Well, I'd like to see a story where, after their love interest is almost Stuffed into the Fridge by a supervillain, a superhero tells the love interest It's Not You, It's My Enemies and breaks off the relationship. But the love interest, rather than taking this lying down, decides the only thing to do is become a superhero theirself so they can hold their own in the world of superpowered violence. Cue a storyline with the love interest seeking out martial art instruction, high tech gizmos, magical artifacts, or anything they can think of that might let them stand as an equal with their loved one.
If anyone knows of a story like that, kindly point it in my direction.
I don't like it. This is something that has grown VERY old to me, it might have been surprising once but nowadays I just wonder why don't go celibate so they won't endanger anyone. Considering some of them dedicate their entire lives to risking their own to save other people's it shouldn't be to hard to pull a " I Want My Beloved to Be Happy" and just leave them ok and alive.
Never mind the fact that when the villain inevitably make the hero choose between the loved one and a lot of other people I lose a lot of sympathy if they even THINK about risking the lives of everyone just because of the love interest.
And there's also the fact that the more a hero tries to hide their identity the more people around them are at risk and that's kind of stupid when you think about it.
So that's it basically, it's a plot device that's more of a plot dinosaur nowadays and I don't like reading a comic that has this happen more than once unless it's really well done(chances are it isn't tough).
:)Frankly, I hate the Stuffed into the Fridge trope and the fact that it became an Undead Horse Trope!
Why? Because a huge percentage of characters who fall victim to this trope are female characters. As a result, what you have is a trope that is sexist, cheap, tasteless, and loaded with Unfortunate Implications!
I think a story should be made that has a female superhero and her boyfriend, who is a Comic Book writer. She comes home one day and finds him dead and stuffed into the fridge! A story like that would make a great Take That! to those male comic book writers out there! Evil Laugh! ![]()
No it wouldn't. It would be the exact same bullshit, but used in a petty way. You're probably kidding, but there ARE male characters that crap happens to also (like all of Starfire's husbands).
Actually, what upsets me more is why a hero and his/her love interest wouldn't have discussed this (assuming s/he knows his/her identity, and if they don't, I agree that they're being unfairly endangered). Assuming they're serious enough about the relationship to be in it for the long run, this HAS to come up at some point. "Honey, we need to talk. If I were ever in danger and you had a choice between myself and a great number of innocents, we need to discuss which of us you'd choose."
In a perfect world, the love interest would choose the innocents. But, this isn't a perfect world, and the morality isn't black and white. Still, it would show huge steps above hack writing milking the cheapest form of drama if this sort of thing were to happen.
edited 14th Feb '12 12:43:02 PM by KingZeal
Mostly, this Undead Horse Trope is due to crappy, lazy, stupid writing on the part of lazy unimaginative writers. There's no reason a superhero's Significant Other couldn't be a Badass Normal, a reformed super-villain, or even a superhero themselves. In that case they should be well able to take care of themselves, and maybe even rescue the hero once in a while. But no, the writers never think of anything so clever.
edited 14th Feb '12 2:31:07 PM by Maven
Mary Jane is probably the best example of how to handle a non-powered love interest. While she was occasionally made a damsel-in-distress, she also got to kick ass once in a while. She knocked out Chameleon, she beat Swarm (Swarm!). I remember a comic where Venom was beating on Spider-Man, and MJ showed up and tried to stun him with a flash bulb. It didn't work, but it was a pretty bad-ass move.
She was also trained in self-defence by Captain frigging America.
That's a good way to handle normal love interests.
With superhero love interests, there should be a fairly equal amount of rescuing. Doesn't really work out that way, unfortunately, since comics are typically written as male fantasies. That's how you get Wonder Woman being saved by the power of Batman's love.
X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.To Raven Wilder: Actually, there was a story kind of like that, long long ago, among the Archie (Red Circle) Universe of super heroes, of all things. A hero named the Web revealed his double identity to his girlfriend (who, in early Spider-Man fashion, loved the civilian guy but hated the hero). As a result, she became a hero herself named Pow Girl (I'm not kidding).
"Don't forget Aunt May taking down Chameleon. Man, that was awesome."
Indeed. Not Chameleon's finest hour, being tricked by a little old lady. Still, Aunt May drugged him, but Mary Jane hit the bastard with a baseball bat.
X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.Its mostly a genre thing, in my opinion. Most superhero comics are about the heroes, and heroes are supposed to win- and failing to save your loved ones is one the biggest ways to lose there is, so its jarring. Now, I'm not going to say all comics should be overwhelmingly positive; the Batman family of titles, for example, are not just about villains but real crime, including things like serial killers, so (while I personally don't enjoy it) I can see a case for characters dying there.
But not on most other superhero books. I remember when Cat Grant's son was murdered by The Toyman, who was reinvented as a murderous psycho obsessed with children, possibly in an attempt to give Superman his own "Joker". Man, was I stunned by that. Not only they ruined TWO characters in one shot, I couldn't believe this was happening in a SUPERMAN comic! I'm pretty sure most people don't pick up those looking for that kind of stuff.
edited 15th Feb '12 7:13:55 AM by Sijo
There's a scary amount of people willing to defend 'fridging out there. I got myself into a debate at CBR over whether Gwen Stacy's death was a 'fridging. The people I was debating argued that since it was the first, and since it was a good story, it didn't count; my rebuttal was that the implications would still be unfortunate whether it was the first or 47th such death, and that the quality of the story need not be considered if the tropes involved are inherently toxic. The debate just went in circles, with both me and the others essentially repeating our arguments over and over again.
I think my least-favorite 'fridging was probably Wallflower (and I've found people willing to defend that one too), with Gehenna Hewett in second place. I have a feeling my least favorite would be Arisia due to how graphic and tasteless it was (she was essentially orally raped to death), but I've never actually read the comic in question. Interestingly enough, Geoff Johns, who wrote Gehenna's, undid Arisia's.
edited 15th Feb '12 10:24:39 PM by HamburgerTime
My understanding was that the trope is frowned upon because it's overused and targets women more than men, not because it's "inherently toxic". Unless you dislike fictional portrayals of murder in general, what's inherently wrong with killing a character in order to have an emotional impact on another character?
From what I understand (and this is based on comments from Stan Lee himself- which I read second hand, granted) Stacy was killed because they felt she was making Peter "too happy" and if they continued that plotline, they would have to *gasp* marry them!! Sound familiar? So I guess it does count as a 'fridging'.
The problem is, from a logical point of view, it makes perfect sense for rat bastard supervillains go after the hero's loved ones, and if regular, non battle hardened civilians can defend themselves against super villains, it ends up making those villains look ineffectual and they become the butt of jokes to Never Live It Down (Chameleon is a good example of this). So it's a no-win situation.
This is why the Secret Identity, despite all its logical flaws, is a good idea from a plot perspective. It helps preventing the supporting cast get in unfair danger too often.
edited 16th Feb '12 4:10:34 AM by NapoleonDeCheese
![]()
![]()
But even though it wasn't overused at that point, it still has Unfortunate Implications that supporting cast women exist only to motivate and provide angst for protagonist men.
That's sort of what causes tropes like this to exist in the first place, in fact.
Those sorts of implications become evident when less-talented creators/audiences grasp onto the wrong parts of the trope and pay attention to that alone and not the rest of the meaning. The writers of The Night Gwen Stacy Died saw a scene that subverted the Invincible Hero; in fact, the very cover to the first part of the book seems to imply that ANY character (including Flash Thompson, Harry & Norman Osborn, Robbie Robertson, and J. Jonah Jameson) was fair game. However, Gwen Stacy was chosen for a multitude of reasons, but the fact that she was female, easily replaceable, and the hero's love interest is what stuck. And so, we have this trope.
But then male supporting cast members are killed off, Norman died a few issues after Gwen, her father had died several years prior. Spider-Man is built around the death of somebody in the lead characters life. There's the argument that male characters are more likely to be revived than female characters, but I'm not certain that's true either.
An major way to avoid this is to not see this as a gender issue (because even in "fixing" it you get a double standard) and instead seeing it as a characterization.
The problem with Stuffed in the Fridge isn't that the characters are dying or hurt, it's that their characterization is used in a weak and throwaway manner: in short, the victim's character becomes nothing but a tool to advance the hero, and ceases to be a three dimensional character
That's why it's such a touchy subject gender-wise - the implication is that in comics women are only important as motivation for men - but it also happens to male secondary characters.
It's the same kind of problem was the "shock value" kill - the kind of death where a character's death, and as result their entire life, is reduced to what kind of cheap impact the writer can srping upon the audience. The end result is a total cheapening of a character and a poor use of said character besides.
My solution is this - and when I work on my own comics I will use it - if you're going to kill a character, plan it. You don't have to go out of your way to make it awesome, but you do have to make it clear that their death isn't only important in regards to another character. Have them die by their own plot progression, have them be a character as apposed to just a tool or a prop.
A character's death, no matter how plot important or random, should have meaning.
edited 16th Feb '12 10:10:17 AM by KnownUnknown
But the only reason Stuffed into the Fridge has those Unfortunate Implications is because of how often it's a female being killed for a male. A female character dying to advance a male character's emotional arc is not, in and of itself, a bad thing; sometimes a supporting character will die to advance a main character's story, and, even if you assign the characters' genders completely at random, you're still gonna wind up with the dead woman/live man dynamic about 25% of the time.
The Unfortunate Implications exist because women are killed to motivate men far, far more than 25% of the time; I don't have any hard data on this, but I'd guess it's probably closer to 75%. That makes it almost certain that sexism directly or indirectly affects most Stuffed into the Fridge decisions. However, Gwen Stacy's death occurred when comic book characters being Stuffed into the Fridge was a very rare event; without enough other examples of the trope from that time period, we can't use statistical probability to determine the liklihood of sexist decision making.
I think everybody knows my own positions on permanent death in comics. In general, I find it difficult for characters that get passed off from creator to creator to have their death handled with kid gloves. The problem with any qualitative justification for death ("Make their death a Dying Moment of Awesome; "Give it meaning!"; "Do it rarely!") is that every writer and reader has their own opinion of what counts.
Case in point: Ultimate Gwen Stacy was killed off by Carnage in a very throwaway method with absolutely no build-up or payoff for it. This was deliberately done by Brian Michael Bendis because he wanted to invoke a "realistic" death. According to him, death is sudden, senseless, and usually doesn't have meaning for it. In Real Life, you have to deal with it. Of course, fans hated this death, because they felt it was cheap and didn't do Gwen justice.
Or here's another: Jack Drake (Robin's father, and a rare male example). Jack was a character beyond a distressed damsel. He was part of what made Tim Drake unique as a character and as a Robin. His death was given meaning, build-up, and he even got to go out in a relatively "awesome" fashion (taking out Captain Boomerang with him). However, this is STILL decried as a horrible death, because there was so much that could be done with the character and his death ultimately destroyed part of Tim's story.

I was reading a few articles talking about the Stuffed into the Fridge phenomenon as described by the Women In Refrigerators site. In hearing peoples' thoughts on the subject, it seems that most vocal fans don't like it—and most casual readers don't particularly care. Of course, the benefit to the trope is two-fold: it provides an easy source of danger for a nigh-invincible hero (many Superman stories focused more on Lois Lane being in danger than the man who was made of steel) and also "realistically" portrays the consequences of being an independent crusader taking on desperate criminals and villains. After all, if you're the Kingpin, and a guy in full-body stockings is giving you hell, it makes an pragmatically evil sense to target the people he cares about. Real Life organized crime has similar methods.
But that got me to thinking: does that mean there are no other options? On the one hand, people like reading about people willing to risk it all to take down great evil. On the other hand, nobody likes it when that risk goes badly, or when other supporting characters are killed off for no discernible reason (Lian Harper). So how do you get around that?
I started thinking about how it works in Real Life. Even in the real world, the families of police officers can find themselves endangered. However, soldiers don't need to worry about that. When someone enlists and/or is drafted, they leave everything behind. Their families and loved ones remain behind at home (or often inside a military community) where they're pretty much safe. However, for the most part, that's because the individual soldier isn't the threat to their enemy—it's the military machine in general. No one goes "Crap! Private Santiago just landed at the beach! I am undone!"...they soil their pants because a platoon of SEA Ls has just shown up to wreck their shit.
Anyway, I'm rambling in an attempt to throw out possible ideas. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?