out of interest as a writer, could you give an example for:
UNLESSâď¸as a poetic consequence of something either character themselves inadvertently put into motion
Syndrome in The Incredibles: He could have taken the L, but instead chose to kidnap the heroesâ son, resulting in his cape sucking him into a jet engine, which calls back to Ednaâs insistence on heroes not wearing capes for safety reasons- this death symbolically reinforces that Syndrome is not a hero (wears a cape where Edna wonât let a hero do) and is instead obsessed with the APPEARANCE of being one (wearing a cape like a hero in a comic book).
He is not a hero, he is a villain who makes villainous choices to make himself look heroic, and he dooms himself on both counts. If he had any interest in actually BEING a hero- in ACTUALLY putting himself in danger- he would know how risky a cape IS (literally AND symbolically) and as such would not have had one to begin with.
In this case, the villain dying without being directly killed, is not a cop-out: itâs poetic tragedy. The existence of the cape that kills him is a symptom of his fatal flaw- if it wasnât there, he wouldnât be doomed, but if it wasnât there, it would be because he lacked the flaw that led him to his death. The caper represents the trappings of a heroic image without substance. Syndrome pursues the trappings while lacking the substance. The trappings then trap him.
Now if he had, say, just been hit by a car or something for comedic effect? In a way totally divorced from his choices and actions? Cop-out. Absurd. The message goes from âthe appearance of heroism is not the same as heroism- a real hero is a hero because of who they choose to be, not how they lookâ to âchoices are meaningless and some people are just irredeemable assholes we shouldnât give a shit about, the universe is random and at the same time judgemental of sin, bad things happen because you are a bad person and you cannot fight itâ.
THAT is an EXCELLENT example of âhero canât killâ and âvillain canât be stoppedâ where âvillain dies anywaysâ is justified, imo, because it MEANS something.
It was avoidable. The villain doomed himself. He didnât just die because he had to, because there were no other ways to wrap the story up. He did it to himself. It could have happened today or in twenty years, but he made it happen, because the flaws that made him a villain are the same flaws that caused his death.
Just one fantastic example of the importance of the villainâs takedown to the overall story