Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Ah I kept changing my post because I didn't really want to get into the argument again. (I do apologize for that). I actually tried to delete it but I don't think I have enough posts to do that yet.
I am looking forward to the book, I loved the last two. I am waiting to get the interlibrary loan from the library. I am not in a situation where I can buy all the star trek books I want. When I am I will definitly buy Kirsten's books.
Hopfully this isn't going to start another argument but I'm just glad the book cover isn't red. The last three new Trek novels (Indistinguishable, DTI, & New Frontier) were very red.
I wonder if those Janeway fans who refuse to read anything set after Janeway's death have ever experienced a personal loss in their own lives. If they had, maybe they'd appreciate that it's possible to pay honor and tribute to someone even after they're gone, that they can still be a part of your life even if they aren't physically there. Maybe they'd understand that the grief and anger can't last forever, that loss is something that must eventually be accepted and coped with and integrated into your life as you move on. Janeway is a pervasive, influential presence throughout Unworthy and Children of the Storm. The books serve her character very well even though she isn't in them as a living person. I think these Janeway fans would appreciate the books if they allowed themselves to read them.
I understand where you're coming from -- your experience of grief and acceptance has helped teach you how to grow and continue living, and you see that reflected in the VOY novels and think it honors the Trek spirit.
But I really don't think it's respectful or reasonable to assume that someone who prefers escapist Trek must never have experienced death or loss, or is somehow emotionally immature. I think the "pro-Janeway" fans have been far more disrespectful than you have, Christopher, but I honestly think this was needlessly rude, too.
I wonder if those Janeway fans who refuse to read anything set after Janeway's death have ever experienced a personal loss in their own lives. If they had, maybe they'd appreciate that it's possible to pay honor and tribute to someone even after they're gone, that they can still be a part of your life even if they aren't physically there. Maybe they'd understand that the grief and anger can't last forever, that loss is something that must eventually be accepted and coped with and integrated into your life as you move on. Janeway is a pervasive, influential presence throughout Unworthy and Children of the Storm. The books serve her character very well even though she isn't in them as a living person. I think these Janeway fans would appreciate the books if they allowed themselves to read them.
Well you think wrong, go back and actually read the comments, you will see a good number have read "Full Circle" or at least tried. This isn't what we want to read. What is so hard to understand about that. We want Voyager Books with the "real" Voyager Crew. And we are not afraid to stand up and tell the people wanting our money just what it is they have to do to get it.
Science Fiction and Trek are not about "real" life. They are escapist literature
No, they're not. They can be, but they have no obligation to be such. And Christopher's point was not to try to force you to like something you don't want to read; his point was that arguments that killing Janeway do a disservice to the character are invalid, because post-Janeway novels pay tribute to the character a great deal. He made no argument about what you ought to enjoy reading.
To be fair, Janeway isStar Trek's single most prominent example of a strong female character who is both a leader and who is not sexually objectified in some way. On that level, the question of the relationship between Star Trek and feminism, I can understand being upset at Janeway's death.
But when it comes to the question of keeping a character that serves as a prominent feminist example or allowing a beloved lead character to die in order to explore themes of grief and mortality, I think it's an example of a reasonable difference of creative opinion.
I think it's reasonable to say that Trek Lit should have kept a character who is Star Trek's most prominent feminist icon, as a strong leader who is not objectified. I do not think it is a reasonable argument to say that Trek Lit is somehow treating a character differently because of that character's sex and/or the sex of that characters fans.
Trek Lit has killed prominent lead male characters. It has also killed Kieran Duffy in Corps of Engineers, who was as much a main character for CoE as Janeway was for VOY. It has kept Data dead, and Kirk.
More recently, it has killed...
McCoy in the "Crucible" trilogy; Elias Vaughn, one of the main characters of the DS9 Relaunch, rendered a vegetable in "Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts of Empire" and "Zero Sum Game;" and Montgomery "Scotty" Scott himself in "Indistinguishable From Magic."
So we've got four main male canonical characters (and two main non-canonical characters) that Trek Lit has killed or kept dead, versus one main female canonical character that Trek Lit has killed or kept dead.
This is not a function of sexism, sorry.
(Also, do bear in mind that the editor of Before Dishonor was the one who decided to kill Janeway: Margaret Clark. A woman.)
Nobody shouted at Spock's fans when they demanded to get him back.
You know this for a fact? That was thirty years ago. It would be interesting to read old fanzines' debates; I wouldn't be surprised if there were some angry fans on both sides.
And Christopher... I think you are the one who is arrogant in an offending way. YOU want to judge who had a lost and true reason for grief in his/her life and who not???
Christopher and Brit were both being arrogant and rude to each-other. They both have valid artistic impulses, and they've both denigrated the other's artistic impulses. Both escapism and darkness are valid artistic impulses for fiction, and neither should be disrespected.
I only want to add: There is no glory and honor in war and death. No matter on what side you die. I doubt, that the parents of those soldiers who died in Vietnam, Iraque or Afghanistan are reveling in the honor bestowed on their children by the government posthum?
Christopher, you can talk and talk and talk. You can assume and you would still be wrong. You can mouth the Trek Philosophy and yet what Trek writers are producing now is the antithesis of it.
No, it is not. It may be darker than you prefer, but a story can be dark yet still retain a fundamental optimism "that there is a tomorrow - it's not all going to be over in a big flash in a bomb." That's the point, in fact, of doing a story about grief -- that in the end, it's not all over, that people have a tomorrow.
Again, it's perfectly valid to say you don't agree with the decision to kill Janeway or that you don't want to read books that go to that dark of a place. It's perfectly valid to say that you prefer escapist Trek over darker Trek.
But that does not mean that darker Trek is the "antithesis" of the fundamental optimism of Star Trek, and it's absurd to say so.
Then you have the unmitigated arrogance to expect us to praise your efforts
Christopher has never written a VOY novel; he has indicated no expectation of any praise for his VOY efforts, because he has made no VOY efforts. Christopher is not Kirsten Beyer.
No, he's not. He's acting like someone who feels attacked and he's responding slightly disproportionately to it. You, on the other hand, just attacked him as producing something which is the "antithesis" of the themes that he has on numerous occasions expressed support for, and have been hurling insults at him quite a bit. He was rude to you, but you're being far, far ruder, and are reacting extremely disproportionately to his statements.
But your suggestion that because we don’t like death and reading about death makes us somehow inferior is insulting.
I'm sorry, but you're not entitled to have your creative wishes respected just because you're a potential customer. You're entitled to refrain from financially supporting a novel line whose decisions you disagree with; you are not entitled to have an artist compromise his or her creative vision to cater to your individual tastes.
We are not crazy, or stupid, we are mad as h*** and we are not taking it any more.
You're "mad as hell and not taking it anymore" over a fictional character's fictional death in a line of non-canonical novels which is not even universally applied to other novels (witness Janeway's presence in the Star Trek Online novel). That's an exceedingly disproportionate reaction to the situation.
You're entitled to respect for your difference of opinion and tastes. You're not entitled to respect for being angry, especially so disproportionately angry, about their creative decisions.
Re: Star Trek: Voyager: Children Of The Storm Review Thread
I really enjoyed the book. Read it straight through, staying up till after midnight. Loved the characters (old and new). Liked the building story of Captain Eden (and to a lesser extent the rogue hologram). Loved the science (without being too technobabie). Loved the positive ending and sense of wonder. Even liked the prtacticality of having that cargo bay of stuff.
My only really disappointment is that the book didn't deal with either the Borg nor any other outstanding issue from the Voyager series, which were the main reason the fleet's out there in the Delta Quadrant. But I'm sure we'll get there. Keep up the good work , Beyer et al
Re: Star Trek: Voyager: Children Of The Storm Review Thread
Is there any real difference between Janway being dead and not being used as far as the stories go? In the current Voyager arc, Janeway would not be being used. So she'd still not be in The Children of the Storm.
Hopfully this isn't going to start another argument but I'm just glad the book cover isn't red. The last three new Trek novels (Indistinguishable, DTI, & New Frontier) were very red.
Hopfully this isn't going to start another argument but I'm just glad the book cover isn't red. The last three new Trek novels (Indistinguishable, DTI, & New Frontier) were very red.
Is there any real difference between Janway being dead and not being used as far as the stories go? In the current Voyager arc, Janeway would not be being used. So she'd still not be in The Children of the Storm.
Re: Star Trek: Voyager: Children Of The Storm Review Thread
Well, Janeway was trying to prevent the fleet from being launched at all. Had she lived, it might not have happened. And if she hadn't been able to prevent it, at the very least she would've insisted on leading it, I think.
Still, I'm more interested in talking about the characters who actually were in the book. Like Commander O'Donnell of the Demeter. He was a really cool character. The hallucinations were a bit much, but aside from that I really liked his gentle quirkiness, and the surprising effectiveness he revealed in spite of everyone's expectations. And I loved the way he pursued a solution to the crisis through science and generosity rather than force, and put his more militant first officer in his place. A great reminder of what Starfleet's standard approach is supposed to be, something a lot of officers clearly have trouble remembering after years on a wartime footing.
And isn't Miral aging a lot more slowly that past Klingon kids we've seen? She's three and she's acting like a three-year-old, if that. By the time Alexander was three, the actor playing him was more like eight or nine, I think. But then, Miral is only a quarter Klingon, isn't she?
Re: Star Trek: Voyager: Children Of The Storm Review Thread
Finished the novel yesterday. Another successful entry in the VOY relaunch, courtesy of Kirsten Beyer. She's done a marvelous job at turning the VOY series around and really making the characters interesting and compelling. I have to say that Children of the Storm was unusual in that it really spent a lot of time focusing on other characters and ships in the fleet besides Voyager. While our regular, familiar crew still got adequate attention, a lot of time was spent with characters like Farkas, O'Donnell, Fife, etc. One could argue that the "regular" VOY characters could have used a little more screen time (page time?) but I liked the new characters who were introduced. I really like the way the book was structured, moving back and forth between Voyager and the three ships (Quirinal, Demeter, Planck) who were caught up in the Children of the Storm's drama.
Re: Star Trek: Voyager: Children Of The Storm Review Thread
Still, I'm more interested in talking about the characters who actually were in the book. Like Commander O'Donnell of the Demeter. He was a really cool character. The hallucinations were a bit much, but aside from that I really liked his gentle quirkiness, and the surprising effectiveness he revealed in spite of everyone's expectations. And I loved the way he pursued a solution to the crisis through science and generosity rather than force, and put his more militant first officer in his place.
That was very effective and completely wrong-footed me, I thought that he would have turned out to be completely hopeless and either die or have to removed from command (for real rather than what actually happens). Very nice piece of work.
Thanks so much for all of the kind words about the book. I'm glad that the story seems to be satisfying for you and really appreciate you taking the time to come here and say so.
I have all three novels--bought Full Circle twice after I thought I lost my first copy--and look forward to getting more as they come out. As others have said, you've gotten the whole optimistic Trek ethos down, of exploring new civilizations and types of beings and remaining hopeful throughout.
Would it be entirely wrong to say that your novels' major theme (one major theme) is the ongoing recovery of everyone involved--Alpha Quadrant, Delta Quadrant--from the Borg? I like good recovery sagas.
Re: Star Trek: Voyager: Children Of The Storm Review Thread
Just finished this novel myself and thought it was terrific. In short, you had a story that combined everything you are looking for in a Star Trek novel. Science fiction combined with good dialogue and character development. It's always great to see characters change for the better and what a job Kirsten Beyer did with all of them. I am particularly happy to see the development of O'Donnell.
Still, I'm more interested in talking about the characters who actually were in the book. Like Commander O'Donnell of the Demeter. He was a really cool character. The hallucinations were a bit much, but aside from that I really liked his gentle quirkiness, and the surprising effectiveness he revealed in spite of everyone's expectations. And I loved the way he pursued a solution to the crisis through science and generosity rather than force, and put his more militant first officer in his place.
And isn't Miral aging a lot more slowly that past Klingon kids we've seen? She's three and she's acting like a three-year-old, if that. By the time Alexander was three, the actor playing him was more like eight or nine, I think. But then, Miral is only a quarter Klingon, isn't she?
Couldn't agree more. The development of O'Donnell's character was handled so well by the author. It was a good thing to slowly introduce the reader to the tragedy he had experienced in the past.
And as for Miral, her character provided a good alternative to the seriousness of the main plot. I hope Miral doesn't age past 6 years old ever in the future Voyager novels haha.
)
red.
