Janeway Died? In Which Book?

[Claudia]

And, yes, I count the possibility of death as a good thing. Why?

Because most of these stories are action stories. They're predicated upon the threat of imminent death. But if we know that there is never any possibility of the characters dying, then that undercuts the foundation of the stories' dramatic tension.

Why? There are other, sometimes more traumatic consequences to events than death. IMO sometimes a character death is actually easier to write about, because it's permanent (at least mostly *g*), than having the character face life-altering facts and decisions - and having the other characters deal with those as well... because it's rather rare that a death actually affects the characters for longer than perhaps the book it happens and the following volume. But then it's dealt with and never to be spoken of again.

I'm not even talking about physical handicaps as "consequence", I'd say emotional trauma's quite enough to deal with... and often has as limiting and debilitating effects.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

To tell the truth, if I want to read a Voyager book for example, then I want to read about Janeway, Chakotay, Kes, Tuvok and the other main characters, not stories where half of them are missing and replaced by lame replacements.

And please don't describe annihilation of good character as some sort of"greater good" for the whole Star Trek. That expression makes me wanna puke.

You have a valid perspective Lynx. I would like to see more books set within the series and not just relaunch, though they would be on the bottom of my reading pile as I'm a relaunch fan. Still I think there is something comforting in being able to read the new adventures set in the familiar time frame with (as yet) unkilled characters. I would think there would be a market for these books still to be written.

There is a conflict between the need to revisit what one loved about a series and to move forward in the time line.

As to Janeway.. a successful death of one of my most loved characters should have made me weep. Instead it just made me angry, tagged onto a badly written book that failed to engage me in any way.

Her death was incredibly stupid.

Had I wept, I would not be complaining. I would be satisfied.

 

[Sci]

And, yes, I count the possibility of death as a good thing. Why?

Because most of these stories are action stories. They're predicated upon the threat of imminent death. But if we know that there is never any possibility of the characters dying, then that undercuts the foundation of the stories' dramatic tension.

Why? There are other, sometimes more traumatic consequences to events than death.

Sure. But if your fundamental premise is built on the threat of imminent death, if the imminent death is a false threat, then the whole thing is undermined. What you're describing is a worth-while story -- if its fundamental premise is built on the threat of non-fatal trauma.

IMO sometimes a character death is actually easier to write about,

I can think of nothing as painful to read as a well-written death scene, and I can't imagine that a good writer will find it easy if they're doing their job, either. Example: Kierran Duffy's death in Wildfire.

 

[Christopher]

But if Janeway's death will be accepted as some sort of "book-canon" and therefore affect upcoming Star Trek books, no matter if it's TNG books, DS9 books, Voyager books, Titan books or New Frontier books, then I'm definitely through with all "official" Star Trek literature.

Why? Because I see it as the final straw in a long run of dissapointing character destruction (Kes, Kirk, Data, Janeway), I'm sick and tired of it and I don't want anything to do with it....

If the latest fashion in Star Trek is to kill off and destroy beloved characters, then Star Trek should close the shop right now because the current policy will lead to a slow death for Star Trek anyway.

You continue to make assumptions that are not only logically absurd, but insulting to the writers and editors. There is no "fashion" to kill off characters. There is no "fashion" to do anything except try to tell the best story in each particular case. What happens to a given character in one series is based on the needs of that series and that character, not something as stupid and petty as "fashion." Have you forgotten that the same editor who decided to kill Janeway also decided to resurrect Trip Tucker?

Instead of expressing your own dislike for the decision in a reasonable way, you insist on undermining yourself with these thoroughly unreasonable arguments like "Every fan in the universe shares my personal tastes" or "If I don't like something in a book, it's because the people in charge of Trek literature have corrupt and petty motives." You're entitled to disagree with a creative decision, but you're handling that disagreement in a very immature way that's also very rude.

If I should be able to keep up any interest in Star Trek in the future, then I will stick to fan fiction and nothing else.

Fine. Go read fan fiction and insult them for their petty motives whenever they make a creative decision you don't agree with. I'm sure they'll let you know just how much they appreciate it.

I still have a feeling that angering the Janeway fans is a big mistake. They are many and they are very protective about their favorite.

I'm always hearing this from the same two or three people, that somehow they represent some massive, angry grassroots movement that we offend at our peril. What do you guys think you are, a militant cult? Do you study in madrassas or something? Drop the melodrama. You're a few individual people who have your own personal tastes, and you don't represent some holy crusade. At most, you're a small group of people who make noise on the Internet. What are you going to do if we "anger" you? You're going to continue making noise on the Internet. That's all you can do. Sure, you can stop buying the books, but that will make no statistical difference in overall sales. Sure, you can urge others to boycott the books, but they won't listen to you any more than they do now.

So all you'll accomplish with this righteous anger is... making yourself angry. Consider the cost-benefit analysis of that for a while.

Of course, my comments aren't directed against fans in general. All fans are entitled to their own tastes and opinions, and entitled to express those opinions. And nobody has to read any books they don't want to. But Star Trek is vast and diverse and so are the interests of its fanbase. In the spirit of IDIC, we should be able to express and stay true to our own individual preferences without acting like they make us some mighty force that all others must fear offending.

 

[kimc]

If you decide to not buy anymore Star Trek books because of this then fine. You are only one and I think that if a scientific survey could be conducted you would be found to be in the minority. Not the minority of those who care whether Janeway is dead but the minority of those who willfully choose to abandon the Trek line when they still have viable and interesting stories to tell. Do what you think you have to but be assured that the MAJORITY of us are still standing with Pocket Books and willing to see where the ride will take us. We wish you would come along but if you won't then you won't. Nobody is forcing you to spend that $7.99 a month after all!

Kevin

If the books are doing so well then why doesn't Barnes and Noble carry more of them? I remember when you used to be able to walk into a store and have 3-5 shelves full of books from all the shows. I went in the other day and took a look and there was barely a shelf.

I have to wonder if killing Janeway was an editorial act of desperation.

 

[Claudia]

Why? There are other, sometimes more traumatic consequences to events than death.

Sure. But if your fundamental premise is built on the threat of imminent death, if the imminent death is a false threat, then the whole thing is undermined. What you're describing is a worth-while story -- if its fundamental premise is built on the threat of non-fatal trauma.

I beg to differ. Honestly, I want to see characters grow - and they rather stop growing when they die. I'm not opposed to having my favourite characters killed of, but not in a way that it's just another plot device to advance the story (and/or attract new readers). The story should serve to advance the characters, not the other way around.

Not to mention that you can build story-arcs around such premises as trauma/handicaps/other longer-lasting effects... which you can't around a simple and effectful death. There's no character left to build an arc around, after all.

IMO sometimes a character death is actually easier to write about,

I can think of nothing as painful to read as a well-written death scene, and I can't imagine that a good writer will find it easy if they're doing their job, either. Example: Kierran Duffy's death in Wildfire.

I don't know Wildfire yet and Duffy only from the first 8 e-books (but thx for spoiling me ) - but I think you misunderstood my meaning of "easier".

Easier as in hard fact, easier as in "you no longer have to deal with the character him/herself", easier as in "once you're done with the other characters' reactions you can go back to business as usual".

And so far I haven't yet read a "good" and "necessary" character death. I think it's quite interesting that killing off main protagonists in a TV-series itself is considered a waste of time/energy/opportunities - more like it's the fault of the writers/TPTB that they found no other use in a character than to kill him... in lit apparently, the standards are quite different.

(And I'm not only talking about TrekLit here.)

 

[Christopher]

If the books are doing so well then why doesn't Barnes and Noble carry more of them?

Because ST fans were among the first adopters of online book purchasing. So many are buying their books over the Internet that there isn't as much demand for them in brick-and-mortar stores.

Also because popularity is cyclical. ST is less prominent in the public mind today, so sales have probably fallen below their former peaks. But they're still robust enough to support a line of 12 MMPBs and various additional books per year, which is a level of activity surpassing any other tie-in franchise except maybe Star Wars and Doctor Who. Remember, for most of the '80s, Pocket published only half a dozen Trek novels per year, and it was considered successful then.

Besides, the economy as a whole is doing poorly these days, and it's hurting sales across the board. I've heard talk that the whole Borders bookstore chain may go out of business. So lack of Trek books in a physical bookstore may be due to factors that have nothing to do with the sales of Trek books per se.

 

[kimc]

Because ST fans were among the first adopters of online book purchasing. So many are buying their books over the Internet that there isn't as much demand for them in brick-and-mortar stores.

That's probably true. At the risk of revealing my age though I can remember when books like "Spock's World" would cross over into the mainstream. Sure, Trek fans will continue to order books online but I'm wondering how any Trek book can gain much critical notice if it doesn't get much "brick and mortor" exposure.

Still, if the franchise is making it's expected profit margin with mainly online sales from Trek fans then it's a nice predictable income stream for the publisher.

 

[Thrawn]

The story should serve to advance the characters, not the other way around.

This just cracks me up. Why on Earth do you think that Janeway WAS killed off? Specifically stated by the editors, to give the other characters more possibilities to advance! The story IS advancing the characters, all of them but one. If one character needs to die to really change the lives of 8 or 9 others, then that's a valid trade-off, no?

Also: across all the different TV series, there have been about 40 main characters. In TrekLit, one has been killed, and one resurrected. Seems like we have a pretty solid record here! Killing main characters isn't any kind of trend, this was a difficult decision made to create more character opportunities.

And Lynx, you've stated your personal preferences very clearly, but for the record, I never finished watching the Voyager TV show, and Full Circle sounds really exciting. I never finished Enterprise, and the Enterprise relaunch I find charming. I never finished Deep Space Nine, and the DS9 Relaunch is easily some of the finest reading I've ever experienced. I find the new characters to be substantially more interesting than the old ones, in many cases.

And I don't understand why your ability to appreciate a character is bound to whether or not they happened to appear on your TV screen. Seems a little... prejudiced, in a weird way, doesn't it?

 

[Claudia]

The story should serve to advance the characters, not the other way around.

This just cracks me up. Why on Earth do you think that Janeway WAS killed off? Specifically stated by the editors, to give the other characters more possibilities to advance! The story IS advancing the characters, all of them but one. If one character needs to die to really change the lives of 8 or 9 others, then that's a valid trade-off, no?

Also: across all the different TV series, there have been about 40 main characters. In TrekLit, one has been killed, and one resurrected. Seems like we have a pretty solid record here! Killing main characters isn't any kind of trend, this was a difficult decision made to create more character opportunities.

Sorry, but it's *your* comment that cracks *me* up.

I mean, since when does one character need to die to advance all the others? I'm definitely no fan of Janeway's, and her death doesn't move me either way... but since when's she less important than any other Trek-captain... or a certain chief engineer without whom apparently a whole relaunch-series couldn't be conceived?

I respect editorial decisions, but that doesn't mean I like them. And actually, in this case I even don't agree with them. Granted, she was an admiral - but did she ever have to face the consequences of her sometimes less than Starfleet-worthy decisions? I'd love to have read about that. The Homecoming-duology didn't offer me that. And I'd say just being promoted doesn't necessarily mean, there're no longer any stories left to tell.

And just to turn your argument even more absurd: Why not let every known ST-character die? There are billions+ of characters (meaning the whole universe's inhabitants) out there for whom this could create opportunities, such as career-advancement etc.

 

[JD]

The story should serve to advance the characters, not the other way around.

This just cracks me up. Why on Earth do you think that Janeway WAS killed off? Specifically stated by the editors, to give the other characters more possibilities to advance! The story IS advancing the characters, all of them but one. If one character needs to die to really change the lives of 8 or 9 others, then that's a valid trade-off, no?

Also: across all the different TV series, there have been about 40 main characters. In TrekLit, one has been killed, and one resurrected. Seems like we have a pretty solid record here! Killing main characters isn't any kind of trend, this was a difficult decision made to create more character opportunities.

Sorry, but it's *your* comment that cracks *me* up.

I mean, since when does one character need to die to advance all the others? I'm definitely no fan of Janeway's, and her death doesn't move me either way... but since when's she less important than any other Trek-captain... or a certain chief engineer without whom apparently a whole relaunch-series couldn't be conceived?

I respect editorial decisions, but that doesn't mean I like them. And actually, in this case I even don't agree with them. Granted, she was an admiral - but did she ever have to face the consequences of her sometimes less than Starfleet-worthy decisions? I'd love to have read about that. The Homecoming-duology didn't offer me that. And I'd say just being promoted doesn't necessarily mean, there're no longer any stories left to tell.

And just to turn your argument even more absurd: Why not let every known ST-character die? There are billions+ of characters (meaning the whole universe's inhabitants) out there for whom this could create opportunities, such as career-advancement etc.

Killing off Janeway will do alot to advance the other characters. Seeing the other characters, especially Chakotay and Seven, will be some major new character development, and I'm pretty sure it will have a big impact on those two characters, and all of the others probably. I mean we are talking about the woman Chakotay loved, and who helped Seven become human. She was also the Captain who lead the crew home, and I can guarentee her death will change alot of things for the other characters too.

Personally, I actually have no strong feelings about Janeway being killed either way. Sure I'm disapointed that she's gone, but at the same time I'm very curious to see where things are going to go from here.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

SCI wrote:

Hmm.

Let's see.

During its run, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine consisted of the following principal characters:

* Benjamin Sisko
* Jake Sisko
* Odo
* Jadzia Dax
* Ezri Dax
* Worf, Son of Mogh
* Julian Bashir
* Miles O'Brien
* Quark
* Kira Nerys

Of these, the following characters have been absent from the majority of post-finale DS9 novels:

* Odo
* Jadzia Dax
* Worf, Son of Mogh
* Miles O'Brien
* Benjamin Sisko
* Jake Sisko

6 out of the original ten have not been in most DS9 Relaunch novels. Even if we eliminate Jadzia from consideration, that brings us to 5 of the original nine. That's a full 55.55% of the original DS9 cast that has not been featured in most DS9 Relaunch novels (Sisko being absent until Unity, Jake absent from Section 31: Abyss until Rising Son, Worf appearing only in The Left Hand of Destiny, Books I & II and cameoing in Unity, O'Brien appearing only in Unity and Cardassia: The Lotus Flower, Odo appearing only in Rising Son, Unity, and The Dominion: Olympus Descending).

I say this without having yet read Fearful Symmetry, I should note.

Most were replaced by new characters or familiar recurring characters given new positions, including Elias Vaughn, Prynn Tenmei, Thrithishar "Shar" ch'Thane, Nog, Akellen Macet, Taran'atar, and Ro Laren.

Guess what? It's still Deep Space Nine, and its sales haven't suffered.

During TNG, the main cast consisted of:

* Jean-Luc Picard
* William T. Riker
* Geordi LaForge
* Worf, Son of Mogh
* Beverly Crusher
* Deanna Troi
* Data
* Wesley Crusher
* Natasha Yar


Excluding Yar and Crusher, who left during the run before TNG's "Golden Age" (Seasons Four through Seven), however, the following characters are no longer featured in post-NEM TNG novels:

* William T. Riker
* Deanna Troi
* Data

So, 3 out of the 7 most well-known TNG characters -- a full 42.85% of the "classic" TNG cast -- are not in the post-NEM TNG novels. They've been replaced by characters including Miranda Kadohata, Dina Elfiki, Jasminder Choudhury, T'Ryssa Chen, T'Lana, and Zelik Leybenzon.

Guess what? It's still The Next Generation, and, from what I know, sales are still good.

^^
Please see my comments about bogus legendary rock bands in my previous post.

As for most of the new characters who have been introduced to fill the vacant space of the real main characters, I find them as interesting as last weeks lettuce.

OK, I understand if some of you will find my opinion in this case harsh and non-compromizing and I also understand that some of you will strongly disagree with me. But this is how I feel after ten years of dissapointments considering the treatment of certain main characters. I guess that the "death" of Janeway is the final straw for me when it comes to Star Trek, at least the official part of it.

The sad thing is that Star Trek has been an essential part of my life for such a long time that it will be difficult to replace that interest with something else.

And I will actually miss the books. They used to be good once upon a time. I would really hope that they would re-release the older books. It's not that fun chasing after them on Ebay.

However, Star Trek has learned me some important lessons when it comes to interests and fandom:

1) Don't get too involved. Don't start to like certain things too much because someone will screw it up sooner or later.

2) If that happens, turn your back to your former interest because it will never be the same.

3) Find something else to spend your time on but just keep a casual interest in the whole thing. Then it will be easier to abandon when someone screws it up.

So you believe that characters should stay in the same places in their lifes without growing or changing or doing new things, and go new places, that they should infact stay where they are untill the end of time doing the same thing every day basically.

 

[Thrawn]

The story should serve to advance the characters, not the other way around.

This just cracks me up. Why on Earth do you think that Janeway WAS killed off? Specifically stated by the editors, to give the other characters more possibilities to advance! The story IS advancing the characters, all of them but one. If one character needs to die to really change the lives of 8 or 9 others, then that's a valid trade-off, no?

Also: across all the different TV series, there have been about 40 main characters. In TrekLit, one has been killed, and one resurrected. Seems like we have a pretty solid record here! Killing main characters isn't any kind of trend, this was a difficult decision made to create more character opportunities.

Sorry, but it's *your* comment that cracks *me* up.

I mean, since when does one character need to die to advance all the others? I'm definitely no fan of Janeway's, and her death doesn't move me either way... but since when's she less important than any other Trek-captain... or a certain chief engineer without whom apparently a whole relaunch-series couldn't be conceived?

I respect editorial decisions, but that doesn't mean I like them. And actually, in this case I even don't agree with them. Granted, she was an admiral - but did she ever have to face the consequences of her sometimes less than Starfleet-worthy decisions? I'd love to have read about that. The Homecoming-duology didn't offer me that. And I'd say just being promoted doesn't necessarily mean, there're no longer any stories left to tell.

And just to turn your argument even more absurd: Why not let every known ST-character die? There are billions+ of characters (meaning the whole universe's inhabitants) out there for whom this could create opportunities, such as career-advancement etc.

Two big problems with your arguments.

One, I would've LOVED to see her face said consequences. But...she didn't. She got home and they promoted her. If it was going to happen, it would've happened then. It didn't. Putting that story into a later book would've felt odd and out of place, I think, unless she kept up that kind of behavior after she got home, which we had ample evidence that she didn't. Your argument here is a problem with the VOY relaunch / Trek universe up to her death, not her death.

And two, of course we shouldn't kill off everyone; don't insult me. With an established cast of several characters, the decision was made that removing one of them would make all the other stories more interesting. This only worked because it was such a central and important character! Killing Kes, for instance, didn't have much of an effect on anyone. But imagine how Voyager would've changed if Janeway had died at the end of third season!

Right now Worf is first officer of the Enterprise, and that characterization is one I find really interesting to read. It wouldn't have happened without Data dying. Is it worth Data's death, in particular? I don't think so, no. But you CAN'T make the argument that characters dying doesn't create other opportunities for the rest.

The question is just if those opportunities are WORTH it. You clearly feel as though they weren't in this case; I'm reserving judgement until I read Full Circle.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I say kill one or kill 'em all...

Now we're talking.

As I once posted during a previous occasion when this topic came up:

Kill everybody. Then, resurrect them and kill them all again.

Ship corridors should run red (or green, or pink, etc.) with the blood of the vanquished. Entire worlds will tremble at the approach of he who emerges from the Darkness to unleash unparalleled death and destruction.

Legends will spring forth, songs will be sung, and children will cower in fear when stories of this Unequaled Reign of Terror are told in nights to come.

And standing amid the carnage, weapon of choice held high in triumph, will be Reginald Barclay.

That'll teach people to mock his holodeck programs, damn it.

Oh, and if that's not enough for 75 books, we can always add a subplot where...I don't know...a giant space thingee is threatening the entire known galaxy.

And it will not be canon.

Rather, it will transcend canon.

But, you won't have to read it to enjoy Articles of the Federation.

Has David Mack assimilated you or something.

 

[Thrawn]

So you believe that characters should stay in the same places in their lifes without growing or changing or doing new things, and go new places, that they should infact stay where they are untill the end of time doing the same thing every day basically.

In all fairness, this IS pretty much the model that TNG and VOY used while on-air. It's reasonable, I think, to prefer that kind of storytelling to the one used in the novels where something Really Important tends to happen, if not in every book, in most of them.

What is not reasonable is to say that Star Trek is failing or dying as a result, when clearly there is at least as vocal a contingent that vastly PREFERS this type of storytelling.

 

[freak]

Man that sucks..that doesn't make me wanna read that book anytime soon.

 

[Lynx]

So you believe that characters should stay in the same places in their lifes without growing or changing or doing new things, and go new places, that they should infact stay where they are untill the end of time doing the same thing every day basically.

That's a bit exaggerated. But I don't want to see my favorite characters being killed off. They can spare me from that kind of "development".

 

[KRAD]

Granted, she was an admiral - but did she ever have to face the consequences of her sometimes less than Starfleet-worthy decisions? I'd love to have read about that.

I'm so glad you said this, because I've been waiting for the right opening...

There's an argument to be made that she has faced the consequences of "her sometimes less than Starfleet-worthy decisions," to wit, when she was killed. Because the circumstances of the events of Before Dishonor, not to mention Resistance, Greater than the Sum, and the Destiny trilogy and its aftermath, are all entirely a consequence of the actions taken by both iterations of Kathryn Janeway in "Endgame." The destruction of the transwarp hub is responsible for the series of events involving both the Borg who were cut off from the collective (and who killed Janeway) in Resistance, Before Dishonor, and Greater than the Sum, and the rest of the Borg's decision to, in essence, take out a hit on the Alpha Quadrant, resulting in at least 63 billion deaths.

And all that happened because Janeway decided that the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

Mind you, I'm expressing neither support nor rejection of this argument -- for one thing, part of the fun is that it's one possible interpretation, and multiple interpretations are more fun than singular ones. But it's a possibility worth examining, methinks.

 

[Lynx]

But if Janeway's death will be accepted as some sort of "book-canon" and therefore affect upcoming Star Trek books, no matter if it's TNG books, DS9 books, Voyager books, Titan books or New Frontier books, then I'm definitely through with all "official" Star Trek literature.

Why? Because I see it as the final straw in a long run of dissapointing character destruction (Kes, Kirk, Data, Janeway), I'm sick and tired of it and I don't want anything to do with it....

If the latest fashion in Star Trek is to kill off and destroy beloved characters, then Star Trek should close the shop right now because the current policy will lead to a slow death for Star Trek anyway.

You continue to make assumptions that are not only logically absurd, but insulting to the writers and editors. There is no "fashion" to kill off characters. There is no "fashion" to do anything except try to tell the best story in each particular case. What happens to a given character in one series is based on the needs of that series and that character, not something as stupid and petty as "fashion." Have you forgotten that the same editor who decided to kill Janeway also decided to resurrect Trip Tucker?

Instead of expressing your own dislike for the decision in a reasonable way, you insist on undermining yourself with these thoroughly unreasonable arguments like "Every fan in the universe shares my personal tastes" or "If I don't like something in a book, it's because the people in charge of Trek literature have corrupt and petty motives." You're entitled to disagree with a creative decision, but you're handling that disagreement in a very immature way that's also very rude.

If I should be able to keep up any interest in Star Trek in the future, then I will stick to fan fiction and nothing else.

Fine. Go read fan fiction and insult them for their petty motives whenever they make a creative decision you don't agree with. I'm sure they'll let you know just how much they appreciate it.

I still have a feeling that angering the Janeway fans is a big mistake. They are many and they are very protective about their favorite.

I'm always hearing this from the same two or three people, that somehow they represent some massive, angry grassroots movement that we offend at our peril. What do you guys think you are, a militant cult? Do you study in madrassas or something? Drop the melodrama. You're a few individual people who have your own personal tastes, and you don't represent some holy crusade. At most, you're a small group of people who make noise on the Internet. What are you going to do if we "anger" you? You're going to continue making noise on the Internet. That's all you can do. Sure, you can stop buying the books, but that will make no statistical difference in overall sales. Sure, you can urge others to boycott the books, but they won't listen to you any more than they do now.

So all you'll accomplish with this righteous anger is... making yourself angry. Consider the cost-benefit analysis of that for a while.

Of course, my comments aren't directed against fans in general. All fans are entitled to their own tastes and opinions, and entitled to express those opinions. And nobody has to read any books they don't want to. But Star Trek is vast and diverse and so are the interests of its fanbase. In the spirit of IDIC, we should be able to express and stay true to our own individual preferences without acting like they make us some mighty force that all others must fear offending.

I'm sorry if you and the "club of Star Trek writers" see my comments as insulting. But that's exactly what I feel about the whole thing and I do know that many ardent fans, especially the fans of Voyager and Janeway do share my opinion in this case.

Dismissing me and those fans as "a tiny minority" who don't see the "creativeness" or "greater good" in the character destruction is actually insulting to us who dare to oppose what we see as a very bad move. It's the same snotty, superior attitude which those in charge of the Star Trek Voyager TV series showed up after the destruction of Kes in "Fury". That attitude annoyed me then and I'm still annoyed over it.

After all, it's the fans who are paying the wages. Dissatisfied fans=decrease in merchandise=less profit=end of the whole thing.

I was an ardent Star Trek fan once but I've never been a worshipper who simply accept anything only because it's Star Trek. I have the same attitude here as I have as a rock fan. If I think something is crap then I call it crap, no matter how much I may have supported the rock band or Star trek or whatever and if I find it too insulting or annoying or something else which makes me lose interest, then I simply abandon it.

I stopped watching Voyager after the destruction of Kes in "Fury".

I stopped watching "Enterprise" after a few episodes because I found the series sub-standard, the characters dull and I didn't even like the idea of a retro series.

I haven't read a TNG book after finding out that there were no plans to bring back Data.

And now I will turn my back to the Star Trek books totally and to the whole "official" part of Star Trek.

There have been a lot of events the recent years which has ruined my interest for Star Trek. It used to be fun once, it isn't fun anymore.

 

[Claudia]

And two, of course we shouldn't kill off everyone; don't insult me. With an established cast of several characters, the decision was made that removing one of them would make all the other stories more interesting. This only worked because it was such a central and important character! Killing Kes, for instance, didn't have much of an effect on anyone. But imagine how Voyager would've changed if Janeway had died at the end of third season!

I'm not trying to insult you - if you thought so, I apologize.

But I think it's a circular argument, to try to advance certain characters at the cost of others. Who gets to decide which characters are worthy of advancement and which have to be sacrificed for said advancement. (I know, the editors mainly. *g*)

I'd have loved to see VOY without Janeway. I think Chakotay would have made a wonderful captain. But then again, it's not about the character called Janeway at all, it's more a general question.

Right now Worf is first officer of the Enterprise, and that characterization is one I find really interesting to read. It wouldn't have happened without Data dying. Is it worth Data's death, in particular? I don't think so, no. But you CAN'T make the argument that characters dying doesn't create other opportunities for the rest.

And again, I'm not trying to make that argument - I'm just saying that an advancement based on getting rid of other characters seems a bit stale... as though one couldn't think of another, better way to show development. Who knows Picard might have chosen Worf anyway as First Officer, as we've seen in BOBW a captain is quite free in his choice of XO, and Riker promoted Shelby over...well... the whole so far established chain of command (I know special circumstances and all that - but it's possible... and that's what I'm trying to say). Worf's position would have changed already given Riker's promotion anyway, so the whole dynamics on ENT would have changed even without Data's death.

The question is just if those opportunities are WORTH it. You clearly feel as though they weren't in this case; I'm reserving judgement until I read Full Circle.

Oh, I'm definitely going to read Full Circle - and while I'm sure there's going to be repercussions of Janeway's death I'm rather wondering in what way - surely not in the chain of command on VOY, because the characters on VOY were already "free" to develop without Janeway. Her death wouldn't have been necessary to liberate those "opportunities" if you will. But again, I'm really looking forward to Full Circle... but not particularly because of Janeway.

Granted, she was an admiral - but did she ever have to face the consequences of her sometimes less than Starfleet-worthy decisions? I'd love to have read about that.

I'm so glad you said this, because I've been waiting for the right opening...

So glad to help you out!

There's an argument to be made that she has faced the consequences of "her sometimes less than Starfleet-worthy decisions," to wit, when she was killed. Because the circumstances of the events of Before Dishonor, not to mention Resistance, Greater than the Sum, and the Destiny trilogy and its aftermath, are all entirely a consequence of the actions taken by both iterations of Kathryn Janeway in "Endgame." The destruction of the transwarp hub is responsible for the series of events involving both the Borg who were cut off from the collective (and who killed Janeway) in Resistance, Before Dishonor, and Greater than the Sum, and the rest of the Borg's decision to, in essence, take out a hit on the Alpha Quadrant, resulting in at least 63 billion deaths.

And all that happened because Janeway decided that the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

A very good point!

But I definitely wasn't refering to Endgame and any subsequent decisions concerning the Borg. Because as you point out she did face the consequences of that. But what about other command decisions? Like Equinox for example? Not everything can be excused by being far from home after all. And then she gets home and promoted as a reward...