I used to watch the Adam West Batman series when I was a child and never had a clue that he became Batman because of the murder of his parents. And that means a massive part of the character was missing.

Keeping alive the memory of a dead character can be essential -- for example, Bucky's death informed a lot of what constituted Captain America's characterisation in those early Avengers comics.

Now, Bucky did get brought back, but I hardly think there was nothing left to do except bring him back, nor with Jean Grey. Jean came back because Kurt Busiek proposed an ingenious solution that proved irresistible.

That unsolicited solution came first (cause) and then the decision to bring her back came second (effect). Claremont's constant harking back to the character did not, I think, cause her return.

Gerry Conway opened up a can of worms when he killed off Gwen Stacy. I don't blame him for it. I'm sure he was trying to tell a dramatic, moving story. But it was bad for Spider-Man stories in the long run -- it's very much a "dividing line" in his life. And it set a bad precedent. 

Even in Western comics, there wasn't much killing.  As I recall, the comics code put a stop to it, and books from the 60s through the 80s pretty much followed that. There were the rare exceptions - Dark Phoenix, Elektra, probably one or two others. But not often.

________________

Is the original premise of this thread killing in general or killing by or of heroes only?

I remember reading a lot of Joker stories (especially in his own short-lived series in the 70's) where the Joker killed a LOT!  He was always killing a henchman or two and my 9-12 year-old mind always wondered "Why would anybody work for the Joker?!?  He could kill you at any second!"

Yes, death was not wholesale back then, but I came on board right after the death of Gwen Stacy (and there was a LOT of referencing that) and in the reprints I read the death of Capt. Stacy--these were powerful stories/events for my young mind.  Even with SUPERMAN, there were a lot of stories where death was an issue--imaginary stories where important characters were shown to die, but also something like Superman thinking he killed somebody, driving him almost to a nervous breakdown.  I seem to recall Batman often standing over a dead body, discussing things with Commissioner Gordon.

On-panel death was somewhat rare, but it happened.  Death was always possible.  Perhaps it was that mixture of rarity and possibility that made Dark Phoenix killing the D'Bari and Bullseye stabbing Elektra so powerful and effective.

Now, every hero has been killed and brought back at least once.  No one cares because, if you've been reading for more than a minute, you know that all these deaths are temporary.  Death was more effective when it was more rare.

How many forum member do not think FF nos. 242 - 244 are classics? Try to do that arc without any risk of Galactus dying (and by saying death should not be in comics, you rob the drama of a true risk of dying).

Death is a part of life; death is the one fate we all must face. Comics should be all ages -- and this brings us back to Brian's insightful comments about the importance of how death should be handled -- but to strip death from comics would be to condemn comics to a ridiculously narrow strata of readership. Even young children understand death as a general concept. Yes, we need to think twice about how we present it, to ensure it isn't too harrowing for a young readership (cf. Mufasa in the Lion King, though), but to say Stan and co. never went there is simply not true.

Go back to Avengers #9:

"Wonder Man -- you sacrificed yourself to save us! Why?"

"Perhaps -- every man -- dreams of doing one noble thing -- in his life! Now I can die -- knowing that I didn't live -- in vain!"