You are still doing it. I started out saying women "IN GENERAL" a reasonable person would then know that all statements that say women mean just that "IN GENERAL"
Brit
What if Seven had died instead of Janeway?
- Thread starter AuntKate
- Start date
You are still doing it. I started out saying women "IN GENERAL" a reasonable person would then know that all statements that say women mean just that "IN GENERAL"
Brit
I am still doing it, huh?
No, dear, you are.
You are generalizing about women. There is no "in general."
Would you generalize based on race? If not, why generalize based on gender?
Thanks destro, I appreciate that. I think that one reason you hear from more of the fic writers is because we are a little more organized is all.
As for Teya, well it's pretty obvious she has a problem with me which is ok as I don't much care for her either. I know what I said and I know what I meant and no amount of twisting will make it anything else. Next time (and I am pretty sure there will be) I think I will just bookmark this thread and post the link.
Brit
My my my, are you goading me, Brit?
All I said is that I disagree with your generalizations--just as I disagree with *any* generalizations. Apparently you don't like that.
Oh well.
And, well, if you're going to continue to talk about women "in general" as if women in general are just like you, well, then, I'm going to continue to point out that you're generalizing.
Last edited:
Brit and Teya just stop talking to each other. You're both getting snippy and personal over nothing. Better yet put each other on ignore. Wonderful board function that one. You'll never have to deal with each other again.
As for this thread it doesn't really belong here. It's all about Trek Lit and books, not VOY the television show. I'll leave it for the time being, but if it starts going south it'll be shut. Fair warning. I'm not dumping another Janeway death thread on the Trek Lit mods. Everything that can possibly be said about Janeway's death has been done adnauseum.
As for this thread it doesn't really belong here. It's all about Trek Lit and books, not VOY the television show. I'll leave it for the time being, but if it starts going south it'll be shut. Fair warning. I'm not dumping another Janeway death thread on the Trek Lit mods. Everything that can possibly be said about Janeway's death has been done adnauseum.
On the topic of character death, I can't help but think that Seven's death instead of Janeway's would have produced a similar, if perhaps slightly less vocal, reaction, as there have always seemed to be more Janeway fans here than Seven fans. (For the record, I like both.)
Regarding the idea of killing a main character, I think I understand why it was done (and no, I haven't read the novel yet and probably indeed won't) but I think, perhaps, the way it was presented (again, without reading the novel) might have been part of the issue. I think the writers needed a universe-shaking event to maintain interest and drama in the novels, and also didn't quite know what to do with Admiral Janeway. But, also, her sacrifice appears to have been just that - a sacrifice as a part of the dynamics of the story that was not quite presented as such.
Indulging in a related analogy, as many of you may or may not know, I'm more than a little fond of Kirk's son, Dr. David Marcus, from TWOK/TSFS and the late actor who played him. Obviously, his character (and the original Enterprise, which I consider a character as much as anyone) were both "killed" in TSFS. Producer Harve Bennett (and many storytellers) have a notion of interstory karma where the protagonist has to lose something to win. In TWOK, Kirk lost Spock to escape Khan. In TSFS to "regain" Spock, Kirk had to essentially cheat nature and so had to lose both his son and his ship.
Now, I realize that David Marcus was not a main character per se, but I think that the comparison between his death as "karmically necessary" and what I see as necessary foundation for a Seven or Janeway death is still there. It seems like in the book, such a foundation wasn't really expanded upon and therefore many people feel it was more stunt than part of an organic narrative.
Regarding the idea of killing a main character, I think I understand why it was done (and no, I haven't read the novel yet and probably indeed won't) but I think, perhaps, the way it was presented (again, without reading the novel) might have been part of the issue. I think the writers needed a universe-shaking event to maintain interest and drama in the novels, and also didn't quite know what to do with Admiral Janeway. But, also, her sacrifice appears to have been just that - a sacrifice as a part of the dynamics of the story that was not quite presented as such.
Indulging in a related analogy, as many of you may or may not know, I'm more than a little fond of Kirk's son, Dr. David Marcus, from TWOK/TSFS and the late actor who played him. Obviously, his character (and the original Enterprise, which I consider a character as much as anyone) were both "killed" in TSFS. Producer Harve Bennett (and many storytellers) have a notion of interstory karma where the protagonist has to lose something to win. In TWOK, Kirk lost Spock to escape Khan. In TSFS to "regain" Spock, Kirk had to essentially cheat nature and so had to lose both his son and his ship.
Now, I realize that David Marcus was not a main character per se, but I think that the comparison between his death as "karmically necessary" and what I see as necessary foundation for a Seven or Janeway death is still there. It seems like in the book, such a foundation wasn't really expanded upon and therefore many people feel it was more stunt than part of an organic narrative.
Well I don't know if you've read "The Chimes at Midnight" Novella in the Second Myriad Universes book, but that takes a different tack on the TWOK/TSFS/TVH/TUC saga where David Marcus survives but Kirk and the Enterprise are still destroyed, which suggests there was some kind of Karmic ~~thing~~ involved there.
I think that there was some kind of universal karmic balance for Janeway, because she went along with her elder self, and screwed 23 years of history in order to get her crew back home...the universe then takes its pound of flesh...
Ooh, no I have not read that. I think I must now. Thank you!
And you may have a point regarding Janeway. It still seems like it wasn't made so explicit as it could have been that this was the universe taking its pound of flesh. Then again, I haven't read it.
Carol Marcus and (and to a much lesser extent) David play a role in the new Vanguard book Praetor. Neither are in the spotlight, but since you're a fan I thought you might be interested.
Thanks, destro! I shall add that to the reading list. 
Oh, I do agree with that actually. My problem's not with that idea, just with the apparent failings in the execution. (No pun intended.)
In that regard, I suppose it only makes sense for Janeway to be the one to die, if one character must die. I'd still rather it not have happened, but s'ok. Just a few more books I won't bother to read.
Oh, I do agree with that actually. My problem's not with that idea, just with the apparent failings in the execution. (No pun intended.)
In that regard, I suppose it only makes sense for Janeway to be the one to die, if one character must die. I'd still rather it not have happened, but s'ok. Just a few more books I won't bother to read.
She screwed 23 years of history in order to stop a few people dying, another going nutty bananas and another getting his heart broken...
If you're saying that "Endgame" sucked then I'm certainly not going to argue with you about that! However, I would argue that the actions you're describing were done by a future Janeway that died on a borg cube - not the "present" Janeway that is off drinking coffee with the Q or whatever.
Gee, the whole thing is making my head hurt.
Present Janeway was complicit, because right up until she heard the words "Seven of Nine is going to die" she was prepared to stick to her principles, but then she gave in and became her older self's partner in crime.
Also she gave no thought to the sacrifice the crews of the two starfleet ships who were heading full pelt for Voyager were making...they were giving up decades of their lives to rescue them, and she never mentions them, not once.
Like Picard said to Q in the TNG finale, you have to live your own life. The 23 years of history you're so concerned about were pretty much gone the second the elder Janeway met up with Voyager.
Obviously, the writers forgot about those two ships since no one else mentioned them either. I guess they can turn around now.
Anyway, if you want to start a "Janeway deserves to die" thread in a non-trolling manner then feel free. Let's not divert this one any further...
While I think your previous argument has some merit, I don't think this one does. Look at it this way: if Voyager stumbled across a wormhole taking them back to Earth, should Janeway take into consideration the ships making their way towards them when she decides to use the wormhole or not? I would say no...
Agreed, but the fact that she didn't even mention them was abit bad, after all they were making a massive sacrifice for Voyager, and neither Captain nor Admiral Janeway factored them into any of their arguments.
Example:
Admiral Janeway: Even if you alter your route, limit your contact with alien species, you're going to lose people.
Captain Janeway: Starfleet has dispatched two ships to reach us, within 5 years Voyager will no longer be alone...
Of course then the argument would be that Seven dies in three years so get the hell out of Dodge...
Meh it was a fairly flimsy argument, but i felt it was a point worth making.
Similar threads
