urg - never pander to the audience - never.
Disgruntled Janeway fans: try a carrot
- Thread starter Steve Roby
- Start date
- Status
urg - never pander to the audience - never.
I've got an in progress fan-fic story that deals with this abandoned timeline that also attempts to fill in the more back story as to why Janeway came to the decisions she did, and the reasons why she wasn't stopped (which is partly down to how the 29th century monitors changes and the limitations of it).
My biggest problem with the episode though was always her seemingly self centered reasons for making the change.
Regarding this, I would just like to ask you and the others who want to see main characters killed off at random a question:
If you see the killing off or destruction of main characters as necessary for a good story, how come that you became Star trek fans in the first place and still are Star Trek fans?
I mean, Picard and his band (except Yar who was dumped because the actress wanted to leave) survived for more than seven years without anyone killed off. Kirk did survive in all stories from the mid-sixties to the controversial decision to kill him off in "Generations". How could you stand that?
Just curious.
No one said anything about "wanting to see characters killed off at random."
However, as I said a long time ago back in the old thread, it's more likely that most fans aren't fans solely because people live forever or die immediately. There are those who are ecstatic about it and those who are highly pissed off about it. But I'd bet money that a great deal of people are more like "eh, whatever. So the heroes live through everything, so what it was still a good story. So the hero dies at the end (or in the middle or where ever), so what it was still a good story." The confounding thing here of course is that a lot of people (here) thought that this particular one was a BAD story. So even those in the middle have spoken out against it and Janeway's death was merely one of many things wrong with this book in my (and the theoretical, "their") opinion.
Because it's not a question of necessary it's a question of "was it a good story?" I'm a comic book reader and last year the original Captain America was killed off, now as a fan of that character, I wasn't bothered because it was a good story. In the same way, Data being killed off in Nemesis seemed a pretty poor and shabby way of doing it so I didn't like it much - but I didn't like the story, the act itself didn't bother me.
For better or worse, the powers that be have decided that Star Trek fiction is not going to end with a reset button at the end of every novel and a result, stories have to have some form of forward motion, characters need to live, grown, marry and die - otherwise, there is no motion. I don't actually like some of the current story threads but I still prefer it to the "life changing experience - never mentioned again" stand alone model that went before, it makes me want to pick up the next novel.
Indeed, the fact that the death itself was pretty poor is actually irrelevant to the discussion of if characters should actually die.
We need a bunch of those choose-your-direction books where you just flip to whatever sections involve the characters you like living, and the ones you don't can take the necessary deaths... like alternate endings... 
I'll admit, I'd find it hard to continue reading the books if my favourite characters were killed off, no matter how that happened. I could do without Ezri, but some people couldn't. If Taran'atar dies, I'll admit, my interest in DS9PF will dull- but its highly possible that some reason for him to die will come up. And if so, I'll be really disappointed. I think he has potential, and there are things I think he must do, and should accomplish, must learn. But thats true of everyone, and not everyone gets that chance.
I wouldn't like DS9 without Vaughn, Prynn, Kira... umm, Shar is kinda neat. The loss of anyone of them to me would mean someone I enjoyed reading about is gone- and that will mean a bit of a blow to your interest in a series. Especially if I end up having to read more prattle from Councelor Mathias (sp). That woman drives me batty. I really, really, really don't like her. But there are many conceivable reasons for anyone zooming around in space on a ship with a propulsion system that could make a hefty explosion in a galaxy filled with people who like to shoot other people. That doesn't make the series bad, the writers bad, the editors bad, etc.
I'd imagine there is at least one character for everyone on the planet to find interesting, ST fan or not. But some of those characters are going to die, and many aren't going to get good deaths. But if you like the series and have even one character remaining you still like... And maybe you'll skip a book from time to time where they don't do anything... which is fine too. But characters are going to die, and they can't all come back in weird ways. Especially the ones who are only kind of dead... If anyone comes back, it should be the ones who are really dead. I'd go hang with Q... for a while.
I'll admit, I'd find it hard to continue reading the books if my favourite characters were killed off, no matter how that happened. I could do without Ezri, but some people couldn't. If Taran'atar dies, I'll admit, my interest in DS9PF will dull- but its highly possible that some reason for him to die will come up. And if so, I'll be really disappointed. I think he has potential, and there are things I think he must do, and should accomplish, must learn. But thats true of everyone, and not everyone gets that chance.
I wouldn't like DS9 without Vaughn, Prynn, Kira... umm, Shar is kinda neat. The loss of anyone of them to me would mean someone I enjoyed reading about is gone- and that will mean a bit of a blow to your interest in a series. Especially if I end up having to read more prattle from Councelor Mathias (sp). That woman drives me batty. I really, really, really don't like her. But there are many conceivable reasons for anyone zooming around in space on a ship with a propulsion system that could make a hefty explosion in a galaxy filled with people who like to shoot other people. That doesn't make the series bad, the writers bad, the editors bad, etc.
I'd imagine there is at least one character for everyone on the planet to find interesting, ST fan or not. But some of those characters are going to die, and many aren't going to get good deaths. But if you like the series and have even one character remaining you still like... And maybe you'll skip a book from time to time where they don't do anything... which is fine too. But characters are going to die, and they can't all come back in weird ways. Especially the ones who are only kind of dead... If anyone comes back, it should be the ones who are really dead. I'd go hang with Q... for a while.
This is a completely legitimate and interesting question; thank you for asking it, and trying to be open minded about this. I can't answer it for everyone, but I certainly can answer it for me.
For one thing, death was always sort of a possibility, since main characters did die or transcend every so often...not every day, no, but there are a couple major character (or major recurring character) deaths in each show. Dax, Kes, Yar, Wesley, etc, as well as some minor ones like Ziyal make a difference to that realism. But that's a little beside the point, actually, because you're totally right - I didn't feel that Star Trek really did put their characters in the kind of peril that I wanted.
And that was, in fact, my biggest complaint with Star Trek - the dreaded reset button. I adored stories like Year Of Hell, because they felt like what the shows should've actually been like, but hated when they ended and everything reset. There were enough neat ideas and things bouncing around the TV shows that I liked them when I was younger, but after getting into high school and beyond and watching shows that challenged and surprised me more, I started to lose interest in Star Trek a lot. There were maybe a half-dozen episodes per year that really had the kind of arc-based, character-changing stories I really desired, and the rest was high quality filler, but filler nonetheless.
The problem with the books pre-Marco is that, mostly, they just made more filler, and by necessity I think. The shows were, after all, still on the air. But even while falling out of love with Trek as a whole, I latched on to the DS9 relaunch and New Frontier, precisely because in those series I felt that characters could be in peril, etc. Once all the other series started doing the same things, even if just with supporting or book-only characters, I started re-adopting the rest of the series, and now that they're all so unified and main characters are in peril too, I'm totally on board with everything.
I mean, think of it this way - each year, on Star Trek, there would be one or two episodes that would really Change Something, be it a death or whatever. They weren't the only thing worth watching, the standalones filled in characters and situations around them of course, but I always felt the Big Episodes were what kept me watching. Now, we get novels for each series only once or twice a year...and, to my delight, they're the Big Stories! Yes, the series' lose a little bit of their character by only focusing on the extremely powerful or large-scale moments (the accusation of Star Trek just becoming a series of conflicts is I think unjust but also understandable), but I think the writers do a pretty good job of including those smaller moments within the narrative for the most part. The way I see it is that it's like each book is the 6 best episodes of each season all smooshed together, which is outstanding, but I realize that you do lose the other 18 and the high points that would've come with them too, if that makes any sense.
So, as I've said from the beginning, I can see the other side to this argument, I really can. But for ME, it's as though they've taken the heart and soul of the best stories that the TV show could've told, raised the stakes and the power of the storytelling, and stripped away the filler episodes that I tended to find useless. There are downsides to that approach of course, I recognize that, but for ME just about every single book published these days is focusing on the kinds of stories I always loved best in the TV show.
Or, to put it another way, I really feel as though they've taken the TV shows, filled in a bunch of holes to make it one thriving universe, and really turned it into a BOOK SERIES. Not just a series of tie-in novels that reflect on the universe, but something that feels natively like a series of novels - imagined that way, planned that way, etc. On a TV show, there are expectations of certain regulars being in every episode, chronological order, etc. For the novels, they can have casts as big or small as they like, stories not hampered by time limit or budget, and much greater flexibility in timeline and character use, all of which they're using to their fullest extents.
Star Trek the TV series was a fantastic TV series, but while the TV series on, the books were just (to me) more of a fantastic TV series but in book form. Now, the books are a fantastic book series, period. The difference is subtle, but definite. I don't want more books that read like novelized mid-season episodes; I want more books that read like books.
Ahhh... they're on a cleansing diet!And one more thing comes to mind....... are there any "gruntled" fans?Me too!!
Yes, but they're being fed the rhubarb, corn, bananas etc until they feel better...
Thanks for good and well-written reply.
Exactly the explanation I wanted on my question even if I personally have another opinion than the one you are expressing.
I guess we simply have very different views when it comes to what we want in a Star Trek story.
I've always had a soft spot for the characters and seeing them being killed off isn't exactly my favorite reading.
Well in a way it is. If the editors at Pocket had a specific story in mind for the Trek universe and in the course of plotting it decided that it made sense for Janeway to die in it and it absolutely HAD to be her character in order to make it one fantastic story then while it would still be a bummer it wouldn't be as bad. Her death could have been the death of any other Starfleet admiral quite frankly.
Instead, through what seems like lack of imagination the decision to have Janeway die since they had no idea what to do with her was made and two authors were told to write their stories around that decision. I have to wonder what the reaction would be if it had been someone like Picard.
no, only Janeway would've had the hubris to go aboard the cube and think everything was hunky-dory, ignore Lady Q and then get eaten by the wall.
everyone else would've been like: It's a Borg cube blow it up and run away!
or: listen to Lady Q and GTFO.
Or Robert Fox, who actually went to negotiate a peace treaty with an unstoppable menace and got his atoms scattered about Sol when the Borg simultaneously discovered vindictiveness and a sense of ironic timing. Or the admirals, who decided that having one more starship in the system was all-critical even though every ship that had gone up against the supercube had failed. Or the mutineers, who believed this despite having all the real experts on the matter present and in disagreement. Or the Borg themselves, who decided to just sit around and wait while Picard & Co. worked on a plan...
Idiocy was a contagion in that book.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Idiocy was a contagion in that book.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Wow, I've heard Janeway's character was inaccurately portrayed in the later Trek Lit books but it's worse than I thought!
But isn't reading something that doesn't take you out of your comfort zone and make you feel something, especially an emotion you may not have wanted to feel, a big ol' waste of time?
Sure, you'd get what you want out of the story: A spatial anomaly, some new alien of the week, maybe spaceship fight and in the end everybody zips away at Ludicrus Speed. But isn't that something you could just do in your head? Or bust out a DVD of the show and play a random episode to the same result?
For me it's not even about liking Star Trek or the characters. If I invest the time to read something, I want to get something new out of it. I want that emotional response. I want to maybe feel a little uncomfortable. When that happens the story transends Trek, it becomes literature.
Bingo. Only Nixon could go to China.
Aaron McGuire
JM Dillard and Peter David basically gave her a terminal case of Admiral Syndrome.
Not quite. If that's what you guys honestly think then the Trek Lit books have some serious characterization flaws.
- Status
