ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

What is your opinion regarding slash?

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Sep. 13 2009, 11:31 pm

I am not a big Spock/McCoy fan, not canon, in my opinion, however it IS canon that McCoy knows about Kirk/Spock.

As for nuTrek, it's Kirk/McCoy all the way for me. 'Two Men and a Motorbike' and 'Two Men and a Starship' series are both abosolutely brilliant.

Here's a link:

Two Men and a Motorbike

Jamaca

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 518

Report this Sep. 13 2009, 11:43 pm

Quote (Mirrorgirl @ Sep. 13 2009, 11:31 pm)
I am not a big Spock/McCoy fan, not canon, in my opinion, however it IS canon that McCoy knows about Kirk/Spock.

As for nuTrek, it's Kirk/McCoy all the way for me. 'Two Men and a Motorbike' and 'Two Men and a Starship' series are both abosolutely brilliant.

Here's a link:

Two Men and a Motorbike

They look interesting...gonna save that for later!

Jamaca

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 518

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 12:55 am

OK I started reading it anyway....really good, I'm only on part three but its a great story so far- thanks!

lion_tone

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 2:29 am

I don't believe any of the Kirk/Spock gay crap. There were no onscreen moments that ever substantiated any homo-eroticism between them.

MrsStarbuck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4329

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 6:14 am

Quote (Mirrorgirl @ Sep. 13 2009, 3:30 am)
Gene Roddenberry invented a word - T'hy'la - this word was invented to describe the relationship between Kirk and Spock. It means 'friend, brother, lover'

The beauty of the way that Kirk and Spock are written and portrayed is that if one chooses to interpret their relationship as just friends/brothers then that is what one will see, but equally if one wishes to interpret their relationship as being deeper than that, then that is also valid.

There are many, many slash pairings that have NO basis in canon, however Kirk/Spock are not one of those pairings. There are hundreds of moments that are specifically designed by GR, DC and other writers (notably Theodore Sturgeon) that more than suggest that their relationship was more than just 'brothers'.

Gene Roddenberry's vision was a future where old ideas about what is acceptable are no longer current (multi-cultural crews, a black woman and a Russian as part of a command team, aliens and humans working together). Why is it so outside the realms of possibility that he wrote these characters (Kirk and Spock) as not only a metaphor for love between human and alien, but also love between two men...or does acceptance not extend to homosexuality? So it's okay for characters of different species to be in relationship (numerous examples through all of Star Trek) but it is not okay for members of the same sex to be in relationship - is this the last prejudice? Does the concept of Kirk and Spock being homosexual preclude them from being heroes? In my opinion it makes their story even MORE heroic.

As actors Shatner and Nimoy made the choice to play the characters as deeply intimate with each other. The intesity of their numerous contacts with each other is palpable.

I wonder if folks who decry Kirk/Spock fiction as being 'out of character' have read much of it. I have read hundreds if not thousands of K/S stories and far from being 'out of character' the stories are very much in character and merely thake the final step towards writing their relationship as being physical. I have read a number of straight Star Trek novels which to me 'miss' on character completely and as a result end up being boring and superficial, so does that mean that all Star Trek novels are boring and superficial? No, of course not. I challengefolk who know little or nothing of real Kirk/Spock literature to read the works of Killa or Amanda Warrington or any number of other truly great writers in the genre and then make a comment that these are 'out of character'.

I personally do not like stories where characters are just slashed for the sake of it (Harry Potter fanfic leaps to mind). No I demand that my characters are written true to canon and I do and would not approve of 'shipping' for the sake of it. For example Alan Shore and Denny Crane, who have defined the field of 'bromance' They are beautiful together, but I would NEVER slash them because it is explicitly made clear that their realtionship is platonic...in other words it is not 'canon'. I personally do not slash Kirk/Spock in the nuTrek because there is nothing there to suggest that they have that sort of relationship (and of course it is expressly shown that Spock/Uhura are an item. So you see I am perfectly capable of NOT slashing when canon indicates otherwise, conversely I reserve the right to slash when it is obvious from canon that the relationship exists eg Kirk/Spock.

This is my sepcial subject and I could go on the quote many and varied sources to prove my case, however I am completely aware that those who do not like the idea will never accept any evidence to the contrary and so therefore it is wasted effort.

GR did not deny slash and he INVENTED a word that is a key to understanding what he was trying to achieve with these characters, that's good enough for me. And I will continue to read and write K/S because it is canon.

MG sums it up perfectly as always!

I've said this before, but what I love about how the Kirk/Spock relationship is handled in Trek is that it's so subtle and nuanced that if you want to see it and take that message from it then you can, but if you want to ignore it and believe that Kirk is a womaniser or lover of women then you can take that too. You're not hit over the head by the message.

I often think it's a real shame that slash as a genre of fiction is so derided by people, because there are some truly wonderful and incredibly talented writers in this genre, who have created some beautiful works of fiction, that are not taken seriously by many simply because of the kind of stories they wish to write.

MrsStarbuck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4329

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 7:23 am

Quote (MarmaladeSkies @ Sep. 13 2009, 1:03 pm)
Really well-put!

I have this totally cuckoo slash prompt running through my head (MG would not be surprised)...it's something I'd love to tackle myself but it's a long and weird story but I'm not much of a fic writer, sigh.

Thanks MS.

You should give it a go. I didn't think I'd be able to write anything like this, but I just decided to put pen to paper one day, just for my own amusement really, and now I can't stop! ha ha.

TashaYar86

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3588

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 11:37 am

I have read two K/S stories, so Im not offensive, but not my cup of tea, either.

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 12:00 pm

There is nothing to fear. One's own sexuality is not brought into question if someone else is gay...just saying.

Would the adventures of Kirk and Spock be any LESS if they are gay lovers? If one believes that they would be somehow less then the obvious implication is that the person themselves is suffering from a form of fear and/or bigotry, both of which are very much outside the realm of what GR was trying to teach through the medium of Star Trek.

And, yes the vast majority of slash is written by woman (although there are some men writing in the genre) but to suggest that it is BECAUSE they are women that they somehow lack the ability to see that men can have platonic relationships is completely erroneous. Conversely, one could say that it is BECAUSE they are women that they do not have the fearful filters that STOP men from seeing K/S.

As I have stated before, I do not see slash everywhere I look, however I do see it where it is obvious. Homo-erotism is obivous to women because we are not afraid of it.

Men are not only happy to see women being sexually attracted to each other, they positively rejoice in it. And K/Sers rejoice in the obvious sexual attraction between Kirk and Spock. :logical:

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 12:14 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Sep. 15 2009, 1:49 am)
Quote (Mirrorgirl @ Sep. 13 2009, 9:30 pm)
Gene Roddenberry invented a word - T'hy'la - this word was invented to describe the relationship between Kirk and Spock. It means 'friend, brother, lover'

The beauty of the way that Kirk and Spock are written and portrayed is that if one chooses to interpret their relationship as just friends/brothers then that is what one will see, but equally if one wishes to interpret their relationship as being deeper than that, then that is also valid.

There are many, many slash pairings that have NO basis in canon, however Kirk/Spock are not one of those pairings. There are hundreds of moments that are specifically designed by GR, DC and other writers (notably Theodore Sturgeon) that more than suggest that their relationship was more than just 'brothers'.

Gene Roddenberry's vision was a future where old ideas about what is acceptable are no longer current (multi-cultural crews, a black woman and a Russian as part of a command team, aliens and humans working together). Why is it so outside the realms of possibility that he wrote these characters (Kirk and Spock) as not only a metaphor for love between human and alien, but also love between two men...or does acceptance not extend to homosexuality? So it's okay for characters of different species to be in relationship (numerous examples through all of Star Trek) but it is not okay for members of the same sex to be in relationship - is this the last prejudice? Does the concept of Kirk and Spock being homosexual preclude them from being heroes? In my opinion it makes their story even MORE heroic.

As actors Shatner and Nimoy made the choice to play the characters as deeply intimate with each other. The intesity of their numerous contacts with each other is palpable.

I wonder if folks who decry Kirk/Spock fiction as being 'out of character' have read much of it. I have read hundreds if not thousands of K/S stories and far from being 'out of character' the stories are very much in character and merely thake the final step towards writing their relationship as being physical. I have read a number of straight Star Trek novels which to me 'miss' on character completely and as a result end up being boring and superficial, so does that mean that all Star Trek novels are boring and superficial? No, of course not. I challengefolk who know little or nothing of real Kirk/Spock literature to read the works of Killa or Amanda Warrington or any number of other truly great writers in the genre and then make a comment that these are 'out of character'.

I personally do not like stories where characters are just slashed for the sake of it (Harry Potter fanfic leaps to mind). No I demand that my characters are written true to canon and I do and would not approve of 'shipping' for the sake of it. For example Alan Shore and Denny Crane, who have defined the field of 'bromance' They are beautiful together, but I would NEVER slash them because it is explicitly made clear that their realtionship is platonic...in other words it is not 'canon'. I personally do not slash Kirk/Spock in the nuTrek because there is nothing there to suggest that they have that sort of relationship (and of course it is expressly shown that Spock/Uhura are an item. So you see I am perfectly capable of NOT slashing when canon indicates otherwise, conversely I reserve the right to slash when it is obvious from canon that the relationship exists eg Kirk/Spock.

This is my sepcial subject and I could go on the quote many and varied sources to prove my case, however I am completely aware that those who do not like the idea will never accept any evidence to the contrary and so therefore it is wasted effort.

GR did not deny slash and he INVENTED a word that is a key to understanding what he was trying to achieve with these characters, that's good enough for me. And I will continue to read and write K/S because it is canon.

Sorry, MG, K/S stories are not canon.

And K/S was born years before the novelization of ST:TMP came along when Roddenberry coined the term t'hy'la.

Two men can be close as they can be in a friendship/brotherly sense without there being romantic/sexual aspects.

:logical:

Then Starbase, why did GR include the connotation of 'lover' as also relevant to the word th'y'la? This was in fact Roddenberry acknowledging and en-inforcing slash, which was indeed developed BEFORE the novelization of TMP.

If Roddenberry had wanted to completely deny slash and put the stories to rest, he could have done so very easily...the truth of the matter was that not only did ne not disapprove of slash, he positively encouraged it by the invention of the word th'y'la.

Roddenberry commented on love between Kirk and Spock that:

¿ Yes, there's certainly some of that -- certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal-- we never suggested in the series-- physical love between the two. But it's the-- we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century."[6] ¿

From: Shatner, William, et al. Where No Man... The Authorized Biography of William Shatner (ISBN 0-441-88975-1), Ace Books, 1979, pp. 147-8)

Again Roddenberry had the chance to totally deny slash and put the argument to rest, but he chose to say the above, which like all other slash can be interpreted both ways. You see Roddenberry feared that the men in his audience would be alienated if he told the complete truth, so he couched things in terms that could be accceptable to both sides of the argument...he was a very astute man, who know the power of words....he even invented one!  ;)  - th'y'la - if he had wanted to deny slash and put the argument to rest he would NEVER have included the word 'lover' as part of the definition for this word.  :logical:  :logical:  :logical:

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 12:56 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Sep. 15 2009, 2:37 am)
Quote (Mirrorgirl @ Sep. 14 2009, 12:14 pm)
Quote (starbase63 @ Sep. 15 2009, 1:49 am)
Quote (Mirrorgirl @ Sep. 13 2009, 9:30 pm)
Gene Roddenberry invented a word - T'hy'la - this word was invented to describe the relationship between Kirk and Spock. It means 'friend, brother, lover'

The beauty of the way that Kirk and Spock are written and portrayed is that if one chooses to interpret their relationship as just friends/brothers then that is what one will see, but equally if one wishes to interpret their relationship as being deeper than that, then that is also valid.

There are many, many slash pairings that have NO basis in canon, however Kirk/Spock are not one of those pairings. There are hundreds of moments that are specifically designed by GR, DC and other writers (notably Theodore Sturgeon) that more than suggest that their relationship was more than just 'brothers'.

Gene Roddenberry's vision was a future where old ideas about what is acceptable are no longer current (multi-cultural crews, a black woman and a Russian as part of a command team, aliens and humans working together). Why is it so outside the realms of possibility that he wrote these characters (Kirk and Spock) as not only a metaphor for love between human and alien, but also love between two men...or does acceptance not extend to homosexuality? So it's okay for characters of different species to be in relationship (numerous examples through all of Star Trek) but it is not okay for members of the same sex to be in relationship - is this the last prejudice? Does the concept of Kirk and Spock being homosexual preclude them from being heroes? In my opinion it makes their story even MORE heroic.

As actors Shatner and Nimoy made the choice to play the characters as deeply intimate with each other. The intesity of their numerous contacts with each other is palpable.

I wonder if folks who decry Kirk/Spock fiction as being 'out of character' have read much of it. I have read hundreds if not thousands of K/S stories and far from being 'out of character' the stories are very much in character and merely thake the final step towards writing their relationship as being physical. I have read a number of straight Star Trek novels which to me 'miss' on character completely and as a result end up being boring and superficial, so does that mean that all Star Trek novels are boring and superficial? No, of course not. I challengefolk who know little or nothing of real Kirk/Spock literature to read the works of Killa or Amanda Warrington or any number of other truly great writers in the genre and then make a comment that these are 'out of character'.

I personally do not like stories where characters are just slashed for the sake of it (Harry Potter fanfic leaps to mind). No I demand that my characters are written true to canon and I do and would not approve of 'shipping' for the sake of it. For example Alan Shore and Denny Crane, who have defined the field of 'bromance' They are beautiful together, but I would NEVER slash them because it is explicitly made clear that their realtionship is platonic...in other words it is not 'canon'. I personally do not slash Kirk/Spock in the nuTrek because there is nothing there to suggest that they have that sort of relationship (and of course it is expressly shown that Spock/Uhura are an item. So you see I am perfectly capable of NOT slashing when canon indicates otherwise, conversely I reserve the right to slash when it is obvious from canon that the relationship exists eg Kirk/Spock.

This is my sepcial subject and I could go on the quote many and varied sources to prove my case, however I am completely aware that those who do not like the idea will never accept any evidence to the contrary and so therefore it is wasted effort.

GR did not deny slash and he INVENTED a word that is a key to understanding what he was trying to achieve with these characters, that's good enough for me. And I will continue to read and write K/S because it is canon.

Sorry, MG, K/S stories are not canon.

And K/S was born years before the novelization of ST:TMP came along when Roddenberry coined the term t'hy'la.

Two men can be close as they can be in a friendship/brotherly sense without there being romantic/sexual aspects.

:logical:

Then Starbase, why did GR include the connotation of 'lover' as also relevant to the word th'y'la? This was in fact Roddenberry acknowledging and en-inforcing slash, which was indeed developed BEFORE the novelization of TMP.

If Roddenberry had wanted to completely deny slash and put the stories to rest, he could have done so very easily...the truth of the matter was that not only did ne not disapprove of slash, he positively encouraged it by the invention of the word th'y'la.

Roddenberry commented on love between Kirk and Spock that:

? Yes, there's certainly some of that -- certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal-- we never suggested in the series-- physical love between the two. But it's the-- we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century."[6] ?

From: Shatner, William, et al. Where No Man... The Authorized Biography of William Shatner (ISBN 0-441-88975-1), Ace Books, 1979, pp. 147-8)

Again Roddenberry had the chance to totally deny slash and put the argument to rest, but he chose to say the above, which like all other slash can be interpreted both ways. You see Roddenberry feared that the men in his audience would be alienated if he told the complete truth, so he couched things in terms that could be accceptable to both sides of the argument...he was a very astute man, who know the power of words....he even invented one! ?;) ?- th'y'la - if he had wanted to deny slash and put the argument to rest he would NEVER have included the word 'lover' as part of the definition for this word. ?:logical:

But where in the definition of t'hy'la does it say the term denotes single sex pairings? Could the absence of the term "sister" in the definition have just been an oversight by the male writer?

The word was not created just to apply to Kirk and Spock. It is described as a Vulcan term which would imply general usage.

You are also implying without actual proof that Roddenberry created the term to refer to possible homosexual implications behind Kirk and Spock's friendship.

My best friend in high school and I were exceptionally close...we were a day apart in age, like Kirk and Spock in our personalities...almost telepathic in our communication with each other. T'hy'la may well have described us...but for the fact we were both quite hetero..."lover" is part of the definition, not a requirement of it.

Roddenberry probably didn't deny slash because he probably didn't care about it. Even more so, if he did care, it was proably that the sale of K/S fan stories weren't putting money in his pocket.

:logical:

I understand that 'lover' is PART of the the definition and NOT a requirement (I am NOT an idiot Starbase)...that does not change the fact that Roddenberry used the term 'lover' as part of the definition, he could have avoided the entire thing by NOT using the word lover - th'y'la could have ment JUST friend who is like a brother, but that is NOT what it means. The Vulcan language has a perfectly apt word for both 'friend' and 'brother' either of which Roddenberry (through the medium of Spock's thoughts) could have used...so again I say he invented a word for a very specific purpose, to relate the fact that Kirk and Spock's relationship went beyond the normal 'friend' or 'brother' definitions.

He (GR) also used the word specifically in terms of Kirk and Spock...Spock uses the word to describe Jim Kirk in his own mind.

Just because your close relationships with other men have not included a physical aspect does not automatically mean that ALL close male/male relationships are platonic...it is you who has the limited view, not the women who write slash.

Do you fear that if you admit that Kirk and Spock were lovers that that in some way suggests that YOUR close male friends and you are gay?

love_those_spacemen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9453

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 3:29 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Sep. 14 2009, 9:37 am)
Roddenberry probably didn't deny slash because he probably didn't care about it. Even more so, if he did care, it was proably that the sale of K/S fan stories weren't putting money in his pocket.

:logical:

I think K/S did help the franchise make money, and it's because Roddenberry was an intelligent marketeer. When you're a star (rock, film, etc), it's best to let your audience believe what they will. That they can fantasize about having you as a friend or lover is a large part of the star's archetypal dynamic.

Belief in a physical expression of love and respect between Kirk and Spock doesn't come out of left field, as there's plenty of fodder to cite. To eliminate a certain group of fans by denying the possibility that their interpretation is valid would be a stupid business decision. Also unnecessarily cruel.

Personally, I don't believe there was any intended sexuality, but I can very easily see that interpretation. :D

love_those_spacemen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9453

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 3:31 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Sep. 14 2009, 10:19 am)
I think it may imply that the women who write such stories may not actually understand the dynamic of male friendships.

How so? (Other than the 16 year old who couldn't write with vast experience about any kind of relationships?)

ZarabethS179

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 401

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 3:38 pm

I find the Theordore Sturgeon reference interesting, MG. Particularly when one considers "The World Well Lost." There have been arguments that he intentionally created a scene that could be interpreted as sexual between Kirk and Spock.

I can certainly see both sides of the argument.

While I'm not a big slasher, I'd pay BIG money for Grup #3, simply because I have a thing for collecting "firsts" (first editions, first character dedications, original prints, etc).

love_those_spacemen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9453

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 4:10 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Sep. 14 2009, 12:48 pm)
Quote (love_those_spacemen @ Sep. 14 2009, 3:29 pm)
Quote (starbase63 @ Sep. 14 2009, 9:37 am)
Roddenberry probably didn't deny slash because he probably didn't care about it. Even more so, if he did care, it was proably that the sale of K/S fan stories weren't putting money in his pocket.

:logical:

I think K/S did help the franchise make money, and it's because Roddenberry was an intelligent marketeer. When you're a star (rock, film, etc), it's best to let your audience believe what they will. That they can fantasize about having you as a friend or lover is a large part of the star's archetypal dynamic.

Belief in a physical expression of love and respect between Kirk and Spock doesn't come out of left field, as there's plenty of fodder to cite. To eliminate a certain group of fans by denying the possibility that their interpretation is valid would be a stupid business decision. Also unnecessarily cruel.

Personally, I don't believe there was any intended sexuality, but I can very easily see that interpretation.

Maybe you can and MG can...but not everyone does. I have never seen Kirk and Spock in that way, only as the absolute best of friends.

Like I said in other threads about this subject, it just seems an inability on some people's part (and not necessarily referring to company here at st.com) to recognize that there can ge a close relationship without it necessarily being sexual.

I mean come on, James Kirk was the archetypical 60's tv leading man...strong, solid, a hit with the ladies, fiercely heterosexual...is someone going to try to tell me Kirk was in denial or overcompensating?

What logic would Spock find in such a relationship?

:logical:

No, I never said that everyone does. It's likely a very small percentage of fans.

I don't think it has anything to do with some kind of inability to discern between a friendship and something more. Women are very sensitive and observant, and that's why I believe we're able to pick up these subtleties more readily. If a creator or a set of characters doesn't specify that an interpretation is invalid, then logically it can be valid... even if you don't see it that way. One interpretation doesn't mean that they aren't able to conceive of any other.

Like I said, I don't see it that way, but it's easy for me to understand those who do, and why. It's obviously not possible for you.

Re Kirk: Many machismo men are bisexual.

Re Spock: I dunno... ask a Spock fan! :p

:D

ZarabethS179

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 401

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 4:10 pm

starbase, I can understand your argument, and I don't think it's limited only to brotherly relationships. I have a VERY close relationship with two other women. It is merely an accident of birth that we are not sisters. We often hold hands, hug, and (platonically) kiss. People find it so hard to believe that we are not sexually involved with each other. They cannot fathom being spiritually, emotionally, and mentally attracted to someone without necessarily being sexually attracted to them as well.

For the record, all three of us are 100% hetero.  

However, I can also see why someone may wish to interpret a sexual relationship between Kirk, Spock, and even McCoy. It opens up some interesting story possibilities between characters we know very well. TOS didn't offer us many female characters to get close to. Of the females they did have (Uhura, Chapel, and Rand) they didn't seem to get us as close to them as they did with the men. Some of the best stories I've read were slash--not because they were slash, but because they were simply good stories. This might be because these stories explore a sexual relationship between characters that we knew and loved so well, as opposed to characters we only got to know moderately well (the women).

Here's an interesting question: would slash be nearly as prevalent if they had given us more character development of the female characters?

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum