How we deal with death

[Gorf]

I have to admit - that picture is amazing!!!

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I have to say, I think you are dramatically overstating the supposed "Dark Trek" that you see developing. The death of a single character does not herald untold despair and destruction in the Trek universe, any more than any of the various main character deaths on the shows themselves did. And I truly don't understand the mindset that no main characters from the shows should ever be allowed to be killed off in the books. Again, how is this any different from when main characters died in the shows/movies?
Furthermore, while Trek (shows AND novels) is nowhere near a nuBSG level in terms of overtones of feeling really dark or hopeless, don't forget, it's not like it's always just been roses and ducks and bunnies. Consider "City on the Edge of Forever," "Chain of Command", "The Siege of AR-558," and "Course: Oblivion" (mainly for that ending, in that case), to present an example of a fairly dark or tragic storyline from each series (well, except Enterprise, cause I don't know it well enough to come up with an example).

I have to comment on this one. When it comes to heralding despair and destruction in the Trek universe, well I'm afraid that it's heading in that direction. When the main character of Voyager can be killed off just like that, then I do see Pandora's Box opening up. I'm also afraid that Trek will begin to "sell out" to the trend of darker series which unfortunately has gained a certain popularity in recent years.

As for killing off or dumping main characters in the TV series, I do have some objections to that too as you probably have seen in some of my posts. But in some cases I can understand why it was done when there has been actors who have wanted out. But when it comes to the books, there are no whims of certain actors invoved to care about.

And when certain characters have survived seven years of a TV series, why kill them off. Better to let them retire or move to some remote planet to buy an ostrich farm or something like that if there's no role for them in the coming books.

It's also the fact that if you have learned to like a series, like Voyager in this case, and really like the characters and is buying the books to read more about their adventures, you might not llike to see them being killed off or become somthing they never were supposed to be.

If you start reading a book series about a Starfleet crew (like New Frontier for example) and find out after some books that you don't like the characters or the story, then it's easy to quit reading. It's harder to abandon something when you have followed it for a long time, have had some expectations for the "relaunch" in this case and it turns into something which is the exact opposite of what you once liked.

Life is change. So is good fiction. Embrace.

 

[Therin of Andor]

When it comes to heralding despair and destruction in the Trek universe, well I'm afraid that it's heading in that direction...

And when certain characters have survived seven years of a TV series, why kill them off.

Because real space explorers would suffer some losses in their main crew, not just amongst theior "red shirt" security guards.

It's all about believability. Anyone wearing a red shirt, who was new to the series, was more likely to die in TOS. The series was lampooned for that all the time.

Spock died during a mission. It shocked and angered people. Yar died on a mission. It shocked and angered people.

What you seem to want is a guarantee that every main crewmember will have a happy ending, and that's nothing like reality.

you might not llike to see them being killed off or become somthing they never were supposed to be.

The characters were never meant to be immortal.

 

[Trek]

The characters were never meant to be immortal.

Unless their name is McCoy - I can't believe he's still going!

 

[Thrawn]

^ Excellent post, Therin, but it goes beyond that for me. It's not just a question of realism.

There's a quote from the fictional philosopher Shan Yu in Firefly (at least, I assume he's fictional) about how you can know someone for years, but then "hold him over the volcano's edge, and on that day you will truly meet the man." Basically, only when people are in difficult and harsh circumstances do we find out what they're really capable of. Who they really are.

This can obviously be taken to extremes, but it's been my experience that the death of someone close is one of the situations that really shows what people are made of. I've had otherwise fairly distant friends become angels when a loved one dies, and otherwise close friends vanish. No one is saying it's fun, but it says a lot about a person how they react in such a circumstance. And so in fiction, situations like that provide for a type of character development that cannot be had in any other way.

For the first time ever, I am fascinated to see what happens to Chakotay, and for that matter another character on Enterprise who's going through a similar situation after Kobayashi Maru. Chakotay was boring on the show, because he never went through anything interesting EXCEPT when Janeway was going insane about something and he was able to counterpoint her. Now, we get to see who he is on his own for the first time (excepting Maquis flashback stories).

Incidentally, it's also rendered substantially more powerful for the reader because we sympathize - we like Janeway too. I actually think her death is a much better story if you like the character than if you hate her.

If you don't like stories like that, fine, but don't tell me that it it's cruel, unjustifiable, or "destructive".

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Seriously, how many more times are we going to have this exact same argument?

I'm not sure there is a computer or branch of mathematics in existence that can answer this question, but if you want my guess, it would be "many more."

All this has happened before and it will happen again.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

The characters were never meant to be immortal.

Unless their name is McCoy - I can't believe he's still going!

Whoever said that doctors are themselves in poor health....?

 

[Lynx]

When it comes to heralding despair and destruction in the Trek universe, well I'm afraid that it's heading in that direction...

And when certain characters have survived seven years of a TV series, why kill them off.

Because real space explorers would suffer some losses in their main crew, not just amongst theior "red shirt" security guards.

It's all about believability. Anyone wearing a red shirt, who was new to the series, was more likely to die in TOS. The series was lampooned for that all the time.

Spock died during a mission. It shocked and angered people. Yar died on a mission. It shocked and angered people.

What you seem to want is a guarantee that every main crewmember will have a happy ending, and that's nothing like reality.

you might not llike to see them being killed off or become somthing they never were supposed to be.

The characters were never meant to be immortal.

I can understand the wish for realism but does Star Trek have to be that realistic when no other series is (except some current trend "dark series"). And I still don't understand why fans want to see their favorites killed off, I don't.

I agree that the characters were never supposed to be immortal but it would be nice to have them alive for what is supposed to be their place in the Trek timeline for lots of exciting adventures in that timeline.

As fr Spock, he was brought back. As for Yar, she was killed off because the actress wanted to leave.

Thrawn wrote:

Excellent post, Therin, but it goes beyond that for me. It's not just a question of realism.

There's a quote from the fictional philosopher Shan Yu in Firefly (at least, I assume he's fictional) about how you can know someone for years, but then "hold him over the volcano's edge, and on that day you will truly meet the man." Basically, only when people are in difficult and harsh circumstances do we find out what they're really capable of. Who they really are.

This can obviously be taken to extremes, but it's been my experience that the death of someone close is one of the situations that really shows what people are made of. I've had otherwise fairly distant friends become angels when a loved one dies, and otherwise close friends vanish. No one is saying it's fun, but it says a lot about a person how they react in such a circumstance. And so in fiction, situations like that provide for a type of character development that cannot be had in any other way.

For the first time ever, I am fascinated to see what happens to Chakotay, and for that matter another character on Enterprise who's going through a similar situation after Kobayashi Maru. Chakotay was boring on the show, because he never went through anything interesting EXCEPT when Janeway was going insane about something and he was able to counterpoint her. Now, we get to see who he is on his own for the first time (excepting Maquis flashback stories).

Incidentally, it's also rendered substantially more powerful for the reader because we sympathize - we like Janeway too. I actually think her death is a much better story if you like the character than if you hate her.

If you don't like stories like that, fine, but don't tell me that it it's cruel, unjustifiable, or "destructive".

Well, I've had my fair share of deaths among family members and friends so I know what it's all about. There was a period of 8 years in my life when 5 family members and relatives died. It wasn't that entertaining. Did it make me a better person? Honestly, I don't know.

But I know all about grief and sorrow and that might be a reason why I'm not going to spend my time reading about Chakotay and the others walloping in Janeway's death. As I've written before, I refuse to accept it and find the whole thing unnecessary and actually destructive compared to wat could have been done with the character alive for future stories. Sorry, but that's my opinion about it.

As for dark stories with no happy endings, I can read such stories too from time to time. Before starting some sort of own "Voyager Relaunch" with my DVD:s and books to find out if the current events had made me so tired of the whole thing that I couldn't stand it anymore (which fortunately wasn't the truth), I read a biography about a Polish resistance fighter during WWII who after seven years of fighting against a brutal occupation force which had resulted in the deaths of many of his friends, he discovered that his country had been sold out to another brutal occpation force which started to kill off those of the resistance fighters who had survived. A touching and tragic story (however, some years after the book was published, Poland became an free and independent country again and the author could return and live his last years in his home country). So I can appreciate such stories as well. But Trek is another thing where I do prefer to have main characters around for more adventures and exciting things.

Hartzilla wrote:

All this has happened before and it will happen again.

"And the tale goes on and on and on and on!"
"Rime Of The Ancient Mariner"
Iron Maiden

 

[Saito S]

When it comes to heralding despair and destruction in the Trek universe, well I'm afraid that it's heading in that direction...

And when certain characters have survived seven years of a TV series, why kill them off.

Because real space explorers would suffer some losses in their main crew, not just amongst theior "red shirt" security guards.

It's all about believability. Anyone wearing a red shirt, who was new to the series, was more likely to die in TOS. The series was lampooned for that all the time.

Spock died during a mission. It shocked and angered people. Yar died on a mission. It shocked and angered people.

What you seem to want is a guarantee that every main crewmember will have a happy ending, and that's nothing like reality.

you might not llike to see them being killed off or become somthing they never were supposed to be.

The characters were never meant to be immortal.

This is a big part of what I was saying. I don't really see any difference between Janeway dying in the books and the main character deaths from the shows. The argument "Well, on a TV show it's valid if an actor wants to leave the show, but in a book they don't have to worry about that" holds no weight to me, because an actor leaving doesn't mean they have to kill the character. They could receive a promotion or transfer, or suffer some debilitating injury that forces them into retirement, or just retire for other reasons... But when an actor does leave, often the producers will take advantage of that to do something they normally can't do, kill a main character. This creates a dramatic storyline that is normally impossible, as well as reminding everyone that it's not just the extras and bit parts that can die. Trek's universe is a dangerous one, and the franchise has at times seemed to have overly strong "main character shields". I think it's important to show every now and again that they aren't immortal.

Lynx, you mentioned in response to my other post that you had a problem with some of the on-screen deaths, too. This brings to mind a question I think I asked in a post over in the "Should Janeway be brought back?" thread: Would you be happier reading dramatic fiction, sci-fi or otherwise (or watching TV shows, or movies, or playing story-heavy video games, or whatever) where you could know, beyond doubt, ahead of time, that every main character would survive the entire adventure? I wouldn't. I'm not saying that someone must die for it to be a good story, but the possibility is always there. Especially if the situations in the story frequently involve a high level of danger, and you have background characters dying somewhat often, yet our heroes always come through unscathed... this, of course, was a big problem on TOS, as Therin pointed out.

Finally, I really do think this notion of Janeway's death indicating that the entire book line is spiraling down into the depths of hell is a huge stretch, at best. As I pointed out in my last post, Trek has never been devoid of dark stories, events that are unsettling or downright depressing, and the death of good (and sometimes main) characters. It's not the norm, but nor is it becoming the norm in the books any more than it was. In fact, I think this is one of the strengths of Trek as a franchise: it's basic premise is uniquely optimistic and hopeful, such that more dark storytelling can have a more powerful impact (several of the darker storylines from all four of the series I referenced were among each series' better episodes) than in other sci-fi, where the normal mood is already darker.
Have you read Before Dishonor? Are you aware of what Janeway did for the Federation just before the moment of her death? How about Greater Than the Sum, which followed BD, and is as much about the discovery of a fascinating new life form as it is about continuing to battle the Borg? I will grant that I haven't read the Destiny trilogy yet, although I'm looking forward to it (gotta finish up the DS9 relaunch books, which I have been sorely neglecting till recently, first), but Thrawn's comments about it's hopeful outlook intrigue me greatly (knowing that the subject matter of the story itself seems pretty heavy and grim from what I understand). Frankly, taking the death of one main character and inferring that the entire book line has been irrevocably set down the path toward complete doom and gloom is pretty ridiculous, especially when you haven't even read the books in question!

 

[JB2005]

They killed maude flanders, in what I like to call DARK-SIMPSONS...characters die in everything...

 

[Lynx]

Saito wrote:

This is a big part of what I was saying. I don't really see any difference between Janeway dying in the books and the main character deaths from the shows. The argument "Well, on a TV show it's valid if an actor wants to leave the show, but in a book they don't have to worry about that" holds no weight to me, because an actor leaving doesn't mean they have to kill the character. They could receive a promotion or transfer, or suffer some debilitating injury that forces them into retirement, or just retire for other reasons... But when an actor does leave, often the producers will take advantage of that to do something they normally can't do, kill a main character. This creates a dramatic storyline that is normally impossible, as well as reminding everyone that it's not just the extras and bit parts that can die. Trek's universe is a dangerous one, and the franchise has at times seemed to have overly strong "main character shields". I think it's important to show every now and again that they aren't immortal.

Lynx, you mentioned in response to my other post that you had a problem with some of the on-screen deaths, too. This brings to mind a question I think I asked in a post over in the "Should Janeway be brought back?" thread: Would you be happier reading dramatic fiction, sci-fi or otherwise (or watching TV shows, or movies, or playing story-heavy video games, or whatever) where you could know, beyond doubt, ahead of time, that every main character would survive the entire adventure? I wouldn't. I'm not saying that someone must die for it to be a good story, but the possibility is always there. Especially if the situations in the story frequently involve a high level of danger, and you have background characters dying somewhat often, yet our heroes always come through unscathed... this, of course, was a big problem on TOS, as Therin pointed out.

Finally, I really do think this notion of Janeway's death indicating that the entire book line is spiraling down into the depths of hell is a huge stretch, at best. As I pointed out in my last post, Trek has never been devoid of dark stories, events that are unsettling or downright depressing, and the death of good (and sometimes main) characters. It's not the norm, but nor is it becoming the norm in the books any more than it was. In fact, I think this is one of the strengths of Trek as a franchise: it's basic premise is uniquely optimistic and hopeful, such that more dark storytelling can have a more powerful impact (several of the darker storylines from all four of the series I referenced were among each series' better episodes) than in other sci-fi, where the normal mood is already darker.
Have you read Before Dishonor? Are you aware of what Janeway did for the Federation just before the moment of her death? How about Greater Than the Sum, which followed BD, and is as much about the discovery of a fascinating new life form as it is about continuing to battle the Borg? I will grant that I haven't read the Destiny trilogy yet, although I'm looking forward to it (gotta finish up the DS9 relaunch books, which I have been sorely neglecting till recently, first), but Thrawn's comments about it's hopeful outlook intrigue me greatly (knowing that the subject matter of the story itself seems pretty heavy and grim from what I understand). Frankly, taking the death of one main character and inferring that the entire book line has been irrevocably set down the path toward complete doom and gloom is pretty ridiculous, especially when you haven't even read the books in question!

No, I haven't read "Before Dishonor" and I have no plans to read it either because I don't want to read about Janeway's death, no matter how "glorious" or "sacrifying" it might be. As I've written before, I simply refuse to accept the death of the character and therefore I don't want to read about it or read about anything which might contain some references to it. Besides that, I see no reason to support the current direction of the Star Trek books.

However, since I've been a fan of the Star trek books for many years (see the reviews and the comments of appreciation of the season 1-3 Voyager books on my website) I don't rule out the possibility that I will start to read Star Trek books somewhere in the future. But in that case, it must be a book where there will be no reference at all to Janeway's death or to the death of some other TNG, DS9 and Voyager character.

And in that case, I will follow the new rule which is based on what I've learned from Voyager: No more favorites among the characters!

 

[JB2005]

^^
No, I haven't read "Before Dishonor" and I have no plans to read it either because I don't want to read about Janeway's death, no matter how "glorious" or "sacrifying" it might be.

Then you have no right to comment, because for all you know we've all been lying and Janeway isn't really dead

 

[JoeZhang]

But in that case, it must be a book where there will be no reference at all to Janeway's death or to the death of some other TNG, DS9 and Voyager character.

Since you seem to like absolutely nothing about the books, don't read the books, haven't read the books in years, don't plan to read the books unless they fit some bizzare narrow criteria, have you considered getting a hobby you know.. you enjoy? Can actually get involved in? We get you don't like what's happened but what is there for you to discuss here beyond getting into finer and finer detail about why you don't like them?

Because I'm at a loss what is it you want to discuss in the literature forum - none of us can have an informed conversation with you about anything because you don't read the novels - so that's out.

We can't discuss upcoming books with you because none of them fit your bizzare narrow criteria of what must be in a Star Trek book - so that's out?

What's left? Ships of the line? The Star Trek colouring book?

 

[Trent Roman]

Then you have no right to comment, because for all you know we've all been lying and Janeway isn't really dead

Bullshit. Enough data has been relayed about the book for people to make informed decisions on whether or not it's something they would enjoy. Lynx doesn't need to read Before Dishonor to know that it would not be pleasing to him, anymore than I need to view the collected works of the Wayan Brothers to know I would hate them.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[William Leisner]

^ Hey, I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka wasn't half bad...

 

[Saito S]

Then you have no right to comment, because for all you know we've all been lying and Janeway isn't really dead

Bullshit. Enough data has been relayed about the book for people to make informed decisions on whether or not it's something they would enjoy. Lynx doesn't need to read Before Dishonor to know that it would not be pleasing to him, anymore than I need to view the collected works of the Wayan Brothers to know I would hate them.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Not entirely.

Neither Lynx nor anyone else needs to read BD before deciding weather or not to read it. And in this case, if it's based on "I don't like the idea of X, this story has X, therefore I don't like this story even though I haven't read it"... that, too, is just fine.

What JB is referring to (I assume, anyway) isn't simply the notion that Lynx has no desire to read these books, but that he has been commenting on the quality of books he hasn't read and condemning what he sees as a "new direction" for TrekLit based on one event. This new direction doesn't really exist to anywhere near the degree he is asserting it does, if at all. This is out of the realm of "I just don't like it personally" and into "This is what the books are (objectively) doing." In order to back up such a claim, one would need to read at least some of the books in question. That is where some of us are coming from (or me, at least; I don't want to speak for others, but I'm assuming it's the case for several of us) when arguing with him.

He doesn't have to read Before Dishonor or Full Circle to say that the stories hold no interest for him personally. He does have to read them before declaring that they represent some skew into a direction that is radically different from other Trek, or saying that they mishandle Voyager's characters, or anything of the sort.

 

[JoeZhang]

^ Hey, I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka wasn't half bad...

He died of .... overgold

 

[Trent Roman]

This is out of the realm of "I just don't like it personally" and into "This is what the books are (objectively) doing." In order to back up such a claim, one would need to read at least some of the books in question. That is where some of us are coming from (or me, at least; I don't want to speak for others, but I'm assuming it's the case for several of us) when arguing with him. He doesn't have to read Before Dishonor or Full Circle to say that the stories hold no interest for him personally. He does have to read them before declaring that they represent some skew into a direction that is radically different from other Trek, or saying that they mishandle Voyager's characters, or anything of the sort.

But if he--or I, or anybody else, for that matter--does read the book(s) and makes such an assertion, it won't make it anymore "objectively" factual. It's still one person's opinion; all a matter of individual, subjective evaluation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

This is out of the realm of "I just don't like it personally" and into "This is what the books are (objectively) doing." In order to back up such a claim, one would need to read at least some of the books in question. That is where some of us are coming from (or me, at least; I don't want to speak for others, but I'm assuming it's the case for several of us) when arguing with him. He doesn't have to read Before Dishonor or Full Circle to say that the stories hold no interest for him personally. He does have to read them before declaring that they represent some skew into a direction that is radically different from other Trek, or saying that they mishandle Voyager's characters, or anything of the sort.

But if he--or I, or anybody else, for that matter--does read the book(s) and makes such an assertion, it won't make it anymore "objectively" factual. It's still one person's opinion; all a matter of individual, subjective evaluation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Are you really having trouble understanding the value of an informed opinion over an uninformed one?

You're better than that; you're just being ornery here.

 

[Saito S]

This is out of the realm of "I just don't like it personally" and into "This is what the books are (objectively) doing." In order to back up such a claim, one would need to read at least some of the books in question. That is where some of us are coming from (or me, at least; I don't want to speak for others, but I'm assuming it's the case for several of us) when arguing with him. He doesn't have to read Before Dishonor or Full Circle to say that the stories hold no interest for him personally. He does have to read them before declaring that they represent some skew into a direction that is radically different from other Trek, or saying that they mishandle Voyager's characters, or anything of the sort.

But if he--or I, or anybody else, for that matter--does read the book(s) and makes such an assertion, it won't make it anymore "objectively" factual. It's still one person's opinion; all a matter of individual, subjective evaluation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Thrawn summed up what would be my main response here... well, his first sentence anyway; not the part about being ornery. I haven't been here nearly long enough to make that kind of statement.
The point is that his opinion would be based on having read the material, instead of judging it without giving it a chance.

But allow me to clarify something: I wasn't trying to imply that someone who HAS read the books (weather that's Lynx or me or anyone else) can suddenly make these subjective aspects into facts. What is at issue here, for me at least (well, one of the things at issue here, anyway), is that Lynxis already presenting a lot of his arguments as if he IS putting forth facts, with regards to the death of Janeway and the supposed "Dark Trek" trend. The creative decision to kill Janeway is NOT a "mistake that needs to be corrected." In fact, I don't think any creative decision can be. Some will like it, others won't. And I don't see the uber-dark trends developing that he sees for the books as a whole, nor does anyone else I've personally spoken to about the books, and I've seen a LOT of people here agree.

So my point wasn't that reading the books would suddenly open his mind to the previously unknown facts, or something. As you pointed out Trent, this is all subjective. It's just that Lynx has come across very strongly like he's arguing based on factual truth, when he's not, and this is compounded by the fact that he hasn't even read the material that is being argued over.