Poll: Bring Janeway back?

[Thrawn]

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.

You're creating a false dichotomy. There's a huge difference between "one after the other DEAD DEAD DEAD" and "100 novels away, it won't matter!". Let me attempt to explain the middle ground - Troi and Riker are married. Picard and Crusher are married. Calhoun and Shelby are married. I think someone in SCE got married, too. As a result: I know that Trek is interested in exploring married, stable relationships, and that this is a potential story for characters. As a result, if two characters are flirting, I know that several books down the line, they could end up together. (As opposed to, for instance, the TV series, where unless they were both regulars you'd know one of them would be dead or transferred within the hour.)

Now, a couple characters have died in New Frontier...but not many. A couple characters have died in SCE...but not many. Janeway's died...but she's the only one. Nonetheless? Taran'atar is in serious peril right now, in the DS9 relaunch, and I know that it's a possibility he'll end up dead. That makes his story more thrilling. Janeway's death shows that that thought process is allowed for TV characters as well as book characters. Which is good.

No one is suggesting death is an end worth pursuing just for the sake of DEATH DEATH DEATH. This just means stories with death are not off limits. And in much the same way you wouldn't want to publish four books in a row featuring hijinks with Tribbles (or whatever), you're not going to want to kill off too many main characters in a row because it would be repetitive and thus bad storytelling.

But it's not a "stunt death". It just means the same rules apply to the main characters as everyone else - their fate is based on what is in character and what makes the best Trek story, and not limited by any other external constraints. Which is as it should be, since novels have nothing to limit them except imagination.

Or to put it another way, it's not about quotas. It's not like we have to have one marriage a year, one death a year, and one promotion a year just to prove that they're still viable storytelling options. Instead, we see a huge variety of stories being told, where each of those options occurs when appropriate. Which provides the sense of realism that I, and others, require to deeply love a story. It may be that no stories arise in the next 3 years in which the authors or editors feel like killing a main character would make that story the best it could be. Great. But it's clear they're willing to make that choice if they feel it best, and that's a large part of what makes this whole massive universe worth following.

Battlestar Galactica, alternately, didn't let main characters die, until this last season, among the many other egregious reset buttons it hit. And it hurt that show tremendously, for me. I watched the whole thing, but by the end, I wasn't interested in it as a story about people, just as a kind of allegory, a thought experiment. I couldn't love it, because I didn't believe it.

Right now, I believe Trek in a way I didn't when it was on air. On air, Trek ventured too close to that kind of allegorical storytelling for me sometimes. Now, anything is fair game...not for shock value, but for storytelling value. And I think that value is immense.

 

[Trent Roman]

Picard and Crusher marrying was, and yes I did.

Well, then, you have a lot of watershed moments. So, ah, good for you? But then, if you've such a cornucopia of elements that enable a universe of potentialities for you, why begrudge us this one, particularly since death is, after all, an absence of potential.

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.

My mistake, possibly; but it often seemed as though you were drawing a pretty clear line beneath Before Dishonor of "here's where things begin to have consequences".

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.

Except that was the mostly the case during the run of the series, during the last few years of the fiction (the best years, I think), and will continue to be the case going forward because one stunt death does not create a sense of peril. It's the conceit of serial fiction that the leads tend to survive adventure after adventure. I mean, you want to talk about a select group of people: outside of Kirk and possibly Sulu, the TOS cast is still running around in the 24th century era, saving the universe in their Depends Adult Undergarments, for fuck's sake. If iconoclasm is the goal, levelling the mortality playing field between main and secondary/book-only characters, then those are some prime sacred idols to smash right there. That, of course, is assuming one gives a shit about any 'sense of peril', which I do not because that's never been what Trek is about for me.

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.

Well, without knowing why you specifically want Janeway dead (you might have mentioned it during the threads, by I'm afraid I don't recall at the moment), I can't addres this precisely. There is a general fetishization of death (a necrophilia, I've called it elsewhere) in the determination that characters like Janeway and Data remain dead (oddly, Tucker never had more than a handful of people arguing for him to stay dead; I wonder why?), that there's greater weight to this nihilism than all the snuffed out possibilities. But the arguments I was addressing were twofold: (A) the idea that a death is intrinsically valuable, even detached from context, for what it contributes to the overall universe, which I've attempted to refute by pointing out that other genres make survival their primary concern yet do not intrinsically benefit from it, quality-wise; and (B) that Janeway's death restored an absent and apparently critical sense of peril to the Trek universe, which it did not, for the reasons Octavia and I have listed. If 'sense of peril' is truly the goal, then you really would need a "gory, destructive mess" to counteract decades of assumptions about the survival of main characters; to actually have readers worrying about the survival of these characters regularly, they would have to die regularly, and not as some token exception to the rules that does little but reify them once more by virtue of it's vaunted uniqueness.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Trent, try this.

1st season of Angel had at least one huge main character death. It added this same sense of realism and storytelling potential to that series right off the bat. It was important and greatly added to the show.

6th season of Buffy (same showrunner) had so much depression and death and so many bad things in a row that it became unpleasant and irritating to watch.

Somewhere between the two is a balance. I want a show that feels like a story about real people where actions have real consequences (and when you're Battling Evil, death must be one of those consequences just as much as if you're exploring new and dangerous frontiers), but I also want an optimistic and entertaining show where I can cheer the victories of the heroes I've followed for so long.

If you stray too far in one way, you end up with BSG - a story about humanity at its end that nonetheless never puts any main characters in any peril, removing any sense of realism (for me). You stray too far the other way, you end up with depressing icky melodrama. But you seem to keep saying that avoiding the former necessitates creating the latter, and this is false. I'd like a middle ground, one I believe they're achieving quite nicely with the occasional big death like Janeway or Duffy, etc.

In order for me to believe in these people, they have to deal with the same stuff that actual people deal with - love, death of loved ones, huge life changes, and all the rest. You can't cross off one huge part of the human experience just because you find it unpalatable. Janeway's death works because of what it makes in the ongoing story, the beautiful arcs and emotional power that Full Circle nailed so well. That's a story that feels genuine to me, true to life while still optimistic.

Yes, it's a hard balance to hit; even my idol of this particular narrative philosophy, Joss Whedon, bunged it up a couple times. But it's worth trying for.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

Shows you don't read comics. The "Superman" line has been kick-started several times, yes, but that's not the only way they resurrect dead characters. Ditto the other comics. As far as I know, "Teen/New Titans" issues have all been in the same universe, and many characters have been killed off and resurrected. At one point, several universes merged but even some of those changes have unravelled in subsequent issues.

You continue to cling to the "Omigosh they killed Janeway and she's gone forever" mantra. If she's such a beloved character, then she won't be forgotten forever. Start checking off days on your calendar to the next big VOY anniversary. Or the one after that.

 

[Steve Roby]

Who among the general Trek fandom knows who Lyssa Campbell or even Mac Calhoun are?

I know who Lyssa Campbell is. She's the character whose existence I don't otherwise remember whose fate people keep spoiling in threads that aren't marked as Full Circle spoiler threads. Thanks to the Master over at Psi Phi and Octavia here, and no doubt many other helpful people who will post more details before I find a copy of the damn book.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Thanks to the Master over at Psi Phi and Octavia here, and no doubt many other helpful people who will post more details before I find a copy of the damn book.

Ditto.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

*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.

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

You know, I was wondering the same thing.
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".

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.

QFT

Who among the general Trek fandom knows who Lyssa Campbell or even Mac Calhoun are?

I know who Lyssa Campbell is. She's the character whose existence I don't otherwise remember whose fate people keep spoiling in threads that aren't marked as Full Circle spoiler threads. Thanks to the Master over at Psi Phi and Octavia here, and no doubt many other helpful people who will post more details before I find a copy of the damn book.

Normally I don't agree with complaining about spoilers becuase usually its for something that occured a while ago but in this case since Full Circle JUST came out I agree Steve Roby. Octavia would it kill you to use spoiler code?

 

[Lynx]

Who among the general Trek fandom knows who Lyssa Campbell or even Mac Calhoun are?

I know who Lyssa Campbell is. She's the character whose existence I don't otherwise remember whose fate people keep spoiling in threads that aren't marked as Full Circle spoiler threads. Thanks to the Master over at Psi Phi and Octavia here, and no doubt many other helpful people who will post more details before I find a copy of the damn book.

Lyssa Campbell is actually one of the few new characters I like. She showed up in "Marooned" which is one of my favorite Voyager books.

 

[Lynx]

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

Shows you don't read comics. The "Superman" line has been kick-started several times, yes, but that's not the only way they resurrect dead characters. Ditto the other comics. As far as I know, "Teen/New Titans" issues have all been in the same universe, and many characters have been killed off and resurrected. At one point, several universes merged but even some of those changes have unravelled in subsequent issues.

You continue to cling to the "Omigosh they killed Janeway and she's gone forever" mantra. If she's such a beloved character, then she won't be forgotten forever. Start checking off days on your calendar to the next big VOY anniversary. Or the one after that.

I like comics but they don't seem to be as popular where I live as they still are in the US. There are some characters and series you mention which I hardly know about. However, Superman, Batman and Spider-man are well-known and popular over here too.

As for Janeway, since thsoe in charge has stated that her death is permanent, I have to assume that it is the fact.

However, if they decide to bring her back, I will admit that I was wrong and also come up with some praises for that too.

I might be a bastard sometimes but I'm an honest bastard and if I'm proved to be wrong, then I admit it.

 

[Dark Gilligan]

Lyssa Campbell is actually one of the few new characters I like.

Lyssa Campbell. Mmmm... Now that's good eatin'.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ "Poss-ah-bill-i-tees."




(I know, I know. Straight to hell, I'm going. My ticket's been booked for years.)

 

[ClayinCA]

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

You know, I was wondering the same thing.
Besides personally agreeing with you on Voyager and Enterprise, I have to take this opportunity to echo this general sentiment.

No no, you can stop after agreeing with me, it's okay.

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.

I agree, and I think that one of the things that Janeway's death gives us (and I can see this already, only being three-quarters of the way through Full Circle) that, say, Kirk's death did not is the effect it has on those who knew and loved (and in Admiral Batiste's case, hated) Kathryn. I always found it unforgivable that Tasha's death was not even mentioned in the episode following "Skin of Evil." I know I'm going to get shouted down for describing this sort of thing as an advantage, and that's fine; I've heard the arguments before, and they're (for the most part) intelligent, well-reasoned arguments that come down to a matter of opinion. But bringing a sense of danger and consequence back to the Star Trek universe, for me, makes things a lot more enjoyable.

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."

Well, to be fair (and I'm not throwing stones here), I think at least some of it comes from the statements of some hereabouts (I want to say it was Lynx, but I'm not sure, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken) that one character death will likely and inevitably lead to many, many more. Which is a fallacious argument, but it does sort of plant that suggestion in the minds of some, I think.


There! Gotten through a whole exchange with my new friend Saito S
without once speculating on his/her gender - D'OH! (With regard to a post you made a few days ago, Saito, I'm actually not sure one way or another - hell, I thought Lynx was female for a long time, so what the hell do I know??)

And speaking of our feliniously-named friend:

As for Janeway, since thsoe in charge has stated that her death is permanent, I have to assume that it is the fact.

Please provide a quote showing where "those in charge" have said that Janeway's death is permanent.

However, if they decide to bring her back, I will admit that I was wrong and also come up with some praises for that too.

I think it is more likely that you will claim you were right all along, and will praise "them" for doing what you wanted them to do in the first place. That's just a "feeling" I have, though.

I might be a bastard sometimes but I'm an honest bastard and if I'm proved to be wrong, then I admit it.

I don't think you're a bastard.

 

[Thrawn]

Please provide a quote showing where "those in charge" have said that Janeway's death is permanent.

Kirsten's quote was something like "I've stated repeatedly that she won't be coming back in the forseeable future, that being Full Circle and Unworthy. After that, anything is possible."

Once again, Lynx just makes shit up to support his case.

 

[ClayinCA]

Yeah, Kirsten's quote was the only one I had seen on here, and I didn't think that Margaret (or even Marco) had ever been quoted in print as saying anything like that either, but I figured I could be wrong.

 

[JB2005]

"even dissenting voices could be part of a singular song. An argument didn't have to be about silencing or sabotaging the opposition; it could be a cooperative act, a way to seek a resolution to a conflict"

Christopher really has a way with words, maybe we should listen...

 

[DimesDan]

"even dissenting voices could be part of a singular song. An argument didn't have to be about silencing or sabotaging the opposition; it could be a cooperative act, a way to seek a resolution to a conflict"

Christopher really has a way with words, maybe we should listen...

Where is that quoted from? It's not from one of the Janeway threads is it?

 

[JB2005]

it's from over a torrent sea

 

[DimesDan]

it's from over a torrent sea

Ah cool, well I own that, but not read it yet. The waterstones near me only had it on the shelf yesterday.

 

[JB2005]

i just got it today and couldn't put it down! I will heartily recommend you read it!

 

[Saito S]

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.

What? No there aren't. I'm not sure you entirely got what I was saying. I was talking about a thought process inside my head (or anyone's head who is ok with Janeway's death and finds the exploration of main character mortality to be interesting). Being ok with seeing those things in Trek is not the same as saying "I want LOTS of main characters to die! Death and destruction and gore are AWESOME!" That's the point I was making. Read the part of my post that you quoted again.

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.

But I don't think it was a "stunt death". And I'm not pretending it excuses other main characters from death. It isn't supposed to and doesn't need to, and I never said it would. As Thrawn said, it's not about quotas. It's not like we were sitting here going "Man, it's been X number of books/years since a main died. I'm getting impatient." *reads BD* "Ah! There we are!"
More on that particular point below, in my response to Trent.

Picard and Crusher marrying was, and yes I did.

Well, then, you have a lot of watershed moments. So, ah, good for you? But then, if you've such a cornucopia of elements that enable a universe of potentialities for you, why begrudge us this one, particularly since death is, after all, an absence of potential.

Lots of watershed moments indeed. But we are not begrudging anyone anything. The writers killed Janeway, and several people have expressed their views that it was wrong. We're saying we didn't think it was, not "You guys are WRONG, and you should be happy with Janeway's death!"

Except that was the mostly the case during the run of the series, during the last few years of the fiction (the best years, I think), and will continue to be the case going forward because one stunt death does not create a sense of peril. It's the conceit of serial fiction that the leads tend to survive adventure after adventure. I mean, you want to talk about a select group of people: outside of Kirk and possibly Sulu, the TOS cast is still running around in the 24th century era, saving the universe in their Depends Adult Undergarments, for fuck's sake.

This was "mostly the case" during the TV series? That almost no main characters died? Maybe if you specifically mean TOS' 3-year TV run, sure... otherwise, no it wasn't. Spock (who was planned to stay dead initially), Tasha Yar, Kirk, Data, and Jadzia Dax. They all died. And now, in the books, Janeway has died. The various Trek TV series have done exactly what I was talking about: demonstrate that the main characters aren't immortal. Week after week, all these "redshirts" die... but in those cases, a main died as well.
As for the TOS cast... I agree with you. If that's really the case (I haven't read enough of the books to really confirm/deny it), that IS kinda ridiculous. Scotty was suspended in time and Spock is a Vulcan. McCoy was alive in "Encounter at Farpoint," but he certainly shouldn't be having any adventures. So if - aside from Scotty and Spock - any member of the TOS cast is still "saving the universe", yeah, that's pretty crazy.

Well, without knowing why you specifically want Janeway dead (you might have mentioned it during the threads, by I'm afraid I don't recall at the moment), I can't addres this precisely. There is a general fetishization of death (a necrophilia, I've called it elsewhere) in the determination that characters like Janeway and Data remain dead (oddly, Tucker never had more than a handful of people arguing for him to stay dead; I wonder why?), that there's greater weight to this nihilism than all the snuffed out possibilities. But the arguments I was addressing were twofold: (A) the idea that a death is intrinsically valuable, even detached from context, for what it contributes to the overall universe, which I've attempted to refute by pointing out that other genres make survival their primary concern yet do not intrinsically benefit from it, quality-wise; and (B) that Janeway's death restored an absent and apparently critical sense of peril to the Trek universe, which it did not, for the reasons Octavia and I have listed. If 'sense of peril' is truly the goal, then you really would need a "gory, destructive mess" to counteract decades of assumptions about the survival of main characters; to actually have readers worrying about the survival of these characters regularly, they would have to die regularly, and not as some token exception to the rules that does little but reify them once more by virtue of it's vaunted uniqueness.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Where do I begin.
First of all, I don't "want" Janeway dead. She IS dead. I never said I was happy (actually, I said it made me sad when I read it, multiple times). I didn't ask Pocket to kill Janeway. They did it, and I'm simply saying I accept it, and think it makes for an interesting story.
Second: fetishization of death? Necrophilia? Seriously? Frankly, I find the inclusion of those terms in this discussion to be insulting. THIS is what I meant about a massive number of steps between "I'm ok with this" and "MORE DEATH BRAAAINS ARGH." Trent, for reasons I can't fathom, you seem fixated on the idea that because we are ok with this death, we must want MORE death. Because we think it made an interesting story, we must think death is REQUIRED for interesting stories. Because we feel that bringing her back too quickly would feel cheap, we must have WANTED her dead. Because Janeway's death has - for some of us - served a purpose by showing that main characters are just as mortal as the others, that we must be OBSESSED (??) with death. Because we feel that the TV show mains shouldn't be any more exempt from death than book original mains, we, um... must love slasher films?
To be honest, I'm tired of trying to figure out how you arrived at any of this, so I will only say this: GET THE FUCK OFF IT. It makes no sense, has no basis in logic or reality, and is offensive.
And no, a gory, destructive mess is not required to create a sense of peril. Know why? Because TrekLit, is - at this very moment - in fact, NOT a gory, destructive mess, and yet there IS (in our minds, anyway) a sense of peril. Janeway died. That one death certainly does not make the Trek universe a gory destructive mess. Yet that one death was part of a compelling exploration of mortality, of the type that hadn't been seen in a while that I know of, and served to reinforce the notion that if book originals can be killed by these threats, so can anyone else. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Janeway is already dead. Those of us are arguing for the value of the story surrounding her death are saying that whatever "worth" is to be had in main character death has already been achieved... because a main character has already died! How, then, does it make sens to assume that to fulfill our supposed need for wanton death and destruction, we must want MORE death?

Another novella down. Too bad I can't publish any of this.