Poll: Bring Janeway back?

[Hartzilla2007]

Oh, sure. I get that. But it does kind of scupper the "we're doing it for the good of the story!" argument for me. Especially when, as you say, important characters like Calhoun could have been killed off in her place, and without the waffle, which would necessarily increase the sense of peril. A good story and an unambiguous death beats out a poor story and a waffly death, yes?

Well, "good" and "poor" are subjective, after-the-fact judgments that don't help the writers and editors when they're developing the story. Everybody's a quarterback on Monday morning, etc. Anyone who thinks the folks at Pocket had a meeting and said, "We're gonna toss out a shitty story and murder a favorite character just to piss people off because reading the backlash on the message boards is better than watching American Idol" or whatever...well, such people are idiots.


(FYI, reading the message boards really is better than watching American Idol, but that's just me.)


As for another character vs. Janeway, well show of hands: Who among the general Trek fandom knows who Lyssa Campbell or even Mac Calhoun are? Janeway has greater recognition, which of course provides more "umph!" when the marketing department is trying to promote this thing. I don't know why she was chosen over a different "main character" from one of the shows, but I'm willing to bet that's why it was her and not a "books-only" character. After all, there's a reason Chewbacca bought it in the SW books, and not some member of Rogue Squadron (or whatever books-only SW series you'd care to name) to give that book some "weight."

Also why would Calhoun be interested in a Borg cube since the Excalibur probably has its own problems to deal with.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ Well, I think we're just using Calhoun as an example for discussion purposes.

Something I just thought of to address Octavia's question: I don't recall, and maybe it's been covered in one of these threads, but do we know if the insertion of the "Q-clause" came late in the development of the book? What I mean is, was it always a part of the story going back to the outline stage, or was PAD asked to rewrite the ending once he'd turned in a manuscript after CBS/Paramount got their chance to review it? I honestly don't know, and never thought to ask before now.

 

[USS Intrepid]

I wasn't saying I was the exception that proved the rule. Clearly, I became a Star Trek fan because I was influenced by publicity buzz to pick up my first Star Trek novel. There aren't people out there who buy and read every ST novel yet claim to have no interest in Star Trek.

After the first enjoyable novel experience, anyone who takes up the second or third book is on their way to becoming a fan of the show, whether they came to it via action figures, comics, books, publicity spin, collecting soundtrack CDs, an inherited collection of merchandise from a dead relative, etc.

Well that's a fair point, and while I'll concede there are going to be exceptions, the proportion of readers who might buy Star Trek tie in fiction, who aren't already Star Trek fans, is likely to be a pretty miniscule proportion of the market. Ergo, if you do something to annoy the fans, it's likely to be a significant proportion of your audience.

And no, I'm not saying editorial and creative decisions should be made on that basis, because that would be creatively stupid, but I can certainly see where Lynx is coming from. On the flipside, I can also see where Pocket are coming from.

Of course, whether anyone likes or dislikes a particular creative decision is still a purely subjective thing.

 

[Octavia]

Well, "good" and "poor" are subjective, after-the-fact judgments that don't help the writers and editors when they're developing the story. Everybody's a quarterback on Monday morning, etc.

Good and poor aren't entirely subjective, though. Speaking in general terms, you can't be subjective about a plot hole, or a ridiculous coincidence, or something like that. It's either there or it isn't.

Pointing out those things may be quarterbacking, but dude, that's life. Unless you're prepared to toss out all criticism and reviews (the good and the bad), you're stuck with it. The perks of the job, such as they are...

Sure, some people liked BD. Others, to steal a charming phrase I saw recently (in another context) thought it was the stupidest thing since King Stupid ascended to the throne of FuckingIdiotLand. Obviously I'm one of the latter, but, if you'll excuse my saying so, this:

Anyone who thinks the folks at Pocket had a meeting and said, "We're gonna toss out a shitty story and murder a favorite character just to piss people off because reading the backlash on the message boards is better than watching American Idol" or whatever...well, such people are idiots.

Strawman.

Can you quote someone here who actually thinks Pocket is aiming to put out shitty stories? You could quote a bunch - me included - who think that Pocket has put out shitty stories, but intent and output are quite different.

If you can find someone who thinks Pocket is conspiring to produce rubbish, then I will wholeheartedly agree that they are daft as a brush.

As for another character vs. Janeway, well show of hands: Who among the general Trek fandom knows who Lyssa Campbell or even Mac Calhoun are? Janeway has greater recognition, which of course provides more "umph!" when the marketing department is trying to promote this thing. I don't know why she was chosen over a different "main character" from one of the shows, but I'm willing to bet that's why it was her and not a "books-only" character. After all, there's a reason Chewbacca bought it in the SW books, and not some member of Rogue Squadron (or whatever books-only SW series you'd care to name) to give that book some "weight."

Very possibly. But "name" Trek characters have kicked the bucket and been resurrected before, so setting up the same - again - does little to increase the sense of peril, especially when the back-door option is so obviously displayed. That's not sense of peril, that's same old, same old. And if they were looking to market that greater recognition, they were shooting themselves in the foot by killing off Janeway in a TNG book with Seven on the cover.

Although I note that Vector Prime didn't have Chewbacca on the cover either. Which seems odd to me...

 

[Octavia]

^ Well, I think we're just using Calhoun as an example for discussion purposes.

Something I just thought of to address Octavia's question: I don't recall, and maybe it's been covered in one of these threads, but do we know if the insertion of the "Q-clause" came late in the development of the book? What I mean is, was it always a part of the story going back to the outline stage, or was PAD asked to rewrite the ending once he'd turned in a manuscript after CBS/Paramount got their chance to review it? I honestly don't know, and never thought to ask before now.

Yeah, Calhoun was an example pulled out of thin air.

And that's a good question. If the Q-clause came late (say, well after story outline), I would still have preferred reworking better than ploughing on ahead, but I can see that time/money constraints might reasonably have scotched reworking an entire manuscript.

 

[Trent Roman]

To me, the fundamental difference between the storytelling in the novels now and the storytelling in the episodic TV shows is that you don't have to go back to the status quo at the end of the book. (...) But now we have a type of storytelling where you don't know how things will end up. It's not just a question of "how will they solve this", but "WILL they solve this".

To me, that's a false dichotomy. The apogee of Star Trek storytelling in the novels was a few years ago, when, for the most part, there was nothing onscreen holding the fiction back, and the books were being consequential. Just because no main character had being killed didn't make the books any less affecting or relevant, with characters and entire societies winding up in new places, going through story arcs that grew the character. And one reason why is because Star Trek is not about survival; it's goals are far loftier than merely living another day. That's what horror is for. I don't watch/read Star Trek to see who's still standing at the end of the text, because it's entirely besides the point--if not in outright contradiction--of the idea of a better future achieved through, and foregrounding, the potential of our problem-solving abilities. It's like detective fiction: you don't read it to figure out if Holmes or Poirot will solve the mystery, because you know he will; you read it to figure out how he does so, for the originality of the ideas it conveys in doing so, to admire the methodology. There's no pleasure in reading about impotent characters.

Killing main characters is simply one of the most extreme manifestations thereof; a mission statement, if you will, that the status quo is no longer the objective at the end of the book. A promise that, even if other main characters don't die (because, as you say, that kind of thing can get annoying quickly... see post-NJO Star Wars as a brilliant example), things won't necessarily be the same at the end of the next story.

Again, the books have been that way, one series at a time, since the DS9 Relaunch began. You're treating this as a game-changer, a watershed moment, but nothing has really changed just because the rules are circumvented once to be restored just as soon. I'm not going into any book thinking that the main characters are truly imperilled merely because of one stunt death. You'd need a pattern of deaths to establish any real sense of peril, and that would do little more than gut the franchise.

And that *IS* a fundamental difference worth appreciating; not "some artificially-induced sense of peril to substitute for suspense". It's a different kind of suspense entirely, and one I happen to vastly prefer.

Might I recommend the A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Saw franchises? Plenty of that kind of suspense there. And yet, I wouldn't hesitate to call Trek the superior product, in no small part because of the difference in ideological outlook.

Me too, mostly. But I used to hang around with 200 or so ST fans (100 or so die hards, the rest casual SF fans and relatives of diehards) every month through the 80s, at monthly TOS marathons on a big screen, and I know that I was one of the few who was reading all of the novels as they came out. Most other fans there would boast that they had no interest in the tie-ins because the stories "didn't really happen", and that they knew the authors weren't allowed to put the characters into impossible situations, unless they were new redshirts created by the authors, of course.

Then why did they watch the show in the first place, I wonder? All the TOS characters were alive at the end of the show, even though several might appear to die during the course of the episode.

IMO at least, insert a cover-your-arse scene to mitigate a death and you've got a half-arsed death with little true peril (it can be reversed if needed).

Indeed. And I've always been told: if you're going to do something in a half-assed fashion, you might as well not do it at all. But, seriously, I don't know to what extent, if any, 'restoring a sense of peril' was a motivation behind this decision. It might just be us inventing this. (Although I agree that if it was a primary reason, it seems pretty self-defeating.)

Others, to steal a charming phrase I saw recently (in another context) thought it was the stupidest thing since King Stupid ascended to the throne of FuckingIdiotLand.

Since it's stolen property, I won't feel guilty stealing it myself next time BD comes up.

And if they were looking to market that greater recognition, they were shooting themselves in the foot by killing off Janeway in a TNG book with Seven on the cover. Although I note that Vector Prime didn't have Chewbacca on the cover either. Which seems odd to me...

I think in both cases it was intended to be a surprise that the character died, which a marketing campaign would have spoiled. In any case, it was a good gamble, because one could rely on the fanbase to generate the noise, for free.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Dayton Ward]

Good and poor aren't entirely subjective, though. Speaking in general terms, you can't be subjective about a plot hole, or a ridiculous coincidence, or something like that. It's either there or it isn't.

Your statement was:

A good story and an unambiguous death beats out a poor story and a waffly death, yes?

Obviously, the folks behind the decision proceeded while believing they were making the best choice from a storytelling standpoint, not just for the one book, but for stories still to come. That people disagree with the decision doesn't make the point any less valid.

Pointing out those things may be quarterbacking, but dude, that's life. Unless you're prepared to toss out all criticism and reviews (the good and the bad), you're stuck with it. The perks of the job, such as they are...

Again, all that's after the fact. None of that's worth a tinker's damn while the book's still being written.

Sure, some people liked BD. Others, to steal a charming phrase I saw recently (in another context) thought it was the stupidest thing since King Stupid ascended to the throne of FuckingIdiotLand. Obviously I'm one of the latter, but, if you'll excuse my saying so, this:

Anyone who thinks the folks at Pocket had a meeting and said, "We're gonna toss out a shitty story and murder a favorite character just to piss people off because reading the backlash on the message boards is better than watching American Idol" or whatever...well, such people are idiots.

Strawman.

Can you quote someone here who actually thinks Pocket is aiming to put out shitty stories? You could quote a bunch - me included - who think that Pocket has put out shitty stories, but intent and output are quite different.

I didn't say anyone said it; I indicted anyone who might believe it, and based on comments littering this and other threads on this topic, it's hard not to believe that it's not an opinion held by at least a couple of people.

Very possibly. But "name" Trek characters have kicked the bucket and been resurrected before, so setting up the same - again - does little to increase the sense of peril, especially when the back-door option is so obviously displayed. That's not sense of peril, that's same old, same old. And if they were looking to market that greater recognition, they were shooting themselves in the foot by killing off Janeway in a TNG book with Seven on the cover.

As I asked before, I wonder if the "Q-clause" was added toward the end of production on the book. There would come a point where there would be precious little, if any, time to do major rewrites, and if CBS/Paramount had opted at the 11th Hour to want that bit added in, going back and retooling the book to feature another character in that capacity may not have been an option.

Of course, if the decision had been made to do this, and carry forward its effects into other stories, particularly under the Voyager banner, then it might well be a case of "Okay, we put this in, but we have no plans to do anything with it, at least not for the foreseeable future," which of course would seem to be the case, given the evidence.

(I should point out here that I'm speculating on all of that, as I've not been involved in anything Voyager-related.)

Although I note that Vector Prime didn't have Chewbacca on the cover either. Which seems odd to me...

Sorta preserves the surprise, don't you think?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Hey I just realized something

To everyone annoyed by Janeway's death, at least Davis Mack didn't write her death. You don't even want to know how he would have done it, hell I don't want to know how he would of done it.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ "I could stand to hear a little more."

 

[Thrawn]

The apogee of Star Trek storytelling in the novels was a few years ago, when, for the most part, there was nothing onscreen holding the fiction back, and the books were being consequential. Just because no main character had being killed didn't make the books any less affecting or relevant, with characters and entire societies winding up in new places, going through story arcs that grew the character. And one reason why is because Star Trek is not about survival; it's goals are far loftier than merely living another day. That's what horror is for. I don't watch/read Star Trek to see who's still standing at the end of the text, because it's entirely besides the point--if not in outright contradiction--of the idea of a better future achieved through, and foregrounding, the potential of our problem-solving abilities. It's like detective fiction: you don't read it to figure out if Holmes or Poirot will solve the mystery, because you know he will; you read it to figure out how he does so, for the originality of the ideas it conveys in doing so, to admire the methodology. There's no pleasure in reading about impotent characters.

I don't think the occasional main character death is in any way in contradiction with those themes. I don't understand why you do. Especially given that televised/movie Trek, in aggregate, actually has more of it than the books do so far!

This whole paragraph of yours is like saying "I don't like when characters fall in love in Star Trek. That's what romance novels are for."

Death is a kind of story that has meaning to the human condition; Trek is about the human condition. Ergo, death should be allowed. This is a far cry from "I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHO KICKS THE BUCKET THIS BOOK!", which is what you're trying to make me sound like I'm saying.

Again, the books have been that way, one series at a time, since the DS9 Relaunch began. You're treating this as a game-changer, a watershed moment, but nothing has really changed just because the rules are circumvented once to be restored just as soon. I'm not going into any book thinking that the main characters are truly imperilled merely because of one stunt death. You'd need a pattern of deaths to establish any real sense of peril, and that would do little more than gut the franchise.

Again, missing the point. In all of the book-only series, main characters have died, or we have believed that they could (see: NF Missing In Action, SCE Wildfire, lots of the Gorkon books, etc). It's not a question of me believing that characters are imperiled at all times, it's just nice that they're not making such stories off limits. It's one salient aspect of the fact that the status quo doesn't have to be restored at the end of each novel.

To me, killing Janeway says "yes, anything is on the table, even the deaths of our captains, if we think it makes the best Trek story." Which is exactly what I want them to be thinking, and a statement that was impossible to make before the shows went off the air.

Might I recommend the A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Saw franchises? Plenty of that kind of suspense there. And yet, I wouldn't hesitate to call Trek the superior product, in no small part because of the difference in ideological outlook.

Oh please. "I like it when characters are allowed to die" is not the same as "the only thing I'm interested in is characters dying". Stop conflating the two.





ETA: Actually, I just figured out how to phrase this.

If I'm reading a story about Calhoun and Shelby falling in love, it helps if I believe they could still be in love after the story is over. If I'm reading a story about Riker considering a promotion, it helps if I believe he might actually take it. If I'm reading a story about the Borg invading, it helps if I believe that they could cause serious damage...or that they could be defeated completely.

And thus, if I'm reading a story about a character risking their life, it helps if I feel as though they are actually risking it.

I'm not suggesting that, oh say Satisfaction Is Not Guaranteed should've had a high body count of regulars. As you pointed out, these series did let whole societies change...and when we're reading a story about a society changing, it helps if we feel as if those changes could be permanent. It's all part of the same phenomenon.

All else being equal, stories without foregone conclusions are better than stories with them.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ Hey, I'm not the one arguing that the mere fact of a main character dying suddenly, arbitrarily, quicks up the quality and relevance of the line as the whole. If the mortality of characters is one of your top demarkers of good storytelling, then there's no reason you shouldn't enjoy the slasher franchises. Clearly, we prioritize different aspects of the fiction we consume. I don't think much of death for death's sake.

To everyone annoyed by Janeway's death, at least Davis Mack didn't write her death. You don't even want to know how he would have done it, hell I don't want to know how he would of done it.

If Mack could have done for Janeway what he did for the characters in Wildfire, I probably wouldn't be bitching now (or not as much, certainly).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

^ Hey, I'm not the one arguing that the mere fact of a main character dying suddenly, arbitrarily, quicks up the quality and relevance of the line as the whole. If the mortality of characters is one of your top demarkers of good storytelling, then there's no reason you shouldn't enjoy the slasher franchises. Clearly, we prioritize different aspects of the fiction we consume. I don't think much of death for death's sake.

You're - AGAIN! - making a jump here that's completely unwarranted. I'm saying mortality of the characters is a plus, as part of an overall philosophy. I never said it was one of my "top demarkers of good storytelling". And this is now the third time I've said so.

 

[Trent Roman]

Is it? Maybe I'm just dense. But you've seemed pretty insistent, in previous posts, that your ability to believe that the characters can die, as enabled by the death of a main character, is critical to your ability to enjoy the stories--somewhat more than 'a plus'. Still, however you prioritize it makes no difference to me. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done; death for the sake of death is irrelevant, if not tacky in a gratuitous sort of way.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Yes, it is critical, but not in isolation. It's also critical that I feel that characters can marry. Or transfer. Or lose a limb. Or whatever. What I don't like is mandated reset buttons of any variety. None of those particular events are going to happen extremely frequently, because overuse makes for bad stories. But making them off limits is just as bad.

And I don't think Janeway's death was "death for the sake of death", either, nor do I think anyone who made the decision thought so. The execution may have sucked (I don't think it did, but whatever), and that's your opinion to have, but that's not quite the same as what you're saying.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ I know you don't, but the argument you've made regarding the necessity of character death is one extraneous to all other factors, which may be where our disagreement falls. I'm not opposed to characters dying, as I've mentioned elsewhere. But I think a character death is only valuable insofar as it contributes, or fails to contribute, to the specific story; ditto a marriage or injury or whatever. I don't see where the mere fact of it elevates the line as a whole; I certainly don't see where it enables new forms of storytelling when the line has been telling consequential, character-based stories for years. What is so unique about death that makes this a watershed, in the way that, say, Picard and Crusher marrying wasn't? Did you feel this sense of potentiality when Nog lost a leg?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Picard and Crusher marrying was, and yes I did.

But no one spent thousands of posts ranting about how those were stupid ideas. At least, not while I was around. So I didn't feel the need to defend them quite so vociferously

And I didn't mean that they enable new forms of storytelling, quite...more as evidence of the fact that the form of storytelling I prefer was taking place to begin with.

 

[Saito S]

*cautiously sticks head into thread after several weeks absence*

*looks around*

*backs out and runs into the night screaming*

Probably the most rational course of action. But then, I've never claimed to be a particularly rational person.

if you don't take us seriously then we win because there are far more than twenty-five, and if you take us seriously and actually go out there and look you will find we were right in the first place. I win either way.

Enjoy your victory. (What did you win again?)

You know, I was wondering the same thing.

See, now this kind of thing just amazes me. As I've said elsewhere, I didn't particularly like Voyager (I thought the concept was good but that it had seriously execution problems and was plagued by bad writing, especially in its later years), and I was let down by a lot of Enterprise, though I did see some episodes that I enjoyed. But I cannot imagine telling anyone that because they liked one of the shows that I didn't like, then they're not a "real" Star Trek fan. I mean, that's just silly.

Besides personally agreeing with you on Voyager and Enterprise, I have to take this opportunity to echo this general sentiment. Things have gotten pretty heated at times in this debate (and may again), and certainly there's been frustration on both sides, and it's pretty obvious there are large differences of opinion about a number of things. But I find the idea of telling anyone here that they are not "true Trek fans" just because they didn't like what I liked to be ridiculous. And a bit ironic, since I have heard it said by people involved with TrekLit that they would rather produce a book which some love and some hate, sparking a debate (which is exactly what's happening) rather than a safe book, that everyone finds "okay".

Good and poor aren't entirely subjective, though. Speaking in general terms, you can't be subjective about a plot hole, or a ridiculous coincidence, or something like that. It's either there or it isn't.

I would say that's really only true to a degree. The statement "plot holes detract from a story" is certainly generally an objective truth, but what can still be subjective is weather or not a given event in a story IS a plot hole or a ridiculous coincidence. People debate those kinds of things all the time.

Surely there would have been other characters - original ones - that could have been killed off without Paramount giving a damn? They don't seem to care about minor canon characters (see Lyssa Campbell). What about major non-canon characters? Could Calhoun have been killed off without the cover-your-arse bit tacked on?

I realize you're mainly talking about the "Kill someone without the safety net angle" here, but it's close enough. I'm not fond of this line of thinking from one standpoint: that killing off book originals would ever be thought of as "more ok" or "not as bad" as killing off TV show characters on general principle. Because I don't see the distinction, myself.
I quoted your post Octavia to use as a springboard into this subject, but really, this relates to something that several people have brought up in this huge debate, that they want to read about the characters from the TV show, not some also-rans created by the book authors. Now, that's a valid viewpoint; I'm not suggesting that anyone that feels that way shouldn't. But I'm just pointing out that there are others who don't. I use myself as an example: If the story is well told, I find reading about a mix of old and new characters to be, frankly, more interesting. I love the TV show characters, of course, and we all have our favorites, but I'd be lying if I said there weren't original characters in some of the books that I like just as much. If ONLY the original, non-TV show mains were allowed to die, that'd be just stupid if you ask me. That would bring back in a different form the old "redshirt" problem, that plagued all the Treks to some degree, but most especially TOS: Week after week, dangerous situation after dangerous situation, and people die, sometimes a lot of people... but never anyone one from this select group of people! From that standpoint, occasional TV show main character death is important. Am I saying that I would be unhappy if none of the mains ever die? No, not generally, and I do think that one important part of the solution is to be more careful about how often and in what manner background or extra characters are offed. But if enough stories of EXTREME danger and hardship went by, and enough extras and book originals died, and all the while, all the TV show characters continue to be immortal... yeah, honestly, that would bother me after long enough. Not to the point of throwing aside TrekLit for good or anything, but it would bother me. Janeway died, tragically but heroically, reminding us that none of these characters are immortal.

^ Hey, I'm not the one arguing that the mere fact of a main character dying suddenly, arbitrarily, quicks up the quality and relevance of the line as the whole. If the mortality of characters is one of your top demarkers of good storytelling, then there's no reason you shouldn't enjoy the slasher franchises. Clearly, we prioritize different aspects of the fiction we consume. I don't think much of death for death's sake.

Where is this idea coming from that we WANT Trek to kill off more people, to turn into this gory, destructive mess? This isn't just you Trent, as I've seen it from several people throughout this debate, but I have to say, it's really kind of annoying.
There is a HUGE (MASSIVE) number of steps between "I approve of Janeway's death. I think it's important to show sometimes that these characters aren't immortal." and "More people should die. I like lots of death." There is ZERO logic behind the suggestion that anyone here - based on anything I have seen in the hundreds of posts in this debate - "should" like slasher films based on what they have said in this thread. I don't think much of "death for death's sake" either. That's not what this was to me. And just because I think it's important to sometimes show that the characters are not immortal does not mean I want character death to be used arbitrarily, or without great care. But unless they were to go far in the OTHER direction, and have almost no main characters (TV show main or not) die, it makes no sense for this select group to always come through ok, time after time, yet anyone else could die at anytime. That, to me, feels far more "cheap" than Janeway's death as written (or the concept of killing a TV main in general, as long as it's done well.)

And finally, one last point I want to re-stress is how subjective this whole thing is. Sure, there are those who think Janeway's death was a mistake, and that TV mains shouldn't die. That's a valid opinion to have. But it is not objectively correct. If it were, you wouldn't have anyone arguing against it. I don't believe that TV mains should be exempt from death anymore than any of the original characters should be, and that's my (equally valid) opinion. So many times, I've seen an argument that equates to "they shouldn't have done this because they should have known how much it would upset the fans." I'm a fan. I'm not upset. EVERY creative decision that has any kind of major concequences for the Trek universe - without exception - will please some fans and piss off others. This is no different.

 

[Thrawn]

Where is this idea coming from that we WANT Trek to kill off more people, to turn into this gory, destructive mess? This isn't just you Trent, as I've seen it from several people throughout this debate, but I have to say, it's really kind of annoying.

There is a HUGE (MASSIVE) number of steps between "I approve of Janeway's death. I think it's important to show sometimes that these characters aren't immortal." and "More people should die. I like lots of death." There is ZERO logic behind the suggestion that anyone here - based on anything I have seen in the hundreds of posts in this debate - "should" like slasher films based on what they have said in this thread. I don't think much of "death for death's sake" either. That's not what this was to me. And just because I think it's important to sometimes show that the characters are not immortal does not mean I want character death to be used arbitrarily, or without great care. But unless they were to go far in the OTHER direction, and have almost no main characters (TV show main or not) die, it makes no sense for this select group to always come through ok, time after time, yet anyone else could die at anytime. That, to me, feels far more "cheap" than Janeway's death as written (or the concept of killing a TV main in general, as long as it's done well.)

^ This.

Nicely worded.

 

[Octavia]

There is a HUGE (MASSIVE) number of steps between "I approve of Janeway's death. I think it's important to show sometimes that these characters aren't immortal." and "More people should die. I like lots of death."

I would disagree. I don't think there are that many steps. In fact I would say there are pretty damn few.

Whether or not a person agrees with the first premise (it's important to show sometimes that sometimes these characters aren't immortal) most people can agree that, after a character death such as this, there are only two options.

Option A is that the character gets resurrected, in which case not only is the concept of mortality not really dealt with, but one can reasonably look forward to a myriad of character deaths, secure in the belief that they won't stick. Not a huge number of steps there.

Option B is that the character stays dead. In which case, yes, one character has died - but how long can that single example reasonably carry the banner for mortality? Not that long, I would argue. Fifty books from now, will we be hearing "No, Picard isn't dead. But he is in danger of dying sometime in the next fifty books, because see! Ten years ago we killed Janeway..."? That would be ludicrous. It is not a huge number of steps to say that, if mortality is going to be explored, it needs to be a regular occurrence or else it is a stunt.

Now if it is a stunt, fine. But let's not pretend that a stunt death excuses other main characters from getting kicked in the arse by their own mortality.

 

[Lynx]

But then doesn't that completely negate killing said character off in the first place? Where's the "sense of peril" if that good character never stays dead?

People have said that for years about Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Captain America, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Teen Titans and Flash comics. Some characters have been dead several times.

We're having the "sense of peril" aftermath of Janeway's death now. When it all blows over she may be back. Or not. No guarantee of a happy ending, just like in real life. But, being science fiction, someone will inevitably bring her back.

Or.... like the "Crucible" trilogy, someone may pitch a standalone Admiral Janeway novel that chooses to disregard the events of the TNG and VOY Relaunches.

It's simply a break for snacks and coffee.

Why not? Sounds yummy.

But most of the characters you mention are in comics, TV series or movies where there is no continuition at all.

Superman can be killed off in a movie and three years later there's a new Superman movie without any explanation at all why he's back. The same for the villains. How many times has The Joker been killed off only to return with no plausible explanation?

Trek is different because there's always been some sort of continuity in it and the fans expect continuity and are also very eager to point out continuity erors where there are any.

Therefore it's so much more difficult to bring someone back who's been killed off. The more spectacular death, the more difficult it is to bring back the character.

That's something the writers should be aware of.