Kirk/Spock question
CWilson980
I've heard from several sources that Gene Rodenberry said that he believed in
this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I need the
information for a debate)
Christina
CWils...@aol.com
JayPHailey
>Subject: Kirk/Spock question
>From: cwils...@aol.com
>I've heard from several sources that Gene Rodenberry said that he believed in
>this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I need the
>information for a debate)
I'm sorry. The only information I have is From the Novelization of ST:TMP
which describes the relationship as "unlikely".
AFAIK GR was either against it or neutral on the subject. I personally know of
no case where he said he supported the K/S relationship.
Not that you should let GR's opinion slow you down for as much as half a second
anyway....
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!>
JayPH...@aol.com
You're Listening to KJAY FM 42, Where Great Grand Mother posted her Trek
Stories.
an...@zebra.net
In article <19980221035...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
cwils...@aol.com (CWilson980) wrote:
>
> I've heard from several sources that Gene Rodenberry said that he believed
in
> this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I need the
> information for a debate)
>
> CWils...@aol.com
>
No, no, no, no, no. Exactly the opposite. Read the footnote at the beginning
of the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Written from Kirk's
point of view, the gist of it is that he says that while he approves of love
in all of its forms, for him he prefers women.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Deanna
CWilson980 wrote:
>
> I've heard from several sources that Gene Rodenberry said that he believed in
> this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I need the
> information for a debate)
>
> Christina
> CWils...@aol.com
Ah! I can help here, thanks to Dorothy Laoang, who was so kind to sell
me a copy of the coveted book "Star Trek Lives" (first published
1975)...
This is perfect evidence, guys! : D I quote from the book:
"When we asked how Spock and Kirk regard one another, what in fact their
relationship consists of in texture, Gene Roddenberry said:
'... I definitely designed it as a love relationship. And I hope that
for men...who have been afraid of such relationships...that they (Spock
and Kirk) would encourage them to be able to feel love and affection,
true affection...love, friendship and deep respect. That was the
relationship I tried to draw. I think I also tried to draw a feeling of
belief that very few of us are complete unto ourselves. It's quite a
lovely thing...where two halves make a whole.'"
Woohoo... : D
De
Katisha
CWilson980 wrote:
>
> I've heard from several sources that Gene Rodenberry said that he believed in
> this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I need the
> information for a debate)
>
> Christina
> CWils...@aol.com
know what else to call it) on Gene Roddenbury's ST:TMP novel, which she
posted on this newsgroup earlier this year. You can probably find it in
Dejanews. It's really good. BTW, I read somewhere that when someone
asked Leonard Nimoy whether Kirk and Spock were lovers, he said "I don't
know. I wasn't there." Wasn't that lovely?
Katisha.
Raku2u
Katisha wrote:
> BTW, I read somewhere that when someone
>asked Leonard Nimoy whether Kirk and Spock were lovers, he said "I don't
>know. I wasn't there." Wasn't that lovely?
>
A very nice answer.
I recently saw posted on an AOL message board this story: the poster had been
at a con where someone asked Tim Russ in a fairly aggressive fashion how could
an African-American man possibly be cast as a Vulcan, when we already know from
looking at Spock that Vulcans have a more Caucasian appearance.
Russ supposedly replied, "Spock was only half-Vulcan. Now you know what the
rest of us look like."
raku
--------------
mail me at rak...@aol.com
raku-ish stories at http://members.aol.com/Raku2u/index.html
--------------
Meg
In article <19980221074...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, JayPHailey
<jayph...@aol.com> writes
>>this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I need the
>>information for a debate)
>
>which describes the relationship as "unlikely".
>
>AFAIK GR was either against it or neutral on the subject. I personally know of
>no case where he said he supported the K/S relationship.
>
>Not that you should let GR's opinion slow you down for as much as half a second
>anyway....
>
>
Culbreath (Ace books) 1979.
Chapter 6 - The Man Who Invented a Universe : Roddenberry, the common
ground.
Page 145
"... As I've said, I definitely designed it (the Kirk-Spock
relationship) as a love relationship......Also, dramatically, I designed
Kirk and Spock to complete each other" GR
Page 147-148
"There's a great deal of writing in the Star Trek movement now which
compares the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion to the
relationship between Kirk and Spock....." authors
"Yes," Gene says. "There's certainly some of that with - certainly with
love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal
- we never suggested it in the series - physical love between the two.
But it's the - we certainly had the feeling the affection was sufficient
for that, if that were the particular style in the 23rd Century." (He
looks thoughtful.) "That's very interesting. I never thought of that
before."
So he knew and had no great objections, you can read what he said anyway
you please really. This *possibly* prompted 'T'hy'la' in TMP book, I
don't know which came first. There is more - Leonard Nimoys view on it,
if I remember, allot of Alpha male waffle, etc. An interesting book if
it is still available - I am no Shatner fan but I have kept it all these
years.
--
Meg
[Anti-spam header]
Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!
JayPHailey
>So he knew and had no great objections, you can read what he said anyway
>you please really. This *possibly* prompted 'T'hy'la' in TMP book, I
>don't know which came first. There is more - Leonard Nimoys view on it,
>if I remember, allot of Alpha male waffle, etc. An interesting book if
>it is still available - I am no Shatner fan but I have kept it all these
>years.
>--
>Meg
Keep that book close to you. Shanter bought the rights and all outstanding
copies. He destroyed all copies of the book and deep sixed the rights. You'll
never see that book reprinted again.
We have a basic disagreement on GR's view of the K/S thing but as I say. I
don't let GR's opinions slow me down all that much when writing Trek as Jay
sees it, so I'm not certain of the value of his opinion to anyone else.
Does anyone know what happened to Marshak and Culbreath? About 1982 or so all
evidence that I can find of them simply disappears. I didn't like their works
very much but their sudden disappearance mystifies me.
Judygran
annz wrote:
> Read the footnote at the beginning
>of the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Written from Kirk's
>point of view, the gist of it is that he says that while he approves of love
>in all of its forms, for him he prefers women.
Well, I see I'm going to have to post my analysis of The Footnote again. Here
it is:
THE FOOTNOTE: AN EXPLICATION DE TEXTE
by Judith Gran
In his "editor's note" on page 22 of the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion
Picture (1979), Gene Roddenberry finally addressed the question whether Kirk
and Spock are lovers. The note apparently struck some fans, who read it
superficially, as a gentle but explicit denial of the possibility of K/S. Yet a
deeper reading completely undermines that interpretation. The footnote is
constructed with a deliberate (and at times maddening) ambiguity that leads the
average reader into the hasty but unjustified conclusion that Kirk and Spock
have *not* been lovers, while providing the more careful reader with cues that
suggest the exact opposite.
Readers who are familiar with Leo Strauss' *Persecution and the Art of Writing*
and other works will recognize the approach I use here. Strauss found that the
writings of Spinoza, Machiavelli, al-Farabi and other thinkers who expressed
unpopular ideas on topics that were controversial in their times, such as the
existence of God and the relation between religion and philosophy, required a
minute textual exegesis. These controversial figures tended to express their
ideas on both an "exoteric" and an "esoteric" level of meaning: the first aimed
at the average reader, the second at the more careful reader, who would be
alerted to search for the meaning beneath the surface by certain deliberate
ambiguities in the text.
As a challenge to prevailing orthodoxy, homosexuality is as controversial as
the denial of religion in the age of Machiavelli. It is understandable that the
producer of a mass audience TV show and film might be reluctant to state too
directly that his most popular characters have had such a relationship. Does
Roddenberry's footnote contain different levels of meaning? Let us analyze it
and see.
The text tells us that Spock thought of Kirk as his "t'hy'la," a Vulcan word
that, the editor's note tells us, can mean "friend," "brother" or "lover." The
editor then quotes verbatim a comment supplied to him by Kirk on "some
speculation over whether they had actually indeed become lovers." It is this
comment of Kirk that is riddled with ambiguity and that requires analysis in
detail.
"I WAS NEVER AWARE OF THIS LOVERS RUMOR." Literally, all Kirk is saying here is
that he was unaware of the *existence" of the rumor. Even if the facts referred
to in the rumor were true, Kirk might simply have failed to *encounter* the
rumor and thus might have been unaware that it was circulating.
The sentence has the ring of ambiguity, however, an ambiguity that is
compounded by Kirk's use of several differnt verb tenses in this sentence and
the next, a use of words that succeeds in totally confusing the reader and
leaving her in doubt as to *when* Kirk was unaware of the rumor. He cannot have
been unaware of the rumor at the time the editor asked him to comment on it,
for he goes on to say, "ALTHOUGH I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT SPOCK ENCOUNTERED IT
SEVERAL TIMES."
Kirk could not have remained unaware of the rumor after having been told that
Spock encountered it several times. The linking of these two clauses,
therefore, and the parallel construction of the sentence (Kirk's experience
with the rumor vs. Spock's experience with it) supports the conclusion that
Kirk is discussing here only his own failure to *encounter* the rumor, rather
than the truth or falsity of the rumor itself.
Apparently, for some unspecified but definite period of time, Kirk remained
unaware that the rumor was in circulation. This does not tell us, however,
whether the rumor was true or false.
"APPARENTLY HE HAD ALWAYS DISMISSED IT WITH HIS CHARACTERISTIC LIFTING OF HIS
RIGHT EYEBROW WHICH USUALLY CONNOTED SOME COMBINATION OF SURPRISE, DISBELIEF,
AND/OR ANNOYANCE." Spock did not, apparently, deny the rumor when he
encountered it. Neither did he confirm it, but simply remained silent and
raised one eyebrow. Did he perhaps remain silent to avoid self-incrimination?
We must not fall into such a hasty conclusion, for Kirk has supplied us with
the tools to decode Spock's raised eyebrow. Let us see what we can conclude
from Kirk's "code."
According to Kirk, Spock could have meant: (a) surprise and disbelief; (b)
surprise and annoyance; (c) surprise, disbelief and annoyance; (d) annoyance
only; or (e) none of the above. Alternatives (a) and (c), since they include
"disbelief" as an element of Spock's reaction, suggest the untruth of the
rumor, though not conclusively; alternatives (b), (d), and (e) are consistent
with either a true or a false rumor. "Surprise" may mean no more than surprise
at the existence of the rumor; "annoyance" may mean annoyance at a violation of
Kirk's and Spock's privacy. Nor do these meanings exhaust the universe of
possible meanings of Spock's raised eyebrow ("usually"). Not only are we still
in the dark about the truth of the rumor, but we do not even know how Spock
felt when he encountered it.
"AS FOR MYSELF, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NO MORAL OR OTHER OBJECTIONS TO PHYSICAL LOVE
IN ANY OF ITS MANY EARTHLY, ALIEN AND MIXED FORMS, I HAVE ALWAYS FOUND MY BEST
GRATIFICATION IN THAT CREATURE *WOMAN.*" This is the key sentence in Kirk's
comment, for it is here that Kirk defines his own sexual tastes and
preferences. At first glance, one can understand how the casual reader could
interpret this sentence as a simple affirmation that Kirk makes love only with
women. But this is *not* what the sentence says.
The key to the meaning of the sentence is the phase "best gratification." Each
word is highly significant.
"BEST" is a comparative term (technically, it is a superlative adjective, which
requires at least three different items for comparison). For there to be a
"best," other items must be available for comparison. Kirk does not say that he
receives his *only* gratification from women, merely that women are for him the
*most* gratifying sexual partners. Therefore, we can conclude that he has taken
sexual partners who are *not* women and received at least some "gratification"
from those encounters. The obvious implication is that Kirk has tried at least
one, and probably more, of the other forms of "physical love" that he
enumerates in the first clause of the sentence.
Kirk's choice of the term "GRATIFICATION" to describe his preference for women
is also highly significant. In the course of this sentence, Kirk slips
inexplicably from the term "physical love" to the considerably narrower term
"gratification." While "physical love" is a broad expression connoting the
sexual expression of love for another being, "gratitifcation" generally means,
in the sexual context, the brute satisfaction of sexual needs. All Kirk has
told us is that he finds sex with women more "gratifying," i.e. more effective
for achieving physical satiation, than sex with other creatures. He is silent
on the other dimensions of "physical love": joy, tenderness, giving, sharing
and all the emotional and spiritual dimensions of physical intimacy with a
partner for whom one cares deeply.
Kirk's abandonment of the concept of "physical love" for the narrower concept
of "gratification" when he compares women to other sexual partners suggests
that Kirk has deliberately narrowed the issue. By specifying "gratification" as
the area in which women are, for him, the "best" partners, Kirk has told us,
implicitly, that women are *not* always "best" in all the other dimensions of
"physical love" that he has excluded from the arena of comparison. *Expressio
unius est exclusio alterius.*
By narrowing his focus to this single issue, Kirk has managed to distract us
from the *real* question at hand, whether he has had a relationship of physical
love with a particular person who is not a woman. If the editor had asked Kirk
whether he had had a love affair with Edith Keeler, a skinny brunette, and Kirk
had replied obliquely, "I have always found my best gratification in voluptuous
blondes," we surely would appreciate the inadequacy of a statement of general
erotic preference as an answer to a question about a particular love
relationship.
Furthermore, we know that Kirk ranks "love" far above "technique" (presumably
the source of "gratification") in sexual matters. On page 185 of the novel,
Kirk contemplates the possibility that because of his superior sexual
experience, he could seduce the Ilia-probe more effectively than Decker, that
is, provide Ilia with a more *gratifying* sexual experience. He rejects that
possibility because he knows that Ilia *loves* Decker, and "sexual technique
always [comes] out a poor runner-up in any race with love." Given Kirk's own
views on the relative unimportance of gratification compared to love, his
evasion of a question about "physical love" with an answer to a non-existent
question about "gratification" becomes all the more significant.
"ALSO, I WOULD DISLIKE BEING THOUGHT OF AS SO FOOLISH THAT I WOULD SELECT A
LOVE PARTNER WHO CAME INTO SEXUAL HEAT ONLY ONCE EVERY SEVEN YEARS." Kirk
argues that persons who hold this view of Vulcan sexuality would consider him
"foolish" if they knew he had a Vulcan sexual partner; he does not tell us
whether Vulcans actually *are* functional every seven years, nor whether anyone
actually holds this opinion or not. Of course, if Vulcans do happen to be
sexually functional at all times and not only once every seven years, there is
nothing foolish at all about having a Vulcan lover, and Kirk has merely
executed another clever evasive maneuver for our benefit.
Kirk does not tell us whether he thinks it would *be* foolish to take Vulcan
mate, only that he would prefer not to *look* foolish in the eyes of others. It
is highly unlikely that Kirk would refuse to take a Vulcan lover merely because
of a false stereotype held by outsiders. He has used a popular (and quite
non-canonical) stereotype about Vulcans to conceal his unwillingness to answer
the simple question put to him.
Indeed, perhaps the most significant fact of all about the footnote is that
when the "editor" asked Kirk a simple, straightforward question, he was
rewarded, not with a simple, straightforward "yes" or "no," but with a
complicated 106-word statement that, when deciphered, manages completely to
avoid a straight answer. Has Gene Roddenberry favored us with another example
of James Kirk's famous gift of the blarney?
But although Kirk has refused directly to answer Roddenberry's question, he has
supplied us with some definite statements nonetheless. Let us summarize the
information provided in Kirk's comment, the rest of the note, and the text.
(1) Spock encountered rumors that he and Kirk were lovers.
(2) Spock neither confirmed nor denied these rumors.
(3) Kirk has no moral or other objections of physical love in any form.
(4) Kirk's most "gratifying" sexual encounters have been with women.
(5) Kirk has had sexual relations with someone who is *not* a woman.
(6) Kirk considers that woman sexual partners have the advantage over other
sexual partners in the area of "gratification," but not in other aspects of
"physical love."
(7) Kirk considers "love" much more important than "technique" in a sexual
relationship.
(8) Spock calls Kirk by a Vulcan term that means "friend," "brother," or
lover."
I leave it to each individual reader to decide whether the weight of the
evidence tends to support or deny the possibility of a K/S relationship.
JayPHailey
>Subject: Re: Kirk/Spock question
>From: judy...@aol.com (Judygran)
[Snip]
>These controversial figures tended to express their
>ideas on both an "exoteric" and an "esoteric" level of meaning: the first
>aimed
>at the average reader, the second at the more careful reader, who would be
>alerted to search for the meaning beneath the surface by certain deliberate
>ambiguities in the text.
>(1) Spock encountered rumors that he and Kirk were lovers.
>(2) Spock neither confirmed nor denied these rumors.
>(3) Kirk has no moral or other objections of physical love in any form.
>(4) Kirk's most "gratifying" sexual encounters have been with women.
>(5) Kirk has had sexual relations with someone who is *not* a woman.
>(6) Kirk considers that woman sexual partners have the advantage over other
>sexual partners in the area of "gratification," but not in other aspects of
>"physical love."
>(7) Kirk considers "love" much more important than "technique" in a sexual
>relationship.
>(8) Spock calls Kirk by a Vulcan term that means "friend," "brother," or
>lover."
>
>I leave it to each individual reader to decide whether the weight of the
>evidence tends to support or deny the possibility of a K/S relationship.
What an incredibly esoteric argument! I mean really, Wow! I have no facts to
reveal here. Only my opinion.
IMHO GR's opinion about K/S is irrelavent on two counts
A> People who write and read K/S do so because the *like* it. No one but the
writer and the reader must be satisfied with the story. GR and Jay P. Hailey
are third parties to the discussion with little to say about it. <See note 1>
B> Gene Roddenberry is DEAD. Doing a long one in the pine penalty box (I know
he creamated, it was a joke). He has rung down the curtain and joined the
bleeding choir invisible. HE IS AN EX-BIRD!
I know a couple of people who are currently dead and trust me, they have no
current opinions on ANYTHING! THEY'RE DEAD!
So what GR approved or disapproved of is real academic. Even if it's a
question of whether some piece of fan-or televised episode lived up to "Gene's
Vision", the opinion that matters is the opinion of the living, breathing
choice making public who consume Trek. We must rely on trusted people's
judgement (Including our very own) about what does and does not make good Star
Trek.
And personally I sometimes think that GR (Especially later in life) just missed
the whole point. I disagreee on matters of Trek with even the Great Bird.
Horrorific, but true.
Note 1: Paramount is the legal owner of all things Trek. When we use their
intellectual property then we are placing ourselves at their mercy. To date I
don't know of any one personally who was sued for writing fan-fic, either
straight or slash. Now for trying to sell it and make profit at it, that's
different.
But for general Just-Us-Fen passing it around amonst ourselves P'mound
maintains a conspicuous silence.
Is this tacit approval or just P'Mound not having the resourrces to look at us?
I dunno. But I know one thing.
If there suddenly was a great Fan-Fic purge and all forms of fan fic were
persecuted harshly, then i don't know about you, but I'd keep writing my
stories and passing them around at home.
I write Strek Fan-Fic 'cause I like to. Period. No one else has anything to
say about that.
But I like it when people *read* my stories, yessiree Bob!
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!>
You're Listening to KJAY FM 42, Where It's All Trek to Me
Mitch Obrecht
De> CWilson980 wrote:
De> > I've heard from several sources that Gene Rodenberry said that he
De> believed in
De> > this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I
De> need the
De> > information for a debate)
De> > Christina CWils...@aol.com
De> Ah! I can help here, thanks to Dorothy Laoang, who was so kind to
De> sell me a copy of the coveted book "Star Trek Lives" (first published
De> 1975)...
De> This is perfect evidence, guys! : D I quote from the book:
De> "When we asked how Spock and Kirk regard one another, what in fact
De> their relationship consists of in texture, Gene Roddenberry
De> said:
De> '... I definitely designed it as a love relationship. And I hope that
De> for men...who have been afraid of such relationships...that they
De> (Spock and Kirk) would encourage them to be able to feel love and
De> affection, true affection...love, friendship and deep respect.
De> That was the relationship I tried to draw. I think I also tried
De> to draw a feeling of belief that very few of us are complete
De> unto ourselves. It's quite a lovely thing...where two halves make
De> a whole.'"
'Tis True! I just checked my copy, and it's there, word-for-word!
Thunde...@HawgWild.com
-!- IceEdit v1.70 [Eval]
--
|Fidonet: Mitch Obrecht 1:285/424
|Internet: Mitch....@idic.omahug.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Jungle Kitty
To a certain extent, I have to agree with Jay on this. But not because
GR is dead.
I really enjoyed and appreciated Judith's analysis of the footnote and I
am genuinely entertained by GR's post-mortem on Kirk and Spock. And if
WS and/or LN would ever seriously discuss K/S in depth, I would find it
<ahem> fascinating.
But how does all that affect me as a TrekSmut writer? Not at all. I was
imagining K/S (as well as K/lots of other people) *long* before I knew
there was such a thing as a zine, slash, fandom, etc. The work of GR,
WS, and LN fired my imagination but it's still *my* imagination. And if
they all disavowed it, it wouldn't stop me. I simply do not need the
validation.
But, by all means, continue to post quotes, discussions, and the slashy
moments int the eps and movies. I love them. And they fire my fantasies
as well.
Just remember: Paraborg may hold the copyright but we still own our
imaginations!
--
Jungle Kitty
http://www.accesscom.com/~jkitty
--------------------------------------
It's not your grandmother's Star Trek.
--------------------------------------
Annz1701
judy...@aol.com wrote:
Your analysis of the footnote is very interesting, but it is still just a
matter of interpretation. In fact, it doesn't matter whether you believe Kirk
and Spock are lovers or not. Both are interpretations of the character, and as
viewers, readers and writers of Trek fiction, we all are entitled to our
interpretations. The important thing is to remember the IDIC philosophy and to
find delight in the various possibilities.
While personally, I don't adhere to the K/S interpretation, I can see how many
people do interpret the characters that way. They're entitled to that
interpretation, and I have no objections to it -- so long as you don't object
to me following my own interpretation. And, yes, I have considered the footnote
carefully and in depth several times over the years, and I acknowledge the
possibility of each of the points you set forth in your interpretation of that
passage. Without debating the footnote point by point, I ask only that you
acknowledge the possibility of my interpretation and the possibility that I
may be as capable of careful and analytical thought as you and still reach a
different conclusion. My conclusion is neither hasty, nor unjustified. Just
different from yours. I am neither an average reader, nor a careless one. I
spend my professional life reading (or listening to), analyzing and attempting
to find the truth in other people's written and/or spoken word. And then I
spend much of my recreation time doing the same thing in the realm of fiction.
One of the first things I learned in my profession is that there is never just
one side to a story or an argument. In fact, there seldom are just two sides.
And there usually is truth in all of them.
I learned years ago that you can prove almost anything by picking something
apart and considering each of its several parts, as people have been doing with
the Bible for centuries. But the interpretations will always remain just
interpretations. And each is often as valid as the next, based on the
information you have at hand and the context in which you view that
information.
In fact, my only real objection to the K/S interpretation is not the narrow,
homophobic reaction to the possibility of two men being lovers. It's simply
that I believe there are many forms of love, and to say one person loves
another doesn't necessary mean that they are lovers. They're neither mutually
inclusive nor exclusive statements. I personally subscribe to the
interpretation that Kirk and Spock are friends who love each other and who, in
many ways, complete each other but are not lovers. In fact, to me their
friendship makes a very powerful statement about the strength of their love in
the Greek fraternos (or brotherly) sense when there is no sex between them, and
to make them lovers dilutes that statement. I simply do not believe that loving
someone means you have to *make* love with them, and I object to what I
consider the rather narrow interpretation of love that it inevitably *must*
lead to a sexual relationship. There are many forms of love, some of them quite
beautiful not in spite of, but *because* they transcend the physicality of
sexual love. That is not to say there *cannot* be a sexual side to the
relationship, just that it doesn't *have* to exist for the love to be true,
deep and rare.
However, that is a personal interpretation of the relationship, based on what I
see on screen. I have no doubt that these two men love each other, and I find
that love very beautiful just as it is portrayed on screen without any
commercial break scenarios about what goes on between them when the camera is
not rolling or deep analysis of what they *really* meant. It's not necessarily
simplistic to assume that people mean just what they say and are not speaking
in some hidden code. Sometimes they're simply, dare I say it, honest.
But just because I believe that, doesn't mean you have to. We'll never
convince each other of the opposite point of view, and it doesn't really
matter. After all *gasp* it's just a TV show,l and these are characters, not
real people or world leaders. There's room for all interpretations if we allow
for them. Can't we just agree to disagree and not insist that there is only one
possible interpretation?
(By the way, I do occasionally read K/S stories and find a few -- although they
are very few -- that I truly enjoy. These stories portray the same emotional
bond between Kirk and Spock that I try to include in my own stories and place
the emphasis on that bond. The only difference is the sexual aspect depicted in
the K/S stories and the lack of it in mine.)
Meg
In article <19980221182...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, JayPHailey
<jayph...@aol.com> writes
>>So he knew and had no great objections, you can read what he said anyway
>>you please really. This *possibly* prompted 'T'hy'la' in TMP book, I
>>don't know which came first. There is more - Leonard Nimoys view on it,
>>if I remember, allot of Alpha male waffle, etc. An interesting book if
>>it is still available - I am no Shatner fan but I have kept it all these
>>years.
>>--
>>Meg
>
>Keep that book close to you. Shanter bought the rights and all outstanding
>copies. He destroyed all copies of the book and deep sixed the rights. You'll
>never see that book reprinted again.
Oooh, I hadn't heard that, though I can see why, it is certainly
different from all the other biogs around. They come across as real
people and they aren't frightened of the whole Fan thing at that point.
Do you know when that happened? I mean I *probably* picked it up at a
con and I didn't start going until '82. Funnily enough Shatner was the
guest and a woman who asked him about K/S got hissed down by the
audience; being young and innocent then I didn't know what it was, but
someone introduced me at that con. That was also when Shatner steared
Marcy away from K/S badges in the sales room. Ah, memories.
>
>We have a basic disagreement on GR's view of the K/S thing but as I say. I
>don't let GR's opinions slow me down all that much when writing Trek as Jay
>sees it, so I'm not certain of the value of his opinion to anyone else.
I don't see why you should, the whole point behind all fan fiction is
the big 'What if...' and under that anything is valid and it is down to
personal preference what people read. But what she was asking was what
GR though as ammo for a discussion, to non-believers who would pay more
heed to GR than a bunch of fans. I vaguely remember a similar discussion
with a friend years ago, she was delighted when I loaned her this book
because she needed to see it in B/W. In that case it was fair of her to
ask, and her friend have an excuse to accept it. And I don't think
anyones opinion would stop this now, been going too long.
>
>Does anyone know what happened to Marshak and Culbreath? About 1982 or so all
>evidence that I can find of them simply disappears. I didn't like their works
>very much but their sudden disappearance mystifies me.
Didn't they move on to writing Pro Science Fiction/Fantasy, like allot
of the Trek writers at that time? and I think they split up as a writing
team, though it is all pretty vague in my head. I didn't like their
books much either, but I couldn't put down the Phoenix books when I read
then - and I don't know *why*.
JayPHailey
>>Keep that book close to you. Shanter bought the rights and all
type worth a damn. He's SHATNER, Dammit!
>outstanding
>>copies. He destroyed all copies of the book and deep sixed the rights.
>You'll
>>never see that book reprinted again.
>Do you know when that happened? I mean I *probably* picked >it up at a
>con and I didn't start going until '82.
Nope. I don't know. In fact I am sitting here trying to rack my brains for
where I heard this and I just can't remember. It may not be accurate. Double
check. I guess I am not a reliable source.
[Marshak and Culbreath. Where are they now?]
>Didn't they move on to writing Pro Science Fiction/Fantasy, like >allot
>of the Trek writers at that time?
I saw Jaqueline Lichtenberg (Lichtenburg?) on a non-trek sf book at the Long
Beach public library in 1986. But I didn't cheak the book out. It seemed to
be part of a series. The cover painting depecting people with tentacles
growing out of their wrists (Sounds handy actually...)
But I have never seen Marshak and Culbreath on anything past "The Abode of
Life" either together or seperately, Trek or non.
> I didn't like their
>books much either, but I couldn't put down the Phoenix books >when I read
>then - and I don't know *why*.
>Meg
Easily enough explained. although there is no overt sexuality in those books,
there is enough going on beneath the surface to keep psychoanalysts and K/S
hurt-comfort writers working for years. In direct language the books were very
proper but in feel they should have made my hands sticky <EEW!>.
Marshak and Culbreath made a lot of noise about Federation culture and the male
dominated Starfleet that was interesting. the cultraul stuff bears looking at
and thinking about. The gender issues always seemed anachronistic and a touch
hysterical to me.
One of their Short Stories in "New Voyages" called the "Protruscan Petard"
<sp?> was a delightful story just because they put the characters in a
wonderfully bad spot.
I didn't quite care for Spock with the double X chromosome, or the testosterone
charged madness that came from it. Actually I thought the whole "Alpha Male"
thing was way, way over done, but the basic idea was sound.
Anyway, I take it from the context of your post, Meg, that K/S is something
you like. The Phoenix books are loaded with sexual energy even if they aren't
really allowed to say so directly.
K/S, hurt-comfort, and dominance games are just not my cup of tea, but they're
in there....
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!>
You're Listening to KJAY FM 42, Where A Fool and His Money is Our Kind of
Customer!
EDWARD FRANCIS
an...@zebra.net wrote:
>
> In article <19980221035...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> cwils...@aol.com (CWilson980) wrote:
> >
> in
> > this pairing...Can somebody tell me where/when he said this??? (I need the
> > information for a debate)
> >
> > CWils...@aol.com
> >
>
> No, no, no, no, no. Exactly the opposite. Read the footnote at the beginning
> of the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Written from Kirk's
> point of view, the gist of it is that he says that while he approves of love
> in all of its forms, for him he prefers women.
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Thanks for that ray of sunshine!
Syl
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
judy...@aol.com wrote:
>In his "editor's note" on page 22 of the novelization of Star Trek: The
>Motion
>Picture (1979), Gene Roddenberry finally addressed the question whether Kirk
>and Spock are lovers. The note apparently struck some fans, who read it
>superficially, as a gentle but explicit denial of the possibility of K/S.
My understanding is that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote that. I heard this
from another professional sf writer. There are actually several passages
in that novel that I prefer to believe Roddenberry didn't write.
--
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman:
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com Bedivere's Round Table - Cartoons -
Archy the Cockroach - DOCTOR WHO and
DrWho on LambdaMOO, DownMOO, MOOchine STAR TREK fiction [including T*R*E*K]
- Something new every week!
"Fan fiction is a way of the culture repairing the damage
done in a system where contemporary myths are owned
by corporations instead of owned by the folk."
Henry Jenkins
Director of media studies at MIT
JayPHailey
Paul, Paul, Paul Gadzikowski wrote about, wrote about...
>My understanding is that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote that. I >heard this
>from another professional sf writer. There are actually several >passages
>in that novel that I prefer to believe Roddenberry didn't write.
Really? Such as? Please explain.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
JayPHailey (jayph...@aol.com) wrote:
: Paul, Paul, Paul Gadzikowski wrote about, wrote about...
: >My understanding is that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote that. I >heard this
: >from another professional sf writer. There are actually several >passages
: >in that novel that I prefer to believe Roddenberry didn't write.
: Really? Such as? Please explain.
Such as the passage describing Kirk's utter befuddlement at the
unprofessionalism of the rest of the bridge staff in their desire to
accompany him in the spacewalk to chase after Spock. If Kirk were all that
professional he wouldn't risk the ship's C.O., i.e. himself, on the task;
he's going himself out of personal loyalty to Spock, and demonstrations of
other people's personal loyalty to Spock would not befuddle him. (They
certainly don't befuddle him two movies later.)
Such as the passage describing Spock's utter befuddlement at most
humanoids' (as verbatim as I remember it) "fascination with rubbing this
or that part of their anatomy together". The events of AMOK TIME, if not
of ALL OUR YESTERDAYS, gave Spock plenty of subjective experience with
that fascination.
These passages smack of the imperfect gestalt of the characters that
Foster demonstrated in the STAR TREK Log series of adaptations of the
animated series, such as the passage from one of the STAR TREK Log novels
in which Scott calls Spock "pointy-ears".
(Which isn't to say I don't like Foster's writing. He wrote a short story
whose title I forget about an intelligence-enhanced horse that was a
poet. Anyone else remember the title of that?)
JayPHailey
>These passages smack of the imperfect gestalt of the characters that
>Foster demonstrated in the STAR TREK Log series of adaptations of the
>animated series, such as the passage from one of the STAR TREK Log novels
>in which Scott calls Spock "pointy-ears".
You know if anyone else came up with these I'd say that they were picking at
nits.
BUT-
Given your absolutely dead on ear for charcters in most of your stories, I have
to accept your judgement as sound.
The fact is that it has been so long since I read ST:TMP The Novel or any of
the logs that my recall of them is much less than perfect.