Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
As one of the people responsible for your disclaimer I have to clarify this: That had nothing to do with you being a regular poster on the various TrekLit related boards
I disagree. Christopher Bennett told me that, as I was a respected regular on Psi Phi, I owed it to visiting posters to make sure that no one thought I was speaking for Pocket Books.
Again, the main problem IMO is/was that you tend to phrase your posts in a manner indicating that they're stone cold facts, rather than your personal opinion or predictions. You being a long time regular only comes into play as a part of this, since people are more likely to accept something posted by you at face value than a similary phrased post by a "newbie".
You being a long time regular only comes into play as a part of this, since people are more likely to accept something posted by you at face value than a similary phrased post by a "newbie".
So, once again, some militant Janeway fans are running around accusing the authors and editors at Pocket Books of unscrupulous morals because of their decision to kill Janeway in Before Dishonor. Only this time they're being accused of sexism rather than some vague and ill-defined sadism.
As Keith R.A. DeCandido noted, that's nonsense. If the writers were sexist and afraid of strong, non-objectified women in leadership positions, they wouldn't have written so damn many stories about strong, non-objectified women in leadership positions. "Women aren't interchangeable" is the counter-argument to that? Well of course they aren't.
Each character is unique and different. Janeway is not Kira, and Kira is not Bacco. But you cannot logically claim that the authors and editors are sexist or have a problem with strong female characters if their work is FULL of strong female characters. You want Janeway and not these other characters. Fine -- that's a perfectly valid storytelling desire. But it is NOT valid to accuse the authors and editors of sexism or of being against strong, non-objectified women in leadership positions just because they do not use the particular strong, non-objectified female leader you prefer.
Women are not interchangeable -- but neither are they invalidated just because they are not the specific woman you prefer.
If you don't agree with killing Janeway, that's fine. I've thought about it myself and decided that I don't agree with it -- I think telling a story from the admiralty's POV would have been a good ongoing subplot to the VOY Relaunch, though it would have necessarily led to Janeway not being at the center of the action in the field. But to argue that they did it because of sexism is irrational, dishonest, and arbitrary, and anyone accusing the writers of that ought to apologize.
Besides, you want to see an inversion of gender roles? Read Destiny III: Lost Souls.
While Riker and Picard are busy worrying about their feelings, it's Ezri Dax who gets her shit together and develops a plan that saves dozens of worlds. And while Picard is lying crying on the bridge, it's Erika Hernandez who formulates and implements a plan to save the galaxy from the Borg.
Meanwhile, TrekLit has also gotten both Seven of Nine and T'Pol out of their ridiculous catsuits, which ought to more than demonstrate that the novels are not out to sexually objectify anyone. And, of course, they're bursting with strong female characters in leadership positions. Don't like it that America's ready for a black President but not a female President? Meet Nanietta Bacco, the 80-something-year-old President of the United Federation of Planets.
If you just disagree with the idea of killing the only canonical female series lead, then fine. But at least have the decency to acknowledge that that's a concern to you because you're worried about inadvertent messages that might be perceived by an audience unfamiliar with the novel-original characters rather than claiming that the decision to kill Janeway was actually motivated by sexism.
There's a subgenre of fan fiction involving Kirk in a sexual relationship with Spock, B'Elanna as a dominatrix and so forth. I wouldn't want that to appear in published books - though the latter already has.
Right. We are all Trek fans in the end, and we all have our own desires of ways to see the story go. I'm quite pleased with Janeway's death, you aren't.
So allow me to turn your argument back around - why do YOU think she should still be alive? Why should your preferences take precedence over mine?
Because my desire to see Janeway alive ultimately does you no harm and pleases me. Because your desire to see her dead excludes me entirely from any enjoyment (and I do mean any) of the Trek Universe, and Janeway alive takes nothing from your enjoyment.
I'm sorry you don't see that, you made a statement way back in the thread and then apologized for its snarkyness, but I want you to know that there is a lot of anger in the female fandom because Janeway's death has taken away their hope to actually see Janeway like Sisko at home raising kids.
We have never demanded that any of you write this, that's not the way men see Science Fiction or Trek. What we want though is for all of you to recognize that there are other stories to be told about characters. That other people want to see those stories told and if you kill our character you kill that hope, and Trek if nothing else is about HOPE. Thats why it is a betrayal and that is why there is such anger.
I have no doubt that the prejudice is mostly unintentional but it's there and we recognize it. It comes out in the strangest places so I can only give you an example.
A lot of female fans went to see "Nemesis" for two reasons, we wanted to see our favorite character on the big screen, and we wanted to see one of our favorite shipper relationships consummated (Riker and Troy in bed - I can't help it, some of us are actually dirty old ladies).
So I'm setting in a dark theater and here comes Kathryn Janeway in her one big scene and this young preadolescent (and I assume male because no female would have made the statement) voice ringing out through the theater.
"How come SHE gets to be an Admiral before Picard." Well anyone who knows about Trek knows that the only reason SHE got to be an admiral before Picard is because she said yes.
And that is just how quietly wide spread the prejudice is. You all have learned to recognize the big things but it's the little, biting and yes hurtful ones that is still with us.
Again we are not even asking you to tell those stories just don't kill our hope that someday that story might be told.
Apparently, KRAD, they don't count because either they weren't branded Voyager, she wasn't allowed to have a family, or her character was reduced in complexity for dastardly reasons, depending on who else in this thread you ask.
Now you are right, our reasons for not wanting a dead Janeway are as many and varied as our individual personalities. That alone should be telling you all that we care about this particular character.
That's good. Gorf and some others have said that they haven't been buying the books. But my suggestion wasn't about buying something to read it, it was about buying something to demonstrate the purchasing power and economic clout of the Janeway fans. Whether you already have the book, whether you intend to read it, that's irrelevant to what I was suggesting. The point was for you to stand up and be counted in a way that cost more than just complaining on a bbs.
I think that the vocal Janeway bashers convinced the book editors and publishers that Janeway was expendable.
Because the Editors are in the business of making money, they want to publish what will sell, and if all they see is the posts that say "they should have killed Janeway and Kept Ransom as Voyager's Captain" how are they going to put any value on her as a character.
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that, and I'm damn near certain no one's said anything like it here in TrekLit. If you really think that the editors and writers at Pocket have been reading stuff like that and taking it seriously, and they've been able to get approval from CBS Licensing because they've been convinced by the Janeway bashers too, well, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
In Australian schools, we teach students (Kinder to Year 12) to deconstruct writing they find around them, and analyse how the author used a variety of skills and strategies to convey his or her message, and certainly "consideration of targeted audience" is an oft-mentioned useful strategy. Was the author trying to persuade, analyse, discuss, evaluate, describe, etc.? What does her or she know about the potential target audience that mind aid him or her to persuade, analyse, discuss, evaluate or describe. We highlight to students the "social power" of language.
But this is usually used for non fiction writing. When it comes to fiction, the author is very often writing for himself, or herself, and if others happen find the work of interest it may have commercial value and, of course, then readers may attribute all manner of meanings to the work, which the author may never have considered. But it helps to know the conventions of genre that will lead one's audience to expect certain things to unfold in a story. So, yes, audience is still a consideration.
I've taught at school, college and university level and as you say - it applies to non-fiction writing. Obviously, it gets a grey when you are working on tie-in fiction but as an rather well known author I meet at a party told me "audience? fuck the audience!".
As Keith R.A. DeCandido noted, that's nonsense. If the writers were sexist and afraid of strong, non-objectified women in leadership positions, they wouldn't have written so damn many stories about strong, non-objectified women in leadership positions. "Women aren't interchangeable" is the counter-argument to that? Well of course they aren't.
Each character is unique and different. Janeway is not Kira, and Kira is not Bacco. But you cannot logically claim that the authors and editors are sexist or have a problem with strong female characters if their work is FULL of strong female characters. You want Janeway and not these other characters. Fine -- that's a perfectly valid storytelling desire. But it is NOT valid to accuse the authors and editors of sexism or of being against strong, non-objectified women in leadership positions just because they do not use the particular strong, non-objectified female leader you prefer.
Because my desire to see Janeway alive ultimately does you no harm and pleases me. Because your desire to see her dead excludes me entirely from any enjoyment (and I do mean any) of the Trek Universe, and Janeway alive takes nothing from your enjoyment.
The fact that main characters are allowed to die, and in fact that any main character could die, is in fact essential to my enjoyment of almost any story. Sci-fi is about the human condition to me, using exaggerated scenarios to tell human truths, and in my mind that means the human element must be as realistic as possible. And realistically, sometimes humans, even the powerful female ones, die needlessly. It has VASTLY increased my enjoyment of the universe as a whole, and I think you undersell that.
Did it have to be Janeway? No. But I'm glad it happened to someone important, and anyone else equally important would've had their own group of fans just as angry.
I'm sorry you don't see that, you made a statement way back in the thread and then apologized for its snarkyness, but I want you to know that there is a lot of anger in the female fandom because Janeway's death has taken away their hope to actually see Janeway like Sisko at home raising kids.
We have never demanded that any of you write this, that's not the way men see Science Fiction or Trek. What we want though is for all of you to recognize that there are other stories to be told about characters. That other people want to see those stories told and if you kill our character you kill that hope, and Trek if nothing else is about HOPE. Thats why it is a betrayal and that is why there is such anger.
Brit - every single person responsible for this entire thing, from the editor that made the decision to kill her to the licensor at Paramount that approved it to the writer continuing the Voyager story from here, is a woman. Why in God's name are you snarking about "the way men see science fiction" being the problem?
I have no doubt that the prejudice is mostly unintentional but it's there and we recognize it. It comes out in the strangest places so I can only give you an example.
A lot of female fans went to see "Nemesis" for two reasons, we wanted to see our favorite character on the big screen, and we wanted to see one of our favorite shipper relationships consummated (Riker and Troy in bed - I can't help it, some of us are actually dirty old ladies).
So I'm setting in a dark theater and here comes Kathryn Janeway in her one big scene and this young preadolescent (and I assume male because no female would have made the statement) voice ringing out through the theater.
"How come SHE gets to be an Admiral before Picard." Well anyone who knows about Trek knows that the only reason SHE got to be an admiral before Picard is because she said yes.
Actually, as far as I know, there's never been a single onscreen instance where Picard was offered admiralty - am I wrong about that?
And besides, if Sisko hadn't died and we saw him an Admiral, I can guarantee some people would have similar reactions. Sure, it's possible that it was made with sexist undertones, but I don't think it's necessarily true that it had to be.
I mean, imagine that someone made that statement out of a pure lack of understanding of the Star Trek universe; that they genuinely thought it was a dumb creative decision for someone lost in the Delta Quadrant for seven years to be made an admiral so quickly, over one of Starfleet's most senior and trusted captains. And that's why they said it. This is at least possible, yes? Now, how would you know that that isn't why it was said?
And that is just how quietly wide spread the prejudice is. You all have learned to recognize the big things but it's the little, biting and yes hurtful ones that is still with us.
Again we are not even asking you to tell those stories just don't kill our hope that someday that story might be told.
Then please - have hope. Just like every other death of a major character, an out was added to the story in case future storytellers would like to tell those stories you desire. The current creative team in no way plans to use that out, but creative teams in charge of TrekLit have changed about every 4 or 5 years since the 70s. It is entirely possible those stories will be told someday. (And for the record, in every single other major character death that was given such an out - Spock, Kirk, Sisko, Data, and Trip - those characters were indeed revived by a later creative team.)
Sir - my short story that had Dr. Bashir have sex with a klingon targ due to his unnatural sexual urges (as the results of genetic engineering) was a work of excellence, genius I say. Pocket can contact me at the normal address - please make cheques payable to cash.
The fact that main characters are allowed to die, and in fact that any main character could die, is in fact essential to my enjoyment of almost any story. Sci-fi is about the human condition to me, using exaggerated scenarios to tell human truths, and in my mind that means the human element must be as realistic as possible.
Very true, but I always think that the problem with playing with "other people's toys" is that the reader always think "yeah that will last" - so I think the best the writer can hope for is to make the death a good one.
Oh and the best death or rather deaths in Star Trek fiction are in David Mack's wildfire - that's the only Trek story that's given me shivers and I think really works on the level of "what it means to serve".
Sir - my short story that had Dr. Bashir have sex with a klingon targ due to his unnatural sexual urges (as the results of genetic engineering) was a work of excellence, genius I say. Pocket can contact me at the normal address - please make cheques payable to cash.
Sir - my short story that had Dr. Bashir have sex with a klingon targ due to his unnatural sexual urges (as the results of genetic engineering) was a work of excellence, genius I say. Pocket can contact me at the normal address - please make cheques payable to cash.
Sir - my short story that had Dr. Bashir have sex with a klingon targ due to his unnatural sexual urges (as the results of genetic engineering) was a work of excellence, genius I say. Pocket can contact me at the normal address - please make cheques payable to cash.
One of the difficulties with the internet is that it's often very difficult to tell if someone is sarcastic or not, simply based on text without tone of voice cues.
One of the difficulties with the internet is that it's often very difficult to tell if someone is sarcastic or not, simply based on text without tone of voice cues.
Heh - don't worry it - I'm not actually into writing fiction (fan-fiction or otherwise) it was just a one-off after writing some of the fan fiction here - I noticed that people tend to be quite conservative in their writing tastes and was wondering what a star Trek story done by Garth Ennis would be like - since he's not going it, I did it as a one-off. I wouldn't do any more as I have burning ambition to write fiction.
You are, in fact, wrong about that. Picard was offered a promotion to admiral in "Coming of Age" in the first season. He turned it down because he claimed not to like politics. And going forward, I suspect he's keeping Kirk's advice in Generations in the back of his head....
BTW, anyone who thinks that editorial and authorial decisions are based on ANYTHING said on a message board, positive or negative, is woefully ignorant about the process of the creation of a book.
Thank you - and to answer the poster so many pages ago, yes, I have in fact taken many writing classes. And, just like half the people on this board, I'm also an aspiring author working on his first novel. That is neither here nor there.
Outside of a journalism class, I have never been told to "consider my audience." The audience doesn't matter. They'll like the story or they won't. The question is, does the story tell the tale the author intended it to, and does it do that well?
Or, like someone else said above... "fuck the audience."
One simply cannot write with the only goal being the pleasing of fans. The story you'll get will be unmitigated crap. Especially - especially! - as this thread proves, with a fan base as diverse as Star Trek.
It is literally impossible to please everyone. And the suggestion that Janeway was killed due to misogony, or that some secretive, dark cabal of fans plotted it on a message board and blackmailed the staff at Pocket Books into it is just as ludicrous as any of the "motivations" posited in the majority of this thread.
It comes down to the story. Ms. Clark and everyone else working on these books knows their jobs. They know that their job is to tell good stories. And I highly doubt that they have ANY agenda other than that (and making money while doing it, of course.)
Picard was offered a promotion to admiral in "Coming of Age" in the first season. He turned it down because he claimed not to like politics. And going forward, I suspect he's keeping Kirk's advice in Generations in the back of his head....
