But, the point is, it isn't unusual for Spock, who is notoriously private about his personal life.
How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
Exactly my point. The fact that he’s private about Sarek makes sense. Sarek and Spock don’t see eye to eye. The fact that he’s private about Sybok makes sense - he’s a figment of Kirk’s dream. The fact that he’s private about a sister who is also in Starfleet and a science officer and who tries her hardest to be Vulcan bears some explanation I feel. Is Spock embarrassed by Michael? Does he disagree with Sarek taking her as a ward? Since it’s illogical for him to do so - she might have a human aunt or something...? We know the reasons why Spock is private about his other family members. All I’m saying is it will be interesting to learn why Michael is not the exception that proves the rule in this case.
It’s called the brak’lul!!
This. Why are people in any way surprised that Spock never mentioned her in TOS. He didn’t mention his parents until they were standing right in front of him, parents who BTW, did not attend his Pon Farr ceremony. He also never mentioned his brother. So the fact that he never mentioned his sister totally in keeping with his character.
What’s more shocking to me, honestly, is that Kirk apparently does not read the personnel files of his own senior staff. Cuz, you know, that information is probably in there.
Since Spock rarely mentions his mom either, and Michael is human, and Spock denies his human ancestry a lot in TOS, I don't think it requires a stretch of the imagination to find a reason.
Yup.
This is correct. And I might add that it still does not define their relationship.
In fact, it's very possible Spock loves Micheal very much but is very conflicted about it and thus acts awkwardly toward her and has trouble relating.
Well, it would not be in Spock's personnel file because Michael and Sybok were not invented yet. I'm willing to accept this "Prime Universe" is separate from the real Star Trek Universe -- which it is.
{insert Picard face palm here}
No.
Wall, meet head.
It does not bother me that Spock never brought up his sister.
It does, however, bother me that his sister ended up causing (or being blamed for anyway) a war with the Klingon Empire that resulted in the occupation of a large proportion of the Federation, with the siege of Earth only just barely turned back again due to the actions of Micheal Burnham. All of this only ten years or so before TOS.
It's like if you have a historical drama set in 2011 which follows a set of agents combating terrorism, but Osama Bin Ladin is never mentioned. Only worse, because it's unlikely one of the main characters would be a sibling of Bin Ladin.
So now we're equating Micheal Burnham to Osama bin Ladan?
The fact is these other connections to Spock are still featured, they were shown to exist. With Michael it was a 100% no show...
It was the first thing to come to mind. We don't really live in an era of RL heroes whose names are well known across the globe. But there still are infamous villains. Plus of course Burnham was perceived by the general public as a very bad egg before she redeemed herself.
Do you post in this subforum just to disparage the show?I’ll go with “isn’t”.
I'm shocked I tell you. SHOCKED!!!!!!!
There is no real Star Trek. It's all fake
She was perceived by Starfleet rank and file as a "bad egg." What the general public knew of her might have been more limited. And I have met people who do not know who Osama Bin Laden are (above the age 18).
I’m not sure I understand this comment. Sarek was not Spock’s father - until the show said he was. Spock didn’t have a brother named Sybok - until the movies said he did. And Michael was Spock’s adopted sister as soon as the series said she was.
That’s how it works. And the fact that we’re now just learning this is totally in keeping with everything we know about Spock’s reluctance to talk about his family.
Similar threads
- Locked
