Akoochemoya

[Lynx]

How little did I know. Thanks for enlightening me.

I'm not sure I agree with that. As a writer, I've had characters who I liked, but who had become problematic for some reason. The one I think most about is a young person who was the third in the triangle in a crucial romance... I had not introduced an alternative character for him to "move on" to, but it was counterproductive to have him mooning for this young woman indefinitely. So, I arranged a suitably heroic death for him, milked it for as much emotion as I could, and the problem was resolved.

Given that Chakotay was a character who had been consigned to stagnation, maybe eliminating him would have been a better fate.

EDIT: It's funny, I was in another forum, talking Cardassians. I remember saying Garak was a great character. Dukat was great character. And Seska had potential. I think that that's the difference between DS9 and VOY... greatness vs. potential.

I agree with your comments about Garak (my DS9 favorite and No: 2 after Kes in all Star Trek series) Dukat and Seska.

But I have to disagree with you when it comes to a possible elimination of Chakotay.

If Chakotay had been eliminated, there would have been no chance to read about him in the Relaunch books, write own stories about him or correct mistakes from the series.

Compare with Lt. Carey. Even if I want to restore him in possible stories, I can't because he's eliminated from "official" Star Trek.

When it comes to own created characters in my own writing, I find it very hard to eliminate good characters, even if the character no longer has a purpose in my stories because if I should have second thoughts about it, the damage is done.

Therefore I rather let the character leave for some other mission because if I should wake up one morning and think that "the character wasn't so bad after all and could be used in this story", then I can bring that character back.

So far I've never eliminated one of my main characters. Those who I do eliminate are those who are of less importance and when the elimitation is necessary for the story as such.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not sure I agree with that. As a writer, I've had characters who I liked, but who had become problematic for some reason. The one I think most about is a young person who was the third in the triangle in a crucial romance... I had not introduced an alternative character for him to "move on" to, but it was counterproductive to have him mooning for this young woman indefinitely. So, I arranged a suitably heroic death for him, milked it for as much emotion as I could, and the problem was resolved.

Given that Chakotay was a character who had been consigned to stagnation, maybe eliminating him would have been a better fate.

I tend to agree. I use to be very protective of not only characters but how the story should be. It took a writing panel and a lot of reflection to realize there is no "should" when it comes to writing, aside from completing a competent story. Characters, for all our emotional attachment to them, are not deserving of anything from us in the story. I won't torture my characters, but I won't shield them either, and that includes recognizing they no longer service the story.

To me, Chakotay is one of the those characters, as well as Harry. They exist really to provide an easing of the mind to the audience, that everything is OK, everything is fine, and all will be right in the end. And, most interestingly enough, it was Chakotay's death, as well as Tuovk's mental instability, that pushed future Janeway to alter the destiny of millions for the sake of her friends. I often see that same trend in fans.

 

[Ragitsu]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Despite knowing that the origin of his religious ritual is bogus, I still find myself calmed - centered, really - whenever Chakotay utters his catchphrase (which goes to show that even fabricated phooey fobbed on fans finds a way to be fulfilling). Beltran gets points for his emulation of reverence.

 

[Oddish]

Compare with Lt. Carey. Even if I want to restore him in possible stories, I can't because he's eliminated from "official" Star Trek.

Undoing death is the simplest thing in the world in Star Trek. Look at Spock, Dax, and Tasha, the only main characters killed in "classic" Trek. None of them stayed dead.

won't torture my characters, but I won't shield them either, and that includes recognizing they no longer service the story.

And when a character no longer services the story when alive, it's arguably time to see how their death will service it.

To me, Chakotay is one of the those characters, as well as Harry. They exist really to provide an easing of the mind to the audience, that everything is OK, everything is fine, and all will be right in the end.

Then in a sense, they still service the story in your eyes. This certainly justifies sparing them.

 

[fireproof78]

Then in a sense, they still service the story in your eyes. This certainly justifies sparing them.

Only in the sense that the story is maintaining a status quo. Which is not how I approach stories.

 

[Farscape One]

Actually, Dax and Yar DID stay dead.

Jadzia was never revived. And Yar was only in that alternate timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

 

[Oddish]

Dax came back, bringing all of Jadzia's memories. And Tasha Yar from an alternate universe is still Tasha Yar.

 

[Ragitsu]

And Tasha Yar from an alternate universe is still Tasha Yar.

Contestable.

 

[Oddish]

Contestable.

I respect your right to your opinion, but retain mine.

I will say that for a character to be considered "brought back", they must enter and remain in the prime timeline (or the Kelvin). Visiting a timeline where Tuvix was spared would not qualify. Bringing that timeline's version of Tuvix back with you... would.

 

[Ragitsu]

I respect your right to your opinion, but retain mine.

There is a threshold...a minimum standard/requirement.

 

[Oddish]

Not really. We just interpret the notion of "bringing back" a character differently.

 

[Ragitsu]

Not really. We just interpret the notion of "bringing back" a character differently.

What do you mean by "Not really."? Is there no limit to the amount of deviation by which an alternative reality/timeline being at least nominally "Tasha Yar" ceases to be what we consider to be the so-called "true" Tasha Yar?

Alt-Tasha Yar that is a brunette and two inches taller.
Alt-Tasha Yar that underwent an accidental transformation on an away mission five years ago: she now possesses eleven digits, iridescent pupils and purple and yellow spots all over.
Alt-Tasha Yar that is gay.
Alt-Tasha Yar that never escaped her colony.
Alt-Tasha Yar that is a staunch pacifist.

 

[Farscape One]

I will say that for a character to be considered "brought back", they must enter and remain in the prime timeline (or the Kelvin). Visiting a timeline where Tuvix was spared would not qualify. Bringing that timeline's version of Tuvix back with you... would.

Tasha still doesn't qualify, because it's not actually the original. The Yar that went back with the Enterprise-C was an alternate timeline version of who we knew. We have no idea what her background was because history was vastly different in those 20 years. And she was alive for almost 2 more years after ours was killed. It's the altered Tasha that had Sela, not ours.

Pefect example of meeting your criteria...Harry Kim. He actually died in season 1, and even though he was killed for real in season 2, his duplicate took over... but that duplicate existed in the same time and place as the dead one. The only difference is a couple hours of memories, but that is not a different background or upbringing like Yarternate was.

 

[Oddish]

Alt-Tasha Yar that is a brunette and two inches taller.
Alt-Tasha Yar that underwent an accidental transformation on an away mission five years ago: she now possesses eleven digits, iridescent pupils and purple and yellow spots all over.
Alt-Tasha Yar that is gay.
Alt-Tasha Yar that never escaped her colony.
Alt-Tasha Yar that is a staunch pacifist.

The Yar we saw on "Yesterday's Enterprise" looked exactly like the Yar who died, so genetically she was presumably the exact same.
She was not brunette and 2" taller.
I didn't count her fingers carefully, but saw no spots.
Since sexuality is genetic, her orientation was the same.
She obviously escaped her colony, and was serving on a warship, so pacifism is doubtful.

Maybe there are differences, but I'm still calling it like I see it: Tasha Yar defeats death, at least temporarily.

 

[Ragitsu]

You missed the point entirely by fixating on those examples of beings named "Tasha Yar" but not "our" Tasha. I asked you ->

Is there no limit to the amount of deviation by which an alternative reality/timeline being at least nominally "Tasha Yar" ceases to be what we consider to be the so-called "true" Tasha Yar?

after I said ->

There is a threshold...a minimum standard/requirement.

That most definitely includes an "ordinary" Tasha Yar that experienced a markedly different timeline...shaped in different ways.

 

[Farscape One]

We are the sum of our experiences.

Look at Picard in that episode. You can tell he was a markedly different character. It was because he experienced different things in those 22 years. Even Riker was more on edge with Picard there, and we never see him like that with Picard. Yar would also have had different experiences, because those years were a lot different. She even said so in dialogue, when she said she was assigned to the Enterprise right after the Academy, which we know is imposdible from the original timeline.

Look at "Tapestry"... Picard had a vastly different career because he made choices and had experiences that made him a very different person.

 

[MarkusTay]

There is a threshold...a minimum standard/requirement.

I actually require even a lower minimum requirement than Oddish, and if someone 'feels' like they brought a character back, no amount of pure logic will change the person's personal perception of how they view that character.

To elaborate: Even though this is a pretty nerd-heavy fandom/site, I'm not sure how many here watch anime, or One Piece, but I will try to make it brief. Spoilers if you ever have any intention of watching this show (I stopped some time ago).
1. Main character Luffy had no siblings when the show began (when he was a kid). At least, none were ever mentioned or shown, despite us seeing clips of his childhood.
2. At a much later time, he has a 'brother' introduced, through a series of flash-backs. A bit strange, but its anime and we rolled with it. At the time, we did not know he was created with a singular purpose.
3. Eventually, the brother is killed in a season AND main story-arc finale showdown. It was well done.
4. Fan outrage/backlash - everyone LOVED the brother character, who the writers never intended to be permanent.
5. More flashbacks (of the same time period and in some cases, even the same exact events/scenes!), and there is suddenly ANOTHER brother that we didn't see in the earlier flashbacks, who was supposedly there the whole time. He is a LOT like the brother who was killed.
6. Eventually, this brother not only acts and looks like dead brother, but even gains his EXACT power (no, not the same power like with supers - the dead BROTHER'S exact same powers, granted by the exact same item).

In essence, they brought back the dead brother, who died in a really great (noble & meaningful) way, without really bringing him back... but they did. We all know they did. No amount of 'lore' wrapped around it would make any of us ever think it was ever anything else. So to me, and my much more lenient requirements - the character was 'resurrected', through some totally BS rewritten canon (flashbacks).

So yeah, alternate timeline Tasha Yar is still Tasha Yar... and so was her daughter. That was fan-service, for all the people who absolutely hated her original death. Then they did nothing with the daughter, making it all so much worse. UGH
All IMHO, of course. Cheers

 

[Oddish]

I guess my point is that, in Star Trek, death is not necessarily a done deal. They can always bring you back via anything from android bodies to time travel to alternate universes... Picard might call death the "ultimate boundary", but it's actually pretty porous.

 

[fireproof78]

I guess my point is that, in Star Trek, death is not necessarily a done deal. They can always bring you back via anything from android bodies to time travel to alternate universes... Picard might call death the "ultimate boundary", but it's actually pretty porous.

Shakespeare said it better: "The Undiscovered Country."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Farscape One]

I challenge you to find a single scifi/horror/fantasy series that did NOT use the idea of lead characters being killed and brought back.

A short list of those that did...

ANDROMEDA
BABYLON 5
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA
DARK ANGEL
EARTH FINAL CONFLICT
EUREKA
FARSCAPE
HERCULES
seaQuest
SLIDERS
SMALLVILLE
Every STAR TREK series
Every STARGATE series
STRANGER THINGS
SUPERNATURAL (everyone died at least twice, except Crowley, who only died once)
TEKWAR
THE TOMORROW PEOPLE
THE X-FILES
XENA