A much needed, but probably rote, discussion on Vulcan emotions in Star Trek

[timepiececlock]

I feel like I can't write Spock's POV until I get this, and there's something fundamental about the whole thing that is escaping me.



So, in the movie, young Spock talks about a Kolinar ceremony to "purge all emotion". I looked it up and it seems TOS Spock almost took it in the first movie (the only one I haven't seen), but didn't. We know the new Spock didn't, because he joined Starfleet instead. So... he still has all his emotions. He's clearly repressed them in an unhealthy way that is different from the other Spock, and other Vulcans. TOS Spock would never have the kind of anger management problem / burst of blind rage that this Spock had. Also, he was a sensitive kid, who seemed only to learn to fake stoicism instead of actually being emotionless. This Spock is seething with emotion he doesn't express...blame the actor ZQ for staring soulfully into the camera, but it's true. So in fact, writing Spock himself isn't exactly the problem. He's just a really repressed guy, fine.

It's all the other Vulcans I don't understand. And in order to understand Spock's goals of being Vulcanish, I've got to understand what he was TRYING to be.

In short... I don't get the whole emotionless religion thing. Is the idea to have no emotion affect your decisions at all, almost a Jedi thing but worse? To be without earthly attachment?... Or is it to accept and control the emotions, acknowledging them while outwardly stifling them so no one knows what's actually driving you? This is an important distinction, because one is an absence of emotional motivation, and one is just being super reserved in public.

If the goal is to reach a mental state where they have no emotions... is Sarek atypical for loving his wife? Is nuSpock a total failure at being a good little Vulcan?

I know what they say in the movie, about how Vulcans actually feel very deeply, but that seems to directly contradict with everything else I've read about it, and with the whole religion of emotionlessness. I especially don't get what that means for, like, daily life.

Do they only avoid anger/fear/sadness/pride/humor/joy, etc?

Do they feel CONFUSION?

What about the smaller emotions? Like curiosity, ambivalence, vanity, nostalgia, cynicism? Excitement, thankfulness, lethargy?

Self-confidence?

How do they choose what color of towels they buy at the store? How do they know if they prefer broccoli over spinach? Blue pen or black pen? How do they decide between jelly donut and sprinkled?

Without emotion, how do you even operate in a world where you're constantly forced to make little decisions that have no logical answer, but become an expression of your tastes and preferences? ...preferences come from the emotion of pleasure/affection, and irritation/dissatisfaction.

But they can't have a favorite color, because THEY HAVE NO EMOTIONS!

Or they just pretend?

I'm confused.

I'm especially confused because Older Spock, Spock from the movies 1-6, is not emotionless that I remember. He's pretty stoic, sure, but he obviously loves the crew and his BFF Jim, and he obviously cares deeply about the Federation's safety. If I were going to write about Spock Prime, I'd just write about him as this pleasant, wise old guy who stays calm in almost anything but has a secret preference for Earth carrots and misses his old friend Jim Kirk. The idea that he's supposed to emotionless because Vulcans are, would never enter into my concept of the character at all. I'd write him as a fully empathic character, with complete active range of emotions even if he doesn't voice them very often.

Would that be, like, the completely WRONG reading of what his character is meant to be? Is this the noobie failure equivalent of assuming that hobbits are all short because they don't have domesticated cows so none of them took enough calcium as a child?

Did I miss the memo at the beginning of everything that said to all the fans, "This is what the Vulcan shit is all about?" My questions can be summarized thus:

1. What is this Vulcan shit about?
2. What does that mean for Old TOS Spock?
3. What does that mean for new AU Spock? [as of the end of the movie]
4. Are either Spocks striving to be more or less of this philosophy?

cross-linked to spock_uhura

Comments

[taraljc.livejournal.com]

Tuvok in VOY actually underwent Kolinahr, and there's an ep which flashes back to his childhood as he struggled with an attraction to a Vulcan girl who was not his bonded mate. Also, Surak appears in 3 ENT episodes and one TOS, and there's not a huge amount of canon as to what the Vulcan belief system actually is. Much of what fandom remembers comes from the tie-in novels (which are considered fanon or apocrypha).

But what I've always understood is that Surak's teachings aren't about purging emotions, but complete mastery of emotions--controlling them so you are not controlled by them.

The episodes that are usually cited re: Spock are "The Naked Time" and "Amok Time", and TNG's "Sarek" because those are curcumstances where we see Spock and Sarek break down, and lose control. But also because both Spock and Sarek lament the fact that because they were Vulcan, they could never tell Amanda how they loved her.

Not that they didn't feel love. But that they could not express that love in a way that a human would want/crave/need/understand. Because it was not their way.

[beatrice_otter]

The tie-in novels are fanon, but they're a fanon that a) makes sense b) mostly agrees with what's on-screen in a harmonious way and c) is pretty universally accepted. I'd say this is one area where fanon should be respected unless there's an explicit canon contradiction.

I mean, it's not like most fanon where it's all about making Daniel a woobie so it's easier to pet him, for example (I'm looking at you, SG-1). There's actual depth there to the tie-in novels' Vulcan fanon.

(For those who don't know which novels are being referred to, here: Diane Duane's TOS novels, particularly Spock's World, Sarek by A.C. Crispin, the Vulcan Academy Murders and The IDIC Epidemic by Jean Lorrah, maybe a couple of others)

[taraljc.livejournal.com]

The tie-ins from the 1980s contradict each other (since it's not a shared world the way Star Wars tie-ins are a shared world with shared continuity), so it's more than you can pick and choose. So, for example, while I choose to consider Vulcan's Glory by Dorothy Fontana as part of my personal canon, if parts of it don't agree with Diane Duane's Spock's World I may prioritise.

For example, Spock being the first Vulcan in an integrated Starfleet crew was widely held fanon until T'Pol made it Officially Not Canon via retroactive continuity. Also, Vulcan's Glory has other Vulcan officers aboard Enterprise. The plot requires it. So it all depends on what you want. I cherry pick fanon from the novels/comics/websites/non-fic tie ins, and keep what I want and ditch what I don't on a per story basis.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

How canon is Enterprise canon? Not being much involved in the online ST fandom, I don't know what the "official" thing is--I seem to remember an effort to disassociate it from ST at one point. I mean, I would disagree with the idea of accepting things as canon which were clearly just grasping at straws to try and reach people who kind of know about ST--like, introducing Romulans or the freaking Borg waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before their time.

[taraljc.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I meant Enterprise the ship on TOS, not ST:ENT the tv series.

T'Pol being in Starfleet was a retcon that meant Spock wasn't the first Vulcan on an integrated human crew. That's what I meant.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I may have to watch that TNG episode.

But what I've always understood is that Surak's teachings aren't about purging emotions, but complete mastery of emotions--controlling them so you are not controlled by them.

That seems to be the kicker where AOS Spock is concerned.