#trek feels

[mild-lunacy]

The Man Behind the Curtain

I can only assume I used to be a lot more laid-back, less analytical than I am now. Plenty of total nerds love Star Trek, though, and even write books like 'The Physics of Star Trek'. To be clear, I admire that sort of analysis; analysis should be fun. Unfortunately, though, TNG came on cable recently and all I could think was that it really pained me that in a roomful of aliens, everyone was human. Human, human, human. Ugh.

This is another nerd thing, I realize that. This is the flavor of tilting-at-windmills some teenage fanboys in particular seem to like, right up there with whining about why certain writers can't be faster and how sci-fi didn't use to include so many people of color. Or perhaps that's not fair, and it's more the people who went on and on about how Luke Skywalker Was Wronged. But no. Isn't this arguing about certain foundational things that no one does or should care about? After all, everyone accepts that budgets are what they are, and humans don't care about aliens anyway. It's just... the latter really frustrates me, when you're talking about aliens, you know? It seems childish, or patronizing the childish audience, perhaps.

The fact is, I'd group 'human aliens' with a bunch of things we just accept in genre fiction, or the price of admission. So it's actually more like complaining about 'fated mates' in sci-fi romance or how everyone is inevitably made hot in Hollywood adaptations. To be honest, those things do irritate me too. You could-- or possibly should-- add that it depends on how it's done. That's the reasonable way to go. But the way I feel that it needs to be done is for some lip-service to exist, some justification either for the 'human alien' or the 'fated mate' scenario in question. Star Trek TNG often doesn't bother having the aliens even be a different color. Often they're just white people with different ears or noses. Possibly you could do horns.

Sadly, I very much relate to the whiny nerds, for I am one of them, even though this is the sort of thing I handwaved away with BBC Sherlock. Plenty of analytical people in fandom complained about how the cases (or their resolution) didn't make sense for one reason or another. This was particularly true in Series 4, though there were always those grumbles. I myself never cared, because I was there for characterization and style. Still, when the 'heightened reality' genre is badly done, or you're not distracted by the characterization, it grates. Sort of like going to an amateur theater hour where everyone's wearing third-rate paper costumes.

I complain, even if inconsistently, of course, while I realize that certain silly tropes allow the very concept of 'genre'. A trailblazing work like LoTR crosses every t and dots every i; JRR Tolkien even created a language and a fictional history book to suit. He went back to the original legends and their languages and made something of them. The people writing in the epic fantasy *genre* can-- and often do-- just wave in the direction of what elves are and what they're doing, then throwing in an evil master and a few other magical races. Many writers focus on the character relationships and take the plot elements a bit for granted. Or more than a bit. After all, genre fans have been there, done that. We can connect the dots, right? And a source such as Conan Doyle might be more rigorous than its adaptations in BBC Sherlock in some ways, but plenty of people famously laugh about the timeline errors. So not every writer's idea of 'serious work' is the same, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that Conan Doyle was never truly serious about Sherlock Holmes regardless. From what I can tell, Moffat and Gatiss *were* serious, but had different priorities and interests.

One thing I've noticed is that different writers as well as audiences have different attitudes and approaches to the idea of logical consistency in fiction, or 'common sense'. Like, certainly, it's common sense that actual aliens would have to be alien (and very not-human), communication across species would be very difficult, and love takes time. That said, it's certainly inconvenient. Just like certain plot points would not be easily overlooked (unless they're handwaved away), such as Sherlock's fake suicide and subsequent torture in Eastern Europe. That too is inconvenient. How important is it that things stand up to logical analysis depends on the individual, though. If I had to guess, I'd say most people care more about how a story makes them *feel*. Even writers.

I get it. In the end, I just find it annoying when I can't buy in anyway, 'cause I hate noticing the man behind the curtain. When the aliens in a sci-fi story are pretty much human, I feel like the 'sci-fi' element itself doesn't matter, so I always see the artificiality of the world. Same with romance and too blatant a usage of 'fated mates'. The thing I *want* to see (outside of a comedy) is a writer who takes the elements of genre seriously. At least *some* chosen elements besides characterization, as was the case for Moffat and Gatiss. I want a writer to appear to think at least somewhat about the unlikely things they've created, wanting them to make some sense, even if their actual story focus is on characterization. It's a lot to ask, I know, especially from a story I otherwise enjoy. That's the buy-in I need from an author to provide my own buy-in, basically.

[mild-lunacy]

What is Canon? (and other existential questions)

graceebooks replied to your photo: ravenamore: unpretty: unpretty: unpretty: ...

you seem to have a very simple assumed definition of what “canon” even means in the first place… but is it really that easy?

Well, this definitely made me think about what my definition is, at least for the purposes of 'slashy' or homoerotic vs 'canon romance'. I'm not absolutist, in the sense that I need explicit proof and cannot take any implied romantic involvement as canon. Like, I've heard about people who refuse to accept when it's a queer romance even when the intent is clearly there but there's no announcement, or the kiss wasn't public, or there was no kiss and only hand-holding, etc. That's pretty clearly homophobic on some level. Still, part of it seems to be about a sort of split in fandom as far as 'slash goggles' are concerned, where people either see 'canon' or nothing at all. Homoeroticism isn't enough (ie, it isn't queer representation), and so it seems like we've created a bigger umbrella for things that are 'queer'.

I hope it's obvious that I have no intrinsic issue with a queer reading-- and I'm a big fan, specifically of seeing Kirk/Spock in TOS and the Reboot-- but I think I just find it useful to differentiate a queer reading from 'canon', which I feel is on the level of something that's inarguably the text rather than subtext. I do think subtext is also a part of the text-- that is, we're not just making it up, or it's not simply a misreading-- but neither is it factual. It's a grey area. And because I think literary analysis has so *much* in the way of grey areas, I find it important to be specific (and perhaps pedantic) about what I consider the text's core elements. As in, this is what I would teach and expect to see as part of an analysis in a lit class exam, and if you don't see it, you're not reading closely enough or have a bias.

Sometimes what you have is a muddle, because while you can be reasonably sure the intent went one way (either towards or away from the queer interpretation), the actual text doesn't bear up. For example, we know that Billy Wilder meant TPLoSH to have a gay Sherlock, but in my opinion, the actual film doesn't really support this except very indirectly. In that case, it's not that I propose ignoring the queer elements, which are quite real, and I would hope any serious analysis would take them into account. At the same time, there is no queer romance in canon, and to me that is simply a fact. I feel similarly about Star Trek TOS. We know Gene Roddenberry was open to the queer potential between Kirk and Spock, and you can certainly talk about the queer or homoerotic elements in the show, of which there are many. You can do a very easy-- and consistent!-- queer reading. But this reading would be... a reading. And any reading, no matter how good, no matter how fitting or logical and natural, is not the same thing as *canon*.

So what *is* canon?

It's not just the *purely* factual. That's definitely an oversimplification, and I'm not one of the people who thinks like that. But at the same time, calling every aspect of subtext 'canon' can *also* be oversimplification. Naturally, I think the characters' feelings, whether spoken or unspoken (but shown) are definitely part of the canon. At the same time, if the feelings are unspoken and implicit, you have to have some sort of contextual action-- or reaction by other characters-- that makes the relationship canonically romantic. Part of this has to do with talking about the larger focus and/or 'bent' of the narrative, which often coincides with Authorial Intent (given it's a competent writer and censorship can be ruled out; what is 'canon' in censored or altered texts is a whole different kettle of rather confusing fish).

Context is a difficult thing to pin down, and sometimes it's only obvious in retrospect, after a story is done. Nevertheless, it's often necessary to understand some subtler aspects of a given text's character relationships. Where was this relationship going? How long has it been indirectly or directly shown to going there? What are the textual pay-offs for whatever symbolic or subtextual queer/romantic elements that may be seen earlier in the text? It's those explicit emotional pay-offs that I need to consider a relationship 'canon'. Obviously, even an implicit relationship may be more or less subtle, and it may or may not involve any physical expression, but it's got to be shown or experienced romantically in a fairly straightforward way. This is my standard for any emotional development, romantic or not: it has to be connected and integrated into the greater reality of the story. It has to have both roots and consequences which are explicitly shown, even if never verbally confirmed.

For another example, and to prove I'm actually relatively open-ended in terms of what constitutes a 'shown' romantic relationship, I've long said I can see canon Johnlock at the end of TLD. I guess I'd say it walks right up to the edge of canon, but stops short of it. I can see TFP as constituting the 'emotional consequences' for the characters I spoke of, because it can be used to demonstrate the right kind of progression in John and Sherlock's relationship (even though everyone but Ivyblossom seems to disagree on this reading of TFP). My point is really that it *is* a reading, not an inarguable fact of TFP (ask anyone, really, even most people who see canon Johnlock elsewhere). I can squint and see it, but ultimately squinting is not enough. Something like Ronan/Adam in The Raven Cycle is certainly incidental, in that their romantic involvement is not the point of the story or even their overall relationship, and no explicit labels or declarations are present, but it's inarguably canon because it has both roots and consequences. I'd also say it was canon in retrospect even before their becoming boyfriends, because Ronan's attraction and Ronan's (and later Adam's) awareness of it constitutes a romantic interest (just an unrequited one). So 'canon' doesn't actually require requitedness, by any means. But either the character or the narrator must be shown to be aware, on some level.

I'm not necessarily denying that I may be pedantic about this, though. But I suppose I think I'd rather err on the side of caution and hold queer narratives to a higher standard. 'Slash' or homoerotic subtext is also an interesting and valuable thing to study or think about in its own right, even if you may argue the time for it has passed. Still, it's historically more accurate to leave that subtext in the realm of subtext, that which is subjectively present but objectively absent. That was its role and intended nature, and a lot of older texts don't really make sense to me otherwise, at least taken in their own context. And well, I'm enough of a lit nerd to always prefer to take stories in their own context, as far as analysis goes.

[mild-lunacy]

The Mathematically Ideal Pairing

I have two main types of OTP: impossible and inevitable. My favorite is when it somehow feels like both on some level, of course, because they're both expressions of the same ideal. I think I always loved the 'obvious' ones, the inevitable ones, which is often the same as the canon pairing, but only the good canon texts. While homophobia ran rampant, obviously any queer ship was never inevitable (even in 'Brokeback Mountain', which is rather recent, you have the tragic gays' tragedy being what's inevitable). But anyway, Kirk/Spock, Sherlock/John-- it's not like there's an alternative.

It's funny to me that some people don't get this. I mean, that's inevitable, but I just think, wow. I can't help being amazed and bemused, no matter how well I understand it intellectually. I mean, in *theory*, I get that people just get very different things from fiction, full stop. But in actuality, let's be real, some things are really obvious. And I'm talking about what happens when you control for heteronormativity; plenty of slash-friendly people (some friends of mine, haha) ship Kirk/McCoy. Shipping is all about personal preference, right? Well, I always thought, yeah, but. OK, except not entirely, because some things are built into the story at a really deep level. Like how Achilles felt about Patroclus. How are you going to tell the story of Achilles and Troy and pretend Patroclus is not, in fact, Achilles's driving motivation? How would his motivation even make sense without that absolute importance, the hold Patroclus's death had on Achilles? Everything turns on that bond, the same way the whole thing starts with jealousy, and Paris choosing Helen over a goddess. You could start the story of the fall of Troy in many places, but you can only talk about Achilles if you also talk about Patroclus. That's how it is with Kirk and Spock, Sherlock and John. That's what inevitability is. Stories-- real stories, at their heart-- seem endless and infinite, as infinite as the heart of each listener, but in fact stories too have a singular heart. A thing that makes them turn. Stories about great friendships are just like stories about great love, because in terms of motivation and the driving force of the narrative, they are the same.

I don't think most people would like many of the most popular, famous and legendary stories if they really understood them, especially if they understood this unyielding part of them at heart. The legends always have this sort of iron core; that's why and how they become true legends. Usually you know it's true 'cause you can change anything in retelling *except* the core (like, King Arthur needs Merlin and Guinevere to fulfill their roles, for example, and Achilles needs Patroclus and Hector). People are drawn to stories 'cause they reflect their own hearts, their own experiences, in telling and retelling. I understand that. I'm just saying-- that may be so, but the fact is, the truth is the truth and you can't escape its inevitable bend. A good story certainly pleases the audience, but a great story turns upon this inevitable iron axis of the characters' clashing and/or coalescing drives.

So what do I mean by 'impossible', then, and why do I like it if I'm so obsessed with the One True Reading in all things?

Well, I feel like when you take a certain kind of non-canon pairing, like Heero/Duo or Harry/Draco (or even Thor/Loki), what you have is a unique, poignant feeling of an unfulfilled destiny. A story untold, a story that *wants* to be told, to be given the chance to be itself, to *live*. There's usually some serious obstacle in the canon-- I'm not referring to pairings where the canon went three quarters of the way and then stopped at 'just friends'. That may suck for the shippers and for that story, but it's not what really feels powerful to me. What's really powerful is the feeling of thwarted inevitability never even tapped. Always tantalizingly out of reach, but potentially absolutely transformative. I get the feeling like there's some perfect universe, some perfect fic, where the True Story is finally told, and I can rest. I can be at peace, because the canon would be finally overwritten in a satisfactory manner. Of course... that's never happened. I've never read anything even close to said 'perfect fic' that can really replace or even just supplement a flawed canon, in any fandom, and I've read a *lot* of fanfiction. Most fics don't dream so big; fanfic is almost always too different from the canon style and genre to really compete while *also* being transformative, and that's on purpose. But the dream is there, for me, and it's what ultimately drives me to read and/or write fic for those pairings.

Anyway, so really I always see my OTPs as inevitable, even if they're impossible. In the 'One True Story', the story with the ideal shape and meaning, the One True Pairing is at the inevitable heart of the narrative, just like Patroclus is at the heart of Achilles's story. Consequently, this doesn't mean happily ever after, by any means. It just means that I think every story *can* certainly mean endless things, potentially, like how you can write endless plots in fics for your favorite OTP and they'll coexist and even feel true if they're in-character, right? At the same time, I can't help feeling like there's some deeper, underlying *intended* meaning that fits the starting points of characterization and motivation and the historical context best. Like you put all these factors together, like constructing a mathematical theorem from a bunch of given values and axioms, and you're left with the most elegant, neatest solution. The Perfect Solution, the simplest and most complete expression of all the emotional and social factors you started with at the beginning of the story. And sometimes-- maybe even often-- that story is never told, and never understood even by the original author, let alone fanfic writers. But that potential fulfilled is how you create a masterpiece.

In retrospect, it's no wonder I never wrote that sort of fanfic myself, given that true masterpieces are a bit difficult to come by, let alone produce on command by an inexperienced writer. And it's also why I'm so protective of the stories where the canon works just how it's supposed to, following a perfect narrative logic with mathematical precision. It's not that this always necessarily makes for consistently happy stories, as BBC Sherlock has always shown, but it is the only kind of narrative worthy of legends.

[quietoceanlove]

That feeling you get when you haven’t seen TOS in months, and then you finally sit down and watch an episode:

and you’re so inspired that you sit down and write a whole outline for a Spirk fic:

and then you realize you’re actually going to have to write the thing:

[mild-lunacy]

that same old story

I know this is a sort of Sisyphean task, but I can’t help but say, regardless of canon Johnlock, both ACD’s Sherlock Holmes and BBC Sherlock exist in the major Western literary tradition of ostensibly masculinist, ‘heteronormative’ adventure stories with homosocial relationship(s) at the center, which are really absolutely about that bond more than anything else. For examples, see: The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Three Musketeers, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, all the way to Star Trek: TOS, Lord of the Rings, Starsky and Hutch, or even The Avengers. All these stories are absolutely about the homosocial bonds of the main characters first and foremost, as their raison d'être, and the adventure plots or individual character arcs are vehicles to develop these relationships, more or less directly. This is what most people care about and respond to, whether or not they realize that. Every time. 

These men with their Work, their calling, their existential struggles and heroic character development arcs-- essentially, most narratives based on the Hero’s Journey-- almost invariably, their major emotional bonds are with other men (or boys). This is a foundational truth about boy’s adventure stories that I’m referring to, not a specific claim about Sherlock. However, it directly ties into Sherlock, in that canon Johnlock is not a claim that the whole show is about John and Sherlock’s relationship. That’s actually true regardless of the romantic aspect, due to the format of the story itself, due to the source material and the broader cultural framework it rests within. These heroic characters generally have no other deep emotional bonds besides each other, and the commentary within the story can go two ways: a) compartmentalization; b) transformation into romance. Overwhelmingly, with a few exceptions, we have the former being used.

There’s actually one other story, one other narrative outside of BBC Sherlock which has not chosen compartmentalization, where the characters separate their need to settle down and/or get sex from their major emotional bond in life, the one they depend on for intimacy, emotional sustenance and growth. Not surprisingly, I’m talking about Kirk and Spock in Star Trek: the relationship that single-handedly started slash.

Star Trek had no compartmentalization: Jim repeatedly chose Spock (and vice versa) with no caveat, with no attempt at dissembling, with no fallback. It is overwhelmingly the case that the stories (especially the movies) are about that relationship at the center, with McCoy as the balance and satellite. Just like with BBC Sherlock, the creator(s) admitted this directly, that the whole show was basically heavy on metaphor and was about the relationship at its center. Similarly, Moffat has also always openly admitted the centrality of John and Sherlock’s relationship to the nature of the story being told. Love is how the show has already defined that bond, in BBC Sherlock as in Star Trek, and in both cases it’s an over-the-top, idealized ‘Gilgamesh-style soulmate’ type bond where each would come back to life for the other.  This is text, not subtext.

The only difference with BBC Sherlock is the thing Gene Roddenberry once said would work easily with Jim and Spock, if that was the ‘style’ of the 23rd century: making it an explicitly sexual love. In other words, a move towards narrative and thematic unity rather than another pointless attempt at compartmentalization. That is absolutely the only difference. However, no matter what happens, it’s already a love story at its heart-- not only that, so are all those other stories I listed. 

[weirdtrek]

"I don't think he would have told you himself but I think you should know now. It's xenopolycythemia." "Yes. I know of it, captain." "Then you know that nothing can be done."

[captainpikeachu]

I think if I hear another omg Kirk is totally peeking at Carol in underwear omg so sexist, I will hit people... >.>

just because JJ Abrams wanted the scene in there to attract a male audience doesn't mean Kirk is being sexist to Carol...

first of all, Kirk and Carol were talking about the torpedo, their whole entire talk was about how to disarm the torpedo - then Carol asks about the shuttle being prepped to fly or not and Kirk said yes, that was when Carol asks him to just turn around - she did not say she was changing, the question isn't even on track with the rest of their conversation about what to do with the torpedo - Kirk didn't argue, he turned around and went on to continue talking about the torpedo issue because that's clearly the issue at hand that is actually on his mind, NOT Carol's underwear - he was still in the middle of talking and just running ideas back and forth with her when in the moment he turned around and saw her and was surprised/stunned as he wasn't expecting it - do you never have moments where you and someone else is talking and you're clearly so absorbed in a certain issue that you turn or walk in on them by accident and completely unintentional - that was Kirk

he didn't turn around so he could gawk at her - he was absorbed in the middle of trying to figure out a plan for this torpedo and Khan issue that in the heat of the moment, he just turned around to speak to her and froze at seeing her

i'm sorry but I've done that quite a few times myself, you freeze because you weren't expecting it - Kirk didn't expect it and he turned back immediately when Carol told him to.

was the scene unnecessary and sexist? yes. but Kirk was not being lewd or sexist

[sage-turtle]

So I just saw the new Star Trek movie and oh my fuck. 

Let me just break it down. 

1. Bat'leths

2. MOTHER FUCKING TRIBBLES

3. Damnit man I'm a doctor not a ___________ happened at least once

4. SCOTTY! 

5. LEONARD NEMOY

AND ULTIMATE SPOILER 

6. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!