“He took it to the front office, and they corrected that.”
My heart is sad today.
Tags: aging, death, leonard nimoy, noooo
“He took it to the front office, and they corrected that.”
My heart is sad today.
Tags: aging, death, leonard nimoy, noooo
The world is less today.
He lived long and man, did he prosper. May we all aspire to have such a rich, fulfilled life. And to sing “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” with such panache.
Perfect.
*breaks into sobs at work*
I’m so sad. I only recently got into Star Trek, but I already loved him. Everyone keeps posting quotes from the end of Wrath of Khan, and I’ve spent the last few hours watching not-Trek and trying not to cry.
I have been crying for two hours. </3
Yep. Burst into tears at my desk. My student worker was freaked. He lived a long, great life but my heart is heavy.
Me too. It’s been kind of a crap day at work anyway, but this didn’t help. He was my favorite. My absolute favorite. Not just as Spock, but as a human being. GAAAHHH and there I go again. fuck.
“Of my friend, I can only say this: Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most…human.”
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
full-body twist of agony, so, thanks for that.
Although to step back a moment from our grief, that’s kind of a douchey, ethnocentric thing to say.
Douchey and ethnocentric…Yeah, that sounds like Kirk alright!
Yes. All the doucheyness and ethnocentricness!
That being said, I have a strong urge to geek. Please feel free to ignore the rambling. This is my first comment here. I apologise in advance.
The thing is, despite this sentence being umcomfortable anthropocentric in a way that’s inherently speciecist, I hesitate to judge them for it. It’s a speech act with immense emotional gravity (and makes me want to bawl).
The thing is Star Trek’s whole “humanism” shtick. The attribute “human” is not simply used for “biologically human”, but as a signifier for a set of core values, such as Curiosity, Courage, Integrity, Friendship and so on. “Human” in Star Trek is mostly something that one /does/, and it’s a principally *kind* quality. It’s probably a combination of a lack of better words (I wouldn’t know what to call the thing either, which is a pretty big problem, thesis-wise) and a white man’s faith in a universal human character, which unfortunately doesn’t really exist.
So, what I’m trying to say is that while the anthropocentrism of the franchise is not well-reflected and at times ignorant or even offensive, I have always felt that the lack of (biological?) essentialism is one of its biggest strenghts for the possibilities of acceptance. Spock is a liminal character, not only between two cultures, but also between two species. I have always read Kirk’s speech as an act of acceptance, respect and always-friendship. It’s always felt more welcoming and honoring than patronising.
I need to go cry some more now. Sorry again about the rambling.
No, that’s totally his intent, and a hugely meaningful statement. It’s just one of those things that strikes me about Star Trek, that “human” is one of the highest compliments a character can give another, and is shown time and time again to be that quality for which everybody should strive. It’s a very colonialist approach, because the Federation is a very colonialist organization. Everybody involved can mean incredibly well, but the phrasing, if you stop to think about it, is a bit problematic.
It’s what Kirk considers the greatest of compliments (and don’t get me wrong, I tear up every time, SCOTTY PUT DOWN THOSE PIPES), but Spock wouldn’t have thought so, and they even draw attention to it later (like, 4 movies later).
From Undiscovered Country:
Kirk: Spock, you want to know something? Everybody’s human.
Spock: I find that remark… insulting.
Yes. I totally agree with everything you and Unreadaethel are saying. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to defend Kirk (or the entire federation’s colonialist douchebaggery). I know how harmful, problematic and plain arrogant universalist humanism tends to be more often than not.
That the term they use for their core set of values overlaps with the name of the dominant species is deeply problematic, and they should have written it differently. Since it’s inherently anthropocentric in the way that it’s both written by humans and consumed by humans (and the occasional dog), the human perspective is a default that is difficult, if impossible, to transcend — that they managed to tie their ideology directly to it, is both problematic and unfortunate.
Still, let me perhaps clarify my earlier position. Star Trek’s humanism serves a narrative valueing the way one interacts with one’s social environment over biologistic essentialism. In a very naive and more-than-slightly-ignorant way, I’ve found that to be inclusive and accepting (especially when compared to Stargate SG-1’s moral essentialism and genocidal tendencies). That is not the same as empowering and respectful, and its faults are apparent and indoubitably countless.
So, I don’t know whether I reproduce anything problematic when I admit that while Spock finds the remark insulting and I definitely see that Kirk is a douchebag about his friend’s culture (and really-really don’t want to defend that aspect of it!), I have felt comforted by the acceptance and inclusiveness. In Star Trek, you can be different and still be accepted. Maybe it’s a misinterpretation, but teenager-me, rejected by pretty much everyone for various structural reasons, kind of needed to hear that…
Ah, idk, I’m sorry.
Ah I didn’t mean to sound critical! Quite the opposite! I love OST (including OST Kirk as opposed to still charming but more troubling reboot Kirk) and I love the optimistic vision of a future of social justice in which human includes everyone and human means humane in the best way (setting aside some 60s that crept in anyway, A+ for effort!). I actually love Kirk’s speech for the same reasons you are laying out. And I also love that the original series had a way of exploring these issues through different characters, so you can get Kirk’s message and love it and understand that the best of humanity includes all members of humanity– and then they’ll still give Spock his say in a humorous way that acknowledges that Kirk is missing the cosmic part of the picture. Hammy as it could be, the show pushed some really hopeful points about human nature, and the first chunk of movies continued that. So rock on!
The cosmic ballet goes on.
Nicely said.
Anybody want to switch seats?
I feel like I’ve been dreading this moment my whole life because whenever I think “What celebrities will it hurt most to lose?” what immediately comes to mind is, “Any member of the original Star Trek cast.”
I grew up in Cambridge, and when I went trick-or-treating as Spock as a kid (okay, teenager), I used to fantasize that I would stumble upon Leonard Nimoy’s house and, IDK, be friends or something, except that even then I was aware that my reaction would have been more like Troy Barnes meeting Levar Burton than anything cool or suave.
postComment(0);
Yes very sad news.
This hits me in a way that few celebrity deaths have. Along with fellow Trek alum Patrick Stewart, he was one of those people who both embodied his most famous role and lived his life with the same fundamental decency as his character.
He was, and always shall be, our friend.
::ugly cry::
I know it will probably be a Jewish funeral, but if they don’t have a piper there, then nothing is right.
openly weeping at desk. don’t care who sees.
“change is the essential process of all existence” – Spock
i will be wearing my uniform extra proudly this weekend.
His mind to our minds. His thoughts to our thoughts.
He put a little bit of his katra into each of us.
Yes. All the doucheyness and ethnocentricness!
That being said, I have a strong urge to geek. Please feel free to ignore the rambling. This is my first comment here. I apologise in advance.
The thing is, despite this sentence being umcomfortable anthropocentric in a way that's inherently speciecist, I hesitate to judge them for it. It's a speech act with immense emotional gravity (and makes me want to bawl).
The thing is Star Trek's whole "humanism" shtick. The attribute "human" is not simply used for "biologically human", but as a signifier for a set of core values, such as Curiosity, Courage, Integrity, Friendship and so on. "Human" in Star Trek is mostly something that one /does/, and it's a principally *kind* quality. It's probably a combination of a lack of better words (I wouldn't know what to call the thing either, which is a pretty big problem, thesis-wise) and a white man's faith in a universal human character, which unfortunately doesn't really exist.
So, what I'm trying to say is that while the anthropocentrism of the franchise is not well-reflected and at times ignorant or even offensive, I have always felt that the lack of (biological?) essentialism is one of its biggest strenghts for the possibilities of acceptance. Spock is a liminal character, not only between two cultures, but also between two species. I have always read Kirk's speech as an act of acceptance, respect and always-friendship. It's always felt more welcoming and honoring than patronising.
I need to go cry some more now. Sorry again about the rambling.
Who put the Bomp!
I absolutely loved that. It must seem to the people from outside Boston that we are making a big deal about a minor piece of his work. But, you have to understand that for most of us it was by far the first memory of Leonard Nimoy and it instantly transports me back in time to when I was learning about the eye-opening pound science. I’m getting emotional thinking about it! You have always been and forever will be our Spock!
He did so much, and I really love this story.
I also came across a fascinating video, well worth 5.26 minutes of everyone’s time: Lie Long and Prosper: The Jewish Story Behind Spock, which was made by the Yiddish Book Center.
It's what Kirk considers the greatest of compliments (and don't get me wrong, I tear up every time, SCOTTY PUT DOWN THOSE PIPES), but Spock wouldn't have thought so, and they even draw attention to it later (like, 4 movies later).
From Undiscovered Country:
Kirk: Spock, you want to know something? Everybody's human.
Spock: I find that remark… insulting.
Yes. I totally agree with everything you and Unreadaethel are saying. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to defend Kirk (or the entire federation's colonialist douchebaggery). I know how harmful, problematic and plain arrogant universalist humanism tends to be more often than not.
That the term they use for their core set of values overlaps with the name of the dominant species is deeply problematic, and they should have written it differently. Since it's inherently anthropocentric in the way that it's both written by humans and consumed by humans (and the occasional dog), the human perspective is a default that is difficult, if impossible, to transcend — that they managed to tie their ideology directly to it, is both problematic and unfortunate.
Still, let me perhaps clarify my earlier position. Star Trek's humanism serves a narrative valueing the way one interacts with one's social environment over biologistic essentialism. In a very naive and more-than-slightly-ignorant way, I've found that to be inclusive and accepting (especially when compared to Stargate SG-1's moral essentialism and genocidal tendencies). That is not the same as empowering and respectful, and its faults are apparent and indoubitably countless.
So, I don't know whether I reproduce anything problematic when I admit that while Spock finds the remark insulting and I definitely see that Kirk is a douchebag about his friend's culture (and really-really don't want to defend that aspect of it!), I have felt comforted by the acceptance and inclusiveness. In Star Trek, you can be different and still be accepted. Maybe it's a misinterpretation, but teenager-me, rejected by pretty much everyone for various structural reasons, kind of needed to hear that…
Ah, idk, I'm sorry.
Ah I didn't mean to sound critical! Quite the opposite! I love OST (including OST Kirk as opposed to still charming but more troubling reboot Kirk) and I love the optimistic vision of a future of social justice in which human includes everyone and human means humane in the best way (setting aside some 60s that crept in anyway, A+ for effort!). I actually love Kirk's speech for the same reasons you are laying out. And I also love that the original series had a way of exploring these issues through different characters, so you can get Kirk's message and love it and understand that the best of humanity includes all members of humanity– and then they'll still give Spock his say in a humorous way that acknowledges that Kirk is missing the cosmic part of the picture. Hammy as it could be, the show pushed some really hopeful points about human nature, and the first chunk of movies continued that. So rock on!
This hits me in a way that few celebrity deaths have. Along with fellow Trek alum Patrick Stewart, he was one of those people who both embodied his most famous role and lived his life with the same fundamental decency as his character.
This hits me in a way that few celebrity deaths have. Along with fellow Trek alum Patrick Stewart, he was one of those people who both embodied his most famous role and lived his life with the same fundamental decency as his character.