Shameless Hypocrisy About Character Deaths *Spoilers*

[Silent_Bob]

This is going to sound like a completely hypocritical fan rant i'm afraid. I just finished reading Full Circle, which is excellent by the way, and was left with the following question:

Am i the only one getting tired of all the character deaths?

I know, i know, for years fans have wanted the books to be more bold and realistic, with characters being killed off and real repercussions to the stories told. But i'm beginning to think its going too far now. Its getting to the point where i dont really care about any new characters introduced as part of the crew, because chances are they will be killed off a couple of books later.

The death that sparked this was

Spoiler: Full Circle

Dr. Kaz

, a character i had gotten to like. It seems like as soon as we start to form a connection with these characters, they are gone- usually in a horrific way.

By no means is this a criticism of all character deaths, Full Circle has proven that Janeway's demise was necessary to advance the story of the crew of Voyager- Chakotay has gone from a bland Captain to someone who's story i am genuinely looking forward to reading about, quite an achievement for Commander Cardboard. But with Janeway we had seven years and several dozen novels to get to know the character. With some of these casualties we barely get more than a single book before they bite the dust.

Anyway, anyone else share these thoughts? Am i being a typical fan, asking for something then complaining when we get it?

 

[Thrawn]

No, I actually think that deaths of the Golden characters was one of the weaknesses of Full Circle, but I'm not sure you can generalize that to a larger trend. None of the other relaunches are in quite the same situation (one author's particular project, halted halfway through, and given to another author years later) and so I don't think I've seen any comparable gluts of new-character death. The occasional one dies here and there, but I think that's necessary for the drama of the universe. What other examples are you referring to?

 

[LightningStorm]

No, I actually think that deaths of the Golden characters was one of the weaknesses of Full Circle, but I'm not sure you can generalize that to a larger trend. None of the other relaunches are in quite the same situation (one author's particular project, halted halfway through, and given to another author years later) and so I don't think I've seen any comparable gluts of new-character death. The occasional one dies here and there, but I think that's necessary for the drama of the universe. What other examples are you referring to?

I agree with this. Though I think the TNG Relaunch did suffer from this, not because of single author (as obviously it wasn't) but perhaps too many different changes occurring along the way. I mean we got a new folks in Resistance who died, then again in Q&A, then we got a different version of those same characters in Before Dishonor whose events caused those characters to not be compatible with the crew and ultimately be killed off later. So we yet again got new characters in Greater Than the Sum.

 

[Silent_Bob]

No, I actually think that deaths of the Golden characters was one of the weaknesses of Full Circle, but I'm not sure you can generalize that to a larger trend. None of the other relaunches are in quite the same situation (one author's particular project, halted halfway through, and given to another author years later) and so I don't think I've seen any comparable gluts of new-character death. The occasional one dies here and there, but I think that's necessary for the drama of the universe. What other examples are you referring to?

Mostly the TNG relaunch, through Destiny. It just felt to me that a lot of effort was made introducing these new characters, only to cast them aside a couple of books later. It was akin to introducing Commander Vaughn and Shar, then killing them off in Mission Gamma book 1.

Some deaths are necessary, but at the moment it seems to me like a character has one book to shine, if they arent popular, they are dead in the next. There doesnt seem to be any attempt to "redeem" the characters through character arcs.

 

[Christopher]

Look at it this way: it took TOS a couple of tries to get a workable bridge crew. Most of the characters in "The Cage" weren't all that interesting, so they tried again with a new cast, but they got a few hits (Kirk, Scott, Sulu) and a few misses (Piper, Alden). Then when the first season started, we finally got McCoy and Uhura, but we also got Rand, who was dropped after a third of a season. And it wasn't until the second season that Chekov completed the cast as we know it.

When you try out new characters, there's no guarantee they'll work. Sometimes they turn out well, other times they turn out to be dead ends. Or sometimes circumstances change and require you to shift direction.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Look at it this way: it took TOS a couple of tries to get a workable bridge crew. Most of the characters in "The Cage" weren't all that interesting, so they tried again with a new cast, but they got a few hits (Kirk, Scott, Sulu) and a few misses (Piper, Alden). Then when the first season started, we finally got McCoy and Uhura, but we also got Rand, who was dropped after a third of a season. And it wasn't until the second season that Chekov completed the cast as we know it.

When you try out new characters, there's no guarantee they'll work. Sometimes they turn out well, other times they turn out to be dead ends. Or sometimes circumstances change and require you to shift direction.

But is it necessary to obliterate them? The occasional use of the "transferred elsewhere" cliche would be nice, at least then it leaves the door open. After-all Rand did pop up again later.

I'm also glad that no one has taken this as a critique of the current novels, its more of a quibble, i still think the work everyone is doing at Pocket is the best its ever been.

 

[Thrawn]

Look at it this way: it took TOS a couple of tries to get a workable bridge crew. Most of the characters in "The Cage" weren't all that interesting, so they tried again with a new cast, but they got a few hits (Kirk, Scott, Sulu) and a few misses (Piper, Alden). Then when the first season started, we finally got McCoy and Uhura, but we also got Rand, who was dropped after a third of a season. And it wasn't until the second season that Chekov completed the cast as we know it.

When you try out new characters, there's no guarantee they'll work. Sometimes they turn out well, other times they turn out to be dead ends. Or sometimes circumstances change and require you to shift direction.

But is it necessary to obliterate them? The occasional use of the "transferred elsewhere" cliche would be nice, at least then it leaves the door open. After-all Rand did pop up again later.

I'm also glad that no one has taken this as a critique of the current novels, its more of a quibble, i still think the work everyone is doing at Pocket is the best its ever been.

Agreed twice.

 

[captcalhoun]

Spoiler: Full Circle

Wasn't Kaz's death part of the ship getting smashed by the Cube? In that case, I can forgive his death since y'know a big chunka crew got killed (or so i thought) and the ship was run over by a freakin Borg Cube... Maybe it didn't bother me so much since I didn't know Kaz...

 

[Christopher]

But is it necessary to obliterate them? The occasional use of the "transferred elsewhere" cliche would be nice, at least then it leaves the door open. After-all Rand did pop up again later.

In general, I'm sure that could happen. In the context of the cataclysmic events surrounding Destiny, it's a different matter. Since a lot of people were going be dying anyway, it made sense to make them characters we knew rather than have random strangers die while the departed characters from the books just had uneventful transfers.

 

[William Leisner]

Kirsten Beyer wrote this post a few weeks back, explaining her thought processes in writing Full Circle, which sheds a whole lot of light on this (and myriad other issues).

 

[Trent Roman]

I've not read Full Circle yet so I'm only skimming the thread, but elsewhere and otherwise I am completely over death. Seriously, quite sick of it. That was interesting back when the NJO was running and BSG started, but destruction and slaughter have worn out their appeal, yet unfortunately for me it seems to be all the rage these days, which, combined with inept handling, is seriously ruining shit (Before Dishonor, Legacy of the Force, Ultimatum). Just finished the first Destiny book, and even there the astronomical casualty count is easily the least appealing aspect of an otherwise entertaining book. Blowing more shit up, killing more people, is being taken as byword for greater relevance, but I've lost interest. Any idiot with a gun can take life; it's creation that's the real challenge, I think, and that's what I want to see in my fiction: new worlds, new species, being moved because of something magnificent and complex that leaves you with a sense of awe, not in a depressive funk.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JTK2099]

It was akin to introducing Commander Vaughn and Shar, then killing them off in Mission Gamma book 1.

I might have actually kept reading the DS9 books if this had happened. The primary reason I gave up on them was because I was tired of reading too much about Vaughn and Shar and not enough about the TV characters . . . which is why I would want to read a Trek book in the first place.

 

[Thrawn]

^ And the previous two posts provide yet another brilliant example of "you can't please everyone, no matter what."

 

[captcalhoun]

Trent Roman's constant whinging about people dying is getting boring. c'mon man, shuffle your ipod and come up with something new to say.

 

[Trent Roman]

So what does that make your constant complaining about other people's complaints? It's a thread about character death. Should I lie and say I'm happy with it?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JustKate]

Not to play mod or anything, but Silent Bob specifically asked if he was the only one getting tired of character deaths. So...why shouldn't Trent say "No, you're not the only one"? I mean, that's the topic here. Of course it's also perfectly appropriate to say if one thinks the amount of character death in recent books is justified.

I am a bit troubled, too, I have to say - but I haven't read enough of the recent books to really judge. (I just started reading Trek novels again after a long time away.) I'm not a "happily ever after" kind of reader, but I do prefer most of my fiction to end on a upbeat note. So...I'll just have to wait and see. But I definitely understand your concerns, Bob.

 

[captcalhoun]

So what does that make your constant complaining about other people's complaints? It's a thread about character death. Should I lie and say I'm happy with it?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

my 'constant complaining'?? my only complaint before was that the sad sods get the hell over Janeway's death and get some perspective.

 

[Kirsten Beyer]

Thanks, Bill, for posting that link. I don't know how to do that yet and it does pretty much cover all I can think to specifically say to address the deaths that occurred in Full Circle. Apart from Janeway, given the massiveness of the events of Destiny, and Voyager's place in it, leading the armada, a lot of people had to die. They just had to. A Borg cube smashed into the ship. That leaves more than a mark. As to why it was Kaz and Tare among others...see the post. FWIW I really did think Kaz was a great character and did enjoy writing what I could of him.

I also think Christopher's point is well taken that things don't always work out exactly the way we planned. These are stories. It helps to think of them more like unruly children than perfectly ordered worlds. Sometimes they go places we don't want them to, but we're doomed if we don't follow. Nature of the beast.

Also, Trent, it might help to think about it this way. We're all part of this world. And different things seem to resonate collectively at different times. There was a period a few years back...I'm not sure exactly what brought it on...but seeing it across so many different stories and venues suggests that writers were particularly sensitive to it...a period when we needed to see the consequences of the events we were depicting in stark and real horror. It was like we'd all had more than enough of men and women dying but the press not being allowed to photograph flag-draped caskets. And I mean that particular example as more metaphor than the root cause. Anyway...the reality of production and publication means that we were all feeling it together....but you don't get to see it until now. Now...new and different things are resonating...and you'll see them in a year or so and likely as not also be ready to move on from there by the time they are released. It is unfortunate but it does make perfect sense to me. Sadly, it also can't be helped.

Best,
Kirsten Beyer

 

[Thrawn]

^ In that regard, I think the new Trek film actually beat the trend a bit. The strongest thing in that movie to me was the almost unspoken and unemphasized undercutting of the recent spate of tragedy in sci-fi. A huge tragic event occurred...but then we got our shit together, came back, and won. And it was fundamentally happy.

I have a feeling optimism is back in vogue.

 

[Therin of Andor]

So the authors can't kill TV regulars, and they can't kill newly-introduced continuing characters...

Do we really want novels where no one - except one-off guests - ever dies?