Was Therkla fridged by the story?

[KorvinStarmast]

I do think it's pretty incontrovertible that Therkla could have been handled better in some way.

It was hard (in my view, based on my own tastes in stories) for Therkla to be a very credible character when her introduction was this '*swoon*, I am falling for the guy my boss wants me to assassinate since he's cute' premise. I realize that OoTS is funny as well as dramatic; this stab at humor *sitcom awkward style* didn't land as well as most of Rich's humorous bits do. That was not for lack of effort; the underlying sub theme of Therkla being a regular person, with feelings and dreams, who is caught up in the Azurite political power play and is frustated about having little power to change that was (for my money) well represented. Maybe I am bringing some of my own baggage to my read of Therkla, but the message of the Azurites being in trouble and yet the nobles, specifically Kubota, going on because they are so self absorbed in their petty power games struck me as having applicability along the lines of "While Rome Burned, Nero Fiddled," and the bickering among the various groups during a scene in Fellowship of the Ring ... it's in a lot of stories. We see it revisited again, gently, during the dwarf clan chief meeting a few hundred strips later.

To be fair in re my criticism of the Therkla sub arc, Rich's growth as a writer is like the growth of many other writers - it doesn't happen overnight. We got to see one of those messy teenage growing pains things happen. I still love the strip where Elan buries her next to the 'turned to stone' big demon and leaves a nice epitaph ... that was nicely done.

[Ionathus]

I would argue that Therkla's characterization as a romantic was very much in the text from the very beginning.

Agreed, she was already envisioning Elan as a Robin-esque sidekick long before GDGU was written, so that was always part of her character.

Frankenstein is a tragedy, everyone dies, most because of the monster. I'm not sure how true is is to comparing it to fridging.

Specifically for Dr. Frankenstein's wife: "The night following their wedding...the Creature strangles Elizabeth to death. From the window, Victor sees the Creature, who tauntingly points at Elizabeth's corpse"

Feels pretty fridgy to me. I agree the other deaths are debatable.

[Emanick]

Agreed, she was already envisioning Elan as a Robin-esque sidekick long before GDGU was written, so that was always part of her character.



Specifically for Dr. Frankenstein's wife: "The night following their wedding...the Creature strangles Elizabeth to death. From the window, Victor sees the Creature, who tauntingly points at Elizabeth's corpse"

Feels pretty fridgy to me. I agree the other deaths are debatable.

I've always hated Frankenstein; it's a cringey read with very little going for it IMO. But I will say that it's a pretty equal-opportunity offender. Everyone important to Victor Frankenstein dies at the hand of the monster, not just his new bride. It would be pretty inconsistent for the Creature to kill Clerval but not Elizabeth.

Elizabeth's death might be fridging by the letter, but in spirit I don't think it really counts.

[KorvinStarmast]

Elizabeth's death might be fridging by the letter, but in spirit I don't think it really counts.

Maybe the problem is getting tied to fridging as though it's a concept with value. As Deming might offer, that's a zero value added factor.

[Dion]

The Wikipedia definition of fridging is:

fictional female characters who had been "killed, maimed or depowered", in particular in ways that treated the female character as merely a device to move a male character's story arc forward, rather than as a fully developed character in her own right.

I would argue that it does apply to Therkla.

(Probably to Elizabeth in Frankenstein too, but that book is such a hot mess in so many ways.)

[KorvinStarmast]

The Wikipedia definition of fridging is:

Irrelevent... and not the point of my post. It is an exercise in reductionism.

[Dion]

Irrelevent... and not the point of my post. It is an exercise in reductionism.

Well, I have to admit that I don’t understand what reductionism is. And I wasn’t really replying to your post.

But in reference to the point i think you’re trying to make: I disagree.

I fully agree I that a *single* instance of a female character who exists only to enhance a story about a man isn’t a big deal. One grain of sand on the sea of story. So what?

But it’s not a single instance. It’s thousands. And the idea that women exist in stories primarily for the benefit of the stories that men tell about other men is an ugly part of our culture.

It’s not a single grain of sand, it’s a sandbar, and if we were responsible to ourselves we would admit that it exists, and that plenty of stories capsize on it.

[Ionathus]

I've always hated Frankenstein; it's a cringey read with very little going for it IMO. But I will say that it's a pretty equal-opportunity offender. Everyone important to Victor Frankenstein dies at the hand of the monster, not just his new bride. It would be pretty inconsistent for the Creature to kill Clerval but not Elizabeth.

Elizabeth's death might be fridging by the letter, but in spirit I don't think it really counts.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I said earlier, it's been awhile) but I was pretty sure Elizabeth's death was special. She was killed, by the Creature, specifically to make Victor feel as alone as the Creature did (after he refused to build the Creature a bride of its own).

She was killed simply to elicit a response, whereas the other deaths had different motivations (IIRC). I think that qualifies her death for the trope, even among a bunch of other tragic deaths in the book.

I agree on the cringe, though. Jekyll and Hyde, Sherlock Holmes, and everything by Charles Dickens is a snoozefest too. Some classics either influenced storytelling so much that everything innovative feels bland now, or they weren't that great in the first place and are only still taught for cultural value.

Irrelevent... and not the point of my post. It is an exercise in reductionism.

How is offering a definition of the term irrelevant to the conversation? Just labeling it "reductionism" is vague and doesn't really say anything.

I fully agree I that a *single* instance of a female character who exists only to enhance a story about a man isn’t a big deal. One grain of sand on the sea of story. So what?

But it’s not a single instance. It’s thousands. And the idea that women exist in stories primarily for the benefit of the stories that men tell about other men is an ugly part of our culture.

It’s not a single grain of sand, it’s a sandbar, and if we were responsible to ourselves we would admit that it exists, and that plenty of stories capsize on it.

My thoughts exactly. It's not a judgment of this story...it's a trend we should pay attention to and watch for across all stories.

[Precure]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I said earlier, it's been awhile) but I was pretty sure Elizabeth's death was special. She was killed, by the Creature, specifically to make Victor feel as alone as the Creature did (after he refused to build the Creature a bride of its own).

She was killed simply to elicit a response, whereas the other deaths had different motivations (IIRC). I think that qualifies her death for the trope, even among a bunch of other tragic deaths in the book.

What do you think was different about the creature's motivations to murder Victor's little brother and best friend? Frankenstein was always his actual target.

[Jason]

Frankenstein is a tragedy, everyone dies, most because of the monster. I'm not sure how true is is to comparing it to fridging.

Everybody dies because Victor Frankenstein decided to try to create life through non-traditional means and then was unprepared to be a parent. The monster is a victim too. A malicious victim in the end, but a victim.

I'm not sure I understand why the term "fridging" specifies a female dying to forward a male character's story, when having any character exist only to die or suffer just to forward a main character's story would seem to me to be just as bad regardless of what genders are involved. Having a special term for this particular gender combo would seem to imply that its not as bad with another set of genders involved (male dying to motivate female, or male dying to motivate male, or female dying to motivate female).

[Saint-Just]

Well, I have to admit that I donÂ’t understand what reductionism is. And I wasnÂ’t really replying to your post.

But in reference to the point i think youÂ’re trying to make: I disagree.

I fully agree I that a *single* instance of a female character who exists only to enhance a story about a man isnÂ’t a big deal. One grain of sand on the sea of story. So what?

But itÂ’s not a single instance. ItÂ’s thousands. And the idea that women exist in stories primarily for the benefit of the stories that men tell about other men is an ugly part of our culture.

ItÂ’s not a single grain of sand, itÂ’s a sandbar, and if we were responsible to ourselves we would admit that it exists, and that plenty of stories capsize on it.

Except in a story, unless it's something absurdly lengthy you will have one issue of "fridging", two tops. The "sandbar" exists out of story. Same with passing Behdel test etc. I do not think that any story is able to capsize on any of aforementioned "sandbars" by itself.

I'll extend the analogy with much less contentious dead horse, namely Deus Ex Machina. If you have only seen the stories which resolve by themselves (some very reasonably, others by ridiculous contrivance, but never by an action of an outside force which was doing nothing right before the ending), and then you have suddenly seen DeM I think at the worst you'd end up with "love it or hate it" work, and maybe with something hailed as a fresh breath in the stagnant <genre>. Except the ancients have made this route thoroughly unnavigable well before any of us was born.

It is not a sandbar. It is ships which tried to take this route and ran aground and thus have made that route harder for future ships to navigate. And it is not in the story but in public perception (if I want to make this metaphor extra ridiculous I probably should say something about perception raising or lowering the sea bottom, which results in ships which had successfully passed that route (being well-liked and well-regarded when they were released) retroactively sinking (being regarded as bad by the modern standards) and causing a chain reaction sinking more ships and making the route suddenly difficult which results in a work which would have no problems passing (being successful) two or four or six years before sinking instantly).

My point? Even if you are looking specifically at representation within a work (and not too long ago proponents of proper representation was talking about representation in the genre/industry, but now it's specifically held against each individual work) you are not making good points by using formal criterions. Look at the ridiculous things which film industry sometimes uses to lower (or contrariwise intentionally raise) the age rating. If you are just want to spend five minutes to ask a question "should I read that", fine, use all the aforementioned tests which are inaccurate (as all rules of thumb), but useful (as most rules of thumb). But if you are spending many hours of your time on a forum specifically dedicated to this work, using formal criterions, especially pass/fail criterions is unproductive.

[understatement]

Everybody dies because Victor Frankenstein decided to try to create life through non-traditional means and then was unprepared to be a parent. The monster is a victim too. A malicious victim in the end, but a victim.

I'm not sure I understand why the term "fridginfg" specifies a female dying to forward a male character's story, when having any character exist only to die or suffer just to forward a main character's story would seem to me to be just as bad regardless of what genders are involved. Having a special term for this particular gender combo would seem to imply that its not as bad with another set of genders involved (male dying to motivate female, or male dying to motivate male, or female dying to motivate female).

It's not. Fridging, ambiguous as the definition is, can absolutely encompass any character of any background. The term simply happens to originate to female characters dying (often in a cruel fashion) for male heroes to feel bad because that was the trope being observed in comics at the time.

It's a villain-hero-victim triangular dynamic, and it can have several connotations associated with it.

[Ruck]

The Wikipedia definition of fridging is:

fictional female characters who had been "killed, maimed or depowered", in particular in ways that treated the female character as merely a device to move a male character's story arc forward, rather than as a fully developed character in her own right.

I would argue that it does apply to Therkla.

(Probably to Elizabeth in Frankenstein too, but that book is such a hot mess in so many ways.)

Are you arguing that? Because multiple people, including myself, have made the case that

treated the female character as merely a device to move a male character's story arc forward, rather than as a fully developed character in her own right.

does not apply here.

How is offering a definition of the term irrelevant to the conversation? Just labeling it "reductionism" is vague and doesn't really say anything.

Yeah, I don't understand that either.

[Dion]

I'll extend the analogy with much less contentious dead horse, namely Deus Ex Machina.

Terribly sorry. The Indiana Jones argument is in the Macguffin thread.

But seriously, I mostly agree with what I think you’re saying. Saying Therkla was fridged / not fridged probably isn’t a helpful metric on which to judge OotS.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t let that stop us from arguing!

Are you arguing that?

Oh heavens no. That seems like hard work!

But seriously? It’s a comic about D&D. Literally hundreds of characters have died to further the character arc of the main characters.

My only real complaint is that most of the characters we argue about most are female, and I honestly don’t know why that’s the case. Does it say more about us the author or the readers?

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, I have to admit that I don’t understand what reductionism is. And I wasn’t really replying to your post.

Sorry, I misread your post.

How is offering a definition of the term irrelevant to the conversation?

The irony of your "vague" complaint amuses me. Pay close attention to what our OP for this thread has observed/admitted to:

Fridging, ambiguous as the definition is

I think you missed the part where I made the "zero value added" assessment of an over-worshipped term.

In short, no sale.

Quite frankly, I find it insulting to the author (whatever imperfections the Therkla sub arc may have had) to apply this dismissive and reductionist descriptive to that character. I begin to appreciate why the author rarely reads/responds to forum posts anymore.

[understatement]

Sorry, I misread your post.
The irony of your "vague" complaint amuses me. Pay close attention to what our OP for this thread has observed/admitted to:

I think you missed the part where I made the "zero value added" assessment of an over-worshipped term.

In short, no sale.

Quite frankly, I find it insulting to the author (whatever imperfections the Therkla sub arc may have had) to apply this dismissive and reductionist descriptive to that character. I begin to appreciate why the author rarely reads/responds to forum posts anymore.

I know fridging has the "knee-jerk" reaction of being ugly, but it's not necessarily so. Some of the most iconic and well-written deaths in media would fall under the umbrella.

In fact, several posts here have even said that even if it was fridging, it's still a well-written death. I think it's valid to take a look at a work from over 10 years ago and analyze it. OOTS is still an ongoing, dynamic work; a lot has changed, both in-story and out of it.

One of the points of the term "fridging" is that it doesn't really have a set definition, because it's not a genuine word, and I think it's interesting to see how something coined rather recently can still apply to a lot of works in different types of media, and if there's a common definition to be found or not. It's not my intention to be dismissive/reductive, and I don't think anyone on this thread was purposely trying to restrict it either, so much as find a foundation to build off analyses.

[Ionathus]

What do you think was different about the creature's motivations to murder Victor's little brother and best friend? Frankenstein was always his actual target.

Like I said, I didn't remember their deaths. If they were killed specifically to hurt Victor, they count as well!

Everybody dies because Victor Frankenstein decided to try to create life through non-traditional means and then was unprepared to be a parent. The monster is a victim too. A malicious victim in the end, but a victim.

I'm not sure I understand why the term "fridging" specifies a female dying to forward a male character's story, when having any character exist only to die or suffer just to forward a main character's story would seem to me to be just as bad regardless of what genders are involved. Having a special term for this particular gender combo would seem to imply that its not as bad with another set of genders involved (male dying to motivate female, or male dying to motivate male, or female dying to motivate female).

Many (most?) people don't believe the victim has to be female, myself among them. The term just emerged because a female writer noticed a pattern that happened to women in comic books.

[Goblin_Priest]

I'll admit I didn't read your whole argument, but I would say, no.

She isn't Elan's love interest, Haley is, and had been for some time at that point. Though he appeared to grow to care for her, he was still loyal to Haley.

Her death also isn't what fuels Elan's quest. He was already in conflict with her boss before they grew a relationship. Which itself was just a minor subplot in his quest against Xykon. And he's not even the one that resolves that arc, V is, in 595, with desintegrate.

"Women in fridges", imo, is about presenting a character solely so her death (or capture, perhaps, to some extent) can serve as a driving factor for the companion protagonist.

If you want to fit all "women with ties to a protagonist that dies" into this trope, you end up making it overly broad.

[Ruck]

I know fridging has the "knee-jerk" reaction of being ugly, but it's not necessarily so. Some of the most iconic and well-written deaths in media would fall under the umbrella.

See, I've been operating under the assumption that "fridging" necessarily has a negative connotation, else its definition is too broad to offer meaningful critique of the trope.

[Goblin_Priest]

See, I've been operating under the assumption that "fridging" necessarily has a negative connotation, else its definition is too broad to offer meaningful critique of the trope.

I dunno, sometimes something can be neutral by itself, but a trend can be negative.

There's nothing wrong with *one* X character being Y.

There's something sketchy about *every* X character being Y.

X being whatever gender, ethnic, religious, or other such group, while Y being a trait or a treatment.

As such, there's nothing wrong with killing or maiming a character as a way to motivate another in the story. It gets a little tired if everyone redoes the same thing. Kind of how one Death Star was great, a second death star was kinda meh, a third was pretty lame, and a whole fleet of them was just ridiculous.

While an author isn't responsible for others' narrative choices, he can and should be aware of the context he writes in, and of the trends he's participating in.

All that said, the trope was born from superhero comics, which targets a mostly heterosexual male audience, and since a romantic interest's lost is the easiest motivator, it's kind of normal that women tend to get the shafted in these stories. It's not just women, though, you get uncles, friends, fathers, and the like that also die to motivate the protagonists, but girlfriend will just tend to come back often because of how easy it is. And, I mean, if the bad guy wants to hurt the protagonist, why /wouldn't/ he target his girlfriend?

[Emanick]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I said earlier, it's been awhile) but I was pretty sure Elizabeth's death was special. She was killed, by the Creature, specifically to make Victor feel as alone as the Creature did (after he refused to build the Creature a bride of its own).

She was killed simply to elicit a response, whereas the other deaths had different motivations (IIRC). I think that qualifies her death for the trope, even among a bunch of other tragic deaths in the book.

I agree on the cringe, though. Jekyll and Hyde, Sherlock Holmes, and everything by Charles Dickens is a snoozefest too. Some classics either influenced storytelling so much that everything innovative feels bland now, or they weren't that great in the first place and are only still taught for cultural value.

While I'm aware that such value judgments are somewhat subjective, I'd put Frankenstein in a very different category from your other examples. I've read "Jekyll and Hyde," the complete Sherlock Holmes canon, and about half a dozen Dickens novels. All of them were interesting and dynamic books/short stories that I found thoroughly enjoyable (well, Great Expectations was a downer, still a good book though), and while some of them had elements of cringe (no surprise given the time period they come from), they were overall good reads. Frankenstein is different; it moves at a glacial pace and is terribly plotted, with no sense of momentum and little taking place between the few significant events in the narrative. It is melodramatic, lacks interesting and dynamic characters, and has a predictable, repetitive plot with little tension. Its only redeeming points are the fact that it has an excellent, original premise and succeeds at establishing an immersive, sustained atmosphere.

Basically, it's a typical "author's first novel attempt" that should have been completely rewritten before being published, but the author was extremely well-connected and the publishing industry was quite different 200 years ago, so it got published in its original form.

What separates it from other plodding (by today's standards) 19th century classics is a predictable, utterly un-dynamic plot and a complete lack of interesting characterization (you can tell that all of the characters were written by an overwrought, underexposed teenager when you notice that all three narrators sound exactly the same). It's important because it helped establish a new genre, not because it's a good book in itself. It's more Castle of Otranto than Tom Jones.

...Sorry, I got a little carried away there. To bring this back to ladies in outsized household appliances, I saw someone argue upthread that Therkla's death doesn't make a meaningful impact on the narrative beyond causing Elan to learn Neutralize Poison. I disagree. It's an important step in helping him to become a more serious character who can get invested in the lives of people outside of their "story purpose," thus setting him up for the Tarquin arc. Elan's speech to Vaarsuvius about how Therkla is a *person* with hopes and dreams, not just a means to an end, helps to contrast him with his father, who has a similarly story-centric worldview but who, unlike Elan, is unable to see past it to value people as individuals.

[Jason]

Its only redeeming points are the fact that it has an excellent, original premise and succeeds at establishing an immersive, sustained atmosphere.

Sometimes all a novel needs to be a success, have uncountable adaptations, and college courses dedicated to studying it 200 years later is "an excellent, original premise" and the ability "to sustain an atmosphere."

[Emanick]

Sometimes all a novel needs to be a success, have uncountable adaptations, and college courses dedicated to studying it 200 years later is "an excellent, original premise" and the ability "to sustain an atmosphere."

To my lasting sorrow, this indeed appears to be the case.

[KorvinStarmast]

Elan's speech to Vaarsuvius about how Therkla is a *person* with hopes and dreams, not just a means to an end, helps to contrast him with his father, who has a similarly story-centric worldview but who, unlike Elan, is unable to see past it to value people as individuals.

Indeed. Rich didn't fridge her, even if some people in this thread want to. Maybe they need to write their own stories.

@Jason: yeah, and it helps to be connected to a publishing house to get that book into print. Sometimes, in real life, it's more "who you know" than "what you know."

[Goblin_Priest]

...Sorry, I got a little carried away there. To bring this back to ladies in outsized household appliances, I saw someone argue upthread that Therkla's death doesn't make a meaningful impact on the narrative beyond causing Elan to learn Neutralize Poison. I disagree. It's an important step in helping him to become a more serious character who can get invested in the lives of people outside of their "story purpose," thus setting him up for the Tarquin arc. Elan's speech to Vaarsuvius about how Therkla is a *person* with hopes and dreams, not just a means to an end, helps to contrast him with his father, who has a similarly story-centric worldview but who, unlike Elan, is unable to see past it to value people as individuals.

I'm not really convinced. Elan was already a good character, who wanted to do the good thing, and help others out. I don't really see a contrast between "before Therkla" and "after Therkla", as far as Elan is concerned, whereas WiF is usually about a male having a "content peaceful" before and a "driven by a need for justice" after. Elan just buries her and she's barely ever brought up again.

Honestly, that whole sub-plot was more V's arc than Elan's.

[ebarde]

I mean, I don't think it was more for V's sake cause that would be a very roundabout way of going about it imo. The intersection of that plotline with V's was way too small for that to be all it was supposed to lead to, and until that moment that whole sub-plot revolved entirely around Elan. Also Blood Runs in the Family was the book right after this one, which was a book all about Elan that also dealt with the dangers of using stories to escape from reality.

[hungrycrow]

I'm not really convinced. Elan was already a good character, who wanted to do the good thing, and help others out. I don't really see a contrast between "before Therkla" and "after Therkla", as far as Elan is concerned, whereas WiF is usually about a male having a "content peaceful" before and a "driven by a need for justice" after. Elan just buries her and she's barely ever brought up again.

Honestly, that whole sub-plot was more V's arc than Elan's.

It's not that Elan wasn't a good character, its that he wasn't serious. He was a guy that would stay captured in an escapable net, or push a self-destruct button, because that's what heroes are supposed to do. He was just playing good guys and bad guys, expecting narrative convention to make things work out in the end. This is the first time he gets confronted with the fact that people can still get hurt and die when he just goes along with the rules of drama. An idea that gets explored more in BRitF.

Also, Elan barely remembered that he was a spellcaster earlier in the story. Him putting serious thought into his spell selection is a pretty big change.

[Emanick]

It's not that Elan wasn't a good character, its that he wasn't serious. He was a guy that would stay captured in an escapable net, or push a self-destruct button, because that's what heroes are supposed to do. He was just playing good guys and bad guys, expecting narrative convention to make things work out in the end. This is the first time he gets confronted with the fact that people can still get hurt and die when he just goes along with the rules of drama. An idea that gets explored more in BRitF.

Also, Elan barely remembered that he was a spellcaster earlier in the story. Him putting serious thought into his spell selection is a pretty big change.

Yes, exactly this. Thank you for putting it better than I did.

Without this growth, Elan arguably wouldn't have been prepared for all the growing up he was forced to do during BRitF. The Therkla arc is a bridge between his more immature, carefree persona and the more mature and capable character he has become since Book 5.

Also, I don't really understand the argument I've been seeing that "Therkla is barely mentioned in future arcs, therefore she was a disposable character and her arc didn't matter" (apologies if I paraphrased something to the point of strawmanning it; that's not my intent here). Most things that happened in previous books are rarely mentioned explicitly later on. That doesn't mean they didn't matter; it just means that the story has moved on and Rich only has so much panel space, so he's not going to reference an earlier, important event without a good reason (usually a good joke like the one we got here).

[danielxcutter]

It’s not like she wasn’t mentioned at all in later strips; when Qarr and Sabine are talking during the ambush scene he indirectly mentions her dying as a result of getting involved with Elan.

[Goblin_Priest]

I didn't say she was pointless filler. I said she wasn't a driving force for any character or the story itself.

She did contribute to the story, the world setting, and to character growth. But if you take her out completely, then the story wouldn't have a huge gap in it either.

Uncle Ben in Spider Man, and Bruce's parents in Batman are far better examples of "women in refrigerators", even if not all actual women. They are characters whose main purpose is to get killed in order to motivate the main character, which makes them do a complete 180 on their agendas.

Therkla doesn't provoke a 180 in anyone. Just just adds a minor touch of complexity and growth to existing characters. That's not what the fridge trope is about.

And while Elan's book comes next, this is still V's. Way more than setting up Elan's interactions with his father, it sets up V's interactions with the IFCC. It showcases V's immoral descent. It also ironically showcases the Order growing as a team, with V embracing Elan's narrative rhetoric even before Roy does.

Therkla is a woman, and Therkla died. But that does not make her fit the "women in refrigerator" trope, else the trope becomes too broad and meaningless. V's family are way more "women in refrigerators" than Therkla is.