Poll: Janeway & Gender

[Thrawn]

I'm not saying it was intentional, and it certainly won't appear as such to those who felt the work did right by the character, but with all due respect, rfmcdpei is wrong to dismiss it as a ludicrous suggestion: it's actually quite easy to see how it could function in such a role.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Only if Best Of Both Worlds, Part 1 was a snuff fantasy for Picard detractors.

Just saying; the two are essentially the same. Both save Earth through heroic acts of will after being horribly violated by the Borg collective. The only difference is that Picard goes back to human, and Janeway becomes a Q (or whatever).

 

[Octavia]

(or whatever) = "died, with a supersize portion of Cover Your Arse".

Don't snuff fantasies usually involve death? As in "snuffed out"...? Picard certainly isn't dead.

 

[Thrawn]

Then I apologize for having a minor problem with terminology, but conceptually, the point still stands.

Assimilation by the Borg collective is a long-established very horrible thing in the Trek universe. Why is it suddenly a rape metaphor now, just because one woman that is a particularly prominent character dies from it?

Or if it has always been a rape metaphor, why is it so much more offensive or socially unacceptable this time? Is it really just the fact of Janeway's symbolic prominence that changes the whole meaning and context of a nearly 2-decade old concept in Trek?

 

[DimesDan]

Or if it has always been a rape metaphor

Ok, I've never said it was rape in so many words, but assimilation has come across to me as one of the most vile violations that one could go through.

 

[Octavia]

Then I apologize for having a minor problem with terminology, but conceptually, the point still stands.

Assimilation by the Borg collective is a long-established very horrible thing in the Trek universe. Why is it suddenly a rape metaphor now, just because one woman that is a particularly prominent character dies from it?

Or if it has always been a rape metaphor, why is it so much more offensive or socially unacceptable this time? Is it really just the fact of Janeway's symbolic prominence that changes the whole meaning and context of a nearly 2-decade old concept in Trek?

It's a combination of things, I think, rather than one thing on its own. Yes, I would agree that it has been a rape metaphor as long as the Borg have been around. But here's the thing:

Rape is much more of a present problem for women than for men. It affects women as a gender more than it does men. If any of the main captains had died this way, it would be horrible. But when it's the only woman, in a world where women are subject to discrimination and prejudice every day, then that strikes a lot closer to home.

Especially when that death is written by an author who admits he has no great liking for Janeway, and there seems to be a strong implication (one picked up by many readers, whether they liked the death or not) that she deserved it - there is a level of squick there that is extremely uncomfortable. It's not the the implication itself that she deserved her death (in the right story, that could be compelling) but the implication that she deserved this particular death.

Now if it had been Picard who had died this way, the squick factor would still be there for me, although I expect the undercurrent of "just desserts" would be gone, which would make it easier to handle. But there are other male TV captains out there - that the only captain to "deservedly" die this way is the sole woman, the most prominent Trek woman leader... can you really not understand (even if only a smidgeon) how this might appear?

 

[Thrawn]

Oh believe me, I do understand how this might appear, I just think that that initial appearance is deceiving and on just about any reasonable level it's a completely legitimate progression, in-universe or otherwise, for the Janeway character.

I mean, let's reverse it - Seven goes to investigate the Borg cube, gets re-assimilated, becomes the new queen, Janeway runs off to save her, and ends up for just a moment finding Seven's consciousness buried under the borgification, and the two of them together explode the cube, leaving Seven dead and Janeway alive.

Inappropriate death? No. Completely plausible based on past actions? Yes. Somewhat poetic? In a heroic cycle sort of way, sure. And would anyone be complaining that it "looked an awful lot like" one of Trek's strongest female characters was raped to death? Somehow, I don't think so. Am I wrong?

 

[Trent Roman]

You can interpret it as that if you'd want to, although the evidence in support of that seems weak to me: Janeway is dominated to the same extent and in the same way as other characters, like Picard, and she wasn't singled out because of her gender identity.

Picard didn't die; ergo, no snuffing. Picard's case was, furthermore, presented as a tragedy rather than a karmic come-uppance. And I don't think the evidence for the reading is weak. The gleeful tone of her death scene was one of the first things I remarked upon after finishing the book; not everybody has found that tone there, but I'm hardly the only one who came away with that impression either (on both sides of the argument), so there's something in the text, however unintentional, which conveys a pleasure in the fact of her death/or depiction of the act. Basically, you've got a controversial character, widely disliked (and for whom the author is on record as having no particular affection for), who is killed in a horrific fashion; which, it has been argued, was a deserved fate, supposedly a consequence of her own actions past and in the book itself (or, from another angle, blaming the victim). You've even got the sadist-voyeur figure in Lady Q, who laughs and mocks as Janeway undergoes this death; the text not only fails to condemn such sadism, but to an extent approves of Lady Q's position by painting her as the (self-satisfied, to be sure) voice of reason. The idea of the person who stood by while another suffered then makes everything right by extending mild compassion to the victim is, need I even say, a stereotype of abuse. I'm not saying I would necessarily want to advance the hypothesis of snuff fantasy myself, but if one of my students for instance came to me with that perspective and that evidence, I would consider it a valid interpretation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Peter David writes all of his action scenes with glee, main character deaths or otherwise.

And I certainly didn't get a favorable impression of Lady Q, but on the other hand, if it had been normal-Q and Picard, I don't think he would've intervened either. Just stood by and been like "Picard, you're such an idiot", in exactly the same way. At least, that's how I imagine it. Really, I think the exact same sequence could've been played out with Picard and Q, almost without alteration. It would've been a tragic end to Picard instead of the uplifting one Destiny presented, but thematically just as justifiable.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Am I the only woman irritated at the thought that a woman of the future should be judged by a lesser standard than men, or should be considered exempt from the risks all captains are exposed to--or the risks entailed by her own bravado when it came to the Borg?

Believe me, I understand the 20th/21st century woman's experience. But I like to think that by the time the 24th century rolls around, society truly is gender-equal. And in that light--I do not want to see Janeway, Kira, Seven, or any other female character cut any slack just because they're women. In a gender-equal society, which is the context I think they should be considered in, NOT the 20th/21st-century context, I think that the bigger insult by far would be to hold them to a lesser standard.

(Heck, personally, I would be steamed in THIS century if I EVER found out I was hired/promoted because I was a woman and not because I was the best candidate for the position!!! I want to know I'm there because of respect for my abilities, not because I'm somebody's pet diversity candidate.)

 

[rfmcdpei]

You can interpret it as that if you'd want to, although the evidence in support of that seems weak to me: Janeway is dominated to the same extent and in the same way as other characters, like Picard, and she wasn't singled out because of her gender identity.

Picard didn't die; ergo, no snuffing.

Let's say that he had, dying as the Borg cube in Earth orbit died. Would it have been snuff then?

The gleeful tone of her death scene was one of the first things I remarked upon after finishing the book;

What "death scene" are we talking about here?

The scene in virtuality when Janeway managed to push through and let Endgame in didn't strike me as gleeful.

If we're talking about the scene when Janeway is assimilated, the walls changing and all, I don't get "gleeful." Disorienting and despairing, sure, but gleeful?

not everybody has found that tone there, but I'm hardly the only one who came away with that impression either (on both sides of the argument), so there's something in the text, however unintentional, which conveys a pleasure in the fact of her death/or depiction of the act.

Sure, a depiction of the Q's gory sadism.

Basically, you've got a controversial character, widely disliked (and for whom the author is on record as having no particular affection for), who is killed in a horrific fashion; which, it has been argued, was a deserved fate, supposedly a consequence of her own actions past and in the book itself (or, from another angle, blaming the victim).

I don't understand how recognizing that a character came to a nasty fate because of established personality flaws--in this case, a certain amount of overconfidence and recklessnes--can be legitimately be called "blaming the victim," save in the most general sense.

You've even got the sadist-voyeur figure in Lady Q, who laughs and mocks as Janeway undergoes this death; the text not only fails to condemn such sadism, but to an extent approves of Lady Q's position by painting her as the (self-satisfied, to be sure) voice of reason. The idea of the person who stood by while another suffered then makes everything right by extending mild compassion to the victim is, need I even say, a stereotype of abuse.

It can be read as that, sure.

The depiction fits, much more directly, in the long tradition of gods looking down their noses at the foolish mortals who are now suffering because of the advice that said gods so kindly offered.

A lot of the noise that's being made around Janeway's death seems to be at least as much what people bring to Before Dishonor as what's inside the book, outside misogyny bleeding over to determine What's Actually Going On in the book. If people want to read it as a snuff fantasy, whether because they hate Janeway and all women or because they're outraged that editors might write a story centered on Janeway's death, then that's what they'll read, I guess.

 

[kimc]

[Janeway was assimilated by the Borg and eventually died as a consequence of personality traits which had been established on the show.

Actually, one of the reaons many Janeway fans stopped reading the Pocket books put out since the show ended was because Janeway was not acting the same as she was during the majority of the show.

Basically, you've got a controversial character, widely disliked (and for whom the author is on record as having no particular affection for), who is killed in a horrific fashion; which, it has been argued, was a deserved fate, supposedly a consequence of her own actions past and in the book itself (or, from another angle, blaming the victim).

I think what both this poll and the favorite captain poll over in General Trek has proven is that while Janeway is perceived to be widely disliked she has more fans than the folks at Pocket realized. Sure, there were those who took glee in how she was treated in "Before Dishonor" but I do believe they are in the minority.

If killing of Janeway was meant to please the "majority of fans" I do believe it was a miscalculation on Pocket's part.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I doubt it was done to "please" anyone at all. Just as I doubt the decision to kill Chewbacca off in the books was done to "please" anyone either. It was an editorial decision made for dramatic impact.

IMHO, the moment that Pocket starts trying to "please" people, that is the moment that the quality of the work will start to plummet.

 

[JustKate]

If I might make just one observation here. The term "snuff," as in snuff movie, doesn't refer merely to somebody dying, even someone dying gratuitously. A snuff movie, as I understand it, is a movie in which someone dies or appears to die simply to provide a thrill - I'd go so far as to say sexual gratification - to the movie watcher. I haven't read the book, but it doesn't sound like "snuff" to me.

I know that's not what the argument is about - it's just a minor side issue. But I think that those who insist on calling it "snuff" are obscuring rather than emphasizing their point. That's how it strikes me, thread-lurker, anyway

 

[Therin of Andor]

If you're implying that women can't be sexist.

I'm implying nothing of the kind. You asked "who thought that death was a good idea?" and I told you. Two women, who are leaders in their field, and who've managed to not kill off any female lead characters over 20 years, until Janeway. You'll have to ask them if they are sexist.

 

[Therin of Andor]

A snuff movie, as I understand it, is a movie in which someone dies or appears to die simply to provide a thrill - I'd go so far as to say sexual gratification - to the movie watcher.

In fact, a black market snuff movie, in the worst scenario, is much worse. The actor is actually killed. The actor agrees to do the film, knowing it would be a violent scene, but not realising the producers and director were actually going to follow through. People buy the movie knowing they'll see a real torture/death scene.

 

[Thrawn]

[Janeway was assimilated by the Borg and eventually died as a consequence of personality traits which had been established on the show.

Actually, one of the reaons many Janeway fans stopped reading the Pocket books put out since the show ended was because Janeway was not acting the same as she was during the majority of the show.

Basically, you've got a controversial character, widely disliked (and for whom the author is on record as having no particular affection for), who is killed in a horrific fashion; which, it has been argued, was a deserved fate, supposedly a consequence of her own actions past and in the book itself (or, from another angle, blaming the victim).

I think what both this poll and the favorite captain poll over in General Trek has proven is that while Janeway is perceived to be widely disliked she has more fans than the folks at Pocket realized. Sure, there were those who took glee in how she was treated in "Before Dishonor" but I do believe they are in the minority.

If killing of Janeway was meant to please the "majority of fans" I do believe it was a miscalculation on Pocket's part.

"I like Janeway" does not at all necessarily mean "I am upset she's dead". Many of my favorite characters' deaths have been some of my favorite twists in a movie, show, book, whatever. This, potentially, included (depending on how Full Circle goes).

Pocket definitely didn't kill her off because they thought The Fans Wanted Her Dead. They know as well as we do that there is no such entity as The Fans. They did it to make a better, more dramatic story.

 

[Thrawn]

I doubt it was done to "please" anyone at all. Just as I doubt the decision to kill Chewbacca off in the books was done to "please" anyone either. It was an editorial decision made for dramatic impact.

IMHO, the moment that Pocket starts trying to "please" people, that is the moment that the quality of the work will start to plummet.

The depiction fits, much more directly, in the long tradition of gods looking down their noses at the foolish mortals who are now suffering because of the advice that said gods so kindly offered.

Very well said. I'd been trying to phrase both of those points in my head, and they didn't come out nearly so concisely.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Actually, one of the reaons many Janeway fans stopped reading the Pocket books put out since the show ended was because Janeway was not acting the same as she was during the majority of the show.

I'm confused. Are we talking only two duologies here? What was so wrong with the portrayal of Janeway in "Homecoming"/"The Farthest Shore" that it put you off all future VOY novels?

I haven't read the second duology, "Spirit Walk", yet - but it didn't seem like she was even in it much, from the blurbs. Or are we also counting her cameos in "A Time to..."?

Were you actually happy with any of the earlier, during-series, Janeway books? "Mosaic"? "Fire Ship"?

 

[Thrawn]

In all fairness, Janeway's characterization in those duologies was pretty terrible, but not for the reasons put forth in this thread. As far as I'm aware, her behavior in BD is criticized for being overly risky and pigheaded (which I disagree with completely, I'm just saying that's what I see people posting); her behavior in Golden's books, though, I found to be bubbly and lacking the depth or force her character should've had. Sort of exactly the opposite problem, really.

 

[Therin of Andor]

her behavior in Golden's books, though, I found to be bubbly and lacking the depth or force her character should've had.

Someone relieved to have got her people home?