How we deal with death

[Thrawn]

One of the problems that I have long had with Star Trek is that it is really stingy with death. People are so used to heroes getting out of impossible situations that they forget that the situations as depicted are dangerous. In the real world, heroic figues die doing heroic things. In my opinon Star Trek needs to get into the habit of reminding people that being in Starfleet is dangerous. Some times people don't come back. I think that this is one areaa where the books have definately improved over the TV series.

All that is very nice, but just don't do it to my favorite character. Because I don't want to deal with death, I've been there done that in rela life and it's not pleasent and not what I want to do for pleasure.

Brit

Fair enough. That's a completely defensible point of view, and one I entirely understand. I disagree, but I understand.

It still doesn't mean this is anything other than a story you don't like. It's not a betrayal of the fans or an act of sexism or any of that other nonsense. It's just a story you don't like. Which sucks. But there are a lot of stories I don't like, too, and I just don't read them. Recent Star Wars has been horrible; I followed that for over a decade, and have given it up entirely as of late, because I don't like the stories.

Life goes on. Read something else.

 

[Gotham Central]

One of the problems that I have long had with Star Trek is that it is really stingy with death. People are so used to heroes getting out of impossible situations that they forget that the situations as depicted are dangerous. In the real world, heroic figues die doing heroic things. In my opinon Star Trek needs to get into the habit of reminding people that being in Starfleet is dangerous. Some times people don't come back. I think that this is one areaa where the books have definately improved over the TV series.

All that is very nice, but just don't do it to my favorite character. Because I don't want to deal with death, I've been there done that in rela life and it's not pleasent and not what I want to do for pleasure.

Brit

Every character is someone's favorite character. If your favorite character gets the ax, just suck it up and move on. None of these characters should be exempted from death (again with the possible exception of Sisko who may in fact be immortal). For frak's sake, these are fictional characters. Stop acting like someone just ran over your pet, destroyed your reason for living or in anyway diminshed you.

This constant whining is so unnecessary, and is frankly bizzare. If you don't like dead Janeway then stick to fan fic where she can wreck timelines and do what ever other nonsense you want her to.

Some of us like this new direction. I have to say, I've never been more interested in Voyager than I have been since they bumped Kate off. I'm more inclined to buy the books now. If they bring her back, I can just go back to ignoring Voyager and focusing on TNG, Titan, DS9, Vanguard, and the Destiny run

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Let's take your comments from my perspective, just as a fun exercise.

Well, we're talking about novels here, so that doesn't count at all.
That future looks pretty good to me, really. Great technology, good ideals, a powerful force for good unable to be taken down by anything, strong enough to take on the universe and make it a better place. That's just about the best possible future I can imagine.

In order to be a better future for you, it's necessary that no one ever die? That seems rather unrealistic to me.
Check; check.
Why? Why must they continue to tell the same stories they already have? They already told those stories. Hell, were you upset when DS9 was announced, because it took place on a space station, and Star Trek hadn't ever told stories on a space station before? That wasn't doing things "in the way that it has [been] done" either.
Sell out - to give up artistic integrity for money; to let the fans dictate one's work. Seems to me like that's what you WANT them to do. What they DID was much more edgy and true to themselves.
Man, lemme tell you. Star Trek is not "doom and gloom scenario", and is absolutely nothing like BSG.

This is basically like me saying "I wish Star Trek would stop publishing optimistic books; we have Stargate and similar series for those who like that sort of entertainment." It's a completely useless point. Star Trek shouldn't define itself by what other shows aren't doing any more than by what a vocal minority of fans wants.



So basically, your entire rant is spurious and hysterical. You don't like the stories, fine, but that's a personal preference. It has nothing to do with BSG, breaking tradition, or selling out.

I think that you have misunderstood some of my points.

The books are actually based on the TV series so I guess that the premises for the series are the same for the books.

Yes, I do have some doubts about humanitys ability to survive and develope. Just look at the current crisis which is a result of sheer stupidity and greed.

No, I have never stated that people shouldn't die in the real future. What I've reacted against is unnecessary character destruction in the Star Trek TV episodes, movies and books.

No, I didn't react against DS9 taking place on a space station, I thought it was an interesting concept. I'm not against changes as long as Star Trek keep its premise.

The fine art of changing is to change within given parameters. That's what many great rock bands are doing and certain writers, TV series and movies too.

As for selling out, there is a difference between changing style in order to attract new fans just for the sake of it and to simply keep a finger in the air to figure out what the loyal fans want. I'm sure that killing off Janeway will alienate many loyal fans of Star Trek and I'm not sure if such a move will attract fans outside the Star Trek fanbase or the Voyager fanbase or how loyal those new fans will be.

What I see as a possible sell out is the attempts to turn Trek into something more "dark" in order to attract fans outside the Star Trek fanbase, thus more and less abandoning the original premise for Star Trek which might cause a loss of longtime loyal fans. That is not a good scenario.

Finally I agree with you that Star Trek is not "doom and gloom scenario" and I hope that it won't become that either.

You keep saying "unnecssary character destruction"....what the hell does that mean? Who gets to decide when death is "necessary?"

Your problem seems to be that you don't like change. You obviously have issues with the notion that these fictional characters are treated as mortals. I don't care how much of a hopey happy future you have....come what may, that which is mortal MUST DIE. Unless you are suggesting that the Q grant everyone immortality, its seems perfectly reasonable for characters to die. Death is a part of life. Only The Sisko has the potential of being immortal. Everyone else, no matter how long lived should die at some point.

One of the problems that I have long had with Star Trek is that it is really stingy with death. People are so used to heroes getting out of impossible situations that they forget that the situations as depicted are dangerous. In the real world, heroic figues die doing heroic things. In my opinon Star Trek needs to get into the habit of reminding people that being in Starfleet is dangerous. Some times people don't come back. I think that this is one areaa where the books have definately improved over the TV series.

Somebody's been watching too much BSG.

The STAR TREK universe is essentially benign. There are bumps, certainly, and arguments between species but this was never meant to be a place where the good guys die a lot.

the whole POINT is overcoming obstacles through grit and intelligence.

one of.

character deaths should happen when they serve the story, not to wrap the milieu in a shell of potential doom.

 

[LaBarre]

Absolutely hopeless! Apologies to all.

Let me try to requote self:

The term "character destruction" does disturb me because it seems to impart a sense of actual animus on the part of authors as if they are directed from on high to produce an outcome deliberately displeasing to part(s) of the fanbase.

With the TNG relaunch books, I took a very definite and negative stance against two characters in particular - T'Lana and Leybenzon. I loathed them. How dare they question Picard? These two-up wannabees who are nothing in the known ST universe (at that point) and know nothing about what he has gone through and survived.

Then I found myself at the epilogue of GTTS:

"Fighting bad guys was all he was built for. If now was the time that he died for the Federation, so be it. Especially if it meant that this lowly grunt managed to save the Federation in the process. That would show Picard....

Part of me thought, well, hell Leb, what did you expect? And then a page or so later was this:

"Now his own hypo lay on the grating. ... A drone strode over, knwelt and picked up the hypo, tapped an adjacent console, and initiated a scan before wandering off to its next tast. It had peformed the waction with surreal casualness, totally unaware of the importance of what it had had just done."

"...He had been so hungry for battle, for purpose for a renewed sense of pride, that he had marched into the fray without properly evaluqating his enemy. As a result, he had committed what might be the greatest tactical blunder in history."

And I felt such a sorrow for the character, as one being to another, and then again I did again with T'Lana in Destiny, with my heart caught in my throat. It hurt to see them die - both of them, but I didn't see either demise as "character destruction.

I'm still wondering what is meant by the term.

 

[Lynx]

Let's take your comments from my perspective, just as a fun exercise.

Well, we're talking about novels here, so that doesn't count at all.
That future looks pretty good to me, really. Great technology, good ideals, a powerful force for good unable to be taken down by anything, strong enough to take on the universe and make it a better place. That's just about the best possible future I can imagine.

In order to be a better future for you, it's necessary that no one ever die? That seems rather unrealistic to me.
Check; check.
Why? Why must they continue to tell the same stories they already have? They already told those stories. Hell, were you upset when DS9 was announced, because it took place on a space station, and Star Trek hadn't ever told stories on a space station before? That wasn't doing things "in the way that it has [been] done" either.
Sell out - to give up artistic integrity for money; to let the fans dictate one's work. Seems to me like that's what you WANT them to do. What they DID was much more edgy and true to themselves.
Man, lemme tell you. Star Trek is not "doom and gloom scenario", and is absolutely nothing like BSG.

This is basically like me saying "I wish Star Trek would stop publishing optimistic books; we have Stargate and similar series for those who like that sort of entertainment." It's a completely useless point. Star Trek shouldn't define itself by what other shows aren't doing any more than by what a vocal minority of fans wants.



So basically, your entire rant is spurious and hysterical. You don't like the stories, fine, but that's a personal preference. It has nothing to do with BSG, breaking tradition, or selling out.

I think that you have misunderstood some of my points.

The books are actually based on the TV series so I guess that the premises for the series are the same for the books.

Yes, I do have some doubts about humanitys ability to survive and develope. Just look at the current crisis which is a result of sheer stupidity and greed.

No, I have never stated that people shouldn't die in the real future. What I've reacted against is unnecessary character destruction in the Star Trek TV episodes, movies and books.

No, I didn't react against DS9 taking place on a space station, I thought it was an interesting concept. I'm not against changes as long as Star Trek keep its premise.

The fine art of changing is to change within given parameters. That's what many great rock bands are doing and certain writers, TV series and movies too.

As for selling out, there is a difference between changing style in order to attract new fans just for the sake of it and to simply keep a finger in the air to figure out what the loyal fans want. I'm sure that killing off Janeway will alienate many loyal fans of Star Trek and I'm not sure if such a move will attract fans outside the Star Trek fanbase or the Voyager fanbase or how loyal those new fans will be.

What I see as a possible sell out is the attempts to turn Trek into something more "dark" in order to attract fans outside the Star Trek fanbase, thus more and less abandoning the original premise for Star Trek which might cause a loss of longtime loyal fans. That is not a good scenario.

Finally I agree with you that Star Trek is not "doom and gloom scenario" and I hope that it won't become that either.

You keep saying "unnecssary character destruction"....what the hell does that mean? Who gets to decide when death is "necessary?"

Your problem seems to be that you don't like change. You obviously have issues with the notion that these fictional characters are treated as mortals. I don't care how much of a hopey happy future you have....come what may, that which is mortal MUST DIE. Unless you are suggesting that the Q grant everyone immortality, its seems perfectly reasonable for characters to die. Death is a part of life. Only The Sisko has the potential of being immortal. Everyone else, no matter how long lived should die at some point.

One of the problems that I have long had with Star Trek is that it is really stingy with death. People are so used to heroes getting out of impossible situations that they forget that the situations as depicted are dangerous. In the real world, heroic figues die doing heroic things. In my opinon Star Trek needs to get into the habit of reminding people that being in Starfleet is dangerous. Some times people don't come back. I think that this is one areaa where the books have definately improved over the TV series.

Unnecessary character destruction is when those in charge of the TV show destroyed Kes by turning her into a monster and a pathetic wreck.

Not to mention that there was acampaign to have her re-instated as a regular character at the same time.

Unnecessary character destruction is when Janeway, one of Star Trek's best characters is killed off. Instead of using the character for further great stories, they decide to kill her off in order to get some "effect". When that "effect" has faded ag reat character is gone and there is no one there to replace her.

I don't like changes when they are destructive and ruins what has been good in a TV show or book series. If there are changes, they must lead to something constructiove and I don't see anything constructive in killing off the favorites from the TV series.

OK, the characters are supposed to be mortals. But there's no reason to kill them off unless the story is supposed to take place over centuries and what I can see, none of the Trek book series has that premise.

As you're stating in your comment, Star Trek is "stingy with death" and that's the way I want it. I don't watch the episodes or read the books to see my favorite main characters being killed off. And as a matter of fact, who will read books which are supposed to be about the characters from the TV series if they are killed off one by one. Personally I do think that the Star Trek books would attract more of those who were fans of the TV series if the characters from the series were present in the books and weren't killed off for no reason at all.

For those who like dark stories where main characters are killed off at random, there are other TV series and book series.

For the Star Trek fans who might like a darker Trek, why not create a certain "dark Trek" book series where we do have deaths, sorrow, mourning and misery and where main characters are killed off at random. But keep the hands of the characters from the TV series.

 

[JB2005]

I think that you have misunderstood some of my points.

The books are actually based on the TV series so I guess that the premises for the series are the same for the books.

Yes, I do have some doubts about humanitys ability to survive and develope. Just look at the current crisis which is a result of sheer stupidity and greed.

No, I have never stated that people shouldn't die in the real future. What I've reacted against is unnecessary character destruction in the Star Trek TV episodes, movies and books.

No, I didn't react against DS9 taking place on a space station, I thought it was an interesting concept. I'm not against changes as long as Star Trek keep its premise.

The fine art of changing is to change within given parameters. That's what many great rock bands are doing and certain writers, TV series and movies too.

As for selling out, there is a difference between changing style in order to attract new fans just for the sake of it and to simply keep a finger in the air to figure out what the loyal fans want. I'm sure that killing off Janeway will alienate many loyal fans of Star Trek and I'm not sure if such a move will attract fans outside the Star Trek fanbase or the Voyager fanbase or how loyal those new fans will be.

What I see as a possible sell out is the attempts to turn Trek into something more "dark" in order to attract fans outside the Star Trek fanbase, thus more and less abandoning the original premise for Star Trek which might cause a loss of longtime loyal fans. That is not a good scenario.

Finally I agree with you that Star Trek is not "doom and gloom scenario" and I hope that it won't become that either.

You keep saying "unnecssary character destruction"....what the hell does that mean? Who gets to decide when death is "necessary?"

Your problem seems to be that you don't like change. You obviously have issues with the notion that these fictional characters are treated as mortals. I don't care how much of a hopey happy future you have....come what may, that which is mortal MUST DIE. Unless you are suggesting that the Q grant everyone immortality, its seems perfectly reasonable for characters to die. Death is a part of life. Only The Sisko has the potential of being immortal. Everyone else, no matter how long lived should die at some point.

One of the problems that I have long had with Star Trek is that it is really stingy with death. People are so used to heroes getting out of impossible situations that they forget that the situations as depicted are dangerous. In the real world, heroic figues die doing heroic things. In my opinon Star Trek needs to get into the habit of reminding people that being in Starfleet is dangerous. Some times people don't come back. I think that this is one areaa where the books have definately improved over the TV series.

Unnecessary character destruction is when those in charge of the TV show destroyed Kes by turning her into a monster and a pathetic wreck.

Not to mention that there was acampaign to have her re-instated as a regular character at the same time.

Unnecessary character destruction is when Janeway, one of Star Trek's best characters is killed off. Instead of using the character for further great stories, they decide to kill her off in order to get some "effect". When that "effect" has faded ag reat character is gone and there is no one there to replace her.

I don't like changes when they are destructive and ruins what has been good in a TV show or book series. If there are changes, they must lead to something constructiove and I don't see anything constructive in killing off the favorites from the TV series.

OK, the characters are supposed to be mortals. But there's no reason to kill them off unless the story is supposed to take place over centuries and what I can see, none of the Trek book series has that premise.

As you're stating in your comment, Star Trek is "stingy with death" and that's the way I want it. I don't watch the episodes or read the books to see my favorite main characters being killed off. And as a matter of fact, who will read books which are supposed to be about the characters from the TV series if they are killed off one by one. Personally I do think that the Star Trek books would attract more of those who were fans of the TV series if the characters from the series were present in the books and weren't killed off for no reason at all.

For those who like dark stories where main characters are killed off at random, there are other TV series and book series.

For the Star Trek fans who might like a darker Trek, why not create a certain "dark Trek" book series where we do have deaths, sorrow, mourning and misery and where main characters are killed off at random. But keep the hands of the characters from the TV series.

If I might make a point, stories where it is clear that no one is going to die, and the status quo will not enter at the end are fine. There are 700+ episodes of Star Trek where that happens. But the series does have to progress, it's not a question of Dark or Light, it's a question of realism. When characters in the books who have been well-established die, then it is for a very good reason.

For example Janeway's death (which is a rather over-laboured point, but bear with me) was very well-done, because it wasn't just a case of "oh damn she's dead", Janeway (our Janeway, not the borg thing) sacrificed herself to destroy the giant borg cube. And Lady-Q allowed her to die, in order to release her from the cycle she had become stuck in, thinking that she would become "the other" Admiral Janeway, her death was not cheap, because it was a character development.

Similarly Data's death was a character development, because he finally understood fully what it was to be human, to be able to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

The death of Owen Paris was a development, because (for those of us who didn't already realise it) he was finally able to admit that his son and his family mattered more to him than anything else.

Each of these deaths, and there have been many more, were not for the sake of killing off characters, but rather in order to develop their characters further.

Just my thought...

 

[Thrawn]

If I might make a point, stories where it is clear that no one is going to die, and the status quo will not enter at the end are fine. There are 700+ episodes of Star Trek where that happens. But the series does have to progress, it's not a question of Dark or Light, it's a question of realism. When characters in the books who have been well-established die, then it is for a very good reason.

For example Janeway's death (which is a rather over-laboured point, but bear with me) was very well-done, because it wasn't just a case of "oh damn she's dead", Janeway (our Janeway, not the borg thing) sacrificed herself to destroy the giant borg cube. And Lady-Q allowed her to die, in order to release her from the cycle she had become stuck in, thinking that she would become "the other" Admiral Janeway, her death was not cheap, because it was a character development.

Similarly Data's death was a character development, because he finally understood fully what it was to be human, to be able to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

The death of Owen Paris was a development, because (for those of us who didn't already realise it) he was finally able to admit that his son and his family mattered more to him than anything else.

Each of these deaths, and there have been many more, were not for the sake of killing off characters, but rather in order to develop their characters further.

Just my thought...

Ahem. To preempt the obligatory hysterical, completely-missing-the-point counter-rant, allow me to take a crack at it.


[sarcasm]

Thanks for posting; these are some things WORTH ARGUING ABOUT!

But what you fail to realize is that there are only two kinds of stories, constructive and destructive, and every possible story falls exactly into one of those categories! And obviously, any story in which a character I like dies must be destructive, because it's destroying a character I like! And destructive stories are bad; I can't imagine why ANYONE would like them, except people who are depressed and hate themselves and all the characters of every story they read, doom and gloom all the time.

There's no reason to kill off any of these characters; it's not like they have jobs that put them in mortal danger on a daily basis or anything. And Janeway never, ever took risks that greatly increased her chances of death because she felt it was the right thing to do, either! She always behaved conservatively and logically. I know this because I love her so much.

Mostly I want to read the kinds of stories that I WANT TO READ, which means they should be publishing them, and not compromising on their fundamental principles, which are making the fans happy, and by the fans I mean me! It doesn't count as a development if I think it's a destructive one, obviously. No matter what "reasons" these "people" give you, it's clear that what they really wanted to do was anger and annoy the fans, since no true fan (like me!) would ever want to see one of Trek's best characters annihilated.

Where "annihilated" is defined as "on another plane of existence, having infinite coffee with the Q". I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW CRUEL THAT IS.

And it's also clearly a sexist choice by the writers; I mean, come on, she's the first woman captain who was a regular in the novels who was also a regular on a TV show first and is therefore the only important symbol of women power in a Trek universe filled with powerful women! Duh!

And honestly, I'm a little bit mad at how much people around here don't seem to respect my opinion! I'm not preventing them from reading stories they want to read, just so long as my preferences dictate the story in the first place! They're free to enjoy it too!

[/sarcasm]


How'd I do?

I mean, in all fairness, this has gone around so many times that I'm certain an equally scathing caricature of my responses could be made; something about how "I ONLY FEEL ALIVE WHEN I'M READING ABOUT CHARACTERS DYING" or some such, I don't mean to imply I'm any more rational than anyone else. We all have our points of view, and even as much as we've gotten into it, I think Lynx and everyone else's points are at worst understandable, and often totally valid.

It's just that we've been here so often that I can have the whole conversation in my head at this point. Thanks for your post, I enjoyed reading it, but it really won't convince the militant Janeway fans of anything at all.

Hope I didn't offend anyone; this was meant to be lighthearted...

...and come to think of it, having infinite coffee with the Q forever actually does sound kind of cruel.

 

[MilitantJaneway]

The death of Owen Paris was a development, because (for those of us who didn't already realise it) he was finally able to admit that his son and his family mattered more to him than anything else.

Owen Paris is dead too?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The death of Owen Paris was a development, because (for those of us who didn't already realise it) he was finally able to admit that his son and his family mattered more to him than anything else.

Owen Paris is dead too?

Wait we can talk about Destiny spoilers now?

 

[Gorf]

How'd I do?

An excellent example of how to make fun of people.

I'd say you did great if that was your purpose; if not, I'm afraid you didnt do quite as well.

 

[Therin of Andor]

having infinite coffee with the Q forever actually does sound kind of cruel.

Yeah, but it's infinite coffee with the delightful, funny, witty Suzie Plakson!

 

[ClayinCA]

Ahem. To preempt the obligatory hysterical, completely-missing-the-point counter-rant, allow me to take a crack at it.


[sarcasm]

Thanks for posting; these are some things WORTH ARGUING ABOUT!

But what you fail to realize is that there are only two kinds of stories, constructive and destructive, and every possible story falls exactly into one of those categories! And obviously, any story in which a character I like dies must be destructive, because it's destroying a character I like! And destructive stories are bad; I can't imagine why ANYONE would like them, except people who are depressed and hate themselves and all the characters of every story they read, doom and gloom all the time.

There's no reason to kill off any of these characters; it's not like they have jobs that put them in mortal danger on a daily basis or anything. And Janeway never, ever took risks that greatly increased her chances of death because she felt it was the right thing to do, either! She always behaved conservatively and logically. I know this because I love her so much.

Mostly I want to read the kinds of stories that I WANT TO READ, which means they should be publishing them, and not compromising on their fundamental principles, which are making the fans happy, and by the fans I mean me! It doesn't count as a development if I think it's a destructive one, obviously. No matter what "reasons" these "people" give you, it's clear that what they really wanted to do was anger and annoy the fans, since no true fan (like me!) would ever want to see one of Trek's best characters annihilated.

Where "annihilated" is defined as "on another plane of existence, having infinite coffee with the Q". I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW CRUEL THAT IS.

And it's also clearly a sexist choice by the writers; I mean, come on, she's the first woman captain who was a regular in the novels who was also a regular on a TV show first and is therefore the only important symbol of women power in a Trek universe filled with powerful women! Duh!

And honestly, I'm a little bit mad at how much people around here don't seem to respect my opinion! I'm not preventing them from reading stories they want to read, just so long as my preferences dictate the story in the first place! They're free to enjoy it too!

[/sarcasm]


How'd I do?

You were brilliant, sir. Absolutely brilliant.

...and come to think of it, having infinite coffee with the Q forever actually does sound kind of cruel.

Yeah, but if the Q wanted to torture you, they'd just make it decaf. Oh, the horror...the horror.

 

[kimc]

Somebody's been watching too much BSG.

Is there such a thing?

The STAR TREK universe is essentially benign. There are bumps, certainly, and arguments between species but this was never meant to be a place where the good guys die a lot.

the whole POINT is overcoming obstacles through grit and intelligence.

one of.

character deaths should happen when they serve the story, not to wrap the milieu in a shell of potential doom.

As much as I adore BSG the premise is as different from Trek as night is from day. I completely agree with your statements above - Trek is about the hope of an evolved humanity - overcoming obstacles, good triumphing over evil, etc.

Sure, some may not find that realistic but there are other venues including BSG to explore the darker side of humanity.

 

[Trent Roman]

Agreed. Trek has a number of particularities about it's premise, for better (the inherent optimism) or worse (the often uncritical application of the Prime Directive in the 24th). Trek shouldn't be everything to everyone or it loses its uniqueness; nor should the book line seek to 'fix' the premise on the basis of some necrophiliac fashion trend, but be true to the vision of the fictional universe there set out.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[pookha]

Somebody's been watching too much BSG.

Is there such a thing?

The STAR TREK universe is essentially benign. There are bumps, certainly, and arguments between species but this was never meant to be a place where the good guys die a lot.

the whole POINT is overcoming obstacles through grit and intelligence.

one of.

character deaths should happen when they serve the story, not to wrap the milieu in a shell of potential doom.

As much as I adore BSG the premise is as different from Trek as night is from day. I completely agree with your statements above - Trek is about the hope of an evolved humanity - overcoming obstacles, good triumphing over evil, etc.

Sure, some may not find that realistic but there are other venues including BSG to explore the darker side of humanity.

but i am becoming concerned that trek lit is heading toward being more like new bsg.

now i liked most of new bsg.. well until recently since characters are dying at such a rate and others are acting so odd i almost dont care.

but overall i liked it and thought its tone was fine for it.
but it now seems to be a trend of turing the trek verse into this dark nasty death ridden place.

 

[Thrawn]

How is Trek a dark nasty death ridden place? Have you READ Destiny? Tons of people die but it's the most hopeful ending of almost any Trek story ever; it's substantially less dark and nasty even than the Dominion War was on DS9.

And again - Janeway is dead, but the same editor brought Trip Tucker back to life, so the books actually have a better record on main character death than the shows did.

People are making way too much out of this.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Somebody's been watching too much BSG.

Is there such a thing?

The STAR TREK universe is essentially benign. There are bumps, certainly, and arguments between species but this was never meant to be a place where the good guys die a lot.

the whole POINT is overcoming obstacles through grit and intelligence.

one of.

character deaths should happen when they serve the story, not to wrap the milieu in a shell of potential doom.

As much as I adore BSG the premise is as different from Trek as night is from day. I completely agree with your statements above - Trek is about the hope of an evolved humanity - overcoming obstacles, good triumphing over evil, etc.

Sure, some may not find that realistic but there are other venues including BSG to explore the darker side of humanity.

but i am becoming concerned that trek lit is heading toward being more like new bsg.

now i liked most of new bsg.. well until recently since characters are dying at such a rate and others are acting so odd i almost dont care.

but overall i liked it and thought its tone was fine for it.
but it now seems to be a trend of turing the trek verse into this dark nasty death ridden place.

Well, it's a line to walk, I suppose.

You can't have adventure without danger. For humans (the bulk of the Trek-lit readership is, presumably human) "danger" translates into "potential pain," "injury" or "death."

In nearly all tales of adventure, even in many that are done "for kids," SOMEBODY dies.

For modern Star Trek, despite the initial "Best and the Brightest" premise of TOS, the bulk of the canon series have included or been focused on some large martial conflict. DS9 was almost entirely about two major wars. Three, if you count the Borg incursion that killed Sisko's wife and sent him, ultimately, to Bajor.

Then there was the Borg-centric VOYAGER and the Xindi/Suliban/time war-centric (and generally paranoic) ENTERPRISE.

Like it or not, for the past decade at least, talking about Star Trek meant you were talking about war. People die in those. Lots and lots of people die in those.

Some fans have grown up with Star Trek that has never been anything but the story of the Federation fending off brutal incursions by aggressive neighbors.

Personally, I'm in the camp that was dead sick of all that and waiting for the fun to start up again. Which it has (Thank GOD!).

BUT.

You can't ignore all those fans who want to know how things end and you can't just clap your hands and say "Basta! That was pretty bad. But now we're done. Those Borg guys sure know how to assimilate the hell out of some planets, huh? Whacky! Wonder where they went?" Etc.

You have to finish it out.

Also, if the only people who ever die in the books are new or "guest- stars," you create Red Shirt Syndrome, the longest running in-joke in Trek history. Nobody wants that. I hate watching a crime series on TV when there's a big guest star because I know, as soon as that star appears, he or she will be the focus of the story. It's like yelling "The butler did it!" at someone who's reading a book where whodunnit is the point.

The same is true for Star Trek deaths. Yes, they should be rare but, when they happen, they should happen to people we actually care about or there's no point.

While it's sad for a lot of people that Janeway's story ends on the downbeat, it's that sadness that gives the character meaning and weight. She matters to a whole slew of fans and now she's gone (sort of). So mourning and outrage are entirely appropriate responses.

It sucks. It's supposed to suck. It sucked when Kirk went bouncing down that mountain in such a stupid way. It sucked when Chewbacca took the Long Nap. It sucked when one of the Weasley twins got taken out. It's SUPPOSED to suck.

I killed a stack of characters in SoD. Literally thousands of beings died, mostly screaming, over the course of the book. But only one death seems to have truly bothered anyone. The reason is that character mattered and the thousands of background players, necessary to the story, certainly, were just not important to the readership.

But death should be important. It should matter. Sadly, in fiction at least, it only really matters when someone, some character we cherish, dies. Red Shirts are a dime a dozen.

So, with Destiny, the battle-crazed kids got their Final Conflict. The Optimists got their Star Trek solution and the franchise can FINALLY put down the Borg and get on with Something Else.

It didn't have to be Janeway, certainly, but it was going to be somebody.

 

[Thrawn]

Indeed, as of "now" in whatever series you care to name, the only war per-se going on is the Romulan one in Enterprise, something established in canon ahead of time.

Vanguard is certainly complex and occasionally dark, but is fundamentally about exploring a new area of space.

TOS jumps all over the place, but most recently ended a trilogy with a retelling of a story about war being averted.

TNG, TTN, and VOY, now that we're post-Destiny, are playing in that universe which is now fascinating politically, with the Typhon Pact, but free of any obvious ongoing conflict; in fact, the Federation has, to a degree not seen since TNG, reaffirmed its guiding principles and based its future on optimism and exploration.

DS9 is in the middle of a mirror universe thing, and there's the Ascendants on the horizon (which I suspect will be a bit more interesting than WAR WAR, but we'll see), but the Dominion is no longer a threat and has become something much more interesting, and our next novel after the mirror universe is a cultural exploration of Cardassia. After we got a 6-book series of other cultural explorations.

NF skipped over a war in its narrative. It's generally a bit more over the top and strange, and has had a few deaths along the way, but is so wacky I'd have a hard time calling it gloomy.

Klingon Empire ended (apparently) on A Burning House, an incredibly optimistic and heartwarming story.

I haven't read SCE or Stargazer, but I think that's all I'm missing and I'm having a hard time finding doom, gloom, BSG-style hopelessness, or anything similar anywhere on that list.

Sure, Janeway died, but so have many under tragic circumstances on screen, and as I've pointed out many times, the books have a better ratio there than the onscreen material (at least for canon characters).

I can understand wanting Janeway back specifically, but the idea that Trek is gloomy and depressing these days I just don't understand at all. (That would be Star Wars, wherein Han and Leia recently had to condone the cold-blooded murder of their own son, latest in a long series of depressing turns. Compared to that, Trek is puppies and flowers.)

 

[ClayinCA]

Compared to that, Trek is puppies and flowers.)

That would be the spin-off featuring Sulu's plant from "The Man Trap" and Archer's dog, Porthos, right?

 

[Dayton Ward]

"Porthos, meet Gertrude. Gertrude, eat Porthos."