Valeris?
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
This is something that always somewhat bothered me about what happened to Valeris. I don't remember, do we see her at all again after the forced mind-meld?
Even as a little kid, that scene always disturbed me, that Valeris was forced to mind-meld in the middle of the bridge with the crew watching (or doing) as the secrets were ripped from her brain. And unlike previous mind-melds, this is clearly a disturbing, terrifying/hurtful experience, and Valeris seems downright damaged afterwards. Dramaturgically the scene makes sense and it's acted really well, but I always felt uncomfortable with Spock during that scene, and especially the public nature of Valeris' horror.
What's wrong with Vulcan's Heart? I thought it was a fantastic novel.
We see her once more when Spock leads her by the arm at Camp Khitomer when confronting Admiral Cartwright ("Arrest yourself!").
When we do see her again at the Khitomer conference, she appeared to be in a bit of a catatonic state, probably from Spock's mental assault.
And as bad as her crime was, I have to say I don't really see the justification in Spock's vicious assault on her, especially on the bridge in front of a lot of people. It would have been easier and less painful for them to have just used truth serum on Valeris. To me, this is a prime example of bad ethics being employed in Trek. I know I really shouldn't, but I felt bad for Valeris.
And as bad as her crime was, I have to say I don't really see the justification in Spock's vicious assault on her, especially on the bridge in front of a lot of people. It would have been easier and less painful for them to have just used truth serum on Valeris. To me, this is a prime example of bad ethics being employed in Trek. I know I really shouldn't, but I felt bad for Valeris.
And here I was thinking that Cartwright turned state's evidence and went into the Federation Witness Protection Program, where he was relocated to New Orleans and given a new identity...
Seriously, though. I'm reminded of Gorkon's line to Kirk, "If there is to be a brave new world, our generation will have the hardest time living in it." Cartwright, depending on how long he went to prison, could find himself with a lucrative position after his release, working for neocon think tanks, looking to prepare the Federation to refight the last war, only this time with enemies that have nothing in common with the Klingons. That's who Cartwright is -- he's the Donald Rumsfeld, the Dick Cheney, the Richard Perle, the David Addington, the John Bolton of the 23rd century. His career was made by fighting the Klingons and maintaining the cold war with them. Once that ended, the Cartwrights of Starfleet would look for a new enemy. They'd pick on someone like Cardassia, who might have been a minor little threat, but by irritating that threat, the threat became bigger than it ever should have been.
So, no, Christopher, I disagree. There is a story there. How does the Federation deal with the neocons of the early 24th-century?
Could the same apply to Valeris?
It does. I was speaking in very generalized terms, using Cartwright to personify an entire class of people in Starfleet and the Federation, who had a vested interest in the conflict with the Klingons and who would seek, once there was some semblance of peace between them, to foist a new enemy upon the stage.
I guess Valeris would be a G. Gordon Liddy or an Oliver North type.
When I first saw TUC, the forced mind-meld kind of seemed justified as Kirk and co. were in a hurry to get to Khitomer and save the President and they needed that information fast. It also made sense dramatically, but I still couldn't get past the simple fact that it was a full blown mind-rape. What was worse was that Kirk seemingly ordered Spock to do it, and then Spock just did it without even questioning it. That even made it seem as though Spock had done it before . It seems against Spock's character to do such a thing, even in the extreme circumstances that they were facing...
. It seems against Spock's character to do such a thing, even in the extreme circumstances that they were facing...
Forgive me, but that just keeps ringing in my head over and over as I consider certain groups and situations in the real world today...
It's just so... succinct and spot-on, you know? It's something I can imagine being said by someone, historian, politician, whomever, in decades to come of certain people today.
I know, off-topic, wrong forum.
.When I first saw TUC, the forced mind-meld kind of seemed justified as Kirk and co. were in a hurry to get to Khitomer and save the President and they needed that information fast. It also made sense dramatically, but I still couldn't get past the simple fact that it was a full blown mind-rape. What was worse was that Kirk seemingly ordered Spock to do it, and then Spock just did it without even questioning it. That even made it seem as though Spock had done it before
I believe the novelization attempts to say that once the meld started, Valeris accepted it and let him in (It's been a while since I read it, I just have a memory of someone mentioning that the novelization attempted to justify it). Either way, I'm with you - Kirk ordering it, Spock doing it, and no one on the bridge objecting, especially with having it happen right there on the bridge, out in the open, feels like an OOC moment.
That's right. Dillard did revise the scene so that it was a consensual meld.
I'm never quite comfortable with the claim that any forced mind meld or telepathic interaction would be the equivalent of rape. Amongst other things, different pieces of information are stored in different parts of the brain; I for one have no trouble imagining that a mind meld could be targeted for a specific part of the brain likely to contain a given piece of information, but avoiding other parts of the other person's mind, so as to preserve their mental and emotional privacy.
^But Valeris tried to pull away. Spock pulled her in anyways and initiated the meld at Kirk's behest. I'm not sure what part of this scenario, the "forced mind meld" that you mentioned, makes you uncomfortable equating it with rape. He may not have physically penetrated her, but he sure as hell mentally penetrated her.
(Responding to Sci):
I think that to a race of telepaths, any forced intrusion into the mind would be considered a severe invasion of privacy and an abuse of intimacy. It's not about how much information is obtained -- merely the forced entry itself would make one feel violated, stripped of power by another.
Besides -- a sexual assault can be "targeted" on the breasts and "avoid" the genitals, say, but that doesn't mean the victim doesn't feel assaulted and violated. There's no threshold below which an assault on the body is okay, so why would there be with the mind?
Theory aside, the scene was directed and performed as a forced act of intimacy. The subtext was one of sexual coercion, given the subtext of sexual tension that had previously been established between Nimoy and Cattrall.
I think that to a race of telepaths, any forced intrusion into the mind would be considered a severe invasion of privacy and an abuse of intimacy. It's not about how much information is obtained -- merely the forced entry itself would make one feel violated, stripped of power by another.
Besides -- a sexual assault can be "targeted" on the breasts and "avoid" the genitals, say, but that doesn't mean the victim doesn't feel assaulted and violated. There's no threshold below which an assault on the body is okay, so why would there be with the mind?
Theory aside, the scene was directed and performed as a forced act of intimacy. The subtext was one of sexual coercion, given the subtext of sexual tension that had previously been established between Nimoy and Cattrall.
Yeah, and I'll agree that under most circumstances, that would be wrong. But it seems to me that it's not unreasonable to infer that the emotional trauma caused by a forced mind meld would only equal rape if the meld was not specifically targeted for certain portions of the mind and not others.
In other words -- if the melder is pilfering through the entire mind, including the emotional parts and deep memories, I can see it equalling rape. If the melder is only targeting specific portions, I can see it equalling physical assault in terms of emotional trauma but not sexual assault.
Ah but that's exactly why it would have been so fascinating. Imagine Saavik, half-Romulan, and still bitter about the murder of David on the Genesis Planet, hearing Kirk's words "I could never forgive them for the death of my son"... and then joining a (partially Romulan) anti-peace conspiracy, believing that she was not turning against Kirk & co, but acting as they in their heart of hearts believed right.. Man, that would've been a heart-wrenching story arc, and at the same time shocking and doubly more interesting than an outsider plot device conspirator who we have never seen before.
No, but by the same token, not every act of assault is equal in immorality to that of rape.
