If they had, we would have seen him.
Besides, Picard was at the wedding many, many years ago - most likely before Sarek even met Perrin.
Spock got HITCHED?!?
- Thread starter Too Much Fun
- Start date
If they had, we would have seen him.
Besides, Picard was at the wedding many, many years ago - most likely before Sarek even met Perrin.
Just like we had seen Sybok before FF, and heard Spock and Sarek talk about him many times...
This argument that it could have been someone other than Spock mentioned by Picard is very interesting and some valid points have been made both for and against it. After reading over both, I can't help but think it's more likely he was talking about Spock.
I can't see any reason the writers would throw in that line besides making a subtle reference to Spock (apparently they were reluctant about addressing original series main cast members at the time, so this was the only way they were comfortable doing it) in order to tantalize fans to speculate about who their beloved Spock might have married. As this thread demonstrates, the tactic certainly worked on this fan (if that was, in fact, a purpose of the line).
I can't see any reason the writers would throw in that line besides making a subtle reference to Spock (apparently they were reluctant about addressing original series main cast members at the time, so this was the only way they were comfortable doing it) in order to tantalize fans to speculate about who their beloved Spock might have married. As this thread demonstrates, the tactic certainly worked on this fan (if that was, in fact, a purpose of the line).
Just like we had seen Sybok before FF, and heard Spock and Sarek talk about him many times...
ST V came out in '89, when TNG had barely been on the air. TNG didn't visit Vulcan until well after that film came out.
Eh, that's not the point. My post didn't mean that the son mentioned was Sybok. Read it again:Just like we had seen Sybok before FF, and heard Spock and Sarek talk about him many times...
ST V came out in '89, when TNG had barely been on the air. TNG didn't visit Vulcan until well after that film came out.
It's not like there is such a rule in Trek, is it? In fact, there is a precedent that shows that the opposite happens... i.e. the writers pull out characters' family members out of their asses all the time (that sounded weird
).
^ I never said he was a vegetable.I said he had the mind of a baby.
I didn't say you did, it was part of an example.
My point is that he wasn't being taken advantage of, it was part of a biological necessity, at an age which for humans would seem super young, but that is normal to him- he obviously had a consciousness or he wouldn't be alive- the Katra thing is just an interpretation of what a soul is, it would seem... or something. I don't know- but-- Spock gave it away and was still coherently functioning before he died so... why wouldn't the young guy?
I've never been particularly moved by arguments against the retarded having a right to choose their own sexual partners, at least to the extent that one says that if someone is mentally a child--even if they have the urges and requirements of an adult--they are not permitted to have sex, particularly with an abled person--no matter how much they want to. I'd personally much rather have the private evil of individuals taking advantage of the disabled (and usually this is a very arguable, very fact-specific inquiry) than the public evil of a state regulating by law, or a society regulating by approbrium, the sexuality of human beings who have passed the bright line that age of consent laws provide.
Would it be wrong to bang a feral person, of ordinary intelligence but lacking language or the basic rudiments of socialization, ala grown-Molly in that DS9 episode? How about someone just really stupid, like Forrest Gump? How about any of the Enterprise crew, in the Nth Degree, when compared to Barclay, they were retarded? Bear in mind that if you answer negatively in any of the above examples, you deny the dignity of a conscious, living person, and would strip them of one of the freedoms we've come to regard as a human right.
And frankly, the whole thing has a slight hint of eugenics to it, as well.
That said, I'm not sure how much of a strawman I've knocked down.
At any rate, I'd have thought people would be more concerned with the overwriting of a newly created person with Spock's soul, but that's just me. I guess you could characterize it as a late but acceptable abortion.
Regarding the OP, personally, I reckon the son mentioned is not Spock. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that conflicts with an interpretation of that line as Sarek having a minimum of three kids. I'm not against the possibility of Spock marrying, however--there's no reason Spock wouldn't have married. I kind of dislike virtually everything in the Trek universe revolving around barely upwards of thirty people, but it would be okay, I suppose--and a perpetual bachelorhood of the Enterprise crew would certainly be atypical, and maybe a little weird and sad.
To be sure, the big argument against this being Spock's wedding is that Picard later meets Spock in person, and there is no recognition of this earlier meeting. That is, Picard says he has met Spock once, but the issue of this meeting, or the marriage, never comes up when they meet the second time, in "Unification".
Sure, Picard would have been a self-acknowledged "lowly lieutenant", and Spock a busy celebrity. But Picard wouldn't forget this momentous meeting - and Spock simply doesn't forget, period. And what better time to bring up the issue of Spock's marriage than an argument about Spock's duties to the Federation? Picard would have the perfect chance to remind Spock that his wife is waiting for him, worried (in a logical manner, of course).
In "Sarek", Picard has met Sarek once before, in his son's wedding. In "Unification", Picard has met Sarek's son Spock once before, in unknown circumstances. It's a possible match, yes. But it doesn't mean the two sons would be one and the same.
The difference between this, and an argument on sex with children, is relatively slight. In both cases, it can be argued that sex (just like other acts of forcing nature, such as physical punishment, or opening the TV, or giving vaccinations, or feeding raw carrots) can be detrimental to the future development of the victimized individual, but this is difficult to demonstrate unless a time machine is humming on the driveway. Also in both cases, definite perpetrator and victim identities are easily assigned, based on the mental and physical states of readiness and their role in initiating and controlling the practice - unlike in the case of, say, homosexuality or marriage or competitive combat sports or other controversial practices.
Would there be a defining difference there? To what degree should sex, or TV, or vaccinations, or carrots, be consent-based, to what degree should they be regulated, and to what degree should they be a private matter?
The close resemblance between the practices is probably the real reason for the taboo about sex with the disabled. It's simply rooted in the deep-rooted taboo about sex with kids and other parties that cannot give informed consent. And it sidesteps the issue that "informed consent" is usually unattainable in almost anything, because people aren't really "informed" about anything unless they try it out for themselves...
Timo Saloniemi
Sure, Picard would have been a self-acknowledged "lowly lieutenant", and Spock a busy celebrity. But Picard wouldn't forget this momentous meeting - and Spock simply doesn't forget, period. And what better time to bring up the issue of Spock's marriage than an argument about Spock's duties to the Federation? Picard would have the perfect chance to remind Spock that his wife is waiting for him, worried (in a logical manner, of course).
In "Sarek", Picard has met Sarek once before, in his son's wedding. In "Unification", Picard has met Sarek's son Spock once before, in unknown circumstances. It's a possible match, yes. But it doesn't mean the two sons would be one and the same.
The difference between this, and an argument on sex with children, is relatively slight. In both cases, it can be argued that sex (just like other acts of forcing nature, such as physical punishment, or opening the TV, or giving vaccinations, or feeding raw carrots) can be detrimental to the future development of the victimized individual, but this is difficult to demonstrate unless a time machine is humming on the driveway. Also in both cases, definite perpetrator and victim identities are easily assigned, based on the mental and physical states of readiness and their role in initiating and controlling the practice - unlike in the case of, say, homosexuality or marriage or competitive combat sports or other controversial practices.
Would there be a defining difference there? To what degree should sex, or TV, or vaccinations, or carrots, be consent-based, to what degree should they be regulated, and to what degree should they be a private matter?
The close resemblance between the practices is probably the real reason for the taboo about sex with the disabled. It's simply rooted in the deep-rooted taboo about sex with kids and other parties that cannot give informed consent. And it sidesteps the issue that "informed consent" is usually unattainable in almost anything, because people aren't really "informed" about anything unless they try it out for themselves...
Timo Saloniemi
And perhaps, in this case, all that was needed was a mindmeld? Regenerated Spock was an unbonded male. Saavik was an unbonded female. We don't see them having sex, and maybe they didn't. Maybe the bonding ritual postponed the need for anything further.
Picard said he met *Sarek* at the wedding. He may not have met Spock.
It would be a strange wedding indeed if Picard didn't get to meet the groom when he was considered worthy of meeting the father of the groom... But Vulcans may well be strange.
Nevertheless, as long as Spock was the groom in that wedding, Picard would still have the ammunition he needed for arguing that Spock should consider returning from Romulus: "I know you have a wife back home, I saw you get married." A Vulcan might not see any logic in such an argument, but it would still be one that a human would be likely to make.
Timo Saloniemi
Nevertheless, as long as Spock was the groom in that wedding, Picard would still have the ammunition he needed for arguing that Spock should consider returning from Romulus: "I know you have a wife back home, I saw you get married." A Vulcan might not see any logic in such an argument, but it would still be one that a human would be likely to make.
Timo Saloniemi
It makes sense to me that Vulcans may keep the groom in seclusion or some other such ritual, especially if some form of the Plak Tow was involved.
I think we should consider the possibility that Spock's wife could be dead by the time of the events of "Unification", and that Picard might be aware of that fact. We don't know that Spock's wife was even Vulcan, much less that she was Saavik, and even if the wife were Vulcan (or specifically Saavik), accidents do happen, even to the otherwise long-lived Vulcans.
Divorce is another possibility to consider.
Barring death and/or divorce, perhaps Spock's wife was Romulan? The possibility that Saavik was half-Romulan was put forward when the character was conceived. If she were actually half-Romulan, then maybe she had a longing to visit or live in her other homeland.
There are no shortage of reasons why Picard might not be able to use "You have a wife back home" to lure Spock back to Federation territory.
But a mentally challenged child, on the other hand... depending on when this happens to Vulcan's exactly...
Which is why, tho I understand the principal behind what the person who started this conversation means, I wasn't bothered by the film as they were.
I admit that this is pure supposition on my part, but...
I really and truly think that this line was put in this episode on purpose as something for fans to fret and obsess over. I think it's deliberately and purposefully vague and open to various interpretations. Long before this episode aired, TPTB knew for a fact how detail-obsessed Trek fans were. I simply and literally cannot believe there's any way they said to themselves, "Oh, nobody will notice this little throwaway line and if by some chance a few do, they will automatically think it's Spock" or "automatically think it's not Spock." It's about Spock's family, for cryin' out loud. In Trekdom, you can't get much more prominent than that.
Which is why I think it is so dang mysterious. It's supposed to be. That's why both of the main theories - that Spock married...somebody or that Sarek somehow or another acquired another son - have both pluses and minuses associated with them.
Since both theories are equally valid, take your pick. I always kind of assumed it was Spock who got married. To whom, I have no idea, and as for what happened to her later, I don't know about that either. We are given zero data after all.
I really and truly think that this line was put in this episode on purpose as something for fans to fret and obsess over. I think it's deliberately and purposefully vague and open to various interpretations. Long before this episode aired, TPTB knew for a fact how detail-obsessed Trek fans were. I simply and literally cannot believe there's any way they said to themselves, "Oh, nobody will notice this little throwaway line and if by some chance a few do, they will automatically think it's Spock" or "automatically think it's not Spock." It's about Spock's family, for cryin' out loud. In Trekdom, you can't get much more prominent than that.
Which is why I think it is so dang mysterious. It's supposed to be. That's why both of the main theories - that Spock married...somebody or that Sarek somehow or another acquired another son - have both pluses and minuses associated with them.
Since both theories are equally valid, take your pick. I always kind of assumed it was Spock who got married. To whom, I have no idea, and as for what happened to her later, I don't know about that either. We are given zero data after all.
Last edited:
They said he was a 'blank slate' mentally, but isn't it just because he was a few days old and didn't have any experience or knowledge? It's not like he was an inanimate object! Was he a different person from Spock 1.0? Or, if resurrected Spock was Spock, and Spock's katra was Spock, does that mean that, prior to the joining, Spock existed in two places at once?Very confusing...
I personally think the best advice is to not think too much about the whole katra business. Because it's so full of holes as to be almost beyond explanation.Then why did they say his mind was a "blank slate"? And why all the fuss about joining his body with Spock's katra?
And why didn't he do anything but cry and scream, and then look bewildered when they found him, instead of talking or showing signs of rationality?
He transfers his katra to McCoy, yet he's still fully functional, so his "soul" exists in two places at once. Then McCoy suddenly starts channeling Spock, apparently having all of Spock's knowledge and memories. Then Spock's body gets regenerated and becomes a blank slate, but a blank slate that understands language and pon farr. Then the katra is rejoined, but suddenly has no memories or knowledge of pretty much anything, and whatever the hell was on the Genesis planet is apparently gone.
Makes total sense to me...
Makes perfect sense. If I transfer a bit of software from my computer to yours, it is likely to remain fully functional in both. It would take very specific effort to remove it from my computer.
Hardly all. At most everything until the point of upload. And probably just the "essence", since this word was used by the Vulcans themselves to describe the katra business.
If it gets regenerated, it only makes sense that the katra in there gets regenerated as well. After all, a normal Vulcan child doesn't receive his katra from some outside source, as far as we know. It grows with him, from humble origins. The regenerated Spock's just would have some trouble growing apace with the body...
And we have no evidence that the regenerated Spock would have understood a word of any language until upgraded with the katra of a compatible adult (that is, the one from Spock's earlier, older self). Soothing sounds, yeah. Touch telepathy messages, perhaps. But not words.
That makes the best sense of all. If Spock downloaded his life's story to McCoy in the engine room of the about-to-explode Enterprise, then when McCoy dumps this back into Spock's noggin, that's where Spock's memories are likely to end: he'd remember next to nothing from between his death and his awakening after the mindswap. The adult katra is likely to overwrite the feeble contents of the at most week-old body's mind... It would be a much more demanding operation to somehow "intersplice" the two loads of data.
In any case, this sort of transferring of one's memories or "essence" doesn't look like a practical way to achieve eternal life or anything. It's not as if Surak would have remained alive in that jar in ENT: just some essential memories of him survived there. And it would probably not be a good idea to insert a dead celebrity's katra to a body that already possessed a naturally grown katra: the victim would probably go as mad as McCoy did. One would need very specific circumstances, a "more or less blank" receptor body, and probably a somehow "compatible" one to boot, and one would still only get a half-wit like the reborn Spock at best.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
- Poll
