User blog comment:Fyrstknight777/Just Started Watching & done w it!/@comment-24018437-20190125095726

Oh boy, here we go.

"She was in my opinion a great asset to the whole group! They could have seriously injured her instead, coma, lost the leg, life hanging in the balance and gotten the same result from Ruby!!"

Losing a limb and getting seriously injured? Geez, that sounds familiar. Didn't two characters in the same episode not go through the exact same thing? Certainly it would have been better to make that three! But no, it wouldn't have had the same result. Ruby has only displayed her powers when she realized someone was gonna die.  "The creators of this should be ashamed of going that route, if they wanted shock effect, they got it at the expense of myself and others watching this anime!!"''

That's exactly the point. Pyrrha's death meant something because both the viewers and the characters felt a connection with her. As a result, her death had much more of an impact. If a minor character had died, it wouldn't have the same effect.

Let's take The Lion King as an example. Many people found Mufasa's death sad even to this day because we got to know the character, and because of the close connection between him and Simba. It made his death a tearjerker for many people. Now if Mufasa had been a distant, absent father, then we wouldn't have had the connection and the death wouldn't have been as sad. And if a character like say, Zazu had died...Well, quite frankly, who gives a fuck about the stick in the mud sidekick/comic relief who has just one joke going for him?

"I know irl that tragic deaths, murders, suicides, diseases take away many before their time, thats why we have movies, series, etc. To help us forget or to cope with it"

Some forms of media are certainly good for that. Others aren't. This gives me the impression you just don't like shows, books, movies etc where characters die. Well, tough luck I'd say to that. Not everything can be rainbows and sunshines all the time. And word of advice, I'd skip Game of Thrones if I were you.

"I wonder aboout people who write like this. In this case they seem to make those who are evil smarter and stronger than those who are good. What is wrong with you?!"

...You're kidding me, right? That is basic storytelling! A villain needs to be a worthy opponent to the protagonist. They need to be stronger, smarter, bigger etc in order to have an initial advantage over the heroes, which drives the heroes to become better at what they're doing. While cannon fodder is needed, in the end, a hero is only as good as they're opponent. And if the hero only ever beats up weak or incompetent cannon fodder, then quite frankly, it gives the impression that they're just pathethic in the sense that they only take on those weaker then them.

An example of how this actually helps would be with Yang and Adam. Yang was defeated at Beacon because Adam was faster at her and took advantage of her being reckless and relaying to much of her semblance. This, in the long run, helped Yang realize the flaws in her fighting style and adapt. And this worked out in her favor during her and Adam's rematch.

Now imagine if Adam was a weak and dumb villain who got easily defeated by Yang...First of all, he would have been a joke for a villain. Second, Yang wouldn't have had any character development because it would just confirm that absolutely nothing is wrong with her fighting style and she would never have to consider trying something different.

See what I mean? If you want the villain to be threatening and an actual challenge to the protagonist, you can't make them inferior. Then they would come across as just cannon fodder and neither the viewers or protagonists would take them seriously. Like I said, this is basic storytelling.

"When most would agree that Pyhrrra should have lived, there are those who probably revel in her death, I am not one of those! She had a lot more to offer and they took her away too soon!"'

First of all, Pyrrha's deah was always planned, from the very beginning. Second...When was it stated that most agree Pyrrha would have lived? I know many people were sad to see her go (myself included), but I never read anything anywhere that everyone agreed she should have lived. Second, her death had a purpose. It caused her to discover her powers and her death was what made the protagonists go to Mistral and take up arms against Salem. You may not like it and that's fine, but denying her death had a purpose simply isn't true.

"To writers like this, just know that your style is HATED!"

Funny. A lot of shows, movies, books, games etc are usually applauded for a more mature and darker approach to their stories, which includes killing off characters. Vikings, Game of Thrones, Warriors, The Lion King...All are popular and praised for how they approached things. So its actually the other way around. This style is actually very popular. Heck, nowadays, I hear more critisms towards forms of media where characters don't die when it makes sense for them to do so. Just look at some of the main critisms that Fox and the Hound nowadays gets. So in the end, this is just your opinion.

"his will be the first anime that I will not finish, ever!"

Shame. The show has been good. Volume 4 was good and volume 6 is in my opinion the best volume we've had so far. It answered a lot of questions and made big revelations. Volume 5...We don't talk about that. But oh well. Your loss.

In the end, this rant strikes me as extremely childish. My advice? Grow up. I was upset when Roman died, but I dealt with it.