Spock & Uhura romance

[Nerys Myk]

We are hogging this thread with simpleness. D stands for diversity. Diverse should be valued. Just because something is different doesn't mean it is bad, evil, wrong etc. As Spock says:

MIRANDA: I understand, Mister Spock. The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.
SPOCK: And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty.

Notice ways is plural.

I am not of the body and I will NOT be absorbed!!

And????

Well McCoy seemed to appreciate diversity:
""In this galaxy there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth type planets, and in all the universe three million million galaxies like this, and in all of that, and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named Kirk."

Diversity is a beautiful thing! It's not a question of making everyone the same, it's about seeing the beauty in, respecting and appreciating things that are different than ourselves!! After all variety is the spice of life.

I think McCoy was promoting a different agenda in that conversation. My point is that IDIC vanished almost as soon as it was mentioned. One can retrofit various bits into the phliosophy of IDIC, but are/were they really about IDIC?

I'm not anti IDIC, but there was just no real follow up on it.

Not really. While aliens lost their mystique during TNG (they did originally have them - hence the hand-wringing over Riker going into the holodeck to challenge Worf), the aliens of TOS were often (not always, true) represented as something other than just plain folks with extra nostrils. They were presented as embracing or embodying certain concepts which we may have been able to understand (or not), but which certainly weren't like us.

in TOS,more often than not, they represented an aspect of humanity ( usually a negative one) and the aliens ( who looked 99.9% human) needed to be shown "the way" by our heroes. And sometimes it was humanity that needed a slap on the butt and a time out. Those were a nice change of pace. Even a non-humaniod like the Horta in the end was just a mother protecting it young. We can all relate to that. ( of course we had to hunt and try to kill it first )

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, this is very interesting. Many of the writers (usually female)? Which writers are these? I would like a list, please. I am very curious to know why you chose to emphasize the writers' gender, of all things.

Maybe D.C. Fontana? There's a revisionist, for you.

Of course, Fontana and Sturgeon did more to define the character of Spock and Vulcans in general than any other writers - and of course they defined them by writing about the powerful emotions that Vulcans experience and struggle with.

John D. F. Black understood, in writing "The Naked Time," that Spock was most interesting when he was in emotional torment.

The "revisionism" is the pretense that Vulcans have been portrayed mainly as emotionally neutral or in control of themselves - it's more accurate to say that they've been portrayed from the beginning as reserved in their behavior and insistent upon their claim of dispassion, but revealed time and again in almost every circumstance to be other than they claim to be.

 

[Agenda]

My theory is that Vulcans are genetically more passionate than humans and other species. That's why they have developed an ethos to control their emotions. They are so passionate, that they are forced to go "cold turkey" on any emotional displays. Other species aren't forced to because they just don't have the same innate need to emote.

A species prone towards passion (and violence) will inevitably destroy either themselves or others, if they have the technology to do it (i.e. nukes). That's what Vulcans discovered when they almost died off through their constant warring with each other. That's why Surak introduced the concepts of embracing logic and mastering emotions.

 

[Ronald Held]

Vulcan emotions are genetically based. They chose the path of logic to survive as a race.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One of the most entertaining aspects of Star Trek: Enterprise, for me, was the human beings discovering that they could position themselves between the emotional extremes of the Andorians and the Vulcans - the two species could barely communicate, but they could both get along with human beings. Then, same thing happens with the Tellarits. So we saw why humanity is so damned important to the formation of the Federation.

It was, frankly, a better idea than anyone had come up with previously to dramatize that.

 

[Jeri]

Vulcans' control is directly proportional to the volatility of their emotions, is what I have always thought.

Human emotions are not so volatile, hence less control...

 

[maryh]

Well, this is very interesting. Many of the writers (usually female)? Which writers are these? I would like a list, please. I am very curious to know why you chose to emphasize the writers' gender, of all things.

Maybe D.C. Fontana? There's a revisionist, for you.

Of course, Fontana and Sturgeon did more to define the character of Spock and Vulcans in general than any other writers - and of course they defined them by writing about the powerful emotions that Vulcans experience and struggle with.

Fontana gave us one of the defining Vulcans. Sarek was not "struggling for control of his powerful emotions" in JTB. He genuinely was cool, controlled and controlling, he didn't understand emotions (or his wife and son) and acted based upon logic.

Sturgeon did us a favor by explaining to us how a dispassionate, intelligent species like the Vulcans managed to get together to reproduce. He based his ideas on reproductive behavior of non-human species - many of whom are not known as being emotional. Salmon do not behave similar to Vulcans do in their reproductive behavior because they "repress emotions". Their behavior is caused by biological drives, it is inborn, instinctive, uncontrollable and based in physiology. The same idea was applied to Vulcans. Humans are rare in that they do not have a "heat cycle" or mating season and the behaviors associated with it. Most Earth species do. Intelligent species from another planet might evolve more similar to the vast majority of Earth species rather than the exception that humans represent in this aspect of biology.

John D. F. Black understood, in writing "The Naked Time," that Spock was most interesting when he was in emotional torment.

It was interesting because his behavior was the exception - not the rule. The torment was caused by his denial of his emotional human half. No denial/suppression - no torment!! The interest was what lay hidden, and not expressed unless some external factor was operating. Spock is a human/Vulcan hybrid so he has emotions. The uniqueness and the lure of his character lay in the struggle he had within him to deny his feelings and emotions. If he expressed emotions, he would be just the same as the rest of the human crew except with big ears and bifurcated private parts. TOS Vulcans (Spock excepted due to Human genetic material) WERE different emotionally.

The "revisionism" is the pretense that Vulcans have been portrayed mainly as emotionally neutral or in control of themselves - it's more accurate to say that they've been portrayed from the beginning as reserved in their behavior and insistent upon their claim of dispassion, but revealed time and again in almost every circumstance to be other than they claim to be.

TOS Vulcans were not pretenders or fakes. Revisionism made them that way. Humans didn't understand them very well, but TOS Vulcans had values, culture, emotions, physiology, reproductive behaviors, communication abilities, mental disciplines, mental controls and weaknesses etc. that were different than that of a Human. The entire Genre of Sci-Fi is supposed to explore ALTERNATIVE, but scientifically possible ideas, people, species, technologies, culture - phenomena that we haven't encountered. The premise of Trek was supposed to "explore STRANGE NEW worlds, seek out NEW life..". It is supposed to be different than what we encounter on Earth right now. The tendency to make Trek into a human drama in outer space and forget about exploring Sci-Fi ideas has caused some like myself to abandon ship. Spock/Uhura typifies this tendency.

Shocked by a Sci-Fi fans desire for uniformity of intelligent species and elitist view of humans.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The premise of Trek was supposed to "explore STRANGE NEW worlds, seek out NEW life..". It is supposed to be different than what we encounter on Earth right now. The tendency to make Trek into a human drama in outer space and forget about exploring Sci-Fi ideas has caused some like myself to abandon ship. Spock/Uhura typifies this tendency.

Shocked by a Sci-Fi fans desire for uniformity of intelligent species and elitist view of humans.

Thats just the opening monologe. At it's core Trek was about very human drama. The SF ideas were just something to hang that drama on.

 

[maryh]

The premise of Trek was supposed to "explore STRANGE NEW worlds, seek out NEW life..". It is supposed to be different than what we encounter on Earth right now. The tendency to make Trek into a human drama in outer space and forget about exploring Sci-Fi ideas has caused some like myself to abandon ship. Spock/Uhura typifies this tendency.

Shocked by a Sci-Fi fans desire for uniformity of intelligent species and elitist view of humans.

Thats just the opening monologe. At it's core Trek was about very human drama. The SF ideas were just something to hang that drama on.

Sci-Fi's drama is about the human reaction to things that were new, never encountered, at the edge of our ability to imagine. It's what sets Sci-Fi apart from fantasy and pure drama.

 

[Warped9]

Sci-Fi's drama is about the human reaction to things that were new, never encountered, at the edge of our ability to imagine. It's what sets Sci-Fi apart from fantasy and pure drama.

Well said.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The premise of Trek was supposed to "explore STRANGE NEW worlds, seek out NEW life..". It is supposed to be different than what we encounter on Earth right now. The tendency to make Trek into a human drama in outer space and forget about exploring Sci-Fi ideas has caused some like myself to abandon ship. Spock/Uhura typifies this tendency.

Shocked by a Sci-Fi fans desire for uniformity of intelligent species and elitist view of humans.

Thats just the opening monologe. At it's core Trek was about very human drama. The SF ideas were just something to hang that drama on.

Sci-Fi's drama is about the human reaction to things that were new, never encountered, at the edge of our ability to imagine. It's what sets Sci-Fi apart from fantasy and pure drama.

Not in Star trek's case. And that a pretty narrow definition of SF.

The Doomday Machine isn't abut the machine or even the technology behind it. Its about two men:Kirk and Decker in desperate situations. Its a riff on Moby Dick and was only set in space because the show is called "Star Trek".

"Mudds Women" is a mail order bride story. One that many Westerns have done.

"The Balance of Terror" is a war story. With an invisibility screen substituting for the ocean.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

John D. F. Black understood, in writing "The Naked Time," that Spock was most interesting when he was in emotional torment.

It was interesting because his behavior was the exception - not the rule.

Yep. That's what you call drama. That's telling a story about individuals. That's what Star Trek is, when it's any good at all - it's not a sociological treatise or study of a non-existant species.

If TOS had aspired to the latter, it would have failed early and no one now would give a fuck.

And what they did with this movie is exactly what they did in every memorable episode of TOS involving Spock - he does the unexpected.

Which is one reason this film satisfied a much larger audience than most Trek movies: instead of servicing a fan base which is presumed to have inviolable expectations about nonsense like "Vulcan culture" they let the characters be surprising and entertaining. Like, you know...TOS.

 

[maryh]

Not in Star trek's case. And that a pretty narrow definition of SF.

The Doomday Machine isn't abut the machine or even the technology behind it. Its about two men:Kirk and Decker in desperate situations. Its a riff on Moby Dick and was only set in space because the show is called "Star Trek".

"Mudds Women" is a mail order bride story. One that many Westerns have done.

"The Balance of Terror" is a war story. With an invisibility screen substituting for the ocean.

You are seeing only the already explored similarities - how about a little unexplored territory to stimulate the mind?

If I could take a drug and look, act and control men like those chicks from Mudds women -- what would I do? Would I take advantage of the situation or not. With proper manipulative skills and some Venus pills - I could rule the world. Tempting and currently impossible. But imagine the possibilities....

If there was a device that landed on Earth which our machinery told us would eventually detonate and blow up the world -- how would I react. What would our government do? How would we come together and decide how to get rid of it? Loved TOS and the 3 classical perspectives it offered to us in the form of K/S/M -- with Decker as the instigator. What does logic say to do, what would be the ideal thing be to do, what risks are morally acceptable to take? Great character interplay never yet encountered because one of the perspectives is superhumanly logical - only seen in beings from another planet.

I'd say invisibility and the encountering of a hostile, non-human, unknown species puts Balance of Terror into the league of "never encountered yet and at the edge of my ability to imagine."

Of course you are allowed to see parallelsa, but you are also supposed to see new ideas and, "unchartered territory".

I've gotta go now. Enjoyed the debate. I'm just another disappointed "TOS Purist" in the proper forum.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Not in Star trek's case. And that a pretty narrow definition of SF.

The Doomday Machine isn't abut the machine or even the technology behind it. Its about two men:Kirk and Decker in desperate situations. Its a riff on Moby Dick and was only set in space because the show is called "Star Trek".

"Mudds Women" is a mail order bride story. One that many Westerns have done.

"The Balance of Terror" is a war story. With an invisibility screen substituting for the ocean.

You are seeing only the already explored similarities - how about a little unexplored territory to stimulate the mind?

If I could take a drug and look, act and control men like those chicks from Mudds women -- what would I do? Would I take advantage of the situation or not. With proper manipulative skills and some Venus pills - I could rule the world. Tempting and currently impossible. But imagine the possibilities....

If there was a device that landed on Earth which our machinery told us would eventually detonate and blow up the world -- how would I react. What would our government do? How would we come together and decide how to get rid of it? Loved TOS and the 3 classical perspectives it offered to us in the form of K/S/M -- with Decker as the instigator. What does logic say to do, what would be the ideal thing be to do, what risks are morally acceptable to take? Great character interplay never yet encountered because one of the perspectives is superhumanly logical - only seen in beings from another planet.

I'd say invisibility and the encountering of a hostile, non-human, unknown species puts Balance of Terror into the league of "never encountered yet and at the edge of my ability to imagine."

Of course you are allowed to see parallelsa, but you are also supposed to see new ideas and, "unchartered territory".

I've gotta go now. Enjoyed the debate. I'm just another disappointed "TOS Purist" in the proper forum.

But those aren't the stories they chose to tell in those episodes

Mudds Women isnt about the Venus drug and ruling the world.

Doomsday Machine isn't about the machine. Its about Kirk and Decker. Thats the meat of the story. Our hero is stuck on a dying ship! A crazyman has taken his ship!!! Will our crew follow his orders and abandon our hero????

Spock's coldly logical point of view is easily duplicated in an non SF setting. Its only "superhuman" because its Spock saying the lines. Spock represents one side of a very human point of view not an alien one.


Balance of Terror is about two men and their duty not a cloaking device. It's about bigotry. The cloak is just so much hand waving to amp the drama. ( and one easily cast aside to further the drama)

 

[T'Girl]

Humans are rare in that they do not have a "heat cycle" or mating season and the behaviors associated with it.

Well we sort of do. But it on a monthly, not a yearly cycle and for some strange reason when men are extra attracted to us and when we're extra attracted to them is separated by a week.

Vulcan emotions are genetically based. They chose the path of logic to survive as a race.

Their emotionally reserve isn't just an example of their controlling their emotions internally, the visual reserve is something taught from childhood, a learned public persona. It's a practiced display that Vulcans put on for the benefit of (initially) other Vulcans ... see, I'm in control of myself. It spares them the disdain of their fellows.

The control isn't solely at the personal level, there is also a societal aspect to it. Should a Vulcan display more than a minimal amount of emotion, they6 would likely be taken to the side by a family member or a friend and counciled. If they could not learn to conform, they would be shunned. McCoy said that to be found acting like us (humans) would cause Spock embarrassment, Spock himself said that such a display would be bad taste. Shame is something the group employs to influence the individual.

Enterprise's third season episode Impulse showed what Vulcans might be like, when they are acting "normal."

.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But those aren't the stories they chose to tell in those episodes

Mudds Women isnt about the Venus drug and ruling the world.

Doomsday Machine isn't about the machine. Its about Kirk and Decker. Thats the meat of the story. Our hero is stuck on a dying ship! A crazyman has taken his ship!!! Will our crew follow his orders and abandon our hero????

Spock's coldly logical point of view is easily duplicated in an non SF setting. Its only "superhuman" because its Spock saying the lines. Spock represents one side of a very human point of view not an alien one.


Balance of Terror is about two men and their duty not a cloaking device. It's about bigotry. The cloak is just so much hand waving to amp the drama. ( and one easily cast aside to further the drama)

Star Trek worked on TV because the characters and story formulae made sense to viewers who may or may not have been exposed to any science fiction other than occasional television but who liked police and medical dramas and particularly westerns.

There is no "TOS Purist" forum hereabouts - just a forum for discussing the original Star Trek series - and there is no orthodoxy that must hold sway here. Saying "the TOS vision" when one means "my opinion of what TOS was about" does not lend the opinion any particular credibility.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That's why Uhura is perfect for him. She has emotions but will never be bedeviled by them. She gives Spock hope that there's a way out of his inner conflict (which of course is created by his Vulcan, not his human, half - Vulcans having more violent emotions than humans, apparently to a dysfunctional extent.)

This is the TOS board so the vision of Vulcans is that from TOS - not the revisionist Vulcans that appeared after the series ended, no doubt due to many of the writers (usually female) who focus on feelings when they write.

It was longtime fanon, canonized in ENT, in a memorable conversation between T'Pol and Trip. Dunno if the writer was female - probably not - most of the writers on that show were guys and I didn't bother to notice who wrote what - but it hardly matters now. One way or the other, it's 100% pure, unadulerated FACT now.

Going by TOS I'd say there might be a genetic factor. They seem more aggressive than humans when their control is compromised. Over all though, its a silly concept.

Why's it silly? It fits the psychological portrait of Vulcans, and I approve of the notion that aliens don't just look non-human, they have inherent non-human behaviors.

Star Trek in general and TOS in particular promoted the idea that folks are alike all over.

There has definitely always been a blindly smug undercurrent of "aliens will eventually see the superiority of human ways" in Star Trek, though I hope it isn't so blatant that it would be impossible for aliens to ever adapt themselves to the Federation, which is ultimately based on a very hew-mon mentality. Vulcans are acceptable if they realize that their emotions are "too strong" (compared with whom? hew-mons of course!) Vulcans do agree with this, and had the "good taste" to agree even before they met the humans, which absolves humanity from any taint of cultural imperialism.

The bad Vulcans who didn't adapt themselves to the Federation way 2000 years before the Federation existed are the Romulans. And that's why they're the enemy.

This is just one of the many ways in which Trek has its cake and eats it too.

(Of course there's another story to be told in this: the Federation is largely the creation of Vulcans. They used themselves as the "norm" of emotional probity and control, and deliberately excluded the Romulans as being outliers. The Vulcans accepted certain alien species who matched their norm into the Federation. Humans just happened to be lucky this way, an accident of location and evolution. I find this story far more interesting than the human-centric alternative.)

HEY! Howcome we're not yakking about Spock + Uhura anymore????

 

[skylark14]

Humans are rare in that they do not have a "heat cycle" or mating season and the behaviors associated with it.

Well we sort of do. But it on a monthly, not a yearly cycle and for some strange reason when men are extra attracted to us and when we're extra attracted to them is separated by a week

I meant to comment on the same thing as human females definitely do have a monthly mini-heat thing going on (at least the one I'm most familiar with does or rather, did). But I'm not familiar with the part about males being a week off in desire. Would you mind explaining that further, T'Girl? (And feel free to use euphemisms where necessary - I've read some of your other free-spirited posts)

 

[T'Girl]

Okay, most female figure out in their late teens, early twenties, that guys are more interested in us when we''re at the height of our fertility, few days before ovulation. I started noticing this in high school. Became really obvious at university. Makes a girl extra popular in the clubs. Even young guys who aren't interested in becoming fathers respond.

At a different point, post-ovulation, a week/ten days later ... well many girls get really horny.

.

 

[Pauln6]

What I don't get is that if the Vulcans are so volatile, how did the Romulans survive, thrive, and develop emotional responses more akin to humans. It may simply be Darwinian principles - only those with less strong emotions survived to breed as the others killed each other - or it could be something in the Romulan atmosphere or diet that acted as natural mood balancers.