Poll: Bring Janeway back?

[Thrawn]

^ *Applauds.*

You keep saying what I want to say, only better. It's a little annoying...

 

[Octavia]

Now, a couple characters have died in New Frontier...but not many. A couple characters have died in SCE...but not many. Janeway's died...but she's the only one. Nonetheless? Taran'atar is in serious peril right now, in the DS9 relaunch, and I know that it's a possibility he'll end up dead. That makes his story more thrilling. Janeway's death shows that that thought process is allowed for TV characters as well as book characters. Which is good.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, non-canon characters have been killed off. One of the big kerfuffles about the whole Janeway thing is that she is a main canon character. As such, if any future deaths are restricted to non-canon characters, then there's really no difference whatsoever. The sense of peril is unchanged.

If the point of killing off Janeway is to prove that main canon characters can die, then I stick by my point that there's only so long you can reasonably go before having to off another one - else her death appears as little more than an future excuse - "But we have killed off a main character before! It's not unrealistic that no other canon character has died!"

 

[Steve Roby]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, non-canon characters have been killed off. One of the big kerfuffles about the whole Janeway thing is that she is a main canon character.

Uh oh...

As such, if any future deaths are restricted to non-canon characters, then there's really been no change whatsoever.

Phew. So far so good.

If the point of killing off Janeway is to prove that main canon characters can die, then I stick by my point that there's only so long you can reasonably go before having to off another one in the interests of reality/peril/whatever.

Yeah! Woohoo! No spoilers!

 

[Octavia]

Octavia would it kill you to use spoiler code?

It could. The possibility of that occurring gives my life meaning, don't you know?







Seriously: sorry. Will be more careful in future.

 

[Thrawn]

Now, a couple characters have died in New Frontier...but not many. A couple characters have died in SCE...but not many. Janeway's died...but she's the only one. Nonetheless? Taran'atar is in serious peril right now, in the DS9 relaunch, and I know that it's a possibility he'll end up dead. That makes his story more thrilling. Janeway's death shows that that thought process is allowed for TV characters as well as book characters. Which is good.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, non-canon characters have been killed off. One of the big kerfuffles about the whole Janeway thing is that she is a main canon character. As such, if any future deaths are restricted to non-canon characters, then there's really no difference whatsoever. The sense of peril is unchanged.

If the point of killing off Janeway is to prove that main canon characters can die, then I stick by my point that there's only so long you can reasonably go before having to off another one - else her death appears as little more than an future excuse - "But we have killed off a main character before! It's not unrealistic that no other canon character has died!"

But I'm not just looking for a merely factual occurrence, the death of a main character. Before Dishonor's specific inclusion of Janeway's death really didn't do anything for me one way or the other. What I like is that the books are willing to explore mortality as a part of life, and that they're not restricting those stories to non-canon characters. And Full Circle is a beautiful exploration thereof, to me anyway.

It's not so much a sense of peril as a willingness to explore consequences of our characters' behavior. If that behavior includes risk of death, then we know they actually can die.

None of which refutes your point specifically, but what I mean is that it's not a simple binary thing, it's not a quota. It's a balance. And enough other stories have occurred that show other big and important life-changing events that this life-ending event, and the exploration thereof, fits into that overall pattern nicely, showing that the creative team going forward isn't making any particular story off limits. They're using all their options. It's not just this one choice, it's several over the last few years (such as Picard and Crusher marrying). But, as I said to Trent, no one was ranting about how those were shitty ideas, so I'm defending this one in particular.

If book after book of reset-button-itis starts being published, then the universe will start losing this legitimacy to my mind. And if that happens, one random death for the sake of itself won't be enough to restore it either. But this death, this particular powerful story that was extremely risky to write, coming as it does in the midst of so many other powerful stories, cements my love of this ongoing tale in a very real way. Does that make any sense?

 

[Octavia]

But I'm not just looking for a merely factual occurrence, the death of a main character. Before Dishonor's specific inclusion of Janeway's death really didn't do anything for me one way or the other. What I like is that the books are willing to explore mortality as a part of life, and that they're not restricting those stories to non-canon characters. And Full Circle is a beautiful exploration thereof, to me anyway.

It's not so much a sense of peril as a willingness to explore consequences of our characters' behavior. If that behavior includes risk of death, then we know they actually can die.

I do get your point, I do. And I agree that there shouldn't be a quota: "Five more deaths this year! Where's my guillotine?"

Where I differ with you is that while I agree that mortality should be explored in fiction, I think that exploration can be an actual disservice if it's limited to a single extraordinary instance. To me, the impact of Janeway's death is actually mitigated if not followed up by others. If left on it's own, it seems to me to smack of crossing off an item on a checklist: "Killed a canon character? Check. We're off that hook for another twenty years."

If the point of her death is to show that the universe is a perilous place and canon characters can die, then I think it's pulling the rug back over the mess to have the rest of the canon characters continue to stumble along in the bubbles of invincibility they've always had. It de-emphasises the very aspect of life that you're trying to illustrate. It becomes - and I hate this phrase - the exception that proves the rule.

You point out that there have been several marriages in Trek. That's good - marriage is a part of life - and it illustrates my point. Why have more than one? That one is enough to explore love and illustrate the point, yes? But to argue that one couple couldn't marry because another already had, and therefore the story would be superfluous... that seems to me to be silly. Love exists in multiples - and so does death. Explore them or don't explore them, but to do so once and then argue that the potentiality is then there for all time... seems a little facile to me.

 

[Thrawn]

^ That's a completely fair point, and one I actually agree with, but with one caveat. In order to make that statement, you have to delineate between canon and non-canon characters to a degree that I don't like to do. To me, the "regulars" in New Frontier are just as important as the regulars in Voyager. And in that sense, there HAVE been several major character deaths, and those stories have been done very well. Just not several canon major character deaths. But that's an external divison; one of source material, rather than storytelling. This just showed me that the writers don't see it as an internal division either, which is heartening.

 

[Octavia]

^To me, they're not the same. I don't find all the canon characters interesting, but I've yet to find a non-canon character that I like as well as my favourite canon ones. Hell, I watched most of those canon characters for seven years... they're light years ahead as far as attachment goes. (And it doesn't seem to be the same to Paramount either, if they're insisting on CYA for canon characters only.)

But I concede that this could be a subjective area. Other than that, I don't think we're actually that far in disagreement.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ Only because no matter how remote, the chances of Janeway appearing on screen in a future Trek production are far more likely than Mac Calhoun (for example). The folks at the licensing office actually do take the time to consider impacts to the fiction lines when it comes to stuff in production, in the sense that they try not to let us wander down paths which might end up getting stomped on by a movie or TV episode.. At least, they did when the shows/movies where in active production. I honestly don't know what the deal is with respect to the new movie, as we're in largely uncharted waters here (reboot, not, etc.), but I suspect we're not throwing babies out with bath water. Otherwise, I'd think projects currently in development would've been sent back for retooling. To the best of my knowledge, that's not happened.

 

[Trent Roman]

1st season of Angel had at least one huge main character death. It added this same sense of realism and storytelling potential to that series right off the bat. It was important and greatly added to the show.

I did enjoy that episode. But Doyle was on the chopping bloc almost from the beginning of the series; he was practically a character created so he could die. Whedon considered killing him in the very first episode (while still listed in the opening credits), just to screw with people's expectations. It did nothing to the show that wasn't already there, and, indeed, (trying to avoid spoilers here) no one in the main cast was killed off for another four years, and then without even losing the person portraying the character. Only in the finale did they go gung ho with the killing (TATV could have taken lessons on how to do that well). The drama in that show came not from any illusion that the characters were imperilled, because they weren't (secondaries, of course, always fair game), but from the gripping arcs they moved through.

6th season of Buffy (same showrunner) had so much depression and death and so many bad things in a row that it became unpleasant and irritating to watch.

There wasn't actually that much death, and then only towards the end. For me, it was the pervasive sense of entropy that just dragged me down. Frankly, I would have welcomed the big character death from that season sooner, if only insofar as it finally brough about dynamic storytelling again.

If you stray too far in one way, you end up with BSG - a story about humanity at its end that nonetheless never puts any main characters in any peril, removing any sense of realism (for me).

I'm surprised that you say that. If the amount of killing going on in nuBSG was insufficient to create a sense of peril, how does one death here do so? Did you feel the difference in the settings necessitate different mortality rates?

I'd like a middle ground, one I believe they're achieving quite nicely with the occasional big death like Janeway or Duffy, etc. In order for me to believe in these people, they have to deal with the same stuff that actual people deal with - love, death of loved ones, huge life changes, and all the rest. You can't cross off one huge part of the human experience just because you find it unpalatable. Janeway's death works because of what it makes in the ongoing story, the beautiful arcs and emotional power that Full Circle nailed so well. That's a story that feels genuine to me, true to life while still optimistic.

This I can agree with, or could agree with if I first agreed with the premise that Janeway's death actually contributed anything to the ongoing story instead of massively detracting from it. But again, there's the problem of the exception proving the rule, because if it's that infrequent it can't contribute to a genuine, realistic universe where death is common and the characters are in danger; your middle-ground, the so-called balance, remains massively slanted towards the certainty of characters surviving; only perhaps now it's a 97% certainty instead of a 99% one. What it becomes is almost a kind of life-event tokenism, the bragging rights to "see, we did that once". And it rings entirely false, reeking of--yes--a stunt.

But bringing a sense of danger and consequence back to the Star Trek universe, for me, makes things a lot more enjoyable.

I would disagree that the universe lacked consequence before this one death, and any sense of danger--assuming it is a priority in the first place--has been modified only fractionally.

Please provide a quote showing where "those in charge" have said that Janeway's death is permanent.

We've been over this. There have been interviews where we have learned that the attitude from editorial is that Janeway is dead, dead, dead, was always intended to be permanently killed (codas notwithstanding) and will not be returning. They might change their mind, or different editors brought in who look at the situation differently, but until then, it's as permanent as it gets in this business.

What? No there aren't. I'm not sure you entirely got what I was saying. I was talking about a thought process inside my head (or anyone's head who is ok with Janeway's death and finds the exploration of main character mortality to be interesting). Being ok with seeing those things in Trek is not the same as saying "I want LOTS of main characters to die! Death and destruction and gore are AWESOME!" That's the point I was making. Read the part of my post that you quoted again.

Except that the argument being put forward wasn't "death is beneficial when it contributes positively to a storyline", which I wouldn't disagree with (although I would disagree with it's application in this specific instance). It was "death itself contributes positively to a storyline, absent all other considerations".

And I'm not pretending it excuses other main characters from death. It isn't supposed to and doesn't need to, and I never said it would.

You might not have, but others did--and if you don't agree with the original premise, why take issue with my responses to it?

This was "mostly the case" during the TV series? That almost no main characters died? Maybe if you specifically mean TOS' 3-year TV run, sure... otherwise, no it wasn't. Spock (who was planned to stay dead initially), Tasha Yar, Kirk, Data, and Jadzia Dax. They all died.

Right. That's why I said 'mostly'. Number of main cast members (x) number of episodes and films (-) the handful of instances where one actually kicked the bucket = mostly. Hell, I could have said "practically never" and still, statistically, have been on safe ground.

First of all, I don't "want" Janeway dead. She IS dead. I never said I was happy (actually, I said it made me sad when I read it, multiple times). I didn't ask Pocket to kill Janeway. They did it, and I'm simply saying I accept it, and think it makes for an interesting story.

You approve of the decision to kill the character. You've repeatedly opposed suggestions that this be reversed. This isn't a boulder that lands on someone's head: these are choices made. Still, 'want' may have been the wrong word here; 'prefer' Janeway dead?

Second: fetishization of death? Necrophilia? Seriously? Frankly, I find the inclusion of those terms in this discussion to be insulting.

Dude, chillax. Metaphor, yes? Figures of speech. When I talk about 'commodity fetishism', you don't imagine I'm talking about humping a Mercedes-Benz, do you? I'm just saying there's a fair amount of agreement with the idea, not that anybody wants to ravish Janeway's mutilated body (although there have been a handful of intimations about the corpse and golden showers...)

Because we think it made an interesting story, we must think death is REQUIRED for interesting stories.

Except that this is exactly the argument I took issue with upthread: that the possibility of any given character dying is required to make the story enjoyable; which I took issue with both ideologically (that these stories shouldn't be about survival), and practically (that one death does not a sense of peril create).

It's not so much a sense of peril as a willingness to explore consequences of our characters' behavior. If that behavior includes risk of death, then we know they actually can die.

Death is the state of not existing; by definition, it has no consequences for the character involved. That is, after all, what's truly regrettable here: that Janeway's character arc has come to an abrupt, premature end. The people it will have consequences for are the friends, loved ones, etc., which isn't a consequence of risky behaviour, but of becoming attached to someone who does.

If book after book of reset-button-itis starts being published, then the universe will start losing this legitimacy to my mind.

Nonsensical stories are far more damaging to the legitimacy of the universe, and those can just as easily occur with 'reset button' stories (The Good That Men Do) as the so-called consequential ones (Before Dishonor). As always, the onus is first and foremost on execution.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Octavia]

When I talk about 'commodity fetishism', you don't imagine I'm talking about humping a Mercedes-Benz, do you?

You mean you aren't? Geez, now I'm disappointed.

 

[Trent Roman]

On my income, I can only afford to hump Yugos.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Except that the argument being put forward wasn't "death is beneficial when it contributes positively to a storyline", which I wouldn't disagree with (although I would disagree with it's application in this specific instance). It was "death itself contributes positively to a storyline, absent all other considerations".

Then we must have crossed paths somewhere, because I never thought that. I've in fact posted explicitly on this page that Janeway's death in Before Dishonor really didn't matter very much to me at all either way, and that what really made me interested was how it contributed so meaningfully to the storyline in Full Circle.

I was attempting to argue against people saying death was antithetical to Star Trek by arguing that death, when handled well, was an essential and constructive element to an ongoing universe like this. Clearly, any plot point can be done shittily, and death is no exception. Even Joss Whedon had a couple deaths that pissed me off.

But when done well, the exploration of mortality, as exemplified both in Full Circle and in the Doyle storyline that you and I both loved, is an integral part of an ongoing story about people I'm expected to believe in. Or it is, anyway, if they're in a line of work where they would be expected to deal with mortality.

(And, as a side point, until 4th season, BSG didn't explore individual mortality in any way I'd consider legitimate. Anyone that died was basically never mentioned; any main character shot or given cancer survived through some miraculous means. And Billy is the very definition of a useless death. It's not the fact of death, it's its use to the story.)

 

[Praetor]

Slightly OT, didn't they just kill Billy because the actor wanted off?

At least literature doesn't suffer at the whims of its actors.

 

[Lynx]

Please provide a quote showing where "those in charge" have said that Janeway's death is permanent.

Kirsten's quote was something like "I've stated repeatedly that she won't be coming back in the forseeable future, that being Full Circle and Unworthy. After that, anything is possible."

Once again, Lynx just makes shit up to support his case.

Is it necessary to come up with personal attacks?

And I'm not "making sh*t up" because it's obvious that those in charge has stated that Janeway "won't be coming back in the forseeable future". Now, "a foreseeable future" can be everything from 2 years to 100 years so my statement about her death being permanent is not far from the truth.

By the way:

Spoiler: Killed-off characters

I read somewhere that Admiral Paris has been killed off too! So much for statements about the killing of of Janeway "being an exception" when it comes to main characters and important characters of Voyager.

ClayinCA wrote:

I think it is more likely that you will claim you were right all along, and will praise "them" for doing what you wanted them to do in the first place. That's just a "feeling" I have, though

To quote Quark: Nononononononono!
That's not my style. I have no intention to make it personal, I will only express my gratitude that Janeway is back if that happen.

 

[Defcon]

By the way:

Spoiler: Killed-off characters

I read somewhere that Admiral Paris has been killed off too! So much for statements about the killing of of Janeway "being an exception" when it comes to main characters and important characters of Voyager.

Don't you think that calling that character a main character is stretching the definition of that term quite a bit?

 

[Turtletrekker]

^Of course it's a stretch. A huuuge one. Like Reed Richards. Lynx either doesn't care or can't make the distinction between "major" and "minor" characters . He'll say anything to "prove" he's right and the rest of us are idiots.

 

[ClayinCA]

^ *Applauds.*

You keep saying what I want to say, only better. It's a little annoying...

It's definitely a skill Saito has, isn't it??

If book after book of reset-button-itis starts being published, then the universe will start losing this legitimacy to my mind.

This, right here, is why I started to lose interest in the books during the Richard Arnold era, and its immediate aftermath. Book after book of inconsequential stories that in the end, had no effect on our characters and were kind of disposable as a result. I'm not saying there weren't some well-written books done during this time--a lot of them were pretty good, and written by authors who chafed against the imposed restrictions--but for me personally, the reset button made them less enjoyable. I like the new way of doing things much better.

Nonsensical stories are far more damaging to the legitimacy of the universe, and those can just as easily occur with 'reset button' stories (The Good That Men Do) as the so-called consequential ones (Before Dishonor). As always, the onus is first and foremost on execution.

Now this I agree with. While I don't have the hate-on for Before Dishonor that many seem to, I did find an awful lot of the execution to be pretty far-fetched, to say the least; it almost had the air, occasionally, of Peter David writing a spoof rather than a quote-unquote serious book. I don't have a problem with a less-than-serious style of storytelling--"The Trouble With Tribbles" leaps to mind--but that was executed well, and BD wasn't, by and large.

 

[Lynx]

By the way:

Spoiler: Killed-off characters

I read somewhere that Admiral Paris has been killed off too! So much for statements about the killing of of Janeway "being an exception" when it comes to main characters and important characters of Voyager.

Don't you think that calling that character a main character is stretching the definition of that term quite a bit?

Well.............yes you're right here. It was more a reference to "important character" in this case.

It was also another, "oh no, not again" reaction from my site.

Turtletrekker wrote:

Of course it's a stretch. A huuuge one. Like Reed Richards. Lynx either doesn't care or can't make the distinction between "major" and "minor" characters . He'll say anything to "prove" he's right and the rest of us are idiots.

Oh dear, here we have another poster who just have to make it personal by twisting my comment to something it wasn't supposed to be and adding some ironic comments on top of that.

 

[Vestboy]

Please provide a quote showing where "those in charge" have said that Janeway's death is permanent.

Kirsten's quote was something like "I've stated repeatedly that she won't be coming back in the forseeable future, that being Full Circle and Unworthy. After that, anything is possible."

Once again, Lynx just makes shit up to support his case.

Is it necessary to come up with personal attacks?

And I'm not "making sh*t up" because it's obvious that those in charge has stated that Janeway "won't be coming back in the forseeable future". Now, "a foreseeable future" can be everything from 2 years to 100 years so my statement about her death being permanent is not far from the truth.

Except "the foreseeable future" consists of only the next book. Anything beyond that is, as of right now, unforeseeable.