And the more different aspects are recognisable from canon, including the outward trappings, the more people will find "their" core characteristic intact, right?
The problem is that we can't agree on what the outward trappings ARE. For me, the outward trappings of Spock is that he lives between two cultures, alternately embracing and rejecting them; that he has a weird relationship with his dad; that he's a scientist and a thinker, but still acts. For other people, the outward trappings of Spock are that he has green blood and is on a space ship, comes from a desert planet, never uses contractions, and thinks that many things are fascinating.
I don't care about whether he's on a spaceship; I think he can be Spock in the old west, editing a fashion magazine, or becoming a professor of the philosophy of physics. I don't think he can be Spock if he isn't trying to assimilate two different cultures, or dealing with feelings of disconnection, or keeping himself emotionally distant in many ways. I would rather see Spock acting like himself in a different environment, than not acting like himself on a spaceship.
So I think no, getting the outside right doesn't mean getting the character any more right.
I don't think it's less legitimate to focus on how people deal with differences rather than on finding an underlying sameness.
I agree. For me, the highlighting of human/non human really relies on a concept that there is something that is inherently human, that we all have in common. I'm really not sure that's true, actually, or at least isn't true in a way that we can really demonstrate in fiction. There are so many different ways to be human—one thing I dearly love about Trek is that it always allowed for not only all these different humans but also, when visiting other planets, that there was variety within their societies as well.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 03:08 pm (UTC)The problem is that we can't agree on what the outward trappings ARE. For me, the outward trappings of Spock is that he lives between two cultures, alternately embracing and rejecting them; that he has a weird relationship with his dad; that he's a scientist and a thinker, but still acts. For other people, the outward trappings of Spock are that he has green blood and is on a space ship, comes from a desert planet, never uses contractions, and thinks that many things are fascinating.
I don't care about whether he's on a spaceship; I think he can be Spock in the old west, editing a fashion magazine, or becoming a professor of the philosophy of physics. I don't think he can be Spock if he isn't trying to assimilate two different cultures, or dealing with feelings of disconnection, or keeping himself emotionally distant in many ways. I would rather see Spock acting like himself in a different environment, than not acting like himself on a spaceship.
So I think no, getting the outside right doesn't mean getting the character any more right.
I don't think it's less legitimate to focus on how people deal with differences rather than on finding an underlying sameness.
I agree. For me, the highlighting of human/non human really relies on a concept that there is something that is inherently human, that we all have in common. I'm really not sure that's true, actually, or at least isn't true in a way that we can really demonstrate in fiction. There are so many different ways to be human—one thing I dearly love about Trek is that it always allowed for not only all these different humans but also, when visiting other planets, that there was variety within their societies as well.