How we deal with death - Page 3

shanejayell · March 3 2009, 03:21 AM

Trent Roman wrote:

Bucky has indeed returned and become a major player, and Uncle Ben has also made appearances, although not the 'real' Uncle Ben. As far as I know, however, Batman's parents have yet to rise from their graves.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Read "The Black Glove" and "Batman RIP" yet?

elaithin · March 3 2009, 04:21 PM

Hey, Bruce and Martha Wayne are still dead. As well as the real Gwen Stacy and Uncle Ben.

Of course, Bucky turned out to have a case of "never-was dead" - which is fair, as he never had an on-panel death to begin with.

And of course, there's always Jean Grey, who may or may not presently be an eight year old girl time-traveling with Cable centuries in the future. Or just might be in the White Hot Room. Who knows?

See? Star Trek deaths are really quite reasonable, by comparison.

ClayinCA · March 3 2009, 08:56 PM

elaithin wrote:

And of course, there's always Jean Grey, who may or may not presently be an eight year old girl time-traveling with Cable centuries in the future. Or just might be in the White Hot Room. Who knows?

Yeahbuhwhaaa?

Oy. This makes me glad I haven't read the X-Men books in quite some time....

elaithin · March 3 2009, 09:06 PM

To be fair, if she is the child Cable's protecting, it actually plays pretty well into the way Morrison left her a few years ago.

MargaretClark · March 3 2009, 09:13 PM

Thrawn wrote:

Trent Roman wrote:

donners22 wrote:

The real stunt "deaths" are the Defiant and Delta Flyer, blown up for effect, then brought back a couple of episodes later.

Good examples.

Thrawn wrote:

The author of Full Circle and Unworthy has explicitly stated several times that Janeway does not come back in either of those books, but that beyond that, and I quote, "anything is possible".
Let's stop misrepresenting the facts here.

No one is misrepresenting anything. It's been reported several times that the position of editorial on this is that (paraphrasing because I don't recall the exact quotes) Janeway is dead, dead, dead; that the intent going forward is that Janeway's death is to be permanent (as Before Dishonor was originally structured); and that there is no intention of bringing her back. Editorial has, if anything, gone out of its way to highlight this as the future direction for this branch of the novel line, compared to the more limited disclosure we usually receive on future plans.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

As far as I'm aware, all of those statements by Margaret Clark happened when "the future" was still Full Circle and Unworthy; I don't think any of those statements were made without a "for the forseeable future caveat", which makes them equivalent to what Kirsten stated.

Kathryn Janeway is in FULL CIRCLE, as the book spans several years while she was serving in Command.

Strange that everyone seems to "know" what I've said and what is planned...and I haven't posted a single comment. (except this one)

Ah...the Internet.

Margaret

Thrawn · March 3 2009, 09:37 PM

MargaretClark wrote:

Thrawn wrote:

As far as I'm aware, all of those statements by Margaret Clark happened when "the future" was still Full Circle and Unworthy; I don't think any of those statements were made without a "for the forseeable future caveat", which makes them equivalent to what Kirsten stated.

Kathryn Janeway is in FULL CIRCLE, as the book spans several years while she was serving in Command.

Strange that everyone seems to "know" what I've said and what is planned...and I haven't posted a single comment. (except this one)

Ah...the Internet.

Margaret

I was basing that on stuff that'd been posted about conversations with you at conventions; if I'm at all mistaken or misrepresenting you, please correct me. At the very least, I accurately quoted Kirsten from another thread; the last thing I want to do is be presumptive or spread misinformation.

Jbarney · March 3 2009, 10:33 PM

I think the most recent trek lit (that which has been written over the last decade or so) has done a great job bringing death into its stories. We all react to death in different ways...but I think its really interesting to see some of the characters we've seen established on screen die in the comics and novels.

Some of the Klingon characters Krad killed off in his books had quite the affect on me as I read them. I read them not knowing Colonel Worf, Azetbur, and K'avada would die and was SHOCKED when they did.

I guess one of the more frustrating things for me is when one character does get killed off (like Gul Evek) by one novelist and then that death isn't followed through on by editors or other writers.

Just my opinion though,
Jason

Rush Limborg · March 3 2009, 11:43 PM

Those who want a "dark show" or read similar books can watch the news or read some evening tabloid and enjoy how our pathetic political "leaders" and economists are doing their best to destroy what's left of this world

Amen....

BTW...wasn't Batman's dad THOMAS Wane?

LutherSloan · March 4 2009, 12:46 AM

Not only is Bucky still alive, he is now Captain America.

David R. George III · March 4 2009, 02:22 AM

Jbarney wrote:

Some of the Klingon characters Krad killed off in his books had quite the affect on me as I read them. I read them not knowing Colonel Worf, Azetbur, and K'avada would die and was SHOCKED when they did.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Jason, but Keith did not kill Azetbur, who died in Serpents Among the Ruins. I have to take credit for that.

For those of you keeping score at home.

Jbarney · March 4 2009, 04:06 AM

Whoops.

Strider · March 4 2009, 04:51 AM

Lynx wrote:

I'm actually happy that there are skilled writers who have the skill, will and imagination to undo some of the worst character destructions of Star Trek.

If Star Trek had been such a destructive doom crap show as some "fans" seem to want it to be, I wouldn't have watched a single second of it or bought a single book. In that case I prefer biographies about real people.

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

Those who want a "dark show" or read similar books can watch the news or read some evening tabloid and enjoy how our pathetic political "leaders" and economists are doing their best to destroy what's left of this world or watch a nearby funeral instead.

And in the VOY forum:

Lynx wrote:

^^
If Voyager had been such a destructive doom crap show, I wouldn't have watched a single second of it.

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

Those who want a "dark show" can watch the news and enjoy how our pathetic political "leaders" and economists are doing their best to destroy what's left of this world or watch a nearby funeral.

As for Chakotay, Neelix and Kim, they were good characters. Voyager had the best characters of all Star Trek series. Why should any of them be killed off and be replaced by second-hand nobodies? Strange suggestions indeed.

As for BSG, it sucks! Too much of 20th-21th century losers among the characters.

Trent Roman · March 4 2009, 05:35 AM

[Henry Kissinger] What? What is funny? [/Henry Kissinger]

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

ronny · March 4 2009, 05:43 AM

Strider wrote:

Lynx wrote:

I'm actually happy that there are skilled writers who have the skill, will and imagination to undo some of the worst character destructions of Star Trek.

If Star Trek had been such a destructive doom crap show as some "fans" seem to want it to be, I wouldn't have watched a single second of it or bought a single book. In that case I prefer biographies about real people.

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

Those who want a "dark show" or read similar books can watch the news or read some evening tabloid and enjoy how our pathetic political "leaders" and economists are doing their best to destroy what's left of this world or watch a nearby funeral instead.

And in the VOY forum:

Lynx wrote:

^^
If Voyager had been such a destructive doom crap show, I wouldn't have watched a single second of it.

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

Those who want a "dark show" can watch the news and enjoy how our pathetic political "leaders" and economists are doing their best to destroy what's left of this world or watch a nearby funeral.

As for Chakotay, Neelix and Kim, they were good characters. Voyager had the best characters of all Star Trek series. Why should any of them be killed off and be replaced by second-hand nobodies? Strange suggestions indeed.

As for BSG, it sucks! Too much of 20th-21th century losers among the characters.

Turns out putting Lynx on my ignore list was the right decision after all...

Turtletrekker · March 4 2009, 06:00 AM

^
^^
^^^

March 3 2009, 04:21 PM	#32
elaithin Fleet Captain Location: Texas	Re: How we deal with death Hey, Bruce and Martha Wayne are still dead. As well as the real Gwen Stacy and Uncle Ben. Of course, Bucky turned out to have a case of "never-was dead" - which is fair, as he never had an on-panel death to begin with. And of course, there's always Jean Grey, who may or may not presently be an eight year old girl time-traveling with Cable centuries in the future. Or just might be in the White Hot Room. Who knows? See? Star Trek deaths are really quite reasonable, by comparison. __________________ Your immediate female ancestor belonged to the Cricetinae subfamily of rodents, and your immediate male ancestor was redolent of Sambucus nigra.

March 3 2009, 09:06 PM	#34
elaithin Fleet Captain Location: Texas	Re: How we deal with death To be fair, if she is the child Cable's protecting, it actually plays pretty well into the way Morrison left her a few years ago. __________________ Your immediate female ancestor belonged to the Cricetinae subfamily of rodents, and your immediate male ancestor was redolent of Sambucus nigra.

March 3 2009, 10:33 PM	#37
Jbarney Commander Location: Between 2273-2278	Re: How we deal with death I think the most recent trek lit (that which has been written over the last decade or so) has done a great job bringing death into its stories. We all react to death in different ways...but I think its really interesting to see some of the characters we've seen established on screen die in the comics and novels. Some of the Klingon characters Krad killed off in his books had quite the affect on me as I read them. I read them not knowing Colonel Worf, Azetbur, and K'avada would die and was SHOCKED when they did. I guess one of the more frustrating things for me is when one character does get killed off (like Gul Evek) by one novelist and then that death isn't followed through on by editors or other writers. Just my opinion though, Jason

March 4 2009, 12:46 AM	#39
LutherSloan Fleet Captain Location: Doing the Federation's dirty work	Re: How we deal with death Not only is Bucky still alive, he is now Captain America. __________________ Deputy Director, Section 31 Expand Medicare for All!!

March 4 2009, 04:06 AM	#41
Jbarney Commander Location: Between 2273-2278	Re: How we deal with death Whoops.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

March 4 2009, 05:35 AM	#43
Trent Roman Rear Admiral Location: The Palace of Pernicious Pleasures	Re: How we deal with death [Henry Kissinger] What? What is funny? [/Henry Kissinger] Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman __________________ Obdurants and Amusings - Behind the Shampoo Curtain

March 4 2009, 06:00 AM	#45
Turtletrekker Vice Admiral Location: Tacoma, Washington	Re: How we deal with death ^ ^^ ^^^ __________________ Coulson lives!