Poll: Bring Janeway back?

[Trent Roman]

Could, but in this case, as many have said, it only means that Janeway's return is not planned for the next book.

Either way, it does not mean permanently.

I must be on a great many ignore lists... From yesterday:

We've been over this. There have been interviews where we have learned that the attitude from editorial is that Janeway is dead, dead, dead, was always intended to be permanently killed (codas notwithstanding) and will not be returning. They might change their mind, or different editors brought in who look at the situation differently, but until then, it's as permanent as it gets in this business.

The permanence of Janeway's death going forward is more than just inertia, it's editorial policy.

I think that some people have missed the point here, death DOES get you angry, in real life as well, but instead of dealing with it rationally what we get is childish "well i'm not going to read it, then all will be right in my world". people die, that's life.

This isn't real life, where death comes when death comes and there's nothing you can do about it. This is fiction. Somebody or many somebodies made the choice to kill off the character, proclaimed the choice to keep the character dead when they have the option to do otherwise, and it is entirely legitimate to take issue with choices.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Hartzilla2007]

just makes it all the more of a challenge anyone feel up to it?

Your post wasn't in shouty caps and didn't have enough exclamation points, words in bold, underlined words, or any interesting smilies.

Other than that I've got nothing.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I agree with the people who say that killing a character just for a bump in the readership and ratings are too quick for my taste. I STILL have a bad taste in the mouth after they killed Kirk not once, but TWICE in Generations.

And then Shatner resurrected Kirk in "The Return, and killed him again, only to resurrect him again in "Avenger".

 

[Therin of Andor]

The permanence of Janeway's death going forward is more than just inertia, it's editorial policy.

Stated by Margaret Clark where?

 

[JB2005]

I think that some people have missed the point here, death DOES get you angry, in real life as well, but instead of dealing with it rationally what we get is childish "well i'm not going to read it, then all will be right in my world". people die, that's life.

This isn't real life, where death comes when death comes and there's nothing you can do about it. This is fiction. Somebody or many somebodies made the choice to kill off the character, proclaimed the choice to keep the character dead when they have the option to do otherwise, and it is entirely legitimate to take issue with choices.

ah but does it not make it all the more believable when it seems there is no choice but to accept death? I'm all for the suspension of disbelief, but now that she's dead, bringing her back would just seem like a cop-out...

just makes it all the more of a challenge anyone feel up to it?

Your post wasn't in shouty caps and didn't have enough exclamation points, words in bold, underlined words, or any interesting smilies.

Other than that I've got nothing.

hehe thanks for that!

 

[Thrawn]

But if Janeway will return, I really hope that they won't come up with any super-being mumbo-jumbo. We have Q who's a good character when it comes to that. Let us have Janeway the explorer and commander of a ship back.

Why is the character of Janeway only valid or interesting in that particular context?

And as for making shit up, you said and I quote "permanent". No one on the writing or editorial staff has used that word once. And in fact what all of them including Margaret Clark have said was "for the forseeable future", ie "no stories are planned right now that bring her back". Which is not the same thing, no matter how much you want to try and conflate them just because you're annoyed. I realize that you're still unhappy, and you have every right to be, just please don't misrepresent reality to make your arguments easier. This does mean it's possible Janeway is never brought back, it's true, but it doesn't say for a fact that it is the case. So don't post that it does.

 

[JB2005]

But if Janeway will return, I really hope that they won't come up with any super-being mumbo-jumbo. We have Q who's a good character when it comes to that. Let us have Janeway the explorer and commander of a ship back.

Why is the character of Janeway only valid or interesting in that particular context?

because character growth is bad? (just a theory...)

 

[Trent Roman]

Is this thing on?

I spoke with PAD and Marco and Margaret at Shore Leave '08. According to Margaret it was Paramount that insisted on the extra bit with Janeway at the end. She wanted her to be unambiguously dead. Margaret felt that Janeway's story had been told and that her death would provide more story motivation for other characters than her continued presence as an admiral at Starfleet HQ. (...) According to Margaret she has no plans to ever bring Janeway back.

There have been interviews (which, annoyingly, I can't track down) with statements to the same effect: the death of Janeway was intended to be permanent and the coda was something Paramount made them put in. All books going forward do so under the assumption that Janeway is dead, dead, dead and not coming back.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Is this thing on?

I spoke with PAD and Marco and Margaret at Shore Leave '08. According to Margaret it was Paramount that insisted on the extra bit with Janeway at the end. She wanted her to be unambiguously dead. Margaret felt that Janeway's story had been told and that her death would provide more story motivation for other characters than her continued presence as an admiral at Starfleet HQ. (...) According to Margaret she has no plans to ever bring Janeway back.

There have been interviews (which, annoyingly, I can't track down) with statements to the same effect: the death of Janeway was intended to be permanent and the coda was something Paramount made them put in. All books going forward do so under the assumption that Janeway is dead, dead, dead and not coming back.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Yes, we know.

We're also all aware that things like this change. Maybe not often, but they do change. I can't count the number of times someone in charge of a show or novel line has said "I don't have any plans to ever x" only for x to happen a couple years later.

In publishing, you're only ever talking about what you're planning on doing right now, and soon in the future. These things change, it's the nature of the industry. And I bet if you asked Margaret Clark, she'd say the same thing, because everyone on this board that has commented on this so far that works for Pocket has said exactly what Kirsten did.

Is it likely at this point? No, it isn't likely. But don't say it's "permanent". This is a stupid debate over an empirical question. Let's just move on now.

 

[Octavia]

But don't say it's "permanent".

On the same note, you can't say it's impermanent either. Heh: Janeway's death, the Schrodinger's Cat of Publishing.

 

[Lynx]

Is this thing on?

I spoke with PAD and Marco and Margaret at Shore Leave '08. According to Margaret it was Paramount that insisted on the extra bit with Janeway at the end. She wanted her to be unambiguously dead. Margaret felt that Janeway's story had been told and that her death would provide more story motivation for other characters than her continued presence as an admiral at Starfleet HQ. (...) According to Margaret she has no plans to ever bring Janeway back.

There have been interviews (which, annoyingly, I can't track down) with statements to the same effect: the death of Janeway was intended to be permanent and the coda was something Paramount made them put in. All books going forward do so under the assumption that Janeway is dead, dead, dead and not coming back.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Yes, we know.

We're also all aware that things like this change. Maybe not often, but they do change. I can't count the number of times someone in charge of a show or novel line has said "I don't have any plans to ever x" only for x to happen a couple years later.

In publishing, you're only ever talking about what you're planning on doing right now, and soon in the future. These things change, it's the nature of the industry. And I bet if you asked Margaret Clark, she'd say the same thing, because everyone on this board that has commented on this so far that works for Pocket has said exactly what Kirsten did.

Is it likely at this point? No, it isn't likely. But don't say it's "permanent". This is a stupid debate over an empirical question. Let's just move on now.

I've seen the comments which Trent Roman is quoting and that's what I based my comments on Janeway being "permanently dead" on.

What you are trying to do here, on purpose or not, is to soothe the feelings of the Janeway fans to what was before this debate started, that Janeway's death is only a temporary stunt.

But if people believe that and are having hopes that Janeway will return in the near future and the debate about this dies out, then those in charge of PocketBooks may see it as the fans are happy with Janeway's death and will not bring her back at all!

Personally I believe that the only chance to make changes is to voice your opinion. My few dabblings in local politics have learned me that commotion is often necessary to make the "people in suits" realize that something is wrong. Otherwise they don't care or give a d**n.

And what is it to "move on" to?

Why is the character of Janeway only valid or interesting in that particular context?

Because that's exactly what the character Janeway is about.

Would Captain Kirk be interesting for the Star Trek fans if they made him a school teacher? Or would Star Trek fans buy books to read about Captain Picard's life as the man in charge of an ostrich farm in Africa?

 

[CommanderTroi]

I can't count the number of times someone in charge of a show or novel line has said "I don't have any plans to ever x" only for x to happen a couple years later.

If this particular X takes a few years to get changed, the current continuing line of Trek Lit will have lost a customer by then here...

But maybe it doesn't take years, so

 

[-Brett-]

Little bit of a tangent, but this was the only thread on the subject that I saw.

It's been over a year since the character died. Several months since fans noticed and started to protest. Several months should be enough time, and I'm curious.

Is Pocket Books out of business yet?

 

[captcalhoun]

no.

jeez, i wonder if this'll get a lock in another six posts?

and by-the-by, let's see what they announce at Shore Leave come the summer. maybe then they'll have plans for new VGR and a return.

 

[Trek]

Could, but in this case, as many have said, it only means that Janeway's return is not planned for the next book.

Either way, it does not mean permanently.

I must be on a great many ignore lists... From yesterday:

Don't worry Trent, you're not on my ignore list.

Is this thing on?

There have been interviews (which, annoyingly, I can't track down) with statements to the same effect: the death of Janeway was intended to be permanent and the coda was something Paramount made them put in. All books going forward do so under the assumption that Janeway is dead, dead, dead and not coming back.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Yes, we know.

We're also all aware that things like this change. Maybe not often, but they do change. I can't count the number of times someone in charge of a show or novel line has said "I don't have any plans to ever x" only for x to happen a couple years later.

In publishing, you're only ever talking about what you're planning on doing right now, and soon in the future. These things change, it's the nature of the industry. And I bet if you asked Margaret Clark, she'd say the same thing, because everyone on this board that has commented on this so far that works for Pocket has said exactly what Kirsten did.

Is it likely at this point? No, it isn't likely. But don't say it's "permanent". This is a stupid debate over an empirical question. Let's just move on now.

I've seen the comments which Trent Roman is quoting and that's what I based my comments on Janeway being "permanently dead" on.

Well I can only go on the first hand accounts that I've read and so far I've seen nothing that even suggests that a decision on Janeway's death (i.e. permanently killed off) has been made beyond the next book and after that if someone was to pitch a compelling story in which she returns she could be back.

I someone can show me the interview(s) in which Janeway's death is said to be permanent I'll be happy to concede the point, but I'd be very surprised if Pocket were to tie themselves down that much.

 

[aelius]

Is this thing on?

There have been interviews (which, annoyingly, I can't track down) with statements to the same effect: the death of Janeway was intended to be permanent and the coda was something Paramount made them put in. All books going forward do so under the assumption that Janeway is dead, dead, dead and not coming back.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Yes, we know.

We're also all aware that things like this change. Maybe not often, but they do change. I can't count the number of times someone in charge of a show or novel line has said "I don't have any plans to ever x" only for x to happen a couple years later.

In publishing, you're only ever talking about what you're planning on doing right now, and soon in the future. These things change, it's the nature of the industry. And I bet if you asked Margaret Clark, she'd say the same thing, because everyone on this board that has commented on this so far that works for Pocket has said exactly what Kirsten did.

Is it likely at this point? No, it isn't likely. But don't say it's "permanent". This is a stupid debate over an empirical question. Let's just move on now.

I've seen the comments which Trent Roman is quoting and that's what I based my comments on Janeway being "permanently dead" on.

What you are trying to do here, on purpose or not, is to soothe the feelings of the Janeway fans to what was before this debate started, that Janeway's death is only a temporary stunt.

But if people believe that and are having hopes that Janeway will return in the near future and the debate about this dies out, then those in charge of PocketBooks may see it as the fans are happy with Janeway's death and will not bring her back at all!

Personally I believe that the only chance to make changes is to voice your opinion. My few dabblings in local politics have learned me that commotion is often necessary to make the "people in suits" realize that something is wrong. Otherwise they don't care or give a d**n.

And what is it to "move on" to?

Why is the character of Janeway only valid or interesting in that particular context?

Because that's exactly what the character Janeway is about.

Would Captain Kirk be interesting for the Star Trek fans if they made him a school teacher? Or would Star Trek fans buy books to read about Captain Picard's life as the man in charge of an ostrich farm in Africa?

I don't know, Ben Sisko came back and is not in Starfleet any longer. He is a stay at home dad instead of commanding DS9. I still enjoy the books and eagerly look forward to the next.
As the poster that Trent Roman quoted, I stand by what Margaret Clark told me. She has no plans to bring Janeway back. That doesn't mean it will never happen, just that the editors have no plans to. Plans can change, and something that someone firmly plans at one time can change in an instant under the right circumstances. Margaret may never bring Janeway back, but the next editor might. Or perhaps Margaret may be presented with a story so compelling that she changes her mind. In any case, I think that would have more influence on her return that complaints on the net.
Although I am glad to see the outright attacks on the authors and editors that caused me to post about my conversation at Shore Leave in the first palce have died down. While the conversations are not always remaining what I would call truly civil, I haven't seen anyone accuse the staff of killing Janeway because they must hate her or Voyager in a while.
Funny, I was an Ensign when I said that. And it really wasn't that long ago. After lurking for years with the occasional comment I finally started posting regularly, and that was the post that got me off and running.

 

[JB2005]

Is this thing on?

There have been interviews (which, annoyingly, I can't track down) with statements to the same effect: the death of Janeway was intended to be permanent and the coda was something Paramount made them put in. All books going forward do so under the assumption that Janeway is dead, dead, dead and not coming back.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Yes, we know.

We're also all aware that things like this change. Maybe not often, but they do change. I can't count the number of times someone in charge of a show or novel line has said "I don't have any plans to ever x" only for x to happen a couple years later.

In publishing, you're only ever talking about what you're planning on doing right now, and soon in the future. These things change, it's the nature of the industry. And I bet if you asked Margaret Clark, she'd say the same thing, because everyone on this board that has commented on this so far that works for Pocket has said exactly what Kirsten did.

Is it likely at this point? No, it isn't likely. But don't say it's "permanent". This is a stupid debate over an empirical question. Let's just move on now.

I've seen the comments which Trent Roman is quoting and that's what I based my comments on Janeway being "permanently dead" on.

What you are trying to do here, on purpose or not, is to soothe the feelings of the Janeway fans to what was before this debate started, that Janeway's death is only a temporary stunt.

But if people believe that and are having hopes that Janeway will return in the near future and the debate about this dies out, then those in charge of PocketBooks may see it as the fans are happy with Janeway's death and will not bring her back at all!

Personally I believe that the only chance to make changes is to voice your opinion. My few dabblings in local politics have learned me that commotion is often necessary to make the "people in suits" realize that something is wrong. Otherwise they don't care or give a d**n.

And what is it to "move on" to?

dunno, but i'm rather enjoying the suspense

Why is the character of Janeway only valid or interesting in that particular context?

Because that's exactly what the character Janeway is about.

Would Captain Kirk be interesting for the Star Trek fans if they made him a school teacher? Or would Star Trek fans buy books to read about Captain Picard's life as the man in charge of an ostrich farm in Africa?

what kind of ostrich?

 

[William Leisner]

And what is it to "move on" to?

The realization that all there is to say has been said, ending the circular debate, and perhaps stepping outside to enjoy a little fresh air and sunshine.

 

[Trent Roman]

Yes, we know.

Then why the devil are you going around accusing people of making things up when we're merely echoing the comments that have made by the people in charge of editorial policy.

I someone can show me the interview(s) in which Janeway's death is said to be permanent I'll be happy to concede the point, but I'd be very surprised if Pocket were to tie themselves down that much.

I wish I could track it (them?) down again, but couldn't turn it up yesterday. Nonetheless, I distinctly remember those comments being made--and yes, I remember being surprised by how explicit they were as well, outright stating that there was no hope of Janeway returning instead of being vague and cagey as editorial usually is on future projects. I guess the permanence of Janeway's death is considered the true selling point of the decision, in the 'this hasn't been done yet' vein.

As the poster that Trent Roman quoted, I stand by what Margaret Clark told me. She has no plans to bring Janeway back.

Ah, I was quoting you. Sorry about that; usually I'd reference my sources, but I had that quote in another post without an indication of where I had cut'n'pasted it from.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[aelius]

/\ No problem. I figured you dug it out of some thread pile somewhere.