TOS 80's Novel Continuity Read Through

[Christopher]

The only way I would regard Vulcans (whether as portrayed in TOS, or TNG, or DS9, or VOY, or ENT, or novels by JL, DD, JMD, S&S, DCF, or even KS) as "space elves" would be "elves" in the sense of Tolkien's Eldar: wise, generally benign, but hardly "cuddly."

Yes, that's exactly my point. The way Vulcans were written in fan fiction and the Lorrah novels was idealized and mythologized in a way very similar to Tolkien elves -- although Lorrah made them far friendlier and more accessible than that, indeed far too human. I found her books enjoyable and cozy to read, but I never quite bought her portrayal of the Vulcans, because they were just too nice. Nobody else wrote them in quite the same way.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

But JL did have T'Pau giving Kirk apologizing for her attitude in AT, and giving a completely logical explanation for it.

It's been a few years since I last read VAM, so I just now re-read that whole section. T'Pau explained that she had assumed -- quite logically, given the information available to her at the time -- that Spock had turned his back on Vulcan, and that, by bringing along two Humans, was making a calculated insult to his homeworld. She had likewise assumed that T'Pring's decision to choose the Kal-if-fee was a spontaneous response to that insult, not a premeditated act of attempted murder for personal gain. And Kirk then assuaged her misgivings about permitting McCoy to set foot on Vulcan again, in the wake of the neural paralyzer incident, by assuring her that his first, last, and only motivation was the preservation of life.

And of course, JL, DD, et al. have long since given a logical explanation for why the Kal-if-fee is even still permitted: for a Vulcan woman to refuse her bondmate in Pon Farr would be to sentence him to death by Plak tow.

And at any rate, I found very little about JL's portrayal of T'Pau that could be considered "cuddly," and nothing the slightest bit "cuddly" about T'Vie, T'Pau's secretary.

I almost conflated VAM with the whole T'Pring subplot of Spock's World.

 

[Christopher]

But JL did have T'Pau giving Kirk apologizing for her attitude in AT, and giving a completely logical explanation for it.

Yes, which is adjusting the character after the fact to fit Lorrah's more benevolent vision of the Vulcans. The point is, what's actually onscreen in TOS depicts the Vulcans in a much harsher light than the way fan lore later interpreted them. To claim that a more negative portrayal of Vulcans only began with ENT or DSC is completely untrue. The only "nice" Vulcans we saw in TOS were Spock and Surak, basically. And Spock could be a jerk at times himself, and Surak was an illusion that was no doubt idealized.

And at any rate, I found very little about JL's portrayal of T'Pau that could be considered "cuddly," and nothing the slightest bit "cuddly" about T'Vie, T'Pau's secretary.

Oh, don't be so darn literal. I was exaggerating for effect.

 

[Damian]

It's been years since I read the Vulcan Academy Murders (and it's sequel). But it is interesting. I always found the Vulcans to be a bit standoffish myself. Almost snobby. But at the same time I got used to it because I realized it was just who they were. In general, they weren't intentionally being snobby. They were in fact more intelligent and more logical. To Vulcans that's just a fact.

I could maybe buy the explanation for T'Pau's behavior in Amok Time offered in the Vulcan Academy Murders. It even sounds, dare I say, logical. T'Pau may very well have been suspicious of Spock's motives.

I just finished up the Enterprise episodes introducing the Kir'Shara, which sort of transitioned the Vulcans to more of what we would see in the original series. In the beginning of Enterprise they were pretty much trying to halt humanity's space exploration and after V'Las is overthrown they adopted a more open minded approach toward Earth (or at least no longer interfering), opening the door to the eventual creation of the Federation. But that doesn't mean Vulcans would be less 'snobby.'

At the same time Vulcans do have a number of admirable qualities that we see in Spock, Tuvok and T'Pol in particular. One is a fierce loyalty toward their friends. All 3 major Vulcan characters have that trait. I remember Dr McCoy noting in Encounter at Farpoint that they are also an honorable species when pressed by Data.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Oh, don't be so darn literal. I was exaggerating for effect.

Yes, you were. (But you're in good company: "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes be cast into hell fire." Matt 18:9, KJV)

JL had at least one Vulcan who was a total asshole, in the person of Sendet. And (looking again) she postulated his membership in what could be termed a Vulcan reactionary hate group, and (and I see I hadn't entirely conflated this point from Spock's World) T'Pring is portrayed as having actively rejected Spock.

 

[Desert Kris]

Does Jean Lorrah continue to develop Vulcans as more friendly than most other stories do in IDIC Epidemic?

Is it worth considering that the small cast of characters give an impression that doesn't necessarily reflect Vulcan culture at large? It could be that Sorel and his family are more friendly than the norm. T'Pau is shown to be cold and aloof, at first; and apology aside, she provides Kirk guidance in dealing with a murderer; it seems logical to provide assistance in catching a killer to prevent additional murders. I get how Lorrah's explanation of T'Pau's view of Spock involving offworlders in Vulcan ritual serves the author to re-define the character. On the other hand, I was struck by how it might have looked from her viewpoint, as an insult to Vulcan cultural norms; I thought it made sense when I read through that scene. I was dismayed by the prospect that T'Pau viewed T'Pring as the wronged party in that affair for a period of time afterward.

As for the only "nice" Vulcans in TOS era, surely we can count Sarek as a character who grows significantly as a character to be included with Spock and image-of-Surak? Sure we start with Sarek as not on speaking terms with Spock in a bad way, but (much) later on we get "My logic is uncertain, where my son is concerned", he asks about Kirk after making terrible sacrifices to save Spock and then goes to speak on their behalf; and makes sure Spock knows that it isn't an effort for him to say hi and wish his son well after the trial in TVH.

The Vulcans-as-space-elves thing is something that I thought had only started after the Lord of the Rings movies became popular, and it never occurred to me that it might have been around earlier. When I did become aware of it, I felt skeptical. I think it really jumped out at me in particular while watch the Shannara television series; the characters visit a community that hate elves, and they watch Star Trek The Motion Picture and boo Spock when he appears. And I still didn't get it right away, I had to think about it to realize that they thought Spock was an elf. And then there's this book, Vulcan Academy Murders, years before the Lord of the Rings movies, and there's a sequence were a human and Vulcan bond to each other. And I was surprised again that the human thinks of the Vulcan as elvish; it was cute and sweet, but also a bit tacky and embarrassing at the same time.

I almost conflated VAM with the whole T'Pring subplot of Spock's World.

That sounds exciting, I look forward to that!

 

[Christopher]

Does Jean Lorrah continue to develop Vulcans as more friendly than most other stories do in IDIC Epidemic?

Is it worth considering that the small cast of characters give an impression that doesn't necessarily reflect Vulcan culture at large? It could be that Sorel and his family are more friendly than the norm.

The two books both feature Sorel, Corrigan, and T'Mir. Beyond that, I found they both portrayed Vulcans in the same overly friendly way. Why wouldn't they? This wasn't a time when Trek novelists were coordinating their efforts all that much or being required to keep their books consistent with each other. Each author tended to have their own individual interpretation of the universe. That was what made the '80s novels so interesting, that individuality of approach. Lorrah's novels had one flavor and view of the Trek universe, Diane Duane's had another, J.M. Dillard's had another, Vonda McIntyre's had yet another, etc.

On the other hand, I was struck by how it might have looked from her viewpoint, as an insult to Vulcan cultural norms; I thought it made sense when I read through that scene.

I never said it didn't make sense within the context of that story. Obviously it did, because it was in that story. What I'm saying, one more time, is that people who think that negative portrayals of Vulcans never existed until Enterprise are wrong, because TOS itself portrayed Vulcans in a far less idealized and glorified way than fans often assume.

As for the only "nice" Vulcans in TOS era, surely we can count Sarek as a character who grows significantly as a character to be included with Spock and image-of-Surak?

Yes, the Vulcans in the movies were portrayed as friendlier, but this is yet another instance where people mistakenly project movie-era portrayals of the characters (like Kirk being a rule-breaking maverick or McCoy saying "Dammit" all the time) back onto TOS. Once more, my point is that negative portrayals of Vulcans did exist as early as TOS itself, so what came later in the movies does not alter that fact; it just distorts people's memories of it.

The Vulcans-as-space-elves thing is something that I thought had only started after the Lord of the Rings movies became popular, and it never occurred to me that it might have been around earlier.

Lord of the Rings has been quite popular since it came out in the 1950s -- perhaps not as much among the general public as it was after the movies, but certainly among SF/fantasy readers and college students, i.e. much the same target audience as Star Trek. Remember Leonard Nimoy's song "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins?"

However, I must again point out that I wasn't being literal. "Space elves" is my own facetious shorthand for the way Lorrah's Vulcans were portrayed; I do not in any way mean to imply that Lorrah herself intended to present them that way.

 

[Damian]

As for the only "nice" Vulcans in TOS era, surely we can count Sarek as a character who grows significantly as a character to be included with Spock and image-of-Surak?

Yes, the Vulcans in the movies were portrayed as friendlier, but this is yet another instance where people mistakenly project movie-era portrayals of the characters (like Kirk being a rule-breaking maverick or McCoy saying "Dammit" all the time) back onto TOS.

I would agree that Sarek did grow as he got older and gained new insight. But that happens with everyone based on our experiences. I agree with Christopher that you can't take what you see in the movies and necessarily backdate it to the original series, but that's partly because the characters are older in the movies and have greater life experiences. It'd me a mistake to apply what you see in the movies to the TV series because of that.

Sarek had lost his son and having an opportunity to have him back changed how he viewed his reactions to his son. Also, the fact that Kirk and his crewmates risked everything to save his son, and then they saved Earth from the whale probe led him to change his views on human beings, and Spock's friends in particular.

The same with Captain Kirk. Though I would argue he was always a bit of a maverick. He never let regulations stop him from doing what was right, even breaking the Prime Directive at times. Now he wasn't a maverick in the sense that he was reckless, just that he had a firm sense of the spirit of regulations and he had a knack for knowing when it was 'acceptable' to break them. As he grew he had a greater awareness of that. Would Captain Kirk from the original series risk everything as he did in TSFS? I would argue later in the series that yes I believe he would have, but because of their growing friendship. Would he have done the same in the period of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or "The Corbomite Maneuver" however? Probably not.

On the other hand I do believe McCoy would have said "Dammit" all the time in the original series if the network censors at the time allowed it .

 

[Stevil2001]

Well, to be fair, the two page letter is about M'Benga's life (who was a main character up to the previous book) and there is only a line or two about how he teamed-up with the Enterprise in June while those murders at the Vulcan Science Academy were happening, of which he's sure that Fisher heard, as they were quite a big deal.

Haha, fair enough. I was wrong! I still maintain it's odd, and Vulcan Academy Murders could have been referenced more organically (or not at all, since the current preference for production order-based timeline means it has to be wedged between "Journey to Babel" and "Private Little War" as @Christopher pointed out).

 

[Christopher]

I would agree that Sarek did grow as he got older and gained new insight. But that happens with everyone based on our experiences. I agree with Christopher that you can't take what you see in the movies and necessarily backdate it to the original series, but that's partly because the characters are older in the movies and have greater life experiences. It'd me a mistake to apply what you see in the movies to the TV series because of that.

One more time: I'm not talking about the in-universe character logic here. I'm only talking about the real-world creative history of the series and when the idea of Vulcans as jerks first appeared in the franchise. Many people falsely believe that TOS-era Vulcans were as nice and friendly as Lorrah portrayed them and that Enterprise was the first show to introduce the idea of Vulcans being imperious, condescending, and hostile to humans. And that's just not true. That portrayal goes back as far as "Amok Time." It's not a 21st-century retcon to portray Vulcans that way; it's part of how they've always been portrayed ever since the 1960s.

 

[Damian]

One more time: I'm not talking about the in-universe character logic here. I'm only talking about the real-world creative history of the series and when the idea of Vulcans as jerks first appeared in the franchise. Many people falsely believe that TOS-era Vulcans were as nice and friendly as Lorrah portrayed them and that Enterprise was the first show to introduce the idea of Vulcans being imperious, condescending, and hostile to humans. And that's just not true. That portrayal goes back as far as "Amok Time." It's not a 21st-century retcon to portray Vulcans that way; it's part of how they've always been portrayed ever since the 1960s.

Sorry, I was thinking you were talking about Vulcans in universe in your last comment.

But I agree. I remember reading a number of criticisms about the Vulcans in Enterprise not being the same and I didn't really see it that way. The only criticism I sort of agreed with was the Vulcans trying to actively hinder mankind's exploration of space. That didn't seem in tune with what we know of Vulcans from the original series and Voyager (if anything I would have thought they would be more hands off and allow humans to make their own mistakes). However that was resolved in the season 4 episodes on Vulcan. But as far as their 'snobbish' attitude, yeah, that was always there. Spock, and later Tuvok, definitely had an air of superiority about them, intentional or not.

I guess from a real world perspective Leonard Nimoy (and Mark Lenard in his appearances as Sarek) acted the parts more organically. I sometimes thought Tim Russ and Jolene Blalock were a bit stiff as Vulcans at times, particularly with something as simple as the inflection of their voices. That may have lead some to believe the original series had 'nicer' Vulcans. But when you look at episodes like "The Galileo Seven" and "The Tholian Web", or even "That Which Survives" you see that superiority complex even in Spock.

 

[Christopher]

The only criticism I sort of agreed with was the Vulcans trying to actively hinder mankind's exploration of space. That didn't seem in tune with what we know of Vulcans from the original series and Voyager (if anything I would have thought they would be more hands off and allow humans to make their own mistakes). However that was resolved in the season 4 episodes on Vulcan.

I never understood why anyone was surprised that 22nd-century Vulcans were different from 23rd- or 24th-century ones. No culture is fixed and unchanging for all time. Within the past couple of centuries, we humans have outlawed slavery, expanded civil rights, invented space travel and the Internet, made alliances between nations that were formerly enemies, and made many other major changes (even though there are many people currently trying to undo most of those improvements). Why couldn't Vulcans also change a lot in a century or two? It would've been a lot more boring if they'd just been exactly what we expected. The richness and texture that ENT added to Vulcan history and society was one of its greatest accomplishments.

 

[Damian]

I never understood why anyone was surprised that 22nd-century Vulcans were different from 23rd- or 24th-century ones. No culture is fixed and unchanging for all time. Within the past couple of centuries, we humans have outlawed slavery, expanded civil rights, invented space travel and the Internet, made alliances between nations that were formerly enemies, and made many other major changes (even though there are many people currently trying to undo most of those improvements). Why couldn't Vulcans also change a lot in a century or two? It would've been a lot more boring if they'd just been exactly what we expected. The richness and texture that ENT added to Vulcan history and society was one of its greatest accomplishments.

Yeah, I can see that. One of the reasons I only sort of agreed with it. I could see both sides. But yes, it is a century earlier--and it's a criticism that no longer really applies since the season 4 episodes of Enterprise put it to rest. It ended up to be quite, um, logical, I thought .

I also agree that at the end of the day Enterprise gave us more background to Vulcans than the other series. They also fleshed out Andorians and Tellarites pretty well I though. Since they were all founding members of the Federation, it was a good idea I thought to give some foundation to those species.

 

[Christopher]

I also agree that at the end of the day Enterprise gave us more background to Vulcans than the other series. They also fleshed out Andorians and Tellarites pretty well I though. Since they were all founding members of the Federation, it was a good idea I thought to give some foundation to those species.

Strictly speaking, they were never canonically founding members until ENT. That was just fan/tie-in lore based on the Star Fleet Technical Manual (which defined the founders as Earth, Alpha Centauri, 40 Eridani, Epsilon Indi, and 61 Cygni) and the Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual (which assigned the latter three worlds to Vulcan, Andor, and Tellar, though of course it was James Blish who'd originally identified Vulcan with 40 Eridani in 1967).

 

[Damian]

Strictly speaking, they were never canonically founding members until ENT. That was just fan/tie-in lore based on the Star Fleet Technical Manual (which defined the founders as Earth, Alpha Centauri, 40 Eridani, Epsilon Indi, and 61 Cygni) and the Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual (which assigned the latter three worlds to Vulcan, Andor, and Tellar, though of course it was James Blish who'd originally identified Vulcan with 40 Eridani in 1967).

True. This was one of the few cases where I can recall the showrunners taking something from a non-canon source about Star Trek history and making it canon. At least something this significant. Still, it made sense that once they settled on them being founding members that they'd flesh out those species a bit more, particularly Vulcans and Andorians (Tellarites maybe could have used a bit more development but then, you can only do so much I suppose).

I had forgotten that earlier sources also listed Alpha Centauri as a founding member, though I noticed in your novels that you included that system as an early member of the Federation.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I never understood why anyone was surprised that 22nd-century Vulcans were different from 23rd- or 24th-century ones.

Speaking only for myself, the only "surprise" I experienced was wondering how Vulcan culture got from the way it was portrayed in ST:FC, to the way it was portrayed in ENT, to the way it was portrayed in TOS. And of course, ENT eventually explained it all. And naturally, as you described, cultures change over time. We're looking at the effects of a reactionary movement on US culture right now, and I, for one, don't find those effects pretty, but I do see reflections of that in the Vulcan High Command.

How does it happen?
Where is the moment?
With the road…
When did the road behind disappear?
Where did you let things slip out of gear?
How did you ever get to be here?

-- From the "First Transition," Sondheim's Merrily We Roll Along.

 

[borgboy]

I have always found Sarek to be an intolerant jerk. He cuts Spock out of his life because he disagrees with Spock's career choice. That's extreme, controlling, even abusive. We see evidence that he's racist against Spock's own humanity by pushing him to repress his mother's heritage. I find that extremely illogical, to have a child with a human then pressure the child to not exhibit - much less embrace - half of their heritage.
He's more tolerable in the movies (although V's flashback scene of his revulsion of the infant Spock's humanity reminds me why I find him so awful), but we learn in TNG that Sarek has allowed a difference of opinion on politics to choose to be estranged from Spock for a second lengthy period of years.
Sarek is an interesting character, but I don't find him likable.
I do think he comes off better in the Reboot - his grief for Amanda and his better acceptance of Spock - and this is a Spock who's more in touch with his emotions, even with a committed, emotional relationship with a human - all make that Sarek more likable.

 

[Christopher]

(although V's flashback scene of his revulsion of the infant Spock's humanity reminds me why I find him so awful)

I never took that as something that definitely, literally happened. Rather, it was Sybok creating a telepathic illusion of what he believed was Spock's deepest pain/fear, one that misfired because Spock had reconciled with his human side since they'd last met. So maybe it was just a scenario Sybok created to dramatize Spock's fears.

 

[borgboy]

I never took that as something that definitely, literally happened. Rather, it was Sybok creating a telepathic illusion of what he believed was Spock's deepest pain/fear, one that misfired because Spock had reconciled with his human side since they'd last met. So maybe it was just a scenario Sybok created to dramatize Spock's fears.

I did consider that a false memory created by Sybok. It seems possible Spock as a Vulcan might remember his birth, and it also seems in character for Sarek.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

As I recall, there was an early ST novel (numbered Pocket, maybe Pawns and Symbols?) that asserted that Vulcanoids do remember their births.