joannaestep:
Kirk/Spock. A quiet moment in the captain’s quarters.
trek-daily:
I believe I have found a faster way.
hekate1308:
Something tells me Sarek is going to regret that request.
On shipping and subtext: Why the question of “canon” is not always black and white
plain-flavoured-english:
Well, it’s been a long time since my last long meta, but this one’s been niggling at me for a while. Basically, I want to clarify a few things… so I’m taking advantage of my recently acquired degree in media studies to discuss the importance of recognizing multiple levels of subtext.
I ship Kirk/Spock. It is a prestigious, if controversial, pairing. They are the Grandfathers of Slash, the couple that launched the first thousand fanfics, and I don’t just ship them in the tongue-in-cheek, wouldn’t-it-be-nice way I ship, say, Drarry or Mollstrade; I believe there is definite homoerotic subtext there, in the original source material. This kind of assertion tends to provoke a lot of genuine outrage from certain Trekkies who insist that Kirk and Spock are “just friends” (though I would argue that even if their relationship is purely platonic, Kirk and Spock are certainly not “just” anything!). These people will often roll their eyes and launch into tirades about how we pesky slashers are forcing spurious sexual interpretations onto the most innocent of friendships in service of our own fantasies.
And even though I find the anger and dogmatism with which some Trekkies shout “NO HOMO” to be both unreasonable and revealing, I’m not actually insisting that Kirk and Spock’s relationship is canonically sexual. In fact, I think some of these naysayers are missing the point re: what subtext actually means.
Keep reading
spockslash:
I’m sorry, but if this right here is not married life, I don’t know what is.
teacuptribbles:
Spirk shipping level: William Shatner
