Will Before Dishonors Ending Affect Voyager books? Spoilers!

[Deano2099]

BTW, I'm ignoring the labeling of my previous post as "feminist." I am a female and have my point of view, but I'm not playing the gender card, honest.

Except you did. Because if you want us to disregard gender then your entire post becomes "They killed my favourite character, so I'm not buying any more books in protest". And honestly, I get that. I can emphasise with that and I can understand absolutely why you'd be pissed off and want to complain on this message board. And from a story perspective, I get why you might think it was a bad choice. Though given their past record, I'm willing to give Pocket's editors and writers the benefit of the doubt in terms of knowing what they're doing.

But you're trying to leverage gender issues to explain why she shouldn't have been killed off. And that gets dangerous. Because it swiftly becomes "Janeway shouldn't have been killed off as she's a woman". In other words, suggesting that her gender should get her special treatment. Janeway wasn't killed off because she was a woman so it shouldn't matter (if anything she was killed off because she was an Admiral and so hard to write into future stories, or maybe they wanted to kill off someone big and Voyager was the least popular show).

If the writers and editors decided that, "hey we have a great plan to really shake up the books and allow some brilliant new story ideas and such: we have to kill Janeway" but then went, "oh no, best not, she's a woman. It'll upset the feminists". I'd be narked. And you should be too as it's gender inequality at work.

But the only way your arguement works is if Peter David turned up drunk at Margeret Clark's office one day and went: "Oi! If you want me to finish this book, I'm going to kill Janeway. Because I hate women. And if you don't, say good bye to your TNG re-launch bitch". Unless you seriously think Janeway's gender was a motive for Pocket in killing her off then the fact she's a woman really has nothing to do with it.

And it's a shame you'll be stopping reading the books, such as October's Destiny Trilogy which features Captain Ezri Dax and Erkia Hernandez (probably) in crucial roles.

 

[Amy Sisson]

I agree with Deano2099 above. I think AuntKate's original post said (paraphrasing) "we waited and waited for a woman, and finally got one we could respect, and they killed her" -- to me, that made the objection a feminist one. And as Deano2099 said, if you take the gender portion of that away, it's simply "they killed my favorite character and it was a dumb move" -- a opinion as valid as any other, but just one person's opinion.

Personally, I think it made perfect artistic sense because Janeway, like Picard, has this intrinsic tie to the Borg because of her experiences with Seven of Nine and the Queen. It's tragically ironic that Janeway became a Borg Queen. Horrifying and wonderful and sad. In fact, for me, it almost felt inevitable. The actual paragraph in which she was assimilated/absorbed really blew me away.

(There's a similar, perfect-in-my-mind irony in the fate of an Angel character in the post-series comic book "season," but I won't go into specifics because I don't know how to hide the spoilers.)

They could have done the same with Picard, since he has his own ties with the Borg. But I know what I would answer if I were an editor musing over this: "We want to take the universe places, we want to have long-term impact instead of episodes, we want to kill someone off, in a big, ironic way, with the Borg. Should it be Janeway or Picard?"

I would have picked Janeway, no contest. Part of that is practical -- she's an Admiral without a ship, while Picard is out there captain-ing. Part of it is just my preference, because Janeway's relationship with Seven adds another emotional dimension.

But that's just one person's opinion too.

 

[JD]

If you want to do spoilers, you highlight the spoiler then click on smilie with the x over the mouth on the control bar.

 

[Amy Sisson]

^ Thanks, JD!

 

[JD]

No problem, I had to have someone explain it to me too.

 

[captcalhoun]

even though they were almost always dressed in "uniforms" that were skin tight, plunged to their navels, and were otherwise designed to put their female "assets" on display.

shit. i musta missed that show. like the ENTIRE run...

srsly, where the HELL were those uniforms? the ONLY characters who flashed cleavage were Troi in her non-standard dresses and the Mirror Universe versions of Uhura, T'pol and Hoshi and non of those were 'plunging to their navels'. Troi's dresses didn't even plunge below her boobs and the MU girls were wearing crop-tops which exposed their navels.

i mean, even the widely derided 'sex object' Seven of Nine didn't flash her cleavage regularly...

if you want to slate the uniforms for tittilating, try to do it more accurately, mm'kay?

 

[BryanSorensen]

I agree there, that whole post struck me as "angry" and a bit womanist to me too. I understand the frustration about a character you like dying but as deanno said above, it came across as sexist. if that wsa the intent, then perhaps other forums that talk about all that feminist stuff would probably be better for ya

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think AuntKate's original post said (paraphrasing) "we waited and waited for a woman, and finally got one we could respect, and they killed her" -- to me, that made the objection a feminist one.

And yet, the way some fans complained about Janeway and the way she was written in VOY, she wasn't universally "respected" either.

 

[BryanSorensen]

I agree there Therin....In the episodes it seemed like none of the races she met in the DQ really respected her. In the first season especially she seemed to piss off just about every race they met.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I agree there Therin....In the episodes it seemed like none of the races she met in the DQ really respected her. In the first season especially she seemed to piss off just about every race they met.

Hehehe. I meant respected by fans. (I liked her just fine.)

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

To Kirsten Beyer

What you have written is very true and I agree with the sentiment. Nevertheless, I still think exploring how the death of a beloved and respected person affects others could have been done without killing off the lead character of the Voyager series.

Yes, of course, life and especially life in the Star Trek universe as a Starfleet officer is dangerous. What happened is realistic. Also, bad (and good!) things happened in my life and that of my family, too. Some of them are extremely bad. Some of them are extremely good.

When I read a Star Trek book I want a mix of entertainment and realism. When I want pure realism, I watch the news. In my opinion, there are certain boundaries that shouldn`t be crossed. In a way I am lucky – I have never been a Janeway fan. I liked her at the beginning in spite of serious flaws in the storytelling of Voyager even at the beginning. But that changed. I don`t see her as a good role model for my daughter.

If that would have been Picard or even my favourite character, Calhoun I would be extremely unhappy. As I said in the past, I don`t care if one of my top favourites dies heroically and saves the whole universe in the process, I don`t want to read it – except in a Mirror Universe or Alternate Universes story.

Keep the stories about killing off “canon” main characters and hopefully also my favourite couple in the parallel universes and allow the fans to be able to also follow the adventures of the characters they got to know and care about from TV in the books! It is too late for Janeway (at least I have no reason to believe otherwise) but, please, don`t do it again!

Yes, I am familiar with the argument that we can have plenty of stories taking place before her death and we should remember and treasure her memory. Sorry, as true as that is, the fact is, the character is gone. I understand the frustration of Voyager fans who like Janeway: There will be new Voyager books exploring the future of the characters but, sorry, Janeway is not among them. I am sure that looking at how her death left an impact on everybody will be touching to read but after mourning and speeches, life will go on without her. Also that is realistic but is it really desirable to deny Janeway the opportunity to develop in future? I still think killing her was a mistake.

There is a lot of room between being dead for good and being alive and well. I don`t mind stories in which the characters I really care about are in danger, suffering, traumatized and (not literally) forced through a meat grinder (a German expression). I find it much more satisfying to read how the character in question reacts to what happened, how people who know him or her are affected, how people learn from it or not.

Yes, death should always be part of Star Trek, too. “Wildfire” is an excellent example. I liked it a lot, in a disturbing and touching way. But realism has to be paired with the need to provide entertainment for fans who buy these books and want to enjoy them.

I want to close my posting by saying that I am very much aware of it that you, Kirsten Beyer, have to move within certain boundaries and have to build on what happened before. In spite of Voyager`s flaws, I saw a lot of potential in these characters and I am curious. Therefore I will buy your books and give them a try.

 

[Deano2099]

Of course, in many ways it just even things up. Kirk's dead in TOS (though not most TOS novels as they're set pre-death, just as Voyager books could be), Data is dead in TNG, Jadzia is dead in DS9 (and Sisko was gone for a good long while too).

There's every chance for Voyager books set in-series in the future, I'm sort of annoyed that O'Brien doesn't have much of a part to play in the DS9 relaunch anymore and was sort of hoping to see him on the Titan/Enterprise in the post-Nem books but it wasn't to be.

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

The big difference is, of course, that these are death that happened on screen or on TV and couldn`t be ignored by the books.

 

[Kirsten Beyer]

To Kirsten Beyer

I am very much aware of it that you, Kirsten Beyer, have to move within certain boundaries and have to build on what happened before. In spite of Voyager`s flaws, I saw a lot of potential in these characters and I am curious. Therefore I will buy your books and give them a try.

I'm glad to hear that and thank you for your thoughtful post.

Best,
Kirsten

 

[Christopher]

The big difference is, of course, that these are death that happened on screen or on TV and couldn`t be ignored by the books.

How is that any different? Why should the books be forbidden from exploring a worthwhile category of story that the shows are able to do? More to the point, why would you expect the current authors and editors of Pocket Star Trek novels to pull their punches like that?

Anyway, like it or not, Janeway's death is a fait accompli. It's pointless to debate whether it should've happened; it did. Now the only question is what comes next.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Of course, I'm reminded of the discussions had here (and elsewhere) which boiled down to Pocket's editors and writers not having the stones to do something radical like kill off a main character (you know, like those "canon" Star Wars books did, nyah), and therefore the Trek novels would always be second-rate stepchildren, etc. etc. etc.

Just proves the old adage...you can't please all the people all the time.

 

[Trent Roman]

Anyway, like it or not, Janeway's death is a fait accompli. It's pointless to debate whether it should've happened; it did. Now the only question is what comes next.

Is there a reason you don't want us talking about this subject, Christopher? Because this is the second time you've brushed aside this discussion as being irrelevant. I wonder, do you consider that people debating whether Iraq should have been invaded are also wasting their time? Are all decisions taken in the past subject to this same blanket immunity from debate?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[William Leisner]

Anyway, like it or not, Janeway's death is a fait accompli. It's pointless to debate whether it should've happened; it did. Now the only question is what comes next.

Is there a reason you don't want us talking about this subject, Christopher? Because this is the second time you've brushed aside this discussion as being irrelevant.

Probably because it is irrelevant, and has descended to the level of a six-year-old's crying jag over not getting a cookie.

I wonder, do you consider that people debating whether Iraq should have been invaded are also wasting their time? Are all decisions taken in the past subject to this same blanket immunity from debate?

And talk about going to the far opposite pole of the revelancy spectrum. Frankly, I find the very idea that you would compare the death of one fictional character, and several thousand real human beings who bleed real fucking blood, to be despicable.

 

[Christopher]

Anyway, like it or not, Janeway's death is a fait accompli. It's pointless to debate whether it should've happened; it did. Now the only question is what comes next.

Is there a reason you don't want us talking about this subject, Christopher? Because this is the second time you've brushed aside this discussion as being irrelevant. I wonder, do you consider that people debating whether Iraq should have been invaded are also wasting their time? Are all decisions taken in the past subject to this same blanket immunity from debate?

What in the world are you talking about?? Good grief, what a bizarre misreading of my words. And what a thoroughly insulting and disproportionately hostile analogy. Get a sense of proportion, Roman -- we're not talking about issues of genuine life and death or global tragedy, and it's incredibly thoughtless, insensitive, and obnoxious for you to imply that your unhappiness with decisions in a line of fiction is in any way proportional or comparable to the decisions and tragedies being faced by people confronting the horror of war. You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing such a tragedy in that way.

That's not even mentioning how personally insulted I am by the implication that I'd try to silence debate, which isn't anywhere near as important as how grossly you've insulted countless families of war casualties. I'm a writer -- the First Amendment is sacred to me. Duh. I'm just saying that the books aren't going to undo Janeway's death anytime soon, that they will instead explore its consequences as the galaxy moves on without her. So arguing whether she should've died or not is not going to change the content of the books. I'm just the messenger passing that along. But apparently in your mind that makes me Joseph Frigging McCarthy. Get over yourself already.

 

[Divine]

http://www.peacesymbol.org/peace_symbols/bw_peace_symbol.gif