case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2014-09-06 03:53 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

[ 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

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:09 pm (UTC)(link)
How…how could it be unintentional?

He'd been asked about K/S before and hadn't expressed any negativity towards it-so at the very least he was aware of its existence. And he didn't HAVE to include the definition of lover at all.

I don't think he was baiting or taunting, but I don't see why thinking that he included it to say that K/S is a valid reading of the show/films (note, not the ONLY valid reading) is reading too much into it.

Roddenberry specifically CREATED a word to describe Kirk and Spock's relationship and included "lover" as one of the definitions -- how is thinking that them as a couple is a legitimate interpretation "reading too much into it"?

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Thinking of them that way is not reading too much into it, but thinking that Roddenberry purposely sat down and thought "how can I come up with a word that will validate these shippers' preferences without going 'they're totally gay'?" IS probably reading too much into it.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:25 pm (UTC)(link)
anon who wrote first comment

That is exactly what I mean. If Roddenberry had dropped any other hints about K/S, I might have been more apt to believe he actually was dropping hints. But I don't think he ever saw them as more than friends, and probably never really thought about them being gay, even if he was aware of the fan subculture.

This is why I try avoid the crazy shipping spaces in fandom. It all just gets too crazy and delusional.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:29 pm (UTC)(link)
See, I don't think he was validating the shippers, but I do think there's a good chance that he was validating K/S as an idea. The timing is just interesting to me -- the book released after Milk's assassination. The inclusion of a rainbow on the cover (which became a prominent LGBT symbol in 1978). The setting of San Francisco. Comparing Kirk and Spock's feelings to the fires of Pon Farr.

I don't think Roddenberry was throwing a bone to the shippers so much as he was saying -- yeah, these guys could very well be gay/bisexual/pansexual and it's not a big deal. They'd still be the same people at the core.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:41 pm (UTC)(link)
ayrt
I do think there's a good chance that he was validating K/S as an idea
Ah, well that's more of valid interpretation I can believe. I'm used to fans (like the fan who did the "Shipper's Closet" thing) who believe that it's a valid canon interpretation that K/S were gay.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not sure what the difference is to be honest.

I think K/S is pretty canon-consistent and I think Roddenberry showed he had no real issues with it.

Or do you mean the people who claim that K/S was a thing the writers were pushing since day 1?

THAT I don't agree with (although I do think there were a few moments, here and there, that are kind of suspicious -- like the back rub scene given that it was written by a man who flat-out wrote LGBT characters).

I think K/S is one of those things where, if you want to see them as a romantic pair, you have an enormous wealth of evidence to back it up. But if you don't want to, you don't have to either. But I don't think the show itself was ever written with the intention of them being a couple.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 10:00 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not sure what the difference is to be honest.
The difference is "I'm ok with you fans imagining Kirk and Spock as gay" vs "It's a total valid canon interpretation that Kirk and Spock are gay".

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 10:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Well…they're not gay considering they both show interest in women but I don't see how Kirk/Spock would be against canon. I mean, it's canon-consistent. I'm not arguing it's intentional or that it's irrefutable (it's not a canon fact, like Spock being half-human half-Vulcan, is) but I do think it's a valid interpretation.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
But that's like saying "two men can't have a close loving relationship without it being gay".
For the record, I do believe that homosexuality can purposely be conveyed through literature through subtext (see Wilde and something like Dorian Gray). I just don't believe that was ever the case for Kirk and Spock, and the creators of Star Trek (if you exclude original paperback writers like Della Van Hise).
I enjoy the K/S ship myself. But I can ship them without believing that it was canon. We'll have to agree to disagree.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
But…I said it's only a valid *interpretation.* Moreover, seeing K/S as canon doesn't mean you see Kirk/McCoy or McCoy Spock or Kirk/Scotty or whatever else as a valid interpretation. And Kirk and McCoy's relationship is definitely close and loving as well I think you'll agree.

I don't think the TV series had PURPOSEFUL homosexuality (although I do have my doubts about Sturgeon given that he did write LGBT science fiction) but I don't think that precludes K/S from being a valid interpretation -- especially because the movies take place over so many years (up into the early 90s) and thus attitudes towards homosexuality were changing.

Note that I don't require it to be canon to ship it, but I don't think that fans who believe that Roddenberry himself eventually came to see the couple as a legitimate possibility are delusional.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 10:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Ok, I do think interpreting Spock and Kirk as romantically involved is valid, as well as any other ship(I ship them all, honestly) but I don't think you could ever say that "Kirk and Spock are an example of a gay couple in popular media because I interpret them that way". (I've always headcannoned Kirk as bisexual/pansexual, but I could never list him as an example of a fictional lgbt character.)

I think the part we disagree on is with Roddenberry seeing Kirk and Spock as a couple. Hrm.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-07 04:57 am (UTC)(link)
Well, they're not canon. They're canon-compliant though, I'd say.

Although I should clarify that I don't think Roddenberry sees them as a couple. Just that he was chill with the fans who did and threw in t'hy'la to note that it was a valid interpretation but one that you didn't necessarily have to buy into.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Which is why I meant it was also likely a wink/shout-out to the K/S shippers. Sure, you can claim that it was Roddenberry giving the fans 'permission' to canonically interpret Kirk and Spock as gay, but I honestly doubt that was the case. Outside of the K/S shipping subculture thinking of Kirk and Spock as gay isn't really that big a thing.
(For the record, I like K/S, but the whole 'they are hints that they were canon!' mentality - bullshit.)

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:36 pm (UTC)(link)
See, while I don't think that Kirk and Spock were ever written in the TOS TV series that way, I do think, with the popularity of their relationship (platonic and not) that they sort of WERE written as soul mates in films.

There are also some episodes of TOS I question -- like Amok Time and Shore Leave. Namely because Theodore Sturgeon (the writer) DID write science fiction concerning LGBT characters. One of them, The World Well Lost, features a pair pretty similar to Kirk and Spock. Then there's Bianca's Hands which, given that it ends with death by erotic asphyxiation on a wedding night (and considering how Amok Time plays out…) I can't help but feel there were intentional hints put in. In some cases at least.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:45 pm (UTC)(link)
They were written as soulmates - but platonic, non-romantic/sexual ones.

I can't help but feel there were intentional hints put in. In some cases at least.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean K/S was some kind of covert canon gay relationship that the creators were secretly trying to convey. I wish it was, but it wasn't.

(Anonymous) 2014-09-06 09:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think there's anything that precludes them from being romantic/sexual soul mates though. And I've always seen the inclusion of "lover" as a recognition of that possibility. I don't think you're forced to accept it. But I don't think it's fair to characterize those who see it this way as delusional (unless they insist that you MUST see K/S as canon).

I agree with you that the creators didn't intend K/S to be a thing. With the fandom becoming as large as it did (and their awareness of the slashers), I don't think they had any issue with it or sought to invalidate it, either though.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only