^^Huh? Kira and Ro didn't die and get resurrected, they just had a brush with death.
Countdown to Destiny (may contain spoilers)
- Thread starter RonG
- Start date
^ Precisely. No one ever said that either character was dead.
^ My take on apparent character deaths is pretty much a question of intent. When the character was killed off, was it with the intention that they stay dead? If yes, then bringing the character back would qualify as a 'comic book resurrection'. If the character's 'death' is not real, and the reader is made aware of this fact, then that's also not a resurrection, because it is made clear that the death is only an apparent one, and they will most likely return eventually. Xyon of Calhoun is a good example of this: the characters believed him dead, but we the readers knew at the end of the novel that this was not the case. So you get the emotional impact of the death on the characters, with the proviso that the character will be able to make a return somewhere down the line.
Some might say always having to let the readers in on apparent deaths might rob such plot twists of their dramatic impetus. That's true, to a degree, but the overuse of false deaths in genre is simply so endemic that I really do think it has to be avoided as much as possible if we're ever going to restore character death to the status of momentous event and not just another blasé kind of reaction because you know they'll be back soon anyway.
So Kira and Ro don't qualify as resurrections because they were never dead. In fact, characters get into such scrapes all the time--this instance merely stood out because it happened at the end of, instead of during, a novel, and in a series known for taking risks. Tucker... well, we never actually saw a body, just an injured Tucker being rolled into a chamber (not that it made the mind-numbing contrivances of The Good That Men Do any easier to bear). Kirk is probably the best example of a character meant to stay dead who didn't, though even there it's in a seperate continuity. So overall, I'd say the book line has been very good about not pulling any 'comic book resurrections'. While characters might die and come back within the space of a episode/book, Trek's actually pretty good at seeing that characters who are dead at the end of a episode/book stay that way.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Some might say always having to let the readers in on apparent deaths might rob such plot twists of their dramatic impetus. That's true, to a degree, but the overuse of false deaths in genre is simply so endemic that I really do think it has to be avoided as much as possible if we're ever going to restore character death to the status of momentous event and not just another blasé kind of reaction because you know they'll be back soon anyway.
So Kira and Ro don't qualify as resurrections because they were never dead. In fact, characters get into such scrapes all the time--this instance merely stood out because it happened at the end of, instead of during, a novel, and in a series known for taking risks. Tucker... well, we never actually saw a body, just an injured Tucker being rolled into a chamber (not that it made the mind-numbing contrivances of The Good That Men Do any easier to bear). Kirk is probably the best example of a character meant to stay dead who didn't, though even there it's in a seperate continuity. So overall, I'd say the book line has been very good about not pulling any 'comic book resurrections'. While characters might die and come back within the space of a episode/book, Trek's actually pretty good at seeing that characters who are dead at the end of a episode/book stay that way.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
And I guess that's the appeal of the SOMEBODIES (that's a better term than my previous one, no?
) for many readers. In the books which feature characters who are created whole cloth, you can be surprised by a death (such as a falling column going straight through a certain first officers chest) or fearful for the characters. I never pick up a Star Trek book and worry that a major character is going to die, even after the death of Janeway.
I totally agree with your point that it can rob the books of some meaning - I'm a long term "big two" comic reader and death there has no meaning.
If the death of Janeway is suppose to stick, the mistake was having her interact with a Q straight after death, I think (rightly or wrongly) this indicates to the reader that this is not the end. A few last words to Seven or the like would have been more convincing.
Which is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want the readers to believe Janeway's dead, as far as I'm concerned. If you want readers to be absolutely certain a character's dead (and you're not reading a theological fantasy like The Chronicles of Narnia), you don't give that character any dialogue after she's supposedly died.
Not even "You... had your foot... on... my IV tube..."
Yeah, a common way to do it in fiction is you have the last few moments of the character and then their thoughts fade to black... if you then have them instantly chewing the fat with a god-like Alien and cracking jokes about having a cup of coffee (and actually that's a common problem with PADs stuff - he undercuts his own scenes with wisecracks)AND the character who is dead brings up the fact that dead doesn't always mean dead in the Star Trek Universe...
These books sound interesting, but I'm actually hoping they don't explain away ALL the more mysterious aspects of the Trekverse. There always has to be some things which are just unknown in order to stimulate the imagination. I somehow think it's a bit cruel to the fans to provide concrete explanations for everything that's ever happened.
^ Relax, I don't have that large a mandate....
TO DIE FOR. SUNSET STRIP. AMERICAN BEAUTY. REVERSAL OF FORTUNE. DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES. THE WRATH OF KHAN.
Is there a chance that Destiny is related to the new movie? I ask this for three reasons. First, the movie is being released in December, which I believe is when the second or third Destiny novel is released. Second, one of the screenwriters of the movie say they consider the novels canon and reads them all the time. Third, JJ Abrams has used other media to help promote his shows (Lost being the best example). So, is it possible this whole thing is related?
No. Destiny takes place at the foremost point of 24th century fiction; the film is set in the 23rd. Also, Destiny would have been decided on quite a while back for an Oct-Dec. '08 release, long before Pocket would have received a script of the new film for novelization (if, indeed, they've received one yet). Finally, if you think Mr. Abrams gives a crap about the books, ask somebody about the Lost book line.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
That's amazing. He must have those new kind of books that are live-action and released by CBS/Paramount.
There is no connection between the new film and the Destiny trilogy except that both are part of the Star Trek shared universe. I made a deliberate choice, in consultation with my editors, to craft story arcs that avoided the 23rd-century period of the franchise, to minimize the risk of conflict between the new film and my trilogy.
Well, I'm 0 for 1 in guessing what's going to happen in these books.
^ Don't feel bad. Most of the folks I've seen speculating about what will happen in these books have been utterly wrong. So you're far from alone.
When, near the end, the whole Destiny trilogy turns out to have been a dream of Questor's . . . well that just came from way out of left field. But then when his internal nuclear reactor overloaded and laid waste to planet Earth, causing a race of supermutants to arise and take over . . . then it all made sense. Mack, you pulled it off again.David Mack said:
^ Don't feel bad. Most of the folks I've seen speculating about what will happen in these books have been utterly wrong. So you're far from alone.
David Mack said:
^ Don't feel bad. Most of the folks I've seen speculating about what will happen in these books have been utterly wrong. So you're far from alone.
We all know it's really about Picard, Sisko, and Riker teaching the Borg tolerance of all races through the power of love.
Right?
I think that Destiny is going to have a temporal element, with our intrepid heroes being asked to save the future by altering the present and stopping a powerful enemy from gaining a foothold in our galaxy.