- Star Trek: The Next Generation, “Remember Me”

1. Uhura. There were a lot of limitations placed on this character in the original series. Her position on the ship could be described as a glorified telephone operator (just as the female yeoman are futuristic secretaries). She is barred from any kind of relationship with the white male leads (the much-discussed kiss Uhura/Kirk kiss is, of course, the result of irresistible alien forces and even then barely made it past censors). There are also some truly weird moments such as her immediate, obvious physical attraction to any Black crew member or being reduced to a childlike state by an insane robot. Nonetheless, she is incredible in that she is not defined by any of her relationships with the male crew members. She is the expert in her field and her abilities are never called into doubt by either Kirk or Spock. She is also charismatic, brave, and a little eccentric. She wears neon green earrings and silver nail polish. She sings loudly apparently whenever and wherever she wants. She flirts openly with Spock without seeming to care whether he reciprocates. She’s able to relearn an entire lifetime’s worth of education in a few days. And she is (gasp) “good at math.”

Though she is clearly remarkable as an example of a strong, black female character in 1960s television, she is especially remarkable for being no one’s wife or girlfriend. When delusional fencing Sulu grabs her by the waist and exclaims, “I’ll save you, fair maiden!” an annoyed Uhura replies simply, “Thank you, neither.”

2009 Movie Uhura? Yes, thank you for giving her the credit for being a xenolinguist. Thank you for acknowledging the flirtation between her and Spock that’s often overshadowed by the Kirk kiss. But don’t relegate her to the position of creating a love triangle with Spock and Kirk because she was the only major female character. This is a crew member whose technical knowledge and linguistic skill play a crucial role in nearly every episode. This is an officer who held her own in the insane gladiator world of one of the worst episodes of all time. This is a woman who completely pwned Evil Scarface Sulu. Don’t turn her into the movie girlfriend.

2. Spock. I don’t think I’ll get much argument when I say that Spock is the Sherlock Holmes of 1960s science fiction television. He even directly quotes Holmes’ famous dictum: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Like Holmes, Spock has a complicated and ambiguous sexuality and both characters have given rise to suggestions of homosexuality. Indeed, the Kirk/Spock pairing is the original “slash” fanfiction (the slash comes from that particular bit of punctuation). His Vulcan sexuality is…weird. He appears to be completely asexual with a few notable exceptions — the influence of the weird plant vomit and, of course, Amok time. The latter is clearly an exaggeration of human hormone cycles and, as noted endlessly and comically amongst fans, a sort of extreme Vulcan menstrual cycle. Spock’s wild, uncontrolled mood swings, his overwhelming aggression, and his spiking sexual drive draw obvious comparisons to either menses or menopause. Moreover, his lack of choice in a mate and his desire not to be dominated by his own sexuality place him in a traditionally female role that make him all the more complicated and interesting.

Even if you think Spock is heterosexual by our society’s standards, it is still indisputably his friendship with Kirk that allows him to eventually and comfortably access the human part of his personality. This seems to be overshadowed by his physical relationship to Movie Uhura. Interestingly, in the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film, Holmes is also romantically paired with a canonical character as a way of sidestepping accusations of homosexuality as the main male friendship is explored. The whole movies become a “We’re not gay! See? See everyone who keeps saying we’re gay?! We have girlfriends! Look how much we’re making out with them! We must really not be gay, huh?”

The decision to give Spock and Holmes girlfriends might seem daring or modern or a savvy narrative ploy, but it clearly limits the wonderful ambiguity of their characters — an ambiguity, I might add, that is clearly responsible for the longevity of their appeal. However straightforwardly he presents himself, it is always clear that we simply do not know what Spock is thinking or, perhaps more importantly, feeling. It is his ability to keep us guessing, deducing, or logically inferring that keeps us interested. While this is clearly not limited to his sexuality, that is nonetheless a major component in the overall mystery of his character.

Kirk: Oh, Kirk. Is there anything you can’t seduce? Unclear. But he’s also a complicated example of male sexuality. I find him absolutely sympathetic for a totally unexpected reason: he is clearly and consistently physically objectified. The “Shirtless Kirk” running joke is more than justified as he goes barechested at some point in nearly every episode. Even when he is wearing clothing, he is the only member of the crew to be subjected to that clingy, wraparound green number occasionally worn in lieu of a normal uniform.

The women on the ship may have to run around in tunics and tights, but it hardly compares to the truly embarrassing sight of this top. It’s as if we’ve stumbled in on Kirk as he’s preparing for a Turkish bath in a 1980s nightclub. Even when he wears his normal uniform, it seems to fit tighter than anyone else’s. He, more than any other character, is tied up, tortured, undressed, and solicited. That he is an unrelenting ladies man, that he seems to have never found a situation that he cannot seduce his way out of is almost beside the point. Kirk is clearly objectified as a sexual object in a way much more typical of a female character. The sexual part of his personality is on display and open to attack. That he is able to be vulnerable around Spock seems to me to be due in small part for his ability to empathize with Spock’s complicated sexuality and desire to appear strong despite inner turmoil. Kirk’s ability to empathize, his boundless maternal willingness to sacrifice himself for those in his care, and his traditionally girlish love for his own good looks belie the seemingly hyper-masculine nature of his character.

Basically what I’m saying is…I wish we’d quit heterosexualizing everything. Or, probably more accurately, I wish we’d stop norming everyone. Spock is weird, really weird, in a way that means a typical girlfriend relationship makes no sense. Kirk is weird and…pretty. And probably a little in love with Spock. I mean, who isn’t? And who isn’t Kirk in love with?

And Uhura is..probably going to kick your ass.

Up next: where are all the badass, homoerotic female friendships?

I’m trying to find sources that give a better understanding of what I want my students to strive for in their writing. One essay I’ve been thinking of using is George Orwell’s Politics and Prose of the English Language. I love Orwell, and the essay is a very well-known treatise on his writing standards.  He believes that the English language is in decline and it is our responsibility to protect it (an argument that renews itself with each generation). Orwell primarily blames politicians for making language vague and indecipherable to serve their own interests.  He lays out six rules for avoiding this kind of writing:

1.    Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2.    Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3.    If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4.    Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5.    Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6.    Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

However, Orwell uses complex words, passive voice, and figures of speech several times in the essay. He is not actually breaking his rules, because these exceptions are effective and justified. The problem is that it’s very hard to teach a beginning writer where to make these exceptions. And this isn’t the only potential problem with the essay. As Terry Eagleton points out:

Orwell was for the most part incapable of giving an oblique answer to a question, just as Derrida is incapable of giving a straight one. One should be cautious of those who loudly insist on cutting the crap and telling it like it is, just as one should beware of those who find things too exquisitely complex for definitive judgment. Orwell seems to have felt a rather puritanical sense of guilt about his own relish for language (he was an admirer of James Joyce), and believed he had to repress it in the interests of political utility. Such an attitude is scarcely conducive to producing major fiction.
-Terry Eagleton, Reach-Me-Down Romantic

Writing…how can anyone teach it? I’ve sneakily tried to get around it in my syllabus by introducing the course with a unit on art. I don’t actually know very much about art or art history, but I want to start off by comparing the two fields. My students will have to muddle through different opinions on what art is and what makes good art and then relate it back to composition. Science has the scientific method, but what does writing have? It’s a confusing whirlwind of whatnot. If I can’t figure out how to explain what good writing is, how can I expect my students to care?

Minus the invading Nazis, obviously.

I’d also settle for sitting in a museum, knitting:

There’s lots of folkloric history for the song, but what interested me most BY FAR is that apparently people used to ACTUALLY BAKE LIVE BIRDS INTO PIES. And not only live birds — they also used rabbits, squirrels, AND TINY HUMANS. They used to put people with dwarfism into pies…and then have them jump out and start reciting poetry. What is wrong with humanity? Also, how awesome is humanity? I’m sorry, but that’s amazing.

Technically, they didn’t bake them with the pie. According to the 16th century cookbook Epulario, you’d fill the unbaked shell with flour before putting it in the oven. After the pastry was cooked, you’d make a hole in the bottom of it, let the flour out, and then put whatever live animal/human you preferred inside the hole. The author offers this advice:

“And this is to be at such time as you send the pie to the table, and set before the guests: where uncovering or cutting up the lid of the great pie, all the birds will flie out, which is to delight and pleasure shew to the company. And because they shall not bee altogether mocked, you shall cut open the small pie, and in this sort you may make many others, the like you may do with a tart.”

Basically, I know what I’m making for New Year’s!

I am the poet of the woman the same as the man,

And I say it is as great to be a woman as to be a man,

And I say there is nothing greater than the mother of men.

-Walt Whitman. Excerpt from “Song of Myself”

I am enamour’d of growing outdoors,

Of men tha live among cattle or taste the ocean or woods,

Of the builders and steeres of ships and the wielders of

axes and mauls, and the drivers of horses,

I can eat and sleep with them week in and week out.

What is commonest, cheapest, nearest, easiest, is Me……

-Excerpt from “Song of Myself”

Jack Lemmon, cinema crush: