Though, I can only enjoy it if the victim actually deserved retribution.