Poll: Bring Janeway back?
- Thread starter kimc
- Start date
- Status
I was waiting for someone to pick up on that. Actually, when Laura Roslin was stricken with cancer, I almost stopped watching it. Then she was cured for awhile, so I thought it would end well. But I was wrong. At that point I was already too wrapped up in BSG so I continued watching it.
I always wanted Voyager to be just like BSG. However, when I saw BSG I thought it was too dark for a Trek series. I realize that what I loved about Trek was the light heartedness and the fact that the only people who normally died were the "nameless redshirts." Of course, you've since pointed out to me that in Trek Lit and in some of the movies that was not necessarily the case. But this whole thing with Janeway just rubs me the wrong way right now. However, I am still here posting and I'd actually like to see what others thing about the book after they read it. I thought BSG had a great "feel good ending" in spite of everything, but I also realize that many hard core Sci Fi fans didn't like the ending. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.
I agree. But what I originally had in mind would have been dark. I always thought that they should have planned for and written main character death into the series in order to highlight the dangers of the Delta Quadrant. They actually started to do that with the whole Seska Arc and even as early as Caretaker when half the crew died. I really thought Cavit would be the first officer for the entire series. You no sooner got comfortable with who Janeway's bridge crew was then everyone got killed, with the exception of Janeway and Ensign Kim. I actually did a thread about this on the Voyager board, asking if people thought Voyager should have had more character death.
Of course, I would say some of those illustrate my point, in that grief causes some of those characters to behave abnormally, or at least unexpectedly. That can lead to good plots--generally as other characters react to the character reacting to grief, rather, I think, than the character concerned him/herself--but it doesn't feel as genuine as if it had stemmed from a logical evolution of the character rather than something that just 'goes off' or 'snaps'. Like I said, I prefer characters who choose to act in this or that fashion, than characters merely reacting to strong emotion or trauma. Of course, a lot might depend on whether one cares for those plot developments or not; if so, then grief is perceived as a necessary tool to reach a desired story goal; if not, it's a stunt to enable poor writing.
You can consider it a shitty reason if you want; for me, it's once burned, twice shy. I feel the same way about love triangles, to make a comparison: I've seen those setups become trite and annoying so often I groan whenever I see one emerge in the fiction I consume. As for universal or resonant... there is a use for those qualities to connect the characters to the audience, particularly in speculative fiction where the audience might feel estranged by the setting or even the alien nature of the characters. At the same time, though, I consume speculative fiction not because I want something habitual, but because I want something that showcases difference. So it's a balancing act, I suppose. All that said, though, I'd prefer wonder over bereavement in terms of resonant moments, because wonder implies something new and remarkable, in keeping with the generic goals. Grief is something I'm as familiar with as I'd want to be.
That was a good episode; something to add to the list of well-done fictional grief. And it was good, I think, because it went for shell-shock instead of annoying hystrionics (deliberately sidelined, as in Dawn's case). But I don't think it works as an analogy here for two reasons. One, Joyce was not a hero, unless one prefers a broad definition of heroism, in which case I would say she wasn't a warrior or a fighter like most of the cast. She was Buffy's connection to normalcy, and it was fitting that she would die a 'normal' (i.e. not supernatural) death. Two, Joyce was a secondary character... and let's face it, secondary characters typically exist in order for the main cast to have something to react off of. Tara died so that Willow could go nutso, as you mentioned. Poor Ziyal died so that Dukat could go nutso. But if it had been Buffy on the couch, dead of an aneurysm? I would have thrown a show at the T.V. (must as I felt like doing when a certain character simply up and vanished in a certain other show). That's how I felt on reading Before Dishonor.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
The last few posts in this thread have been very well-written and insightful.
I think I see what you're saying, Trent, regarding grief and loss as effective story tools (or ineffective ones, as the case may be). But I do think it's important not to overlook their potential, since such scenarios can serve to really deepen the connection the audience feels with a given character. Of course, that's not universal; as you make clear in your posts, not everyone is going to have the same reaction. And it goes without saying that to have any positive impact, the scenes in question need to be done well, but even what constitutes "done well" is subjective to a large degree.
I do still feel, personally, that Janeway's death was a well-written one. The book as a whole had it's problems, but I felt this particular scene was not one of them. I thought she went out with a certain defiance, sticking it to the Borg who had put her in this position and threatened her people before the end.
And I think I mentioned earlier (or was it in the other thread? I'm all mixed up now) that I feel that in some ways, Trek's premise, style, and general feel give it a unique edge in dealing with darker storylines. There is a sense of optimism and hope that runs through the various branches of the franchise, from TOS through the latest relaunch novels, that feel that makes Trek what it is, when compared to most other well-known sci-fi franchises, which tend to have darker overtones throughout. Thus, when Trek does delve into something darker, it can be all the more powerful for how much it stands out. It takes this positive, optimistic future landscape, and puts it through hell, for the purpose of ultimately showing the strength of the hopeful spirit that permeates Trek as it overcomes whatever darkness is thrust at it. When you look at each series, you will find that among that series' "Best of" list is at least a handful of it's darkest eps. Granted, any "Best of" list for any Trek series is - like so much else in this discussion - subjective, but you know what I mean.
EDIT: Whoo, promotion!
I think I see what you're saying, Trent, regarding grief and loss as effective story tools (or ineffective ones, as the case may be). But I do think it's important not to overlook their potential, since such scenarios can serve to really deepen the connection the audience feels with a given character. Of course, that's not universal; as you make clear in your posts, not everyone is going to have the same reaction. And it goes without saying that to have any positive impact, the scenes in question need to be done well, but even what constitutes "done well" is subjective to a large degree.
I do still feel, personally, that Janeway's death was a well-written one. The book as a whole had it's problems, but I felt this particular scene was not one of them. I thought she went out with a certain defiance, sticking it to the Borg who had put her in this position and threatened her people before the end.
And I think I mentioned earlier (or was it in the other thread? I'm all mixed up now) that I feel that in some ways, Trek's premise, style, and general feel give it a unique edge in dealing with darker storylines. There is a sense of optimism and hope that runs through the various branches of the franchise, from TOS through the latest relaunch novels, that feel that makes Trek what it is, when compared to most other well-known sci-fi franchises, which tend to have darker overtones throughout. Thus, when Trek does delve into something darker, it can be all the more powerful for how much it stands out. It takes this positive, optimistic future landscape, and puts it through hell, for the purpose of ultimately showing the strength of the hopeful spirit that permeates Trek as it overcomes whatever darkness is thrust at it. When you look at each series, you will find that among that series' "Best of" list is at least a handful of it's darkest eps. Granted, any "Best of" list for any Trek series is - like so much else in this discussion - subjective, but you know what I mean.
EDIT: Whoo, promotion!
Last edited:
For me to really like a death it really has to have a good combination of the two. If a death is big and heroic, but then gets ignored after an episode or two it agrivates me. But at the same time, if the oppisite happens, it pisses me off just as much. For example, even though Charlie was one of my favorite characters in Lost, I thought he got one of the best deaths on the show. Both because of how he dieied, sacrificing himself to save Desmond and to make sure that Penny's message got out, and also becuase of how his death was able to play a major role in the next season. Now, there have been times where one element or the other has been good enough that I like it, even if I'm not as happy with one part as I am with the other. A good example of this would be
Bill Buchanan's death, while it wasn't really dealt with much afterward, it was heroic enough and had enough of an immediate impact that I was happy with it.
I hope the little devil indicated I was joking. "The Homecoming" duology sold extremely well and went into multiple reprints. Now, we have no way of ever knowing how large the original print run was, since Pocket doesn't release those figures, but there have been other recent, highly-regarded, well-reviewed ST novels that never even go into a first reprint.
Some recent ST novels took enough pre-release orders that the books were ordered into reprint before the book was released. This applied to the second "Titan" novel, IIRC, obviously due good reactions to the first one, and "New Frontier: Stone and Anvil", for which the CD-ROM-less second editions were raced into shops very soon after the first version appeared. Many shops didn't even get the first version.
Despite some ho-hum reviews, and criticism of the author's style, the second relaunch duology, "Spirit Walk" also went into multiple reprints.
It's been a long, long time now since Pocket achieve a "New York Times" bestseller, so numbers must be down from the heyday of TOS movie tie-ins and TNG at its peak viewership, but yes, so far the VOY relaunch is a success.
For me, the shock death was Stadi. It looked like she and Paris were going to hit it off.
VOY was filled with missed opportunities, especially in that first year. They were making up the Seska plot as they went along, the Maquis were too compliant too quickly, the Kazon were too reminiscent of Klingons on a bad hair day, the only medic was the only skilled pilot, the only trainee nurse on a journey that might take 70 years was an alien woman who only had seven years of life expectancy, the only baby born on what might have had to become a generational ship was conceived before the journey began...
That's a point, there's been some references to the new crew of Voyager being bogus. The crew was mostly bogus for seven years...
Therin of Andor said:
Yes, the little devil indicated to me that you were being a little devil, so yes, I knew you were kidding.
However...I do sometimes wonder why people who are clearly willing to talk about Voyager books are so willing to make cracks about how horrible Voyager is/was. I'm not really referring to you, Therin (you don't normally, as far as I can recall, and I wondered if perhaps you were mostly just pulling the chain of another poster?)
But I do have to say that I get a bit tired of Voyager bashing, and I didn't really expect it in a thread about Voyager books. I concede the show had problems, and I see those problems quite well, but I liked the show, for the most part, and whatever its flaws, it must have had something going for it - characters or something - or else why are people reading the books?
Just about everywhere on the Trek BBS it's open season on Voyager, except on the Voyager forum...and there, it's difficult to say anything negative about the show because almost everybody is such a super fan. So I was kind of enjoying the idea of a thread in which I thought we would finally be able to talk about Voyager in a more...rational way - neither bashing nor gushing.
Sorry - don't mean to hijack that thread myself!
But yes, I knew you were kidding, you little devil, you.
I don`t have “Full Circle” yet. I have decided to give it priority after all until “Treason” arrives.
I haven`t added anything to this discussion because I made my point but continued to read the threads in question.
A well written death can be very powerful but nevertheless, there is always the question if it would be more beneficial for the series to let the character live instead of giving him or her a good death scene.
I think the most powerful but also the most satisfying approach is a heroic near-death followed by a struggle to cope with what happened, to rebuild the life the best way possible and also shows how other characters deal with such consequences. Recently I became a fan of some Anime series and D.Gray-Man shows the best example I have ever seen or read so far. The arc in question spans several episodes and the consequences are visible until the end of the series. It is extremely powerful and touching but, I must admit, also extremely violent although never in a way that felt as violence for violence`s sake.
There are deaths that move me a lot. But in order to balance realism with the need for entertainment, to allow growth and change of a popular and/or important character without killing him I definitely prefer the heroic near-death.
As I said, I am not happy about the decision to kill off Janeway. Not because I like her but because I think “canon” Star Trek main characters should not be killed in books. But what is done is done. In spite of my strong misgivings I can`t deny that I am also curious about “Full Circle”.
I haven`t added anything to this discussion because I made my point but continued to read the threads in question.
A well written death can be very powerful but nevertheless, there is always the question if it would be more beneficial for the series to let the character live instead of giving him or her a good death scene.
I think the most powerful but also the most satisfying approach is a heroic near-death followed by a struggle to cope with what happened, to rebuild the life the best way possible and also shows how other characters deal with such consequences. Recently I became a fan of some Anime series and D.Gray-Man shows the best example I have ever seen or read so far. The arc in question spans several episodes and the consequences are visible until the end of the series. It is extremely powerful and touching but, I must admit, also extremely violent although never in a way that felt as violence for violence`s sake.
There are deaths that move me a lot. But in order to balance realism with the need for entertainment, to allow growth and change of a popular and/or important character without killing him I definitely prefer the heroic near-death.
As I said, I am not happy about the decision to kill off Janeway. Not because I like her but because I think “canon” Star Trek main characters should not be killed in books. But what is done is done. In spite of my strong misgivings I can`t deny that I am also curious about “Full Circle”.
I never missed an episode of VOY. I'm a completist. But it was always the series that, as the episode ended, I could think of several ways it could have been improved. Every time they lost one of their endless supply of Starfleet-issued shuttlecraft. Every time Chakotay seemed to stop short before an argument got out of hand, or shut down one of his Maquis people too early. Every time Neelix was expected to know so much about the vast Delta Quadrant. Every time we met a duplicate Voyager in Season One. Every time the ship retraced its steps.
I found most TOS, TAS, TOS movies, and TNG episodes to be very fulfilling. DS9, although not a favourite, was always interesting in the way the non-regulars kept growing and developing. So much of VOY ended up as a series of rather bizarre lost opportunities, and it just makes it an easy target for humorous "bashing". No malice intended; the producers were trying to churn out a show for a network with an identity problem. (Ditto ENT with its marginalizing of several cast members. The actors playing Hoshi and Travis got paid a lot of money to be credited extras in too many episodes.)
^ Oh, I agree with all of that, and where Voyager deserves to be bashed, I don't mind. I don't even mind it that much when it gets undeserved bashing, so long as the bashing is funny and original. (Your little devil counts.) But an awful lot of it is based on the premise that not only was Voyager was uniformly awful and horrible and without any redeeming characteristics, not only was every person associated with it devoid of talent, but that everybody with any taste knows it was. And you know, it wasn't and they don't. I just wish people would let UP already. The show is done, either you liked it or you didn't, and if you didn't, why do you even want to talk about it?
I'd forgotten that you are a completist. It's a disease, really, isn't it?
I'd forgotten that you are a completist. It's a disease, really, isn't it?
I'd forgotten that you are a completist. It's a disease, really, isn't it?
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/2009/03/star-trek-barbies-couldnt-help-myself.html
it's weird since i started posting here a little over a week ago on a more regular basis, the voyager forum seems to be packed with overly harsh critics who have made it open season on the show.
i'm like you where i know it had it's faults but, IMO, no more or less than any other show. but, i still can debate the show with most people. however, i do get irked by the trainspotters who like to pick it apart for nothing more than the seemingly shear fun of it. in fact, a friend of mine, who also posts here and likes DS9 the best, stated on another trek board and i don't think i could've stated it any better:
now, my own fault is that i pretty much stick to the lit. and voyager forums here. so, they could be bashing the other shows' forums just as much (though i highly doubt it). i have never and will never visit another forum just to tear a show down. i think it's mean and not in spirit of what trek was about. though it makes me wonder if they ever really knew what trek was actually about it in the first place.
now, there are a few who are still critics of the show, but have still shown and maintained respect for voyager's fans. i've enjoyed meeting and speaking with them. it's the little trolls that i have very little patience and time for. but, the same goes for the "voyager is the best, don't say anything bad about it crowd." i've had my share of verbal sparrings with them. bottom line, if you like and want to talk about it, then i'm all for it. if you don't like it and want to have a good debate i'm also all for it (just try not to be an ass and i'll try not to as well).
(to everyone else, sorry about the temporary hi-jack. i just wanted to respond to JK.)
I agree, but all of that could have been handled. In fact they should have met and dropped off aliens along the way. Some could have even been killed in heroic actions, etc. I also would have preferred more Maquis conflict. And as a J/Cer I would have been all for more romance on board, but that's a whole different subject matter.
Anyway, I did enjoy the show for what it was, so I don't know how I would have balanced what I wanted with what I got and really liked. I do understand the critic's point of view, but I really did like the show, in spite of it's flaws.
For me, at least, it's because there was nothing wrong with the series premise of Voyager, the problem was the TV writers not staying true to it or dealing with the implications of it. The books are written by a different set of writers who don't have a bunch of network suits on their back wanting them to make the show more like TNG and drop everything interesting and distinctive about Voyager. So, for me, there's the hope -- sometimes realized, though not in Golden's relaunch books -- that the books can more fully respect the series premise and the series characters than the TV series usually did.
Thing is - what's is the premise? They got home at the end of the TV series - what was left to be said, given the premise of the show? They could fly around exploring the universe but that just makes the series TNG-lite (which the TV show often was).
I can understand the direction taken at the end of Full Circle but it seems forced to me. The Voyager relaunch should have been the most radical of the lot, sticking them all back on the ship and
sending them back to the DQ,
Good point. I was thinking more about why I, as someone who didn't have much use for Voyager as a TV series, read the books up to now. I haven't found a copy of Full Circle yet, much less read it, so I don't know much about where things go from here -- but I get the impression that Full Circle establishes a new direction for the series going forward, which the Golden relaunch books didn't really do.
The impression I get from some of the Voyager/Janeway acolytes is that they don't want a new direction, they want more of the same old stuff even though there's no plausible reason for all those characters to get together in the same ship and do the same thing again. Their whole purpose for seven years was not to be doing that any more. As for me, I'm curious -- with a whole new range of possibilities, what do those characters do next? And why? Does it make sense in terms of their character and experiences? Does it look likely to generate more interesting stories? As an occasional Voyager-basher who thinks there was some unrealized good in there, I'm looking forward to seeing how things play out from a new beginning.
- Status
Similar threads
