Hmm.....in that case they would be nitpicking since I try to keep the characters close to accepted canon.
I've only made one significant change and that's changing the lifespan of a certain character. Considering how that character was treated in the TV series, my change would rather be labeled as constructive, not destructive.
By the way, what's so special about "Places Of Exile"?
Playing devil's advocate for a minute. That significant change you speak of (clearly you are talking about Kes) could constitute a massive "character destruction" of Kes because I might consider her short life span to be an integral part of her character. Perhaps I like the idea that a character with such a short life span may need to be explored in a specific way such that she can accomplish certain things before she dies. Maybe I think her character is about living her life to the fullest given how short said life is. One might think that
not killing Kes at her normal life expectancy greatly reduces the character's effectiveness, because now she's just like everyone else.
Again, that was all really just playing devil's advocate to make a point. That being, that it's all subjective and you simply can not make everyone happy and you can not guarantee that what you do will not anger or upset or whatever someone somewhere eventually. At some point you have to accept that you can't please everyone and say "Well, I'm sorry you don't like my direction, but I'm going to continue my direction anyway."
As for
Places of Exile. Well in that post you made the other day wanting KJ alive, Kes there and alive and well and prospering with no effects of the Gift or Fury, and Pretty much every thing you said happens in that story (with a few notable differences -- like the 37's planet isn't involved.) But pretty much everything you said is there. (now of course I've spoiled it all, but there is a lot there that isn't spoiled, that based on what you've said here I can almost guarantee you'd like it.
Your attempt to play the devil's advocate actually opens for an interesting debate.
I can't see why prolonging Kes's lifespan could be seen as "destruction", it could rather be described as a constructive move which saves an interesting character from unnecessary death and gives us the opportunity to write/read more stories about the character.
Let's face it. The nine year lifespan was silly, something they came up with because we haven't had this in Star Trek before. A species with such a short lifespan would never develope into more than primates. It was also hinted in some episodes (most notably "Cold Fire") that her lifespan could be prolonged.
And Kes wouldn't be "just like everybody else". She would still be the unique character she was in the series because her
personality which was what really made the character unique would be the same.
Just for your information, I've had this debate before on different forums and the only persons who have supported the short lifespan and would have liked to see Kes age and die are those who hate or at least dislike the character.
As for "not making everybody happy", I can see your point. But I think that it's important to avoid that too many are annoyed or hurt. let's look at Star Wars here. Jar-Jar Binks was hated among the fans and I guess that many of them would have loved to see him killed off. But those in charge didn't do that. However, they did reduce his presence on screen radically in the third movie. In doing that, they did make many Jar-Jar bashers happy while at the same time avoiding hurting those who might have liked the character.
Thrawn wrote:
Janeway limping around as an admiral and supporting character would, in my imagination, not lead to nearly the same importance ascribed to the character. Just as Kes's lifespan being increased could remove the unique story available to her from one perspective, from my perspective making Janeway a character who sacrificed everything - her future, her sexuality, her happiness, and then her life - to keep her crew and her friends safe, even if she's denied happiness in the long run, could produce a truly epic and heroic journey for her. It's all in how she's handled in Full Circle, which I thus eagerly await. (Obligatory disclaimer: I realize this is a view many do not share; I'm just pointing out that it really can go in the other direction.)
I do think that making Janeway an admiral was a horrible mistake (one of many) from those in charge of the TV series and I've often my dislike about this aspect of the relaunch as well, having Janeway as a "desk clerk" (which I wrote in a review of "Homecoming" after reading it the first time.
But it could have been changed with some imagination, skill and will!
Instead of killing off the character, wouldn't it have been better if they had come up with some story which would have given Janeway command over a ship (most likely Voyager) and taken her out in space to explore which was what she really had dedicated her life to (read "Mosaic" by Jeri Taylor). Kirk was still admiral when he did take charge of Enterprise in the movies.
Or they could have found a way to demote her to captain again, there are many possibilities. That would have been constructive and given both writers and readers to have this great character as the main character for many books in years to come. Killing her off might give an "effect" which lasts for one or two books but nothing more. Instead we're losing a great character who can't be replaced.
And honestly, who wants to read a book where other main characters are grieving the loss of their former captain? If I want to read such stories, I do have the obituaries in the daily paper.
And Janeway was never meant to be a tragic person who sacrificed this and that, she was supposed to be a strong woman in command of a starship.
Mriana wrote (on a question which asked "How many ST fans want Janeway back? How many knows that she's dead?":
Several. About 1000 at least
Considering that the campaign for bringing back Kes as a regular character did result in thousands of letter and mail, I would guess that the Janeway fans are definitely more than about thousand.
Thrawn wrote:
It's really, I think, quite a myth that the people that run any show do anything "for the fans". They might say they do, or there might be the occasional inside joke here and there, but mostly they do whatever the hell they want to do and fans are pretty much a by-product. Obviously fans pay the bills, but if you ask any creative person in any creative field they'll tell you straight up that the surest way to get fans is to love what you do, be passionate about how you do it, and thus do it to the best of your ability.
Which is, incidentally, exactly what's happened here with the TrekLit people.
I can agree that the best way to win fans is to be passionate and do the best of your ability. But insulting the fans, selling out or create something which many fans would dislike is an effective way to lose those fans and when you've lost them, it's very hard to bring them back.
There were alot of things which annoyed many fans in the later years of Star Trek (most notably in Voyager and Enterprise) which resulted in many fans turning their backs on Star Trek. There is a reason why Star Trek, depite it's great premise and being a well-known phenomenon has lost a lot of its popularity.
As for TrekLit, the fans of TrekLit is actually a fraction of the whole Star Trek fanbase and can't be representative for the whole community. Not to mention that those who like the killing off of Janeway isn't a large majority here on this board. In fact, the question is if they are a majority or just a minority of a fraction of the Star Trek fanbase.
Good one, my son has even said similar things. Such stories have been around for ages and it's a good writing technique to bring characters back to life. However, I like the Star Trek resurrections far better and Gene quite often did things with those story lines in them- "Who Mourns for Adonis" (TOS) and "Justice" (TNG) are a couple examples.
