?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
29 July 2009 @ 10:57
 
As part of International Blog Against Racism Week, peri_peteia has an excellent post about the significance of Uhura and Spock's relationship precisely because Nyota Uhura is not a white girl.

ETA: from discussions in comments:

I am so deeply frustrated at folks equating discussions of Uhura as a character with 'shipper debates between Spock/Uhura and Kirk/Spock fans. Because it's very much not about that--nor is it about het fans versus slash fans. Or TOS fans versus AOS fans. And I think that's part of the problem--folks trying to take cheap shots at people with whose opinions they disagree by reducing the discussion to an "us vs them" situation and then dismissing their points out of hand as "sour grapes" and the like.

I do think that the relationship dynamics in AOS versus TOS are a part of it. I've seen a lot of people justifying their objections to Uhura and Bones' roles being presented with equal importance and the new dynamics of Kirk/McCoy and Spock/Uhura "square" as wrongly supplanting the TOS Holy Trinity of Spock/Kirk/Bones. That what they dislike and even resent about the new film relationship dynamics is the unnecessary change to what they perceive as the desired status quo.

Given that in TOS canon that Kirk was kinda pissed at being stuck with Spock as his XO instead of his BFF Gary Mitchell, it's not as if Kirk and Spock were BFFs from the get-go. A lot of their close relationship comes over time, and is really more of the focus of the films than the series. If the presence of McCoy doesn't threaten the Kirk & Spock friendship in TOS, I don't see how it becoming McCoy and Uhura suddenly makes Kirk and Spock becoming BFFs impossible, personally.

I think there is a feeling among some fans that the Kirk and Spock friendship in STXI should or must have the same weight and importance and significance as it did in TOS in order for the relationships to be considered valid or worthy. And they are uncomfortable with the idea that AOS is both recontextualising relationships and taking them in different directions that may not result in the exact same Kirk and Spock relationship that people loved in TOS. Not necessarily because of the Kirk/Spock subtext, but that is a factor for people who have invested themselves in the Kirk/Spock relationship in fan works.

But "different" does not mean "lesser" or "wrong" any more than it means "better" or "correct". It just means different. And we've already travelled down the one road and explored its every nook and cranny over 40 years of canon, and fan works, and meta. Personally, I prefer taking the new road and seeing where it leads us. Even if we recognise the landscape from the new vantage point, that doesn't mean we'll still need to end up at the exact same destination. No matter what happens, the journey is a new one because these are no longer the exact same people as their Prime counterparts. They have had different experiences, created different relationships, and I want to see those new relationships grow organically over time, now.

EMETA: To say "I don't see race" or "I don't see gender" strips the characters of some of their importance and impact, and diminishes them to me, because it's so important that they be recognised for who they are and what that means to all of us.

Even if you're looking at the characters, that doesn't make Spock not white. Any more than it would make Tuvok not black. Or Sulu not Asian. When you look at the characters, you need to see the character--and that includes the actor's ethnicity, because it's a part of who they are, and not only informs how the audience responds to them, but how they fit in the larger context of the fictional universe.

For example, it's HUGE to me that Sisko is black--and that his relationship with his son Jake is the strongest, healthiest, most well-rounded child-parent relationship in Trek. And while in the fictional 24th century it may be no big deal to have a Black Man In Charge, in the 20th Century when the show was filmed and aired, THAT IS HUGE. That is important. And most of all, THAT IS AWESOME. The same way that while there are other female captains and XOs in Trek, Janeway was hugely important to have an entire series anchored by a female captain for the first time in the franchise.
 
 
 
StClair: oopscmdr_zoom on 29th July 2009 18:26 (UTC)
addendum for clarification: the things I gripe about being different aren't the character dynamics, which I enjoy - only technical/design details, mostly the ship and the sets. Dismiss it as cranky old fan grumbling if you like.
ljc: star trek (pike/number one so into her)taraljc on 29th July 2009 18:38 (UTC)
I'm a TOS fan since childhood, and I don't really have issues with the ship and sets. Especially when I look at the differences in production design from "The Cage" to the rest of TOS, for example. I just fell in love with the updated bridge set in part because it was so faithful to the layout we knew from TOS. And with AOS Enterprise being 3 times the size of TOS Enterprise, it made sense in terms of scale that the engine room would be ginormous-er. I just chalk all of that up to the change in focus from exploration to defence in Starfleet after the Kelvin's destruction, the same way Enterprise-E is a sleek battlecruiser in the wake of Wolf 359 and the Dominion War the like, and no more floating Hyatts with families aboard. So it makes totes sense to me that the AOS Enterprise differs from her TOS counterpart.

But then, that's also a fangirl versus fanboy thing, too. I've noticed (mostly from posting at TrekMovie.com) that things like that tend to matter may more to the guys than the gals. It's like the eternal debate over the size/shape of the windows on the TARDIS being something you see the guys get riled up about, more than the chicks.

Edited at 2009-07-29 18:39 (UTC)
StClair: oopscmdr_zoom on 29th July 2009 18:54 (UTC)
Changes after the point of divergence, I can understand. But changes before? Shouldn't Capt. Robau and his bridge crew have been wearing uniforms like the ones in your icon?

And you're right, it's probably a guy thing. Boys and their toys. :/
ljc: star trek (pike)taraljc on 29th July 2009 18:58 (UTC)
Why? My icon is Enterprise from 2254. The Kelvin was from 2233, a period we've never seen before on-screen in any film or series. Why wouldn't they wear some version of a uniform between Archer's and Pike's that's different and unique?

It's not as if Starfleet uniforms don't up and completely redesign every 10 years all the way up through 2387... I mean, look at the uniform changes from TOS to TMP to WOK alone...
StClair: zoomcmdr_zoom on 29th July 2009 19:07 (UTC)
Point well made, and I shall withdraw from the field.

(Though it may be silly (like so much else in Trek) to change that often, you're right, it is established. And I suppose it could be worse; we could have the damn footie pajamas back.)