Shameless Hypocrisy About Character Deaths *Spoilers*

[Christopher]

^Actually, sometimes, yes. I made a point of writing Over a Torrent Sea to be as devoid of violence and bloodshed as possible, because there'd been so much death in previous books. I don't think the people in this thread are saying it should never, ever happen at all, just that there's been kind of a lot of it in the past couple of years. There's something to be said for the position that it shouldn't become a habit to kill off major characters. If nothing else, it would diminish the impact of such a move.

 

[Therin of Andor]

There's something to be said for the position that it shouldn't become a habit to kill off major characters. If nothing else, it would diminish the impact of such a move.

Exactly. But we also shouldn't know in advance that there's no death toll.

Hey - I just realized: I'm halfway through your novel right now. I guess I'm spoilered.

It's a good read, by the way!

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I don't mind the "major character" deaths, so long as they're handled...I'm not sure what word I want to use, because "properly" is too general and subjective. I guess "with thought and care" is what I want. Janeway's death in Before Dishonor was not handled "properly", IMO. But, I'm sure that some thought and care went into it.

And I do have to say that I am a little "weary of death" after the past few books. At first, as it may or may not be remembered, I bitched about the way many of the Trek books (read: TNG Relaunch) books were going. On one level I've been extremely pleased with all of the books from Greater Than The Sum up to Full Circle (since that's where I've left off). They more than made up the atrocious entry that is Before Dishonor (I still haven't touched any of his new books, out of skittishness) and the less-than-atrocious-but-certainly-not-great Resistance (Q&A was awesome because it combined exploration with Q, and because it was light, especially in the face of what was to come). But after reading about how entire planets were obliterated and Admiral Paris and billions of people died...eh.

And I wouldn't want to be accused of being an imperious person dictating what should and shouldn't happen in the Trekverse, mostly because that would be ridiculous. Also, that's why the new movie has gone in the direction it has, to some extent.

FWIW, I'm very optimistic about the novels. Since all of the recent ones have been excellent (if I get a chance, I'll post reviews), with the promise of more awesomeness and win in the future, I'll continue to buy.

 

[Thestral]

So, regarding this particular death: I haven't yet read or gotten ahold of a copy of Full Circle, but I don't mind being spoiled at all. Does the Kaz symbiont survive or do both host and symbiont die in the Borg attack? Is there any mention made of the current status of the symbiont population on Trill and whether the loss of Kaz is felt more heavily because of it?

 

[captcalhoun]

So, regarding this particular death: I haven't yet read or gotten ahold of a copy of Full Circle, but I don't mind being spoiled at all. Does the Kaz symbiont survive or do both host and symbiont die in the Borg attack? Is there any mention made of the current status of the symbiont population on Trill and whether the loss of Kaz is felt more heavily because of it?

Spoiler: Full Circle

no, yes. no, no.

 

[Wally]

^Actually, sometimes, yes. I made a point of writing Over a Torrent Sea to be as devoid of violence and bloodshed as possible, because there'd been so much death in previous books. I don't think the people in this thread are saying it should never, ever happen at all, just that there's been kind of a lot of it in the past couple of years. There's something to be said for the position that it shouldn't become a habit to kill off major characters. If nothing else, it would diminish the impact of such a move.

And for that, I'm thankful. Coming off 'Dominion War' and the 'Time to' books which got really violent and full of death towards the end. Then came the TNG-Relaunch which was Borg. Borg. Borg. Borg. Death. Death. Borg. Borg. Then came 'Destiny'. Good stuff, but it left me burnt out and itching for some real exploration of strange new worlds and not dealing with politics, war and devastation.

 

[kimc]

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

Very well put. Unfortunately the glorification of "idiocy" seems to be the rage right now.

 

[kimc]

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.

And that would be you complaining again.

 

[Claudia]

I'm also not too happy about the recent unfortunate trend to shake up things by either wreaking havoc on most known Federation planets, or killing off main characters - or do both. Trent and kimc are right in the way that it's easier to destroy than to build... and after so much destruction it's time we get to the building part again.

I'm not opposed to character deaths per se, not at all, if they're well done - but such an inflation of deaths certainly loses its effect at some point. As Spock... was it Spock in some TOS episode, was it "Immunity Syndrome"? I think so... pointed out it's strange that a single death would touch humans more than the death of a whole planet's population because they're incapable of grasping the enormity of such a cataclysmic event. I think the same applies if characters are killed off in rapid succession - I as a reader simply don't care anymore, or won't start to care about a character if he/she is going to be killed off pretty soon anyway. So, I'd say to be more careful about how far you as writers and editors go in saying, "Hey, it's life, none of the characters are safe" etc.

And about that finding out that characters don't work after creating them... Just for my interest's sake: How do you authors and editors go about finding something like that out? I mean book X introduces characters A and B, it gets approved by the editors and published... so, when exactly is the moment you find out that characters A and B don't work? When the author of subsequent book Y says he/she can't work with them? Or when the readers tell author X that A and B didn't work for them? (But by then, likely book Y is already in the works or finished...) I mean, if in the process of writing X the author and/or editor had doubts then I'd guess, A and B would never make it into book X...

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).

Interesting post by Kirsten Beyer, although... (I'll put all this under "spoiler" just to be careful)

Spoiler: a certain Full Circle-character death

Jarem Kaz was a great character and I thoroughly enjoyed giving him as much time as I could here. But he's a joined Trill. Another species that has been explored quite thoroughly in DS9. We did Trill as a World of DS9 for crying out loud. This limits the numbers of stories we can tell about him that would not be repetitive. Or, we could begin to explore another race we've never delved into before. So we get Doctor Sharak, a Tamarian instead.

I'm not sure whether I'm happy with that kind of explanation why a character doesn't work any more and therefore has to be killed off. If we apply this method ruthlessly, then we'd have no humans in ST any more, or Klingons for that matter because they have been explored ad nauseam in recent (and all of) Trek.

Shouldn't the characters themselves matter more than their species? And given Kaz's background he was interesting enough to keep around for himself, not because he's a Trill.

 

[toughlittleship]

Out of all the main character races on DS9, the Trill were probably "explored" the least. But in DS9 terms thats still a lot more than the other series.

 

[Christopher]

And about that finding out that characters don't work after creating them... Just for my interest's sake: How do you authors and editors go about finding something like that out? I mean book X introduces characters A and B, it gets approved by the editors and published... so, when exactly is the moment you find out that characters A and B don't work? When the author of subsequent book Y says he/she can't work with them? Or when the readers tell author X that A and B didn't work for them? (But by then, likely book Y is already in the works or finished...) I mean, if in the process of writing X the author and/or editor had doubts then I'd guess, A and B would never make it into book X...

There's no real way to answer that question since there's no formula for these things; if there were, we could predict it in advance. It can be a mix of multiple factors. It's not always possible to tell whether something will work while you're in the middle of creating it. Sometimes it takes distance and hindsight and audience response.

 

[Silent_Bob]

I 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).

The Star Wars situation is precisely what i dont want to see happen to the Trek books. For those who dont read the franchise, they spent 19 books building up a credible generation of successors to the film cast, a group of new characters that could take over as heroes of the series. Instead they then spent the following 12 books systematically killing them all, leading to a situation where the only character capable of assuming a leading role in the novels was a fourteen year old boy.

Hopefully things will settle down a bit post-Destiny, which i appreciate would realistically result in the deaths of characters we knew, i just dont want to see a Destiny scale event afflicting the cast of Star Trek every other week, like it seems to in the Galaxy Far, Far Away.

There's no real way to answer that question since there's no formula for these things; if there were, we could predict it in advance. It can be a mix of multiple factors. It's not always possible to tell whether something will work while you're in the middle of creating it. Sometimes it takes distance and hindsight and audience response.

Always interesting to read how someone creates a character. And that authors are willing to acknowledge when something doesnt work and take steps to remedy it. I just hope it doesnt always involve slicing off an appendage or two.

 

[Sci]

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.

Speaking for myself, I can tell you that in reading Destiny, and in reading Full Circle, it was not the death that struck me as meaningful. It was the manner in which characters facing imminent death, imminent extinction, or coping with other characters' deaths, managed to keep living and to keep doing the right thing.

Take T'Lana for instance. Not a very well-liked character -- a very arrogant and selfish person, frankly. Yet her death scene in Lost Souls was incredibly moving to me, because in spite of her imminent death, she continued to make herself a better person. She was in the process of analyzing her previous behavior and learning again to feel guilt (which is not something that should be wallowed in, but IS something that a healthy person should experience after they've done something wrong). And while she spent several of her last moments allowing herself to feel regret and vulnerability, she did something else right before she died that stuck with me:

"T'Lana shut her eyes... and accepted what she could not change."

That's a huge thing. T'Lana was the character who would not accept the things she could not change, who would literally defy her commanding officer rather than accept that which was beyond her ability to control. For her to accept something she could not change, and something so frightening and painful as her own imminent death, was a huge piece of personal growth.

Even in the face of imminent death, T'Lana continued to live and grow as a person.

I found it very sad -- but also very inspirational. Even in our last moments, we can continue to grow. We can die as better people than we were just a few moments before our deaths.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm also not too happy about the recent unfortunate trend to shake up things by either wreaking havoc on most known Federation planets, or killing off main characters - or do both. Trent and kimc are right in the way that it's easier to destroy than to build...

So what's your dream scenario? Books with a "Guaranteed: No One Dies!" sticker on the cover?

I think there has been building (as in character building) in every ST novel where a prominent character has died. People were asking for Pocket to be brave enough to stop hitting "the dreaded reset button", and yet when they do a deadly series of incidents people complain.

 

[Stevil2001]

1. I suspect the "people" complaining about the reset button and the "people" complaining about character deaths are not actually the same people.
2. I suspect there's a middle ground between constant reset buttons and "a deadly series of incidents."

 

[Therin of Andor]

1. I suspect the "people" complaining about the reset button and the "people" complaining about character deaths are not actually the same people.

Hopefully.

2. I suspect there's a middle ground between constant reset buttons and "a deadly series of incidents."

Sure. Especially in licensed tie-ins. I don't think anyone expects that "Destiny" is the new norm.

 

[William Leisner]

I suspect there's a middle ground between constant reset buttons and "a deadly series of incidents."

And a third group of people to complain about those, too!

 

[Claudia]

I'm also not too happy about the recent unfortunate trend to shake up things by either wreaking havoc on most known Federation planets, or killing off main characters - or do both. Trent and kimc are right in the way that it's easier to destroy than to build...

So what's your dream scenario? Books with a "Guaranteed: No One Dies!" sticker on the cover?

No - did you read beyond the first paragraph of the post you're quoting?

I'm just saying that Trek shouldn't *only* be about death, destruction, catastrophe, because, frankly, I think we had enough of that to last us for a while (in canon and in TrekLit).

As I have said before (and I stand by that opinion), character development doesn't necessarily mean having to put a character at constant risk of death - there are other events just as devastating that help characters grow... but which perhaps aren't as sensational.

I think there has been building (as in character building) in every ST novel where a prominent character has died. People were asking for Pocket to be brave enough to stop hitting "the dreaded reset button", and yet when they do a deadly series of incidents people complain.

2. I suspect there's a middle ground between constant reset buttons and "a deadly series of incidents."

That's it exactly - and I feel (cave: personal opinion ) that this middle ground hasn't been found yet.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm just saying that Trek shouldn't *only* be about death, destruction, catastrophe, because, frankly, I think we had enough of that to last us for a while (in canon and in TrekLit).

One year of books in 43 years.

 

[Silent_Bob]

1. I suspect the "people" complaining about the reset button and the "people" complaining about character deaths are not actually the same people.
2. I suspect there's a middle ground between constant reset buttons and "a deadly series of incidents."

*holds hand up*

Whilst I never really "complained" per se, i did often think that Star Trek needed to lose the reset button. And now im sort of complaining about the deaths. Which is why i acknowledged the hypocrisy of my comments. So i'm afraid i am guilty of the first point.

I do think there is a middle ground to be reached, and if any batch of authors are capable of finding it for Trek, its the current lot.
Death and destruction is fine, but when its every book, the deaths become mundane, its no longer shocking. Which is where Star Wars is failing- i now know that if Jedi Knight Redsh Irt appears more than twice in a book series, chances are the next book they are dead meat.