Warning: Spoiler Alert (not sure where the old spoiler alert notice is) At the end of the Acknowledgements, Kirsten Beyer writes, "I cannot help but fear that some will see this story as a failure of nerve, and others, most unwisely, as a vindication of the narrow constraints they would see put upon all Trek literature. Neither is true." I wonder what other readers made of this. My thoughts align with my preferred ending of this novel: the failure of nerve being to return Janeway to Death . . . and the vindication of the narrow constraints being similar to what I've read occurred during the days of the numbered books (when the series were still being produced): that characters could not be left dead, that the toys had to be put back in the sandbox. What did others make of her comment? Donnie
The way I read it, the "failure of nerve" refers to the fact Janeway didn't stay dead (e.g., make the creative decision to kill Janeway and keep her dead), while the "vindication of the narrow constraints" refers more to the faction that preferred series characters to remain inviolable - specifically, the people who were very angry about the fact that Janeway was killed in the first place and who were boycotting the novels until she was returned to life. Basically, she's saying she knows that this story is going to be unpopular among the people who wanted Janeway to remain dead because they'll see it as reversing what was a bold narrative decision to kill off a Trek captain (at the time, apparently permanently, although with a back door in case she ever appeared on-screen.) Meanwhile, she's also acknowledging that the people who were in the "boycott Voyager" faction are going to see it as a victory and perhaps try to claim that their boycott forced Pocket to bring Janeway back. She's saying that in reality, neither are true - it's simply that, whatever vision she has for the future story of Voyager , she needed/wanted Janeway to return. Perhaps she'll pop into this thread and clarify further.
I tried to find it, but both threads are now 28 pages long. Ah: http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6862013&postcount=366
There was a discussion I read some of on the Trek Books community on Facebook were it seemed a lot of people were going with the "I brought her back because I was told to" theory, which is just sad because it's just an overwhelming failure to comprehend "neither is true" when you place your belief on one of the things just barely stated. Astraea's interpretation is the obvious conclusion to anyone paying attention.
Way back when Kirsten took over the Relaunch, IIRC, she mentioned that she really wanted to write for Janeway. That, to me, suggested that Janeway wouldn't stay dead forever. The Bring Back Janeway crowd never seemed to pick up on this tidbit, maybe because it took away their opportunity to keep complaining. I was actually predicting a VOY 20th anniversary return in 2015. I was a few books out.
Seriously Therin do you see me complaining now that she's back? And believe me it was picked up on and discussed. There are more Trek realms than this BBS. People were very keen to have her write Janeway, especially after the disastrous BD writing. She's a good writer and she likes the character. Much of the discussion was about how much input authors have to such big decisions which is not something that can really be quantified as every book and situation is, I'd imagine, different.
My thanks to all who responded. The comments confirmed what I thought, and thanks, especially, to Therin for the link to the post by Kirsten. I read it from beginning to end. I had no idea that there'd been so much . . . drama, or whatever word one wants to use . . . invective, perhaps, following the death of Janeway.