Complaints about humanizing Spock

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Vulcans were complete assholes. Every one of them. Nothing about being Vulcan was portrayed as ideal.

That puts it pretty succinctly, yeah.

Aside from Spock's idealization of Surak, we didn't meet a full Vulcan during TOS who wasn't a jerk. That includes (gasp!) Sarek.

The fact that Spock often held up Vulcan ideals as something that humans should aspire to is entirely separate from what we actually saw of them as characters - and what we saw both in TOS and on many occasions since have been characters who claim to be rational and dispassionate and who act repeatedly out of arrogance, chauvinism and something approaching bigotry.

They're hypocrites in a most human way, forever claiming to be one thing and acting no better - if as well -as the folks they look down upon.

I've always thought it was brilliant of Sturgeon, BTW, to take the opportunity of showing us Spock's people for the first time ever to show them as very nearly the opposite of what we might have expected based on Spock himself and his claims for his people. T'Paul, T'Pring and Stonn were a duplicitous, lustful, narrowminded and prideful lot.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Vulcans were complete assholes. Every one of them. Nothing about being Vulcan was portrayed as ideal.

That puts it pretty succinctly, yeah.

Aside from Spock's idealization of Surak, we didn't meet a full Vulcan during TOS who wasn't a jerk. That includes (gasp!) Sarek.

The fact that Spock often held up Vulcan ideals as something that humans should aspire to is entirely separate from what we actually saw of them as characters - and what we saw both in TOS and on many occasions since have been characters who claim to be rational and dispassionate and who act repeatedly out of arrogance, chauvinism and something approaching bigotry.

They're hypocrites in a most human way, forever claiming to be one thing and acting no better - if as well -as the folks they look down upon.

I've always thought it was brilliant of Sturgeon, BTW, to take the opportunity of showing us Spock's people for the first time ever to show them as very nearly the opposite of what we might have expected based on Spock himself and his claims for his people. T'Paul, T'Pring and Stonn were a duplicitous, lustful, narrowminded and prideful lot.

Stop it Dennis!!!!! You're ruining Christmas!!!!! er, New Years.

 

[ClawsThatCatch]

I think Vulcans were supposed to be like an ideal for humans to look up to.

The Vulcans were complete assholes. Every one of them. Nothing about being Vulcan was portrayed as ideal.

You are free to interpret vulcans however you want. It's obvious that Deep Space 9 would later interpret them as arrogant jerks, just as you're interpreting them. But I'm convinced Gene Roddenberry meant for them to be an ideal. (note that everything I talk about, I'm referring to TOS and not the later series. My reasoning is that Roddenberry had the most connection to TOS)

It's kind of a tradition in fantasy and sci-fi series to have a species or race that is the author's ideal for humanity. For instance, I think the elves were that for J.R.R Tolkein. The key give-away that you're looking at a species that is supposed to be emulated is that they are either immortal or have an extended life-span. This is a symbol for being especially wise. It's also a demonstration that the species in question already has that for which humans yearn.

Now, again, you are free to interpret vulcans as being arrogant jerks if that's how you see them. But there is a mountain of evidence that vulcans were meant to be interpreted as the ultimate good guys.

If this were supposed to be a disliked species, they would fall under a minimum of one of the following three categories: weak, stupid, and/or uncompassionate.

Since Star Trek is such a didactic show and most episodes have a moral lesson, the villains tend to fall under the uncompassionate category. However, if you read other fantasy stuff, if the writer really cares about strength, then all of the villains will be weak. If the writer really cares about intelligence, then all of the villains will be stupid, and so on.

Vulcans are the ultimate in compassion and thus demonstrate Roddenberry's ethical ideal. One symbol of the vulcans' compassion is their mind-melding ability which allows them to literally feel another being's pain. It's been demonstrated on multiple occasions that vulcans will not hesitate to offer their lives for the benefit of others (e.g. TWOK, "Operation Annihilate!" "The Apple" "Journey to Babel" "The Galileo 7"). It's always Spock, not Kirk, who first concerns himself with the ethical problems of harming a newly encountered species and asks Kirk to learn more about a situation before causing any degree of harm (e.g. the horta in Devil in the Dark, the gorn in Arena. He's even concerned about moving the whales in TVH). It should also be noted that vulcans are very reluctant to use violence and that it's been well-established that they are vegetarians.The ideal in Star Trek is ethics, and vulcans' demonstration of this ideal is evidence that they are to be an emulated species.

Though most species in Star Trek are smart and strong, vulcans are especially intelligent (apparently capable of doing advanced math in their heads) and especially strong (in tos it wasn't stated how much stronger they are than humans, but it is well established that they could quickly and efficiently kill if they were so inclined, though of course they rarely are). This is further evidence that vulcans are a perfect example of an ideal species.

The vulcans' only real demonstrated weaknesses are pride and a failure to rely on intuition when logic fails them. McCoy seems to be there to teach Spock humility, and Kirk seems to be there to teach Spock about the value of intuition. Though Spock would always have some vulcan arrogance, you can see later in the movies that this arrogance never interferes with his logic. Spock is quick to offer Kirk command of the ship that Spock is captain of in The Wrath of Khan when Spock thinks that Kirk is the more experienced choice. And Spock, in later episodes of the series, shows that he learns to trust and value Kirk's intuition.

So, we see multiple examples of vulcans fitting the definition of the author's ideals for humanity, and we see very few examples of real weakness. Seems like an admirable species to me!

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

There was a TOS novel I read once, I can't remember which it was, but McCoy made quite an interesting statement. Basically, he said "Spock is Spock...you can't split him in two and say one HALF is human and the other HALF is Vulcan." It doesn't really work that way. He's BOTH...so his characterization is naturally a mixture of the two.

As for what you said about Vulcans representing an ideal to look up to, ClawsThatCatch, I somewhat agree...one could then argue that the 'flaws' or unpleasant qualities we see in them is part of the lesson, namely that those you look up to aren't always as perfect as you want them to be.

I prefer to reason that all races/species in Star Trek represent a facet of humanity, and all have 'admirable' traits...Klingons pride themselves on loyalty, Cardassians view families as very important, Bajorans have strong faith, Vulcans have the qualities Claws mentioned...and so on. However, those same species all have negative traits as well.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But I'm convinced Gene Roddenberry meant for them to be an ideal.

That's nice, but since Roddenberry didn't write a single one of the episodes that really define Spock and Vulcans, his intent matters a great deal less than what the actual writers - and actors - did. And as I noted above, the Vulcans were written as jerks in TOS.

 

[ClawsThatCatch]

As for what you said about Vulcans representing an ideal to look up to, ClawsThatCatch, I somewhat agree...one could then argue that the 'flaws' or unpleasant qualities we see in them is part of the lesson, namely that those you look up to aren't always as perfect as you want them to be.

I prefer to reason that all races/species in Star Trek represent a facet of humanity, and all have 'admirable' traits...Klingons pride themselves on loyalty, Cardassians view families as very important, Bajorans have strong faith, Vulcans have the qualities Claws mentioned...and so on. However, those same species all have negative traits as well.

I think you make a valid point.

Of course, some species are more admirable than others.

That's nice, but since Roddenberry didn't write a single one of the episodes that really define Spock and Vulcans, his intent matters a great deal less than what the actual writers - and actors - did. And as I noted above, the Vulcans were written as jerks in TOS.

The one episode I think you're using to define vulcans is "Amok Time." Hopefully you'll agree that it's unfair to define vulcans by ponfarr, when they're at their worst. It's repeated and emphasized like a dozen times throughout the episode that that is not how vulcans normally behave, and in fact it is seriously abnormal for vulcans to be so violent and illogical.

You also mentioned Sarek being a jerk. He's a bit arrogant and a little testy with that one alien who's upset over mining operations or something, but Sarek's also having heartattacks on a regular basis, so considering the circumstances I think he was fairly calm. I think it should be noted that Spock, throughout that episode, demonstrates a serious ethical interest in the welfare of the many. Sarek is unconcious for a lot of the episode, but Spock and Amanda indicate that Sarek would have agreed with Spock's decision to risk Sarek's life for the welfare of the ship.

One problem, of course, is that the only vulcan we really get to know is Spock. Everything we know about what vulcans are comes from Spock. "journey to babel" we meet spock's dad who is unconcious half the episode. "amok time" we meet a bunch of ponnfarr vulcans who are not acting normally. And in "the savage curtain" we meet Surak, who may or may not represent all vulcans. However, I think it's safe to say that Surak is what all vulcans strive toward.

 

[kkozoriz1]

The aliens are written to make the humans look good. Take the Betazoids. Deanna, being half human, is much less annoying and obnoxious than Lwaxana, less devious than Devinoni Ral and much less whiney than Tam Elbrun. Spend any amount of time with any off them and you'll want to fire them out an airlock.

We're supposed to see something distasteful of ourselves in them and see that humans are the enlightened ones.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

As for what you said about Vulcans representing an ideal to look up to, ClawsThatCatch, I somewhat agree...one could then argue that the 'flaws' or unpleasant qualities we see in them is part of the lesson, namely that those you look up to aren't always as perfect as you want them to be.

I prefer to reason that all races/species in Star Trek represent a facet of humanity, and all have 'admirable' traits...Klingons pride themselves on loyalty, Cardassians view families as very important, Bajorans have strong faith, Vulcans have the qualities Claws mentioned...and so on. However, those same species all have negative traits as well.

I think you make a valid point.

Of course, some species are more admirable than others.

That's nice, but since Roddenberry didn't write a single one of the episodes that really define Spock and Vulcans, his intent matters a great deal less than what the actual writers - and actors - did. And as I noted above, the Vulcans were written as jerks in TOS.

The one episode I think you're using to define vulcans is "Amok Time." Hopefully you'll agree that it's unfair to define vulcans by ponfarr, when they're at their worst. It's repeated and emphasized like a dozen times throughout the episode that that is not how vulcans normally behave, and in fact it is seriously abnormal for vulcans to be so violent and illogical.

You also mentioned Sarek being a jerk. He's a bit arrogant and a little testy with that one alien who's upset over mining operations or something, but Sarek's also having heartattacks on a regular basis, so considering the circumstances I think he was fairly calm. I think it should be noted that Spock, throughout that episode, demonstrates a serious ethical interest in the welfare of the many. Sarek is unconcious for a lot of the episode, but Spock and Amanda indicate that Sarek would have agreed with Spock's decision to risk Sarek's life for the welfare of the ship.

One problem, of course, is that the only vulcan we really get to know is Spock. Everything we know about what vulcans are comes from Spock. "journey to babel" we meet spock's dad who is unconcious half the episode. "amok time" we meet a bunch of ponnfarr vulcans who are not acting normally. And in "the savage curtain" we meet Surak, who may or may not represent all vulcans. However, I think it's safe to say that Surak is what all vulcans strive toward.

Spock was the only Vulcan in AmokTime suffering from Pon'Farr. The others were perfectly fine, health wise. Even T'Pring showed no signs of "her blood boiling".

Regarding the Elves from middle earth as a comparison, I advise to read The Silmarillion. That book covers the whole general and several specific storys of the elves. And they act just like humans. Some outright stupid, others arrogant, I believe some of them even in evil ways.
So this point is moo!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'd recommend Diane Duane's history of Vulcan Trek novel, Spock's World.

And remember what Soval said in season four of Enterprise - that Vulcan's fear humans, because of all the species the Vulcans have encountered over the years, humans are the most like them.

 

[ClawsThatCatch]

I'd recommend Diane Duane's history of Vulcan Trek novel, Spock's World.

And remember what Soval said in season four of Enterprise - that Vulcan's fear humans, because of all the species the Vulcans have encountered over the years, humans are the most like them.

I've read it. I thought it was interesting.

Listen, I'm not saying vulcans are flawless or that they don't make mistakes or that there aren't any parallels to human behavior. I'm saying that as a whole, I think vulcans represent what Roddenberry wanted more of in humans. Namely, logic and ethics. Now yes there is an interesting backstory about them once being violent but i think that supports my point because it's supposed to show us that there is hope for humans to change.

Spock was the only Vulcan in AmokTime suffering from Pon'Farr. The others were perfectly fine, health wise. Even T'Pring showed no signs of "her blood boiling".

I disagree. I think there is evidence that both tpring and stonn were under ponnfarr

Regarding the Elves from middle earth as a comparison, I advise to read The Silmarillion. That book covers the whole general and several specific storys of the elves. And they act just like humans. Some outright stupid, others arrogant, I believe some of them even in evil ways.
So this point is moo!

Firstly, the elves are just an example of a larger point. Secondly, as I've tried to explain, the species in question should not be perfect. How boring would a story about perfect people be? But they should represent the ideals that the author has for mankind. Tolkein cared a lot about the environment and the elves show a species that are in harmony with it. Our major protagonists are all related to the elves in some way Aragorn (or Estel) was raised by them, bilbo had a special relationship with them and it's well established that samwise, the gardener, looked up to them.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Firstly, the elves are just an example of a larger point. Secondly, as I've tried to explain, the species in question should not be perfect. How boring would a story about perfect people be? But they should represent the ideals that the author has for mankind. Tolkein cared a lot about the environment and the elves show a species that are in harmony with it. Our major protagonists are all related to the elves in some way Aragorn (or Estel) was raised by them, bilbo had a special relationship with them and it's well established that samwise, the gardener, looked up to them.

I partly agree about the Elves in Tolkien, however, far more than the elves, I think the hobbits represented an idealized human society.

 

[Shatnertage]

FWIW, I always thought that TOS Spock was the most emotional guy on the whole ship. And the Sarek/Spock dynamic is hardly logical--a lot of emotion there. And how do we know that 10 years before "The Cage" he wasn't sucking face on the transporter pad?

 

[Kelso]

I disagree. I think there is evidence that both tpring and stonn were under ponnfarr

There is no such evidence.

FWIW, I always thought that TOS [SPOCK] was the most emotional guy on the whole ship.

edited by Kelso

Pretty much, yeah.

And how do we know that 10 years before "The Cage" he wasn't sucking face on the transporter pad?

Well, the new movie doesn't take place ten years before "The Cage," but Spock was certainly more outwardly emotional in the pilot than he was in the new film.

 

[Anticitizen]

In fact it was his impared judgement as a result which is why Kirk had to take command - Spock was robotically following Pike's last orders to meet up with the fleet, which would have doomed Earth.

Actually, I don't think Spock was showing impaired judgement. At that point, meeting up with the fleet would be the rational call. If Kirk had won that argument, and didn't get spaced to Delta Vega, he never would've met Scotty and Spock and picked up the long-distance beaming trick that they used to defeat the Narada. The Enterprise would've been warped right to Earth, and would've been summarily destroyed, along with Earth.

Therefore, a rendevous with the fleet was the reasonable choice. It's only by wild coincidence that Spaced-Kirk was able to get what he needed in order to defeat the Narada. Just another example of a ridiculous, convoluted plot.

Anyway, on 'humanizing' Spock (more accurately 'emotionalizing'): I didn't like it. The character wasn't Spock to me. I know people in person (quite human people) that are less emotional than this guy was. We saw kid-Spock in a fistfight, cadet-Spock getting pissed at the Kobyashi hearing, Spock sucking face in the turbolift, Spock marooning Kirk to Delta Vega, Spock trying to choke out Kirk, Spock urging Kirk to destroy a disabled ship while Kirk extended mercy. Allowing some emotion to come through from time to time is fine, but that's *all* we got in this film, evenly-modulated voice or not. He was more of a hothead than the human characters. We can make excuses; he's young, green behind the ears, etc, but that's all they are - excuses. I always felt the overall character arc with Spock was that he warmed up to his human side more over the years after serving on a ship full of humans. That doesn't work when he starts off his arc as the most emotionally-driven guy in the group.

Spock was used, in TOS, as a point of view the viewer could adopt, in order to look at humanity from an outsider's perspective. You know, often played for laughs, the running gag where Spock raises an eyebrow and makes a quip about how he fails to understand some aspect of human emotion, and everybody chuckles; but just as often a way to demonstrate human strengths or weaknesses. Reboot-Spock can't effectively play that role.

 

[Nerd unRage]

One thing I'm noticing, or rather, not noticing, is people seem to be forgetting that ST09, the characters are all much younger than when we first meet them in TOS. You're generally a lot more emotional in your teens up to about mid-to-late 20s. It would make sense, then that in ST09, Kirk is more impulsive and less thoughtful and Spock has more of a temper. And for goodness sake, he just lost his mother and planet. And he's only half-human, something I honestly forget most of the time I'm watching TOS until Bones or somebody else mentions it. Spock played as a true Vulcan would be an extremely boring character. I think in ST09, the writers are trying to explore more of Spock's humaness and the struggle to keep that "hidden" for lack of a better term.

 

[Anticitizen]

One thing I'm noticing, or rather, not noticing, is people seem to be forgetting that ST09, the characters are all much younger than when we first meet them in TOS.

I addressed that as an excuse in the post immediately preceding yours.

 

[Devon]

I addressed that as an excuse in the post immediately preceding yours.

We know from Spock over the years that the younger he was the less in control his character was. He was never really in full control of his emotions as it was.

As Leonard Nimoy pointed out, this was at a time when the character was struggling with his emotional human side this early on. The first two pilots showed an even sometimes "gleeful" Spock as it was and truthfully a little more disconnected from the Spock that the character eventually developed into. Even this character ended up having an outburst of joy, showing anger, showing frustration, showing sacrifice, and anything else I missed, only to be described as the "most human." None of this being under any alien or voodoo spell.

The accusations that they "emotionlized Spock," while generally being over-dramatized for an attempt to slam the film, is often overlooked by the fact that a younger Spock, especially one who under the circumstances that were presented by the film, actually should act the way he does and there is nothing out of the ordinary. There is nothing to contradict that what Spock has done is out of bounds for a younger and less controlled person. He may be Vulcan, but he's also human too.

The simple issue here is not that Spock shouldn't be portrayed the way he was, it's just some people saw a couple of sides of him they weren't aware could exist or they hoped couldn't exist, although history shows us differently.

 

[ClawsThatCatch]

I disagree. I think there is evidence that both tpring and stonn were under ponnfarr

There is no such evidence.

Allow me to provide some.

Spock says to T'Pau, to explain why he is unwilling to fight Kirk, "I will do what I must, T'Pau, but not with him; his blood does not burn."

Is it too much to infer that Spock is saying that he wants to fight someone whose blood does burn, and that he'd be willing to fight Stonn?

As for T'Pring, I'll just say that it's never stated that only males undergo ponfarr, and so I think it's fair to assume that it's something all vulcans undergo. And, since we know her mate (Spock) was undergoing ponfarr, it'd only be logical that she'd be undergoing it at the same time.

You may interpret it differently, but "no evidence" is an exaggeration, at minimum.

I partly agree about the Elves in Tolkien, however, far more than the elves, I think the hobbits represented an idealized human society.

This is a worthy discussion. The way I interpret LOTR, the hobbits represent the ideal that Tolkein saw in country life that perhaps he remembered in his childhood before going off to war. The evil of LOTR represents industry that recklessly ruins the environment and good living. Now, the difference between the elves and the hobbits, in my view, is the hobbits are the innocents. They're like the families Tolkein may have known who were forced to move out of their houses due to industry. The elves represent the same connection with the environment the hobbits had, but they're a wiser, stronger group. The hobbits had a bad habit of ignoring problems, hoping they would never bother them. The elves are tougher. Perhaps the elves are what Tolkein wishes people were more like: purely connected with nature, but not innocent, since innocence is too easily obliterated.

 

[Anticitizen]

As Leonard Nimoy pointed out, this was at a time when the character was struggling with his emotional human side this early on.

Lemme guess, he said this in reference to the new movie?

The first two pilots showed an even sometimes "gleeful"...

And they're just that; pilots, one of them unaired until it was chopped up and reused for another episode. Many, if not most, shows have pilots that depict characters and tone quite differently than any other episode of the show, because these pilots were created to sell the show to networks. Once they've made the sale and been greenlighted, things change. The uniforms and sets were different in both pilots too, you know...

In any case, I never liked the idea that being half-human would cause him to be more emotional, anyway. Vulcans supposedly had emotions that ran deeper than human emotions did, which is why Vulcans chose to suppress them in the first place. Amanda tried to appeal to his 'human side' when trying to convince Spock to relinquish command and save his father in Journey to Babel, but it didn't work. It wasn't until The Voyage Home, when that little bit about 'You're half human, the computer knows that!' came along. Which was silly.

 

[Devon]

Lemme guess, he said this in reference to the new movie?

Yes with the quote I'm thinking of. Of course, that doesn't make him incorrect considering the evidence that has suggested this long before.

And they're just that; pilots, one of them unaired until it was chopped up and reused for another episode.

They are still canon and officially part of Trek lore.

In any case, I never liked the idea that being half-human would cause him to be more emotional, anyway

That's your personal preference (which is fine) and would illustrate that your argument against any characteristics of the new Spock come more from personal preference than anything.