How we deal with death

[Geoff Thorne]

^ We're not even earning cash like whoever cleans Rowling's or Prachett's toilet. That's just a reality of this particular business. What there is certainly is appreciated, but it's not my main motivation when it comes to writing Trek. I wouldn't be doing it if I wasn't already a hardcore fan.

Wait. You actually get paid in money?

They told me these authentic TOS coffee mugs and shot glasses were the equivalent of Krugerrands.

 

[Sci]

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Before Dishonor's characterizations of Kadohata and Leybenzon were sufficiently different from their characterizations in Q & A as to constitute a discontinuity?

 

[Therin of Andor]

the editing at Pocket, at least when it comes to Voyager, appears to be consistently off. It's been sloppy for years, and doesn't seem to have improved. Even the best author in the world makes mistakes from time to time - supposedly, the editors are there to catch them?

What you're talking about is consistency to every skerrick of canonical trivia. Richard Arnold was employed by Paramount, in part, to undertake this duty. The authors and editors complained he was... overzealous, and Richard was let go when Gene Roddenberry died.

Even the best editor in the world makes mistakes from time to time, esp. if the deadline is tight, or if they're trying to scramble because the author missed his or her deadline. They're more concerned over whether the story is compelling, has a logical flow, and whether it be tweaked/expanded/compressed to be even better. While the editors are concerned that minor "trivia quiz" problems don't have to often, there is also Paula Block and John Van Citters at CBS Licensing.

Even in canonical ST, these kinds of errors get made all the time. It's not that no one cares, it's mainly that deadlines can be frantic, and we never see all the hundreds of errors which are caught in time, only the clangers that get missed.

I'm a trivia nut, but if Kirsten Beyers wrote that Kim, not Tuvok, did something in "Caretaker", I'd probably not bother to check. And a lot of these things are open to interpretation. Wasn't the escape from the Caretaker entity a team effort? In essence, the whole crew blew up the array. They were acting as a team, carrying out the captain's orders.

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Before Dishonor's characterizations of Kadohata and Leybenzon were sufficiently different from their characterizations in Q & A as to constitute a discontinuity?

I saw the interpretations of different aspects of their personalities. Kadohata was suffering post-natal depression and mulling over whether to obey Starfleet admirals or her own captain, trying to run both of Data's shipboard roles, and even found herself flirting with Leybenzon. She was lucky not to have suffered a total meltdown. T'Lana was an unlikely Vulcan counselor, and a square peg in a very round hole. Leybenzon was a self-serving ass. And I loved how Christopher smoothed over any variations as idiosyncracies and reactions to the situation.

 

[William Leisner]

The kind of outside circumstances I was thinking of as being possible are things like some kind of personal life issues or things like that, that would have made him just barely meet the deadline. I didn't gather that anything like this was the case, but that two people dropped the ball on keeping continuity within a series.

And is it not possible that PAD opted to keep "personal life issues"... y'know, personal?

 

[LightningStorm]

The kind of outside circumstances I was thinking of as being possible are things like some kind of personal life issues or things like that, that would have made him just barely meet the deadline. I didn't gather that anything like this was the case, but that two people dropped the ball on keeping continuity within a series.

And is it not possible that PAD opted to keep "personal life issues"... y'know, personal?

Below is the part you skipped over:

When I read that on his blog it came across more along the lines of it not being his fault because keeping continuity was someone else's job.

Personal issues or not it was (or should be) just as much his job as his editor's. Still a matter of taking personal responsibility. Even when personal issues arise, that may be out of one's control, one should at least acknowledge that "shit happens" and it sucks rather than shift full blame to someone else.

And wouldn't simply saying "things came up out of my control that caused this to happen" still keep any personal things, personal?

 

[Thrawn]

For the record, the post of PAD's in question is:


I was never sent a copy of Q&A prior to my writing “Before Dishonor.” I was sent “Resistance” and read that, and I don’t believe there was anything in “Before Dishonor” that contradicted that. If the fans want to pillory me for not hewing to a book I never had…*shrug.* Not much I can do about that.
PAD


Not making any particular point here; just wanted to have the actual text available so we all were on the same page. AFAIK, he's posted no other comment about the inconsistencies.

 

[Steve Roby]

What you're talking about is consistency to every skerrick of canonical trivia. Richard Arnold was employed by Paramount, in part, to undertake this duty. The authors and editors complained he was... overzealous, and Richard was let go when Gene Roddenberry died.

That's a bit revisionist, don't you think? The writers' problem with Arnold had nothing to do with canonical trivia and everything to do with his shooting down comic and novel proposals for reasons that had no real grounding in canon (there are no female Borg, Kirk isn't interested in women, time travel stories are too complicated for Star Trek fans, etc).

 

[Defcon]

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Before Dishonor's characterizations of Kadohata and Leybenzon were sufficiently different from their characterizations in Q & A as to constitute a discontinuity?

Like almost every PAD characterization they were a bit over the top, and spotlighting certain character traits while putting others on the backburner, and by that they felt different from KRAD's more nuanced, "whole" characterizations. Both MOs have their charme, but in two consecutive books the differences come out a bit more prominently, I guess. I'm not sure if I would say they are a discontiunity, they're just inconsistencies.

 

[Therin of Andor]

That's a bit revisionist, don't you think? The writers' problem with Arnold had nothing to do with canonical trivia and everything to do with...

Well, ok, I wasn't trying for an exhaustive answer there, just pointing out that if the OP saw a need for a stickler for even miniscule trivia factoids, Richard was the one for the job, the one who made sure promotional drawings of Kirk, Spock and Scotty on licensed items were wearing the right colour shirts, and that the Enterprise wasn't printed upside down, but he is no longer there, and Paramount didn't really try to replace him. Guy Vardaman, who was already there, picked up the dealing-with-research-for-licensees job.

I wasn't deliberately linking the authors' problems with the minor trivia.

 

[ClayinCA]

Yeah... as an aspiring novel writer myself (not just Trek stories, although certainly that too), it's been made pretty clear to me that it's important to realize that it's a rare novel that makes so much money for the author that you can count on writing as a primary source of income. You have to regard it as a labor of love, and - accordingly - have another job to go along with it.

True. One friend of mine who is a professional author counts it as a highlight of his life (and rightly so) the day he was able to give up his civil service job and become an author full time.

Well, this was my goal, to not come off as a raving lunatic, so I'm happy to know I may have succeeded, in at least one person's eyes.
And I agree about a lot of what you said regarding Janeway and Voyager as well, although I will say that I basically liked her...for the most part. She was never one of my favorite characters, and the inconsistent writing for her was absolutely maddening, but I did think Mulgrew did a good job with what she was given. I will also say that personally, I wouldn't say Voyager was "appalling" in it's execution.

Well, maybe "appalling" is too strong a word. I felt that the show had an opportunity, being set as it was in a realm far, far distant from Federation space as it was, to show why Starfleet ideals were admirable and desirable, and how those ideals stand up to being tested. There was an opportunity for ideological conflict, not only between the Starfleet crew and those from the Maquis, but also between the Alpha Quadrant "castaways" and those they encountered in the Delta Quadrant. Instead, I felt that the show too often took the point of view that "our" way (effectively, the Starfleet way) was simply the "correct" way, and there would be no challenging it, no crises of faith, no occasion to show why these ideals were good, simply to either say that they were, or worse, to take it as read. So yeah, basically a lot of missed opportunities (and that's in plot and story - don't even get me started on the missed opportunities of characterization )!

And you may very well be right about the fact that there's not much practical purpose to be had at this point. I originally jumped in simply because I thought it was an interesting discussion (until that point, I had read the whole thread, during my months of professional lurking on this site), though I admit I also got caught up in addressing what I perceived as flaws in Lynx's approach in the argument; the whole "presenting opinions as facts" thing. But as long as everyone remains civil and open (which I think has been the case for the most part), it does remain simply an interesting set of topics, IMO.

Oh, I get that, most definitely - it's just that the chance for an interesting discussion about the issues of character death in general (and hell, even Janeway's death in particular) keep getting sidelined by the same old stuff. Leaving aside one's opinion over the merits or otherwise of those same old arguments, it's just repetition, and it's getting in the way of actual discussion.

Ye gods. My posts are always ridiculously long. I guess I really am an aspiring novel writer; I appear to be practicing on the boards.

You and a lot of the rest of us, my friend!

Oh, and ClayinCA, I really like your avatar!

Thank you! I have no idea where I found it, but I thought it was cool too.

Just another 28 posts and I can put up mine... heh.

Well, stick around these Janeway threads too much and you'll have caught up in no time!

 

[Geoff Thorne]

That's a bit revisionist, don't you think? The writers' problem with Arnold had nothing to do with canonical trivia and everything to do with his shooting down comic and novel proposals for reasons that had no real grounding in canon (there are no female Borg, Kirk isn't interested in women, time travel stories are too complicated for Star Trek fans, etc).

PHEW!

Dodged another one!

 

[JD]

Yeah, his head probably would have exploded if he was given SoD. Not that that's a bad thing, because I really enjoyed the book, and I'm glad we got it.

 

[Saito S]

Well, maybe "appalling" is too strong a word. I felt that the show had an opportunity, being set as it was in a realm far, far distant from Federation space as it was, to show why Starfleet ideals were admirable and desirable, and how those ideals stand up to being tested. There was an opportunity for ideological conflict, not only between the Starfleet crew and those from the Maquis, but also between the Alpha Quadrant "castaways" and those they encountered in the Delta Quadrant. Instead, I felt that the show too often took the point of view that "our" way (effectively, the Starfleet way) was simply the "correct" way, and there would be no challenging it, no crises of faith, no occasion to show why these ideals were good, simply to either say that they were, or worse, to take it as read. So yeah, basically a lot of missed opportunities (and that's in plot and story - don't even get me started on the missed opportunities of characterization )!

You know, this sums up a lot of what I found wrong with Voyager as a whole. Indivudual episodes could range from really awesome to absolutely terrible, and for a variety of reasons, but for the show as a whole, I agree with your assesment. It did feel like sometimes they almost "forgot" what the thrust of it was supposed to be; too often, it just felt like TNG in the Delta Quadrant.

Oh, I get that, most definitely - it's just that the chance for an interesting discussion about the issues of character death in general (and hell, even Janeway's death in particular) keep getting sidelined by the same old stuff. Leaving aside one's opinion over the merits or otherwise of those same old arguments, it's just repetition, and it's getting in the way of actual discussion.

Yeah, and it's entirely likely that I may have contributed to said repitition. But, things do seem to have calmed down somewhat (not just here, but over in the "Bring Janeway back?" thread too). The discussion about character death in Trek seems to have resumed.

Well, stick around these Janeway threads too much and you'll have caught up in no time!

Indeed! Actually, I just got promoted to Lieutenant j.g.

 

[JB2005]

^ I got my lieutenant's bars here!

 

[Trek]

Well, maybe "appalling" is too strong a word. I felt that the show had an opportunity, being set as it was in a realm far, far distant from Federation space as it was, to show why Starfleet ideals were admirable and desirable, and how those ideals stand up to being tested. There was an opportunity for ideological conflict, not only between the Starfleet crew and those from the Maquis, but also between the Alpha Quadrant "castaways" and those they encountered in the Delta Quadrant. Instead, I felt that the show too often took the point of view that "our" way (effectively, the Starfleet way) was simply the "correct" way, and there would be no challenging it, no crises of faith, no occasion to show why these ideals were good, simply to either say that they were, or worse, to take it as read. So yeah, basically a lot of missed opportunities (and that's in plot and story - don't even get me started on the missed opportunities of characterization )!

You know, this sums up a lot of what I found wrong with Voyager as a whole. Indivudual episodes could range from really awesome to absolutely terrible, and for a variety of reasons, but for the show as a whole, I agree with your assesment. It did feel like sometimes they almost "forgot" what the thrust of it was supposed to be; too often, it just felt like TNG in the Delta Quadrant.

I could agree more. Despite having some excellent episodes, Voyager always seemed to be a massive waste of potential to me. The ship itself always seemed to be Starbase fresh, with an unending supply of shuttles, despite what it was put through and none of the hardships of having to make such a journey seemed to have much effect. Of real interest is that some of the best episode of the series did cover these things.

 

[Paris]

^I agree with Trek. This is a common sentiment about Voyager. The show could be great and some of my favorite trek characters and episodes came from this series, but the showed failed at what it set out to do. I'm not saying the show should have been like Ron Moore's BSG (this is trek afterall), but the fact that the ship was always in good condition, the crew hardly ever had to even consider breaking any moral "rules", and the endless supply of power and shuttlecrafts, it was just slightly unbelieveable. They all had replicator rations, but no one ever seemed to be hurting. How many times did we actually see Neelix or anyone else, gather food on a planet? ..but this is what the books are for, right? Too succeed where the series failed?
Hopefully Kirsten puts some of this unknown into Full Cirlce and Unworthy.