How is that any different? Why should the books be forbidden from exploring a worthwhile category of story that the shows are able to do? More to the point, why would you expect the current authors and editors of Pocket Star Trek novels to pull their punches like that?
It is different. The books have never done something like that before.
Which is the worst imaginable argument against doing it. Before 1997, the books had never created their own original Trek series, but then
New Frontier happened. Before 2001, the books had never done a "relaunch" continuity continuing beyond the end of a series, and then the DS9R happened. Before this year, the books had never been allowed to marry off main characters or have them conceive children, and then I did both in
Greater Than the Sum. If the books were in the business of avoiding things that had never been done, they wouldn't be remotely as interesting today.
What next? We could read one day that Deep Space Nine blows up killing nearly everyone on board. The same could happen to the Enterprise. There could only be one, two or three key characters left and the rest will be something completely new.
That's a
reductio ad absurdem argument and something of a straw man. You know perfectly well that an extreme case like that is not likely to happen, so it's disingenuous to claim such a thing. But exaggeration aside, you have a point. Readers
can't be complacent that the status quo will be maintained anymore. There is now the very real possibility that major changes will happen, that main characters will die, that ships will be lost. There are now real stakes, not just the illusion of them. How can that be a bad thing?
That would be very realistic and that could also be great stories but is that really something the average fan will be happy with?
"The average fan" is a fiction that individual fans use to make their personal opinions sound like some kind of consensus view. Just looking over this thread alone, I see only two people who are intractably opposed to the idea of Janeway being/staying dead, some who are undecided or open-minded about the possibilities, and some who are intrigued by the prospect of exploring the aftermath of a main character's death in a mature and reset-button-free fashion. You're only speaking for yourself, not the mythical "average fan."
I think that the majority of fans, special interests and factions aside, will be happy with any story that's well-told and interesting. And I think that's the case even if the story builds on a situation they were unhappy with. Heck,
I was unhappy with Janeway's death. I liked Janeway. I liked having her around. I liked having a sympathetic figure in the Admiralty for a change. I'm saddened that she isn't around anymore. But I'm quite happy with what Kirsten is doing with the aftermath of that sad event. So it's absurd to say that what makes fans happy is purely a matter of
situations. It's a matter of how those situations are handled.
But what happened opens the question, is this the exception of the rule or is this the start of a new trend? Yes, the question is indeed, what comes next.
Neither of those is a fair or adequate description, or even a sensible one. Of course we're not going to begin killing regulars off on a bimonthly basis, and of course we're not going to swear off ever doing it again. What happens next is the same thing that happened before: We will make whatever decisions work best for the stories. We will take advantage of our freedom to tell meaningful tales with real consequences. And we will do our best not to be predictable.
