Kirsten Beyer invitation in VOY forum
- Thread starter lurok
- Start date
Wait.
What?
Right, stay with me for a moment there while I read it again...
If that's really how you feel then I'm afraid you just made captcalhoun's point better than he could ever have.
Okay...
1) Kathryn Janeway is a fictional character. She doesn't exist.
2) Peter David wrote a tie-in novel he was commissioned to write by Pocket Books. Tie-in novels are not canon. What happens in them isn't "real" even within the unreal Trek universe. Nothing precludes the writer of a new TV or film production, a comic book, a computer game, or even another novel from telling a story in which Kathryn Janeway is still alive.
3) A person's dreams are one's own to control. What happened in a tie-in novel does nothing to prevent individual fans from creating their own Trek stories as fan fiction, so long as they don't try to sell them for profit.
4) Moreover, if one's dreams are so limited as to be entirely dependent on the putative existence of a single character from a single television series, one isn't dreaming big enough. Dreams should come from within, not just be copied from TV.
1) Kathryn Janeway is a fictional character. She doesn't exist.
2) Peter David wrote a tie-in novel he was commissioned to write by Pocket Books. Tie-in novels are not canon. What happens in them isn't "real" even within the unreal Trek universe. Nothing precludes the writer of a new TV or film production, a comic book, a computer game, or even another novel from telling a story in which Kathryn Janeway is still alive.
3) A person's dreams are one's own to control. What happened in a tie-in novel does nothing to prevent individual fans from creating their own Trek stories as fan fiction, so long as they don't try to sell them for profit.
4) Moreover, if one's dreams are so limited as to be entirely dependent on the putative existence of a single character from a single television series, one isn't dreaming big enough. Dreams should come from within, not just be copied from TV.
Yeah, someone needs some serious psychological help right there...
If this were Facebook, I would Like this.I hope they keep her dead because the internet flare-ups are far more entertaining than the character ever was.
This comment just boggles the mind.
You, I and the vast majority of people are fully aware of the very critical fact, yet it would seem that some people don't see that which is amusing and worrying in pretty equal measures.
Again, something that you, I and the vast majority of people are fully aware of, yet again it would seem that individuals like Brit and her fellow Janeway Fanatics do not or can not see that distinction
And yet again, something that you, I and the vast majority of people are fully aware of, and yet again it would seem that some individuals do not comprehend that fact. They can only accept what they are spoon fed and can not think for themselves.
How very true.
If this were Facebook, I would Like this.I hope they keep her dead because the internet flare-ups are far more entertaining than the character ever was.
As would I.
It makes the batshit craziness of American politics look mild in comparison.
Okay, I'm curious. Doesn't the 2010 tie-in novel of "Star Trek Online" mention a never-died Janeway? Did Britt and friends read that one after we told them about it last time the BBJ thread was around, or does their boycott extend to all Pocket/Gallery material?
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Needs_of_the_Many
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Needs_of_the_Many
"By the year 2409, Janeway's death was not remembered as part of Jake Sisko's study of history, noted in an interview with DTI agents Dulmer and Gariff Lucsly. In the course of the discussion, the agents' concerns over the integrity of the timeline was brought about in discussions of the fact that they remembered a different version of history.
"Admiral Janeway was remembered by Jake and others as surviving the Long War-era into the 25th century. Previously, she had been the commanding officer of Starfleet's response to the Hobus supernova in 2387. (STO novel: The Needs of the Many)
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Needs_of_the_Many
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Needs_of_the_Many
"By the year 2409, Janeway's death was not remembered as part of Jake Sisko's study of history, noted in an interview with DTI agents Dulmer and Gariff Lucsly. In the course of the discussion, the agents' concerns over the integrity of the timeline was brought about in discussions of the fact that they remembered a different version of history.
"Admiral Janeway was remembered by Jake and others as surviving the Long War-era into the 25th century. Previously, she had been the commanding officer of Starfleet's response to the Hobus supernova in 2387. (STO novel: The Needs of the Many)
Apparently. Actually since there are what? four timelines now (Prime - Live action, Prime - STO, Prime - Novels, NuTrek) and she's technically only dead in one of them, it really does boggle the mind.
I don't know. I think it's worth driving a stake through that idea, not to pile on one solitary poster, but because there sometimes seems to be a persistent misconception on these boards (and elsewhere) that the Star Trek Books Program is this is big, controlling corporate entity--whereas, in reality, it's usually just a couple of overworked editors riding herd on a flock of wacky freelancers.
Just last week, I was debating another poster, who was convinced that Pocket employed high-powered marketing teams, focus groups, and what-not to chart the course of the books. Trust me, nobody in publishing has the time or money to blow on that kind of thing, let alone organize an elaborate p.r. campaign to deal with irate fans on a message board.
This bizarre notion that Pocket actually dictates our convention appearances seems like just the latest manifestation of this fundamental misunderstanding of how Star Trek publishing works.
For the record, Shore Leave attracts a lot of authors because it's a well-run convention that is unusually hospitable to Trek authors--and because it's become something of a tradition for us to get together with fans and friends that weekend. That's all.
I think my only conversation with Pocket regarding Shore Leave this year went something like this.
"I"m heading off to Shore Leave next weekend. Is it okay if I discuss the Riese book?"
"Sure. Have fun."
Last edited:
I attended that panel last year (think I even sat next to Christopher, who I'd be inclined this year to spend a lot more time asking questions to, after reading the awesome DTI) and it was remarkably free of hecklers, considering the vitriol online then and now.
Kirsten comported herself in person as she does online, as demonstrated in her gracious post on the VOY forum and responses here: her commentary was sincere and genuine, the Q&A was engaging and it ended without bloodshed. She was nice enough to sign FULL CIRCLE for me and I expect to bring CHILDREN OF THE STORM for her to sign this year.
In reality it is difficult for naysayers to speak up in settings like that, and at least last year, the room was smallish, making it very cozy, which is not a great setting for spewing the aforementioned vitriol.
I hope, for Kirsten's sake and Shore Leave, too, that her invitation garners a larger crowd. It's a stone cold lock that I'll attend, and am dragging my wife along to see the fireworks, should that occur. I for one intend to come up with something to represent to demonstrate my allegiance to TEAM KIRSTEN.
In my experience, the atmosphere at Shore Leave tends to be very friendly and civil. I can't remember any panel ever getting particularly rancorous there.
To be honest, I was expecting plenty of fireworks regarding the new movie last year, considering all the heated discussions and controversy around here, but the obligatory nuTrek panel was a very calm and cordial affair.
Greg uses the term 'rancorous' and the nerd in me can't get an image of The Rancor out of my head. A check of Wookiepedia http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jabba's_rancor though turned frightening upon reading that The Rancor had a backstory.
It's the 101st Fighting Keyboards effect -- people who are passionate and enthusiastic about a fight from the safety of their computer, until they actually have to fight it in person.Greg Cox said:
According to the prelim schedule, the panel is set for Saturday at 5 o'clock, in the Derby room. (That's one of the smallish rooms on the ground floor, down the hallway by the elevators.) There's virtually nothing opposite it, except for meal time. The Luna-C performance, T. Alan Chafin's annual Star Wars panel, a Chuck panel.
Or at least are more likely to remain cordial and non-confrontational when talking with actual people. I suspect that a lot of us are snarkier on-line than in real life.
Britt, I really think you should consider stopping posting in these threads, because every time you do you seem to dig yourself a bigger crazy hole.I don't believe you've said anything there that contradicts my opinion. I think there's a wealth of opportunities there, but since we can't post story ideas, I'm not going to speculate.
Good writing is about makeing a place for Janeway that is uniquely her own. This is where you all have it backward. You don't "bring Janeway back because now you need the character." You decide to bring her back and write a really good book around it. Bringing her back is the "PLOT." Right now Janeway is dead just to have her dead, that isn't any kind of writing opportunity.
Quoting Therin of Andor
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/2010/04/admiral-is-still-dead-so-far.html
Now the question is do the writers have the "balls" to do the right thing and bring her back.
No it's you that should get a grip, because she is a fictional character from a television series. You are the ones that are delusional, we can bring her back "BECAUSE" she is fictional, and since we want to read about her why shouldn't we let people know how we feel.
I think you are the ones that don't understand she is a fictional character. Frankly it's your attitude that is juvenile because appearently you don't even know that it is polite to share with others. We know PAD didn't murder our mothers, what he tried to do is even worse. He tried to murder our dreams.
I'm as big as SW fan as a Trek fan, but even I'll admit it is a little frightening how practically every character, even the blink of an eye extras, has a complex life story.
I think one thing to remember here about the "Bring Back Janeway Community" which so many here are flabberghasted by is that there's really only one or two BBJers who are as extreme as others react to. There are other BBJers who just disagree with the decision to kill Janeway, but don't run around accusing Peter David of "killing their dreams."
^ True. Beyond that, one of the reasons why it is a good idea to shake things up a bit and kill off a character like Janeway is the potential to stir up some controversy and attract the attention of readers who might not be interested in the status quo.
So, in that sense, the BBJ "community" is contributing to the success of the project.
Even the more outlandish comments are clearly amusing to many, so really it's win win for all involved. Eventually you can have a another big "event" if Janeway returns.
So, in that sense, the BBJ "community" is contributing to the success of the project.
Even the more outlandish comments are clearly amusing to many, so really it's win win for all involved. Eventually you can have a another big "event" if Janeway returns.
Similar threads
