[ SECRET POST #2804 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: T'hy'la

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: T'hy'la

[ketita]

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.

Re: T'hy'la

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: T'hy'la

[ketita]

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.

Re: T'hy'la

[(Anonymous)]

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.