AU or Not AU?

[justTripn]

Actually, Sussman's script was less A/T friendly than the actual episode.

In the part where T'Pol tells Archer "Our relationship has evolved over the years." And Archer asks "Exactly how far has it evolved?" The script had T'Pol answering "Not that far."

It was while shooting the episode that they decided to cut that part out.

Yes, I also heard Escriba's account at a convention from the stage (I can't remember who was the speaker). As I recall, in the overall arc, they had decided to go with T'nT not Archer and T'Pol, but there was still this Archer/T'Pol story that could be told in an alternative timeline. But it was very mild so as to not to conflict with the Trip/T'Pol theme. Dropping the "Not that far" line was a spur of the moment decision as they were filming because it seemed to work better or be more interesting.

Correction: I heard that account on the DVD, the episode "Twilight" with commentary.

[honeybee]

And if I put aside my TnT biases - I have to agree. That line is more interesting when kept vague. I've made it clear in the upthread that no matter what their relationship is, it's a sad situation whether its platonic or some kind of weird one-sided romantic thing.

I also know from the commentary that SB suggested Twilight become a two-parter - but Sussman disagreed because he felt the more about the timeline left to the imagination - the better. It's certainly great fodder for fanfic writers. We Tnt-ers can write a backstory with them still in love - and not contradict what is onscreen. Then, we don't have really any idea what Malcolm or Hoshi's lives have been in that universe. It's definitely a case of less is more.

[honeybee]

Cool. Which would explain why I had the feeling as I read the book that "someone" had been spying on our little community. I think there was even a line in the Andy Mangels book to the effect that T'Pol realized that whatever had happened to him, "Trip was most definatley not dead." (Not. Dead.) lol . . .

Yes. It would not shock me at all if she lurked around various boards.

It doesn't speak well of our world that someone who not only loved the show, respected its fans and hammered out a way to undo *the_abomination* was laid off.

Thankfully, the books have gotten a pretty good reception. Hopefully, she'll move on to bigger and better things.

[WarpGirl]

Laying off people is a sad fact these days. But it does stink for us fans. Hopefully they won't screw the books up.

[Asso]

Male readers like Mistress T'Pol and aren't thinking at all about Trip. Female readers are uncomfortable with the idea of submissive Trip ...

I don't know. I'm not sure about that.

[honeybee]

Well, I'm sure it's not true across the board - it's all a matter of taste - but I've got aggregate data that indicates that....

[WarpGirl]

Personally I like balance. I don't need a man to dominate me, nor do I want to dominate a man. BUT I don't want a wimp either, and I'll be hanged if I turn myself into a docile, kiss-up, unable to state my own mind.

[honeybee]

Life should ultimately be about balance, I think.

Be moderate in order to taste the joys of life in abundance. ~Epicurus

[Ludmila]

I adore AU stories and I like the picture of the world in Asimov's novel "The End of Eternity". I agree with his idea that many different universes may exist simultaneously differing from each other by every different reaction by somebody on the same condition. I love the humorous take on it in "When the Enterprises Collide" by Favors.
I am usually collecting the different ideas of Enterprise characters in my Grand Vision (where I am constructing my consistent understanding of them and am accepting all those details as axioms for me) and the possible diverse AU with coexisting of the ideas- antipodes.
I like new chapter of Honeybee's "Family Secrets" and I love Rigil Kent's handling TnT in "Endeavour: Janus" without trust but and without penalty. I may accept any consensual relations between adults. But I do not like reading the stories with the deliberate non-consensual psychologic oppression by one partner to another. I believe that some playacting is a good tool to reduce the constant pressure of the big responsibility. IMHO, it is better than drinking which may lead to unfortunate results (for example, reducing the great captain in a degraded untrustworthy person). The question arises to which degree one can do so.
Thanks, Honeybee, for a proper quotation. Epicurus is my favorite philosopher.

EDIT. I forgot to name the pertinent Rigil's work – "Endeavour: Janus"

[honeybee]

Oh, welcome Ludmila - and thanks for the complement. I, too, love Rigel Kent's work!

And I love Epicurus, myself. Although I'm sure there's a MU Honeybee that prefers Hedonism.

[Alelou]

Yes, welcome, Ludmila! It's nice to see you hanging out with the gang here!

[WarpGirl]

Welcome again. Well there's one thing in life I don't think should be moderate, CHOCOLATE! But hey it's my only true vice so... I can't wait to see the next big idea somebody has for an AU.

[Alelou]

Personally I like balance. I don't need a man to dominate me, nor do I want to dominate a man. BUT I don't want a wimp either, and I'll be hanged if I turn myself into a docile, kiss-up, unable to state my own mind.

In Mating in Captivity, a book about keeping the sex hot in a marriage, the psychologist author noted that people tend to enjoy in their sex lives what they don't get enough of in the rest of their lives. In other words, a woman who tends to be strong willed and capable in her daily life may really get excited by submission or fantasies of losing control to someone else in the bedroom; a guy who feels like he's not the boss of anything might be particularly fond of dominating and controlling someone sexually, etc. By her logic, a guy who's used to being the strong head of the family might really enjoy giving up that control once in awhile to a hot babe like T'Pol. It wouldn't really translate into the rest of their lives, so being docile isn't the point. In fact, even in Honeybee's scene the supposed submissive was actually the one running the show.

By the book's logic, I don't get the feeling Trip would particularly fit either the submissive or the dominant profile (which does fit Honeybee's story, since it's obviously not a pattern with them, just a little foray). I suspect that T'Pol, however, might really get off on submission -- but again, only in the bedroom.

[Ludmila]

Thanks to all for the warm welcome.
I noted that I was carelessly in my previous post. I forgot to name the pertinent Rigil's work – "Endeavour: Janus"
And I agree with last Alelou's words. They correspond to my vision of the scene in Honeybee's story.

[honeybee]

I read that the city with the most dominatrixes per capita is - wait for it - Washington, DC. All those powerful men just crave giving up their power to a hot woman.

And I would imagine a woman who is balancing a career and family and keeping control of a household, might enjoy losing a little control once in awhile.

I wrote in Dusk that T'Pol expected to be submissive during sex and didn't expect to enjoy it, because Vulcan women were evolutionally adapted to men going through pon farr. On the other hand, she was very curious about human sexuality, specifically Trip caring about her experience. That turned her on.

That said, I totally agree that T'Pol (and probably most Vulcans) are so tightly wound, they could very well be turned on by giving up control. But only in the bedroom. And a Vulcan woman would have to be in a bonded relationship with someone she trusted enough to give up control to.

Trip on the other hand, I see as just being open minded and fun loving. He's obviously had some experience with various alien women - and probably would play either role but ultimately be the one in charge - just like I wrote. Because people confident in themselves can play any role - and still come out on top. . .ahem. . .metaphorically speaking.