So this is gen?
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
store yesterday, so I picked it up. I'd never seen it before,
just heard about it plenty.
Holy potatoes! Quel slash-o-rama! People always talk
about "The Winged Dreamers" -- and well they might --
but "Ni Var" and "Mind-Sifter" are pretty damn K/Sy, too.
Here's my question. Both the latter two stories, while
ostensibly gen, suppose that K & S share a mental
bond of some undefined nature. Is this widespread in
gen nowadays? Was it a gen assumption in the mid-70s?
I gather it shows up in some pro novels -- e.g. "Yesterday's
Son." What about the more recent ones? It's implied in
"The Pandora Principle", but the slash subtext there is
kept very low-key so as not to frighten the children.
still reeling,
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"Goedel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid," by Douglas Hofstadter
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
an...@mindspring.com
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote in message
<7b04e0$spi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I ran across a copy of "New Voyages" in the used book
>store yesterday, so I picked it up. I'd never seen it before,
>just heard about it plenty.
>
>Holy potatoes! Quel slash-o-rama! People always talk
>about "The Winged Dreamers" -- and well they might --
>but "Ni Var" and "Mind-Sifter" are pretty damn K/Sy, too.
>
>Here's my question. Both the latter two stories, while
>ostensibly gen, suppose that K & S share a mental
>bond of some undefined nature. Is this widespread in
>gen nowadays? Was it a gen assumption in the mid-70s?
>I gather it shows up in some pro novels -- e.g. "Yesterday's
>Son." What about the more recent ones? It's implied in
>"The Pandora Principle", but the slash subtext there is
>kept very low-key so as not to frighten the children.
>
>still reeling,
>
Well, personally, I write only gen, and frequently use the Kirk-Spock link
but without any sexual overtones to it -- or at least not any I intend or
see myself. I suppose you can find K/S sexual overtones anywhere if that's
what you're looking for. But, while I don't object to K/S and occasionally
read a bit of it, I don't really believe in the premise, so I don't write
it. To me, Kirk and Spock are extremely close friends who share a mental
link as a result of their occasional mind-melds, but they aren't, never have
been and never will be lovers. Again, that's a personal opinion and is in no
way a criticism of K/S or those people who read, write and enjoy it. But my
opinion is reflected in my writings, and I *have* included the link in
several of my stories.
As for "Mind-Sifter," it actually pre-dates K/S, I think, having first been
published in a fanzine several years before New Voyages (although I don't
know the exact date and I could be mistaken). But I didn't take it as K/S at
all -- perhaps because I read it before I even was aware of K/S. But I saw
nothing sexual in the Kirk-Spock relationship depicted in that story. Again,
I read it as an extremely close friendship, but not a lover relationship.
Perhaps the fact that I share a kind of ESP link with my two best friends
makes it possible for me to envision such a link without sex being a part of
it. I nearly always know when either of them is in trouble, and they know
the same about me. I have been awakened from a nightmare at 3 a.m. by a
phone call from one of my best friends asking "Are you all right? I just
woke up to the sound of you calling my name?" And my other best friend, who
lives several states away, says every time she's at her lowest, I *always*
call her, usually asking what's wrong before she says anything more than
hello. Unless you have that kind of friendship, you can't truly understand
it in others. But it's very real. And it isn't sexual in any sense of the
word. And, given Spock's telepathic abilities, it's quite easy for me to
envision an even closer link between him and his closest friend than those I
share with my closest friends.
--
Ann
"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time and it annoys
the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
Sydvick
>store yesterday, so I picked it up. I'd never seen it before,
>just heard about it plenty.
>
>Holy potatoes! Quel slash-o-rama! People always talk
>about "The Winged Dreamers" -- and well they might --
>but "Ni Var" and "Mind-Sifter" are pretty damn K/Sy, too.
>
>Here's my question. Both the latter two stories, while
>ostensibly gen, suppose that K & S share a mental
>bond of some undefined nature. Is this widespread in
>gen nowadays? Was it a gen assumption in the mid-70s?
>I gather it shows up in some pro novels -- e.g. "Yesterday's
>Son." What about the more recent ones? It's implied in
>"The Pandora Principle", but the slash subtext there is
>kept very low-key so as not to frighten the children.
>
>still reeling,
>
>Doctor Science, MA
>- - - - - - - - -
think mindsifters irrevocably shifted my mind. Also the line where Spock tell
Jim, "Jim, now we can do what we alway wanted to do!" And Kirk hollers at him
to keep from outing them.
In Gen, even the novelization of V'Ger, Spock was called back by Kirk's need,
through their link. So, Gen that keeps pace with Roddenberry, has them linked.
My heart is single and cannot be divided
And it is fastened on a single hope;
Oh you, who might be the moon
Until I die, I shall not give up lovesongs.
Oh God, forgive me my shortcomings
SOMALI LOVESONG
DragonGrrl
> Holy potatoes! Quel slash-o-rama! People always talk
> about "The Winged Dreamers" -- and well they might --
> but "Ni Var" and "Mind-Sifter" are pretty damn K/Sy, too.
Interesting, no? :) I'm not sure exactly what the term "gen" refers to
(general? General what?) but if you've read any of Marshak and
Culbreath's novels (Price of the Phoenix, Fate of the Phoenix,
Prometheus Design), you can see that the stories they chose for New
Voyages are exactly the kind of stuff they liked.
> Here's my question. Both the latter two stories, while
> ostensibly gen, suppose that K & S share a mental
> bond of some undefined nature. Is this widespread in
> gen nowadays? Was it a gen assumption in the mid-70s?
> I gather it shows up in some pro novels -- e.g. "Yesterday's
> Son." What about the more recent ones? It's implied in
> "The Pandora Principle", but the slash subtext there is
> kept very low-key so as not to frighten the children.
I never thought the mental-bond thing expressly had to accompany a
sexual relationship. My take on it is that anyone who chooses to,
because of friendship, love, or otherwise, can become bonded. The bond
between Kirk and Spock would be a result of the close friendship that
naturally developed between two officers, and the fact that one of said
officers is a telepath and that they have made telepathic contact more
than once for various reasons (it was on the show). In my own canon :)
it's something that just happened to them over the course of their
friendship. I think that must be how most of the pro publishers see it,
since I don't think they'd publish it, unfortunately, if they thought it
implied homosexuality.
So, have you read both books yet, or just the first? Wait 'til you get
ahold of "Surprise!" by Nichelle Nichols (really!) in the second volume.
--DragonGrrl
alison@gloi
DragonGrrl wrote in message <36D47AE1...@kingston.net>...
>mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
>
>> Holy potatoes! Quel slash-o-rama! People always talk
>> about "The Winged Dreamers" -- and well they might --
>> but "Ni Var" and "Mind-Sifter" are pretty damn K/Sy, too.
>
>ahold of "Surprise!" by Nichelle Nichols (really!) in the second volume.
I really love this story, it is so funny. The image it brings across that
when Spock walks down the corridor carrying Kirk , and the crew that see
them seem to be treating it as an everyday occurrence really cracks me up.
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
<an...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[a bunch of interesting stuff, concluding]:
Unless you have that kind of friendship, you can't truly understand
> it in others. But it's very real. And it isn't sexual in any sense of the
> word. And, given Spock's telepathic abilities, it's quite easy for me to
> envision an even closer link between him and his closest friend than those I
> share with my closest friends.
I can understand what you mean. Part of our difference comes from what you
mean by "sexual". To me, an emotion is (fundamentally) a neurohormone. That's
a rhetorical exaggeration, but not by a lot. And it seems to me that the
emotion of love incorporates/relies on/is based in part on the sex hormones.
I used to say "sex is a preadaptation for love." I no longer say that,
because I now see that the hormones of parenthood are involved in love as
well. But "love with no sexual component" to me makes as much sense as "love
with no emotional component".
That aside, I can easily see how their affection for each other might have no
sexual expression. Well, not easily, but I *can* see it. Though frankly in
their case I think that if it has no sexual expression it's because at least
one of them has consciously chosen to avoid it.
"The Mind-Sifter" contains the following dialogue: K & S are carefully
discussing their mental link:
Kirk says, "It seems I always turn to you when I need help."
"As I have turned to you, Jim. It is because we . . . we need each other that
our minds are drawn together."
I find the ellipsis in Spock's speech particularly suggestive. And the whole
question of "needs" does have at least the penumbra of sexuality.
LL&P,
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"The Hero with a Thousand Faces," by Joseph Campbell
an...@mindspring.com
>I can understand what you mean. Part of our difference comes from what you
>mean by "sexual".
I'm not even going there. <g> Reminds me far too much of "It depends on what
*is* means." Sorry, couldn't resist. This is one I'm not going to debate
because I simply don't agree, and I think it's an area in which we'll have
to agree to disagree.
*snip*
>That aside, I can easily see how their affection for each other might have
no
>sexual expression. Well, not easily, but I *can* see it. Though frankly in
>their case I think that if it has no sexual expression it's because at
least
>one of them has consciously chosen to avoid it.
>
>"The Mind-Sifter" contains the following dialogue: K & S are carefully
>discussing their mental link:
>Kirk says, "It seems I always turn to you when I need help."
>
>"As I have turned to you, Jim. It is because we . . . we need each other
that
>our minds are drawn together."
>
>I find the ellipsis in Spock's speech particularly suggestive. And the
whole
>question of "needs" does have at least the penumbra of sexuality.
>
It's always interesting to see how different people interpret different
things. In my opinion, *needs* aren't always sexual, and *friends* supply
many of the needs that our lovers don't or can't -- just as parents and
siblings do. Someone once said, to paraphrase, that friends are the families
we *choose*.
As for those ellipses, I read them simply as Spock's usual reticence to
express *any* emotion. To admit a need -- sexual or otherwise -- is so
against Spock's natural and cultivated nature that he *would* hesitate here,
even without a sexual connotation.
But, as I said in my earlier post, we all tend to read into things our own
perceptions. I first read this story with no knowledge of K/S and
interpreted it in keeping with my own knowledge and perceptions of
friendship -- the real, true friendships that one encounters only a rare few
times in a lifetime, not the more casual relationships of mutual convenience
and shared interests that most often pass for friendship. And those initial
impressions stuck with me and outweigh anything added by knowledge of the
K/S phenomenon of fandom. I *still* see them as friends, not lovers -- and
not because they don't *act* on desires but because sexual desire simply
isn't a part of the equation for them.
But, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Laura Jacquez Valentine
I love these discussions, partially because I'm quite capable of seeing
both sides. Sometimes I wake up and decide that Kirk and Spock are best
buddies and brothers.
Sometimes I wake up and decide that Kirk and Spock are bonking each
other's brains out. *shrug*
I prefer to write slash for various reasons, but I read just about
everything.
--laura
J. Juls
stories? (And I don't know what "gen" stands for either!)
Julie
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
"J. Juls" <jj...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> Okay, I guess I missed some of this thread, but where can a person get these
> stories? (And I don't know what "gen" stands for either!)
"Gen" means "of general interest; not erotica, and most definitely not slash.
No, nope, niet. None o' that here. Uh-uh."
The stories are in "Star Trek: The New Voyages", an authorized Pocket Book
edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath, copyright 1976. It's been out of
print for eons but is widely available in used book stores.
Yours,
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"More Than Human," by Theodore Sturgeon
Trillseekr
>(And I don't know what "gen" stands for either!)
Stands for "general audience", or Disney-safe, something a kid could watch or
read without being corrupted. <G>
Trilly
"If you want my love you gotta drink da blood..."--Ancient Greek Rap Song
Raku2u
>Stands for "general audience", or Disney-safe, something a kid could watch or
>read without being corrupted. <G>
>
>
>Trilly
>
You mean like the wedding scene in Disney's much-vaunted "Beauty and the
Beast," in which the town Lothario walks down the aisle with his male
hanger-on/hunting buddy, while wedding music plays in the background?
I fell off the couch the first time I saw *that* scene.
And after all the books that have analyzed gay imagery/themes in 50 years of
"straight" Hollywood movies, I tend to think that if something looks like a
gay/lesbian reference in a book that's supposedly "general," it probably *is* a
gay/lesbian reference.
You know, like the infamous scene of Q in bed with Picard, in a broadcast
episode.
raku
-----
"Look! There's Barbie!" --a young friend on seeing Yeoman Rand for the first
time
mail me at rak...@aol.com
raku-ish stories at http://members.aol.com/Raku2u
-----
Trillseekr
(Raku2u) writes:
>And after all the books that have analyzed gay imagery/themes in 50 years of
>"straight" Hollywood movies, I tend to think that if something looks like a
>gay/lesbian reference in a book that's supposedly "general," it probably *is*
>a gay/lesbian reference.
>
>You know, like the infamous scene of Q in bed with Picard, in a broadcast
>episode.
I know, and I love looking for subtext myself...(recently died laughing at a
particular line in the Little Mermaid-older anime version, not Disney's) but I
think the theory is that little kids will not consciously get anything more
subtle than an actual same-sex kiss, so by-play and innuendo can slip by them.
I'm not saying it's MY theory, there might be kids out there sharper than the
average...but then again I think innocence is good for kids. <g>
Gamin Davis
<7b0bpl$mgd$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>:
>Well, personally, I write only gen, and frequently use the Kirk-
Spock link
>but without any sexual overtones to it -- or at least not any I
intend or
>see myself. I suppose you can find K/S sexual overtones anywhere
if that's
>what you're looking for. But, while I don't object to K/S and
occasionally
>read a bit of it, I don't really believe in the premise, so I
don't write
>it. To me, Kirk and Spock are extremely close friends who share a
mental
>link as a result of their occasional mind-melds, but they aren't,
never have
>been and never will be lovers. Again, that's a personal opinion
and is in no
>way a criticism of K/S or those people who read, write and enjoy
it. But my
>opinion is reflected in my writings, and I *have* included the
link in
>several of my stories.
I agree completely--this is exactly the way I use it in my
stories, too.
>As for "Mind-Sifter," it actually pre-dates K/S, I think, having
first been
>published in a fanzine several years before New Voyages (although
I don't
>know the exact date and I could be mistaken). But I didn't take
it as K/S at
>all -- perhaps because I read it before I even was aware of K/S.
But I saw
>nothing sexual in the Kirk-Spock relationship depicted in that
story. Again,
>I read it as an extremely close friendship, but not a lover
relationship.
Right, and BTW, "The Winged Dreamers" was *also* published
prior to NEW VOYAGES. For the record, though, the idea of Kirk
and Spock having a mental bond has been around from the early days
of zine-writing fandom, at least the early 70s or so--ref. zines
like CONTACT, et al, where it's a running theme.
>Perhaps the fact that I share a kind of ESP link with my two best
friends
>makes it possible for me to envision such a link without sex
being a part of
>it. I nearly always know when either of them is in trouble, and
they know
>the same about me. I have been awakened from a nightmare at 3
a.m. by a
>phone call from one of my best friends asking "Are you all right?
I just
>woke up to the sound of you calling my name?" And my other best
friend, who
>lives several states away, says every time she's at her lowest, I
*always*
>call her, usually asking what's wrong before she says anything
more than
>hello. Unless you have that kind of friendship, you can't truly
understand
>it in others. But it's very real. And it isn't sexual in any
sense of the
>word. And, given Spock's telepathic abilities, it's quite easy
for me to
>envision an even closer link between him and his closest friend
than those I
>share with my closest friends.
Fascinating...and quite understandable. I have something
similar with a friend of mine although not quite to that extent.
But we frequently know exactly what each other are thinking and
either complete each other's sentences or mirror each other's
thoughts one right after the other--it's a very rare kind of
friendship, and people who can't imagine it being so deep (for
whatever reason) may automatically assume slash overtones--and no,
I am NOT necessarily talking about anyone in either this NG or
ascem, just for the record.
Gamin
Gamin Davis
<7b4pqs$hi4$3...@remarQ.com>:
>Okay, I guess I missed some of this thread, but where can a
person get these
>stories? (And I don't know what "gen" stands for either!)
"Gen" means "general", as in the ratings--G, PG, etc.
(Apparently some people have totally forgotten what that "G" stood
for <g>)--as opposed to the slash, K/S or adult fan-fiction
categories.
Gamin
Gamin Davis
<19990225215939...@ng05.aol.com>:
>You mean like the wedding scene in Disney's much-vaunted "Beauty
and the
>Beast," in which the town Lothario walks down the aisle with his
male
>hanger-on/hunting buddy, while wedding music plays in the
background?
<shaking head> They were NOT "walking down the aisle", for
crying out loud, and that was NOT the real wedding scene...Gaston
had just come back from being rejected by Belle. He was talking to
whatsisname--LeFou, I think--and the music was playing because the
band THOUGHT he had Belle with him. (People who insist on reading
stuff like this into something as innocuous as Disney are one of
my pet peeves, so pardon me if I sound sanctimonious or something
here.)
Gamin, to whom Disney is as sacred as Kirk and Spock
[Sanctimony mode OFF, darn it, OFF!]
>
>I fell off the couch the first time I saw *that* scene.
>
>And after all the books that have analyzed gay imagery/themes in
50 years of
>"straight" Hollywood movies, I tend to think that if something
looks like a
>gay/lesbian reference in a book that's supposedly "general," it
probably *is* a
>gay/lesbian reference.
>
>You know, like the infamous scene of Q in bed with Picard, in a
broadcast
>episode.
>
an...@mindspring.com
>> Okay, I guess I missed some of this thread, but where can a person get
these
>> stories? (And I don't know what "gen" stands for either!)
amd fizzbin replied:
*snip*
>
Alas, the books are going to costs you a pretty penny and
>you'll have to dig around at a con or find a collector who's willing to
sell.
> The New Voyages (1976) and The New Voyages 2 (1978) were collections of
>fanfic, edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath, and published by
>Bantam.
>
FYI, both barnesandnoble.com and amazon.com list The New Voyages as being
available at $3.99. The New Voyages 2, however, is listed as out of print.
fiz...@my-dejanews.com
"J. Juls" <jj...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> Okay, I guess I missed some of this thread, but where can a person get these
> stories? (And I don't know what "gen" stands for either!)
"Gen", I'm assuming is non-slash. Though at the time the books were
compiled, I don't think the distinction really existed -- or was only just
coming to exist. Alas, the books are going to costs you a pretty penny and
you'll have to dig around at a con or find a collector who's willing to sell.
The New Voyages (1976) and The New Voyages 2 (1978) were collections of
fanfic, edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath, and published by
Bantam.
While I was looking up the dates on these, I reread Roddenberry's intro to
the first volume. I wish I had thought to do this while Ordover was
harrassing the ng -- I could have cited this:
"We were particularly amazed when thousands, then tens of thousands of people
began creating their own personal Star Trek adventures. Stories, and
paintings, and sculptures, and cookbooks. And songs, and poems, and
fashions. And more. The list is still growing. It took some time for us to
fully understand and appreciate what these people were saying. Eventually we
realized that there is no more profound way in which people could express
what Star Trek has meant to them than by creating their own very personal
Star Trek things....That is the highest compliment and the greatest repayment
that they could give us."
--
Fizzbin
fiz...@my-dejanews.com
=======================
Raku2u
<shaking head> They were NOT "walking down the aisle", for
>crying out loud,
Gaston walks on what I believe is called the groom's side, LeFou walks on what
I believe is called the bride's side, shorter/weaker than Gaston, and looking
fondly upward at his handsome buddy. The standard wedding processional tune
plays while they walk toward the camera.
> and that was NOT the real wedding scene...Gaston
>had just come back from being rejected by Belle.
Indeed. That's the point. The straight wedding is not going to come off (we
know, Gaston doesn't), and Gaston is venting about it.
He sings manly songs, he explains with his feet thrown over the arm of his
chair and a limp wrist tossed backward that he "uses antlers in *all* of my
decorating!" He walks thru the anti-wedding with LeFou.
> He was talking to
>whatsisname--LeFou, I think--and the music was playing because the
>band THOUGHT he had Belle with him. (People who insist on reading
>stuff like this into something as innocuous as Disney are one of
>my pet peeves,
Yep, then I'm a biggie on your list; probably you won't want to read my fanfic
bec. I *love* this kind of is-it-isn't-it stuff. ;)
>so pardon me if I sound sanctimonious or something
>here.)
> Gamin, to whom Disney is as sacred as Kirk and Spock
>[Sanctimony mode OFF, darn it, OFF!]
>
I think lots of folk feel your way, and I pretty much thought Disney was
sweet-innocent etc. until I began to be force-fed a lot of Disney movies.
There are a lot of scenes that IMHO aren't what they seem. They aren't nec.
full of gay imagery, but very often there's stuff going on that isn't meant for
kids, has extra layers of meaning (often comic). To put it this way--there are
an amazing number of scenes where I have to explain to little friends why all
the adults in the theater are laughing...
Examples off top of my head:
--scene in Hercules when Herc and Phil get to downtown Thebes, and there's a
sight-gag of the Rockefeller Center, NY NY, statue in the background
--scene in "Mulan" when female ancestor complains to male ancestor that *his*
greatgranddaughter is a cross-dresser (tech. she is but not in usual sense)
--scene in "George of Jungle" (think this is Disney) when nicely built Brendan
Fraser, having no clothes, gets dressed in tiny fluffy dress of friend, and
walks around streets of SF while people whistle and stare.
raku, whose small relations have introduced me to hours of family fun
DragonGrrl
> Alas, the books are going to costs you a pretty penny and
> you'll have to dig around at a con or find a collector who's willing
> to sell.
> The New Voyages (1976) and The New Voyages 2 (1978) were collections
> of
> fanfic, edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath, and published by
>
> Bantam.
Maybe the zines themselves would be hard to find, but I have two copies
of each NV volume-- the original printing and a later one, from the
mid-eighties-- that I got at flea markets and used book stores. Also,
Bantam seems to be in the process of re-releasing all their old Trek
books, so look in a big *new* bookstore and you might find them. Check
libraries too-- mine has them.
And your Roddenberry quote is making me get all, uh, illogical...
perhaps even emotional... ;)
--DragonGrrl
DragonGrrl
> Right, and BTW, "The Winged Dreamers" was *also* published
> prior to NEW VOYAGES.
Actually, I think the premise of New Voyages was 'the best of fanfic'--
*all* of the stories had already been published in zines.
> I have something
> similar with a friend of mine although not quite to that extent.
> But we frequently know exactly what each other are thinking and
> either complete each other's sentences or mirror each other's
> thoughts one right after the other--
My sister and I do that. :) It's a little strange when the person who
could have been one's 'chosen family' (read: friend) ends up being one's
biological family. I think we should have been twins.
--DragonGrrl
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
Gamin Davis <arkiet...@usa.net> wrote:
> Fascinating...and quite understandable. I have something
> similar with a friend of mine although not quite to that extent.
> But we frequently know exactly what each other are thinking and
> either complete each other's sentences or mirror each other's
> friendship, and people who can't imagine it being so deep (for
> whatever reason) may automatically assume slash overtones
Ah, the "two heads one brain" phenomenon. It may be that I (for instance)
give it "slash overtones" not because I can't imagine it being so deep, but
because I have it with someone I find sexy --- my husband. So for me "two
heads one brain" is bound up with a lot of other stuff -- best friend, life's
companion, the other person who changes the diapers, sex god, joint checking.
In some ways it may make the feeling less pure & interesting. Having someone
who is thinking the same thing you are is exciting when you only see them
occasionally; when we're always thinking of the same commercial jingles or
bad jokes it can indeed make me feel as though I personally only have half a
brain.
Gen or slash, Kirk & Spock's relationship is going to have some of the day-to-
day, "you again" quality of marriage to your best friend. Hmm, that's an
interesting question for you gen writers to explore: do they get sick of being
around someone who always knows what they're thinking? Because not all of us
are thinking wizard thoughts at all times.
Yours,
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"Vanity Fair," by William Makepeace Thackeray
Sydvick
>day-to-
>day, "you again" quality of marriage to your best friend. Hmm, that's an
>interesting question for you gen writers to explore: do they get sick of
>being
>around someone who always knows what they're thinking? Because not all of us
>are thinking wizard thoughts at all times.
Yup, sometimes I think Kirk especially closes the link to protect Spock from
his darkest thoughts.
an...@mindspring.com
>> Fascinating...and quite understandable. I have something
>> similar with a friend of mine although not quite to that extent.
>> But we frequently know exactly what each other are thinking and
>> either complete each other's sentences or mirror each other's
>> thoughts one right after the other--it's a very rare kind of
>> friendship, and people who can't imagine it being so deep (for
>> whatever reason) may automatically assume slash overtones
and Mary Ellen replied:
>
>Ah, the "two heads one brain" phenomenon. It may be that I (for instance)
>give it "slash overtones" not because I can't imagine it being so deep, but
>because I have it with someone I find sexy --- my husband. So for me "two
>heads one brain" is bound up with a lot of other stuff -- best friend,
life's
>companion, the other person who changes the diapers, sex god, joint
checking.
>In some ways it may make the feeling less pure & interesting. Having
someone
>who is thinking the same thing you are is exciting when you only see them
>occasionally; when we're always thinking of the same commercial jingles or
>bad jokes it can indeed make me feel as though I personally only have half
a
>brain.
>
>Gen or slash, Kirk & Spock's relationship is going to have some of the
day-to-
>day, "you again" quality of marriage to your best friend. Hmm, that's an
>interesting question for you gen writers to explore: do they get sick of
being
>around someone who always knows what they're thinking? Because not all of
us
>are thinking wizard thoughts at all times.
>
Actually, I don't think Gamin meant to imply that they *always* know what
each other is thinking. I *know* that wasn't what *I* meant in my original
post to which she was replying re mental links between close friends.
My own connection to two of my friends isn't like that at all. We *don't*
always know what the other is thinking, although we certainly are able to
predict thoughts and reactions based on a knowledge of how we each think.
But the link is more basic, a somewhat vague feeling of being needed or of
the friend being in trouble (as one friend's assertion that she awakened to
the sound of me calling her name -- at the same moment I was experiencing a
nightmare, the details of which I can't remember). I see the Kirk-Spock link
in much the same manner, just stronger. A sense of the other being in
trouble and/or needing help, a sense of the other's proximity and perhaps
even direction, and (as I asserted in my novella "No Cold Wind") a sense of
the other's continued life force even when told he is dead.
You are very lucky, Mary Ellen, to have such a close relationship with your
husband, and perhaps as you said, giving slash overtones to that kind of
friendship grows out of that relationship. I have absolutely no quarrel with
the theory that it can and at times does occur in tandem with a sexual
relationship. My only beef is with the assertion that it *only* occurs as
part of a sexual relationship. *I* firmly believe that a close, deep,
forever friendship with a mental communion can and often does exist outside
the boundaries of sexual attraction. It's a separate and distinct kind of
relationship that *can* be combined with sexual attraction but doesn't have
to be; and I prefer non-slash Trek because it depicts that friendship as
apart from (rather than a part of) the characters' sexuality. To me, the
continued assertion that such closeness *must* inevitably lead to a sexual
relationship demeans and belittles the nonsexual friendship as being somehow
less than I believe it is. This is, to me, an unfortunate offshoot of the
slash phenomenon in fan fiction and is not an indictment of the theory of
slash itself. I have no objections to the depiction of same-sex
relationships in fan fiction, literature, theater, movies or television. But
I personally prefer to explore the friendship I see between these characters
without muddying up the waters with sex.
There's simply a time and a place for sex, and to me this isn't it.
But for those who prefer that interpretation, go ahead and enjoy whatever
turns you on. Just stop telling me that the slash interpretation of the
characters' relationship is the one, only and true interpretation. It isn't.
It's an alternative viewpoint with some dialogue that *can* be interpreted
to support it. But you'll never convince me that it is what the writers,
directors, producers and actors intended to convey.
fiz...@my-dejanews.com
<an...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> FYI, both barnesandnoble.com and amazon.com list The New Voyages as being
> available at $3.99. The New Voyages 2, however, is listed as out of print.
Wow! Was the first volume reprinted? The last printing that I know of was
the 7th in 1978.
--
Fizzbin
fiz...@my-dejanews.com
=======================
fiz...@my-dejanews.com
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
>
> Here's my question. Both the latter two stories, while
> ostensibly gen, suppose that K & S share a mental
> bond of some undefined nature. Is this widespread in
> gen nowadays? Was it a gen assumption in the mid-70s?
[OK, I tried to post up an answer to this when dejanews
decided to bomb, since it hasn't shown up yet, I'll try
to recreate it.]
The first volume of New Voyages was published in 1976, but
the stories were floating around as far back as 1970 (ah!
the smell of a fresh mimeograph!) At the time of the
first-ever con, the idea of a mental bond was fairly widespread
-- thousands of Trekkers simultaneously inventing it on their
own and not realizing that others had the same perception until
we had a chance to get together and talk about it. (Being a
Trek fan was pretty much a lonely experience before the cons
started.) I don't really recall a split between gen and slash
(or more specifically K/S, the granddaddy of 'em all) until the
mid-seventies when the erotic aspect first became more explicit
and began to make some of those, who had previously described
themselves as K/Sers, squicky (a word that didn't exist then)
about the specificaly homoerotic aspect. (You've got to remember
that when ST first aired, Stonewall had only happened a year
before.) So, as I remember it, a mental bond between Kirk and
Spock was always a part of gen, but it was slash that took it
and ran.
--
Fizzbin -- takin' a trip down Memory Lane.
DragonGrrl
> Yup, sometimes I think Kirk especially closes the link to protect
> Spock from
> his darkest thoughts.
Heee. Funny, I always thought it was the other way around, but in
exactly the same words (switch the names around). Specifically, that
Spock is a troubled individual and he'll shut Kirk out when he's feeling
especially depressed.
--DragonGrrl
Raku2u
I personally would like to see a fanfic story begin with the phrase, or
concept, "sex god, joint checking."
Part of the challenge, of course, is working "joint checking" into the story in
a *financial* sense...
raku, always admiring Doc Sci's way with words
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
syd...@aol.comjoy (Sydvick) wrote:
> Yup, sometimes I think Kirk especially closes the link to protect Spock from
> his darkest thoughts.
Actually, I think if I were linked to Spock my worry would be not my darkest
thoughts, but my nearly-constant stupid ones. Spock can forgive Jim an
occasional black mood; is he prepared to put up with the unfocused,
repetitive, distracted mess of normal human thinking? And even if the link
isn't that clear, I think a lot of repetition is bound to get through.
Ann and Gamin have been talking about feeling linked to people they do not (I
gather) live with. What I'd like to see a *gen* writer do is look at how it
would feel to be linked to someone you see all the time, but who you don't
have sex with. Because sex can make a lot of annoyances more bearable. And
from my experience having your own thoughts fed back to you a lot can make
you all too aware of your own mental ruts.
Gen or slash, if Kirk & Spock are linked Kirk should worry about Spock
thinking he's a dolt. And Spock should worry that Kirk will get exasperated
at his social inattention.
YMMV,
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"Time Considered As a Helix of Semi-Precious
Stones," by Samuel R. Delaney
Randy Landers
<<Ann and Gamin have been talking about feeling linked to people they
do not (I gather) live with. What I'd like to see a *gen* writer do is
look at how it would feel to be linked to someone you see all the
time, but who you don't have sex with. Because sex can make a lot of
annoyances more bearable. And from my experience having your own
thoughts fed back to you a lot can make you all too aware of your own
mental ruts.>>
Actually, I don't think of it as a link, but my assistant manager at
FAST COPY and I intuitively solve problems together. A typical
conversation between the two of us over say a job that comes in from
AYRES:
We stand there looking at the manual we're supposed to reproduce 30
copies of in say two hours:
"Shit."
"Double shit."
"Well, let's run it on the---" {OCE}
"Yeah, let's. What about--" {Ricoh 6655 -- we can run some of it
there}
"We'll boot over to the--" {Ricoh 7670 instead}
"Can you handle it? It's jamming in the--" {Document feeder}
"We've got no choice--" {but to place it by hand on the glass}
"All right, what about--" {three hole punch}
"How many--" {sheets do we have}
"2400. We're gonna--" {have to drill it}
"We'll put Deb--" {bie on drilling it}
"She should wait on--" {the customers instead}
"Then--" {who's going to drill it}
"I'll--" {do it while running the Oce
2600}
"You sure--" {you can do both?}
An exchange of glances, and we're off running.
I see Kirk and Spock having the same sort of relationship. Intuitive,
perhaps linked, but not sexual. Becca is only 19 and has been our
company for two years. We've never once been sexual; hell, kinda
creepy thinking of it since I'm twice her age.
My point is that two people working together on problem solving become
intuitive with each other to the extreme.
--
Randy Landers
ORION PRESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For 13MB of quality Classic Trek fan fiction, go to:
http://www.mindspring.com/~randylanders/archives/oaindex.html
For 7MB of quality Next Gen fan fiction, go to:
http://www.mindspring.com/~lindamarcusky/eridani/index.html
For 1MB of quality Deep Space 9 fan fiction, go to:
http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/outpost/index.html
For 1MB of quality Voyager fan fiction, go to:
http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/deltaquadrant/index.html
For information on ORION PRESS and its fanzines, go to:
http://www.mindspring.com/~randylanders
Raku2u
>exactly the same words (switch the names around). Specifically, that
>Spock is a troubled individual and he'll shut Kirk out when he's feeling
>especially depressed.
>
Yeah, works for me. Kirk always seemed more cheerful, more at peace with
himself.
Despite . . . his . . . way . . . of *speaking* ... he seems a pretty calm guy,
IMO.
raku
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
syd...@aol.comjoy (Sydvick) wrote:
> Yup, sometimes I think Kirk especially closes the link to protect Spock from
> his darkest thoughts.
If I were Kirk I'd be a lot more worried about Spock thinking I'm a dolt. In
my experience dark, violent thoughts are only occasional, while inane ones
are constant.
Here's an example: every single time I see a recipe calling for "arrowroot,"
I think, "Son of Arrowshirt." Every time. Without fail. My husband thinks the
same thing. If we both manage to suppress the desire to say it, we both still
know we're thinking it. If we didn't live together we might find this mental
compatibility very exciting, but sometimes it just seems as though neither of
us has more than half a brain.
I can see different kinds of problems for the Kirk-Spock relationship
depending on what goes over the link. Suppose, for instance, it's a lot of
right-brain stuff like music, even dumb jingles that get into your brain and
go round and round unstoppably? Oooh, what a horrible thought.
I'd like to see you gen writers do more with this. We slashers tend to assume
that sex makes these things easier to deal with. Or at least that people will
put up with a lot of trouble if they're getting good sex! I don't know if
people who live together for years & years but who aren't lovers find the "two
heads one brain" thing more or less of a problem than married people do.
Yours,
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
real addy: mecurtinATalumniDOTprincetonDOTedu
an...@mindspring.com
>
>If I were Kirk I'd be a lot more worried about Spock thinking I'm a dolt.
In
>my experience dark, violent thoughts are only occasional, while inane ones
>are constant.
*snip*
>
>I can see different kinds of problems for the Kirk-Spock relationship
>depending on what goes over the link. Suppose, for instance, it's a lot of
>right-brain stuff like music, even dumb jingles that get into your brain
and
>go round and round unstoppably? Oooh, what a horrible thought.
>
>I'd like to see you gen writers do more with this. We slashers tend to
assume
>that sex makes these things easier to deal with. Or at least that people
will
>put up with a lot of trouble if they're getting good sex! I don't know if
>people who live together for years & years but who aren't lovers find the
"two
>heads one brain" thing more or less of a problem than married people do.
>
You're still missing the point, Mary Ellen. They *don't* have absolute,
constant access to each other's mind, sitting around monitoring what each
other is thinking all the time. Mostly, it's just an awareness of each
other, which *can* be opened to more complete telepathic communication on
occasion when each wishes it. But they have to *reach out* to each other in
order to completely open the link for true communication.
Remember, Vulcans are *touch* telepaths. They may have some mental contact
without touching -- especially with someone with whom they share a link --
but full, verbal communication requires physical (though not necessarily
sexual) contact.
Trillseekr
writes:
>What I'd like to see a *gen* writer do is look at how it would feel to be
linked
> to someone you see all the time, but who you don't have sex with.
It's annoying! There's no privacy! <g>
Trilly
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: <an...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 01:35:09 -0600
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
We've just been having this conversation on vulcan-l.
We don't really have any evidence that Vulcans are touch telepaths
only. We know *Spock* has a reasonable non-touching capacity for
empathetic communication, but he needs to touch others for a full
mind-meld.
Sarek's assistant in "Sarek" didn't need to touch Sarek to impose
emotional controls over Sarek's failing ones, and that seems to be to be
a quite intimate contact. Sarek also seems to need to touch people to
meld, but as he is Spock's father he doesn't exactly give us a good
sample.
The other Vulcans who have touched in melds may be a better sample:
T'Pau, T'Sai, and T'Lar. But for all we know they may be ritual
touches; they certainly seem less involved that Spock's touches for
mindmelds.
Wasn't there a recent episode of Voyager which mentioned Tuvok's
abilities as a non-touch telepath?
--laura
laura jacquez valentine -+- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez
Unused Steven Seagal Movie Title: EATER OF PASTRY
Jesus is a meme. -+- http://www.memepool.com/
an...@mindspring.com
Laura Jacquez Valentine wrote in message ...
>
>We don't really have any evidence that Vulcans are touch telepaths
>only. We know *Spock* has a reasonable non-touching capacity for
>empathetic communication, but he needs to touch others for a full
>mind-meld.
>
>Sarek's assistant in "Sarek" didn't need to touch Sarek to impose
>emotional controls over Sarek's failing ones, and that seems to be to be
>a quite intimate contact. Sarek also seems to need to touch people to
>meld, but as he is Spock's father he doesn't exactly give us a good
>sample.
>
>The other Vulcans who have touched in melds may be a better sample:
>T'Pau, T'Sai, and T'Lar. But for all we know they may be ritual
>touches; they certainly seem less involved that Spock's touches for
>mindmelds.
>
>Wasn't there a recent episode of Voyager which mentioned Tuvok's
>abilities as a non-touch telepath?
>
The way I understand it, there is some limited ability to communicate
without touching, but I've never seen anything in canon that would indicate
that Spock, at least, is able to read minds without being in physical
contact with the person whose mind he's reading -- to send brief messages or
be aware of the person, yes, but not to know what they're actually thinking,
and this is what Mary Ellen was talking about.
To me, a mind link is something very special and very rare. I don't approach
it lightly nor treat it lightly. Two heads-one brain is *not* my conception
of a Vulcan-Human mind link at all. It's something that is perceived by both
Kirk and Spock as something to be revered and used only where appropriate
and needed (i.e., in one of my stories where Kirk is being held captive on a
planet, Spock uses the link to help locate and rescue him -- but still
doesn't know exactly what he's thinking or what's happening to him). I
*never* portray Kirk and Spock as having casual mental conversations via the
link, nor do they eavesdrop on each other's thoughts. In fact, that is
considered a taboo by Vulcans, who would consider it mind rape. Spock even
has difficulty in one of my stories in dealing with his invasion of Kirk's
mind via a mind meld despite the fact that he does it with the sole purpose
of saving Kirk's life and sanity.
I know that the limited K/S I have read tends to treat this link both more
casually and as a more complete form of communion, as well as one with
sexual ramifications. That's a significant area in which I differ with K/S
writers. While I acknowledge that a link *can* and often *does* have a
sexual aspect to it, I don't think it always does; and I see the two forms
of link as being quite different. I actually *have* dealt with the
difference and depicted what a sex-based link might be like for Kirk (but
not with Spock). By entering sex into the equation, I believe you change the
nature of the link and make it a more dependant factor, which is one reason
I have trouble with the Kirk/Spock sexual link. As one gay friend of mine
once told me in explaining why *he* didn't believe in the K/S concept --
Kirk would have difficulty in commanding if he had such a link with Spock,
while Spock would never see the logic in it. It was an offhand quip on his
part, but I find a certain truth in it, one which I dealt with in "No Cold
Wind."
This is not to say that *my* interpretation of the link and the Kirk-Spock
relationship is the only one. You're free to interpret it anyway that you
wish. However, Mary Ellen's continued efforts to get gen writers like myself
to deal with the Kirk-Spock link as some kind of somewhat annoying, almost
casual eavesdropping, shared thought process is way off base from the way I
see and deal with this phenomenon. I, for one, have absolutely no interest
in writing about what she's suggesting because I don't conceive the
relationship in that way and, therefore, don't see what she's talking about
as a problem. If they're not constantly sharing thoughts, then constantly
sharing mundane thoughts can't be a problem.
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
Laura Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> We don't really have any evidence that Vulcans are touch telepaths
> only. We know *Spock* has a reasonable non-touching capacity for
> empathetic communication, but he needs to touch others for a full
> mind-meld.
and other good stuff.
In my fumbling way, Ann, that's what I was trying to say. There are lots of
possible interpretations of what goes into Vulcan telepathy in general, Spock
in particular, and the Kirk-Spock relationship specifically.
Slash writers' theories go the gamut from a vague sense of each others'
presence to full "Honey, I'll be home late from Rigel 12 -- should I pick up
some plomeek on the way?" telepathy (which I personally find both uncanonical
and excessively gloopy) to a near-breakdown of individual personality. I'd
like to see gen writers consider more alternatives, too. Nasabj's current
story, "Last Full Measure of Devotion," for instance, seems to follow gen
fanon (=fan canon) in that Spock has a sense that Kirk is in trouble and link
he can follow, but one that is nearly below the level of consciousness.
As Randy pointed out very effectively, two people can work together to an
almost telepathic degree without being telepaths. And I certainly think that
goes on with Kirk and Spock, which is part of what we all like about them.
In "The Eighth Day of Creation" by Horace Judson, there's a discussion of the
relationship between Francis Crick and James Watson, the co-discoverers of
the structure of DNA: "That marvellous resonance between two minds--that high
state in which one plus one does not equal two but more like ten."
Make it so.
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"At Home in the Universe," by Stuart Kauffman
Laura Jacquez Valentine
From: <an...@mindspring.com>
Ann,
I see where you're coming from. I have, in the past, occasionally
conceptualized the link as a result of too-frequent mindmelds, or some
such other silliness, without any sexual component to it at all. When I
view the Kirk-Spock dynamic as existing in the cultural near-vacuum
offered by canon, in fact, I *can't* see any mind-linkages as other than
extremely devoted friendship.
When I view it within certain contexts, however, I find that the sexual
component is necessary.
Partially this is because of the way I address Vulcan society--unlike
many people, I don't think Vulcans are virginal or even what many human
cultures would characterize as sexually faithful to their partner. I
view them as sexually procreative with one partner--their
marriage-bonded spouse--and sexually active, at least briefly, with a
large number of others.
It seemed logical to me that Vulcans, being telepaths capable of
bonding, would not limit such bonds to a spouse. It also seemed logical
to me that, given the level of intimacy needed to form a bond, that
sexual congress would be a likely way to create a friendship bond of
some sort. In that act of sex, Vulcans may choose to burn out any
future desire for sex with the other person, or they may not; it depends
on how strong they wish the bond to be, or if they desire to reinforce
it in the future, or whatever. (This could get very political: how
tightly is someone bound to you/your House? If they are also bound to
someone else, and there is a conflict, what happens? What are the
ramifications of a loose bond vs. a tight one? Etc. etc.)
Many of my views of K/S are heavily colored by this conception of Vulcan
society. Even the stories I've written in which they are not lovers,
and the stories where they don't wish to be, there is still a sexual
undercurrent created by Vulcan culture. This undercurrent would *not*
exist were they both human; it might exist if they were both raised in
human culture, depending on how much of that aspect of Vulcan society is
biological and how much is culture and ritual with no biological basis.
Personally, I think that it's a quite logical and practical view of a
culture that is peaceful only on the surface, and must be held together
by strong bonds. I feel that this view is supported by Vulcan's
"collective memory" (_The Immunity Syndrome_) and by the established
telepathic and mind-linking capacity of the Vulcan mind.
--laura
laura jacquez valentine -+- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez
Unused Steven Seagal Movie Title: VULCAN LOVE SLAVE
an...@mindspring.com
>
>Slash writers' theories go the gamut from a vague sense of each others'
>presence to full "Honey, I'll be home late from Rigel 12 -- should I pick
up
>some plomeek on the way?" telepathy (which I personally find both
uncanonical
>and excessively gloopy) to a near-breakdown of individual personality. I'd
>like to see gen writers consider more alternatives, too. Nasabj's current
>story, "Last Full Measure of Devotion," for instance, seems to follow gen
>fanon (=fan canon) in that Spock has a sense that Kirk is in trouble and
link
>he can follow, but one that is nearly below the level of consciousness.
>
I agree with you on the gloopy. That's an aspect of the relationship that
turns me off completely. In fact, it turns me off for either of these
characters to be in such gloopy relationships with each other or other
people, male or female. Most of the K/S that I've read and *didn't* like
fell into this category -- that is it wasn't the Kirk and Spock as lovers
that I objected to, it was the *way* they were lovers. It was simply bad
Harlequin Romance in Trek disguise, and both characters felt out of
character, no matter *who* they were with. To be fair, I've read some hetero
Trek lit that was just as bad; but it's because the sexual connotation is so
completely a part of K/S that it sometimes *seems* as if there is so much
more of that gloopiness there. That is, virtually every K/S story deals with
their love life in some manner, even if it's not depicted explicitly. In
gen, though, only a small percentage of stories deal with the love lives of
the characters, with much more dealing with action/adventure, true science
fiction themes, nonsexual relationships of the characters or some
combination thereof. I love a good romance as much as anyone else, but I
have very specific tastes in romance, so I tend to avoid much Trek romance,
K/S or straight, even though I do occasionally write it myself.
As for the Kirk-Spock link, it's somewhat of a combination of the first and
third aspects of the link you mentioned above that I generally believe in
and follow.
>As Randy pointed out very effectively, two people can work together to an
>almost telepathic degree without being telepaths. And I certainly think
that
>goes on with Kirk and Spock, which is part of what we all like about them.
I'll agree with that, but it has nothing to do with what I see as a
telepathic bond. It's simply knowing someone so well and being in *sync*
(rather than *linked*) when it comes to the working relationship. I, too,
have a couple of co-workers with whom I have a similar relationship. The
three of us nearly always choose the same news stories for the paper and
choose to play them in the same manner. We even have to be careful that we
don't write the same or very similar headlines on related stories. But that
has nothing to do with either telepathy nor simple ESP. It's simply a
similar way of approaching the job, a shared understanding of the material
and a similar way of thinking. (For whatever it's worth, these coworkers are
both male. I'm not sure what that says about my thought processes.) It's
quite different from the ESP experiences I've had with my closest friends
(and with my mother when she was still alive).
an...@mindspring.com
Laura Jacquez Valentine wrote in message ...
>
>view the Kirk-Spock dynamic as existing in the cultural near-vacuum
>offered by canon, in fact, I *can't* see any mind-linkages as other than
>extremely devoted friendship.
Well, since I write in what is basically the canonical universe, that's how
I deal with it. I know other people prefer to write in their own, alternate
universes, but I choose not to -- although I enjoy reading some of this,
depending on whether the writer developes his/her universe in such a manner
that I can believe.
*snip*
>
>Partially this is because of the way I address Vulcan society--unlike
>many people, I don't think Vulcans are virginal or even what many human
>cultures would characterize as sexually faithful to their partner. I
>view them as sexually procreative with one partner--their
>marriage-bonded spouse--and sexually active, at least briefly, with a
>large number of others.
>
*snip a lot of interesting ideas on Vulcan society*
Your approach to Vulcan society is very interesting, Laura. I don't really
buy it, but I can see how you arrived at that interpretation, and it's at
least as valid as many others I've read. It *does* have the advantage of
giving you a cultural framework in which to write your own, original version
of Trek with a reasonable explanation for any areas in which your writings
differ from canon. That's a lot more than many people do when writing in
their *own* universes. You've at least thought it through and said, this
happens *because* of this aspect of Vulcan history and/or culture, rather
than what I often encounter, which is -- this happens just because I want it
to.
Admittedly, I've written stories that had certain things happen in them for
that very reason. But either I or one of my editors/beta readers have been
brutal enough to read it and say it has to go. And I'm honest enough with
myself to toss out anything that falls into that category. If I can't
justify it as being in character, I'm not keeping it. But sometimes it's
fun, too, just to fantasize and write down those fantasies, even when you
know you'll never publish it that way. Unfortunately, over the years, I've
encountered a number of Trek writers who just write down those fantasies and
then publish them as is with no attempt to keep the characters in character.
And that's the kind of Trek lit I hate -- slash, straight, TOS, TNG, DS9 or
Voyager. It doesn't matter. It's simply bad, in my opinion.
Sydvick
>encountered a number of Trek writers who just write down those fantasies and
>then publish them as is with no attempt to keep the characters in character.
>And that's the kind of Trek lit I hate -- slash, straight, TOS, TNG, DS9 or
>Voyager. It doesn't matter. It's simply bad, in my opinion.
I have no idea why I decided to jump into this thread, it must be the cold
medicine talking or the guys in my head. K/S to me as I see it does not require
a sexual relationship, only emotional intimacy. I began to read fanfic in the
last two years and some of it makes me itch. Some of the characterizations are
so off-base and inconsistent that I throw the magazine down, or flash off the
screeen screaming, what a goof. Some of the Kirks and Spocks are so femininzed
as to be unrecognizable, and bascially need to be taken out and shot.
Laura and I have already had our discussion on her creative look at TOS, and
while we disagree, she is consistent and very enjoyable.
I am drawn to the emotional needs of these two no, scratch that, three strange
men. There is no day that I think Kirk ans Spock were having sex during canon.
Even if I will write it from time to time, as an exercise. There is no time
that I think they do not love each other much more deeply than any one would
comfortably portray from paramount or TPTB nowadays.
I think as a telepath who traditionally bonds, Spock requires what Kirk offers
him freely, closeness, and that Kirk because of lonliness requires what only
Spock is strong enough to give him, unconditional supoort and intimacy.
I can not say that I am a telepath, though I know what you are thinking now,
hee hee. But I see Kirk as receiving his intimacy from Spock and his sex from
whereever he can get it. I see Spock as fulfilling all of his needs with Kirk,
because he allows no one else in. I do not think that someone who does not see
his fiance for twenty years will count sex as high on his list of needs. Unlike
Laura, I do see Vulcans as traditionally monogamous, but creatures of need like
anyone else, and they are as diverse as humans.
So, are Spock and Kirk screwing? Not for the first five year voyage, at least.
But there is no doubt in my mind that their link is so tight that Spock can
hear some of Kirks thoughts, unless he shields. I think , being a well-bred
Vulcan, though, he would consider that very rude. Kirk, I think, senses Spock,
like a carrier wave. He knows when he's happy, sad, depressed, withdrawn, hurt,
and where he is. But most importantly for him, he knows he is always there for
him.
Most importantly when we see Spock again In TNG, he is alone. I tend to think
he mourns Kirks loss until he dies[or Disappears].
If Paramount had allowed either of these men a meaningful relationship that did
not end at the end of the credits, I would never had gotten started I think.
But I objected to both of them dying having never had true love, SO it's either
create a believable love interest for them both, or they become the love
interest for each other.
So far, JK and Ann in No Cold Wind,are the only ones to create a woman that I
could see Kirk with. Marshak and Culbreath, created a woman that I could see
both of them with, The book was Triangle, but she had to go bye bye.
Do I believe they could sustain a threesome? Definitely. In fact anyone that
tried to deal with one, would have to unconditionally accept the other, because
they were joined at the hip. Whether or not the sex becomes three way, I dunno.
So that is my two cents. But I am enjoying reading everyone else's.
Trillseekr
>Wasn't there a recent episode of Voyager which mentioned Tuvok's
>abilities as a non-touch telepath?
I do remember him strolling down the corridor conversing mentally with an alien
woman....but he said he normally did not do that because it made humans
uncomfortable, or something...similar to something Troi once said. I don't
think it's fair though, they shouldn't have to go out of their way to
accomodate humans that way if they'd rather use mental communication.
*kevin Johnston
on it.
First off, I don't "buy" that Kirk and Spock are linked at all (which
seems to put me in the minority). I DO see them as two men who worked so
closely for so long and went through so much hell together that they
have a highly devloped sense of what the other must be thinking at times
of crisis. I know I have friends who I am this way with....but are we
telepathically linked? NO (but I am NOT discounting the possibility that
some of you may be with loved ones).
I feel the only time that one may have "heard" the others thoughts is
during the V'Ger crisis (and even that is based on Roddenberry's
novelization of ST:TMP- not anything in the film itself).
Indeed, (and to deviate off-topic a bit), somthing that has bugged me
about fanfic ever since I first encountered it over twenty years ago, is
this- That Kirk and crew are so good friends that conflict between them
never occurs. In real life, close friends often get extremely upset with
each other, sort of a "only YOU people could ever piss me off so much"
attitude. I have seen close friendships of which I was part end badly,
even turn into feuds and degenerate intro hatred....
In my current story, I'm trying to explore a bit of the history of what
I see as such an end to a set of friendships (that is- where were Spock,
Sulu, McCoy, and Uhura when the Enterprise-B launched, and WHY weren't
they there?). Again, I'm probably in the minority with my attitudes, but
to me it's truer to aired Trek (mainly the original series) than the
"everyone ALWAYS gets along perfectly forever and ever" way of looking
at things....one of my all-time favorite DS9 "moments" was the time that
Sisko and crew nearly came to blows with each other while trapped on
that planet surface. To me it affirms that for all the progress made,
they're still human (and the lack of such conflict in TNG bugged me no
end).....
feel free to disagree with me......
Sydvick
This one I have to answer. Au contraire, there is much evidence in canon that
they were linked. That is what made Spock know Kirk was alive when he left him
with Miramanee. That is why he stayed for him with the Tholians, and that is
why he came for V'Ger. I think it is an uncomfortable topic for some, but it is
a design of the characters for Roddenberry.
> That Kirk and crew are so good friends that conflict between them
>never occurs.
I agree, that is why I write about their conflicts as well as their triumphs.
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: <an...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:39:03 -0600
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Oooh...warm fuzzies...
I do try to stick to canon as often as I can, because I find that the
constraints of canon allow me to tell more interesting stories. I'm not
sure why people pop outside as often as they do--I usually wonder why
A/U stories couldn't be written as general sf. Some of them are good
enough to overcome this peeve of mine; most are not.
> Admittedly, I've written stories that had certain things happen in them for
> that very reason. But either I or one of my editors/beta readers have been
> brutal enough to read it and say it has to go. And I'm honest enough with
> myself to toss out anything that falls into that category. If I can't
> justify it as being in character, I'm not keeping it. But sometimes it's
> fun, too, just to fantasize and write down those fantasies, even when you
> know you'll never publish it that way. Unfortunately, over the years, I've
Oh, I do that. Plenty of times. Happy flights of fancy curtailed by
good sense. At least I *hope* it's good sense.
> encountered a number of Trek writers who just write down those fantasies and
> then publish them as is with no attempt to keep the characters in character.
> And that's the kind of Trek lit I hate -- slash, straight, TOS, TNG, DS9 or
> Voyager. It doesn't matter. It's simply bad, in my opinion.
Bad story, Ann spank!
--laura
Janet Baldwin
Do a search on the used books web site Bibliofind.
http://www.bibliofind.com/
Both books are available from many stores listed there. Cheap.
Most of the bookstores accept credit cards, so you can order
online. I've had good luck getting various books from various
stores. (Be aware, though, if you order elsewhere than a home
computer: Bibliofind stores credit card information on the
computer you order from.)
an...@mindspring.com
*kevin Johnston wrote:
>First off, I don't "buy" that Kirk and Spock are linked at all (which
>seems to put me in the minority).
It does, but that's what makes discussions like this so interesting -- the
different points of view advanced by those taking part.
>Indeed, (and to deviate off-topic a bit), somthing that has bugged me
>about fanfic ever since I first encountered it over twenty years ago, is
>this- That Kirk and crew are so good friends that conflict between them
>never occurs.
I don't know what fan fiction you're reading, but obviously it isn't from
Orion Press. We have *lots* of conflict among the characters. A couple of
examples: the approach by Rick Endres and myself to the end of the original
five-year mission in "No Cold Wind" and "No Place Like Home" in which Kirk
accepts promotion at least partially because of Spock's wordless desertion
and then subsequently has an angry confrontation with McCoy leading to a
rift that lasts until the V-Ger mission. Also, check out Chris Dickenson's
"Keeper of the Katra," which depicts a significant dent in the Kirk-Spock
friendship for much of the story.
You can find all of these stories, and others with similar conflicts, at
http://www.mindspring.com/~randylanders/archives/
>In my current story, I'm trying to explore a bit of the history of what
>I see as such an end to a set of friendships (that is- where were Spock,
>Sulu, McCoy, and Uhura when the Enterprise-B launched, and WHY weren't
>they there?). Again, I'm probably in the minority with my attitudes, but
>to me it's truer to aired Trek (mainly the original series) than the
>"everyone ALWAYS gets along perfectly forever and ever" way of looking
>at things....one of my all-time favorite DS9 "moments" was the time that
>Sisko and crew nearly came to blows with each other while trapped on
>that planet surface. To me it affirms that for all the progress made,
>they're still human (and the lack of such conflict in TNG bugged me no
>end).....
>feel free to disagree with me......
I don't disagree at all. You're absolutely right. This also was my main
complaint with TNG. I *like* conflict; I think it enables you to explore the
characters more, get under their skin and figure out what makes them tick.
Your own story idea sounds very interesting. I'll be interested in seeing
how you develop it.
an...@mindspring.com
Laura Jacquez Valentine wrote in message ...
>
>constraints of canon allow me to tell more interesting stories. I'm not
>sure why people pop outside as often as they do
I agree. That's why I write canonical stories, too -- the major exception
being my Mirror Universe story, "Fire in the Lake," and that one just
extends canon based on a "what if" premise and still (I think) keeps all of
the characters in character based on which of the two Trek universes they
are from.
>--I usually wonder why
>A/U stories couldn't be written as general sf. Some of them are good
>enough to overcome this peeve of mine; most are not.
>
I agree 100 percent with you on this one. When I read Trek, I want to read
Trek. If I want to read about some other characters in some other universe,
I want them to be entirely different characters, not different people with
the same names, history and appearance as the Trek characters but with
entirely different personalities. If a writer is going to change the
characters that much, then they should create their own, entirely separate
universe and change the names, histories and appearance as well as the
personalities.
Randy Landers
does have a believable relationship between Kirk and T'Alya. I also
like Donna Frelick's THE MINDSWEEPER because of the relationship
between Kirk and Kate Logan.
As far as the two being linked, I think Rick Endres has pretty much
established in his stories that the two of them still have a tenuous
link developed from all their mindmelds together. Yet, he, too, has
them break into disagreements, as did Chris Dickenson in KEEPER OF THE
KATRA.
Wildcat
>
> I agree 100 percent with you on this one. When I read Trek, I want to read
> Trek. If I want to read about some other characters in some other universe,
> I want them to be entirely different characters, not different people with
> the same names, history and appearance as the Trek characters but with
> entirely different personalities. If a writer is going to change the
> characters that much, then they should create their own, entirely separate
> universe and change the names, histories and appearance as well as the
> personalities.
I've been following this thread with interest, and finally had to chime
in. I've always gone to great lengths not to contradict canon in my
stories. As a matter of fact, at the moment I'm wrestling with some
stories that will cover the events of STII through STV, and I intend to
stay completely within canon. Recently, however, I "stepped outside" of
the canon universe and wrote a story set in late-1800's Kentucky. And I
had a blast! One or two people objected, and that was okay. I made it
very clear from the beginning of the story that it wasn't canon, so
everyone knew what they were getting into. I'll probably never do it
again, but I'm glad that I did.
My point, however, is that this is a *creative* group. If your creative
muse takes you into an a/u, that's great! If you don't feel like
changing the names or inventing a separate sci-fi universe, that's
fine! Your story isn't any *less* a story for that. I'm a little
resentful of being told that I, or any other writer, "shouldn't" write
what I want to write. If you choose not to read it, as you stated
above, that's perfectly okay. There are many stories *I* don't want to
read, either, but I'm never going to tell the writer that what they're
writing isn't legitimate.
Wildcat
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: Wildcat <wildc...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 20:59:30 -0800
> Organization: InfiNet
>
> an...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > I agree 100 percent with you on this one. When I read Trek, I want to read
> > Trek. If I want to read about some other characters in some other universe,
> > I want them to be entirely different characters, not different people with
> > the same names, history and appearance as the Trek characters but with
> > entirely different personalities. If a writer is going to change the
> > characters that much, then they should create their own, entirely separate
> > universe and change the names, histories and appearance as well as the
> > personalities.
>
> I've been following this thread with interest, and finally had to chime
> in. I've always gone to great lengths not to contradict canon in my
> stories. As a matter of fact, at the moment I'm wrestling with some
> stories that will cover the events of STII through STV, and I intend to
> stay completely within canon. Recently, however, I "stepped outside" of
> the canon universe and wrote a story set in late-1800's Kentucky. And I
> had a blast! One or two people objected, and that was okay. I made it
> very clear from the beginning of the story that it wasn't canon, so
> everyone knew what they were getting into. I'll probably never do it
> again, but I'm glad that I did.
I believe I commented at the time that this story was almost wasted as
fanfic. Partially because it was so *real* and well-developed that lots
of times I *completely* forgot it was fanfic. Which, given its history,
doesn't surprise me...
>
> My point, however, is that this is a *creative* group. If your creative
> muse takes you into an a/u, that's great! If you don't feel like
> changing the names or inventing a separate sci-fi universe, that's
> fine! Your story isn't any *less* a story for that. I'm a little
> resentful of being told that I, or any other writer, "shouldn't" write
> what I want to write. If you choose not to read it, as you stated
> above, that's perfectly okay. There are many stories *I* don't want to
> read, either, but I'm never going to tell the writer that what they're
> writing isn't legitimate.
>
Neither would I, but sometimes I sure as shootin' *think* it. :) When
I end up thinking that about an a/u, I usually just don't feedback.
--laura
Sydvick
:-D LLAP
Kattz
<jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Partially this is because of the way I address Vulcan society--unlike
>many people, I don't think Vulcans are virginal or even what many human
>cultures would characterize as sexually faithful to their partner. I
>view them as sexually procreative with one partner--their
>marriage-bonded spouse--and sexually active, at least briefly, with a
>large number of others.
I think Vulcan's are completely opposite. Vulcan's are so afraid of
releasing their violent primitive feelings that they repress
everything including physical sexual feelings. The only touch that is
allowed is hand to hand contact as a conduit between their more
superior and extremely logical brainpower. A short rubbing of their
first fingers for a kiss. The intertwining of the fingers on both
hands with eye contact for a longer, more intense experience.
There are humans scattered on worlds throughout the universe because
humans breed like rabbits but there is only one Vulcan planet. The
amount of Vulcans are limited because they only have physical sex
during Ponn Farr, The Time of Mating (and breeding).
The Vulcan offshoot, The Romulans, don't repress their physical
feelings so they don't have Ponn Farr and have breeded enough to
spread onto other worlds and claim a whole section of space.
Kattz
Index Summary Editor for Alt.StarTrek.Creative
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/1278/ASC-menu.htm
Wildcat
>
> Sorry if I touched on a nerve, Wildcat, but I think you misunderstood what I
> intended to convey. What I object to is not alternate universe that's
> clearly labeled as such and can be enjoyed on its own. My objection is when
> a writer takes established characters, calls them by the same name, puts
> them in basically the same situation, but then changes their personality so
> much that they're unrecognizable as the Trek characters. Putting them in
> different situations is fine, but they still should *behave* as our
> characters behave. If a writer is unwilling to write Trek characters *in
> character*, then they should invent their own characters.
Okay, now *that* I agree with. Sorry for the misunderstanding. If
someone writes Trek characters but makes no effort to keep them *in*
character, that's just laziness and poor writing. Of course, the
exception to this is an a/u such as the mirror universe from canon, but
even in the a/u's, I still want the characters to be recognizable. In
other words, I think the writer should make the effort to keep the
mirror counterparts in *their* character, just as s/he should make the
effort to keep our heroes in character when transplanting them to
another universe. As a matter of fact, that's probably when it's the
*most* important to keep them in character, because the familiar
scenarios and settings aren't there to keep the characters "grounded."
Of course, every one of us has a different vision of what might be in
character and what might not, but that's a different matter entirely. I
think it's always apparent when a writer has attempted to keep a
character *in* character, even when the writer's perception of the
character is different than say, mine, or someone else's.
> But that's just my opinion. I know there are many people who disagree with
> me, but I think most of the Trek writers around here at least *try* to keep
> their characters in character, no matter what the situations they write them
> in.
I don't disagree with that, not at all. What I objected to was the idea
that stories should be kept in classic Trek settings, and I'm relieved
to understand that's not what you meant.
Wildcat
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: ka...@geocities.com (Kattz)
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 11:24:28 GMT
> Organization: CENTURYinter.net
>
> On 1 Mar 1999 11:43:10 -0500, Laura Jacquez Valentine
> <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Partially this is because of the way I address Vulcan society--unlike
> >many people, I don't think Vulcans are virginal or even what many human
> >cultures would characterize as sexually faithful to their partner. I
> >view them as sexually procreative with one partner--their
> >marriage-bonded spouse--and sexually active, at least briefly, with a
> >large number of others.
>
> I think Vulcan's are completely opposite. Vulcan's are so afraid of
> releasing their violent primitive feelings that they repress
> everything including physical sexual feelings. The only touch that is
> allowed is hand to hand contact as a conduit between their more
> superior and extremely logical brainpower. A short rubbing of their
> first fingers for a kiss. The intertwining of the fingers on both
> hands with eye contact for a longer, more intense experience.
>
> There are humans scattered on worlds throughout the universe because
> humans breed like rabbits but there is only one Vulcan planet. The
Oh? "Vulcan had its aggressive colonizing period." --Spock.
What makes you think there aren't surviving Vulcan colonies scattered
around their portion of the galaxy? We've seen no evidence that there
aren't.
Rigellians are closely related to Vulcans as well.
> amount of Vulcans are limited because they only have physical sex
> during Ponn Farr, The Time of Mating (and breeding).
Even if that is so, why would the amount of Vulcans be limited? Tuvok,
for example, has four children--that's better than replacement rate.
Sarek and Amanda only had one, but I hardly think we can consider a
cross-species marriage as usual; Sarek also had one other child.
If pon farr occurs every 7 years, and if we assume that it usually
starts between the ages of 30 and 40, and Vulcans live to be 200+ years
old...even assuming a reproductive life of only 100 years, that's about
14 or 15 potential pregnancies. In humans, about 50% of pregnancies
self-terminate, most before the woman is aware she's pregnant. If we
assume those stats hold for Vulcans as well, most Vulcans could
reasonably expect to have about 7 children in their lifetimes. I
suspect that they have very low infant mortality, incidentally.
> The Vulcan offshoot, The Romulans, don't repress their physical
> feelings so they don't have Ponn Farr and have breeded enough to
> spread onto other worlds and claim a whole section of space.
I strongly disagree with the assertion that pon farr is the result of
physical/emotional repression. I find that evolutionarily unlikely; the
Romulans do not seem to have actually speciated during their separation
from Vulcan. Furthermore, they share enough cultural history for a
reunification movement--a state of affairs I find highly unlikely to
occur in a group as widely divided in basic biological expression as you
suggest.
--laura
J. Juls
>their characters in character, no matter what the situations they write
them
>in.
Yep, usually everybody does this except Mike Piller.
Julie
an...@mindspring.com
Wildcat wrote:
>Okay, now *that* I agree with. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No problem. I probably didn't make myself clear. I'm usually either posting
in the middle of the night when I'm tired or just before heading for work,
when I'm rushed. It's my fault if I don't make myself clear, but I wanted to
clear that misunderstanding up quickly.
> If
>someone writes Trek characters but makes no effort to keep them *in*
>character, that's just laziness and poor writing.
Agreed! That's exactly the point I was so clumsily trying to make. (and I
call myself a journalist and writer! I've got to work on my communications
skills.)
>Of course, the
>exception to this is an a/u such as the mirror universe from canon, but
>even in the a/u's, I still want the characters to be recognizable. In
>other words, I think the writer should make the effort to keep the
>mirror counterparts in *their* character, just as s/he should make the
>effort to keep our heroes in character when transplanting them to
>another universe. As a matter of fact, that's probably when it's the
>*most* important to keep them in character, because the familiar
>scenarios and settings aren't there to keep the characters "grounded."
Again we're in complete agreement. I don't know if you ever buy fanzines,
but that's exactly what I attempted to do in my Mirror Universe story "Fire
in the Lake." One of these days I'm going to get my website up and running
and will have it posted there. The premise is that at the end of Mirror
Mirror, the primary universe characters were unable to return home and had
to remain and cope with the Mirror Universe. I had fun playing in that
universe, but at times it was a real struggle to keep both sets of character
*in* character, not to mention trying to build a whole societal structure
for that universe that was much more detailed than we saw in the one episode
and yet completely consistent with it.
I think that's why I hate what they did with the universe in DS9. It's not
at all how I envisioned the universe in the first place, and I simply can't
envision them getting to that point. It works quite well as an alternate
universe, but not as an extension of the Mirror Universe. I just consider it
as an alternate to the Mirror Universe.
>
>Of course, every one of us has a different vision of what might be in
>character and what might not, but that's a different matter entirely. I
>think it's always apparent when a writer has attempted to keep a
>character *in* character, even when the writer's perception of the
>character is different than say, mine, or someone else's.
>
Again I agree. I don't have to agree with everything a writer does so long
as I see that they attempt to be consistent within their own story. There's
nothing I hate more than laziness in writing. Maybe it's because I am
professionally trained and employed in a related (though admittedly
different from fiction-writing) field. After spending hours trying to fix
other people's news stories to make them flow as they should and be as
accurate as possible, the last thing I want to do on my own time is to read
badly written fiction. I want good fiction, well written, well plotted, and
*in* character. I don't care if it *is* a hobby and we're not being paid to
do it. To me it's a waste of time -- for both the writer and the reader --
if we don't do the best we can.
>
>What I objected to was the idea
>that stories should be kept in classic Trek settings, and I'm relieved
>to understand that's not what you meant.
>
Glad to clear it up. Again, it's not the settings that are important to me;
it's the characterization. In fact, one of my favorite Trek fan fiction
stories took Spock back to the time of Camelot. (This one, too, will be on
my website when I get it done. It's by Holly Trueblood.)
an...@mindspring.com
>>
>> Laura Jacquez Valentine wrote:
>>
>> >Partially this is because of the way I address Vulcan society--unlike
>> >many people, I don't think Vulcans are virginal or even what many human
>> >cultures would characterize as sexually faithful to their partner. I
>> >view them as sexually procreative with one partner--their
>> >marriage-bonded spouse--and sexually active, at least briefly, with a
>> >large number of others.
Kattz countered:
>>
>> I think Vulcan's are completely opposite. Vulcan's are so afraid of
>> releasing their violent primitive feelings that they repress
>> everything including physical sexual feelings.
*snip*
and Laura countered:
*snip*
>I strongly disagree with the assertion that pon farr is the result of
>physical/emotional repression. I find that evolutionarily unlikely; the
>Romulans do not seem to have actually speciated during their separation
>from Vulcan. Furthermore, they share enough cultural history for a
>reunification movement--a state of affairs I find highly unlikely to
>occur in a group as widely divided in basic biological expression as you
>suggest.
>
I find this discussion, as Spock would say, "fascinating." Actually, my
vision of Vulcan is somewhere in between those you each follow, though
probably closer to Kattz's than Laura's. However, so long as Vulcan society
is well developed and either remains in keeping with what we saw on screen
or has logical reasons for any deviations, I'm willing to suspend my
disbelief to enjoy a well-written story. After all, the two grand dames of
Trek fan fiction when it comes to Vulcan (Jean Lorrah and Jackie
Lichtenberg) had extremely divergent views of the society. Personally, I
prefer Jackie's, though I don't *always* agree with it, but I find Jean's
vision far too Human for Vulcan.
Again, just my opinion.
joan...@my-dejanews.com
Laura Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
I would love to read this story, can someone tell me where it is
archived/available?
> > My point, however, is that this is a *creative* group. If your creative
> > muse takes you into an a/u, that's great! If you don't feel like
> > changing the names or inventing a separate sci-fi universe, that's
> > fine! Your story isn't any *less* a story for that. I'm a little
> > resentful of being told that I, or any other writer, "shouldn't" write
> > what I want to write. If you choose not to read it, as you stated
> > above, that's perfectly okay. There are many stories *I* don't want to
> > read, either, but I'm never going to tell the writer that what they're
> > writing isn't legitimate.
> >
>
> Neither would I, but sometimes I sure as shootin' *think* it. :) When
> I end up thinking that about an a/u, I usually just don't feedback.
I am probably going to jump into waters I shouldn't, but IMHO *all* fanfic,
no matter how close it is to canon *is* an a/u. None of it is canon, whether
it follows canon or not, whether it's based on an episode or not.
I have written stories that (IMHO) fit right into canon, and I've written
stories that go straight in the opposite direction. Neither is more or less
legitimate than the other, they are what my muse gave me.
I'm not sure if this is because I write Voyager, and this discussion is about
K/S, which I don't read enough of to judge, but canon is canon (unless there
are people out here writing who *don't* accept TNG on as canon, which I don't
think I want to start a thread on), but this is one of the things that kind
of annoyus me about fanfic. Much as I love it, and think it's in many ways
better than canon, it's not canon to me. My own canon, that I use in most of
my writing, has nothing to do with Voyager except that it's the same
characters.
Now, I also write *way* out of canon a/u stories, in that they're actually
historical stories, because I love historical stories in general, and I like
the idea of using the Voyager characters in historical settings. *But*, I
tie them into Voyager by making them my version of past lives of the
characters. So is it a/u or is it earlier versions of the Voyager universe?
I don't try to answer that one.
As to the New Voyages stories that started this discussion, I recently read
Volume Two. Whoa!
I agree on Surprise, so K/Sy, and I can't believe no one's talked about the
Procrustean Petard here! My goodness!
Joanne.
Kattz
<jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> From: ka...@geocities.com (Kattz)
>> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 11:24:28 GMT
>>
>> On 1 Mar 1999 11:43:10 -0500, Laura Jacquez Valentine
>> <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> There are humans scattered on worlds throughout the universe because
>> humans breed like rabbits but there is only one Vulcan planet. The
>
>Oh? "Vulcan had its aggressive colonizing period." --Spock.
>What makes you think there aren't surviving Vulcan colonies scattered
>around their portion of the galaxy? We've seen no evidence that there
>aren't.
Yes, Spock did say that and it was because the colonizing caused such
agressive behavior that it was decided that it was better to stay on
Vulcan where the harsh conditions are not so condusive toward greed.
Some of the Vulcans did not agree and split away to become Romulans.
>Rigellians are closely related to Vulcans as well.
>
I don't remember them or what they look like.
>> amount of Vulcans are limited because they only have physical sex
>> during Ponn Farr, The Time of Mating (and breeding).
>
>Even if that is so, why would the amount of Vulcans be limited? Tuvok,
>for example, has four children--that's better than replacement rate.
>Sarek and Amanda only had one, but I hardly think we can consider a
>cross-species marriage as usual; Sarek also had one other child.
If they have good feelings for the one they are bonded with they would
be more likely to choose to renew their bonds and thus go into Ponn
Farr again to have more children.
>If pon farr occurs every 7 years, and if we assume that it usually
>starts between the ages of 30 and 40, and Vulcans live to be 200+ years
>old...even assuming a reproductive life of only 100 years, that's about
>14 or 15 potential pregnancies. In humans, about 50% of pregnancies
>self-terminate, most before the woman is aware she's pregnant. If we
>assume those stats hold for Vulcans as well, most Vulcans could
>reasonably expect to have about 7 children in their lifetimes. I
>suspect that they have very low infant mortality, incidentally.
Spock said that Vulcans are bonded at 7 years of age and the Ponn Farr
will occur when they come of age. He did not say that it recurrs
after that on a regular basis. I believe that those that end up
bonded to someone they do not care for never go into Ponn Farr again
unless it is required for reproduction purposes.
>
>> The Vulcan offshoot, The Romulans, don't repress their physical
>> feelings so they don't have Ponn Farr and have breeded enough to
>> spread onto other worlds and claim a whole section of space.
>
>I strongly disagree with the assertion that pon farr is the result of
>physical/emotional repression. I find that evolutionarily unlikely; the
>Romulans do not seem to have actually speciated during their separation
>from Vulcan. Furthermore, they share enough cultural history for a
>reunification movement--a state of affairs I find highly unlikely to
>occur in a group as widely divided in basic biological expression as you
>suggest.
Perhaps I was not quite clear. Ponn Farr is not the result of
repressed feelings. It is a result of the telepathic bond they are
forced to make as a child.
Chaotic sexual feelings are repugnant to Vulcans. After many Vulcans
split away to become Romulans (which lessened the population base)
many of the remaining Vulcans were reluctant to endure those feelings
and thus repopulate their planet so they came up with a way to force
their decendents to do it.
Their leader forces the telepathic bonding of two children so that
when they are of breeding age they are drawn back to Vulcan and to
each other. When they are together that bond breaks through their
carefully structured barriers and releases all those bottled up
feelings. Drowning under the barrage of unaccustomed feelings of
lust, desire, etc the two bondees attempt to block out the barrage by
reaching out for each other telepathically and physically. Of course
there are a few extremely strong-minded females that are able to
repress the feelings enough to refuse the chosen one (ie. T'Pring).
Wildcat
>
> In article <emacs-smtp-17466-...@unix5.andrew.cmu.edu>,
> > >
> > > Recently, however, I "stepped outside" of
> > > the canon universe and wrote a story set in late-1800's Kentucky. And I
> > > had a blast!
> >
> > fanfic. Partially because it was so *real* and well-developed that lots
> > of times I *completely* forgot it was fanfic. Which, given its history,
> > doesn't surprise me...
>
> I would love to read this story, can someone tell me where it is
> archived/available?
You can find it on my webpage:
http://members.tripod.com/~TSU_Campus/Wildcat.html
The name is "An Eye for an Eye." Thanks for your interest!
> I agree on Surprise, so K/Sy, and I can't believe no one's talked about the
> Procrustean Petard here! My goodness!
We had a discussion about "Procrustean Petard" not too long ago, either
here or on ascem (I can't remember), and "My goodness!" summarizes that
story pretty well. It conjures up all *sorts* of interesting pictures
in the imagination.
Wildcat
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: joan...@my-dejanews.com
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:30:14 GMT
> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>
> In article <emacs-smtp-17466-...@unix5.andrew.cmu.edu>,
> Laura Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I've been following this thread with interest, and finally had to chime
> > > in. I've always gone to great lengths not to contradict canon in my
> > > stories. As a matter of fact, at the moment I'm wrestling with some
> > > stories that will cover the events of STII through STV, and I intend to
> > > the canon universe and wrote a story set in late-1800's Kentucky. And I
> > > very clear from the beginning of the story that it wasn't canon, so
> > > everyone knew what they were getting into. I'll probably never do it
> > > again, but I'm glad that I did.
> >
> > fanfic. Partially because it was so *real* and well-developed that lots
> > of times I *completely* forgot it was fanfic. Which, given its history,
> > doesn't surprise me...
>
> I would love to read this story, can someone tell me where it is
> archived/available?
>
Ask Wildcat, she can tell ya! Or it should be on DejaNews.
>
> I am probably going to jump into waters I shouldn't, but IMHO *all* fanfic,
> no matter how close it is to canon *is* an a/u. None of it is canon, whether
> it follows canon or not, whether it's based on an episode or not.
>
In some ways, you're right. All fanfic is an a/u of sorts. But if you
keep the characters the characters, you're good. If you name completely
different people "Harry Kim" and "Tom Paris" or "Jim Kirk" and "Spock",
however, you're off in the annoying zone.
I mean, if I took some of my X-Files slashfic and changed "Skinner" to
"Spock" and "Mulder" to "Kirk", people would probably be quite justified
in calling the police. (Gah. Can anyone who's read "Faraway, So Close"
back me up on this? Wouldn't that be *horrid* as Trekslash?)
>
> As to the New Voyages stories that started this discussion, I recently read
> Volume Two. Whoa!
>
> I agree on Surprise, so K/Sy, and I can't believe no one's talked about the
> Procrustean Petard here! My goodness!
>
It comes up on ASCEM...you should be able to find old discussion on it
on DejaNews.
--laura
Laura Jacquez Valentine
Kattz, I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your view of Vulcans. It
does not jibe with what we have been told in canon, and and it makes no
sense from the point of view of evolutionary biology.
Gamin Davis
3...@newsd-212.iap.bryant.webtv.net>:
> First off, I don't "buy" that Kirk and Spock are linked at all
(which
worked so
>closely for so long and went through so much hell together that
they
>have a highly devloped sense of what the other must be thinking
at times
>of crisis. I know I have friends who I am this way with....but
are we
>telepathically linked? NO (but I am NOT discounting the
It's not a given to everybody, but I think most people here,
me included, can see that it was at least implied on screen (ref.
Ann's comments) and it was as much as acknowledged as fact in the
ST:TMP novel.
>novelization of ST:TMP- not anything in the film itself).
I WISH it had been included in the movie. It would have added
another dramatic element to Spock's return to the Enterprise.
somthing that has bugged me
>about fanfic ever since I first encountered it over twenty years
ago, is
>this- That Kirk and crew are so good friends that conflict
between them
>never occurs. In real life, close friends often get extremely
upset with
>each other, sort of a "only YOU people could ever piss me off so
Like Ann, I don't know what fan-fiction you've read. MOST of
mine--which I haven't posted <grin>--has them at odds at some
point, and most of the Kirk-Spock fiction I've *read* has elements
of conflict between them so that things are NOT rainbows and roses
all the time.
close friendships of which I was part end badly,
>even turn into feuds and degenerate intro hatred....
I don't think people who are REALLY friends should ever
actually have their relationship degenerate into actual hatred; if
it did, there wasn't much of a friendship there to begin with, in
my opinion. Real friendships SURVIVE anything thrown at them, and
this is the kind of friendship Kirk and Spock have. Conflict,
yes, but I don't buy it turning into irreconcilable enmity.
(Maybe it's just you.)
but
>to me it's truer to aired Trek (mainly the original series) than
the
>"everyone ALWAYS gets along perfectly forever and ever" way of
looking
With the exception that your story themes (if this is an
example) sound too depressing and pessimistic to me, I agree.
Gamin
Gamin Davis
<7bhdje$mmb$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>:
>I don't know what fan fiction you're reading, but obviously it
isn't from
>Orion Press. We have *lots* of conflict among the characters. A
It's definitely not any of mine, either. Plenty of conflict in
most of my stories, at some point.
couple of
>examples: the approach by Rick Endres and myself to the end of
the original
>five-year mission in "No Cold Wind" and "No Place Like Home" in
I did my own version of the end of the first 5-year mission
and follow-up after ST:TMP--conflict all over the place in those
stories. (And I read "No Cold Wind", BTW.)
>You can find all of these stories, and others with similar
conflicts, at
>http://www.mindspring.com/~randylanders/archives/
Or my zines through Linda Knights at lkn...@nas.com--just ask
for "Gamin Davis zines" and she'll steer you the right direction.
She also has a website with excerpts posted, if you want a sneak
preview. (Sorry for the blatant pluggola, Ann--hope you don't mind
[maybe that should've been a separate post].)
complaint with TNG. I *like* conflict; I think it enables you to
explore the
>characters more, get under their skin and figure out what makes
them tick.
Am I the only one who saw conflict on TNG? Picard seemed to
conflict with everybody at some point or other. Everybody seemed
to conflict with Wesley. And Worf seemed to be permanently T.O.ed
at everybody. Not much conflict, certainly not as much as TOS,
but there was *some* there. (Of course I never liked TNG, so
maybe my opinion is irrelevant.)
Gamin
Gamin Davis
<7birk3$uh8$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>:
>Putting them in
>different situations is fine, but they still should *behave* as
our
>characters behave. If a writer is unwilling to write Trek
characters *in
>character*, then they should invent their own characters.
>I think most of the Trek writers around here at least *try* to
keep
>their characters in character, no matter what the situations they
write them
>in.
I totally agree. I for one do my best to keep them in
character in my stories (although I don't think I'm objective
enough to state flatly "yes, they are always in character"). I
extrapolate a little sometimes, but by and large, I stick to
canon. (Or canon as I see it, in some infrequent cases. <g>)
Gamin
Gamin Davis
<7bk86a$sd5$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>:
>I find this discussion, as Spock would say, "fascinating."
Actually, my
>vision of Vulcan is somewhere in between those you each follow,
though
>probably closer to Kattz's than Laura's. However, so long as
Mine, as expressed in my stories, is closer to Kattz's, too.
Aparrently, Laura never saw "Amok Time", where it was basically
stated almost verbatim that pon farr *was* a result of
physical/emotional repression, at least in part. I think they
colonize a tad more than Kattz does, but that's about it.
(Someday, if somebody really is interested and asks nicely, I will
expound at more lengths on my views on Vulcans.)
Vulcan society
>is well developed and either remains in keeping with what we saw
on screen
>or has logical reasons for any deviations, I'm willing to suspend
my
>disbelief to enjoy a well-written story. After all, the two grand
dames of
>Trek fan fiction when it comes to Vulcan (Jean Lorrah and Jackie
>Lichtenberg) had extremely divergent views of the society.
Personally, I
>prefer Jackie's, though I don't *always* agree with it, but I
find Jean's
>vision far too Human for Vulcan.
I enjoy Jean's sometimes. Jackie's--if you're talking about
Kraith--I can do without, because of the characterizations more
than anything else. Somebody somewhere has doubtless got stories
with Vulcan society portrayals that I could agree with totally--
though like you say, total agreement isn't necessarily a
prerequisite.
Gamin
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: Gamin Davis <arkiet...@usa.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: 5 Mar 1999 23:26:19 GMT
> Organization: ALLTEL Internet Services
>
> "" an...@mindspring.com wrote in
> <7bk86a$sd5$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>:
> >I find this discussion, as Spock would say, "fascinating."
> Actually, my
> >vision of Vulcan is somewhere in between those you each follow,
> though
> >probably closer to Kattz's than Laura's. However, so long as
>
> Mine, as expressed in my stories, is closer to Kattz's, too.
> Aparrently, Laura never saw "Amok Time", where it was basically
> stated almost verbatim that pon farr *was* a result of
> physical/emotional repression, at least in part. I think they
> colonize a tad more than Kattz does, but that's about it.
> (Someday, if somebody really is interested and asks nicely, I will
> expound at more lengths on my views on Vulcans.)
I am going to get frickin' medieval on yo' ass.
*McCoy*, who knows *damn* little about Vulcan physiology says that.
*McCoy*, who has well-known, frequently-stated *serious* problems with
Vulcan philosophy.
If *Spock* had said it, I'd believe it. Spock said no such damn thing.
*He* stated that it was a *biological* condition, similar to that of
the spawning of salmon on earth.
I've had a REAL BAD DAY and I don't take kindly to condescension. I'll
thank you to knock it off right quick.
--laura
Bad, day, fuckit, bad fucking week.
Gamin Davis
smtp-11084-140...@unix5.andrew.cmu.edu>:
>I am going to get frickin' medieval on yo' ass.
Whatever that means...
>*McCoy*, who knows *damn* little about Vulcan physiology says
that.
>*McCoy*, who has well-known, frequently-stated *serious* problems
with
>Vulcan philosophy.
Agreed, McCoy is not the world's foremost authority on Vulcans.
BUT...it IS the only canon (as in on screen) statement we've had
about it.
I'm real sorry you had such a bad day, but do not take it out
on me. I was merely making an OBSERVATION. My opinion. No
"condescension" intended, or implied. Just my .02 worth. Next
time read your own post before you send it--you sound like you're
trying to start a flame war. Take it from someone who's found out
about that the hard way (firing off posts when I'm in a really bad
mood, then looking at them later and seeing that I sound like a
fire-breathing maniac).
>*He* stated that it was a *biological* condition, similar to that
of
>the spawning of salmon on earth.
Does it not occur to you that it could be *both*?
Gamin
P.S.For the record. lady, *I* haven't had a real good week
myself. But at least *I'm* rational.
Mark Russel Stanley
>
> "Laura Jacquez Valentine" jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu wrote in <emacs-
> smtp-11084-140...@unix5.andrew.cmu.edu>:
>
> that.
> >*McCoy*, who has well-known, frequently-stated *serious* problems
> with
> >Vulcan philosophy.
>
> Agreed, McCoy is not the world's foremost authority on Vulcans.
> BUT...it IS the only canon (as in on screen) statement we've had
> about it.
Spock says he hoped he would be spared, "... but the *ancient* drives are
too strong."
What about the things T'Pau says about the ritual? Koon-ut-Kalifee seems to
me to be designed around Pon Farr, and T'Pau, T'Pring and Spock all use the
word 'ancient' to describe it.
In every other episode I can think of, when Spock speaks of ancient Vulcan,
he is speaking pre-Surak. (It's been awhile, but I'm fairly sure.)
In addition, the place of Koon-ut-Kalifee has been in Spock's family for
10,000 Earth years. When he spoke of Vulcan 5,000 years ago, it was obvious
he was speaking pre-Surak.
Therefore, logically, Pon Farr predates Surak.
Who knows? Perhaps it only began to be fatal post-Surak. However, the way
Spock spoke when comparing his race to the other species made me think this
wasn't a recent evolutionary development. Just an opinion, there... nothing
to back it up but the fact that true evolutionary developments are rarely
that recent in a species' history.
>
> >*He* stated that it was a *biological* condition, similar to that
> of
> >the spawning of salmon on earth.
>
> Does it not occur to you that it could be *both*?
>
Well, on a very intuitive level, I can't but think that the control of
emotion can't *help*, but what if it does? What if learning to control the
everyday passions that seethe in the Vulcan soul helps them deal with the
onslaught of near madness that comes with Pon Farr?
> Gamin
>
> P.S.For the record. lady, *I* haven't had a real good week
> myself. But at least *I'm* rational.
For the record, Laura deserves to be cut a break. She's severely
understating the case when she says she had a bad day.
Mark
--
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
Laura Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Gamin wrote: [snip]
> > Aparrently, Laura never saw "Amok Time", where it was basically
> > stated almost verbatim that pon farr *was* a result of
> > physical/emotional repression, at least in part.
and then Laura said:
> I am going to get frickin' medieval on yo' ass.
Take cover!
> *McCoy*, who knows *damn* little about Vulcan physiology says that.
> *McCoy*, who has well-known, frequently-stated *serious* problems with
> Vulcan philosophy.
>
> If *Spock* had said it, I'd believe it. Spock said no such damn thing.
> *He* stated that it was a *biological* condition, similar to that of
> the spawning of salmon on earth.
And I personally wouldn't believe it even if Spock said it -- he was having a
particularly Bad Day at the time. The analogy with salmon is extremely
inexact: salmon die at their "Time of Mating" whether they get nookie or not.
My pal T'Pau says Pon Farr is "the Vulcan heart, the Vulcan soul". I think
any serious Vulcanologist (and Laura is one of the best) has to look at PF
from all angles and consider a variety of possible explanations. As an
evolutionary biologist, I think evolutionary plausibility would be a
particularly nice touch.
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"More More More Said the Baby," by Vera Williams
Raku2u
>he is speaking pre-Surak. (It's been awhile, but I'm fairly sure.)
>
>In addition, the place of Koon-ut-Kalifee has been in Spock's family for
>10,000 Earth years. When he spoke of Vulcan 5,000 years ago, it was obvious
>he was speaking pre-Surak.
>
>Therefore, logically, Pon Farr predates Surak.
>
On the one hand, my hat's off to Mark for pointing this interesting factoid
out--that opens up some interesting lines of thought. Some good stories could
come out of his nice point.
On the other hand, seems to me that Mark has missed spotting the *very* obvious
evidence for a massive barbeque culture that Surak stamped out. Spock can call
it their "place of Koon-Ut-Kalifee" if he wants to, but what can you do with
1200 square feet of pavement, seats, ventilation, big raised grill in the
middle, other than roast yourself a side of beef? I assume T'Pau's seat is a
leftover from the throne they gave the winner of the BBQ-sauce contest.
Shame no one bothered to record the Vulcan sauce recipes...
raku, gettin' hungry
Laura Jacquez Valentine
Hmmm. Meant to take that off the group, didn't. My apologies to
everyone, except Gamin, who I have killfiled.
--laura
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> Organization: ALLTEL Internet Services
I'm taking this off the group because I don't think anyone needs to be
subjected to the kind of filth you write, even in quoted form.
> "Laura Jacquez Valentine" jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu wrote in <emacs-
> smtp-11084-140...@unix5.andrew.cmu.edu>:
>
> >I am going to get frickin' medieval on yo' ass.
>
> Whatever that means...
>
> >*McCoy*, who knows *damn* little about Vulcan physiology says
> that.
> >*McCoy*, who has well-known, frequently-stated *serious* problems
> with
> >Vulcan philosophy.
>
> Agreed, McCoy is not the world's foremost authority on Vulcans.
> BUT...it IS the only canon (as in on screen) statement we've had
> about it.
> I'm real sorry you had such a bad day, but do not take it out
> on me. I was merely making an OBSERVATION. My opinion. No
> "condescension" intended, or implied. Just my .02 worth. Next
> time read your own post before you send it--you sound like you're
> trying to start a flame war. Take it from someone who's found out
> about that the hard way (firing off posts when I'm in a really bad
> mood, then looking at them later and seeing that I sound like a
> fire-breathing maniac).
There you go again. I *did* read it beforehand. The first draft
contained a detailed history of the habits and probably genetic
condition of your ancestors. You really do have a problem with
condescension, you know--at least one of my friends has had this issue
with you before. Do you just have a very flat learning curve?
Honey, you have *never* seen me in a flame war. You might want to pray
you never do. My handy-dandy university provider has very liberal
service terms, so as long as I don't mailbomb your or threaten to kill
you, there's not a goddamn thing you can do about me saying whatever I
want.
And I'm not a nice person. Of course, neither are you.
> >*He* stated that it was a *biological* condition, similar to that
> of
> >the spawning of salmon on earth.
>
> Does it not occur to you that it could be *both*?
>
Yes, it did. However, rather than take the word of a known bigot for
Gospel Truth, I decided to take the word of a known Vulcan, a choice
which you seem to feel is invalid, probably because of an organic brain
disorder on your part.
>
> P.S.For the record. lady, *I* haven't had a real good week
> myself. But at least *I'm* rational.
>
Lady? How quaint. And you claim *I* was trying to start a flame war?
Screw you and the horse you rode in on.
--laura
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 11:21:02 GMT
> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>
> Laura Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >Gamin wrote: [snip]
> > > Aparrently, Laura never saw "Amok Time", where it was basically
> > > stated almost verbatim that pon farr *was* a result of
> > > physical/emotional repression, at least in part.
>
> and then Laura said:
>
>
> > *McCoy*, who knows *damn* little about Vulcan physiology says that.
> > *McCoy*, who has well-known, frequently-stated *serious* problems with
> > Vulcan philosophy.
> >
> > the spawning of salmon on earth.
>
> particularly Bad Day at the time. The analogy with salmon is extremely
> inexact: salmon die at their "Time of Mating" whether they get nookie or not.
>
> My pal T'Pau says Pon Farr is "the Vulcan heart, the Vulcan soul". I think
> any serious Vulcanologist (and Laura is one of the best) has to look at PF
You say such nice things, Mary Ellen. :)
> from all angles and consider a variety of possible explanations. As an
> evolutionary biologist, I think evolutionary plausibility would be a
> particularly nice touch.
One thing that's very important to me is plausibility. I write
fiction--sf and non-sf-- with hopes of publishing it. (oooh...rejection
letters...) Consistency and general agreement with reality are
important when you do such things; I don't feel that they are any *less*
important in fanfic, although some people don't seem to feel that way...
ah well.
--laura
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: rak...@aol.combunifufu (Raku2u)
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: 6 Mar 1999 14:40:42 GMT
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
*giggle*
Thanks, Raku, I needed that.
>
> Shame no one bothered to record the Vulcan sauce recipes...
>
I wouldn't bet on it; Greywolf has some, er, contacts that might know
them.
--laura
zoinky
to make an observation, and possibly obscure the situation even more.
There is an episode where Bones and Spock are sent back to an ice age
"unprepared." Spock starts to revert to the Vulcans of that time. Very
aggressive, hostile. He becomes a meat eater. He takes the woman they find
there as his mate, without the obvious physical changes usually associated
with Pon Farr. He becomes protective of her and is even prepared to fight
McCoy who is ill and has shown little interest in her other than the most
casual of friendships. (Hey they are all sharing the same cave, he can't
just ignore her completely.)
Perhaps these are the ancient Vulcans they are referring to. The ones that
set up the arenas and the BBQ's. If you can accept that, then perhaps Pon
Farr is an evolutionary development coming after the acceptance of logic as
a way of life. A biological imperative to make certain that the Vulcan's
don't die out as a species. Remember Pon Farr is embarrassing to them
because it strips them of their logic. It wouldn't be embarrassing if they
had not developed the logic to strip away. And what about the Romulans? Do
they also have Pon Farr? Or did Pon Farr develop after the Romulan/Vulcan
split. I get the impression that the Romulans are not as formalized about
their mating as the Vulcans and they are certainly more aggressive.
zoinky steps out of the light before she becomes the next course on the
brazier.
Raku2u
>Remember Pon Farr is embarrassing to them
>because it strips them of their logic.
With all due respect, I think pon farr embarasses them because they have to
admit to the humans that they were on the straight path to BBQ heaven and lost
it all when they chose to follow Surak.
Bet James Kirk has a mean BBQ sauce recipe.
What kind of ribs you think he puts it on probably depends on your view of
slash...
raku, who admires zoinky's style
Laura Jacquez Valentine
The following is an excerpt from a piece of mail I sent to Ann Zewen,
about my thoughts on Vulcan biology and culture.
Some of the ideas in this I owe to Mary Ellen Curtin, who is one of the
most interesting people to chatter biology with.
>
> Vulcans, Rigellians, and Romulans are related. (At least two episodes
> have strongly implied the Rigellian thing: TOS's Journey to Babel, and
> DS9's recent episode with the Cicero title I can't remember.) It's not
> always clear whether the Romulans and Vulcans have speciated, but
> evidently people on both sides feel that they are still genetically and
> culturally similar enough to make reunification feasible. They are
> quite clearly subspecies at this point: Romulans lack telepathy, at
> least among the general populace, for example, and they seem to lack pon
> farr. Perhaps I should say that they are *at least* subspecies.
>
> My theory is that those two lacks are connected somehow. Specifically,
> that--for whatever reason--when Romulans lost telepathy, and thus the
> ability to mentally bond mates together, they also lost pon farr. Mary
> Ellen and I have discussed the possibility of pon farr being triggered
> by the female of the species, probably by the telepathic equivalent of a
> pheromone, during her estrus cycle.
>
> The long period of this estrus cycle is a result of the desert
> environment of Vulcan: parents can devote all their resources to one
> child until that child passes their maturity test at age seven. At that
> age, the child is essentially capable of finding its own food and water,
> and is skilled at desert survival. At that point, the parents are free
> to conceive and raise another child in the harsh environment of Vulcan.
>
> If we steal a little from Lorrah here (I haven't read Lichtenburg),
> children who do not pass the maturity test (kahs wan) are not permitted
> to marry. If pon farr was inevitable, this would be a death sentence.
> If pon farr, however, is specifically a result of bonding--and bonding
> to a female--than unbonded male Vulcans (and homosexual male Vulcans)
> would never experience pon farr.
>
> None of this precludes "recreational", non-procreative sex, and the
> situation certainly fails to promote marital fidelity. Fidelity is
> nearly assured during pon farr, since the male's life is at stake; since
> the female is not otherwise fertile there is little reason for cultural
> taboos against extramarital, recreational, non-procreative sex. For
> these reasons, I feel that Vulcans are sexually non-monogamous but
> procreationally monogamous.
>
> Further, we know from canon of the marriage bond I mentioned already.
> Given the Vulcan telepathic and mental-bonding capacity, and with the
> non-monogamous situation I described above, it made sense to me that
> Vulcans had the capacity for lower-intensity bonds, used to reinforce
> friendships, alliances, family ties, etc. I felt that a logical way to
> create and reinforce such bonds was with a combination of the sexual
> elements of the marriage-bond and a low-level (in the systemic sense,
> like a low-level hard drive format on your computer, not in the
> low-intensity sense) meld.
>
> On a more explicit note; I don't think that Vulcans, when they have
> non-procreative sex, generate seminal fluid or much vaginal
> lubrication. Desert environment and all. It is plausible to me that
> Vulcan anatomy is similar in some aspects to that of terrestrial desert
> creatures, in that males may have a sheathed, pre-lubricated penis.
>
> I think I'll stop now. Does that give you an idea of how I arrived at
> my conception of Vulcan biology and culture?
Trillseekr
Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> It is plausible to me that
>> Vulcan anatomy is similar in some aspects to that of terrestrial desert
>> creatures, in that males may have a sheathed, pre-lubricated penis.
>>
<pause, blink, beginning to giggle> (Ahem)...how ...useful...
Trilly-collector of subtext and smarm
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: trill...@aol.comsnlybs (Trillseekr)
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: 08 Mar 1999 05:25:59 GMT
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>
I would think so, but you might have to ask Greywolf for sure.
--laura
Laura Taylor
>
> The following is an excerpt from a piece of mail I sent to Ann Zewen,
> about my thoughts on Vulcan biology and culture.
>
> Some of the ideas in this I owe to Mary Ellen Curtin, who is one of the
> most interesting people to chatter biology with.
<snip, for brevity>
> > My theory is that those two lacks are connected somehow. Specifically,
> > that--for whatever reason--when Romulans lost telepathy, and thus the
> > ability to mentally bond mates together, they also lost pon farr. Mary
> > Ellen and I have discussed the possibility of pon farr being triggered
> > by the female of the species, probably by the telepathic equivalent of a
> > pheromone, during her estrus cycle.
How, then, do you account for the onset of pon farr in Vorik? To the
best of my knowledge, there are no female Vulcans on Voyager. If there
were, you'd think the Doctor would have asked them for help in solving
Vorik's dilemma, rather than creating a holosimulation; more to the
point, I don't recall ever seeing one. IIRC, Vorik was bonded prior to
Voyager's disappearance, but this was his first pon farr. Do you think
that telepathic link between two Vulcans who have been bonded but not
mated (am I using the right terminology?) can span 60,000 LY?
Is it possible - and I admit to indulging in random speculation, as I
know diddly-squat about Vulcans - that his pon farr may have been
triggered by the estral cycle of a female of another species with strong
telepathic abilities (say, for example, Kes)? Or - streeetching this
speculation even further - is it possible that Vorik encountered a
phenomenon I've run into every time I've lived with one of more women
for an extended period of time; namely, that all our menstrual cycles
fell into a simultaneous pattern? Is it possible Vorik's innate
procreative instinct was overwhelmed by a flood of estrogen-laced
pheromones emanating from every female aboard Voyager?
OK, that last theory sounds a bit silly. But I'll wager just about every
woman here who's lived with other women knows what I'm talking about,
and it might make for some interesting fanfic (keeping this on topic!).
One final question: if, as you suggest, the female estral cycle triggers
the onset of pon farr, what triggers the estral cycle - the bonding
ceremony, perhaps? Or has this question already been answered while I
was dozing off?
Laura
--
=====
"Of the beasts of the field, and of the fishes of the sea, and of all
foods that are acceptable in my sight you may eat, but not in the living
room. Of the hoofed animals, broiled or ground into burgers, you may
eat, but not in the living room. Of the cloven-hoofed animal, plain or
with cheese, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cereal
grains, of the corn and of the wheat and of the oats, and of all the
cereals that are of bright color and unknown provenance you may eat, but
not in the living room. Of the quiescently frozen dessert and of all
frozen after-meal treats you may eat, but absolutely not in the living
room. Of the juices and other beverages, yes, even of those in
sippy-cups, you may drink, but not in the living room, neither may you
carry such therein. Indeed, when you reach the place where the living
room carpet begins, of any food or beverage there you may not eat,
neither may you drink."
Ian Frazier, _The Atlantic Monthly_
zoinky
IIRC, Vulcans are bonded to their mates as children, in a ceremony that
takes place at about age 5. At this time the two children touch each others
minds so they will be drawn together at the appropriate time. It is my
guess that at this childhood bonding the two minds get into "sync" and they
mature at the same time but independantly. This would allow for the young
Vulcan to go into Pon Farr without his mate being present.
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:
> How, then, do you account for the onset of pon farr in Vorik? To the
> best of my knowledge, there are no female Vulcans on Voyager. If there
> were, you'd think the Doctor would have asked them for help in solving
> Vorik's dilemma, rather than creating a holosimulation; more to the
> point, I don't recall ever seeing one. IIRC, Vorik was bonded prior to
> Voyager's disappearance, but this was his first pon farr. Do you think
> that telepathic link between two Vulcans who have been bonded but not
> mated (am I using the right terminology?) can span 60,000 LY?
Well, I don't know much about Vorik, but the presumption with Tuvok has been
that a good, strong bond knows not the restrictions of space, light-speed, and
other physical folderol.
> Is it possible - and I admit to indulging in random speculation, as I
> know diddly-squat about Vulcans - that his pon farr may have been
> triggered by the estral cycle of a female of another species with strong
> telepathic abilities (say, for example, Kes)?
That's a GREAT suggestion!
Or - streeetching this
> speculation even further - is it possible that Vorik encountered a
> phenomenon I've run into every time I've lived with one of more women
> for an extended period of time; namely, that all our menstrual cycles
> fell into a simultaneous pattern? Is it possible Vorik's innate
> procreative instinct was overwhelmed by a flood of estrogen-laced
> pheromones emanating from every female aboard Voyager?
Well, seems dubious to me, but then the presence of Vorik sans mate on Voyager
goes against a lot of fan Vulcanology as worked out over several decades. The
trouble with the Pon Farr info in "Blood Fever" is the dread Careless Writer
Problem.
> One final question: if, as you suggest, the female estral cycle triggers
> the onset of pon farr, what triggers the estral cycle - the bonding
> ceremony, perhaps? Or has this question already been answered while I
> was dozing off?
Generally estral cycles trigger themselves, like menstrual cycles. It's my
opinion that the "seven year itch" is a convention, like human menstrual
cycles being 28 days -- which as all grownups know is at best an estimate.
Seven Vulcan years would be the expected interval between births, just as
four years is the expected interval between births for human
hunter-gatherers, or two years was the expected interval for children born in
the 1950s.
Note that Laura JV's idea that it's tied into the kahs wan when the child is
seven gives no actual interval for gestation, which I expect would be one
Vulcan year. Oops.
Do we actually have specific, *canonical* info on Romulan telepathy and/or
sexuality? Or is it all from profic?
yours,
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"Bride of the Rat God," by Barbara Hambly
Kattz
>Well, I don't know much about Vorik, but the presumption with Tuvok has been
>that a good, strong bond knows not the restrictions of space, light-speed, and
>other physical folderol.
I've figured it out. At first I thought it was a computer virus
introduced during the bonding ceremony but now I'm sure that Vulcans
have the Salmon mentality. Salmon don't know or care if there is
someone to mate with all they know is they have *that* urge.
Like Salmon all those born on a certain day go into breeding mode at
exactly the same time when they are physically of age. Also like
Salmon they are drawn back to their place of birth. (Guess the
Vulcans must give birth out in the open under the sun or the moons.)
The bonding ceremony is the Vulcans way of ensuring that the best and
brightest children mate to create even better children. I believe
that Vulcans have a low (or staggered) birth rate to ensure that there
won't be swarms of bonded people in ponn farr mode at the same time.
This whole Ponn Farr thing is very strange because Spock must have
been around 30 or 35 when it happened to him and he said it was his
first time but when Spock was reborn after dying he went into it while
he was quite young. The only way I can explain that is the reborn
Spock had not yet been taught to repress his physical sexual urges.
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:24:25 -0500
> Organization: InfiNet
>
> Laura Jacquez Valentine wrote:
> >
> > The following is an excerpt from a piece of mail I sent to Ann Zewen,
> > about my thoughts on Vulcan biology and culture.
> >
> > Some of the ideas in this I owe to Mary Ellen Curtin, who is one of the
> > most interesting people to chatter biology with.
>
> <snip, for brevity>
>
> > > My theory is that those two lacks are connected somehow. Specifically,
> > > that--for whatever reason--when Romulans lost telepathy, and thus the
> > > ability to mentally bond mates together, they also lost pon farr. Mary
> > > Ellen and I have discussed the possibility of pon farr being triggered
> > > by the female of the species, probably by the telepathic equivalent of a
> > > pheromone, during her estrus cycle.
>
> best of my knowledge, there are no female Vulcans on Voyager. If there
> were, you'd think the Doctor would have asked them for help in solving
> Vorik's dilemma, rather than creating a holosimulation; more to the
> point, I don't recall ever seeing one. IIRC, Vorik was bonded prior to
> Voyager's disappearance, but this was his first pon farr. Do you think
> that telepathic link between two Vulcans who have been bonded but not
> mated (am I using the right terminology?) can span 60,000 LY?
There may be Vulcan females on Voyager, but I'll bet dollars to donuts
that if there are, they're already bonded.
Here's a question: could an unbonded Vulcan female trigger pon farr in
an unbonded Vulcan male who happened to be in close proximity? My guess
is "yes", and that such a reaction would result in a marriage bond
between them.
As for an unconsummated bond--well, I don't know if it would survive. I
suspect that Spock's apparently weak link to T'Pring wouldn't, but if
Vorik were bonded to a close friend or someone he at least interacted
with on a regular basis, it might. I don't know why an unconsummated
bond would necessarily be weaker than a consummated one, for the same
reason my friendship with my best friend (a male) is not weaker than my
friendship with my significant other (also male).
> Is it possible - and I admit to indulging in random speculation, as I
> know diddly-squat about Vulcans - that his pon farr may have been
> triggered by the estral cycle of a female of another species with strong
> telepathic abilities (say, for example, Kes)? Or - streeetching this
> speculation even further - is it possible that Vorik encountered a
> phenomenon I've run into every time I've lived with one of more women
> for an extended period of time; namely, that all our menstrual cycles
> fell into a simultaneous pattern? Is it possible Vorik's innate
> procreative instinct was overwhelmed by a flood of estrogen-laced
> pheromones emanating from every female aboard Voyager?
>
> OK, that last theory sounds a bit silly. But I'll wager just about every
> woman here who's lived with other women knows what I'm talking about,
> and it might make for some interesting fanfic (keeping this on topic!).
Poor Vorik, if you're right. Oh my. *giggle*
>
> One final question: if, as you suggest, the female estral cycle triggers
> the onset of pon farr, what triggers the estral cycle - the bonding
> ceremony, perhaps? Or has this question already been answered while I
> was dozing off?
My theory is that the cycle in the female Vulcan is triggered much the
same way it is in female humans: by nutrition, genetics, and length of
exposure to light.
--laura
Sydvick
>same way it is in female humans: by nutrition, genetics, and length of
>exposure to light.
Yikes, you better hope not since they are desert dwellers and that is a hell of
alot of light. OH NO, THE SUN, THE WOMEN WILL BE AFTER US,EEEEKKKK. hee hee.
Laura Jacquez Valentine
From: syd...@aol.com (Sydvick)
RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*giggle*
Well, not if the amount of light they need is much greater than the
amount of light that humans need.
There are a number of theories about why women in the US are reaching
menarche earlier; the two I find most convincing are higher-fat diets
and electric lighting.
--laura
laura jacquez valentine -+- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez
Unused Steven Seagal Movie Title: RENT TO OWN
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
Laura Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> There are a number of theories about why women in the US are reaching
> menarche earlier; the two I find most convincing are higher-fat diets
> and electric lighting.
I suspect that a tertiary factor is having people indoors sharing pheromones a
lot. But I'm starting to develop a "humans are turning into termites" theory
(unfortunately I'm not joking).
HEY! Maybe this explains why DS9 and Voyager (and Babylon 5) are so badly lit
-- because they've discovered that strong artificial lighting messes up
various species' hormonal cycles. Since they can't have a full day/night
cycle on a starship or space station, they have to compromise with dim
lighting all the time.
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"Sweetness and Power: the Place of
Sugar in Modern History," by Sidney Mintz
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:04:10 GMT
> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>
> Laura Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > There are a number of theories about why women in the US are reaching
> > menarche earlier; the two I find most convincing are higher-fat diets
> > and electric lighting.
>
> I suspect that a tertiary factor is having people indoors sharing pheromones a
> lot. But I'm starting to develop a "humans are turning into termites" theory
> (unfortunately I'm not joking).
Hmmm. How intriguing. Do explain further...
>
> HEY! Maybe this explains why DS9 and Voyager (and Babylon 5) are so badly lit
> -- because they've discovered that strong artificial lighting messes up
> various species' hormonal cycles. Since they can't have a full day/night
> cycle on a starship or space station, they have to compromise with dim
> lighting all the time.
I've wondered about this. It seems to me that the different dark/light
cycles of planets would preclude mixed-species ships, at least for the
most part. There are always exceptions, and humans are adaptable--I
would assume other species would be as well. But the hormonal cycles
may not be adaptable, which could cause problems. Perhaps this is
something that could be medically controlled; but if low lighting solves
the problem, that's almost surely a nicer solution than medical control.
--laura
J. Juls
Maybe Pon Farr is like beaming out with the shields up: it's always a
certain way UNLESS needed to be different for a plot complication. Then
anything goes!
I get the feeling that in TOS, Pon Farr was a very serious deal; McCoy had
to fake Kirk's death to get Spock to stop. But on Voyager, it's just "have
a Klingon fight with him a little bit, and he'll be out of Pon Farr!" I was
REALLY disappointed in that episode; they should have at least had sex. It
makes Pon Farr look like no biggie. I liked that book, Dwellers In the
Crucible, where her husband *died* because she was locked up. He just
didn't go off and throw a few punches around with some gal and get cured.
Julie
Raku2u
female:
well, we were expected to believe that B'Elanna experienced some Klingon equiv.
of pon farr because of Vorik, right? Sauce for gander/sauce for goose?
I like the idea that a male experiencing pon farr might have consequences for
other nearby males, but I don't think we've seen/heard anything like that.
Certainly Tuvok seemed unaffected by Vorik (drat).
Spock as I recall speculated that his mixed ancestry meant he "might be spared"
going thru pon farr. I think we might therefore allow him to go into p.f. at
one age on the Ent., and at another on Genesis. I thought the basic point of
the whole Genesis section of the movie was to show that if you tinker with
nature, odd things/unexpected things will happen.
FYI my Voy. story "Blowing Out the Flame" assumes as part of the background
that a bond will hold over a very long distance, and pon farr can come on w/o
the mate being present.
<whine mode on>Gotta say, tho, that despite all the wonderful feedback I got on
it, no one kidded me about writing a PG/G pon farr story. *snif, snif*<whine
off>
raku, delighted so many are interested in "biology . . . *Vulcan* biology..."
-----
"Look! There's Barbie!" --a young friend on seeing Yeoman Rand for the first
time
mail me at rak...@aol.com
raku-ish stories at http://members.aol.com/Raku2u
-----
Trillseekr
(Kattz) writes:
> I believe
>that Vulcans have a low (or staggered) birth rate to ensure that there
>won't be swarms of bonded people in ponn farr mode at the same time.
>
Would be a heckuva party though, eh GW? >:)
Greywolf the Wanderer
wrote:
>In article <emacs-smtp-10625-...@unix5.andrew.cmu.edu>, Laura
>Jacquez Valentine <jacq...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>> It is plausible to me that
>>> Vulcan anatomy is similar in some aspects to that of terrestrial desert
>>> creatures, in that males may have a sheathed, pre-lubricated penis.
Ayuh, there ya go. <scratches himself, grins evilly> Why have simian
equipment when you can enjoy a sheath? *So* much more convenient, out
in the field... Heh, heh, heh. Yup. Canids, and Vulcans, have a
*much* better deal, ya ask me.
><pause, blink, beginning to giggle> (Ahem)...how ...useful...
>
>Trilly-collector of subtext and smarm
In general, y'all, a most fascinating convo. I tend to think of
Vulcan society along lines about halfway between Annz and Laura --
though as my colleague and fellow TSU faculty member I am obliged to
tell Laura, Woo Hoo Hoo, you GO Grrl!! ;-)>
The phrase "gonna get all medieval on yo' ass!" comes from the movie
"Pulp Fiction". Somehow it does not surprise me that someone who
thinks of Vulcan as a planet of terrified neoVictorian pseudovirgins
has not seen this movie. Ah, well. There ya have it, folks.
Infinite Diversity, in all of its infinitely perverse glory. Really
does take all kinds, don't it.
Me, I'll take Vulcans as passionate but highly controlled any day. I
think there's much more in canon to support that viewpoint, than the
reverse. And I also cannot agree with the idea of Pon Farr as being
due only to emotional repression. Biologically, that's hogwash.
Vulcans have meditative and telepathic techniques of great sublety and
skill; were that the reason they could have found a way to safely
defuse that problem, and would have done so. They suffer PF because
they have no choice, and that in turn, given their skill at physical
control, argues for it being a very basic aspect of Vulcan biology,
not amenable to logic in any way. And in Amok Time, that's exactly
how Spock describes it.
As for the Romulans, depends on when you see the split as occurring.
I fancy Diane Duane's version of this myself, as noted in "Spock's
World" and "The Romulan Way". In this timeline, the reason Romulan
telepathy is so rare is that most of their skilled adpets died during
the voyage out; since much of the higher end of telepathic skill must
be taught, with no-one to teach the newborns, much of the knowledge
was simply lost. I think that probably quite a few Romulans have
low-end telepathy; the basic touch-telepath awareness, for instance.
But as for melds, the healing trance, the Vulcan equivalent of
psychiatry and mental healing -- nope. That knowledge is gone. And,
given a small genetic base, with many of the adept being dead, that
gene is drastically reduced from the prevalence it once had. So very
few really Gifted are born, from that point on. A few, certes. But
the gene for the strong Gift was never that common to begin with.
Even on Vulcan, Healer potential is a rare and prized thing.
YMMV, of course, and almost certainly will.
Greywolf, laughing wickedly at a certain well-flamed arse, and
contemplating Ancient Vulcan Barbecue Sauces, as in, which would be
the most appropriate for such an item.
<remove nospam from header, to email me>
an...@mindspring.com
Greywolf the Wanderer wrote:
>In general, y'all, a most fascinating convo. I tend to think of
>Vulcan society along lines about halfway between Annz and Laura --
>though as my colleague and fellow TSU faculty member I am obliged to
>tell Laura, Woo Hoo Hoo, you GO Grrl!! ;-)>
So yet another viewpoint that isn't *exactly* in line with any of us. That's
the beauty of this aspect of Trek: There are so many plausible
interpretations, and you can use whichever works best for you and your
story. So long as your interpretation is plausible and internally
consistent, then whatever works for you is fine.
Actually, I find Laura's viewpoint very, er, intriguing. It's an
interesting, fascinating and fun approach to contemplate, and I have no
trouble accepting it within a given story. I may not agree with her that
it's the correct *canon* interpretation, but that's just *my* opinion and
*my* interpretation.
I really do enjoy discussing such issues as Vulcan culture, society and
biology and learning how other people see them. We actually have very little
canon to fall back on, and an argument easily can be made supporting any of
several viewpoints -- which is why I don't tell people that they're *wrong*
about it, just that I disagree.
One of the most fun things I've done as a Trek writer was to develop my
vision of the Mirror Universe Vulcan society. There's even less to work with
in canon on that one, so I had fun tossing out everything I had seen done in
other fan fic (K/S *and* straight) and in the pro novels, then just use what
we saw in "Mirror Mirror" and go from there. I'm sure there are a lot of
people who disagree with my ideas, but I worked very hard to make sure they
didn't conflict with the episode and to make them internally consistent.
From what I've read of both Laura's and Greywolf's work and of their
comments on this issue, I believe they approach their writing basically the
same way. We may reach different conclusions, but there's no reason we can't
enjoy each other's interpretations.
Good writing is good writing, whatever the direction it takes.
--
Ann
"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time and it annoys
the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
Sydvick
>
Now this is the type of discussion I like...nice. For my two cents, I actually
have a different view from everyone. Bows all around to the distinguished
group. I think that the Women of Vulcan are actually dominant. ie. T'pau,
because they do not enter Pon Farr unless they are Bonded. I think they never
have the blood fever, that only the males do, and the women control the men
during the Blood Fever. This is why T'Pring was such an ice princess for
Spock's Ponn Farr, she wasn't buring, but she would have had to quench his
flames. The men recognize this and also have always known that if they piss
off their women all they have to do is not show up at the right time!
The female cycle as the initiator does not work for me. It is the male cycle
that initiates female receptivity. It gets even more detailed and alien, but
I'm strange that way.
Sorry,I had said I wouldn't enter into this one, but I it was getting too fun.
Anyway, lets go and ask a Vulcan and find out for sure! hee hee. ;-D LLAP
My heart is single and cannot be divided
And it is fastened on a single hope;
Oh you, who might be the moon
Until I die, I shall not give up lovesongs.
Oh God, forgive me my shortcomings
SOMALI LOVESONG
Laura Jacquez Valentine
I'm going to be a complete dork and "me too" Ann Zewen's last post (her
response to Greywolf).
"Me too!"
--laura
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
syd...@aol.comjoy (Sydvick) wrote:
> For my two cents, I actually
> have a different view from everyone. Bows all around to the distinguished
> group.
> The female cycle as the initiator does not work for me. It is the male cycle
> that initiates female receptivity. It gets even more detailed and alien, but
> I'm strange that way.
As a biologist, having the male initiate the cycle makes NO sense -- unless
some other factor is involved.
Short lecture. As I said in my ASCEM post on biological gender, THE one and
only fundamental difference between male and female is the size of the
gamete; all other diffs are secondary. Because -- by definition -- the female
is contributing more to the offspring than the male (a large egg, rather than
a small sperm), in superficially similar Terran cases it is the female that
initiates the cycle, never (to my knowledge) the male. As raku once said to
me, I think in a post to this group, only the female's body knows what state
the eggs are in.
I was going to say that it would never be the case anywhere that the cycle
would be male-initiated, but I thought of something (it does happen). As Kaki
pointed out in the ASCEM gender thread, there are other contributions to the
offspring besides the gametes. Males (e.g. seahorses) can become pregnant, can
produce milk (e.g. pigeons), can build the nest or bring food for the young
(many examples).
So if you're going to have the Vulcan cycle be male-initiated, you have to
answer: what contribution is the Vulcan male making to the child so important
it overrides the female's pregnancy? She is clearly contributing a lot of
biological resources that need to be ready at Pon Farr. What is he giving,
biologically speaking, that's more important?
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the Day:
"Applebet: an ABC," by Clyde & Wendy Watson
Sydvick
<< She is clearly contributing a lot
of
biological resources that need to be ready at Pon Farr. What is he
giving,
biologically speaking, that's more important? >>
Vulcans are telepaths in a desert environment where unnecessary childbearing is
not survival oriented. The frequent nonreproductive cycles of the human female
are wasteful of needed resources. Therefore, the female only goes into estrus
on the signal of the fertile male. The male is not fertile except during Ponn
Farr and to insure that the female fertility conincides with the male's. The
male's Burning initiates the female hormone surges to prepare the Vulcan
Ovarian equivalent for Ovum maturation and rupture. There is no corpus luteum
and no period in the female at any other time except in response to the males
signal that he is fertile. Why, because the unnecessary blood, fluid loses and
increased energy needs are not survivial oriented in a resource poor
environment. Therefore the male generated cycle ensures less energy demands on
the female and prolongation of the female's health in a resource poor world.
Also it means she can get lots of unprotected nookey for seven years without
having to explain why the kid doesn't look like the spouse.hee hee ;-D
mecu...@alumni.princeton.edu
syd...@aol.comjoy (Sydvick) wrote:
>Ah a question, I have waited millenia for a question.
But you have not answered it.
>Vulcans are telepaths in a desert environment where unnecessary childbearing
>is not survival oriented. The frequent nonreproductive cycles of the human
>female are wasteful of needed resources. Therefore the female only goes into
>estrus on the signal of the fertile male.
Your "therefore" does not compute.
The expected alternative is *not* a male-initiated
estrous, but a long cycle which is initiated either
by the female herself, or by the environment.
The male is not fertile except
>during Ponn Farr and to insure that the female fertility conincides with the
>male's, the male's Burning initiates the female hormone surges to prepare the
>Vulcan Ovarian equivalent for Ovum maturation and rupture. There is no corpus
>luteum and no period in the female at any other time except in response to the
>males signal that he is fertile. Why, because the unnecessary blood, fluid
>loses and increased energy needs are not survivial oriented in a resource poor
>environment. Therefore the male generated cycle ensures less energy demands on
>the female
only "less" than a human-type cycle. You still
haven't aswered the question, O Guardian: why
isn't the male always fertile (or fertile on extremely
short notice -- *by definition* sperm are cheap), but
the female only fertile very occasionally, when her
bodily resources and the environmental resources are
sufficient to bear & rear a child.
Look at it this way: human females get amennorhea when
we're seriously ill, or injured, or undernourished, or over-
exercised: all conditions where the female can't afford the
biological resources for reproduction. Why should a Vulcan
female, who by your postulates evolved in an even more
unpredictable, resource-limited environment, be forced into
pregnancy whether her body is ready for it or not? Even if
she's anemic, or wounded, or parasite-burdened, or too
thin?
When I began thinking about Vulcan biology, I went along
with the male-initiated cycle, too. But I promise you, explaining
it becomes like preferring Ptolemy's solar system to Kepler's.
You can do it, and I'm even willing to help, but it's going to
involve a lot of epicycles. Frankly, I found all the epicycles
are too much to hang on the evidence of T'Pring's demeanor.
You can still have her be a cold bitch, you can still have
Vulcan society be female-dominated, without going through
the contortions a male-initiated cycle will require.