Yeah, publishers, the folks who buy the stories and sell them to readers. I also didn't make this an either or choice which you seem to be reading it as or determined to cast it as.
No, I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth or anything. There is a quite obvious contrast between your first post: "Why not allow authors to create their own stories choosing whatever, if anything from other books, that they wish to be canon?" and your recent post: "It doesn't matter what the writers want to do in this." First you say the writers should be allowed to choose which continuity to include in their own stories and which to reject. Then it's pointed out to you that they have chosen that they want to use other authors' continuity; and now you've changed your stance to: they shouldn't have the choice to incorporate continuity at all -- they MUST place their stories in a vacuum for the supposed benefit of the publishers.
I didn't say you put words in my mouth, rather, as your doing here, your trying to frame this as an either or choice. The perspective is that of the publishers, not the writers. For now they've found a nice niche market to sell a Trek World to. That's all well and good, but like any long running franchise it will eventually become stale, just like the TV franchise. That staleness being, the casual viewer had no reason to look at the shows they knew what to expect and had no reason to watch new shows. The same will happen with the books if they continue in a way that has casual readers over looking their offerings because they've read some in the past and suppose new books are nothing but more of the same. Sales will atrophy and die just like the audience for televised Trek did.
I'm not "trying" to frame anything, I'm just reading what you wrote and logically interpreting it. You made two statements that appear contradictory. One post says the authors should have a choice whether to do it this way or that way; the other says they should do it this way because that way is a fiery path that leads to cancellation and oblivion. Someone with more insight and patience than me could probably go into great detail on this, but suffice it say: TV and novels are completely different. You can't apply predictions to one based on what happens with the other.
I still don't see why continuing stories with Janeway is even an issue. Besides stories that can be set before the death, or some handwaving to bring her back to life, there is the option of ignoring the death altogether.
I would have to think that the Voyager books authored by Kirsten Beyer are not under-performing. Considering there are three published and possibly a forth on the way. Pocket usually doesn't continue to publish under-performing writers. Like you though, I'd like to see more in the way of series fiction published. But I don't want to see the changes made to post-series Voyager rolled back. Beyer has given us a great new look at the Voyager universe.
I don't really see an author doing something in contradiction to others established writing as rolling back anything. I'm far more interested in the particular author and their story than in some over arching universe being built. If the writer wants to preface by having some stories being connected to the one they are telling fine, if not, it's all just as good to me.
She's fictional, she can't be killed. However, there can be story lines where she is no longer used by saying the character died. So why is it important to you that there be no more stories with her? Is someone threatening you if the character is used again? Are you being forced to read the stories should they be written?
Let me just say I love the thread title. I love looking at forum and seeing The Return of Janeway. It warms my heart.
I have yet to see anyone say that they want no more stories with Janeway in them. I'm more than happy to buy pre-relaunch novels featuring her. But I like the course Kirsten Beyer has plotted without the character. Former cardboard background characters now seem like they have some life to them (including Chuckles). So shoot me.
Nobody ever said that. He means he wants her to "stay dead" in the current continuity. He thinks that story would be hurt by having her come back to life within it. No. Meanwhile, you seem rather threatened by the fact that there are stories where the character is dead. Case in point: Your argument could be turned around and applied to your hypothetical "lost audience": Is someone threatening you if the character is killed? Are you being forced to read the stories about her being dead?
Nothing changes in those stories if a different writer brings her back. One writer can pursue a storyline where she's dead, another can pursue one where she's not. Is some one forcing you to read both?
Again: Nobody ever said they can't do that. We already have lots of incompatible story threads within Trek Lit, and that's fine. It's just that the currently active prolific authors tend to try to keep things consistent. You're the one saying they should deliberately not do this, for reasons still unclear.