Killing Time question.

[Steve Roby]

The history of slash has been pretty well discussed in a few books. That it's lasted for decades and grown in a lot of different directions should be enough to demonstrate that it's not just a matter of a few stories by people who don't get that Kirk likes girls; there's something more complicated going on. The amount of academic writing it's generated should prove that. It started as gay porn by and for straight women; from what I've read, in the early days, at least, gay men never bought into it, and their input was not particularly welcomed by the slash community. Also, IIRC, slash always had a somewhat suspect reputation, despite its popularity, and many writers and publishers operated under pseudonyms.

For an ethnographical look at slash in the print fanzine days, see Camille Bacon-Smith's Enterprising Women (which has a few pages on Killing Time) and Henry Jenkins's Textual Poachers. They're both academic works but also quite readable. (They're not just about slash, but deal with it as a major element of fan fiction.) For a somewhat more theroretical approach, try Constance Penley's NASA/Trek.

 

[OmahaStar]

As for myself, although I have no moral or other objections to physical love in any of its many Earthly, alien, and mixed forms, I have always found my best gratification in that creature woman. Also, I would dislike being thought of as so foolish that I would select a love partner who came into sexual heat only once every seven years."

What some may miss in that quote is that at no time does "Kirk" ever deny boffing Spock. He says "best gratification" but certainly doesn't say "only" does he?

Oh, so sorry .... You were attempting to make a point. You missed.

 

[Christopher]

^ Good points people. Perhaps unprofessional wasn't the best way to put it. I still consider it to be ridiculous, silly and bad judgment though.

I think you're assuming it was more blatant than it actually was. It was far from being "porn"; as I understand it, it was subtext that someone unfamiliar with the K/S trope could have interpreted simply as being overly melodramatic expressions of platonic affection and loyalty. But to those who are "in on the joke," as it were, the K/S implications are easily discernible. And it wasn't the first time that was done in professional Trek fiction; see The Price of the Phoenix from Bantam. The last time I read it (or as much of it as I could stand), a few years ago, I caught onto all kinds of homoerotic subtext I'd totally missed in the past. K/S is so much more widely known about today that it's easier to recognize the signs.

Only in order to debunk it....<snip>

Yes, I know all of that, which is why I said, "According to some fans," who've chosen to interpret things differently. After all, "according to some fans" and despite the evidence, Kirk sleeps with Uhura in the new movie, and the Aventine is about to get its own series.

I know you well enough to take it for granted that you knew that. I was providing more information for the benefit of the thread's readers.

 

[Timewalker]

Heck, if you ask some fans, Roddenberry himself alluded to such a relationship, in his novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Only in order to debunk it. He presented the novel as a dramatization based on actual events, with an introduction written by James T. Kirk himself. On p. 22, there's a footnote in which Kirk responds to the rumor (apparently existing in the 23rd century among some people who've followed the real-life exploits of these explorers) that he and Spock are lovers. He says:

As for myself, although I have no moral or other objections to physical love in any of its many Earthly, alien, and mixed forms, I have always found my best gratification in that creature woman. Also, I would dislike being thought of as so foolish that I would select a love partner who came into sexual heat only once every seven years."

Great going there, Jimmy -- you just casually blabbed the Vulcan's deepest, darkest secret to the whole galaxy! Whatever happened to "I haven't heard a word you've said?" It's a good thing he wasn't sleeping with Spock, or that relationship would've surely been sunk by this one thoughtless betrayal of trust.

And I just noticed: "I have always found my best gratification" in women. Which doesn't rule out the possibility that he's found gratification with someone other than women.

Actually, Kirk didn't say anything that Spock himself hadn't already blabbed. Anybody remember that weird bit of conversation in "The Cloud Minders" where Droxine asks Spock if "nothing can disturb that cycle" -- in reference to the pon farr? Spock certainly didn't seem a fraction as uncomfortable talking about it to Droxine as he was in "Amok Time."

As for Kirk's "best" gratification: There's a joke I read years ago (don't recall where) in which Kirk is visiting Tyree's planet and for some reason is invited to become a member of the tribe. The only catch is that there is an initiation rite he must go through. He has to complete two tasks: wrestle a Mugato and make love to a Kanutu woman.

So off Kirk goes into the forest, and he's gone awhile... and when he comes back, he's covered in scratches, bruises, and cuts; he's limping, and has a few cracked ribs. He's obviously been in a terribly exhausting, painful fight. Gasping for air, Kirk limps over to Tyree and asks, "So where is this Kanutu woman I'm supposed to wrestle?"

 

[Lee]

Besides, it seems to me that the only common element between Killing Time and STJJ is that they both involve Romulans going back in time to change history. But the nature of the historical change, its degree of success, and the time frame in which it unfolds are completely different, as is everything else.

I'll concede the point, except that you're leaving out, I think, the most striking similarity, which is that the Romulan time travel results in a Kirk who is somewhat of a loser/delinquent (although perhaps in differing degrees), and who ends up serving on an alternate-history Enterprise in a very low rank.

That's really a stretch. For one thing, the "alternate history" isn't remotely as different, and serves a totally different narrative purpose. In KT, the whole reality is drastically altered and the difference in Kirk is merely a consequence of the global change. In STJJ, the primary change is targeted specifically (or so it appears) at Kirk himself, and his life is the main thing that's changed, while most everything else (aside from minor variations like the look and construction location of the Enterprise) is reasonably similar. Also, in STJJ, Spock is not the captain of the ship. And about a million other differences.

It's always possible to cherrypick and find a few similarities between two given things. But those similarities aren't meaningful if they're hugely outnumbered by the differences. You've cited nothing that couldn't very easily be coincidence.

Yes, of course there are a million differences between Killing Time and the new movie. The question is not whether every single aspect of Killing Time is reflected in the new movie, and I never suggested that that was the case.

The question is whether there are enough similarities to warrant comment. I suspect this is really a question of subjective judgment, so there really isn't much point in us arguing about it.

I understand that there have been enemy-of-Federation-goes-back-in-time-to-weaken-the-Federation stories. And I understand that there have been young-delinquent-Kirk stories. And I understand that there have been more-military-Enterprise-in-an-alternate-universe stories.

But in this case, we have both a movie and a novel which share a Romulan-goes-back-in-time-to-weaken-the-Federation-causing-a-young-delinquent-Kirk-serving-on-a-more-military-Enterprise-in-an-alternate-universe story. To me, that's a much more specific set of similarities, and enough to warrent comment. Others may feel differently, and that's fine.

And I'm not saying it can't be coincidence. It's certainly possible that it was a coincidence. Since I can't read the filmmakers' minds and I wasn't present for story conferences, I'm not in a position to say. I just think that if it was a coincidence, it was a rather large one, given the specificity of the similarities, and certainly one worth commenting on.

Christopher, I enjoy your published writing, and your posts here as well, and I have great respect for your judgment on a variety of subjects. But in this case I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, Kirk didn't say anything that Spock himself hadn't already blabbed. Anybody remember that weird bit of conversation in "The Cloud Minders" where Droxine asks Spock if "nothing can disturb that cycle" -- in reference to the pon farr? Spock certainly didn't seem a fraction as uncomfortable talking about it to Droxine as he was in "Amok Time."

Spock blabbed it to one person in a private conversation (and if you ask me, he was probably suffering from some lingering aftereffect of the Lights of Zetar's neurological attacks and wasn't quite himself). He didn't publicize it to a mass audience.

 

[Turbo]

Lights of what?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think you're assuming it was more blatant than it actually was. It was far from being "porn"; as I understand it, it was subtext that someone unfamiliar with the K/S trope could have interpreted simply as being overly melodramatic expressions of platonic affection and loyalty.

You're right. And it's a theme seen in such movies as "Dude, Where's My Car?" and the TV series "That 70s Show", both of which feature the king of m/m double entendre, Ashton Kutcher, who also happens to be safely married to an "older woman", Demi Moore.

 

[JD]

...Kirk-serving-on-a-more-military-Enterprise-in-an-alternate-universe story.

A more military Enterprise? I don't remember them saying anything about the new movie being more military.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The question is whether there are enough similarities to warrant comment.

There is more connection between ENT's "Carbon Creek" and Garamet's "Strangers from the Sky"!

 

[Christopher]

A more military Enterprise? I don't remember them saying anything about the new movie being more military.

If anything, it looks more... commercial. What with the "Apple Store" look and all.

And I don't remember the Killing Time alternate starship being "more military" either. It was a ship in an alternate Federation run by Vulcans. So it was more buttoned-down and disciplined, no doubt, but I don't think "military" is the word.

 

[Lee]

A more military Enterprise? I don't remember them saying anything about the new movie being more military.

If anything, it looks more... commercial. What with the "Apple Store" look and all.

And I don't remember the Killing Time alternate starship being "more military" either. It was a ship in an alternate Federation run by Vulcans. So it was more buttoned-down and disciplined, no doubt, but I don't think "military" is the word.

I thought I remembered at some point that the filmmakers had said that the new Enterprise's design and weapons complement was more military (or shall we say "more martial"?)...

Spoiler: Potential spoiler of film

as a result of Nero's destruction of the Kelvin.

I've tried to search the forum and trekmovie.com, but I haven't been able to find anything to confirm this. And I've posted in the movie forum here, asking the question, but no one's come up with anything. So I have to acknowledge that I haven't been able to confirm this.

However, in an interview at trekmovie.com, Robert Orci does say that time travel explains why the Enterprise looks different. So perhaps what I'm remembering is my own or someone else's filling in the blanks with the explanation which I put in spoiler code. It seems like a reasonable speculation to me, but still obviously a speculation, so I guess we'll have to wait until the movie opens to know for sure.

And yes, in Killing Time Starfleet, and thus the Enterprise, are more martial. In the past of the novel's Second History, Romulans attacked Vulcan and lost the ensuing war. As as result, Vulcans, while retaining their original basic character, are more militarily involved and dominate Starfleet. Thus, by extension, Starfleet (and thus the Enterprise) could be considered more martial.

As one of the Romulans says, explaining the differences between First and Second History, "Yet the potential must always have existed for their ways of peace to change. Our time-tampering has made that change considerably more simple. The Vulcans are no longer the complacent and benevolent creatures from First History." And later: "Nonviolent security measures employed whenever possible. However, Second History reveals that the Vulcans do not hesitate to kill if necessary in order to protect planets within Alliance [Second History's name for the Federation] jurisdiction."

Also, the fact that in Second History, Kirk has been conscripted to serve on the Enterprise, and the fact that he's frequently beaten up by his roommate (something I doubt would be allowed to happen on the First History Enterprise) gives the Second History Enterprise a more martial feel. It's noted in the novel that in return for the Alliance's aid in reducing Earth's overpopulation, "the Alliance instituted a military draft of sorts."

 

[Christopher]

^^Okay, whatever, but it still doesn't give any credence to the notion that the few superficial similarities between the film and the novel are evidence of direct influence.

 

[Lee]

^^ But that's not my notion. What I said originally was "I'm really surprised at how much the plot of the new movie seems to follow the plot, or at least the setup, of Killing Time." And I'm still surprised, and I think I've explained more than adequately why I'm surprised. But I didn't say it's evidence of direct influence. In fact I said "It's certainly possible that it was a coincidence."

I get the feeling that this is a sore point and that you're assuming I'm taking a position that I haven't taken.

This disagreement started from the last line of a medium-length post I wrote on the first page of this thread. It was just sort of a passing thought, not something I'm standing on a soapbox and waving a flag about. I stand by everything I've posted in this thread, but frankly the whole issue just isn't that important to me. It's kind of a mystery to me why we're even still talking about it.

 

[Christopher]

^^Evidently it's a problem of interpretation. To me, the phrase "follow the plot" indicates the idea of deliberate emulation. If you'd said "resemble the plot," that would've been neutral, but the word "follow" carries the specific connotation of intent. If you say "Officer, that man is following me," that implies something a lot more than just that the man is walking in the same direction you are.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It was just sort of a passing thought, not something I'm standing on a soapbox and waving a flag about.

My passing thought is that the "setup", of time being changed by aliens (eg. Klingons in "Ishmael" and "Trials and Tribble-ations", Borg in "First Contact", Annorax in "Year of Hell", even Aleek-Om and the Federation historians in "Yesteryear") so we are now seeing a different timeline (such as "Yesteryear" and "Yesterday's Enterprise"), reminds me of numerous other ST stories.

 

[LightningStorm]

^^Evidently it's a problem of interpretation. To me, the phrase "follow the plot" indicates the idea of deliberate emulation. If you'd said "resemble the plot," that would've been neutral, but the word "follow" carries the specific connotation of intent. If you say "Officer, that man is following me," that implies something a lot more than just that the man is walking in the same direction you are.

Completely off the subject.. but I got a laugh out of this because as I read that I was thinking that "Officer, that man is following me," is indeed a very different statement from "Officer, that man resembles me."



*ahem*

uh, carry on.

 

[Lee]

^^Evidently it's a problem of interpretation. To me, the phrase "follow the plot" indicates the idea of deliberate emulation. If you'd said "resemble the plot," that would've been neutral, but the word "follow" carries the specific connotation of intent. If you say "Officer, that man is following me," that implies something a lot more than just that the man is walking in the same direction you are.

Well, okay, I apologize for my unclear language. I think I made my position clear, though, in my subsequent posts. Hopefully by the time this thread ends, I'll have improved my writing ability!

Christopher, I admire your creativity in coming up with new lines of attack, so to speak. But I think this whole disagreement can be boiled down very simply.

In retrospect, I was obviously wrong to suggest that Van Hise would have had legal recourse. Since I'm not intimately familiar with the intricacies of franchise tie-in contracts, I got that wrong, and I admit it.

I also admit that I can't confirm absolutely that the Enterprise in the new film is more martial. But I think that would be a reasonable speculation based on the evidence we have, which I've cited.

Other than those two points, I stand behind my opinion there are several similarities between the setups -- oh excuse me, is the word "setups" more bad usage on my part? Let's say "premises" -- between the premises of the new film and Killing Time, and that in my opinion, those similarities rise to an unusual level, and are more than just a single fuzzy similarity. Whether anyone else sees it that way is a subjective judgment. I think my opinion on the matter is not unreasonable, and I honestly don't see what's so outrageous about my position and I don't understand why it's causing such a ruckus.

It was just sort of a passing thought, not something I'm standing on a soapbox and waving a flag about.

My passing though is that the "setup", of time being changed by aliens (eg. Klingons in "Ishmael" and "Trials and Tribble-ations", Borg in "First Contact", Annorax in "Year of Hell", even Aleek-Om and the Federation historians in "Yesteryear") so we are now seeing a different timeline (such as "Yesteryear" and "Yesterday's Enterprise"), reminds me of numerous other ST stories.

I think we're kind of going around in circles now. As I pointed out in an earlier post...

I understand that there have been enemy-of-Federation-goes-back-in-time-to-weaken-the-Federation stories. And I understand that there have been young-delinquent-Kirk stories. And I understand that there have been more-military-Enterprise-in-an-alternate-universe stories.

But in this case, we have both a movie and a novel which share a Romulan-goes-back-in-time-to-weaken-the-Federation-causing-a-young-delinquent-Kirk-serving-on-a-more-military-Enterprise-in-an-alternate-universe story. To me, that's a much more specific set of similarities, and enough to warrent comment. Others may feel differently, and that's fine.

 

[milo bloom]

Or perhaps merely unlucky. "Shit Happens," right? Even to the most professional of editors?

Only a month apart from the "Ishmael" scandal.

I was actually searching for a thread on Ishmael when I found this one, which is kinda amusing since I recently bought both of them together at a resale shop. My copy of "Killing Time" is one of the "naughty" ones according to the line I found about the lipstick and such, which would explain the price sticker it had on it saying "cash only, $8.00". And Ishmael was priced "cash only, $4.00". (But I only paid 50 cents a piece for them, so somebody previously knew their value, but then obviously lost track of it).


Anyways, Killing Time was great, and I immediately picked up on the similarities to the new movie. Since it is a fairly common trope in Trek, I can't say it was intentional or anything, but I immediately saw it in my reading.

So, what's the deal with Ishmael? I'm still reading, so if it's a spoiler, please block it off and I'll come back in a few days.

And also, how do you pronounce the Vulcan's name "Trae"?

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

From what I recall, Ishmael is essentially a crossover with a TV series that starred Mark Lenard.