At 02:24 PM 1/24/2003 -0600, pddb at demesne.com wrote: >SPOILERS FOR EMMA BULL'S FINDER, possibly spoilers if you are finicky >for WAR FOR THE OAKS: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 11:54:42AM -0600, Rosemary Ighel wrote: > > IMO, Emma killed Tick to no purpose. It didn't move the story along, it > > just made you feel bad. At least in War for the Oaks, when she kills > one of > > the characters (sorry, don't know if you've read it or not) there's a > > reason. Makes me mad that she took the easy way out, mostly because > she's a > > way better writer than that. > >Oh, I don't think that was the easy way out at all. Killing Linn >-- Rico's partner -- would have been the easy way out. That would >have kept a lot of the thematic structure in place, but it would >have lacked any teeth. Yes. Exactly. There are good deaths, and bad ones. The bad ones always remind me of the westerns where the girl has to choose between the good guy and the bad guy, and the bad guy gets killed at the end so no one actually has to deal with the emotional tangle. Those are bad deaths. Emma does good deaths. In my extremely arrogant opinion.