Saturday, October 1, 2011

Spock

            Good Evening, Folks. This is rather a special post. Actually, it’s a reissue of a post that appears in my other blog. I originally wrote the text that follows as a tribute to Leonard Nimoy, and to Spock, on the occasion of Nimoy’s eightieth birthday in March of this year. I choose to reissue the post here today for two reasons. First, I didn’t have a blog devoted solely to star trek at the time I wrote what you’re about to read. I wasn’t sure if blogging itself was something I’d be continuing to do, let alone did I think I’d want to have a second and more specialized blog. Well now I do.
            My second reason for posting this is much more important. I could not attend the 45th-anniversary star trek convention in Chicago, just two hours up the road from me here in Champaign. My finances simply didn’t allow me to go to two cons in one year. In point of fact, I didn’t know about the Chicago con when I booked tickets for the Nashville con. Had I known, I very well might not have gone to the convention in Nashville. Then, of course, I wouldn’t have met all the great people I did there, both actors and convention-goers alike. So, it all worked out. Still, I regret not being in Chicago tonight. Right now, even as I write these comments, Leonard Nimoy is on stage at the Westin O’Hare Hotel in the suburbs giving a special seminar on his photography, which has been both very extensive and very well-received. And so, my tribute will be to repost this blog entry here, where it’ll be read. And I will do so even as his presentation continues. Finally, I’ve left the blog text below largely unaltered. I don’t think I could improve it one bit. So, here is this year’s second tribute to my all-time favorite character. And no, no matter what Zackary Quinto does, he can never truly be Spock, because he’s not Leonard Nimoy, sorry

“A Tribute to Spock”

Preamble

Today, I am twenty-eight years old. Were I to travel backwards in time and tell myself that Spock would continue to be as influential a role model in the future as he was at age 12, my younger self would, rather than being surprised, have found such a statement … eminently logical. There are probably a lot of blogs, tweets and Facebook posts commemorating Leonard Nimoy's eightieth birthday today, and in so far as this one also serves that purpose, I'm glad to join in. And yes, this too will include a brief story of my own meeting with Nimoy. So then, you might ask, how is what I'm doing any different. Well for once, I'm not worried about uniqueness. I will say this though; Spock has affected my own makeup, and in so far as this is a tribute to Nimoy, it's also a tribute to Spock. Spock's speech patterns and patterns of thought imprinted themselves on me as a young child, a fact which is humorous and, some might say, pathetic. I don't hold to the latter opinion. I freely admit that Spock was something of a role model, and in this day and age when M&M, Fitty-Cent, Usher and Kesha influence our youth, Spock is a better candidate for a preteen's role model than many other possibilities. So, part one of this details, with examples, the silly and profound ways that Spock has been imprinted on my psyche and modes of self-expression. I deal with the Vulcan salute, influences on my vocabulary choices and also influences on my pattern of thought. I'll close with a list of my favorite Spock quotes (note that I refuse to employ the adjective ‘Spockian’), some funny, some profound, some famous and well-known, some obscure, some included for reasons you may understand, some, simply because I wanted them there. But that's for a bit later. Finally, this is not a Nimoy biography, as worthy a cause as that is. This is about Spock, Nimoy's most well-known and probably best beloved character, and my relationship to Spock, for whatever that may be worth to you, the reader. Enjoy. Or rather, derive what can logically be derived from my statement, as Spock would have it.

"Live Long and Prosper," Me, and The Vulcan Salute

I remember learning this hand gesture. I'd always wanted to know how it was done, but, being blind, I’d never seen it done on screen and no one could quite show me the proper finger positioning. Finally, a teacher of mine in the fall semester of my sixth grade year told me she knew how the gesture was made and positioned my hand properly, checking to make sure I was holding my arm and hand precisely. I was, of course, thrilled to discover that the gesture came naturally to me on either hand, and that most people simply couldn't hack it. Now in case you were going to ask, no, I can't raise one eyebrow as Spock does, because the ability to raise eyebrows independently is genetically linked, and both of mine elevate every time!
Nimoy himself developed the Vulcan salute to support his assertion that the ‘live long and prosper’ line should be accompanied with something ritualistic-looking. He was inspired by a childhood memory of peaking during an orthodox Jewish ceremonial prayer at his grandfather’s synagogue, where he actually opened his eyes during prayer and watched the kohan (plural ‘kohanim’) blessing the congregation. In Jewish custom, both of the Kohan's hands are held out horizontally over the congregants, and the fingers are splayed out to resemble the Hebrew letter 'Shin,' (short for ‘Shaddai’ which means ‘Almighty God’) as the blessing is recited. Nimoy's innovation was to make it a one-handed gesture using the right hand, and too, to make the gesture vertical rather than what it is in the ceremonies. The words ‘live long and prosper’ as well as the traditional reply ‘peace and long life’ are each meant to be spoken while making the gesture. As an added bonus, and to show you that my trek fandom and Vulcanaphilia run deep, I add two additional things. The words ‘live long and prosper’ and their response were penned by the script writer Theodor Sturgeon, and the phrases appear for the first time in the first episode of the Original Series' second season, "Amuck Time." I, being a linguist, wondered what the words would have been in Vulcan, and I was minded to reexamine the first Star Trek Motion Picture, and we find this, "Tich tor ang tesmur.,” and that is, of course, "live long and prosper." Unfortunately, Vulcan never had a Mark Okrand to create it and drive it. For those who don't know, Mark Okrand is the linguist who developed Klingon, and Klingon, as we all know thanks to the Klingon Language Institute (www.kli.org), is fully alive and is the subject of serious scholarly study. Alas, not so for Vulcan.
Now those of you who know me well will certainly have seen me offer the Vulcan salute on countless occasions. In fact, I can do it using both hands, which is rare as I understand. When I was a preteen it was a bit of a showoff sort of thing. Nowadays, while I'm not exactly unconscious of doing it, it's not meant to be pretentious. Most people who have known me for a long time simply smile and return the gesture, my stand-in for a farewell wave in most cases. How many times have you been pulling out of the driveway and seen me raise my right hand towards you, fingers splayed? The answer? More than once! I will likely never stop doing it, and I do not doubt that my children will pick up the gesture, so much a trademark has it become of mine.
My Words
Ask my godmother what my most frequently used word was in the eighth grade when we met as teacher and student. I’m not sure she’ll remember. That’s ok, I do. Indeed, I do. ‘Indeed’ and ‘fascinating’ are Spock’s signature words. Note: ‘intriguing,’ contrary to some things I’ve heard bandied about, is not one of Spock’s more frequently used words. To set the record straight, ‘intriguing’ is Data’s word.
The word ‘indeed’ seems to have its own flavor. It’s not a word that’s terribly common in vernacular English, and in more formal discourse its use is rather restricted. All that to say, when someone says ‘indeed,’ it’s use is marked, or put another way, you’ll notice someone using it. “Are you going to the store?” “Yeah. Need anything?” Now let’s reimagine that dialogue. “Are you going to the store?” “Indeed. need anything?” Or you might answer, “indeed not.” My use of ‘indeed’ was over the top, and I’d like to think I use the word less frequently today. Still, the word flavors my speech and my writing. All because of Spock you ask? … Indeed.
No word, none, however, was as overused by me or brings Spock so forcibly to my mind as, you guessed it, ‘fascinating.’ I still use it, though again without overusing it. My godmother wished heartily that I hadn’t begun using it either, because in fairly short order many in our class were answering questions with ‘indeed’ and offering the observation, ‘fascinating,’ for just about everything. But I still do use it, and in any language I pick up, whether German, Russian, Spanish, or anything else, I make quite sure to know those two terms in that language. Why? Just in case.
Finally, we come to logic. By ‘logic,’ I only mean the word ‘logic’ and its various inflected forms ‘logical,’ ‘logically,’ etc. ‘Logic’ is another word that doesn’t get used terribly often outside specialized speaking or writing. If we’re talking about rhetoric, or discussing some philosophical issue or picking apart my dissertation’s study design and protocols, the word ‘logic’ may occur alarmingly often. In everyday chitchat, however, it’s not used as much. Yet, I use it. I refer to things as being logical or being illogical’ or ‘not logical.’ I occasionally begin a thoughtful statement with phrases such as: “logic suggests,” “logic dictates,” “it would be logical to assume that,” etc. I freely admit that in the beginning, i.e. when I was a preteen, my use of these phrases was conscious and for effect. That is to say I used them because they sounded impressive and intelligent. And they were intelligent. But would I have done so without encountering Spock? Indeed not. Nowadays the word is such an ingrained part of my personal lexicon that my use of it is generally unconscious and usually without any conscious reference to Spock. In one telling argument I had about a year ago, I can tell you that I, fighting back deep disappointment and anger, said in what I am told was a calm and controlled tone with no hint of strong emotion to it, “your logic, is flawed.” I don’t remember whether I did say it, but the person in question has never forgotten it, and she reminded me of it some months later when we, fully passed our disagreement, were discussing Spock as a character. It was her observation that Spock had worked his way into my core, and this was an example she chose to bring up. I found her supposition most … well … logical, and as such, it leads me into my next segment.
“My thoughts, to your thoughts,” my thinking and Spock
Ask any reputable psychologist and they’ll tell you that your core personality traits and modes of self-expression are fairly well set by the time you’re five years old or thereabouts. Everything after that is, I would surmise, icing on the cake or conscious control of your modes of self-expression. So no, no psychologist would accept at face value the claim that Spock had a fundamental impact on my personality makeup. I won’t split that hair with you, because I’m not a psychologist, though I flatter myself in thinking I know myself and my own mind quite well. So, I would say that Spock became embedded in my patterns of thought and gave voice to my more analytical tendencies. There’s my nod to psychology, now for what really happened.
I was attracted to the Vulcan way of thought as a child. Note: I’m very, very comfortable with emotions; just ask my fiancé. Nevertheless, to think logically all the time was, to a twelve-year-old, quite novel and quite attractive. How nice it would be to respond to middle school bullies with an icy stare and a raised eyebrow. On my good days, that is, days when I did not retaliate against schoolyard bullies who were picking on me (the blind kid) with violence of my own, I would often take pleasure in perplexing my tormentors with such rejoinders as, “I fail to comprehend the logic of your actions,” or, “where is the logic in this,” or, “I find your chosen behavior most curious.” This usually stopped the ragging, not because of my brilliance, but because what I said was a bit difficult for my peers to process. I often slipped away while they traded puzzled stares.
It also helped my fascination with Spock that I, thanks to a voracious appetite for books, had acquired and been using a very broad and deep vocabulary. My peers began yelling at me around age 11 because no one understood what I was saying. As a linguist, I can say now that my problem was simply that I had no concept of appropriate register. Fascinating. In any case, Spock talked the way I did, or the way people told the young Brad that he talked. So imitating his speech patterns was exceptionally easy and became unconscious in fairly short order. I’m told, even today, that when I am in the depths of scholarly analysis or logical inference, my speech takes on the rhythms and stress patterns of Spock, or more likely, of typical Vulcan stress and intonation. Though having said that, I would hope my speech more closely resembles the meticulous and considered tones of Spock, and not the clipped briskness of Tuvok’s speech. Only my friends could tell me that. But on with the anecdotes.
I was attracted to Spock’s way of logical behavior, because logic gave him a way to control his emotions. Not to say that Vulcans don’t have them or even that they claim not to have emotions. Neither is true. But the Vulcan ethic of controlled emotion, of emotion that did not pick you up and carry you away in its thrall was wildly appealing on bad days. How nice it would be, for example, not to cry or shout or to feel hurt or disappointment. Not, as I knew, that Vulcans would not have felt the disappointment, but you’d never have known that they did. Not unless you were looking, because Vulcans, i.e. Spock, held his emotions in subjection to his intellect and chose, through discipline of will, not to be dominated by them. This is, for the average human teen, in a word, impossible.
Take my first teenage breakup. I was fourteen, and I was devastated. Weren’t we all? I remember it clearly. I remember collapsing outside the high school gym in tears, cursing myself bitterly. Why cursing myself? Because I was crying and that was a sign of weakness in a boy? No. I was cursing myself because I had, having had some foreknowledge of the breakup, resolved not to allow tears. I would, I told myself most sternly even as I lost it, handle the situation logically. I would accept that what had happened was done and that, logically, I must continue from that point onwards. Very true. Very logical advice, and impossible to follow it. I remember thinking to myself, “see there, you are no Vulcan.”
Or another example. My parents’ divorce was hard. Show me one that isn’t? I attempted to understand the reasons logically. Cause and effect. If they were divorcing, then logically, there was a first cause of the divorce, so my fifteen-year-old brain reasoned. If I could find the divorce’s primary cause, I could untangle the train of events that lead to it and thereby understand, that is, place into a logical framework of cause and consequence, all the events that befell my family between 1997 and 1999. Well as you can guess, I’m not about to explain my parents’ divorce. Let me say that in this effort I eventually succeeded. It took many years. I suffered from what Spock would call “insufficient data,” but I can now, with reason that is sound, give a logical account of my parents’ marriage and its ending. Not that all marriages have logical endings, but when all data are present, the logic of the situation becomes clear at once. That is not to say that it is a comfort. Logic, in this case, merely provided answers.
Two more telling items. As my fiancé will attest, Spock affects my ways of arguing. Spock, and my parents. Put it this way. My parents screamed and shouted. I do not. I find shouting and insults counterproductive, and to use them is to work at cross-purposes at resolving the conflict. Sounds like something Spock would say about human arguments, doesn’t it? And it’s true. When I’m angry, I speak softly, even coldly, explaining the offense that was given and seeking solutions. This works best with disagreements, where the two parties can discuss the offense, real or perceived, and arrive at an understanding and a resolution. So, as many will tell you, I argue calmly and logically. The phrase, “your logic, is flawed,” quoted above, was something I said not to impress my opponent or to crush her arguments, but because her angry arguments were, without going into detail, based on flawed premises and insufficient data. That’s not to say that I wasn’t emotionally involved in the argument. Indeed, quite the contrary. But in the midst of that painful disagreement, I felt it my duty to reach her not through emotional appeals for sympathy or by shouting at her, but by telling her quite calmly that she was mistaken and that, well, her logic was in error. And so it was. If only all human conflicts could be settled by recourse to reason. Thankfully, that one was.
Now we come to faith. Faith is an interesting topic on a whole variety of levels, and here Spock’s influence was less direct. I struggled, however, to reconcile the desire to reason with the need for faith and belief. This paragraph deserves its own book, but that is not my purpose. Suffice it to say that I was uncertain where or whether reason and faith co-existed intellectually. And then I was reminded of Spock’s comments about faith in Star Trek VI. These comments are the only occasion I can think of when a Vulcan refers to a need for faith. See the quotations section below. Long, long, story short, I came to understand that logic is only a portion of wisdom, and that faith is necessary for a balanced perspective. What is more, Spock said so himself. Again, see below.
Meeting the Man
I will never forget late July of 2004. It was my only star trek convention, and I was going to make it count. Leonard wasn’t the first star trek actor I met and shook hands with. That was George Takei, who I greeted in Japanese. But I will not forget meeting Leonard just the same. Standing in the long line, feeling the same nervous anticipation as all the rest of the fans. The difference was this. I wasn’t straining to see his face or catch a glimpse of him. I have no vision, so to expect me to have done so would not be logical. But rather I was straining my hearing, awaiting his voice, a voice I knew well. I know it as well as I know those of my closest friends, and were the man to greet me on the street, I would recognize him instantly, so familiar are his speech patterns and inflections. You see, aside from his acting, Leonard has voiced a number of books and TV shows, and his intonations and verbal inflections are, to my trained ear, most distinctive and unforgettable. And finally the moment arrived.
I had, for all my preparation and anticipation, not managed to come up with anything inspired or anything that he would remember. But shaking his hand is a moment I will not forget. It was a steady hand, not palsied with age and not trembling in the slightest, though it was unquestionably the hand of an older man. Obviously, since he was 73 when we met. I sat down for the photo for which I’d paid, and it was duly taken. I should also mention that Leonard enjoyed my service dog at the time, a black lab named Rudy and the only dog at the con so far as I know. He’s retired now, Rudy, not Leonard. But when Leonard Nimoy asks for permission to pet your on-duty service animal, you say yes unhesitatingly, in case anyone wanted to know the proper response to that request under those conditions. Later that day, I also paid a bit extra to be able to stay behind during the autograph session, ostensibly to get something autographed after his talk. I had nothing to autograph. I did, however, have just a moment to say something to him. That is, I had a bit more time. I chose with my thirty seconds, to thank him for something that he probably doesn’t get thanked for very often, his book narration. Narration, especially of a dramatized book like your average star trek novel, is a time consuming and generally unsung task. Unsung, because most fans will pick up the unabridged version in paperback and read it without giving it a thought. I had the novel Vulcan’s Forge in mind, which focuses on Spock as the primary protagonist. Nimoy narrated it and he did so very well. It’s probably among the least known of his narrative tasks. The Alien Voices project and Spock Versus Q are better known, because they were always meant to be something done as an audio recording. This novel appeared in print first, and only because he chose to narrate it did it ever appear in a form I could appreciate. It’s not my favorite star trek novel, nor does it stand out among the best of the best, but narration is a task that more people should be thanked for, and that was one of my opportunities to do so. Incidentally, Leonard also narrates abridged versions of I am Spock, his second autobiography, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and he has supporting narrative roles in Star Trek: The Entropy Effect as well as in the abridged and dramatized versions of Enterprise, The first Adventure. Again, the man’s good. I hope that one day, when graduate school is over as it soon will be, I may return to a star trek convention and meet him one more time. I will never have the opportunity to sit down and have an actual conversation with him, much to my regret. And whereas many people fantasize about this or that or meeting so and so under thus and such conditions, I wish merely to have a conversation. And it shall likely never come to pass. That is, there is no logical reason to suppose that it should do so. Indeed.
Quotations
Below I have listed some of my favorite quotes. In many cases, I’ve provided some of the immediately surrounding dialogue as context, and in every case I’ve cited the episode or movie from which the lines were taken. Such is, sadly, my training as a scholar, to cite. I haven’t made any great effort to put them in chronological order, but the episodes are listed before the movies, and the movies appear in order. That’s orderly enough. Enjoy the quotes. I always have.


The Original Episodes, 20 quotes
Lt. Bailey: “It’s blocking the way!”
Spock: “Quite unnecessary to raise your voice, Mr. Bailey.”
Lt. Bailey: “Raising my voice back there doesn’t mean I was scared or couldn’t do my job. It means I happen to have a human thing called an adrenalin gland.”
Spock: “That sounds most inconvenient, however. Have you considered having it removed?”
TOS: The Corbomite Maneuver.
Spock: “Save her, do as your heart tells you to do, and millions will die who did not die before.”
TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever.
Spock: “Captain, must we?”
Kirk: “It’s faster than walking.”
Spock: “Yes, but not as safe.”
Kirk: “Are you afraid of cars, Mr. Spock?”
Spock: “Not at all, Captain. It’s your driving that alarms me.”
TOS: A Piece of the Action.
Spock: “Logic and practical information do not seem to apply here.”
McCoy: “You admit that?”
Spock: “To deny the facts would be illogical, Doctor.”
TOS: A Piece of the Action.
Spock: [using a Chicago gangster accent] “I would advise yas to keep dialin’, Oxmyx.”
TOS: A Piece of the Action.
Kirk: “A child suppresses the fact that both parents are dead? I can’t believe it.”
Spock: “Humans do have an amazing capacity for believing what they choose and excluding that which is painful.”
TOS: And the Children Shall Lead.
Kirk: “Well there it is, war. We didn’t want it, but we’ve got it.”
Spock: “Curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.”
TOS: Errand of Mercy.
Spock: “You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing is wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”
TOS: Amuck Time.
McCoy: “Did it ever occur to you that he simply might like the girl?”
Spock: “It occurred. I dismissed it.”
McCoy: “You would.”
TOS: The Conscience of the King.
Spock: “Ladies and Gentlemen, please move away from the chamber or you may be injured.”
Ambassador Fox: “What are you doing, Mr. Spock?”
Spock: “Practicing a peculiar variety of diplomacy, Sir.”
TOS: A Taste of Armageddon.
Spock: “Gentlemen, There is one thing which requires the immediate attention of all of us. Specifically, our future.”
TOS: Specter of the Gun.
Mudd: “’’’ And do you know what the penalty for fraud is on Deneb Five?”
Spock: “The guilty party has his choice. Death by electrocution, death by gas, death by phaser, death by hanging,”
Mudd: “The key word in your entire peroration Mr. Spock is, death.”
TOS: I, Mudd.
Spock: [to an android] “Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of flowers which smell bad. Are you sure your circuits are functioning correctly? Your ears are green.”
TOS: I, Mudd.
Spock: “… In a manner of speaking, Captain, we have given the people of Vol the apple, the knowledge of good and evil if you will, as a result of which they too have been driven out of paradise.”
TOS: The Apple.
Spock: “I have a responsibility to this ship. To that man on the bridge. I am what I am, Leila, and if there are self-made purgatories, then we all have to live in them. Mine can be no worse than someone else’s.”
TOS: This Side of Paradise.
Spock: “I’ve never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question.”
TOS: This Side of Paradise.
Kirk: “Was that a threat?”
[mirror] Spock: “I do not threaten, Captain. I merely state facts.”
TOS: Mirror, Mirror.
[mirror] Spock: “Terror must be maintained or the empire is doomed. It is the logic of history.”
TOS: Mirror, Mirror.
Spock: “Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, Doctor. Otherwise it is not stopped.”
TOS: Day of the Dove.
Spock: “All that matters to them … is their hate.”
Uhura: “Do you suppose that’s all they ever had, Sir?”
Kirk: “No, but that’s all they have left.”
TOS: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.
Movie Quotes
McCoy: “Spock, this child is about to wipe out every living thing on Earth. Now what do you suggest we do, spank it?”
Spock: “It knows only that it needs, Commander … But, like so many of us ... it does not know what.”
Star Trek I: The Motion Picture.
Spock: “If I may be so bold, it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first, best destiny. Anything else is a waste of material.”
Kirk: “I would not presume to debate you.”
Spock: “That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
Kirk: “Or the one.”
Spock: “You are my superior officer. You are also my friend. I have been and always shall be yours.”
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Spock: “Jim, you proceed from a false assumption. I am a Vulcan. I have no ego to bruise.”
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
Spock: “The ship … out of danger?”
Kirk: “Yes.”
Spock: “Do not grieve, Admiral. The needs of the many, outweigh …”
Kirk: “The needs of the few.”
Spock: “Or the one. I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution? … I have been and always shall be your friend. … Live long, and prosper.”
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
Spock: “Jim, your name … is Jim.”
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
Spock: “Excuse me, Admiral, but weren’t those a birthday gift from Doctor McCoy?”
Kirk: “And they will be again. That’s the beauty of it.”
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Spock: “What does it mean, ‘exact change?’”
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Kirk: “If we play our cards right, we may be able to find out when those whales are being released.”
Spock: “How will playing cards help?”
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Gillian: “Do you guys like Italian?”
Kirk: “Yes.”
Spock: “No.”
Kirk: “Yes.”
Spock: “No.”
Kirk: “Yes. I love Italian, and so do you.”
Spock: “Yes.”
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Gillian: “Sure you won’t change your mind?”
Spock: “Is there something wrong with the one I have?”
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Kirk: “Where the hell’s the power you promised?”
Spock: “One damned minute Admiral.”
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Spock: “I do not believe you realize the gravity of your situation.”
Kirk: “On the contrary, gravity is foremost on my mind.”
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
Spock: “Perhaps ‘because it is there’ is not sufficient reason for climbing a mountain.”
Kirk: “I am hardly in a position to disagree.”
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
Kirk: “I thought I was going to die.”
Spock: “Not possible. You were never alone.”
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
Valaris: “Sir, I address you as a kindred intellect. Do you not realize that a turning point has been reached in the affairs of the Federation?”
Spock: “History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith.”
Valaris: “Faith?”
Spock: “That the universe will unfold as it should.”
Valaris: “But is that logical? Surely we must—“
Spock: “Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Lieutenant, not the end.”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Spock: “We must endeavor to piece together what happened here tonight. According to our data banks, this ship fired those torpedoes. If we did, the killers are here. If we did not, whoever altered the data banks is here. In either case, what we are searching for is here.”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Spock: “You have to shoot. If you are logical, you have to shoot.”
Valaris: “I do not want to.”
Spock: “What you want is irrelevant, what you have chosen is at hand.”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Spock: “Doctor, would you care to assist me in performing surgery on a torpedo?”
McCoy: “Fascinating.”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Spock: “Is it possible that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible as to have outlived our usefulness? Would that constitute a joke?”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Uhura: “We’re to return to space dock. To be decommissioned.”
Spock: “If I were human, I believe my response would be … go to hell. If, I were human.”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Spock: “In your own way, you are as stubborn as another captain of the Enterprise I once knew.”
TNG: Unification, Part II.
Spock: “It is possible that I have brought my argument with Sarek to you, Captain. If so I apologize.”
Picard: “Is it so important that you win one last argument with him?”
Spock: “No it is not. But it is true I will miss the arguments. They were, finally, all that we had.”
TNG: Unification, Part II.
Pardek: “How could they know of this location? Someone has betrayed us!”
Spock: “Yes, you did.”
Pardek: “Spock! We’ve been friends for eighty years!”
Spock: “It is the only logical conclusion. You asked me to come to Romulus, you arranged the meetings with the Proconsul, and you knew that Picard and Data had returned to the surface with new information.”
TNG: Unification, part II.
Spock: “I will not read this or any other statement.”
Sela: “If you do not, you will die. All of you will die.”
Spock: “Since it is logical to conclude that you will kill us in any event, I choose not to cooperate.”
TNG, Unification Part II.


Sunday, September 18, 2011

Thoughts on Star Trek 2009

            Hello again, friends and readers. If you’ve read the rest of this blog, you’ve read much, my notions of the greatest speeches of star trek, my discussion of the series, my admittedly exhaustive and maybe exhausting treatment of Deep Space Nine. I wrote in my very first posting that I wanted to deal with those things first so that when I got to something I didn’t like, you’d still listen. Well that time has come. This post is devoted exclusively to the Star Trek 2009 movie. If you loved the movie, good for you. I hope you will still listen to what I have to say and consider it. If you were indifferent to it, or if you, like me, were deeply disappointed and upset by it, possibly this will articulate some of your own concerns.
            One thing I’ve learned over the years about giving feedback or reviewing things is that it’s a good idea to at least start with positives. The 2009 movie has one thing going for it. It was a great ideal. Not, idea, but ideal. I can sympathize with the frustrations of people like Leonard Nemoy, who has often expressed the opinion that the original star trek is often overlooked in favor of newer star trek. We younger fans should remember that for twenty years, the only star trek in existence was the show that came on television in 1966. It wasn’t until 1987, after the original star trek had spawned both an animated series and four feature films, that any new star trek was created. Now, it seems as though many people my age and younger have little appreciation for the original television series and the things it stands for. The movie tries to address that concern and draw our attention back to those original characters, Kirk, Spock, McCoy and all the rest, and for that effort, I call it a good ideal.
            Like any ideal, there is often a wide gulf between thought and execution. The result was, to state it bluntly, a disappointment to all of the star trek that came before it. Now, I have to acknowledge right here that I seem to be in the minority on this. The International Movie Database ranks the film with 8.1 out of 10, based on 1356 ratings, and Rotten Tomatoes rates it at 94% positive, with 270 out of 286 reviews being positive. Most people I have talked to either loved it, or are at least ok with it, seeing it as an overall good effort. That puts me in the minority. I do not “love” it, nor can I bring myself to call it even a good effort. So the first thing I asked myself is, am I wrong? Is it me? Do thousands of people see things here that I simply do not? So, I watched it again, and again. I’ve probably seen it half a dozen times, and I’ve even read the novelization of the movie written by Alan Dean Foster. I know the movie as well as I know the ten that came before it, and I am as yet unconvinced. Can I, some would ask, really go against public opinion like that? If ten thousand people love a thing, who am I to dare to say that they are wrong to do so, or that the thing is bad? Well, the right of a thing is not made certain, simply because the majority of people think so. Nor is a minority, even a small one, wrong about something, simply because its numbers are small. Lastly, before I get into the movie, let me say this. I realize that this is America, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. It’s not easy to say that an opinion is wrong. You can’t say it in the same way that you can demonstrate that what someone claims to be a fact is wrong. But that doesn’t make the opinion informed or worth acting upon. So in the sense that you can say it of opinions, most people today are wrong about Star Trek 2009. Here is why.

            Let’s start with the title. Well, that’s the first problem. It doesn’t have one. The addition of the year, 2009, is a convenient way of referencing the thing. But so far as I’ve been able to determine, the movie has no title. Now, folks, we’ve been here before. The first star trek movie, the one that came out in 1979, doesn’t have a title either. It’s called, Star Trek:  The Motion Picture. That’s like me writing a novel and calling it, The Novel. Well, it was the first star trek movie ever made, and it was by no means certain that any more would be, not ever. So the first star trek movie gets a pass on not having a title. What was ST 2009 Director J.J. Abrams’ problem then? Was he just lacking inspiration? Could no one in Hollywood settle on a title? I have to say, you know something’s likely to suck if no one can decide what to call it. Essentially, it’s called nothing at all. Star Trek. That’s as close to a title as you get. The book also doesn’t have a title. On audible.com, it’s listed as, “Star Trek Movie Tie-In.” If I’m lying I’m dying. Was this the best, the absolute best, that the production and marketing juggernaut that is Hollywood could actually do? And if it was, I ask you, what does that suggest about the quality of the film itself? I remind you, Star Trek I didn’t do that well at the box office, and while it’s story is ok, it’s not rated as anyone’s number one favorite either. So, here we go again, another star trek film without a title. They keep doing that, and even I’m going to have a hard time keeping the movies straight.
            Now to the story itself. I’m not going to summarize it here, because I’m assuming that if you’re bothering to read this, you’ve seen the movie. The first and one of the most difficult questions that comes up is, how should we understand this story in light of all the rest of the star trek universe? The words used to describe what Star Trek 2009 is meant to be include terms like, “reboot,” and “reimagination.” What does that mean? Does this single movie negate all the rest of star trek? Should we say that all the rest never happens now, or happens completely differently because this movie came along? I don’t think that’s the intent. The only other viable option is to consider the movie as a parallel universe star trek that doesn’t affect our own timeline, much like the Mirror Universe that shows up from time to time in the series. Either way, this question of continuity is a dangerous one where time travel is concerned, and it remains unresolved. So, I cannot place this movie in the events of the main star trek universe. It simply doesn’t fit. If I do place it there, it destroys all of star trek history that follows it. So, it does not belong, and if I wanted to, I could dismiss it right there as not being historical star trek and not say another word about it. That’s not even something I could do with the series, Star Trek Enterprise, but we could with this movie and we wouldn’t lose a thing by doing so. But that would not be very thorough of me, and so I will go on.
            Let’s consider the characters. I find the young Kirk and the young McCoy believable. I can believe that Jim Kirk would act as he does at that age, and I can see what McCoy will be through the portrayal of the younger man in the movie. However, the movie’s portrayal of the young Spock is galling. In one scene, we spy him and Uhura kissing in an Enterprise turbolift. What the hell is this? Are we seriously supposed to believe this? The movie implies that Spock and Uhura have had a thing going for some time, and I ask again, are we seriously supposed to buy this? I can’t blame Zackary Quinto for that; as an actor, you act the script you are given. But I expected much more from the story writers. Then, there’s the matter of the Romulan commander, Nero. Nero? Really? Seriously? Nero, as in the Roman emperor, was the best they could do? And they even made him a bit crazy, seemingly in imitation of the actual Nero. And again I ask, this is the best they could come up with? Moreover, Nero isn’t a well-rounded villain. He has no depth, unlike other villains in the movies:  Kahn, Sibok, Shinzon, and so on. Characters we know much more about. He’s very flat, almost not there, much like everyone else in the story. The rest of my talk about Nero will have to wait until I get to the plot of the movie, however.
            Let’s talk about the language and dialogue of the movie. As a linguist, I’m probably more apt to notice the structure of dialogue more readily than most, and quite a bit jumped out at me. Simply put, I can’t believe these characters because of how they talk. They talk like twentieth or twenty-first century action heroes in a present-day thriller film. Even the Romulans sound like something you’d hear in Lethal Weapon III or The Hunt for Red October. I can’t credit a Romulan with saying, “gonna,” or, “We’ve gotta…” Yet, they do. Even Kirk’s language is a bit offbeat. When Ayel is choking him, he says, “I’ve got your gun,” and shoots him. Now, leaving the scene aside, “gun,” is not a star trek era word. It sounds a bit odd in that time period, and certainly is almost never the word used when referring to an energy weapon. The language and dialogue as a whole are kitschy. The story isn’t really propelled by them at all, because it relies mostly, almost exclusively, on flashy action. Speaking as someone who recently examined star trek for its greatest speeches and as someone who has read hundreds and hundreds of great quotes from the shows and films, this movie is pretty disappointing on that score.
            Now we come to the plot. I’m not sure where to begin here. The backstory is that a star somewhere near Romulus was going supernova, and Spock was racing to inject “red matter” into the sun to save it. Spock fails, the sun goes nova, Romulus is destroyed, and Nero captures our Spock, drags him back through time and tells him he’s going to watch revenge on an epic scale. This to me sounds like exactly the sort of backstory you’d throw together if you’re a writer who is desperately grasping at straws, trying to make your impossible story mesh with what’s already been done in a series or universe like this one. It’s shoddily put together, poorly explained, and has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. What is red matter? Why was Spock the single person in all the universe, let alone in the Romulan Empire, who could have possibly saved the star? Who exactly is Nero and why does he have access to time travel? These are only a few questions that the backstory, as explained by the elder Spock, leaves open.
            As to the actual plot, this is the worst time-travel story I’ve seen. Nero’s ship first appears in the year 2233 and takes on the Kelvin. We next here of it about 20 years later when it attacks the Klingon fleet and heads for Vulcan, beginning the movie’s main story line. So where was it for most of Kirk’s life? I don’t recall that that question was answered. Did it just hang out for all the years between its engaging the Kelvin and when it shows up again in the story? What was the elder Spock doing for all those years? And those are just plot holes, to say nothing of what’s actually done. Now let’s talk about this red matter business. Star trek’s playing with science is well-known, but even within the loose liberties star trek as a whole takes with physics, I find this hard to believe. What is red matter? And how does falling into a black hole send you back in time? Even our science wouldn’t buy that one. If you actually fall into the event horizon of a quantum singularity, you don’t come out in your time or in any other. So one of the story’s main plot devices falls apart right there. And as for triggering a quantum singularity within a planet’s core, is it me, or has no one else pointed out that even if you could do that, nothing orbiting the planet would survive? The Enterprise would’ve been sucked in right along with the Nerada and the planet Vulcan itself. They would’ve been too close to the event horizon of the black hole to escape its gravity. But I leave the science to the physicists. Moving on. So, Spock, when Kirk argues with him, boots him off the ship and strands him on Delta Vega. Really? I find that to be an extreme overreaction for Spock who, at that point, was acting logically and arguing with Kirk rationally, as we know Spock to do. The justification for that is incredibly flimsy. Last note on that, Delta Vega, as revealed in the star trek Pilot, “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” is somewhere near the galactic outer rim. That’s many light years away from where the Enterprise was at the time. No escape pod could ever have reached that planet. One final plot detail. I could say much more about the actual plot, but I don’t want to. At the end of the movie, Kirk is granted the rank of captain and is given the Enterprise. Now, I accept that his actions were exceptionally heroic, given the circumstances, and I accept that even as a cadet, he was thrust into responsibilities and decisions for which he wasn’t prepared, and that he did very well. At least as far as the internal plot structure goes. But this? Give him a medal, waive his last year at the academy and promote him to ensign straight off, or lieutenant if you’re feeling generous. But to grant him, a youth of maybe 21, an instant captaincy and the flagship of the Federation fleet right off the bat? No. I don’t see that one happening. I found that incredibly difficult to believe.
            I could go on nitpicking the plot, the characters, the discontinuities, forever. But to what end? It’s time now to move on to the deep and fundamental objections, to which all the rest are merely surface-level indicators. Star trek, as I have said again and again and again, has endured and has stood on its feet for forty-five years because of its ability to speak to universal questions, to draw our attention to the ultimate questions, to the moral truths, to questions of conscience that plague us all now in the twenty-first century. All the rest of my blog, what’s come before and what will come after this, is a testament to its ability to do that. This movie very gladly sacrifices all that. This movie, this reimagination, guts star trek of everything that has made it endure in the minds and hearts of people for almost three generations, leaving us with an action thriller that replaces good storytelling with flashy action and cheap thrills. And while I’m in the minority on this one, I’m not alone. The famous movie critic Roger Ebert, as in Sisko and Ebert, said in his review that the Roddenberry era of star trek, when the shows dealt with questions of science, ideals and philosophy, seem to be forever gone, replaced by stories containing only “loud and colorful action.” In Newsweek, Mark Bain suggests that star trek has now lost its moral relevance, a feature that has been a driving part of it since time immemorial. One of the most interesting things I read was found in SLATE, where Juliet Lapidos discusses the torture scene in the movie where Nero’s trying to get information out of Pike. She compares it with the topic of torture that comes up in the Next Generation episode, “Chain of Command.” That’s the one where Picard is captured by the Cardassians and tortured. She finds that the TNG episode dealt with the subject of torture in a more sophisticated way, drawing real parallels between it and the controversy about enhanced interrogation techniques in the U.S. Well, I don’t know if the TNG handling of torture was more “sophisticated” or not, but it was certainly more psychologically involved and the story line was a ton better. So I can see why she prefers the TNG episode for dealing with that subject.
            Why, though? Why would the makers of star trek today give up everything that has made star trek what it has been? Well, because it sells. It’s that simple. I’ve come to the conclusion that many fans are no longer interested in thinking. They don’t want a good show that might make them think. They just want the good show part, action without depth. My fiancé said it best, “this is the thing we get when Star Trek is made to breed with today's obsession with action movies, shallow plots that barely make sense, decided
on by those who don't care if the storytelling is bad, if characters don't act like themselves, as long as the end product sells.” Well, the movie grossed over eight billion dollars at the box office. Maybe she’s right. What I’m afraid of, as the sequel approaches, is summed up in another comment of hers, “maybe 2009 marks the end of real star trek.” Maybe it does. Maybe it does at that. I can hope it doesn’t. I still care about good storytelling, and I still want to see shows that deal with those eternally relevant questions. Shows like DS9’s “In The Pale Moonlight,” like TNG’s “The Measure of a Man,” like Voyager’s “Critical Care,” and like the original series’ episode, “The City on the Edge of Forever.” Wil those days ever come again? Does star trek’s future lie now in movies like the 2009 film? Wil someone make a series or a movie like those I mentiond here? For an answer to my last question, I’m put in mind of how Spock once put it, “there are always possibilities.”