I quite agree.
Writing aside, I believe Nimoy drew upon the Jewish experience (I hate that term, but it's an adequate shorthand) in his portrayal to convey Spock's status as an outsider.
Amok Time and the gay thing
- Thread starter Plum
- Start date
I quite agree.
Writing aside, I believe Nimoy drew upon the Jewish experience (I hate that term, but it's an adequate shorthand) in his portrayal to convey Spock's status as an outsider.
Thanks for the 'reading shit into an episode that wasn't there' lecture series.
It isn't all about homosexuality. Well, except for "The Way to Eden" and "Is there in Truth No Beauty", oh, and "The Cloud Minders..." and...
It would be interesting to know the kernel of the idea for the episode. And, like any good piece of fiction, it may work on levels or send messages the writer never intended or thought of himself. Frankly, I see no homoerotic theme in it at all, but -- not to be a relativist -- that doesn't mean someone else doesn't see one.
I think the episode sprung from one intriguing thought: how do Vulcans get it on? Love Vulcan style.
Sex is a very emotional act, ostensibly involving the deepest of emotions and a willingness for a person to let oneself go physically and emotionally with another person. Indeed, in all ways it is very "anti-Vulcan." Yet, sex (though not love) is necessary for procreation (in the conventional sense, anyway). So, how does it happen on Vulcan?
As we learn, it is a mixture of logic (arranged marriages between families putting together the best matches), base drives (pent up for years that finally can't be supressed any more), and it seems some shame or embarrassment at its very necessity (the rituals being shrouded in secrecy and not known by outworlders).
I think the episode sprung from one intriguing thought: how do Vulcans get it on? Love Vulcan style.
Sex is a very emotional act, ostensibly involving the deepest of emotions and a willingness for a person to let oneself go physically and emotionally with another person. Indeed, in all ways it is very "anti-Vulcan." Yet, sex (though not love) is necessary for procreation (in the conventional sense, anyway). So, how does it happen on Vulcan?
As we learn, it is a mixture of logic (arranged marriages between families putting together the best matches), base drives (pent up for years that finally can't be supressed any more), and it seems some shame or embarrassment at its very necessity (the rituals being shrouded in secrecy and not known by outworlders).
The taboo aspect, IMO, related more to Spock's pride as being governed by logic, not emotion and instinct. Pon Farr is deeply embarassing to Vulcans because they become what they have rejected as a philosophy and a way of life.
Maybe there is a sub-text there about homosexuality and repressed feelings, but it seems pretty vague.
Maybe there is a sub-text there about homosexuality and repressed feelings, but it seems pretty vague.
Good question, why would it have anything to do with homosexuality?
The only gay sub-text I see in "Amok Time" is how Spock's love for Kirk cancels out his need for T'Pring. Now, most of us see that love--intense as it is--as entirely Platonic but stil...
I do not understand that. Once Kirk died, the bloodfever broke.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Exactly, it's only there if you want it to be.
Thanks for the underhanded insult.
Some Trek fans are so desperate to see gay things in Trek they'll try to see it even when it isn't there. Not seeing it isn't an inability to see subtext or think critically. It's not adding things that aren't there.
And fyi, I am not just a "modern" viewer. I grew up watching TOS in syndication, 'k? So you can't use that against me.
There is nothing "homosexual" in this episode. At all. Go read your badly written fan fiction that has Kirk and Spock as gay lovers if you want to get off on it.
A shame you got so little out of Trek. Of course, that varies with how much one brings to it. Tell me, do you actually think it was about a spaceship zipping about in outer space?
You are correct, though. Rather than singling out modern viewers, I should have referred to all who are untrained or unable to engage in critcal analysis.
You are correct, though. Rather than singling out modern viewers, I should have referred to all who are untrained or unable to engage in critcal analysis.
Likewise, you have so little in your life you enjoy being denigrating, belittling and insulting to strangers who don't happen to share your points of view and opinions?
At least I can spell 'critical.' Ha.
I have gotten a lot out of Trek, actually. I've been a fan for, oh, maybe over 27 years. So don't presume you know a damn thing about me - and certainly not enough to be condescending.
(To T'Bonz - sorry, but I was being trolled.)
