fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2804 ]

[ SECRET POST #2804 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2804 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - unrelated .gifs ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I never understood why the term "t'hy'la" would be queerbaiting in ANY context, though. It literally is translated as "friend/brother/lover." That means "friend" or "brother" are just as valid interpretations of the term as "lover." I.e., it's a term of endearment that is neutral when it comes to romantic/platonic divisions. Similar to how people can use "honey" or "dear" to either their spouse or to their children.

/coming from someone who actually ships them quite a lot, btw

Same, tbh.

Of course "friend" and "brother" are valid interpretations. But Vulcan is a CONSTRUCTED language. Roddenberrry didn't have to include the definition of "lover" at all -- and that he did is pretty significant. I always saw it as his way of telling shippers that, yes, their interpretation of a romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock is a VALID interpretation. He has the other definitions and the ambiguous disclaimer to give himself an "out." So that people who don't want to see them as gay don't HAVE to. Because people can be nuts. I'm pretty sure DEATH THREATS were sent out about Spock being killed in Wrath of Khan. So I do think he would want to be cautious -- there's no way he could definitively say "Kirk and Spock are in love" in such a climate even if he wanted to.

But I get tired of people saying that Roddenberry was doing a "bait and switch" or just toying with fans or that it's not a valid interpretation. Because he didn't have to include the "Lover" definition in the first place and, given when the book was written, I think it was pretty great that he did.

ayrt

Yeah, IA. Which is why I think the idea of it being "queerbaiting" is silly. The term is expansive and inclusive, rather than exclusive and narrow.

I don't actually care, but from a storytelling perspective they could have also constructed the word in that way because they thought it fit Vulcan culture best and they purposely wanted to have a word that included platonic, familial, and friendship-love, because it says something about the culture and puts them all on an equal level value-wise. It puts them all level on the same field, and doesn't claim that one is of more significance than the other.

That's a good point. I guess I just have a hard time excluding Kirk/Spock as a possible reason for the inclusion due to other instances in the film/book -- Kirk and Spock holding hands (given that kissing for Vulcans is through hand to hand contact) and that their relationship is compared to the (paraphrasing) the fires of Pon Farr.

You make a good point nonetheless.

Your points are valid.
I specifically wanted to address it from the language perspective ('cause I'm interested in stuff like that). And especially in our society which puts different levels of importance to different relationships - for example, many today feel that the truest form of love is romantic love, and that it is inherently more powerful than platonic love. Therefore, if you want to show that this is a society where romantic love can be no more powerful than a friendship bond, this is a strong way to show it, by associating a friendship bond with the audience's perception of powerful romantic love.

That's true. And I like your interpretation as well!

I've just always thought that Roddenberry used the term because Kirk and Spock were ALL of these things to each other:
-they were friends
-they were brothers (brothers in arms/family -- the last chapter of Star Trek V, funnily enough, is called "brothers in arms")
-they were lovers

But that's just me!

It doesn't have to be friend OR brother OR lover. To me, it's friend AND brother AND lover.

Which, as I said, is a completely fine interpretation.
Though, in a sense, I personally don't assume that Roddenberry was necessarily hinting that, and I think there's yet another difference between saying you interpret it that way, and that you interpret authorial intention that way.
But ship what you like :) heck, I'm not even arguing against the ship or that interpretation of it, just giving my 2c on worldbuilding.

DA

I've just always thought that Roddenberry used the term because Kirk and Spock were ALL of these things to each other

yeah but if that was so, then why he specifically added the footnote where he clears up the possible confusion and specifies that Spock meant it with the brother meaning, though? You can surely read into that footnote and Kirk's joke any subtext you want, if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that in the very same moment Gene (assuming he even wrote the novel entirely) gave us the information that the word could be used for lovers as well he DID specify that for Kirk and Spock it meant brother because Spock saw him as a brother but vulcans don't have a word for friends that are like brothers but aren't biological brothers. He never said Spock used it with the lovers meaning too, he only said he saw Kirk as a brother and then Kirk makes fun of a supposed lovers rumor denying it.

I thought the inclusion of "lover" was... I don't know if "joke" is the right word, but a sort of call-out/meta explanation for why people might think they were lovers. Like, "If people in-universe think they're a couple, it's just because they're miss-translating this Vulcan word... and what I'm trying to say here is that people IRL who ship them also are mistaken about the nature of their relationship."

At least, that's what I thought when I first read the novelization.

I just find that explanation hard to believe with how they act and how their relationship is described. Their relationship in the text is said:

" But it still felt painful to be reminded so powerfully and unexpectedly of his friendship and affection for Spock—theirs had been the touching of two minds which the old poets of Spock’s home planet had proclaimed as superior even to the wild physical love which affected Vulcans every seventh year during pon farr. However, Spock’s new demeanor warned Kirk to stay clear of personal considerations for the moment."

It's things like that -- the mention of affections and the comparisons to pon farr along with how they seem so…broken…when they're apart -- it makes it really hard to believe that Roddenberry is joking about it.

And as Spock is about to go through kolinahr he thinks:

"Jim! Good-bye my . . . my t’hy’la. This is the last time I will permit myself to think of you or even your name again."

Which I just can't see as a joke. Or the passage when they meet:

"There was much to be put out of his mind. Why was it difficult to forget Chekov’s astonished delight which greeted him at the command airlock when he boarded? And on the bridge—Kirk! The mere name made Spock groan inwardly as he remembered what it had cost him to turn away from that welcome. T’hy’la! And there had been McCoy, so humanly human—and, yes, of course, Chapel with her bizarre and impossible fantasies of one day pleasuring him. Sulu the romanticist, Uhura of the lovely star songs . . ."

I mean…if that is his intention…he's sending out REALLY mixed messages, in my opinion.

Okay, laughing at the fact that this was my security question for this post:

If a person is called James, what is their name?

How appropriate! :D

nayrt

Uh...no. Believe it or not, men are perfectly capable of wanting to be able to express such deep feelings for their friends. In fact, according to multiple men I've talked to, one of the reasons male writers and readers/viewers tend to be so excessively obsessed with epic male friendships is because they're not allowed to really show deep affection for their friends IRL.

I mean, there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading them as romantic. I myself like Kirk/Spock slash a whole lot. But the idea that they MUST be romantic because of how deeply affected they were by their separation or how strong their feelings are toward each other, and that means Roddenberry MUST be purposely sending out signals because he'd never let them think of each other so powerfully if they weren't romantically in love is bullshit. All it really shows is that he thought (and/or he thought that Vulcans thought) that "friend" and "brother" is emotionally as strong as "lover."

Of course, he may have been sending signals, there's nothing there to suggest that nope, he definitely wasn't sending signals -- those passages can certainly be read as expressing romantic feelings. But saying that Roddenberry had to "know" that having these kind of feelings is somehow Not Okay If You Don't Want To Fuck Each Other to the point of "sending mixed messages" is deeply offensive to me and to many others who are not in any way convinced by the mainstream western line that deep and expressive feelings for people automatically implies romantic attraction.

Err…yes. I'm aware of that. But I just think it's odd to suggest that Roddenberry was treating t'hy'la as a joke given the seriousness he uses in the text.

I'm not saying they MUST be romantic. I'm saying that I think Roddenberry included t'hy'la to show that lover is a valid (a valid, not the only) interpretation of their relationship in canon. That you can see them as friends or brothers or lovers or all three. And the editor's note gave himself an "out" which was kind of necessary given the climate at the time.

I'm not saying that t'hy'la is saying YES THEY'RE 100% CANON AND YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS. I think it's saying "This interpretation of their relationship is perfectly legitimate and equal to seeing them as friends or brothers." That there's nothing wrong with viewing them that way and if you don't want to you don't have to but if you want to, you CAN.

I wasn't suggesting that Roddenberry KNOWS that those passages were romantic, just that with the seriousness he treats their relationship with, I can't imagine him using anything in those passages as a JOKE.

I think it's the note explaining the word that people have issues about, not the word itself.
He said it could mean friend, brother and/or lover but then he explains that Spock used the word because Kirk is his brother but vulcans don't have a word only for friend and then he has Kirk himself making this silly monologue about how he never heard the lovers rumors but he prefers women anyway
that's just :/

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2804 ]

T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la

Re: T'hy'la