Is Surak the Bad Guy??

[ZapBrannigan]

By jingo, you’re right. Nothing about seven years can be found in “Amok Time”, nor anything suggesting a cycle. ...

Well, this is disturbing. Beliefs I’ve held for nearly a lifetime are really based on a couple of dodgy lines from the truly dreadful “Cloud Minders.”

Exactly. And when "The Cloud Minders" was written, there was no mouse-click to review the script of "Amok Time." All they had in those days was hard copy, and it would have to be dug out by somebody.

They appear to have gone from memory, and conflated two lines of dialogue from "Amok Time" to make the mistake. The eel birds go back to mate once every 11 years. Spock and T'Pring's arrangement was decided when they were seven. Jumble that up, and you get a recurring Vulcan cycle of once every seven years. Worst sex life ever.

And the only way out of it now is to say that Spock was scamming on Droxine: "Listen, Toots, I don't normally give a sh--, but if you're sexy enough maybe you could win me over." He's negging on her. He's using her misinformed state to pose a sexual challenge. [But that would be Quinto-Spock. I can't see Nimoy-Spock as a horn dog, just can't see it.]

 

[Nerys Myk]

 

[JMS]

I sometimes wonder if Spock is not driven to be the ultimate Vulcan, because of his upbringing by Sarek and the difficulties he had growing up and being teased by the "real" Vulcans. In other words, he's trying to be more Vulcan than Vulcans. As mentioned above, the other Vulcans all show themselves to be less than perfect when it comes to Surak's teachings (which makes sense). Spock is less than perfect as well, but he's trying so much harder to make up for what he sees as his deficiencies.

For what it's worth, I always got the feeling that Worf in TNG was the same way. He was heavy on these Klingon ideals that the other Klingons paid lip service to, but didn't necessarily live up to.

 

[Ronald Held]

Spock is less likely to discuss mating details compared to other Vulcans. If no one asks for details, he in general does not provide personal information.

 

[dupersuper]

I sometimes wonder if Spock is not driven to be the ultimate Vulcan, because of his upbringing by Sarek and the difficulties he had growing up and being teased by the "real" Vulcans. In other words, he's trying to be more Vulcan than Vulcans. As mentioned above, the other Vulcans all show themselves to be less than perfect when it comes to Surak's teachings (which makes sense). Spock is less than perfect as well, but he's trying so much harder to make up for what he sees as his deficiencies.

For what it's worth, I always got the feeling that Worf in TNG was the same way. He was heavy on these Klingon ideals that the other Klingons paid lip service to, but didn't necessarily live up to.

I think there was also a lot of (generally unstated) pressure from Sarek to be an exemplary Vulcan. Sarek had married a human, fostered another, his eldest son had rejected Vulcan teachings...

One of the reasons Spock not going to the Science Academy hit Sarek so hard (in addition to what Burnham saw in his mind) )was likely that he'd pinned all his hopes on him. Indeed, that's surely why he did what he did in that flashback.

 

[Phaser Two]

Exactly. And when "The Cloud Minders" was written, there was no mouse-click to review the script of "Amok Time." All they had in those days was hard copy, and it would have to be dug out by somebody.

They appear to have gone from memory, and conflated two lines of dialogue from "Amok Time" to make the mistake. The eel birds go back to mate once every 11 years. Spock and T'Pring's arrangement was decided when they were seven. Jumble that up, and you get a recurring Vulcan cycle of once every seven years. Worst sex life ever.

And the only way out of it now is to say that Spock was scamming on Droxine: "Listen, Toots, I don't normally give a sh--, but if you're sexy enough maybe you could win me over." He's negging on her. He's using her misinformed state to pose a sexual challenge. [But that would be Quinto-Spock. I can't see Nimoy-Spock as a horn dog, just can't see it.]

Well, *he* saw Droxine, perhaps.

 

[JMS]

Since (I think) the only Vulcans you see in the original series are aristocrats (so-to-speak), I wonder if working class Vulcans are as logical as they are (and they don't always seem that logical). I mean, we know the ideal Victorian was super straight-laced about sex ... and that there's also lots of Victorian pornography and thus the real Victorian didn't quite meet the ideal. People rarely do meet the ideal or stereotype of their culture or religion.

It wouldn't be hard to conceive of a Vulcan ruling elite who either do their best to live up to Surak's principals or at least publically act as though they do to legitimize their place in society, while common Vulcans don't take things quite so far except when they're in public. In private, maybe they focus on moderating their emotions, especially destructive ones, rather than eliminating them completely.

 

[FredH]

I think there was a recent thread in the comics where Spock ended up in ancient Vulcan and Surak turned out to be, at least at first, a fairly bloody warlord. Of course, the same comics had Gary Seven’s masters having nefarious plans for the galaxy, which recent Picard appears to have made impossible.

 

[Ragitsu]

history is written by the victors

Oft-repeated, but virtually never one-hundred percent accurate.

 

[Snowdrop82]

Arguably the 'good guy' approach to things I believed was extremely simplistic and I wish they took a more nuanced approach and showed the mistakes that leaders such as Surak made. I don't believe he was 100% good, and there are probably a few skeletons in the closet there.

 

[danellis]

I think there was also a lot of (generally unstated) pressure from Sarek to be an exemplary Vulcan. Sarek had married a human, fostered another, his eldest son had rejected Vulcan teachings...

Very true. I guess the relvevant thing is that Spock is an ultra-Vulcan. Imagine how we'd be depicting humans if all we had as a staring point was how Kirk was depicted.

...It wouldn't be hard to conceive of a Vulcan ruling elite who either do their best to live up to Surak's principals or at least publically act as though they do to legitimize their place in society, while common Vulcans don't take things quite so far except when they're in public. In private, maybe they focus on moderating their emotions, especially destructive ones, rather than eliminating them completely.

Isn't that kinda in line with how Tuvok was depicted?

Oft-repeated, but virtually never one-hundred percent accurate.

Decided by the victors while the original victors-and-losers are still in the frame. As time goes on beyond that, it's written by subsequent victors: who will have a view of the events distorted by their own prejudices.

Arguably the 'good guy' approach to things I believed was extremely simplistic and I wish they took a more nuanced approach and showed the mistakes that leaders such as Surak made. I don't believe he was 100% good, and there are probably a few skeletons in the closet there.

60s fiction,TV, certainly, was very much limitie dto the "good guy v bad guy" approach, much less than we are in the 2020s. our contemporary prejudices tend to seek to "evilise" our supposed heroes.

dJE

 

[Ragitsu]

Decided by the victors while the original victors-and-losers are still in the frame. As time goes on beyond that, it's written by subsequent victors: who will have a view of the events distorted by their own prejudices.

That is a more accurate (though less catchy ) description of what typically happens, yes. The original maxim supposes that the losers were eradicated and/or unable to tell their side of the story; this doesn't always happen. In the United States, for instance, you have southern descendants of the US Civil War who stridently insist that their ancestors were in the right....and some of them who are with us are in positions of real political power.

 

[danellis]

That is a more accurate (though less catchy ) description of what typically happens, yes.

Just call me Leonard de Quirm lol

The original maxim supposes that the losers were eradicated and/or unable to tell their side of the story; this doesn't always happen. In the United States, for instance, you have southern descendants of the US Civil War who stridently insist that their ancestors were in the right....and some of them who are with us are in positions of real political power.

Yes, but not just that: So far as I know, there's no meaningful remnants of the Aztecs, but a mixture of early 21st Century outputs leading to a reinterpretation and archaeological remains mean that a contemporary telling of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs would be significantly different to that dictated by the Spanish victors.

dJE

Editted to correct QUOTE tag

 

[Maurice]

*The original maxim supposes that the losers were eradicated and/or unable to tell their side of the story; this doesn't always happen. In the United States, for instance, you have southern descendants of the US Civil War who stridently insist that their ancestors were in the right....and some of them who are with us are in positions of real political power.

*Missing a quote tag there

 

[danellis]

Just call me Leonard de Quirm lol

The original maxim supposes that the losers were eradicated and/or unable to tell their side of the story; this doesn't always happen. In the United States, for instance, you have southern descendants of the US Civil War who stridently insist that their ancestors were in the right....and some of them who are with us are in positions of real political power.

Yes, but not just that: So far as I know, there's no meaningful remnants of the Aztecs, but a mixture of early 21st Century outputs leading to a reinterpretation and archaeological remains mean that a contemporary telling of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs would be significantly different to that dictated by the Spanish victors.

dJE[/QUOTE]

*Missing a quote tag there

Oh yeah! fixed thanks

dJE

 

[palesubaki]

Arguably the 'good guy' approach to things I believed was extremely simplistic and I wish they took a more nuanced approach and showed the mistakes that leaders such as Surak made. I don't believe he was 100% good, and there are probably a few skeletons in the closet there.

I've actually be planning to explore such a thought with fanfic making Spock and Kirk the reincarnation of ancient Vulcans. Specifically, Spock as the younger brother of Surak (one who has been ruthlessly mentally and emotionally abused by his brother) and kirk as Kirok a Vulcan commander in the army of Romulus the founder of the Romulan empire. The two are in the end found out by Surak, and before they can run away to the Romulan camp the are secretly tried and executed by Surak. And this kind of ruthlessness is canonical with Surakian Vulcans since in the episode "Tower of Babel" Spock said that if his father saw a logical reason to kill the ambassador, he would do it without hesitation.

 

[scotpens]

I maintain that if you look only at Amok Time and no other episode of Star Trek that mentions Pon Farr, that originally Pon Farr was intended to only happen once in the life of a male Vulcan.

Then where does the 'once every seven years' reference come from?

It's mentioned in The Making of Star Trek:

There is a price that the Vulcans pay for their repression of emotion. At certain times in their lives the Vulcan male is overcome with the mating urge. (It is very much like a "rutting season.") Having withheld emotion for so long, they must succumb to a period of time sufficient to get it totally out of their systems. Their behavior is based on a combination of Vulcan law, tradition, and instinct. When the time comes, in that time and in that place, it is entirely logical and entirely proper.

The specific time interval between these occurrences varies from male to male and by other circumstances. The average is about once every seven Earth years when a Vulcan is separated from his own people as is Spock, more often if living among his own kind. It is possible that Spock might not follow the usual Vulcan pattern, since he has the human half influencing him as well.

(Emphasis added.)

Of course, it was never intended that Vulcans have sex only once every seven years. That's just silly.

 

[Shawnster]

Does Vulcan follow the teachings of Surak as he intended? Are these the original teachings or have they been corrupted, edited, altered, ignored, or misunderstood over the centuries?

Romulan appear to not only reject Surak's teachings but still developed a thriving society that isn't hellbent on its own destruction. How did that happen? Is there another viable way than Surak's way?

It may be wrong to judge Romulan biology based on their political agendas. Politics can change and the Romulans could develop a peaceful civilization if they chose to. As we see in Picard and DISCO its possible that a bunch of Romulans can be good guys.

By the 32nd century it does appear they found a way to blend and integrate Vulcans and Romulans into one cohesive and thriving planetary civilization. Maybe the no longer march under the raptors wings but huddle under those wings like chicks to their mother.

 

[Falconer]

TOS Vulcans are like humans — “We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today” — cranked up to 50. Pre-Surak Vulcans are implied to have been way more murderous and rapey than humans ever were. Hence Surak’s cold turkey approach. It’s a parable for us, of course, writ large in the Star Trek way. Spock’s appearance is unsubtly compared to Satan’s.

 

[Ronald Held]

The individual Vulcan follows the teachings of Surak to the best of their abilities.