Disgruntled Janeway fans: try a carrot

[donners22]

Or is she still like a 21st century working woman, married to her command and her command alone?

Like Picard, Archer and to some extent Kirk (who never found happiness with family, and always returned to his command) - three of the four other major Trek captains?

I posted that the show's Janeway was handled in a misogynistic fashion. Has she been allowed to have a relationship, family, children, all the trappings of being a woman AND the full breadth of her captaincy before her death? Is she allowed to have it all the way I would hope one woman in the 24th century would be given a chance to?

Who's to say Janeway wanted that. I work for a woman who is the smartest, most successful and most inspiring person I have ever met. She is not married, and does not have children. Should I think that she is a lesser person because of that?

 

[Hoshi_Mayweather]

There's a subgenre of fan fiction involving Kirk in a sexual relationship with Spock, B'Elanna as a dominatrix and so forth. I wouldn't want that to appear in published books - though the latter already has.

And why is it that your desire to not see that takes presedence over theirs.

We are all Trek fans in the end.

Brit

Indeed we all are. I very rarely buy Trek books these days, because I don't like the direction they've taken. It's because I'm a fan that I get so angry about that, but there's nothing I can do to change it.

I'm sure it is very frustrating for Janeway fans to be denied the chance to have their favourite character explored and developed in the relaunch. I was certainly outraged at the treatment of Tucker in the Enterprise finale, and was glad to see the books try to set things straight.

It's interesting you bring up Tucker.

And, to correlate with the Janeway discussion:

I can say that the people writing ENT were racists.

They pushed Anthony Montgomery in the background because they didn't want to see a black male character be developed.

At the same time, they pushed Linda Park in the background as well. You can even say that she was poised to be the stereotypical Asian girl who gets saved by the white hero, and at the same time falls for said hero.

Moreover, Star Trek seems to have an 'aversion' to black/Asian relationships...(hinted slightly in TOS) but not really touched upon.

Asian males are not really seen in Trek (if they are, they're weak); Asian females are like Linda Park above (Keiko O'Brien, Alyssa Ogawa). Black females also seem to be sparse...

TrekLit hasn't really made any improvements on those aspects;and yes, the reason I'm focusing on black/Asian relationships is because I'm in a relationship...not that it should be important.

Some African-Americans probably said that 'killing off' Sisko was racist, as they surely would not kill off Picard.

Furthermore, Trek still has not had a major homosexual character onscreen...so were the Trek writers homophobic? (The Beverly Crusher episode, 'The Host' comes to mind).

To be fair, there has been some homosexual characters in Treklit.

My point being, you can call out racism, sexism, or --ism on anything in Trek. Now, whether or not it's true...

 

[Monty]

Or is she still like a 21st century working woman, married to her command and her command alone?

Like Picard, Archer and to some extent Kirk (who never found happiness with family, and always returned to his command) - three of the four other major Trek captains?

Picard had a relationship with Crusher. Kirk had children and marriages. Just tell me where Janeway was afforded the same. She can be just as dysfunctional. Just give me evidence.

 

[Monty]

Who's to say Janeway wanted that. I work for a woman who is the smartest, most successful and most inspiring person I have ever met. She is not married, and does not have children. Should I think that she is a lesser person because of that?

Did I say she was? Straw Man again. Feminism is about having the full breadth of choices. Show me where she cogitated on those choices in the books and decided she didn't want family. She's a living, breathing human being. I think Janeway would want a relationship at least. Did she have one?

 

[Thrawn]

I don't think I'm smarter than anyone, but I don't think your typing hands are any cleaner than mine when it comes to insults.

You know what, that's fair, and I apologize. Let's move on from here more respectfully?

I posted that the show's Janeway was handled in a misogynistic fashion. Has she been allowed to have a relationship, family, children, all the trappings of being a woman AND the full breadth of her captaincy before her death? Is she allowed to have it all the way I would hope one woman in the 24th century would be given a chance to? Or is she still like a 21st century working woman, married to her command and her command alone?

If you can tell me that she's had this and what book it's chronicled in, I'd gladly read it. I know it's pittance to SOME readers, but part of futuristic feminism I'd like to see is allowing a woman all the choices a man has without the sacrificial imbalances inherent at present.

I see where you're coming from here. I still disagree, but I see the argument.

On the other hand, though, there are just as many men that have never found relationships. On the same show, even on TV, both of the other strong female characters did find relationships.

And in the novels, this kind of thing has been explored more than you think, though admittedly with different characters. One of the new characters on the Enterprise-E, the woman that replaces Data, has a family back home on Cestus III that she maintains even while away and having her career.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me just ask - is there any particular reason that it'd be more important for Janeway specifically to experience developments like that?

 

[Monty]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me just ask - is there any particular reason that it'd be more important for Janeway specifically to experience developments like that?

I really do appreciate you trying to turn me on to the books, and I can see where your heart is. But Janeway has a mass following that began on television. There is no bigger audience from which to start from. And that is the character I like. The way she was drawn from the beginning. And I most identify with her. So my preference is entirely personal and cannot be swayed. And people like me (who have posted here, btw), feel the same. And we have a right to prefer her over any other character. Period.

Female fans and fans of female characters are just as loyal to Trek as you are. Not you specifically, Thrawn, but to those who have already left the mess of this thread for you to try to defend. And I do appreciate you trying.

 

[Thrawn]

Yes, but the difference there is one of personal preference, and one that I do by the way completely understand. I've said from the beginning that if you genuinely don't want to read books without Janeway in them that I respect that opinion.

I'm just making sure you don't feel as though it's misogyny for the books to not have put her specifically through those kind of plots. Personal preference is one thing; accusations of sexism are another entirely. Fair enough?

 

[Monty]

It's the 24th century. The most famous female Starfleet captain's entire breadth of choices was never explored before she died. This is what my daughters and granddaughters and great granddaughters have to look forward to? Sci-fi gives you the opportunity to go where no man goes before, but does it really eradicate misogynism - going where no woman has gone before?

The word 'misogyny' seems to give you such a visceral reaction, you can't see between the letters. Why do you care if I see the lack of choices within the fandom as sexist? We're not calling you sexist; why do you feel the need to defend it? The producers of the original show had issues with having a female captain, not you. And some posters on this board have issues with female captains, not you. And the way that this was handled in the books speaks to sexism that you may not have been aware of (because it's an error of omission and neglect, rather than overt behavior), not you.

 

[Thrawn]

Well, I could say what are the odds of your great granddaughters being among the few hundred out of a population of trillions that commanded a starship, since apparently all the other female characters are doing just fine, but I admit it would be cheeky.

And it's not a visceral reaction; I'm just disagreeing with you. I don't think Janeway's death is sexist. I don't see that you have any evidence that it is.

If you're curious, the reason Janeway and Chakotay never had a relationship (though it was hinted at at least as much as Picard and Crusher's, by the way) is given in the short story Isabo's Shirt in the Distant Shores anthology; I haven't read it myself, it's on my list, but the issue was addressed.

And in the books, she simply didn't have the time to do any of those things before this particular creative decision was made. It wasn't that they killed her because they didn't want to explore those options; clearly, they've explored those options many times on other characters, it was something they were quite comfortable with. They just felt it was a better story this way. (I should also add that both the person responsible for making that decision and the person writing the follow-up novel are women.)

Where do you see sexism here?

Even on the show I'd say it was more incompetence than anything else, but I haven't watched all of it, so I can't really argue with you there.

 

[Ktrek]

I have been a fan of Star Trek since it first aired in 1966. I have watched every series as they came on television. I have watched VOY in entirety several times. I own the VOY DVDs and I own every VOY novel. My wife is also a huge fan of VOY but neither of us are bothered by Janeway's death. And it's not because we don't like the character of Janeway. I think at times that Kate Mulgrew was the wrong person to play Janeway but you can't change 7 years of television history. My biggest problem with Mulgrew is that she quite often didn't come off naturally, but that is another topic for the VOY board.

The character of Janeway was often poorly written too and she contradicted herself. One minute she upholds the prime directive and the next she writes her own rules as she goes along, and she did. Misogyny had nothing to do with the poorer ratings of VOY nor the consistently bad reviews of episodes by fans. It was frustrating to see a show that had so much potential not live up to it. Even so the show had it's bright moments and fine characters too. I have to say that the numbered books in the VOY series are not some of the best Trek books ever written. I had high hopes that the post finale books (please quit calling them relaunch!) would change things for the better and to some degree, at least for me, they did.

It's to be expected that once the ship was back home things would never be the same. To try and keep the band together just for old time sake would not have worked. I fully understand the editors trying to find viable ways to move the story forward. After all the show was called Star Trek:Voyager and NOT Star Trek: Janeway or Janeway/Chakotay or anything else. It is named after a ship and a ship that naturally would go through changes in personnel as crew members moved on to other assignments, retired, were killed in the line of duty or whatever. Yes for 7 years Voyager's stories mainly revolved around the 7 main crew members. Would it be reasonable to expect them to all stay together once Voyager returned home? Of course not!

I said all that to say that the Voyager story continues because it is a story about a ship with a crew and that crew is now in flux and realistically could remain in flux. Chakotay could be court martialed or even promoted to a different ship and another character becomes captain. Should Chakotay fans scream loud that there favorite character is no longer captain?

Janeway officially was promoted to Admiral on screen. The writers had to deal with that aspect of canon. Personally I feel the best thing for the Janeway character would have been for that not to have happened and left her as Captain when the ship got back. She could have been reassigned with new crew members and gone forward but that didn't happen unfortunately.

Thus the editors and writers have to take what is given to them and when you look at their track record in recent years they have done pretty well. Even though I personally would not have killed off Janeway I am not in a position to judge that it was a wrong decision. Perhaps Peter David was not the best choice for that assignment but the fact remains that like it or not in Before Dishonor Janeway was killed. To push the reset button just because a few fans who write fanfic and rarely, if ever, buy and read the books make a little noise on an insignificant message board would be wrong. Janeway will probably return someday, but it won't be until there is a story so good and worth telling that they must.

In the interim, while I await the return of Janeway, I am not going to insult the authors and editors for the direction they have chosen. It was not mine to make. Nor will I accuse Margaret Clark of being a misogynist, or of hating Janeway or any other demeaning thing. I do not know Margaret and thus cannot determine her motives outside of what she has said. If the editors and writers believe that they can move the story forward and tell some really good stories without Janeway then I am fine with that.

I suppose some of the Janewayites would be OK with Janeway being "alive" but not having any significant role in the Voyager books? I have a feeling that even if they kept her alive, and had her just making token appearances in the books, you would be just as upset as by her death. Not every fan will like a direction that is taken in the books, but many fans will. If you don't want to buy the books fine; because it seems the most of you were already NOT buying them anyway. Thus your boycott says nothing. Your posts here say nothing other than to give members like me a chuckle several times a day! I even wrote a PM to Rosalind, one of the mods here, when the Janeway died thread closed and asked her to reopen it because it was just so much fun for three weeks coming to read that one thread. Fans who go to extremes always make me think of religious fanatacism. I think fanaticism is a danger in fandom, politics, religion, or anywhere. Life should be balanced and I think getting so wound up about the death of a "fictional" character is going too far.

Anyway, I know I have rambled on here but not all Janeway fans are upset by her death as some posting here are, or at least seem to be. I being one who is looking forward to seeing how Kirsten Beyer will do with what has been handed her. She has a huge task and a lot of expectations to live up to.

My posting here should not have to be qualified with "these are MY opinions" but it seems that some people need to hear you say it anyway, even if this is a message board!

Kevin

 

[Monty]

Okay. Here's why I'm done. I never called out a single author by name or profession, nor did I call out editors as misogynistic. You need to check your own fanaticism at the door, Kev. I said that the lack of choices is sexist. I don't know who makes the ultimate call in how a character is treated and I don't pretend to know. I know it takes quite a bit of politicking to make a creative choice, however.

The fact that you can't see that is why I'm going to bed.

 

[Thrawn]

I don't think he was actually talking to you.

But for the record, essentially all the decisions in this case were made by women - the editor, the licensor at Paramount, and the writer of the upcoming Voyager novel.

 

[Ktrek]

Okay. Here's why I'm done. I never called out a single author by name or profession, nor did I call out editors as misogynistic. You need to check your own fanaticism at the door, Kev. I said that the lack of choices is sexist. I don't know who makes the ultimate call in how a character is treated and I don't pretend to know. I know it takes quite a bit of politicking to make a creative choice, however.

The fact that you can't see that is why I'm going to bed.

Then how can you even determine that the death of Janeway was sexist? You have no grounds on which to make that claim and for your information the decision makers for the projects were women. Peter David did not kill Janeway off because he wanted to. He was asked to do it! Margaret Clark is a female who was the editor, Paula Block authorizes at CBS/Paramount and Kirsten Beyers has been tasked with carrying the story forward. If sexism is the reason then I guess it should have been left in the hands of men because by your estimation women apparently are not capable of handling the property properly!

Kevin

 

[KRAD]

Something I just want to throw out here -- not sure why, since every other post I've made in these assorted Janeway threads (there are, what, fifty of them now?) has been resolutely ignored, but I live the life of a cockeyed optimist -- is that, since Voyager went off the air, the Voyager character who has appeared in the most novels is, in fact, Kathryn Janeway.

1. Gateways: No Man's Land by Christie Golden
2. Star Trek Nemesis by J.M. Dillard
3. The Nanotech War by Steven Piziks
4. The Brave and the Bold Book 2 by Keith R.A. DeCandido
5. Homecoming by Christie Golden
6. The Farther Shore by Christie Golden
7. Deny Thy Father by Jeff Mariotte
8. A Time to Love by Robert Greenberger
9. A Time to Hate by Robert Greenberger
10. A Time to Kill by David Mack
11. A Time to Heal by David Mack
12. A Time for War, a Time for Peace by Keith R.A. DeCandido
13. Old Wounds by Christie Golden
14. Enemy of My Enemy by Christie Golden
15. Death in Winter by Michael Jan Friedman
16. String Theory: Cohesion by Jeffrey Lang
17. String Theory: Fusion by Kirsten Beyer
18. String Theory: Evolution by Heather Jarman
19. Articles of the Federation by Keith R.A. DeCandido
20. The Mirror-Scaled Serpent by Keith R.A. DeCandido (Mirror Universe: Obsidian Alliances)
21. The Buried Age by Christopher L. Bennett
22. Resistance by J.M. Dillard
23. Q & A by Keith R.A. DeCandido
24. Before Dishonor by Peter David
25. Places of Exile by Christopher L. Bennett (Myriad Universes: Infinity's Prism)
26. A Gutted World by Keith R.A. DeCandido (Myriad Universes: Echoes and Refractions)
27. Full Circle by Kirsten Beyer

I didn't count short-story anthologies, so Strange New Worlds, What Lay Beyond, and Distant Shores were left out (though I believe Janeway is the character who appears in DS the most).

Here's how the others rank after Janeway's 27:

20: Tuvok (#1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 27, along with The Sundered, Catalyst of Sorrows, Gods of Night, Mere Mortals, Lost Souls, and Over a Torrent Sea)

16: Seven of Nine (#1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, and 27, as well as Gods of Night, Mere Mortals, and Lost Souls).

15: Chakotay (#1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, and 27, along with Mere Mortals).

15: Kim (#1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, and 27 along with Gods of Night and Mere Mortals).

13: Paris (#1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 27, along with Gods of Night and Mere Mortals).

13: Torres (#1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 27).

12: The Doctor (#1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, and 27).

8: Neelix (#1, 3, 6, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 25).

3: Kes (#18, 20, and 25).


Janeway has actually gotten the most exposure out of any of Voyager's regulars, with only Tuvok coming close, and his greater exposure is mainly due to a) his use in Titan and b) his presence in flashback stories thanks to his greater age.

Just thought I'd point that out.....

 

[Thrawn]

Apparently, KRAD, they don't count because either they weren't branded Voyager, she wasn't allowed to have a family, or her character was reduced in complexity for dastardly reasons, depending on who else in this thread you ask.

 

[Therin of Andor]

And there is no such rule, "consider your audience". Whatever writing instructor told you that is full of shit.

In Australian schools, we teach students (Kinder to Year 12) to deconstruct writing they find around them, and analyse how the author used a variety of skills and strategies to convey his or her message, and certainly "consideration of targeted audience" is an oft-mentioned useful strategy. Was the author trying to persuade, analyse, discuss, evaluate, describe, etc.? What does her or she know about the potential target audience that mind aid him or her to persuade, analyse, discuss, evaluate or describe. We highlight to students the "social power" of language.

But this is usually used for non fiction writing. When it comes to fiction, the author is very often writing for himself, or herself, and if others happen find the work of interest it may have commercial value and, of course, then readers may attribute all manner of meanings to the work, which the author may never have considered. But it helps to know the conventions of genre that will lead one's audience to expect certain things to unfold in a story. So, yes, audience is still a consideration.

Or perhaps Australian teachers are full of shit.

 

[Therin of Andor]

My posting here should not have to be qualified with "these are MY opinions" but it seems that some people need to hear you say it anyway, even if this is a message board!

It's been on my sig for about 18 months because I was told, on Psi Phi, that being a regular poster meant people might assume my "knowledge" was coming from official sources, and thus I should indicate that I'm never speaking on behalf of Pocket or Paramount/CBS.

 

[donners22]

Didn't realise you were a teacher. At least, since you are Sydney-based, I can't blame you for the terrible 2001 VCE Literature exam questions.

 

[Defcon]

My posting here should not have to be qualified with "these are MY opinions" but it seems that some people need to hear you say it anyway, even if this is a message board!

It's been on my sig for about 18 months because I was told, on Psi Phi, that being a regular poster meant people might assume my "knowledge" was coming from official sources, and thus I should indicate that I'm never speaking on behalf of Pocket or Paramount/CBS.

As one of the people responsible for your disclaimer I have to clarify this: That had nothing to do with you being a regular poster on the various TrekLit related boards and actually you were told that you're way of phrasing often seems/seemed to indicate that what you post is a fact rather than your personal opinion.

 

[Therin of Andor]

As one of the people responsible for your disclaimer I have to clarify this: That had nothing to do with you being a regular poster on the various TrekLit related boards

I disagree. Christopher Bennett told me that, as I was a respected regular on Psi Phi, I owed it to visiting posters to make sure that no one thought I was speaking for Pocket Books.

Despite numerous attempts, over many months, I was never able to achieve a clarity of sentence that met that aim.