Thread: Reviving Characters: Is it too tacky?

So here's my issue: I have this boy character, he's kind of superhuman and through a complicated program in his body, he can revive dead people. It has its limits so he can't go about reviving abraham lincoln or anything, but he can revive newly dead people!

During my story, some of the main characters do die. Some, though not all, of those get revived, but I'm iffy on it. I feel like might be kind of tasteless, like saying LOL JK MY MAIN CHARS CANT DIE THEY'RE SUPER SPECIAL.

Also, the main antagonist of my story must be killed and then revived to fix his state of mind, because he's actually a good guy that has been corrupted. Is this too tacky? I feel like it may take away some of the impact of his death and the conflict of the story, and although it would tie up some loose ends it's not totally necessary. It's more for a happy ending than anything.

I've seen revival used a lot and it lessens the impact of death. Like "Oh, Goku's dead? That's OK! Let's wish him back with the Dragon Balls~! ♥".
But does reviving also detract from the story's impact?

Hopefully my post isn't too vague xP
I'm never good at getting my thoughts down too clearly, but if this makes sense then input is greatly appreciated! Feel free to ask for more details too.

How easy can he revive dead people? Is it just like snapping his fingers? Or when he revives them he is in agonizing pain?

If you really, really want him to have this ability. Try and balance it out. Maybe when he revives dead people, they don't fully recover?

Well, he has to cut himself and let himself bleed into the person for a couple of minutes, then wait for a couple more for the person to be revived. It definitely has it's limits, as he has to be next to the person and their body has to be somewhat intact - he cant revive a pile of ashes or bones. And there's always the small chance that even given the perfect circumstance and everything, the revival will fail.
He also gains some hidden influence over the persons mind, which may or may not be inconvenient for said person.

And interesting input fleamailman, thanks. That is really true!
Thing is, I'm not sure whether or not /I/ think it's tacky, which is what matters I guess.
With the part of reviving the main antagonist after spending a whole novel trying to kill him, I just wanted to see other people's takes on it since I'm really undecided.

Originally Posted by fleamailman

"...nothing is ever tacky or everything is tacky, as it merely depends on personal opinion doesn't it, for if you believe in what you write, then it will work for you, promise..."

fleamailman, I think the goblin may be over-promising a tad. Many authors believe in what they are writing -- and that it isn't tacky or otherwise credible –- but in the end it’s really up to the reader to decide if it's worthwhile to suspend his disbelief. Otherwise, believing becomes self-delusion at some point.

fleamailman, let me put it this way -- just "believing" suggests an approach that doesn't involve any attempt to get out of your own head and try to see if others will accept what you're doing. But maybe you're saying that you shouldn't second-guess yourself to the point of paralysis -- if so, you've got something there.