Death in Wraith Squadron, the NJO, and After (spoilers galore)

I've been rereading the Wraith Squadron trio over the past week and a half, and it's incredibly striking just how many deaths there are, especially given two other factors: (1) the frequent complaints hereabouts regarding the deaths in the NJO and especially LotF, and (2) the nearly universal praise of Allston's X-Wing novels. It got me thinking: what's the difference?

Now, I think there are a couple points that have to be made before we continue. First, I should note that while quite a few people dislike the deaths in the NJO, the hatred for the deaths in LotF is vastly stronger and much more universal. (At least one major death scene in the NJO is in fact beloved: Ganner's.) Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone around here who thinks the deaths of Mara, Pellaeon, or Jacen were particularly well executed, regardless of one's opinion of the concept. (I'm sure you'll pop out to prove me wrong, but you're few and far between.) By contrast, Chewbacca and Anakin's deaths, however polarizing, are in fact polarizing. Some people found them fitting and effective (like me), while others deeply disliked them. All that to say: there are deaths, and there are deaths; not all deaths are created equal.

Returning, then, to the point that launched this series of thoughts: what is it about the deaths in the Wraith novels that makes them palatable, the deaths in the NJO that makes them controversial, and the deaths in LotF that makes them so widely detested?

I would posit a few critical markers for good versus bad deaths:

1. Does the death make good narrative sense? Here's what I mean: when Falynn Sandskimmer or Ton Phanan dies, it doesn't feel abortive. The same, I think, is true of Ganner. They've accomplished something significant with their lives, and their death doesn't seem gratuitous: it happens naturally given the course they've chosen. By contrast, Chewbacca's death felt somewhat less organic, and debate will probably rage forever about Anakin's death. (To me, it made perfect sense from a narrative standpoint.) This is the first part of why Mara's death made so little sense to readers: she goes after Jacen, alone, without telling Luke or anyone else, in a homicidal approach that didn't fit with everything she'd learned and even helped teach others (Vision of the Future, anyone) over the years.


2. Does the character's death impact the plot and characterization in a significant way? Here's where I think Mara's death failed, and why it felt tacked on. It didn't make Jacen more of a badass (he barely won, and only by tricking her; frankly I think her death would have been better received if he'd just curbstomped her). It didn't move Jacen farther toward the dark side; he was already there and plenty. It didn't really change the balance of the situation; Lumiya was already on the sidelines, and now she ends up dead by taking the fall for Jacen. Nothing changed because of her death.
   
   By contrast, that's part of the reason Anakin's death does work, at least to some extent: it moved all of the characters in new directions, permanently. The same is true of each and every death in the Wraith novels: each one pushes at least one other character in a new direction, substantially altering their course (and therefore the course of the series). Ton's death really affects Face. Falynn's death really affects Myn.


3. Is the character's death emotionally engaging or satisfying to the audience? Here's where Ganner and Jacen's deaths could not be more opposite. This is closely related to the second point, because much of what makes a death impacting to the audience is its impact on the rest of the characters. It's also down to simple execution, though: how well did the author write the scene? Denning's execution between Star by Star and Invincible couldn't hvae been any more different. When Jacen dies, it falls flat. The reader is left saying, "Wait, really? That's it?" When Anakin dies, we're furious, angry, stunned, and cheering that

 

A shorter answer from me would be: Does it feel credible? Does the reader buy into and accept this development? Or is the illusionist spotted pulling levers behind the curtain a la Wizard of Oz?

I think one big difference between NJO/LOTF deaths and Wraith Squadron's, even Thrawn's too, is they were not expected or even demanded in the quite the same way. Sure, the expectation among most SW EU fans in 1992 would have been that the NR wins against Thrawn, somehow. The details? I'm not sure anyone saw that coming. Ditto for Sandskimmer, definitely so for Phanan.

In contrast, by the time we get to LOTF Sacrifice, we have covers being analysed for 'death spots', we know more of the creative process and that deaths will have been required - and perhaps that's why these later ones are so contentious. That they start as a death that a story must be built around, instead of the death growing out of the story being told.

Finally there is the question of what did the death achieve or exist to do? The notion that Chewbacca fulfilled his life debt is, I think, quite good. That members of the Wraiths die fighting the Empire isn't something most would dispute. Anakin Solo however.. Well, that's where the NJO fanbase splintered and was changed irrevocably by it. Anakin's death is either a object lesson in what happens in war, kids get killed and the story's all the better for showing that nasty reality; or, it's a viciously pointless disposal of a promising character with a fanbase all because LFL thought the public couldn't tell Anakin Solo apart from Anakin Skywalker.

Oh and Jacen.... Ah, not touching that one!

But, on a related point, one Q that may be worth pursuing is: When are the heroes right to kill their enemies? With NJO onwartds a moral perfectionism seeped into the EU, which I've found to be quite at odds with the 'used universe' feel of SW. A big part of the appeal lies in its imperfection, so why do we demand the Jedi be a set of whiter-than-white heroes in every respect? Why is it so horrendous for a Jedi to kill someone by lightsaber - and what do you think the likely result of slashing someone with a really hot energy blade is going to be? - while it's cool for Han Solo to shoot Greedo from under the table? No one wants slasher-Jedi, but super-pacifist-Jedi don't fit the bill either.

 

I think the real issue here is that the Jedi (and the "bad guys") are monolithic in their "goodness" or "badness." Luke in ROTJ comes to a realization that violence is not the answer. And could you really picture ESB or ROTJ Han shooting Greedo like that? They grow, and adjust to their situations.

I agree that the characters should be morally and intellectually imperfect. Remember "Even Yoda cannot see their fate"? The greatest of seers can only predict so much. They should question the needs of any particular situation, especially given the Jedi message of nonviolence that grows in the original films. But the questioning is really the important part. Every situation may have a different solution, but if the characters place blanket faith in their own constant correctness (whether dark or light), you end up with arrogant characters and a boring story.

 

Ker, you know what death had me cheering in Star by Star? Fey'lya. I hated that character right through the EU, but his death was one of the best scenes of that novel.

What happened to Denning? Why has he bcome such a shippter and bus driver?

 

This is the most important distinction, I believe.

You can make the same argument about characterization. One of my main problems with the EU is when the characters act to serve the plot, and not the other way around. If a character dies because the plot demands it and it's written in character, I can understand that. If a character dies just for the sake of death and completely OOC, then there's a problem.

 

What is a Shippter and bus driver?

 

To some extent this is a property of the nine novels three authors format that Del Rey adopted (and in NJO, whatever, integrated roll-out plan was used). The Bantam Era novels were far less interconnected, which had problems of its own, but the process in those series was more organic so long as everything concluded without ripping the galaxy apart, whatever happened within the novels themselves was mostly acceptable. The current (and thankfully soon to be abandoned) system has the author's tripping over each other all the time. The events are preordained beforehand so the novels simply march the character through their paces to pre-sanctioned events. Major deviations are impossible because people are already writing what comes next, locking even the subplots into place.

So, if a character is going to die, they'll die, even if the process to get there skips a beat or two along the way. Mara's death is the obvious case to me. It was determined she would die, but I don't think Traviss was able to put together a convincing series of events wherein Jacen, at that stage of his development, had any business wining a duel to the death with Mara, and so the sequence just feels...wrong.

 

Keralys, if you want to hate of LOTF there are all kinds of current threads for you to take part in, and thats what this thread seems to be despite it being slightly disguised. Now if this is meant to be more than that, and I hope it is, I'm all for it.

Personally I didn't like Jacen's death at all in LOTF, but its really the only one I had issue with - and until now I actually stopped talking about it a long time ago. I guess Alema's was another, the rest I was fine with. I was shocked and surprised by them(because I wasn't in here reading the spoilers) and generally thought they were entertaining, emotional and interesting.

But them we've already stated that my takes don't count because I'm in the apparent(or percieved) minority that likes the odd thing that Keralys doesn't.........If I'm sounding harsh its because of the pointed manner in which the initial post sets out what is and isn't acceptable based upon facts, that seem to me to be very much like personal opinions to me........

The one death I think worked the least over the past several years was that of Etain. It was simply poor for numerous reasons and light years worse than any of the deaths in LOTF. Of course this is not a fact, simply my opinion.

Now the best, most uplifting death we've had since NJO was probably Jaius Yorub's in Legacy, in my opinion. But its hard to put deaths the like of Ganner, or Chewie or Yorub alongside some of the others - and not every character needs to die in a blaze of glory.

I mean you say you didn't like Pellaeon's death but you don't give reasons why? What about the death of Grand Admiral Thrawn, was it equally poor because he also died while commanding a Star Destroyer and being unexpectedly betrayed in battle?

What about Crys Taanzer? I really thought her death was both surprising, well written and that it fit within the story being told. Unfortunalty she went out in about as poor and unexciting a manner as could be imagined.

How about Callista? She's been killed in a very unconventional method, yet one that again I have no real issue with.

Bantha Rawk no doubt is the acceptable, blaze of glory, style of death that some are looking for, but does that make for better story telling than say him dieing in a bed the way Yoda did?

Again, I'm just not sure what the point of the thread here is. If we're discussing character deaths in Star Wars I'm all for that, but if we're just gonna compare every death the EU has offered, then compare them to those in LOTF, and then put them on some kind of pedestal because of how awesome they all were in comparrison - well I think that would be better suited for one of the LOTF ruined my life threads we have on the go this moment.

 

Yes, clearly Keralys came back from a long spell of not posting and created a thread with a long discussion of the topic of how character deaths are handled solely for the purpose of saying that LOTF sucks. He knew that such a claim could never be accepted or made at face level, and so created an elaborate framework for discussion behind which to hide the idea that LOTF just wasn't very good, because he was just so desperate to get that minor point across in a heavily veiled manner.

 

Death in Star Wars is an odd issue.

Deaths of major characters in Star Wars movies;
EP1: Qui-Gon Jinn
EP2: none
EP3: Amidala, acting in general
EP4: Obi-Wan Kenobi, Rebel pilots
EP5: none
EP6: Darth Vader

Consider that if this was a book series (admittedly covering a large span of time) you've seen 4 major characters die in 6 'novels'. Death is part of what makes things exciting, if a character is untouchable (e.g. Luke in EU) then you don't fear for their life, it's merely a case of "how are they going to get out of this one?"

This also has a 2nd problem, the old characters lingering on via deus-ex machina mean that the EU characters continue to play a back seat role. The biggest failing imo of LOTF & FOTJ is the lack of time devoted to formerly interesting characters such as Corran Horn, Kyp Durron, Saba etc.

The next issue is how someone dies... death can be glorious (Ganner, Qui-Gon, Anakin, Chewbacca) but a reality is that not everyone goes out in style. Qui-Gon's end wasn't terribly great, he was almost a Jedi Master but got killed by an apprentice.

Death needs to happen, no character should make you feel like they're immune to death and death shouldn't always be glorious, it shouldn't be trivial either though. In the way a death comes about or in the knock-on effects of said death.

If Iain M. Banks was writing these, there would probably be a few people killed in speeder crashes by now, because stuff happens. I'm not suggesting that we go down that route but Death needs to be as much a part of the EU as it was a part of the films. Death is dramatic, it is a powerful literary tool.

On a related note, when something is well written, you can get almost the same emotional response from the reader, I forget which of the NJO books it was when the Alliance were defending a planet (planetside & space battle) against the Vong & Wedge Antilles ended up in an X-Wing. He nearly died in that fight and for a moment I thought I was reading the last moments of his life, I was saddened but accepting that it was his time, then he survived. I was relieved because the author had genuinely made me believe that this was his end. I don't think I would have had that same fear for Wedge had Chewie not already met his end. I can't remember if Anakin had also died by this point...

Death is a good thing when it is used well but for the sake of the series, the authors need to introduce new characters & stop the heavy promotion of the old characters (unless they're about to depart the mortal coil...)

 

While she may not have had the same screen time as others, don't forget that you had Shmi in EP2.

And there's no love for One-Arm... he's always overlooked.

But he came back and got his revenge in the end!

 

Hm, what kind of deaths work for me?

Well, I guess it depends on how they die, not to mention the impact, and more recently during LotF and FotJ, their lost potential.

I don't have any problems with the deaths in the Wraith Squadron books because we knew all of the characters, had followed them for at least one book (two in Phanan's case), and they died heroically- in battle, trying to accomplish something, fighting against the odds, or at least as just part of war (like with Grinder or Tal'dira). Phanan in particular, even as he was dying he was telling Face to get on with his life while reflecting on his own.

More recently, we've had deaths like Mara and Jacen. Mara's death was just stupid- she went off alone without telling anyone, with no back-up plan, to kill her nephew, and not only did she fail, her death also officially elevated Jacen to Darth status, and it led to Luke being emotionally handicapped for the rest of the series. Castin also died a needless death, but he was a young pilot, whereas Mara by that time was an experienced Jedi Master, and Castin died partially getting over his xenophobic issues, whereas Mara just failed, and it also meant no more Skywalker children, or of Luke and Mara living to a quiet old age happily ever after.

Jacen's death was just a waste, but what's even worse is how many characters he took with him. As I said earlier, deaths aren't so bad if they at least accomplish something, or rather aren't just killed arbitrarily. Nelani was Jacen's first victim, but no one ever remembers her, then after that Mara died, then Pellaeon (and for someone who was supposedly revered by the Imperial fleet, once he died the fleet didn't even obey his last orders) and then Isolder died because Caedus was too stupid to check for needle marks first. All to lead to a ridiculous, out of nowhere ending. As Jedi Ben said, LotF's deaths felt more like just forced drama rather than a part of the story. Its a sad sign that most of us expect them to just randomly kill off characters rather than let them leave to eventually show up again in the future. The one slight exception are the authors' pet characters, but that's dependent on how much the author writes rather than whether the character has potential.

Even NJO didn't have this problem much. Both Chewbacca and Anakin went out in a blaze of glory, heroic deaths while they were saving lives, and also set off more storylines with all their family members. Ganner's death was just epic, and the character reached enlightenment too. So they accomplished something and are remembered fondly. Jacen... not so much.

FotJ is continuing the trend, with Kenth Hamner dying as his character just somehow ended up so antagonistic that he and Saba fought it out with lightsabers before falling to his death. And due to the reduced cast, any death just seems to subtract potential, especially when those deaths are mostly unimportant by the next book as Luke is too busy chasing an ancient evil. They brought back Akanah, then she died, Dyon Stadd seemed like he could be a recurring character... then he went crazy, then it looked like Luke didn't accidentally kill him, and then the next book he's just... dead? He wasn't an important character, but considering how generic the Jedi Council is, and how mundane Han and Leia have become, more young Jedi would be appreciated but instead they're just killed for shock value. We've barely met them, and they're more victims than anything else, which does show how powerful the villain is. But if the Wraith Squadron books had been full of tragic deaths like Tal'dira's rather than deaths like Phanan's, well, they probably wouldn't be quite so popular.

Its not an impossible task, the Legacy comics have done it several times in the last few years, but to have a meaningful death also means building up characters first, and that's another flaw of the novels.

 

Warning: this is a ginormous response.

Ben: I like the way you phrase the question, as I think that works a nice shorthand for my lengthier elaboration. Indeed, I think the three questions I posed are basically subquestions?explanations, if you will, of what makes for credibility.

I also tend to agree that the development process opening up?our knowing the way that a decision was made to off both Chewie and Anakin (versus, say, Ganner, whose death doesn't seem to have been an overarching plot point decided years in advance but rather something that came organically with Stover's development of the character, though I could be wrong)?makes a big difference in our response to it. Knowing that Anakin was planned to be killed off, or that Mara was killed essentially as the predetermined moment of showing Jacen's final fall (as though his murder of Nelani and his curbstomping of Kyle's team weren't far more effective, arising as they did much more organically and naturally in the novels) makes us question the decisions much more deeply. It tends to have us trying to pull the curtain back and see the Wizard.

I think this is what makes it feel the worst:

It actually makes me wonder if we wouldn't respond better if we didn't know the process behind these decisions. It definitely makes me suspect that plot-by-committee leaders to not-so-great death scenes in general.

Your question about when it is right for Jedi to kill their enemies is certainly deserving of a longer discussion, and I'll come back to it in a later reply. Suffice it to say that I think we're on the same page here: the reason I disliked Jacen's death, for example, has very little to do with the fact that the Jedi killed him (killing evil Sith Lords is a good thing) and a lot to do with the execution.

---

[b]Katana[/b]: yes, I rather liked that one, too. Managed to redeem the character in one scene. [i]Very[/i] well done, and that one [i]was[/i] a natural response to the character's situation.

[b]Mechalich[/b]: Nice to meet you! You're newish around these parts, and I haven't posted in quite some time, so I haven't seen you before. I think your point about authors tripping over each other may be a big part of this. I'll note that the most contentious deaths (at least in my observation) have been those in LotF. The NJO deaths were certainly points of significant controversy, too, but the lack of consistent characterization for any length of time in the 3-way split may be contributing significantly. As bad as that problem was in NJO, it definitely seemed worse in LotF. I've been pleased to see it be a little better again?probably around NJO levels??in FotJ, but I wouldn't call it particularly solid in any of them.

[hr]

[b]Robimus[/b]: LOL. Havac summed it up pretty well. I'm not hating on LotF; my observations about proportions were just that: observations. There are parts I really [i]like[/i] about LotF, and I think the first major death in it?Nelani's?is one of the best-executed deaths since the NJO, probably [i]the[/i] best. As I said, I fully expected people who disagreed with the majority view to pop up, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my original post, but I think that's a [i]good[/i] thing: it makes for an immensely better discussion. :)

Sorry if my comments gave the impression I was trying to dump on anyone who felt differently; I wasn't?just trying to use some general observations as a launching point for the discussion, i.e., why are some deaths better received by the [i]community[/i] than others? But that's not meant to exclude individual views; quite the contrary.

I didn't actually ever get around to reading [i]Order 66[/i], so I can't personally comment on Etain's death, but I'd be really curious to hear: what about it didn't work for you? Does it fit with the factors I outlined, or was there another factor?

Same question regarding some of the other deaths you

 

I like much of what you've written but feel the need to flag up a couple of points:

The SW films differ greatly from the EU in that they were made to be finite, whether that be 3, 6 or 9 films or whatever other number may be quoted! They were made as 1 story. The SW EU is a continuation of that story, but due to that difference, it operates differently. Continuing series work by having a number of characers to follow, to support, to like or loathe - that generally can't happen if they're dead.

Similarly, franchise fiction differs from singular visions like Banks' Culture or Asher's Polity books. Generally singular visions have far greater latitude and freedom by being what they are, but a smart author will stack the deck in their favour thus Banks Culture books may inter-link but, on the whole, they're each complete tales and it isn't sold as a series in the way the SW EU is.

This said you'll find many agreeing with your point about the importance of developing new characters to fil the void, which just does not seem to be happening with DR's later stuff.

Similarly I like how you describe that sense of involvement that was achieved in Enemy Lines with Wedge. I do think there is a certain cold, clinical attuitude to stories, that's adopted by some people, that more resembles an analyst than a reader or someone who reads for the fun of it. To me a large part of enjoying a well-told story is letting the author take you on a ride, instead of sitting back, refu

 

Actually, I'd argue that Qui-Gon is the protagonist of TPM. If you didn't know going in that Obi-Wan was going to become a major character, you'd think for sure that Qui-Gon was the main character. He and Obi-Wan are a team, but Qui-Gon is the leader of the team, and most tellingly, the whole Tatooine plotline is Qui-Gon's plotline as he discovers Anakin and gets the ship a hyperdrive; Obi-Wan is out of the picture, sitting out that whole plot aboard the ship. So you really have one film where the protagonist dies, and sets up the rest of the stories by passing his legacy on to Obi-Wan and Anakin.

I would argue that similarly, Anakin's death is one rare instance of the protagonist (or given the ensemble-cast nature of the EU and the NJO especially, a major protagonist) of the story dying and thus shaping the story by passing his legacy on to the characters who develop into the protagonists of the future. I'd argue that that was the only real case of major-protagonist death in the post-ROTJ EU; Mara was a very major supporting character who got to hold down her own storylines occasionally, but she was largely in a supporting role in Luke's plotlines. Certainly in the context of LOTF she was playing a supporting role to Luke.

It really is a one-time thing, and I think works in that context. You can't go killing off protagonists every day, but it will happen occasionally, and when executed well (which I think was here) it works perfectly fine.

 

Ben, interesting point about the difference between ongoing franchise fiction and a limited series. One of the tricks with the ongoing world is that, if you're letting people die regularly, you have to have regular replacements. That did happen in the Wraith Trilogy, and in some sense that's a big part of what the movies are about: people stepping up to fill the gap when it's necessary. (I think if the NJO had followed through on its promise of doing just that, it would have been not merely good, but truly great... the fact that everything it did do was backpedaled in short order didn't help, either.) When you are trying to maintain the status quo, death is a problem... but it's also a problem if you haven't done a good job creating a potential new status quo.

The notion of death in a fictional setting is, I think, inherently dependent on the consequences of death. It has to have an impact, push things around, for it to work. Going back to my original post, I think that's a big part of why Mara's death doesn't work for me: it doesn't do nearly as much as it should. Luke goes emotionally comatose, sure, but Ben? Jacen? Everyone else? Not much change. Even once Ben figures it out, it just pushes him farther away?but he was already moving away from Jacen. "Caedus" had his big moment, which was promptly not followed up on. Han and Leia didn't even seem to notice. Jaina, who trained under her, was mildly sad, but that was about it. It didn't make a wave.

Havac: that's a good point, and one I hadn't considered. I think my view is skewed because I did know Obi-Wan was going to be the lead?and, for that matter, I knew Qui-Gon would die, courtesy of the soundtrack titles. I wonder what the experience of watching TPM is like for someone who doesn't know the rest of the saga?

In any case, I agree with you that such a death definitely can work well. Even in Anakin's case, though, I find it interesting how very polarizing it is... I (and I think you and many others) found Anakin's death deeply moving and entirely appropriate. It was in-character, the situation was dire, and it had immense consequences on the future. I hated that he died, but I loved it, too?much the same as I feel about Ton or others. What's striking to me is that so many people only share half that reaction, and I'm always a bit curious as to why.

 

Maybe an oversimplification (and I haven't read War yet; I expect I will after it comes out in TPB), but maybe it's as simple as the expectations set by the title and blurbs? The title alone (redundant though Star Wars: Legacy: War may be ) is suggestive, and the blurbs have all indicated just how hellish Krayt's return would be for everyone...

I also think some of it is that John and Jan have invested the effort to build up the characters (including Krayt) over a long enough time that when they die in this kind of everything-at-stake battle, it makes sense to the reader. And, none of those are really protagonists, either, so as long as their death continues to advance the plot?even just by perpetually highlighting how dire the situation is getting?the readers are unlikely to be outraged.

 

Quite so. DC and Marvel are quite infamous for killing off characters but they also tend to ensure they never suffer a famine of players from doing so, although they have far greater licence to reverse death than the SW EU, which really emphasises the importance of new character creation.

I think where new characters are concerned there's been an either-or dynamic applied - we can have the big 3 or new characters, but not both and I don't accept that proposition. In Republic 79 Vader features little yet looms over the entire story, I'd see the big 3 could be used similarly sparingly without any sense of loom - a little Luke done well goes a long way, as seen in the Invasion series.

At the same time, for the audience to follow a character there has to be regular appearances and logical progression, how do you do that when your story jumps years? There's ways, but most authors would find it difficult. Both Brooks and Feist do multi-generation series but tend to use the same general stock of character types, they vary it just enough to just about get away with it. (Or you sling magic into the picture and give a select group longevity.)

But the other era books have been very successful in this respect, the Reaves-Perry verse is one particularly good example. Crosscurrent was very well-received too. So if it can be done in other eras, why not for late post-ROTJ / pre-Legacy?

Sinny, I have to hold off commenting on Legacy: War until Saturday for obvious reasons.

 

Most of those don't count, though. Villains dying in the finale hardly count; that's what villains are supposed to do. Including villains in a body count completely stacks the deck. By that logic, ROTJ is a charnel house. Jabba and Boba and Piett and Vader and Palpatine all in one movie! And utterly minor supporting characters like Crasher, Andurgo, or Harkas are background, not the deaths of significant characters. They mean about as much as Porkins dying. It totally stacks the deck.

Really, you've got Nat, T'ra Saa, Sigel, and Sazen. Four deaths in five issues. Which I don't think is out of the question for a huge-cast epic finale. Now, I'll argue with the identity of some of the deaths, but I don't think the quantity is out of order.

 

A lot of people still have problems with Chewbacca dying, forgetting that for the better part of Bantam he was windowdressing and Han and Leia's babysitter. We hardly see Chewie with his family, not even in TTT. The only time we actually see him go back to her after the Han Solo Trilogy is in Black Fleet, and that's actually quite good.

As well as the fact that it took a friggin moon to kill Chewbacca!

For the life of me, I can't remember when Pellaeon dies in LOTF. Is it when Jacen stumbles into his office and kills him? The fact I can't remember his death does say something, and I remember good death scenes.

 

Did you read all the books?

 

Yes, I did read all the books. Was a while ago and I haven't had the inclination to go back since, as I rather value my own brain.

 

Actually it turns out Pellaeon was Vergere is disguise. It was a pretty big twist.