The Enemy Within

[scotpens]

There was that line in All Our Yesterdays "violent even by Earth standards". before someone goes AHA! and points that out...

There's no such line in that episode (though Spock does refer to his ancestors of 5000 years ago as "warlike barbarians"). Maybe you're thinking of Spock's line in "Balance of Terror":

"Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive, colonizing period, savage even by Earth standards. And if Romulans retain this martial philosophy, then weakness is something we dare not show."

 

[johnnybear]

What other explanation would there be? That he was Kirk? Sounds way too fantastic to be true.

I mean, Spock would have reason to believe in duplication, and indeed in evil duplication: the dog experiment had already been conducted. But he couldn't let the rest of the crew know that the (evil side of the) Captain was to blame for the attempted rape and possible other nastiness: his position through and through was of protecting Kirk's reputation. Of course he would have to insist on calling the evil Kirk an impostor, an intruder, anything to detract from the facts.



1) That's what a Vulcan would probably do, so would Spock really be suspicious?
2) The good Kirk did not do everything possible; he just sat there and whined. Declaring defeat and leaving might just be another symptom of Kirk being too good for his own good.
3) It's not as if we'd really see Spock being mistaken. He has time to squeeze out one line, and he does that with Vulcan lack of passion, even if he doubts Kirk all the time.

The first two ideas are just idle rationalization. The third is what happens in the scene in the dramatic sense - things proceed fast, and the evil duplicate is immediately exposed, even though he desperately (and rather pathetically, almost gaining our sympathies there!) tries to confuse the issue.



Do we need to know? In-universe, we know he has prepared a nice video-testament that will clarify everything. In-universe, we also know the good Kirk would have been unable to finish even this simple sentence to any degree of coherence, being a wimp and all. But out-universe, all the necessary meaning is implicitly there.



There was supposed to be this devilish side to Spock at first, especially as regards women. Some of it survived till "Omega Glory", a rehash of an unused pilot script.

Even if some of that was toned down eventually, Spock still tries to be a Vulcan. And Vulcans probably beat their wives a lot, unless they don't walk two steps behind their husbands as in "Journey to Babel". Makes Spock all the more interesting as a character...

Timo Saloniemi

I always imagined Vulcan women welcoming their husbands home from work by asking if they had a good day at the temple today and the husband answering with a, ''It was acceptable she who is my wife!'' Then I guess she spends the rest of the day in meditation and he plays the lute before they go to sleep for two hours and get ready for the next day!
JB

 

[Pauln6]

I always imagined Vulcan women welcoming their husbands home from work by asking if they had a good day at the temple today and the husband answering with a, ''It was acceptable she who is my wife!'' Then I guess she spends the rest of the day in meditation and he plays the lute before they go to sleep for two hours and get ready for the next day!
JB

I always imagined that Vulcan wives walk behind their husbands because it is logical. The men are stronger and more likely to survive a wild sehlat attack or at least to weaken the beast for the wife to finish off. She can always find herself another husband. While he remains alert, warning her to avoid stepping in dung, her mind is free to examine advance mathematics, a cure to the virus on Veridian VI, and that new plomek soup recipe.

 

[Timo]

The men are stronger and more likely to survive a wild sehlat attack or at least to weaken the beast for the wife to finish off.

But didn't the sehlat attack from behind in "Yesteryear"?

(The le-matya later attacked from an unknown direction, and we joined the action once it had little Spock cornered...)

In any case, "the wife always walks behind" may be shit made up by Sarek the perv, only applying to the alien animal concubines he prefers, and Sarek simply passed on the proud tradition to his son who slightly misunderstood it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You both are right:

I agree with timo. Looking through the lense of the 60s, this is also how I interpreted Spock's comment. Not "you enjoyed being raped" but rather "Kirk, free from inhibitions, showed he is interested in you" - albeit evil Kirk showed his interest in less than gentlemanly ways.

When viewed thru the lens of 2016, the interpretation is much much uglier. And, when viewed from that perspective, I agree with corporal captain.

Old movies, old tv shows, old books, history, all need to be viewed in context of what the soccietal norms were in that era.

This is one of those instances when the societal norms were challenged and changed, because they were wrong. As an example, date rape -- something that was once not even thought of as rape -- is now recognized for what it is: rape. Same behavior, different norms, but always wrong, even when it wasn't recognized as wrong. The norms changed for a reason.

 

[Timo]

...By the same token, they may change once again, and for example slavery be declared "always right, despite the moral decrepitude of our 21st century forefathers". All it takes is a reason.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

All it takes is a reason.

No, but in the absence of reason, it often requires a rationalization.

 

[Timo]

Huh? Winners write history, and they don't need to rationalize when they can declare. Losers can't even whine from beyond the grave.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize:

rationalize

[...]

Simple Definition of rationalize

:
to think about or describe something (such as bad behavior) in a way that explains it and makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.


[...]

Full Definition of rationalize

1
:
to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a
:
to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>
b
:
to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly
:
to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

 

[Timo]

...There being no need to do that when one is in a position to define right and wrong at the fundamental level (i.e. living later than the other guy).

You seem to be thinking that morality evolves in the sense of getting better. It doesn't. It evolves in the sense of better bending to the circumstances. Because, you know, morality is all about rationalizing, of formalizing the type of behavior that benefits the society and then slapping the meaningless "this is right" label on it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What the fuck ever, dude.

 

[Timo]

Happy to open your eyes, friend.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pauln6]

But didn't the sehlat attack from behind in "Yesteryear"?
Timo Saloniemi

Damn, I guess Vulcan males really don't like plomek soup?

 

[The Old Mixer]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize:

(Oh, this is a precious moment...somebody just quoted the definition of "rationalize" to @Timo ....)

 

[Harvey]

I love it, too; I think it's a fascinating meditation on the nature of a human being. According to Marc Cushman's These Are the Voyages, the writer, Richard Matheson, was just intending this to be a re-telling of the Jekkyl and Hyde tale, so the episode was originally written with real Kirk and imposter Kirk. But Roddenberry -- who, from all accounts, knew very well what it was like to have a dark side -- rewrote the episode to split Kirk into good and evil and also added the "B" plot about Sulu's landing party on the planet. I think that treatment made the episode much stronger than it would have been just as a straight "Jekkyl and Hyde in space."

Are you sure about Roddenberry adding the dark side/light side angle?

I had just looked at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and immediately saw the potential of using that transporter device for separating the two sides of a person’s character. Having an accident with that offered a good way to study the alternative personality. And it was part of my original concept that he [Kirk] needed that negative element in his personality in order to be a good captain. I think, probably, we’re all mixtures of good and bad. If any one of us was all good, we’d be boring. And leaders have to have that drive and that ambition.

 

[UnknownSample]

That did seem like more of a R Matheson idea, than a Roddenberry type idea. RM, great ideas with depth to them... in science fiction terms he doesn't color within the lines though... his ideas generally cross over a boundary from SF to magic/fantasy, even if just a little bit.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

High winds. Those crash shuttles in Trek often enough, and in a couple of occasions also defeat attempts at using the transporter.

The place feels like some sort of a high Tibetan plateau, with temperature extremities to match. The "sky" is lit, on purpose or by serendipity, to suggest incredibly violent winds tearing clouds to cometary tails. And the orbital shots at least aren't in disagreement... It's just that the encampment is set in a protective depression that can't be easily reached without crashing the craft.

Timo Saloniemi

Also, given the wind, there may have been some concern the ore would interfere with shuttle engines. It is magnetic, after all.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Also when Kirk is on the transporter platform holding the dark side Kirk, what does he mean "Mr. Spock, if this doesn't work...." What does he expect Spock to do?

I don't think it was an open ended command, but more of a sentimental gesture. "if this doesn't work...goodbye and thank you for everything."

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I guess Spock can interpret it however he likes. I agree that it seems kind of a true-to-form parting shot from weak-willed Kirk for him to be at a loss for words, but sometimes there really are no words.

Rather than being good and evil (as weak and strong people are both capable of both types of actions), I think it's more Kirk's unchecked impulses vs his ability to feign from acting that were split into two. It's sort of like, unleashed, Act Now Kirk trends towards all the things he's wanted to do but has stopped himself from doing, often doing it with no concern for others' feelings or well-being. What If Kirk, on the other hand, wants to do the right thing, but can't muster any force behind his desires.

Without impulsiveness, you can't defy others to do what is right but against the rules/considered wrong or impossible. Without self-control and command of the situation, you have all these good intentions, but can't act on them, always afraid of what the unintentional outcome could be. Act Now Kirk, normally restrained by What if Kirk, would tell Rand about his feelings, afraid to be vulnerable but daring to see if she feels the same. What If Kirk, normally moved by Act Now Kirk, ultimately makes decisions, that, while never easy, save lives and work for the best possible outcome.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

It would have been funny if it had been Spock instead - to see a wholly Human Spock with a wicked sense of humor, maybe one who tells jokes and plays pranks, and a wholly Vulcan one who's rigid as a board.