But the Totality trilogy contradicts other aspects of the Trek Lit continuity, particulary where the timing of events in DS9 and Titan is concerned. So it's not part of the same continuity as the VGR post-finale novels.
"Season 11?"
Star Trek Voyager: The Eternal Tide by Kirsten Beyer
- Thread starter timothy
- Start date
But the Totality trilogy contradicts other aspects of the Trek Lit continuity, particulary where the timing of events in DS9 and Titan is concerned. So it's not part of the same continuity as the VGR post-finale novels.
"Season 11?"
Actually, I didn't forget -- I deliberately disregarded books from the Shatnerverse, because that's a completely different continuity from the "Destiny-verse" continuity the VOY Relaunch novels are set in. I also didn't mention Admiral Janeway, who appeared in The Needs of the Many, which is set in the Star Trek Online continuity. Nor the Janeway who appeared in Places of Exile, a Myriad Universes novel set in its own continuity. Etc.
"Season 11?" There's no such thing as a "Season 11 book." There are books set after "Endgame," that's all.
2381? That would be during, had the show continued, Season 11.
But there is no Season Eleven. These are novels, not episodes; it's inappropriate to try to force them into a "season" scheme of organization.
At least with the DS9 novels I can see some justification for the "Season 8" conceit, since those books are picking up the continuous narrative from where the series left off. But "Season 11" makes no sense here, because it's only the second stage of post-finale VGR novels. If such a scheme were used (however inaptly), it would be Season 9. (Seasons aren't always delineated strictly by calendar year. Lost's first several seasons spanned only a few months, 24 often skipped years between seasons, etc.)
Well with the TNG shows the seasons always progressed by calendar year. So with Voyagers final episode being at the end of 2377 and "Homecoming" occurring in 2378, Season 8; 2379 would be Season 9; 2380 would be Season 10 and 2381 is Season 11.
Man, that is just wrong.
Not much happened during seasons 9 and 10 then.
Last edited:
Yes, but, again, a season is just an organizational scheme for television. It's completely inapplicable to novels. There are no "seasons" -- in part because, frankly, the number of years a novel might take place over varies enormously. If I recall correctly, for instance, Full Circle covered from 2379 to 2381, while Unworthy was all in 2381.
That's taking it way too literally. Just because it happened to break down that way in that particular television show, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to slavishly, mechanically equate years with seasons in every possible situation. Book series do not have seasons, they have volumes. They are not television shows, and it's generally not a good idea to treat them as such. There are certain cases where such a metaphor can be marginally defensible, but it serves no purpose with regard to these books. The post-finale Voyager novels do not obey anything remotely resembling a TV-season structure. The first two Christie Golden books cover half a month after "Endgame," then skip a month, then cover the next month after that. The next two books pick up three months later. Then Full Circle picks up six weeks after that and covers the subsequent six weeks, then just touches on a few brief moments in the subsequent two and a quarter years, then shows events during and after Destiny, then finishes up three months after Destiny. Then the next two books cover about a month each after that.
So what are you gonna do? Refer to one book, Full Circle, as "Seasons 8 through 11 inclusive?" It doesn't make any sense, particularly given that most of that gap isn't chronicled at all.
I don't think Janeway's presence or absence should impact the quality of the story Beyer is telling (Okay, I haven't read them, but I just don't see how one character's presence would damage the story being told). It could be just as complex and interesting, and perhaps moreso, with Janeway in the mix.
I haven't liked the Janeway we've seen in the novels, either, but that is because the writers have given us a two-dimensional character. I think she is a complex and interesting person on the screen, despite the uneven writing of her character, and look forward to seeing her written by someone, like Beyer, who is able to handle her better and with more complexity.
I don't think her return would lessen the drama and pain of Full Circle. Those emotions were very real and important. However, Janeway's return would give the writer a chance to explore a whole new set of issues:what happens when someone you thought was gone forever returns? Rather like Odysseus, don't you think?
There is precedent for Janeway's return in the classics!
I am not a fan of Janeway in the series or the novels but am pretty sure Kirsten will do a fine job with her. I'm impressed with her writing - the only way I'd want to see anyone else doing the Voyager novels is if Kirsten was off revitalising the Enterprise line (hint !).
I am concerned that if they do bring Janeway back, handling the situation with Chakotay could be problematic - especially with what he has already been through...
I am concerned that if they do bring Janeway back, handling the situation with Chakotay could be problematic - especially with what he has already been through...
There is precedent for Janeway's return in the classics!
Well, that's the issue, ultimately, I think, for those of us who don't want Janeway to come back: There's too much precedent.
Star Trek, like all action/adventure dramas, is in part predicated on the idea that any moment, these characters could actually die. That the danger they are in is real, and that thus we should take the dangerous situations they are in seriously.
If a character dies and is resurrected, this can be an acceptable break from reality. It can even happen a few times.
But it has happened so many times in Star Trek history that it is now difficult to sustain verisimilitude if it happens again. It's just been done too much.
But is Janeway actually "dead"? How many works of fiction and even nonfiction have characters seemingly dead then returning to find out they weren't actually dead. Picard died and was restored by Q in TNG. Worf died on the operating table in TNG then woke up after such a long period he should have suffered permanent brain damage.
If the Borg Queen was on the cube with Locutus, how did she not die when that cube was destroyed in Earth orbit?
These seeming resurrections didn't destroy your enjoyment or sense of realism with TNG did it?
Apparent miraculous life saving events and people seeming to reappear after being declared dead happens in the present. Why can't it happen in fiction, especially when Peter David, the writer who supposedly killed Janeway, himself said Janeway is not dead and he wrote the ending of Before Dishonor for the purpose of allowing her return?
If the Borg Queen was on the cube with Locutus, how did she not die when that cube was destroyed in Earth orbit?
These seeming resurrections didn't destroy your enjoyment or sense of realism with TNG did it?
Apparent miraculous life saving events and people seeming to reappear after being declared dead happens in the present. Why can't it happen in fiction, especially when Peter David, the writer who supposedly killed Janeway, himself said Janeway is not dead and he wrote the ending of Before Dishonor for the purpose of allowing her return?
There is precedent for Janeway's return in the classics!
But it has happened so many times in Star Trek history that it is now difficult to sustain verisimilitude if it happens again. It's just been done too much.
Well it hasn't really been done for a woman in toto (Yar in Yesterday's Enterprise was AU, and then she apparently died again, so doesn't compare with all the Trek males returning, and for Dax it was the symbiont returning per Trill tradition, not Jadzia), so it seems about time they might try bringing a female fairly completely back, especially for the lead character of a TV series, and the only Trek woman lead captain, someone pretty important, I would think.
Individually, no. Again, it's the cumulative result of so many resurrections over the course of so many years.
ETA:
There is precedent for Janeway's return in the classics!
But it has happened so many times in Star Trek history that it is now difficult to sustain verisimilitude if it happens again. It's just been done too much.
Well it hasn't really been done for a woman in toto (Yar in Yesterday's Enterprise was AU, and then she apparently died again, so doesn't compare with all the Trek males returning, and for Dax it was the symbiont returning per Trill tradition, not Jadzia), so it seems about time they might try bringing a female fairly completely back, especially for the lead character of a TV series, and the only Trek woman lead captain, someone pretty important, I would think.
Bringing up the question of equal treatment of the sexes when it comes to death and resurrection is fair, but I think the greater percentage of male characters returning from the dead is a function of Trek having had more male characters die than female characters. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Yar, Jadzia, and Janeway. And, arguably, Yar and Jadzia have been been undermined by "partial" resurrections, introductions of new characters to whom the audience has the same or similar attachments -- Yar may be dead, but Denise Crosby came back as Sela multiple times; Jadzia may be gone, but Ezri, Dax's new host showed up immediately thereafter.
I think that maintaining verisimilitude by not bringing any more dead characters back is more important, and that gender equality should be pursued by how the fiction depicts the characters who are alive.
I think if you take the amount of resurrections compared to dead as a doornail forever and ever and ever, the number of "resurrections" is fairly small comparitively, especially if you consider red shirts.
Then compare number of resurrections to other sci fi genres and Trek has been very conservative. I for one am tired of how many times the Daleks, Cybermen, and the Master are dead-dead for good, not coming back and yet DO in Doctor Who!!! But then, I'm just being timey-whimy.
Then compare number of resurrections to other sci fi genres and Trek has been very conservative. I for one am tired of how many times the Daleks, Cybermen, and the Master are dead-dead for good, not coming back and yet DO in Doctor Who!!! But then, I'm just being timey-whimy.
But most redshirts aren't characters, they're plot devices.
I think it's important for major characters who die, like Janeway, to stay dead. I'd argue just as strenuously against Duffy or Data coming back (and in fact, I have).
Well, yeah, but Doctor Who's attitude towards verisimilitude is basically to take it out back and beat it with a two-by-four until it loses consciousness.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeey! Henchmen and plot devices have mothers, too.
