The Return of Janeway

[BillJ]

made-up Capt. Eden

As opposed to the real, not-made-up Janeway.

Made up for the Trek books, of course, as opposed to already shown on TV for seven years, you should know that there is a difference between a "paper" character and an official canon character who we have seen in action and have grown to respect and admire (and do want to see more of in print).

But they're all fictional constructs.

Whether it be Captain Kirk (my personal favorite), Captain Calhoun, Captain Janeway, Commodore Reyes, Captain Chakotay or Captain Eden... they are all fictional constructs there to service the story. There is no difference in their purpose.

Captain Chakotay commands Voyager and Eden is the mission commander. No different a set-up than we've seen episodes like A Taste of Armageddon, The Galileo Seven, Too Short a season and The Pegasus.

But never fear, Eden was clearly written with an exit strategy in mind. That way Voyager at some point can return the status quo 'in-universe' and out (no one buying Voyager novels). So you can pat yourselves on the back when Voyager quickly returns to obscurity thanks to a few who refuse to have their collective horizons broadened.

 

[zar]

Eden isn't canon, Janeway however is. That is the difference. She is the staring canon character for Star Trek Voyager, Eden isn't.

Of course I understand there's a difference between a character from a few novels and one that's been acted out on TV for 7 years. I just thought it was funny that someone was implying Janeway wasn't "made-up".

With only eight percent of Trek fans reading novels, the majorty of Trek fans (71% female by the way), don't even know who Eden is but they know who Janeway is.

I don't see how that percentage is relevant, because the novel readers are, naturally, the only ones affected.

In other words, 100% of those affected read novels. Not 8%.

 

[Brit]

With only eight percent of Trek fans reading novels, the majorty of Trek fans (71% female by the way), don't even know who Eden is but they know who Janeway is.

I don't see how that percentage is relevant, because the novel readers are, naturally, the only ones affected.

In other words, 100% of those affected read novels. Not 8%.

It is relevant because around 60% of all fiction sold is purchased by women. The real question is why aren't these women reading Trek Literature, and that is relevant in a business that is losing money hand over fist. At some point the publisher has to look at the people not reading their books and ask why.

We are telling them why. It is as simple as that, if you think that Trek Literature is doing fine with their small percentage, then you don't have a thing to worry about do you? All your arguments against us consists of calling us names and trying to twist what we say so we look unreasonable.

So here it is, I work for every cent I have to spend, I want to read books about a living Kathryn Janeway, I do not want to spend my money on Voyager books without her. It is my right and it is also my right to protest the removal of Kathryn Janeway. You guys should accept that first and formost. That is the right thing to do. You also have every right to spend your money on what you want to read.

What you don't have the right to do is to try to shut us up.

 

[froot]

As opposed to the real, not-made-up Janeway.

Don't shatter my dreams.

 

[zar]

It is relevant because around 60% of all fiction sold is purchased by women.

I was talking about the 8% readers not the 71% women.

The real question is why aren't these women reading Trek Literature

Um... they aren't? You said 71% of Trek fans are women, 8% read the novels, and 60% of fiction is bought by women. How does that translate to "women aren't reading Trek novels"? Wouldn't the logical assumption based on this be that 60% of that 8% are women? Is there a fourth statistic you forgot to mention?

All your arguments against us consists of calling us names and trying to twist what we say so we look unreasonable.

wut?

 

[Brit]

It is relevant because around 60% of all fiction sold is purchased by women.

I was talking about the 8% readers not the 71% women.

The real question is why aren't these women reading Trek Literature

Um... they aren't? You said 71% of Trek fans are women, 8% read the novels, and 60% of fiction is bought by women. How does that translate to "women aren't reading Trek novels"? Wouldn't the logical assumption based on this be that 60% of that 8% are women? Is there a fourth statistic you forgot to mention?

All your arguments against us consists of calling us names and trying to twist what we say so we look unreasonable.

wut?

Yep a perfect example of what I said. Just perfect. Thank you so much.

 

[zar]

Please point out specifically where I twisted your words to make you seem less credible. If you're unable to do so, you're guilty of that very thing.

 

[NoStrings]

I'm sorry. I don't like her dead either. But if Eden isn't canon...then uh...neither is Janeway's death. Right??? Both came into creation in the same manner and place. Neither was on screen and both happened in books.
There we have it! Problem solved. Her death isn't canon so we don't need to pay any more attention to it.

 

[JanewayRulz!]

I'm sorry. I don't like her dead either. But if Eden isn't canon...then uh...neither is Janeway's death. Right??? Both came into creation in the same manner and place. Neither was on screen and both happened in books.

There we have it! Problem solved. Her death isn't canon so we don't need to pay any more attention to it.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I'm sorry. I don't like her dead either. But if Eden isn't canon...then uh...neither is Janeway's death. Right??? Both came into creation in the same manner and place. Neither was on screen and both happened in books.

There we have it! Problem solved. Her death isn't canon so we don't need to pay any more attention to it.

Elegant, I like it.