Shameless Hypocrisy About Character Deaths *Spoilers*

[Claudia]

I'm just saying that Trek shouldn't *only* be about death, destruction, catastrophe, because, frankly, I think we had enough of that to last us for a while (in canon and in TrekLit).

One year of books in 43 years.

Following a massive war against the Dominion in DS9, followed by constant threats of the Borg in VOY and later on in TrekLit, amongst others... (you again dropped half of what I've written, namely the *canon* part).

FWIW, there's a difference between complaining and finding something noteworthy - I'm not complaining (because honestly, were I actually complaining I simply wouldn't buy the books, I'm not a masochist after all), I just find it worth mentioning that there's been a certain trend in TrekLit that IMO hasn't found the real balance yet. But I'm looking forward to seeing how this will play out.

 

[kimc]

1. I suspect the "people" complaining about the reset button and the "people" complaining about character deaths are not actually the same people.
2. I suspect there's a middle ground between constant reset buttons and "a deadly series of incidents."

That all sounds so sane!

As sane as that sounds though the fact that there's an audience for both shows like Trek and the new Battlestar Galactica show there's a place for both types of shows.

I LOVE BSG for it's realism. At the same time I've loved Trek for it's idealism. The idea that humanity can overcome it's dark side is as much sci fi to me as transporters and replicators. That doesn't make it any less fascinating though. There are plenty of shows that go for realism - moving away from Trek's basic roots is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.

 

[Christopher]

^See, I don't think BSG was any more realistic than ST. The latter tends unrealistically toward the positive side of life, while the former tended unrealistically toward the negative side. The truth is in the middle. Humanity will always have some people who are as well-adjusted as those in ST, some who are as screwed-up as those in BSG, and many more who are somewhere in between. After all, we are a species that managed to produce Gandhi and Hitler within a generation of each other, which proves that it would be unwise to rule anything out about our potential for either good or evil.

I think DS9 came closest to getting it right: We can make ourselves better, but it's hard work and requires constant vigilance to keep from backsliding.

 

[kimc]

^See, I don't think BSG was any more realistic than ST. The latter tends unrealistically toward the positive side of life, while the former tended unrealistically toward the negative side. The truth is in the middle. Humanity will always have some people who are as well-adjusted as those in ST, some who are as screwed-up as those in BSG, and many more who are somewhere in between.

Believe it or not I agree with that. The truth of most things is usually in the middle. However, shows like BSG and Trek allow us to explore the possibilities of the extreme ends without having to live through them ourselves.

 

[Sxottlan]

Just finished the first Destiny book, and even there the astronomical casualty count is easily the least appealing aspect of an otherwise entertaining book.

*patiently waits for a review*

Actually, I'd be even more interested in your thoughts on Book 2 as that was the one I had the most issues with.

 

[LightningStorm]

Just finished the first Destiny book, and even there the astronomical casualty count is easily the least appealing aspect of an otherwise entertaining book.

*patiently waits for a review*

Actually, I'd be even more interested in your thoughts on Book 2 as that was the one I had the most issues with.

Pssst.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=2971525#post2971525