THERE IS NO GOOD COMPROMISE HERE!
Either you kepp a dead character dead or you don't bother killing them in the first place No if, ands, or buts about it.
I meant compromise in terms of reader desire; creating a story that pleases those readers who want to see a character return, and also satisfies many of those readers who dislike resurrection as a plot device because it undermines the power of death and emotional responses to such. Obviously nothing's going to please everyone, but I think both recent resurrection stories tread the line of compromise regarding reader desire, and deliberately so, aware that they're dealing with different and opposing viewpoints among their audience. I appreciate that. And the authors are going to want to appeal to as many readers as possible while also telling an interesting story.
I wasn't trying to suggest that there can be a compromise between a state of "staying dead" and "not staying dead". Of course there can't. I meant compromise in terms of story-telling choice.
As I've said from the start, I don't like resurrections and would prefer they never be used. But I did like the two novels, The Eternal Tide
and The Persistence of Memory,
and I did appreciate the sensitivity with which both - in my opinion - handled the issue. I'm pleased we get so many Trek books by quality authors, so I'm not going to condemn any given novel because it doesn't match my personal desires. I'd rather take the good I find in the handling of the plot and the new stories that will be told with the returned characters (now that I'm reassured that there will be some
emotional consequences rather than pretending the character never died at all) than take a negative opinion because a convention I dislike - resurrection - was used.
I'm just saying in my earlier post that I'm quite aware of the tension between that take on things and my dislike for resurrection, which is why I feel a bit uneasy.