I feel like there are two ways to evaluate this, and both are equal. But maybe also should be kept separate.Well, it's a thing worth discussing because killing off LGBT characters is a recognizably trope that is designated toward a particular group of people. There is also the argument to be made that it's a "kill her off to motivate the male lead" sort of thing, but...
This isn't to say no gay people should be killed, and I disagree with the main thrust of the argument until such a time as Shaw dies that the show's LGBT rep has been ruined. I mean, Root was a lesbian character who was in a romantic relationship with another lesbians, so if Shaw survives, I'd be willing to let the show pass because they equally defied the trope by letting Shaw live as much as they went into it.
But simply because a potentially problematic read of a show might be wrong doesn't mean it is bad to talk about such things. For example, suppose that this show had a black and fried chicken loving character. In this show, especially if they were a main character, they'd be more than that. They'd have some kind of special skill, with an interesting backstory, with plotlines that had poignant and engaging arcs. They'd be well written because they are in Person of Interest and the writers know their shit, by and large. Root was more than merely a lesbian, like you guys said.
But bringing such a depiction into question would be a good thing. In PoI's case, I think it works. As a final impetus for the machine to be truly freed, Root makes the most sense. John and Shaw don't have strong opinions on the machines freedom and leave it to Harry to decide because they are the shooty people, and if Fusco would have had opinions on it, it's too soon for him to make such judgements and nobody on the team speaks dog to ask Bear his invaluable opinion. So with Root being the one who has the closest relationship to both Harry and the machine, it honestly does make sense for her death to serve as the final proof of Root's argument that she should be freed.
And if we are truly to respect Root as a character, we have to recognize that, atleast in her own mind, she is not gone. She exists within the machine, all her information and therefore everything that she is, still exists. To ponder the meaning of her death, we have to ponder her last meaningful words. It's a death that meshes nicely with the themes and tone of the show, it is meaningful to Root herself, it wasn't gratuitous in it's depiction so it avoided fetishization, it may diminish the LGBT representation but it does not eliminate it as long as Shaw is in the game, it motivates Harry but it exists as more than that as well, a turning point, and progresses the story, not in a mere plot driven way of the machine being let out to do what it would, but it offers yet another way of looking at what humanity really is (a set of information), a story that will likely in some way be vitally important to the rest of the season.
But we can only recognize good depictions of deaths of LGBT characters if we question them, because stereotypes are a problem and there will be very much more deaths of LGBT characters that fall into the stereotype exactly. Understanding why one depiction works and why one doesn't is the only way other writers will have a chance of avoiding it, so discussing it is a good thing.
The article writer could have been more considerate with spoilers though.
On one hand there is the evaluation of the craft itself. Was the death significant? Did it pay off in terms of how it affected narrative or characterization?
A friend linked me to this tumblr post tonight. It's a bit of a read but I recommend it, but I will quote what I think is important:
This poster comes at this evaluation as a writer and as a writer myself, I have come to basically the same fundamental conclusions from my time consuming and evaluating and analyzing the media I consume. In that light, I think Root's death was handled pretty damn well.I think every writer, at the end of the day, wants to believe that their worlds belong to them and that their idea has to be the best one for the story. Writers justify. So I think I have to answer this one as a consumer.
So for Deaths Handled Well, heres my basic list of critera:
1. The death is in service of not only the plot, but the narrative. Its thematically cohesive with the world, and carries weight.
2. It allows the dying character to either explore a new side of themself or to be their best self.
3. The death is allowed the room and the time to be significant. It is felt by both other characters in that world, and by fans.
4. The death comes up again in the future; that character and their importance is not forgotten.
And then theres the iffy last rule:
5. It does all this without playing into tired tropes.*
I think on the other hand you have to look at the lgbtq+ fandom that makes up the show. And their feelings are just as valid as a measured critique. If it makes them sad, angry, distressed, well who is anyone to say those feelings aren't invalid? Because at a macro level, this television season was an absolute bloodbath for lesbians in particular. (I am not lumping bi-woman into this list because I can only assume they see themselves different from lesbians and should deserve that distinction.) And presumably there was no weird cabal organizing it; these all were just pure happenstance, but still shows there is an undercurrent that creators especially have to be aware about.
My belief is though in discussing things like this they should maybe be considered separate from one another. It is very much possible to appreciate or criticize the craft but feel disillusioned with this weird trend that we thought had ended a few months back. Mostly because if you try to intermingle both or use one to justify the deficiencies of the other, I think we reach the intersection where the entitlement of fan culture vs. the creators gets a bit muddled and hostile.