Agree to disagree.
Stagnation is boring. Period. It means nothing changes. It means that you offer nothing new to learn, there's no change to adjust, adapt and accept new challenges. That's the definition of stagnation. Bad =/= boring. Change is not always good but you can learn from it and make the most of it.
If Star Trek claims it's inspirational and aspirational roots then it needs to be willing to deal with the pain of being human. “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness, that is life.” ― Jean-Luc Picard
I would too. I would like a character to age gracefully, to take on the next stage of life with the same level of enthusiasm as he had previous ones, but willing to be the mentor rather than on the front line. To me, the Academy is the perfect place to do this.
Exactly so.
I say O'Brien lives pretty much happily ever after. He might have a few flashbacks of that prison sentence, but not many; Julian's treatment couldn't erase it, but was able to reduce it to a blur, like a long tequila binge but without the barfing. By and large, he and Keiko grow old together, watch their kids grow up, and he is a well regarded professor at the Academy. He dies at the age of 139, one year short of Dax's prediction, surrounded be three generations worth of his progeny, including a couple of Starfleet captains.
It's time for the O'Brien Must Suffer mantle to be lifted from the chief's shoulders and descend on someone else.
Stagnation as such could be boring, I admit that. But character destruction is even more boring and also destructive.
What I wan is stories in an established timeline where the main characters are active and highly alive. petriod.
I don't have any interest
at all to read about O'Briens life as an aged and boring has-been while in the same book reading about ensign Izzy Podborski duing O'Briens previous job on the station (but not as good) or about some Captain Ebenezer Firefly as Sisko's replacement or Dr Bibi Tobacco doing Bashir's job. Why, because I find those new characters bland and boring compared with the original characters.
In short, when I read a DS9 story, then I want it to be about the original characters. I could say the same about TV episodes as well as long as it includes the original cast members and not some replacements.
Otherwise it will be like the current NCIS where all the orignal characters have been replaced, a reason why I don't follow the show anymore, just watching it occasionally when I have nothing else to do. The stories are still good.
OK, I could probably think that Captain Firefly and Ensign Podborski are decent characters if the show up inn a new story or movie on some new ship or on a station in the Idran system on the other side of he wormhole.
If the stories are good and the characters accpetable, I might start to like them or at least accept them (as I do when i pretend that the current NCIS is a spinoff set in another town). But it would be very hard to watch DS9 or read books about DS9 if the original characters aren't involved.
And the most stupid things to do are changes just for the sake of changing. That never ends good.
Once upon a time, there was a good hard rock band who were "up there" among the worlds best. They had a distinctive style and was a great live act who packed the arenas.
Then one day, they decided to make a somewhat different album with more adapted music, more sythezisers and such.
However, the record flopped and many fans thought they had sold out. "They don't sound as they used to" was a major complaint.
So when they made their next record, they went back to the previous style.
But it was too late. They never got the popularity back in the same way that it had been before, even if they continued to tour and make records.