I've been very clear about what difference I think it made. Certainly just whining a whole lot may have achieved the same level of attention as far as internet discussion but the word "boycott" is a useful focal point and a useful rallying cry.
First off, I don't think that "whining" is a fair characterization for discussing one's opinions on a public forum. After all, that's exactly what you're doing right here, so clearly you think it's a worthwhile endeavor in its own right. Do you consider what you're doing now to be "whining?" If not, why is discussing the content of the books any different?
Second, I think that if "boycott" was a focal point, it was in a negative way. There were other ways of rallying interest and attention. Remember the "NOT. DEAD." meme generated and proliferated by protestors of Trip Tucker's death? Boycott is far from the only form of protest.
One problem with these discussions, and I will probably piss someone off here, is that both sides of the discussion have had posts that cross lines and are either very rude or make accusations that could be seen as and may be false. Both sides can then focus on that and lump everyone into these categories.. I am a crazy BBKJ woman who accuses Pocket Books of conspiracies and you are a rude asshole who vents his anti KJ spleen in these threads. I don't think either of these things are true and I'm at times a bit bemused to find people responding to me as though I said every single thing that's been said on the topic personally.
That's a fair point. The extremists in any argument do have a way of dominating and co-opting it, and making people on the other side think that the extreme position is the only one.
But I have to say, from where I stood, it was pretty clear that the BBJ extremists were the ones who first escalated to the point of namecalling and dishonest or grossly misguided allegations. And I think a comment someone made earlier may reveal why. They said something about Janeway having been under attack from the very beginning of the series, and I do know there's truth to that; there was some vicious, very sexist hostility directed against the character from the start. So it's possible that longtime Janeway fans have been fighting against that kind of aggressive negativity for a long time.
But here's the thing: if you get into the habit of fighting, you can forget that not everyone is trying to fight you. And so if you assume someone is hostile when they really aren't, and you strike in what you perceive to be self-defense, then you're actually the attacker. I think maybe that's what happened here -- that Janeway fans so hardened by their battles against the sexist Janeway-bashers over the years saw the unrelated story decision to kill off Janeway as part of that same conflict, and reacted with their habitual force, which seemed like a bewildering and unprovoked attack from the perspective of the Pocket fan community, since we haven't been part of those past struggles. And when we reacted in what we perceived as self-defense (and defense of Pocket's editors and writers), the BBJ side again saw that as more of the ongoing attack and dug down further into the trenches, perceiving themselves as being under seige, when from our perspective, they were the ones who started it.
There's a lesson there. All too often, a conflict is neither side's fault, or both sides', as they both assume they're the ones on the defensive and the other guys are the attackers. So sometimes it's important just to step back and stop fighting -- or at least to question one's own assumptions and try to make sure there's really something to fight over.
Why is it sad that my reading taste has resulted in my choosing to not buy a book without a character?
Because those of us who've been reading Kirsten's books all along have found them to be among the best
Voyager prose fiction ever written, and some of the best Trek fiction to come along in recent years, so we're sad for you in an empathetic way, because we feel you've been depriving yourself of something very enjoyable. Granted, the books were without one particular character you liked, but there were plenty of other things to enjoy in the books. Okay, maybe if you did read them, you wouldn't have shared our fondness, but maybe you would have, and in that case you would've been missing out on something you would've really liked. And it's natural to feel sad upon seeing someone else deprived of something positive. It's not "sad" in the sense of "you're a pathetic loser," but in the sense of, "ohh, it's a shame you're missing out on something this cool."
