Why did GR name Spock, "Spock"?

[Christopher]

The book was (eventually, at least) huge best-seller...but does that mean someone with no real interest in babies or childcare would have paid much attention to the author?

Roddenberry had two children at the time, Darleen and Dawn, born in 1948 and 1953 respectively. Dr. Spock's famous book was published in 1946 and rapidly became a best-seller. However, keep in mind that this was an era when child care was seen largely as a woman's province, and that Roddenberry was working as an airline pilot until 1949 and a police officer thereafter and might not have spent that much time involved with the raising of his daughters. So while it's likely that his wife Eileen was familiar with Dr. Spock, Gene himself might have only been peripherally aware of the man. By 1964, when he was looking for a character name and thought of "Spock," he might not have consciously remembered coming across the name before.

 

[Forbin]

I like how Christopher definitively answered to topic question in post number 2, yet most of the first page of the thread continues on as if he hadn't said a word.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, to be fair, some legitimate objections were raised to my "definitive" answer (or rather, TMoST's answer which I quoted).

 

[plynch]

The book was (eventually, at least) huge best-seller...but does that mean someone with no real interest in babies or childcare would have paid much attention to the author?

Roddenberry had two children at the time, Darleen and Dawn, born in 1948 and 1953 respectively. Dr. Spock's famous book was published in 1946 and rapidly became a best-seller. However, keep in mind that this was an era when child care was seen largely as a woman's province, and that Roddenberry was working as an airline pilot until 1949 and a police officer thereafter and might not have spent that much time involved with the raising of his daughters. So while it's likely that his wife Eileen was familiar with Dr. Spock, Gene himself might have only been peripherally aware of the man. By 1964, when he was looking for a character name and thought of "Spock," he might not have consciously remembered coming across the name before.

I like how Christopher definitively answered to topic question in post number 2, yet most of the first page of the thread continues on as if he hadn't said a word.

2. Not an exhaustive answer that point [Number Two (played by Bajel Marret-Boysenberry)]; plus, the joy's in the journey. Omm.

1. Yeah, I guess I can buy GR was not consciously aware of Ben Spock, though it stretches credulity. Coolbeans.

 

[Nardpuncher]

2. Not an exhaustive answer that point [Number Two (played by Bajel Marret-Boysenberry)]; plus, the joy's in the journey. Omm.
.

I need help understanding this.
I also don't know who or what "coolbeans" is/are.

 

[the G-man]

The book was (eventually, at least) huge best-seller...but does that mean someone with no real interest in babies or childcare would have paid much attention to the author?

Dr. Spock was a cultural phenomenon back then. He was even mentioned in "Peanuts" a few times, as early as 1959-1960. Very few people hadn't heard of him.

Putting aside the Oprah comparison, it would have been like a modern TV show naming a medical officer "Dr. Phil" or "Dr. Laura."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I like how Christopher definitively answered to topic question in post number 2, yet most of the first page of the thread continues on as if he hadn't said a word.

He did no such thing - he simply cited what GR said in The Making Of Star Trek.


That doesn't make it true.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Quite. Just makes it Stephen Whitfield's recitation of what he was told.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

David Alexander tried to pull something similar in his hagiography of GR's life, citing a memo from a presumably late point in work on "The Cage" in which Roddenberry suggests that they screen movies like Forbidden Planet as "proof" that he didn't lift Trek from that movie.

 

[plynch]

David Alexander tried to pull something similar in his hagiography of GR's life, citing a memo from a presumably late point in work on "The Cage" in which Roddenberry suggests that they screen movies like Forbidden Planet as "proof" that he didn't lift Trek from that movie.

Hagiography: yes. Funny.

2. Not an exhaustive answer that point [Number Two (played by Bajel Marret-Boysenberry)]; plus, the joy's in the journey. Omm.
.

I need help understanding this.
I also don't know who or what "coolbeans" is/are.

Oh, it's not worth it; I think I was tired and rambling. Christopher's response was #2 in this thread. Then I got goofy.

The book was (eventually, at least) huge best-seller...but does that mean someone with no real interest in babies or childcare would have paid much attention to the author?

Dr. Spock was a cultural phenomenon back then. He was even mentioned in "Peanuts" a few times, as early as 1959-1960. Very few people hadn't heard of him.

Putting aside the Oprah comparison, it would have been like a modern TV show naming a medical officer "Dr. Phil" or "Dr. Laura."

Nicely done. How about "Oz"? He's prob'ly not famous enough yet, though he informs me a lot. Be well.

 

[Captain Robert April]

In Jack Vance's space opera novel "The Star King", which predates Star Trek, there is a villain called "Mr. Spock".

Now, this I find interesting.

It should also be noted that Marvel Comics has always been of the opinion that Spock's appearance owes a very heft amount to Prince Namor, the Sub-Mariner (a character that dates back to before World War II). Just not enough to justify a lawsuit.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

I think Spock's appearance was deliberately chosen to be satanic by Roddenberry. Pointed ears, red skinned, Martian, who plugged himself into the ship's power through a cord in his stomach for sustenance. Fortunately, he consulted others (including Jack Williamson, Jerry Sohl, Robert Bloch, Ted Sturgeon, etc.) who talked him out of the red skin, the plug, and especially the Martian bit.

 

[Shatnertage]

^I've heard a little about the not eating food thing. But how would a species evolve that could plug itself in for energy? Was he supposed to be a cyborg?

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

The sf writers couldn't figure it out either. I've always imagined it would be like Norman's abdomen in "I, Mudd" and throw in a ropelight and voila. Stupid premise.

 

[Christopher]

Well, like I said, the red skin was dropped because it didn't register well on black-and-white sets. That was always a consideration in makeup, costume, and set designs at the time. Everything was tested in pre-production to see how it would look in B&W. And in B&W, the red makeup just made Spock look swarthy.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Pointed ears, red skinned, Martian, who plugged himself into the ship's power through a cord in his stomach for sustenance.

I've heard a little about the not eating food thing. But how would a species evolve that could plug itself in for energy? Was he supposed to be a cyborg?

Remember that G.R. wasn't really a science-fiction writer, let alone a scientist. For example, here's an excerpt from the original story outline for “The Cage,” describing one species glimpsed by then-named Captain April in the zoo where he's held captive:

. . . mongoose-like rodents, but clothed and weaponed like a feudal civilization, complete with a tiny castle, moat, ramparts, etc. It's night; oil lamps can be seen burning through the tiny toy-sized windows. This last civilization April himself has seen — the intelligent Lemur-life of a Class M planet in the Arcturus system.

Um, okay. Aside from the giggle factor, are these creatures supposed to be mongooses, rodents, or lemurs? Those are three entirely different orders of mammals -- none of which would be capable of building castles or any other artifacts, since they all lack a fully opposable thumb.

Roddenberry probably just though the idea of an alien who could draw energy from a plug in the wall was “cool” and “science-fictiony.”

 

[Maurice]

. . . mongoose-like rodents, but clothed and weaponed like a feudal civilization, complete with a tiny castle, moat, ramparts, etc...

Um, okay. Aside from the giggle factor, are these creatures supposed to be mongooses, rodents, or lemurs? Those are three entirely different orders of mammals -- none of which would be capable of building castles or any other artifacts, since they all lack a fully opposable thumb.

Roddenberry probably just though the idea of an alien who could draw energy from a plug in the wall was “cool” and “science-fictiony.”

Mongoose-like means they're sorta like mongooses, not mongooses or rodents or lemurs.

 

[scotpens]

^^ OK, whatever. They still don't have thumbs.

My point was that, regardless of G.R.'s talent as a writer, his knowledge of real science was rather limited.

 

[Christopher]

^Which is why he consulted heavily with people who did know real science. He was one of the few TV producers who did consult heavily with real scientists and engineers in developing an SF show, and that was a major part of why ST was so much more plausible than most shows. (NASA was consulted on the Lost in Space pilot, but they quickly figured out that Irwin Allen had no interest in listening to them, so they ended their involvement.) Yes, some of his initial ideas were rough, but they weren't intended to be anything more than a conceptual starting point that would be refined along the way. Probably Roddenberry's greatest strength as a producer was that he knew how to bring in smart, capable people and harness their skills and expertise -- even if one of his drawbacks was a tendency to claim credit for their work.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

^^ OK, whatever. They still don't have thumbs.

My point was that, regardless of G.R.'s talent as a writer, his knowledge of real science was rather limited.

Lemurs do have pseudo-opposable thumbs so imagining those mongoose-like rodents from a Class M planet in the Arcturus system might well have fully evolved thumbs and be capable of building castles and such as would befit an intelligent Lemur-life civilization.