Star Trek Voyager: The Eternal Tide by Kirsten Beyer

[RPJOB]

The idea that Nomad could repair a dead human with a beam of light is just silly.

But how do you define "dead?" Even today, it's possible to revive a clinically dead patient without permanent brain damage if they're treated promptly, within a matter of 3-5 minutes at normal body temperature, up to twice that if the body temperature is reduced by several degrees. Both McCoy in "Shore Leave" and Scott in "The Changeling" were clinically dead for only minutes before their revival, so it's not that implausible even by today's standards. The main obstacle to recovery from clinical death is the rapid accumulation of ischemic injury in the brain; otherwise, most parts of the body can survive hours without blood circulation. If advanced medical science had a way to minimize or reverse that damage to the brain, it could certainly be possible to revive people who had been clinically dead for a longer period of time.

As for using a beam of light to perform a medical procedure, we do that today with lasers, and there is research underway into other potential techniques employing light to activate or regulate chemical processes inside neurons or other cells. Or it could be that the "light beams" used by Trekverse medical devices (like those seen in the 24th-century shows) are some kind of array of micro-tractor beams doing fine manipulation of cells.

My definition of dead is when McCoy says "He's dead Jim". At that point I'm convinced that the person is actually dead and that McCoy isn't simply being lazy.

Of course, that doesn't work when it was McCoy that was the dead one.

I see your point about Nomad but Nomad has always bothered me. He could do too much from firing energy equivalent of 90 photon torpedos to reading (and emptying) minds as well as raising the dead. But, if we put that down to advanced alien technology then it works. However, it's still part of the idea that death in the Trek universe isn't permanent.

Would it be possible to being back Duffy after Wildfire? Sure, just bring in Q. However, it would cheapen his sacrifice and risk turning Trek into a soap opera.

Could you find a way to restore all the people killed in Destiny? Same answer.

Once that particular genie is out of the bottle it's very hard to get it to go back in. The fact that Janeway was last seen in the company of a Q just reinforces the point. Why should we care when a character dies?

 

[Christopher]

My point is that it's a matter of degree. Reviving someone within a few minutes of clinical death, which is what happens to McCoy and Scotty in those respective episodes, is within the realm of modern medical science, so it's entirely plausible when it happens in science fiction. Maybe SF characters can be revived after being clinically dead for a longer period of time, but that's just an extrapolation from current possibilities, so it's still pretty believable. If anything, what's implausible and outdated about those scenarios is the way McCoy simply gives up upon declaring death, rather than making every effort to revive the patient as is now standard medical procedure. Tasha's death scene in "Skin of Evil" was much closer to how it's really done in modern times. (The death scene in "Shore Leave" is more forgivable, since the medical officer was the one who died and they had no way of getting back to the ship for treatment.)

But a scenario where a character who's outright dead and buried -- or completely disintegrated, as Janeway was -- is subsequently resurrected after days or weeks or months or years is orders of magnitude more implausible. That's not merely a small extrapolation from current medical reality, it's a leap into far more fanciful territory. So it's not really comparable.


As for the Q, sure, theoretically they would have the power to bring back the dead, but it's pretty clearly not something they're inclined to do as a rule. They seem to have their own set of noninterference policies (which "our" Q has gleefully violated), and on the whole they wouldn't much care about individual mortals. We're mayflies to them anyway; from their perspective, living 40 years and living 140 years are effectively indistinguishable, so why waste their effort resurrecting someone who's just going to drop dead in the proportional blink of an eye anyway? Even if the Q could bring back any dead character, there are a lot of cultural, character-based, and story-based reasons why they wouldn't. So if a story were to go that route and use Q to resurrect someone, there would have to be a very, very good story and character reason why Q would do it, or else it's just a lazy cheat. It's not the simple way out that a lot of commentators treat it as.

 

[AuntKate]

In Voy's "Mortal Coil," Neelix is revived through Borg nanoprobes after having been dead for several hours. In "Relics," Scotty is kept alive for years in a transporter buffer and brought back to life. In both cases, they were presumed dead by the rest of the world and returned an implausible time later. The precedent is there.

Bodies can be transported, basically disintegrated and reintegrated, and we can accept that the person hasn't died in the process. So it's pretty clear that death doesn't necessarily occur just because the body is gone (I won't bring up Spock's mantra simply because he is Vulcan, not human). A person is not the body, but the spirit--the very part of Janeway that the Q have taken with them. The Borg can bring someone back to life with their nanoprobes, but only if they want to do so (apparently Joe Carey wasn't worthy ). The Q are also capable of recreating Janeway's body if they wish, and I suppose that they are capricious enough to do so even if it messes with our concept of death. Whether we like it or not, Lady Q has salvaged Janeway from permanent death and opened a very viable route for her return.

The question that is really being debated here is whether or not it is worthwhile to bring back a character who has been declared dead and therefore tamper with all the events between the death and the return. There is a writer's answer and the publisher's answer. The writer might find that bringing back a character who has been declared dead damages the story line. The publisher is more interested in selling books. If bringing back a "dead" character is going to sell more books, then I'd say chances are good the publisher will make it happen and our concept of death will just have to make room for it.

 

[Sci]

A person is not the body, but the spirit

Um, no, there's no such thing as "spirits." There's a consciousness which emerges when neurons interact with each-other, and apparently in the Trekverse such a consciousness can be preserved and transferred into other mediums. But there's no "spirit" involved.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, that's a matter of semantics, given that in the Trek universe, it's established that a consciousness can exist in an incorporeal state, as in "Lonely Among Us," or preserved upon departing a deceased or near-deceased body, as in "Coda." That's similar enough to traditional beliefs in the spirit that the label is not unreasonable -- within the fictional context of the Trek universe, at least. At the very least, it's a convenient analogy.

After all, "spirit" is a word that already has multiple definitions, not just the one you seem to be reacting to, which is as a synonym for "soul" in the religious sense. Here are some others:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit?s=t

1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
...
4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.

Definitions 2 and 4 can certainly apply to the Trek-universe portrayal of consciousness, independent of any religious connotations. Etymologically speaking, "spirit" literally means "breath," and has long been metaphorically used to mean the animating essence of life.


Now, as to the notion that a person is the spirit rather than the body, in reality, modern science suggests otherwise -- the old Western notion of a fundamental duality between the mind and the body is a myth, and in fact the two are inextricably linked. Who we are, how we feel and perceive and react, is intimately connected to our physical senses and hormones and bodily state, and if you took a person's brain out of their body and into some radically different receptacle like a computer, or no receptacle at all, it could substantially change the way they thought, felt, perceived, or remembered; essentially they wouldn't be the same person, or wouldn't be the complete person they were before.

But of course, we must keep in mind that Star Trek is not reality, just a bunch of stories some folks made up. And those stories have generally been based in that conventional Western view of the mind as something complete and separable from the body. While that's untrue in reality, it is true in the Trek universe: a person's complete mind and personality can be separated from the body or placed intact within a different body or storage medium.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

^Well researched and said.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

My definition of dead is when McCoy says "He's dead Jim". At that point I'm convinced that the person is actually dead and that McCoy isn't simply being lazy.

This has always bothered me and I DO think McCoy was being lazy. How often did McCoy put the tricorder on someone and declare them dead without doing anything to try to resussitate him? I always thought McCoy was a lousy doctor for writing off a patient without ever attempting to save him. You'd think his license would be revoked for that! In fact, I think the first time I saw him try to save a dead man was Gorkon.

 

[Sci]

^Well, that's a matter of semantics, given that in the Trek universe, it's established that a consciousness can exist in an incorporeal state, as in "Lonely Among Us," or preserved upon departing a deceased or near-deceased body, as in "Coda." That's similar enough to traditional beliefs in the spirit that the label is not unreasonable -- within the fictional context of the Trek universe, at least. At the very least, it's a convenient analogy.

Which is all well and good, but even within the universe of Star Trek, there's nothing supernatural about it -- which was my objection.

 

[Christopher]

^And my point was that you were jumping to a conclusion by assuming that the word "spirit" could only be an expression of supernatural or religious belief. Within the context of the Trek universe's laws of nature, it's as valid a label for an incorporeal consciousness as any. And within the context of Trek's core value of the acceptance of diversity, we should respect other people's right to interpret such a consciousness in spiritual terms if that's what they choose.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Um, no, there's no such thing as "spirits." There's a consciousness which emerges when neurons interact with each-other, and apparently in the Trekverse such a consciousness can be preserved and transferred into other mediums. But there's no "spirit" involved.

Is not the Vulcan katra described canonically as the "living spirit"?

 

[RPJOB]

My definition of dead is when McCoy says "He's dead Jim". At that point I'm convinced that the person is actually dead and that McCoy isn't simply being lazy.

This has always bothered me and I DO think McCoy was being lazy. How often did McCoy put the tricorder on someone and declare them dead without doing anything to try to resussitate him? I always thought McCoy was a lousy doctor for writing off a patient without ever attempting to save him. You'd think his license would be revoked for that! In fact, I think the first time I saw him try to save a dead man was Gorkon.

Are you suggesting that McCoy's reputation as a doctor was not nearly as good as we were led to believe? That Kirk brought him back onboard in TMP just because he was his friend?

I would assume that a Tricorder or medical scanner would give a trained physician enough information to know if further measures would be justified. Besides, Gorkon was still alive when McCoy got there. He even spoke before finally dying. Perhaps if someone decided to shoot him with a disruptor at that point McCoy would do a scan and declare "He's dead".

"Dammit Jim, I'm not really a doctor, maybe I should be a bricklayer"

 

[RPJOB]

As for the Q, sure, theoretically they would have the power to bring back the dead, but it's pretty clearly not something they're inclined to do as a rule. They seem to have their own set of noninterference policies (which "our" Q has gleefully violated), and on the whole they wouldn't much care about individual mortals. We're mayflies to them anyway; from their perspective, living 40 years and living 140 years are effectively indistinguishable, so why waste their effort resurrecting someone who's just going to drop dead in the proportional blink of an eye anyway? Even if the Q could bring back any dead character, there are a lot of cultural, character-based, and story-based reasons why they wouldn't. So if a story were to go that route and use Q to resurrect someone, there would have to be a very, very good story and character reason why Q would do it, or else it's just a lazy cheat. It's not the simple way out that a lot of commentators treat it as.

The question that is really being debated here is whether or not it is worthwhile to bring back a character who has been declared dead and therefore tamper with all the events between the death and the return. There is a writer's answer and the publisher's answer. The writer might find that bringing back a character who has been declared dead damages the story line. The publisher is more interested in selling books. If bringing back a "dead" character is going to sell more books, then I'd say chances are good the publisher will make it happen and our concept of death will just have to make room for it.

And there's the problem in a nutshell. The characters aren't really in the hands of the authors or even the editors. They're in the hands of Paramount and CBS. If they decide that a character has to be brought back, they will be. If the editors want to do a story where Destiny is undone, the current authors may not feel that's a good enough story but that doesn't prevent the editor from finding someone who'd be willing to do it.

While TPTB may have their own very good reasons for doing so (i.e. money) it would tend to cheapen and minimize the sacrifice and loss of the stories. If death is just a temporary inconvience then where's the drama once the initial shock wears off? "Kirk's dead! Oh no! Captain!! <sob, gnash, wail> Oh wait, he's alive again. Whew, thank goodness. <funny tag scene ending with the crew laughing>" Fade out.

Should Trek lit have multiple universes beyond the JJverse and mirror universe, one where a character lives and one where they die? As I said before Janeway is much more interesting now that she's dead where we see the effect she's had on the people left behind. Where the memory of her is all they've got left of her.

 

[JD]

Trek already has dozens or possibly even hundreds of universes at this point. We've already gotten the Prime Universe, Abramsverse, Mirror Universe. 10 different ones from the MyrU books, STO, and dozens of others from numerous novels, comics, and episodes. We even have a universe were Destiny never happened, and Janeway is still alive in the form of the STO universe.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The characters aren't really in the hands of the authors or even the editors. They're in the hands of Paramount and CBS. If they decide that a character has to be brought back, they will be.

But Paramount/CBS won't be deciding when a character might come back in the licensed fiction. CBS Consumer Products allow, deny, or suggest modifications for, each proposal and completed manuscript.

It is the current editor who would decide whether to commission a writer to resurrect a character, or would hear an incoming pitch from a writer.

 

[RPJOB]

I'm sure if someone at CBS/Paramount decided that they wanted Janeway then they could drop a word in Pocket's ear. After all, they're the ones that wanted the "out" for her death in the first place. I'm sure that they wouldn't be public or obvious to us about it but they ultimately are the ones that decide what's acceptable in the books. If they decide that having Janeway remain dead is unacceptable then I hardly think that they'd wait until a novel came along before saying "Yes, we want her back". They wouldn't concern themselves beyond the usual things that they approve or disapprove of in the books but they could say "We think it's time Janeway was back." No plot. No ideas exactly how to do it. That's up to the writers and editors.

If TPTB made such a suggestion do you really think that Pocket would say "No"?

 

[Thestral]

^And my point was that you were jumping to a conclusion by assuming that the word "spirit" could only be an expression of supernatural or religious belief. Within the context of the Trek universe's laws of nature, it's as valid a label for an incorporeal consciousness as any. And within the context of Trek's core value of the acceptance of diversity, we should respect other people's right to interpret such a consciousness in spiritual terms if that's what they choose.

Well said.

 

[Christopher]

Are you suggesting that McCoy's reputation as a doctor was not nearly as good as we were led to believe? That Kirk brought him back onboard in TMP just because he was his friend?

I think it's more that TV and movies in general tend to simplify the process of death considerably, both for dramatic convenience and for the sake of avoiding the messy and disturbing reality. In real life, most stabbing or gunshot injuries are survivable if medical treatment is received in time, but in TV and movies, they're usually instantly fatal -- unless it's one of the heroes who gets hit (in which case it's usually just a shoulder wound that doesn't even restrict arm movement even though a realistic injury of that type would be debilitating and probably cause permanent nerve and muscle damage), or unless it's a character who needs a drawn-out, dramatic death scene.

I would assume that a Tricorder or medical scanner would give a trained physician enough information to know if further measures would be justified.

A trained physician wouldn't need them. Most of the time, death is not instantaneous and clinical death is not automatically irreversible. The kind of damage that would be instantly, irreversibly fatal would be gross and obvious enough that a doctor could recognize it without needing a tricorder -- say, having half one's skull blown away, though I'm sure there are examples that would be less obvious to a layperson.

This is just one of those things that's so far removed from reality that it has to be treated as dramatic license, nothing more. It's just the typical way death was treated in '60s TV and still is to a large extent in action shows as opposed to medical shows (which have their own inaccurate conceits).

I'm sure if someone at CBS/Paramount decided that they wanted Janeway then they could drop a word in Pocket's ear. After all, they're the ones that wanted the "out" for her death in the first place.

The mistake a lot of fans make is assuming that CBS or Paramount is some monolithic "they," like there's some kind of executive office of Star Trek continuity oversight at the highest level of the company. That's rubbish. At the highest level, Star Trek is basically a revenue stream; they don't care about the niceties of continuity or story content, they just care about whether the franchise as a whole is making money. To that end, they hire or license other people to make the creative decisions.

So you're talking about various different groups or tiers of people with various different jobs, not a single unified "they." Sure, if there were a new 24th-century Prime-universe Star Trek movie or series in production, and if the people whom Paramount or CBS had employed (or subcontracted, like Bad Robot or Filmation) to make that movie or series decided they wanted Janeway to be in it, and if they could convince Kate Mulgrew to sign onto the project, then naturally CBS Licensing -- the folks employed by the company to oversee the tie-in productions -- would instruct their licensees to conform to that new Prime-universe reality.

But that isn't happening. There is no Prime-universe 24th-century Trek series or film in production. Kate Mulgrew is not under contract to either CBS or Paramount to reprise the role of Kathryn Janeway. So there's no reason why anyone employed by either of those corporations would need to "instruct" Pocket to bring Janeway back. If, hypothetically, the character were to be resurrected within the Pocket continuity, that would most likely be the decision of the editor or author -- or, at most, the sales department of Simon & Schuster. CBS does not micromanage the tie-ins to the extent that some fans imagine.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm sure if someone at CBS/Paramount decided that they wanted Janeway then they could drop a word in Pocket's ear.

Who do you imagine that would be? JJ Abrams?

After all, they're the ones that wanted the "out" for her death in the first place.

Yes, in case CBS decided they wanted to make a reunion movie, or some other project, and put the canonical 24th century franchise into the hands of a new executive producer. Even a theoretical TNG sequel to "Nemesis" might feature Admiral Janeway, since the licensed fiction is read by only 1% of the viewers, and the licensed fiction would be expected to fall into line with any such decision.

I'm sure that they wouldn't be public or obvious to us about it but they ultimately are the ones that decide what's acceptable in the books.

John Van Citters and his team at CBS Consumer Products. But he approves, disapproves or suggests modifications. He doesn't initiate the creative decisions, AFAIK.

If TPTB made such a suggestion do you really think that Pocket would say "No"?

Pocket couldn't keep doing Janeway-less novels if "Voyager" went back into production. But there's no one at CBS or Paramount making canonical 24th century Star Trek.

 

[KQuita]

(Do we even know that Janeway's coming back from the dead?)

While that's all true, if it's not Janeway returning, that's a pretty big "bait and switch" that would probably turn off a lot of people - on either side of the debate.

Bait and Switch only comes into play if there is a deliberate attempt to mislead on the part of the Author/Publisher, so far it it just strictly supposition by two distinct camps, those in favor and those against.

Though not a fan of many of the earlier Voyager stories, Kristin has become one of my favorite Trek authors and I think based on her performance she should be shown the courtesy of readers having faith enough to know that if she does decide to bring Janeway back that it will be done in a manner that is both very relevant to the story and respectful of the franchise.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I think that is the bottom line and really should be the final word- Kristen Beyer has a proven track record with Voyager. Whatever she does, it is bound to hold to her standard of quality.

Or, as has been more eloquently stated, "This is Kristen F***'n Beyer!"

I understand resurrecting characters waters down the emotional impact of death. But whatever Beyer is up to, it is bound to be dynamic, emotionally charged, and a satisfying read.