Kirsten Beyer invitation in VOY forum

[Kemaiku]

Well, Picard at least had a body Q could reanimate. Janeway's body is gone, turned into starstuff.

More like dissolved into organic goo but yes, Picard was dying on the operating table and would have died if not for Q being so fond of him. Janeway has no such effect on her Q companion and no body or situation for her to alter.

Q can recreate her body with a snap of a finger, or less. Did Q save Picard because he was fond of him? And why did Lady Q bother to save Janeway, if she had no such motivation? The Q don't intervene with human history unless it is necessary.

Actually, they intervene when, where and how they like "for the lulz" it seems. And yes, Q and Picard had a rather unique partnership in TNG, the female Q's actions come off more like pity, allowing her a continued existance without her body, rather than suffer a sudden traumatic death.

 

[Christopher]

More like dissolved into organic goo but yes, Picard was dying on the operating table and would have died if not for Q being so fond of him.

We only have Q's word for that, and Q is the very epitome of an unreliable narrator. There's no conclusive evidence that Beverly wouldn't have been able to save Picard herself. Indeed, wasn't that rather the point of "Tapestry?" Q offered to "save" Picard by changing his past so that he never got an artificial heart that would fail in that situation, but after he saw the consequences, Picard made Q undo the "gift," restore his real history with the artificial heart back in place. The outcome we got was the result of Picard rejecting Q's offered assistance. To me, the most likely interpretation was that Q was flat-out lying about Picard being doomed to die without his help, because it enabled him to manipulate Picard into accepting his help.

Q can recreate her body with a snap of a finger, or less.

Sure, and the Q could solve any problem in any Star Trek story with the snap of a finger. But you know what? That would be absolutely terrible writing. It would be a lazy cheat, the worst kind of deus ex machina resolution.

And why did Lady Q bother to save Janeway, if she had no such motivation?

She didn't save Janeway. She merely held her hand through the transition to whatever happened to her consciousness after death. As I've already pointed out, Lady Q explicitly told Janeway in the book that she was irreversibly dead, and reacted only with annoyance when Janeway refused to accept it. To assume that Lady Q had any desire or intention to resurrect Janeway is a fundamental misreading of the text, substituting wishful thinking for what's actually written on the page.

 

[USS Intrepid]

We only have Q's word for that, and Q is the very epitome of an unreliable narrator.

By that token, how do we *know* that Lady Q is being entirely honest in her comments to Janeway? It's entirely possible she was being as manipulative as DeLancie Q was to Picard. We don't know what Lady Q was up to beyond any sort of shadow of a doubt.

 

[AuntKate]

We only have Q's word for that, and Q is the very epitome of an unreliable narrator.

By that token, how do we *know* that Lady Q is being entirely honest in her comments to Janeway? It's entirely possible she was being as manipulative as DeLancie Q was to Picard. We don't know what Lady Q was up to beyond any sort of shadow of a doubt.

QFT. No matter what PD may have intended when he wrote that ending, it is open to interpretation, which means that Beyer, or any other writer, for that matter, can simply decide it means something completely different than PD or any other PB writer/editor might have imagined.

 

[captcalhoun]

well, we know perfectly well Janeway was dead on account of her being on a effing Borg Supercube that went kablooie big-style.

all that's left oof Janeway is a cloud of her constituent atoms and unless she was secretly experimented on by Weapon bloody X, she's not going to come back from that!

 

[USS Intrepid]

No matter what PD may have intended when he wrote that ending, it is open to interpretation, which means that Beyer, or any other writer, for that matter, can simply decide it means something completely different than PD or any other PB writer/editor might have imagined.

Much as Mangels and Martin reinterpreted Trip Tucker's fate, regardless of Berman and Braga's intent.

And no, I'm not making any sort of comment on which was right or wrong creatively (IMO, neither were). I'm simply pointing out that I don't believe there's any great impediment in the current plot line to bringing Janeway back.

well, we know perfectly well Janeway was dead on account of her being on a effing Borg Supercube that went kablooie big-style.

all that's left oof Janeway is a cloud of her constituent atoms and unless she was secretly experimented on by Weapon bloody X, she's not going to come back from that!

Being last seen in the company of a Q is a pretty big loophole in that argument.

 

[AuntKate]

I think it quite interesting that some posters are claiming they won't purchase any more Voyager novels (or any 24 C novels, IIRC) if Janeway comes back, in spite of the fact that the Janeway fans have been ridiculed for doing the same thing because she was killed. So it is okay to boycott the novels if Janeway returns, but not if she is killed? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Hmmm?

 

[BillJ]

I think it quite interesting that some posters are claiming they won't purchase any more Voyager novels (or any 24 C novels, IIRC) if Janeway comes back, in spite of the fact that the Janeway fans have been ridiculed for doing the same thing because she was killed. So it is okay to boycott the novels if Janeway returns, but not if she is killed? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Hmmm?

Thw worst thing they can do with Voyager fiction is return Janeway. The books will quickly fall back to the dynamics of the TV series with Janeway in command and Chakotay as her lapdog.

Not interested.

Now if they can create a way for Janeway to be there without disrupting the current dynamics created by Kirsten Beyer, I would at least give it a try.

I'll try it (and I won't disrespect Beyer's work by running to Ebay for a used copy). But I hate for Beyer's work to be torn down to force back in a character that I wasn't all that fond of.

 

[USS Intrepid]

I'll try it (and I won't disrespect Beyer's work by running to Ebay for a used copy). But I hate for Beyer's work to be torn down to force back in a character that I wasn't all that fond with.

I wouldn't want to see Beyer's work torn down line that either. I think she's an excellent writer, who is taking the Voyager fiction to wonderful places. Which is why I believe she could do a similarly stellar job with Janeway.

 

[ToddCam]

Just to make a point... the idea that more than half of Sisko's fans would rather he have stayed "dead" (with the Prophets) is completely absurd, and completely baseless. I can only speak for myself, obviously, but despite his having been poorly used in Rough Beasts I am still happy he returned. Sometimes characters just don't go in the direction you want.

 

[Christopher]

We only have Q's word for that, and Q is the very epitome of an unreliable narrator.

By that token, how do we *know* that Lady Q is being entirely honest in her comments to Janeway? It's entirely possible she was being as manipulative as DeLancie Q was to Picard. We don't know what Lady Q was up to beyond any sort of shadow of a doubt.

I find it highly unlikely that she had some devious master plan to resurrect some puny mortal that her boyfriend occasionally played with, and that she'd give enough of a damn about what that puny mortal thought to lie to her about it. Q -- DeLancie Q -- likes to play games with his mortal pets, but Lady Q strikes me as being above that sort of nonsense.

And like I said, the idea of Janeway being resurrected simply by a Q fingersnap is lame and lazy from a creative standpoint. If Janeway ever is brought back, I sincerely hope it's in a more interesting and meaningful way than that.

Just to make a point... the idea that more than half of Sisko's fans would rather he have stayed "dead" (with the Prophets) is completely absurd, and completely baseless.

Like I also said, it's a poor analogy, because Sisko was never dead at all and explicitly promised to return. It's just not the same situation at all.

 

[USS Intrepid]

I find it highly unlikely that she had some devious master plan to resurrect some puny mortal that her boyfriend occasionally played with, and that she'd give enough of a damn about what that puny mortal thought to lie to her about it. Q -- DeLancie Q -- likes to play games with his mortal pets, but Lady Q strikes me as being above that sort of nonsense.

And like I said, the idea of Janeway being resurrected simply by a Q fingersnap is lame and lazy from a creative standpoint. If Janeway ever is brought back, I sincerely hope it's in a more interesting and meaningful way than that.

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, I don't suggest either answer is 'right'. However, I also find it highly unlikely she would care enough about said puny mortal to take the time to shuffle her off into whatever afterlife may be suggested by the scene.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting any process whereby Janeway could be resurrected, I'm simply noting that the opening is there, and that your reasoning can be applied either way. And yes, I would hope any story that did resurrect her would be far more creatively compelling than Q snapping simply his (or her) fingers.

 

[AuntKate]

Just to make a point... the idea that more than half of Sisko's fans would rather he have stayed "dead" (with the Prophets) is completely absurd, and completely baseless. I can only speak for myself, obviously, but despite his having been poorly used in Rough Beasts I am still happy he returned. Sometimes characters just don't go in the direction you want.

I can totally understand how you feel. You want to read about him, even if he heads off in a strange direction.

 

[Thestral]

Sometimes characters just don't go in the direction you want.

Like... the grave?

 

[AuntKate]

I find it highly unlikely that she had some devious master plan to resurrect some puny mortal that her boyfriend occasionally played with, and that she'd give enough of a damn about what that puny mortal thought to lie to her about it. Q -- DeLancie Q -- likes to play games with his mortal pets, but Lady Q strikes me as being above that sort of nonsense.

And like I said, the idea of Janeway being resurrected simply by a Q fingersnap is lame and lazy from a creative standpoint. If Janeway ever is brought back, I sincerely hope it's in a more interesting and meaningful way than that.

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, I don't suggest either answer is 'right'. However, I also find it highly unlikely she would care enough about said puny mortal to take the time to shuffle her off into whatever afterlife may be suggested by the scene.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting any process whereby Janeway could be resurrected, I'm simply noting that the opening is there, and that your reasoning can be applied either way. And yes, I would hope any story that did resurrect her would be far more creatively compelling than Q snapping simply his (or her) fingers.

OMG--you really think any Q is above doing something completely ridiculous?!? To them, humans are all puny mortals, so one human is about as useless as another. Why did Q care about the puny mortal Picard? He was worthy of representing the human race, I suppose. Why did he care about the puny mortal Janeway? She was worthy of mothering his child, apparently.

The opening is certainly there for Janeway's return, and it can be done in an interesting, even compelling way. Perhaps it is beyond some writers' imaginations (apparently), but I think Beyer can do it justice.

 

[USS Intrepid]

The opening is certainly there for Janeway's return, and it can be done in an interesting, even compelling way. Perhaps it is beyond some writers' imaginations (apparently), but I think Beyer can do it justice.

I believe I just said that.

 

[AuntKate]

The opening is certainly there for Janeway's return, and it can be done in an interesting, even compelling way. Perhaps it is beyond some writers' imaginations (apparently), but I think Beyer can do it justice.

I believe I just said that.

yeah. I agreed with you.

 

[USS Intrepid]

yeah. I agreed with you.

Argh, I meant to put a smiley on that post! Sorry.

And Christopher, do you *really* believe you couldn't tell an absolutely compelling tale using that scene as a starting point? I've read your Trek work, and I'd wager a fairly large stack of Quatloos that you could.

 

[Christopher]

I'm sure I could concoct a way to bring Janeway back if I wanted to (in fact, I already have at least one idea for doing so). But I really, really don't want to. I lost my father last year. I have to cope with that very real loss. I have to accept it and move on with my life, because there are no magic resets in the real world. And I had to do the same when I lost my mother when I was a child. For most of my life, I've had to deal with the reality of the irreversibility of death, and it's been particularly driven home for me in the past year or so. So I have no interest in writing stories that magically resurrect the dead so that their loved ones are spared the need to deal with loss. I couldn't find any emotional honesty in such a story. Maybe someone else could, but I can't, not at this point in my life, anyway.

Even aside from that, as a rule, I'm unwilling to write stories that trivialize death, whether by treating it as casual and unworthy of mention or by finding magic reset buttons to reverse it. I think it's important to acknowledge that death is tragic and painful -- and permanent. It's not just a passing inconvenience. I won't write it that way.

 

[USS Intrepid]

I'm sure I could concoct a way to bring Janeway back if I wanted to (in fact, I already have at least one idea for doing so). But I really, really don't want to. I lost my father last year. I have to cope with that very real loss. I have to accept it and move on with my life, because there are no magic resets in the real world. And I had to do the same when I lost my mother when I was a child. For most of my life, I've had to deal with the reality of the irreversibility of death, and it's been particularly driven home for me in the past year or so. So I have no interest in writing stories that magically resurrect the dead so that their loved ones are spared the need to deal with loss. I couldn't find any emotional honesty in such a story.

Even aside from that, as a rule, I'm unwilling to write stories that trivialize death, whether by treating it as casual and unworthy of mention or by finding magic reset buttons to reverse it. I think it's important to acknowledge that death is tragic and painful -- and permanent. It's not just a passing inconvenience. I won't write it that way.

And that's an absolutely understandable stance. Indeed, I don't disagree, but Janeway's return is still a story I'd like to see, and it's one I hope gets tackled (and tackled well) sooner or later.