Actually the point is that characters don't have to die to make a good story, the only requirement is that the audience thinks that death is a possibility. Actually Happily Ever After is not a bad thing, nor is it the antithesis of good drama. Humans need happily ever after, that's why God in his infinite wisdom promises heaven.
It's true that characters don't have to die to make a good story. However, the opposite (a good story cannot have character death) is as untrue as saying that a good story must have character death. Leaving aside of course that what constitutes a "good story" is completely subjective.
I'd note that the infinite wisdom of God promising heaven comes with a catch - unless your name is Enoch or Elijah, you have to die to achieve true "happily ever after."
Death of any character in any medium is only good for one dramatic point, life however has a lot of dramatic points. Trek if nothing else was about people overcoming obstacles to have a good, useful, enjoyable life. Ending any of the series on a death note doesn't give that, from what I read it didn't work for "Enterprise" and in Voyager's case the death of Joe Carey didn't work either.
You're correct that life does have a lot of dramatic points. However, one point which all lives have is death. The fear of death, the refusal to acknowledge it as the ultimate outcome which we all face, is crippling. Note, for example, Seven of Nine's pulling back from her exploration of romance with Chakotay because she fears what her death will do to him.
Death is not an obstacle to be overcome, it is the reward and companion of a life well lived - eternal life (beyond whatever awaits us in heaven) is
not something to be sought out. Character death at the end of a full life is a good thing.
How is Avery Brook's objection to be taken as a "black" thing only? There are too many children in this world that have been abandoned by their fathers and they are of every color of humanity. That it's particularly problematic with blacks is beside the point, it's a problem everywhere.
You're right that it's not a "black" (why quotes?) thing only, but Avery Brooks' objection is to a very specific situation. It's not beside the point, because he was trying to combat a specific problem within his community. Or perhaps you missed "Far Beyond the Stars" and the (somewhat overblown,
perhaps) speech in "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang" that show Brooks' influence on the show growing as he tried to make specific statements?
Point is, simply conflating the two (Paris dying in combat leaving B'Elanna to raise Miral with Sisko happily leaving Kasidy and his unborn child to be with the Prophets forever) is disingeneous because Brooks was objecting to a specific problem, where the potential scenario with Paris and B'Elanna has happened multiple times in "Star Trek" with no ire raised.
And I do think the fact that Miral Paris was a mixed child makes that abandonment even more distasteful, those children especially need both of their parents.
Brit
You're right of course, all children need both of their parents; fortunately, this potentiality never came to pass, and even if it did it wouldn't be abandonment, merely tragedy.
There are only handful of good episodes, two brilliant (these being Shattered and Lineage).
Are you sure that wasn't the kangaroo?
