"...is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say, Lieutenant?"
Seeing you quote that I'm amazed no one had already done so, me, even though it's from my favourite Trek film, I clean forgot about it.
How we deal with death
- Thread starter Leaf
- Start date
Seeing you quote that I'm amazed no one had already done so, me, even though it's from my favourite Trek film, I clean forgot about it.
"...is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say, Lieutenant?"
Seeing you quote that I'm amazed no one had already done so, me, even though it's from my favourite Trek film, I clean forgot about it.
I was as shocked as you were!
I also wanted to add, I see the end Q scene with Janeway much as was attempted with the Nexus and Kirk in 'Generations' - a coda of sorts that in some ways makes the character 'immortal' in-universe, sending them off to a kind of Valhalla if you will. Janeway's dead but drinking coffee with Lady Q as a 'ghost,' and Kirk's dead but still chopping wood with Antonia in the Nexus as a 'ghost.'
Here's another way to look at things: How many impossible scenarios have Star Trek characters survived?
One of the reasons why we did Wildfire in S.C.E. was precisely because death had become so devalued in Star Trek. I wanted to show that death isn't a minor condition that you eventually recover from, and I wanted to show the characters actually dealing with the consequences.
(Also: I wanted, for once, a character who goes on a suicide mission to actually, y'know, die....)
Pretty much every story told after Wildfire had at least some leftover trauma from the events of that story, because that's how it generally works.
(Also: I wanted, for once, a character who goes on a suicide mission to actually, y'know, die....)
Pretty much every story told after Wildfire had at least some leftover trauma from the events of that story, because that's how it generally works.
TOS was set in the 23rd century and commented on contemporary issues of our century, particularly the 60s, the time it was being produced. TAS commented on contemporary issues of the 70s. TNG was set in the 24th century but commented on contemporary issues of the 80s. DS9, VOY and ENT's stories reflected the early 21st century.
If you see that recent ST series and novels have spent too much time on "doom and gloom", that is perhaps because the early 21st century isn't anywhere near as rosy as people would like it to be, and even ST finds it hard to tackle the big issues. However, Lynx, since you readily admit to having a very narrow focus on what you find to be acceptable as good ST (ie. episodes and novels with Kes in them), most ST stories are not going to be satisfying to you, even if all sweetness and light.
A recent common theme of ST novels seems to be that (even when times get very tough), comradeship, loyalty, the importance of clear communication, and the setting lofty goals in exploration and information exchange, are still important in resolving dilemmas. How is that not positive?
^But they saved her brain!!!!
Noooooooooooooooooo
^ "Final Destiny" = The "Spock's Brain" of Trek Lit.
I must be missing something, because I'm unaware of any Trek Lit called "Final Destiny".
I spent a good deal of time on death and the wake it leaves in SWORD OF DAMOCLES and CLB and M & M did as well in their TITAN works.
I would never ever kill a character, even one I don't personally like well, for the sake of a stunt or plot device. Every character has fans.
In fact one of the main themes of SoD was the repercussions felt after the death of a loved one.
and, I agree: WILDFIRE was freaking heartbreaking.
I would never ever kill a character, even one I don't personally like well, for the sake of a stunt or plot device. Every character has fans.
In fact one of the main themes of SoD was the repercussions felt after the death of a loved one.
and, I agree: WILDFIRE was freaking heartbreaking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Ward
^But they saved her brain!!!!
Noooooooooooooooooo
Brain, and brain....
WHAT THE
IS BRAIN???Her brain? I can think of other bits that might have merited a save.
Also, will there be a novel called Kate's Brain, do you suppose?
^ I like the way you think. 
I've said it before....Wildfire is one of the best Star Trek stories ever. It was sad to see the da Vinci experience what it did, but it made for a very memorable story.
You keep saying "unnecssary character destruction"....what the hell does that mean? Who gets to decide when death is "necessary?"
Your problem seems to be that you don't like change. You obviously have issues with the notion that these fictional characters are treated as mortals. I don't care how much of a hopey happy future you have....come what may, that which is mortal MUST DIE. Unless you are suggesting that the Q grant everyone immortality, its seems perfectly reasonable for characters to die. Death is a part of life. Only The Sisko has the potential of being immortal. Everyone else, no matter how long lived should die at some point.
One of the problems that I have long had with Star Trek is that it is really stingy with death. People are so used to heroes getting out of impossible situations that they forget that the situations as depicted are dangerous. In the real world, heroic figues die doing heroic things. In my opinon Star Trek needs to get into the habit of reminding people that being in Starfleet is dangerous. Some times people don't come back. I think that this is one areaa where the books have definately improved over the TV series.
Yeah, but they just stuck it in a jar and put in a shelf next to all the others. I think that someone is collecting them
I bet they figure that it will fetch a good price on Ferengi market
All that is very nice, but just don't do it to my favorite character. Because I don't want to deal with death, I've been there done that in rela life and it's not pleasent and not what I want to do for pleasure.
Brit
Similar threads
