DOUBLE STANDARD: Susan's Death

It is interesting to read the negative comments regarding Susan's death. While I respect the fact that some viewers may feel offended by her untimely demise, I would like to make a comment about what I feel is a double standard.

A few years back a network executive was drowned while working with Greenpeace. This guy had been on for quite a few shows and had been unsuccessfully hustling Elaine. No one that I know thought his death to have been offensive; in fact most thought it hilarious. Why the difference here? Both characters were or had been network executives, so their occupation can't be a factor. Is it that one was male and the other was female? Is it that Susan was more "likeable"? Does that justify one's death, and make the other repellent? Is one human more expendable than the other? Think about it. Would you get upset if Elaine was hit by a piano falling out of a window; what if George's father got hit by the piano - or Newman. It seems that in the fictitious world we assign different values to the characters lives. I say that if you think its OK to kill one character and not another, then you have got some strange standards. Or again maybe the real thing is that it is "just a TV show" and no real world standards apply.

Mr. Dalrymple was not a major character, died an honorable death, and was the focus of an entire season's worth of plotlines. The episode was a disappointment not only because of Susan's death but because it was not a particular funny or clever ending to the engagement storyline. I'm fairly sure this has been stated several times and why you couldn't figure it out on your own is beyond me.

"Kill all the Prussians and we'll have peace." A Saxon-German Soldier, 1914

In [email] (JCS21212) writes:

was

not a

fairly

out

Oh I'm sorry for not noticing that Dalyrmple's death was an extremely plausible one, and most honorable. In your reasoning a death is OK if it is "funny or clever". Why didn't I figure out the simple logic to that. I'm sure his family will rest easier. Your attachment or lack of it to various characters is your own personal matter. What you figure out in your little world doesn't necessariy equate with any greater reality.

In article , Francis Derenthal writes:

In article , Francis Derenthal writes:

it

I think you are missing the point. In literature, of which television writing is a small subset, a death is or is not disappointing based on how plausible and believable it is. If, right in the middle of some classic piece of literature, a main character is killed off for no apparent reason, and in an illogical way (who would ever lick over 10 envelopes, let alone 200?) and it doesn't even faze the other characters, especially those who have previously shown themselves to be somewhat sympathetic at times (George apologized almost obsessively to the busboy who was fired after George told the maitre d' about the fire at the restaurant table, for ex.), then we have to say it is an implausible death. It is not that it's *OK* to kill one character and not another; it isn't real life, after all. It has to do with what makes sense or not within the literary work. The deaths of Romeo and Juliet, while tragic, were logical, and as such, made sense within that Shakespearean play. Had he killed off a major character in the middle of one of his comedies, say, Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew, it would have made no sense whatsoever. We don't mourn these characters as though they were real people, which is why it makes little sense to worry about their families, as when you say "I'm sure his family will rest easier." (Remember--NO ONE really died.) But, we can discuss and debate whether a death was a believable and logical one within the context of the work itself. As such, Susan's death does not strike me as a logical one--the aforementioned illogic of licking all 200 envelopes, George's lack of any guilt, while he is often portrayed as overly guilt-ridden, the almost total lack of reaction by the other characters, and the other logical inconsistencies pointed out by many others who have alreasy posted on this topic are just support for my belief.

L.J. Weiner

Oops--sorry for the doubling of info in my post. I had to do some cut and paste, and while I pasted fine, I forgot to cut.

[email] wrote:

Susan's character was going nowhere. The writers had to end it. The character had become sarcastic, nasty, and mean. She didn't fit in with main four. Granted killing her off wasn't especially funny but they did have to end this plotline. I'm glad they had one bad show than continue the Susan-George relationship.

Ummmm. Too bad she wasn't as sincere, nice, and considerate as Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine.

In article , [email]

Russel Del Brook? got drowned in a green peace mission. But nobody treated it as celebration. Infact J & G blamed Elaine for not going out with him. In this instance nobody feel sorry!