Random Thought: Was Janeway Killed Because She was So Polarizing?

[Therin of Andor]

That or part of it is that you CAN'T still call the series Angel, if he's dead seeing as he's the title character

"Blake's Seven" survived the early disappearance of leader, Blake. No name change, and it was only by throwing lots of pounds at the actor that he eventually agreed to return for the odd guest spot and the show's finale.

I thought the funniest situation was the sitcom, "Valerie". Valerie Harper refused to return for the second year, so it became "Valerie's Family". The next year, when they were sure she was never returning, it because "The Hogan Family". In the final year, it became "The Hogans". IIRC.

 

[mattburgess]

In fact, didn't only ONE of the recurring characters in Angel die at the end? Just like in Buffy. Even Dawson's Creek ended with one death.

And now that we've got After The Fall as season 6, we know that being dead didn't stop him either!

 

[Lynx]

Well, I guess I simply don't belong among those fans.

You were saying that two years ago. What's changed?

Nothing, unfortunately.

 

[Lynx]

^ Believe me, as much as you can't understand us, we can't understand you either.

I don't think either point of view is that hard to understand. I don't even think they're all that different.

One attraction of being immersed in a fictional universe is that it is a comforting and satisfying refuge from the universe we inhabit in our everyday lives. That does not mean that we are necessarily dissatisfied with our daily lives, or unhappy: merely that real life is extremely complex, sometimes drab, sometimes horrible, and having an alterative to that, or having a way to take a break from that is attractive to almost everyone at one time or another. Fiction provides comfort, excitement, entertainment, whatever is lacking.

The disagreement here is mostly due, I think, to different expectations as to how this particular fictional universe should be structured, with Lynx basically having a preference for a high degree of stability, whereas most of the other voices in this thread have a greater appetite for change and the unexpected in this particular case.

Is Lynx's attitude hard to understand? No, that is why we watch and rewatch our favorite movies and tv series: they are always the same, and that stability is reassuring and enjoyable.

Is the opposite attitude hard to understand? No, that is why following television shows and individual characters over time can be so entertaining: characters are created, live, evolve, change, die, and all of that serves as a sort of mirror for our own experiences.

Tie-in literature is by nature on the borderline between a sort of nostalgia for old stories and a desire for new stories, so it is not surprising that this sort of disagreement would occur over this particular material.

You did hit the nail on the head with your post.

Gotham Central wrote:

I'm sorry, but if James T. Kirk and Data (two of the most beloved characters in all of Trek) can be killed off and Spock can be shuffled off to a parallel universe, there is no reason that ol Kate should have been spared. She is just one of a vast 40+ year pantheon of characters. Nothing more nothing less.

Simply put, there was no reason to spare her. If some of the most important characters in Trek can face death in official canon...why shouldn't Janeway meet her end in the books?

Those deaths really annoyed me too. Kirk's death in "Generations" was unnecessary and stupid. Why bring him back only to kill him off. Really stupid.

As for Data, he can be brought back and it annoys me that they haven't done that yet, a reason for me not to buy the TNG books.

As for Spock, they did bring him back!

Note also that most deaths in certain TV series are because the actor wants out for some reason. Book authors don't have that problem, therefore the annihilation of Janeway was unnecessary.

Dark Gilligan wrote:

Okay Lynx, here is a very simple exercise. Take a cleansing breath and repeat after me: "Change is a good thing. Change is a good thing. Change is a good thing..."

Breathe again and repeat.

No, I would rather slit my throat than come up with such a silly mantra.

Changes can be good........sometimes. But not always.

Changes can be incredible bad sometimes as well.

And changes made only for the sake of changing are always bad and stupid.

 

[Greg Cox]

^ Believe me, as much as you can't understand us, we can't understand you either.

I don't think either point of view is that hard to understand. I don't even think they're all that different.

One attraction of being immersed in a fictional universe is that it is a comforting and satisfying refuge from the universe we inhabit in our everyday lives. That does not mean that we are necessarily dissatisfied with our daily lives, or unhappy: merely that real life is extremely complex, sometimes drab, sometimes horrible, and having an alterative to that, or having a way to take a break from that is attractive to almost everyone at one time or another. Fiction provides comfort, excitement, entertainment, whatever is lacking.

The disagreement here is mostly due, I think, to different expectations as to how this particular fictional universe should be structured, with Lynx basically having a preference for a high degree of stability, whereas most of the other voices in this thread have a greater appetite for change and the unexpected in this particular case.

Is Lynx's attitude hard to understand? No, that is why we watch and rewatch our favorite movies and tv series: they are always the same, and that stability is reassuring and enjoyable.

Is the opposite attitude hard to understand? No, that is why following television shows and individual characters over time can be so entertaining: characters are created, live, evolve, change, die, and all of that serves as a sort of mirror for our own experiences.

Tie-in literature is by nature on the borderline between a sort of nostalgia for old stories and a desire for new stories, so it is not surprising that this sort of disagreement would occur over this particular material.

Nice post. Well put.

 

[kimc]

Some just don't like Janeway.

Others are indifferent towards Janeway,

[

And then there's those who really liked Janeway,

This summation can be made about any character in any series. It doesn't change this:

Most people reading Trek tie-ins enjoy the Trek characters from the tv series and movies and want to read more about those same characters in that same universe.

Bingo! You want new characters or "out of the ordinary" plots? There's a whole universe of literature out there! You don't have to limit yourself to Trek Lit.

I pick up a tie-in book because I want to immerse myself in a familiar setting with characters I already know and love. Otherwise, I can go read Dante...

 

[Sci]

Some just don't like Janeway.

Others are indifferent towards Janeway,

[

And then there's those who really liked Janeway,

This summation can be made about any character in any series. It doesn't change this:

Most people reading Trek tie-ins enjoy the Trek characters from the tv series and movies and want to read more about those same characters in that same universe.

I don't think there's evidence to support the "most." It's a mix, which is why Pocket Books has had a lot of success expanding the TrekLit range, getting rid of some characters, while also keeping other core characters.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I pick up a tie-in book because I want to immerse myself in a familiar setting with characters I already know and love.

If you're only wanting total familiarity, with no variation to that shown by canon, how are you going to know which books are "safe" to read and which aren't?

Pocket could attempt to please you, by banning character deaths, but easily end up annoying someone else by giving a character a promotion, developing a romance, destroying a shuttlecraft, revisiting a guest character who's suddenly moved on from what we knew in the TV series, and so on.

 

[AuntKate]

Just a question: What is it that makes a Voyager novel a Voyager novel? Or a TNG novel TNG? Or a DS9 novel DS9? It has to be more than the starship or the starbase, doesn't it? It has to be the characters.

Perhaps if there had been a tradition in Trek to change crews along the way, having characters come and go (as in longer running programs like ER), then I think there might be an easier acceptance of changing crews in the novels. However, the opposite is true. The changes were minimal, at best (Tasha Yar died in TNG, Jadzia died in DS9), but in the movies, the surviving casts were always left in tact--for decades. I suspect the same will be true in NuTrek.

There are lots of ways to create good conflict and interesting story lines without killing off characters. If that is something readers want, then I would suggest giving them that in the other Trek novel series, like Vanguard or New Frontier.

 

[Sci]

Just a question: What is it that makes a Voyager novel a Voyager novel? Or a TNG novel TNG? Or a DS9 novel DS9? It has to be more than the starship or the starbase, doesn't it? It has to be the characters.

Actually, it's legalisms. It's a VOY novel if the publisher issues a note saying that it's based upon the television series Star Trek: Voyager created by Rick Berman, Michael Piller, and Jeri Taylor and has the VOY logo on the cover.

There are lots of ways to create good conflict and interesting story lines without killing off characters. If that is something readers want, then I would suggest giving them that in the other Trek novel series, like Vanguard or New Frontier.

And that's your preference. Others have different preferences.

That's fine.

Listen, no one here is going to change anyone else's preferences for certain types of stories. Some want one kind, some want another, and the authors prefer a certain kind, and that certain kind has been selling well enough to keep it up.

Why are we still talking about this?

 

[kimc]

Some want one kind, some want another, and the authors prefer a certain kind, and that certain kind has been selling well enough to keep it up.

The thing is those who want the other kind have outlets. Besides, time will tell if this was a profitable move or not. Chances are there are those who read "Full Circle" and "Unworthy" only to read more about Janeway. If she doesn't come back then those readers may not be back either. As for those who don't want to read about Janeway, they have other outlets.

Besides, if the Voyager relaunch/killing off Janeway was so wildly profitable I doubt there would have been the personnel changes there have been lately. Editors who make decisions that bring in lots of cash generally don't get laid off. Nothing personal - that's just the way the corporate world works.

 

[Sci]

Some want one kind, some want another, and the authors prefer a certain kind, and that certain kind has been selling well enough to keep it up.

The thing is those who want the other kind have outlets.

Both sides have outlets. It's just that only one side is being favored by Pocket Books right now.

Besides, time will tell if this was a profitable move or not. Chances are there are those who read "Full Circle" and "Unworthy" only to read more about Janeway.

There is no evidence that people only read Full Circle and Unworthy only to read more about Janeway.

Besides, if the Voyager relaunch/killing off Janeway was so wildly profitable I doubt there would have been the personnel changes there have been lately. Editors who make decisions that bring in lots of cash generally don't get laid off. Nothing personal - that's just the way the corporate world works.

You are making a claim that has been flatly contradicted by the evidence. Everyone involved has indicated that the layoffs of Marco Palmieri and Margaret Clark were motivated by S&S engaging in company-wide layoffs of multiple employees from all levels of the company in an attempt to keep from hemorrhaging money in the middle of the worst recession in decades.

Further, you're forgetting the basic fact that both Palmieri and Clark were responsible for far more than just Star Trek fiction and that a poorly-selling VOY series would not be enough to prompt a firing.

And on top of all that:

Palmieri was fired before Full Circle was even published! And Clark was fired before Unworthy was published!

How can you claim they were fired because VOY wasn't selling well when they were both laid off before then?

Bottom line: You are making a claim on the basis of extreme ignorance.

 

[Steve Roby]

Perhaps if there had been a tradition in Trek to change crews along the way, having characters come and go (as in longer running programs like ER), then I think there might be an easier acceptance of changing crews in the novels.

Look around this forum and you'll find a lot of people who love the DS9 novels. And guess what? There are major crew changes in those books. Look at how TNG has split into TNG with Picard and a few others and Titan with Riker and a few others. They appear to be doing well, too. What is it about Voyager that makes its fans so resistant to the kinds of changes fans of other Trek series accept? What keeps them from noticing that Voyager is not being singled out?

You are making a claim that has been flatly contradicted by the evidence. Everyone involved has indicated that the layoffs of Marco Palmieri and Margaret Clark were motivated by S&S engaging in company-wide layoffs of multiple employees from all levels of the company in an attempt to keep from hemorrhaging money in the middle of the worst recession in decades.

Further, you're forgetting the basic fact that both Palmieri and Clark were responsible for far more than just Star Trek fiction and that a poorly-selling VOY series would not be enough to prompt a firing.

And on top of all that:

Palmieri was fired before Full Circle was even published! And Clark was fired before Unworthy was published!

How can you claim they were fired because VOY wasn't selling well when they were both laid off before then?

Bottom line: You are making a claim on the basis of extreme ignorance.

Okay, editing this bit because I'm not sure it makes the point I'm trying to make, though the original version may be quoted by someone in a minute, assuming anyone read it. I just wonder why Voyager fans keep repeating points that have already been refuted several times (i.e., that only Voyager has this kind of change happening, and that Marco and Margaret must have been fired because they suck).

Isn't saying that someone was fired for doing a lousy job when in fact that person was laid off for financial reasons skating kind of close to libel?

 

[Thestral]

Just a question: What is it that makes a Voyager novel a Voyager novel? Or a TNG novel TNG? Or a DS9 novel DS9? It has to be more than the starship or the starbase, doesn't it? It has to be the characters.

Honest, non-snarky answer here? Characters, as you say, are key. A continuity of characters is important (except maybe in DS9, which is tied much more to the setting)

However, change in cast is okay and even good. The key word is continuity, not stasis.

So say, some characters leave, new characters come on board and are established. New characters become established, remaining old characters leave (perhaps not all at once), and newer characters come on board. New characters have become old characters, newer characters are new characters. Continuity is maintained, even though the original cast is negligibly present. New "old" characters leave after newer characters become established, even newer characters are introduced.

Let's take, for example, DS9.

End of series, crew is split up. Sisko's with the Prophets, O'Brien's on Earth, Worf's on Qo'Nos, Odo's with the Great Link, Garak's on Cardassia. Other background characters have shifted heavily or died (Winn, Dukat, Damar, Weyoun, Rom, Leeta, etc).

Relaunch begins. Introduce Vaughn, Shar, Prynn, Sam, (re-introduce) Ro, bring on new background players, sideline Jake. No sign of Sisko, O'Brien, Worf, Odo, Garak, etc.

Huzzah, new crew! Kira, Vaughn, Dax, Bashir, Nog, Shar, Prynn, Sam, Ro, Quark, plus background.

Since then? Shar's been sidelined, status unknown. Major Cenn has been added to the "main" cast. O'Brien, Odo, Garak have guest-starred, but not come back. Sisko's back, but a minor/guest player; same with Jake.

Huzzzah, slight shakeup! Same basic crew as above, just delete Shar and add Cenn.

Now though? DS9's jumping up to "Destiny"'s timeline. We know for sure Dax and Sam (plus some background characters) are gone.

Sooo... huzzah, shakeup!

 

[Dark Gilligan]

Besides, if the Voyager relaunch/killing off Janeway was so wildly profitable I doubt there would have been the personnel changes there have been lately.

What an amazingly fatuous thing to say.

 

[BillJ]

You are making a claim that has been flatly contradicted by the evidence. Everyone involved has indicated that the layoffs of Marco Palmieri and Margaret Clark were motivated by S&S engaging in company-wide layoffs of multiple employees from all levels of the company in an attempt to keep from hemorrhaging money in the middle of the worst recession in decades.

Further, you're forgetting the basic fact that both Palmieri and Clark were responsible for far more than just Star Trek fiction and that a poorly-selling VOY series would not be enough to prompt a firing.

And on top of all that:

Palmieri was fired before Full Circle was even published! And Clark was fired before Unworthy was published!

How can you claim they were fired because VOY wasn't selling well when they were both laid off before then?

Bottom line: You are making a claim on the basis of extreme ignorance.

Okay, editing this bit because I'm not sure it makes the point I'm trying to make, though the original version may be quoted by someone in a minute, assuming anyone read it. I just wonder why Voyager fans keep repeating points that have already been refuted several times (i.e., that only Voyager has this kind of change happening, and that Marco and Margaret must have been fired because they suck).

Isn't saying that someone was fired for doing a lousy job when in fact that person was laid off for financial reasons skating kind of close to libel?

Not to rock the boat here, but: Corporations usually aren't firing people because their area's of responsibilities are profitable. We've seen two Star Trek editors fired recently. Which begs the question of where else Marco and Margaret's responsibilities overlapped? If there was no other area then it was probably the under-performance of the Star Trek line (in general) that caused their dismissal.

Besides the novelization of Star Trek 2009, when was the last time a Trek book hit the NY Times best-seller list? I continue to see a shrinking of space at bookstores for ST novels which I can't believe isn't related in some way.

And I know that tie-in's have a tougher time when the show isn't in production. But I also know that Pocket missed a golden opportunity with Stat Trek 2009.

 

[Steve Roby]

We've seen two Star Trek editors fired recently. Which begs the question of where else Marco and Margaret's responsibilities overlapped? If there was no other area then it was probably the under-performance of the Star Trek line (in general) that caused their dismissal.

You might be on to something if they were the only people at Pocket who lost their jobs. They weren't. There have been a lot of layoffs in the publishing industry over the last couple of years, including many at Pocket/Simon & Schuster.

 

[BillJ]

We've seen two Star Trek editors fired recently. Which begs the question of where else Marco and Margaret's responsibilities overlapped? If there was no other area then it was probably the under-performance of the Star Trek line (in general) that caused their dismissal.

You might be on to something if they were the only people at Pocket who lost their jobs. They weren't. There have been a lot of layoffs in the publishing industry over the last couple of years, including many at Pocket/Simon & Schuster.

I think you're missing the point here. If the Star Trek line was wildly successful, Pocket would've found other people to fire.

Kinda like clearing cap space in the NFL. You're going to find guys whose production doesn't match their salary to get rid of. Not the star Quarterback who throws 40 touchdown passes a season.

 

[Defcon]

We've seen two Star Trek editors fired recently. Which begs the question of where else Marco and Margaret's responsibilities overlapped? If there was no other area then it was probably the under-performance of the Star Trek line (in general) that caused their dismissal.

FWIW, they both were part of Pocket Books' media tie-in department (can't remember the exact title right now), which includes/included way more than just the Star Trek Line.

So since the Star Trek line is still around, while other franchises have come and gone (CSI, Marvel, etc.) I wouldn't bet on the Star Trek line being the reason for the lay offs, even if we would follow your logic that it was more than just more or less random cost-cutting measures.

 

[Sci]

Not to rock the boat here, but: Corporations usually aren't firing people because their area's of responsibilities are profitable. We've seen two Star Trek editors fired recently. Which begs the question of where else Marco and Margaret's responsibilities overlapped? If there was no other area then it was probably the under-performance of the Star Trek line (in general) that caused their dismissal.

Of course corporations don't usually fire people because their areas of responsibility are profitable. But we are not IN a normal situation. In case you haven't noticed, we're in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression started 80 years ago. S&S was losing money just by having highly-paid employees, so to stop the loss, they laid off many of the most expensive employees they had all across the company -- including, amongst many others, two highly-paid senior editors whose duties including Star Trek, Marco and Margaret.

Besides the novelization of Star Trek 2009, when was the last time a Trek book hit the NY Times best-seller list?

This is not evidence that the line wasn't profitable.

I continue to see a shrinking of space at bookstores for ST novels which I can't believe isn't related in some way.

Neither is this.

And I know that tie-in's have a tougher time when the show isn't in production. But I also know that Pocket missed a golden opportunity with Stat Trek 2009.

And as many others have noted, that's the responsibility of book stores refusing to order more ST tie-ins, for fear that ST09 would fizzle just like NEM and they'd be stuck with a lot of Trek merchandise they couldn't see (which is what happened to bookstores that ordered a lot of Watchmen stuff), not Pocket Books.