Love to see my favorite characters tortured (well, not literally)

[commodore64]

I'll make a long story short, or shorter. I had a conversation with my father about how he hated to "hurt" characters as he wrote. It made me think about how much I absolutely loved episodes where Spock got hurt. They usually, in fact, turned into my favorite episodes of Star Trek. Wrath of Khan, for example.

It led me to think about Enterprise. I love episodes where T'Pol and Archer face overwhelming obstacles and sometimes, even, fail. Watching my favorite characters grow and change, sometimes painfully, is ... delightful. Worse, I really like those episodes that seem to destroy the character only, in the end, for them to show their mettle. I love Damage. Watching Archer stoop to piracy and then scratch and claw his way back to civility fascinates me. It's probably why I like Twilight and the Vulcan episodes so much (Forge in particular).

So, what about you? Is seeing your favorite character tortured delicious and delightful to you, too? And if so, what's your favorite and why?

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Tortured? Not necessarily. But I get what you're saying. The best thing a writer can do for his character is to drag him through hell as he strives to succeed (or fails to succeed) at getting his goal.

What you're talking about is effective story structure. A great way to test a character, and see what he's really made of, is to put him under increasing pressure and see how he reacts-- see what he's really made of. Stories like this can really lock me in if I'm emotionally invested in the character and rooting for him to succeed. The character in crisis is forced to reveal things about himself that you'd never get him to reveal any other way.

One of the reasons I enjoy "Twilight" is because the characters are plunged into a unique crisis that doesn't occur during the "real" story arc of Season 3, and we get to see how they would react if the worst happened--if the Xindi won and Earth was destroyed. It's like a bonus "what if" story for me, and I thought it was great to be able to see how the characters turned out (such as the hardened, cynical Captain Tucker, so different from his RU counterpart) because of the circumstances of the "Twilight" story.

The Xindi arc did a great job, I thought, of putting Archer under increasing pressure and testing him in crisis, revealing deeper layers of the character, and demonstrating that his struggles had consequences. Degra goes through a similar journey, in which his most basic beliefs and values about his people and his purpose are put to the test. I think this is part of why Season 3 is my favorite.

"Observer Effect" is another good example for me, since the crew is literally looking death in the face, and things get worse and worse as the story progresses, to the point where two of our favorites actually die and a third believes he is doomed. Even the Organians (especially the jaded, seen-it-all senior Observer) are tested by the events of the story.

Interesting topic, commie. I can't wait to see some of the "tortured character" examples.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I can't say if it's a "torture" scene, or if it helps the character being "tortured" develop, but I loved when T'Pol got shot while saving the Vulcan captain in "Shadows of P'Jem."

I thought it helped Shran develop as a character, if nothing else. When he says "You should be the one dying, not her" to the Vulcan T'Pol just saved, it shows that he is, at least, warming up to Archer and his crew and simply repaying a debt to Archer.

 

[bluedana]

I draw the line at torture porn, which I define as hurting a character just to hurt him or her. It's also known as "whump" in fan-fic. Ick.

But I, too, am drawn to stories where the hero, especially, is hurt or disadvantaged in some way. If I think about it, I come up with:

1. I love to see how characters deal with adversity. What do they say when they can't just quip their way out of a situation. What if there's no clear solution? What if it's a no-win scenario? What are they made of?

2. I love to see how characters face death. Do they go kicking and screaming? Do they accept it as a natural and necessary event? One of my problem, for example, with Kirk was that he was willing to lie, cheat, and steal to evade death - but had no problem sending someone else to his doom. I prefer Archer, actually, who will lay down his life for his crew, and does, because, in the end, he doesn't value his life more highly than he does theirs. We see it in Andorian Incident, but I really fell in love with this aspect in Shockwave I. The choice between his life and his ship's safety was a no brainer for him.

3. I love to see how other characters react when the hero is hurt. What facades do they drop when it gets right down to it? I liked McCoy best when he wasn't cruelly teasing Spock, but was rather caring for him through his injuries. How does the relationship grow because of it?

One of my all-time favorite episode of any show, ever, is a fifth season Emergency!, where my favorite paramedic character is bitten by a rattlesnake and has to treat himself on the way to the hospital. The person most worried about him is his archenemy. I still remember that episode from the first time I saw it, sometime around 1975. (Yes, kiddoes, I'm that old.)

4. And I love to see, if the hero can't just muscle his way through a problem, how does he have to rely on the other characters? Or his other skills? If you take away the easy one-two punch solution, how does the writer get the character out of the situation?

I guess I've put more thought into this than I realized.

 

[commodore64]

I draw the line at torture porn, which I define as hurting a character just to hurt him or her. It's also known as "whump" in fan-fic. Ick.

Yeah. To HR, when I said I like to see characters tortured and then wrote "not literally." I meant it! That's pretty blech.

And, Blue, you're right about putting a character through pitfalls and trials vs. throwing a bunch of crap at a character to see him suffer. The idea of the suffering should be to make the character better, following a plot line that eventually enables his success. In other words, "torture" (again not literal), just for the sake of a character's misery is mean. I gotta say, during Enterprise, there were a few story arcs I didn't like that just beat down a character without any possibility of triumph. Mean!

1. I love to see how characters deal with adversity. What do they say when they can't just quip their way out of a situation. What if there's no clear solution? What if it's a no-win scenario? What are they made of?

Great point! It really does explain a lot about the character. Han Solo goes quipping. Luke Skywalker does not.

2. I love to see how characters face death. Do they go kicking and screaming? Do they accept it as a natural and necessary event? One of my problem, for example, with Kirk was that he was willing to lie, cheat, and steal to evade death - but had no problem sending someone else to his doom. I prefer Archer, actually, who will lay down his life for his crew, and does, because, in the end, he doesn't value his life more highly than he does theirs. We see it in Andorian Incident, but I really fell in love with this aspect in Shockwave I. The choice between his life and his ship's safety was a no brainer for him.

I don't know. I think Kirk made a good "trickster." And I think his zest for life was what made him fun. Archer, my second favorite character in all of Star Trek, had a bit of a martyr's complex, I thought. He was all too willing to lay down his life, and seemed to eagerly offer it up when it was unnecessary as if (as Travis Mayweather correctly pointed out in Azati Prime) accepting punishment or dying for another's sins.

3. I love to see how other characters react when the hero is hurt. What facades do they drop when it gets right down to it? I liked McCoy best when he wasn't cruelly teasing Spock, but was rather caring for him through his injuries. How does the relationship grow because of it?

I gotta admit, I liked seeing Kirk react to Spock's death; it's what made the death scene so darned teary. I was never a huge McCoy fan (although strangely enough loved the new McCoy!). I also have to admit some of my favorite Enterprise moments are characters reacting to anothers' death: T'Pol upset that Archer is throwing his life away in Azati Prime, T'Pol angry at Trip because of Archer in Azati Prime, Archer near tears at the impending doom of Trip, etc.

One of my all-time favorite episode of any show, ever, is a fifth season Emergency!, where my favorite paramedic character is bitten by a rattlesnake and has to treat himself on the way to the hospital. The person most worried about him is his archenemy. I still remember that episode from the first time I saw it, sometime around 1975. (Yes, kiddoes, I'm that old.)

Two words: Randolph Mantooth. I loved that series as well.

4. And I love to see, if the hero can't just muscle his way through a problem, how does he have to rely on the other characters? Or his other skills? If you take away the easy one-two punch solution, how does the writer get the character out of the situation?

I also like when the hero doesn't turn to other characters (and should), and they have to help out anyway. Archer in Azati Prime, Archer in ANIS, The Communicator, etc.

 

[DevilEyes]

I'll make a long story short, or shorter. I had a conversation with my father about how he hated to "hurt" characters as he wrote. It made me think about how much I absolutely loved episodes where Spock got hurt. They usually, in fact, turned into my favorite episodes of Star Trek. Wrath of Khan, for example.

It led me to think about Enterprise. I love episodes where T'Pol and Archer face overwhelming obstacles and sometimes, even, fail. Watching my favorite characters grow and change, sometimes painfully, is ... delightful. Worse, I really like those episodes that seem to destroy the character only, in the end, for them to show their mettle. I love Damage. Watching Archer stoop to piracy and then scratch and claw his way back to civility fascinates me. It's probably why I like Twilight and the Vulcan episodes so much (Forge in particular).

So, what about you? Is seeing your favorite character tortured delicious and delightful to you, too? And if so, what's your favorite and why?

I know what you mean. I've also joked in the past that I seem to like seeing my favorite characters "tortured". Which sounds awful but in fact, it's not that we enjoy seeing the character we love suffer - no, we actually sympathize with their pain and want them to survive, overcome the difficulties, win, be happy. But we just love those episodes because they are usually great episodes for our favorite characters - they put them in the spotlight, they let the actor really shine, they allow a lot of great character moments, and out favorite character can show their deepest emotions and hidden strengths.

In TOS, my favorite episodes were Spock-centric ones, where he would lose his control and undergo an emotionally wrenching experience. On DS9, I always loved episodes in which Kira - my favorite character - was being emotionally tormented, confronted with her demons and forced to question her actions and beliefs and grow as a person: "Duet", "Second Skin", "Ties of Blood and Water", etc. Watching Odo suffer was painful, but so emotional and compelling, and you just had to sympathize with him. Sisko deciding to cross the line and do immoral things for a worthy goal, is what made him really interesting , and produced "In the Pale Moonlight". Of course, DS9 was notorious for its "torture O'Brien" episodes - I wasn't crazy about all of them, but "Hard Time" was really excellent. And it just occurred to me that some of my favorite TNG episodes include Picard being literally tortured - "Chain of Command" or violated - "Best of Both Worlds". I've also noticed it a lot in BSG -I especially noticed this phenomenon after the episode in which one of my favorite characters was literally tortured throughout the episode, threatened by execution, was confronted with his guilt, and had nightmarish hallucinations... and I really loved the episode and thought that it provided deeper characterization that was really lacking in that season as far as that character was concerned.
(I do have to say, though, that you shouldn't go too far in victimizing a character; I love Lost, and Locke is my favorite character, but I think the show went overboard with having bad things happen to him. )

On ENT, I also enjoy episodes in which T'Pol suffers and struggles with her emotions, or Archer is forced to do immoral things and feels horrible about it. "Damage" was a great episode that showed them both at their lowest point.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

1. I love to see how characters deal with adversity. What do they say when they can't just quip their way out of a situation. What if there's no clear solution? What if it's a no-win scenario? What are they made of?

No-win scenarios can really peel away layers of a character and reveal so much. I thought "Similitude" did a great job with that.

2. I love to see how characters face death. Do they go kicking and screaming? Do they accept it as a natural and necessary event?

Eons ago, I went to a seminar on Star Trek II, and one of the speakers was screenwriter Jack Sowards. He said that his original version of the scene where Spock is in Engineering saving the ship, was much more subdued-- Spock quietly and efficiently pushing buttons and adjusting controls, as the radiation slowly overcame him. But somebody wanted more pizazz and heroics, so the final version of the scene was all that billowing smoke and flashing lights, Spock staggering around opening ducts, etc. Everybody at the seminar preferred Soward's original version, how logically Spock approached his impending doom. So even the setting can have an affect our perception (or the screenwriter's ) of how a character faces death.

In the same film, the way Kirk comes to realize, and confess, that he has cheated and tricked his way out of death for so long-- seeing him fight and struggle against that reality before bleakly acknowledging it-- was something I didn't realize I'd been waiting for. It's so seldom that a leading character really does face death-- not just face it long enough to get past the commercial break.

And the Kirk/Spock death scene... beautifully done.

3. I love to see how other characters react when the hero is hurt. What facades do they drop when it gets right down to it? I liked McCoy best when he wasn't cruelly teasing Spock, but was rather caring for him through his injuries. How does the relationship grow because of it?

My favorite "character" in TOS is the McCoy-Spock dynamic, and a couple of favorite episodes are "Bread and Circuses" and "The Empath," because the characters are (fleetingly) vulnerable and honest about their friendship. The scene in Star Trek III where McCoy talks with the unconscious Spock, saying he doesn't want to lose him again... marvelous stuff.

One of my all-time favorite episode of any show, ever, is a fifth season Emergency!, where my favorite paramedic character is bitten by a rattlesnake and has to treat himself on the way to the hospital. The person most worried about him is his archenemy. I still remember that episode from the first time I saw it, sometime around 1975. (Yes, kiddoes, I'm that old.)

I loved that one too! Gage lying atop the fire engine en route to the hospital, phoning in his vitals and symptoms as he starts to black out... gold, just gold. Mantooth was a dreamboat, LOL. We are definitely TV geeks.

To HR, when I said I like to see characters tortured and then wrote "not literally." I meant it! That's pretty blech.

Oh sure, I know it was figurative. But there are Trek torture episodes, and there's "hurt-comfort" in fanfiction. So there's an audience. Personally, I rand out of the room during those scenes in "Syriana" and the first Craig Bond film (ouch, ouch, OUCH), I'm squeamish that way.

On ENT, I also enjoy episodes in which T'Pol suffers and struggles with her emotions...

I'm one of those who found the trellium storyline very compelling, because of T'Pol's struggle. It had some Spock to it, the battle between control and emotion. Blalock has said in interviews that she didn't like having her character go through that, but I thought she did a terrific job. I wish the post-trellium aftermath had been explored more in Season 4, but the show had too much else to worry about, I think.

 

[bluedana]

I don't know. I think Kirk made a good "trickster." And I think his zest for life was what made him fun. Archer, my second favorite character in all of Star Trek, had a bit of a martyr's complex, I thought. He was all too willing to lay down his life, and seemed to eagerly offer it up when it was unnecessary as if (as Travis Mayweather correctly pointed out in Azati Prime) accepting punishment or dying for another's sins.

There are tons of examples of Archer being willing to sacrifice himself for the ship and her crew to the point where it's an essential part of his nature, and each time it has a point to it: Shockwave I, The Communicator, Minefield, Observer Effect, and especially United. There's a "well, no other way around it" kind of pragmatism that doesn't strike me as martyrdom.

Azati Prime is an exception, and I think it still works because it is part of a larger arc showing a gradual downward spiral, culminating in this man's broken spirit. He is taking on the sins in AP, and that's the point. But in a sense, it's out of character (explainably, not in a "the writers have screwed up" kind of way) because he is feeling so guilty and beaten down. It's the one time his sacrifice doesn't make sense for the greater good. But for the most part, he has a well-formed survivor instinct (good instincts and the willingness to try the unconventional to get out of a situation), but isn't afraid to consider his own death as a last resort.

I never got that sense from Kirk. Maybe I don't like trickster characters. But I thought Spock was closer to the self-sacrifice thing that I like than Kirk, not just in TWOK, but also whatever that episode is with the flying pizzas that cause pain. (Is that the one where Spock flies the shuttle in a kind of suicide mission instead of McCoy? The one where he says, "You should have wished me luck"? And, okay, I have now officially geeked out.) I never, ever got that vibe from Kirk, so anytime he got injured I was like, meh. He just always struck me as selfish and self-absorbed.

Eons ago, I went to a seminar on Star Trek II, and one of the speakers was screenwriter Jack Sowards. He said that his original version of the scene where Spock is in Engineering saving the ship, was much more subdued-- Spock quietly and efficiently pushing buttons and adjusting controls, as the radiation slowly overcame him. But somebody wanted more pizazz and heroics, so the final version of the scene was all that billowing smoke and flashing lights, Spock staggering around opening ducts, etc. Everybody at the seminar preferred Soward's original version, how logically Spock approached his impending doom.

I wish I could see this version. It sounds like the very definition of practical sacrifice, facing death with dignity on one's own terms.

So all of that is from a reader/watcher point of view. I've also written a couple of things, and from that standpoint, I realize that I almost always hurt the main character. I think the main reason I do it is because I like to write inner monologues, fleshing out the character emotionally, which are much more compelling to me if they come from a place of vulnerability and uncertainty.

 

[commodore64]

There are tons of examples of Archer being willing to sacrifice himself for the ship and her crew to the point where it's an essential part of his nature, and each time it has a point to it: Shockwave I, The Communicator, Minefield, Observer Effect, and especially United. There's a "well, no other way around it" kind of pragmatism that doesn't strike me as martyrdom.

Azati Prime is an exception, and I think it still works because it is part of a larger arc showing a gradual downward spiral, culminating in this man's broken spirit.

I think Archer's strong suit is that he takes the lives of his people very seriously and, as their leader, offers his life up instead of theirs. It's noble. A weakness is that he offers up his life all too readily because he doesn't want to order another's death.

TNG had a pretty good episode covering why it's important for a leader to sometimes order the death of those that report to them. Troi couldn't advance in command until she ordered LaForge to his death. In the process, she learned how serious command is.

Why do you think Trip so eagerly tells the baddies in TATV to knock Archer out and decides to put an end to them himself, giving up his life? He knows Archer might die (possibly because he throw himself into the fray too readily) and Trip sees the bigger picture: they are on the verge of the Federation and need Archer.

Sure, Archer gives up his life when needed, but ... is it really needed? I think it says more about him as a character than just a plot line. Archer is far too noble to allow another to die when he thinks his death will serve the purpose. And thus why it's a strength and weakness.

Kirk's strength is that he gets he's the leader and knows how important he is; he's willing to use his cunning to avoid death at all costs. His weakness is that he places his life above those who report to him, making him seem a bit self-centered. (Hence his nice character realizations after Spock's death pretty much coming to that conclusion.) He's a guy who's "cheated" death his whole life. It's hard to stare it in the face and acknowledge the possibility of his own mortality and those around him.

In good times and bad, amazing odds and incredible suffering, the characters are themselves and their actions and words prove who a character is at the very center of it all.

 

[miriel68]

Such an interesting topic

But I, too, am drawn to stories where the hero, especially, is hurt or disadvantaged in some way.

I sensed something like this while reading your fanfic stories. May be that's why I like them so much (well, they are also well written )

I think Spock was such an interesting character precisely because he was so tormented. I have never had much sympathy for Kirk, because IMO he never suffers very much, or when he does he is not very convincing, usually.
It was also my problem with Picard, who was a very efficient captain and very well interpreted by Patrick Stewart, but never inspired me a great sympathy as a character. But then, TNG was rather unsatisfactory from this point of view for me.
I do remember an episode in which they allowed the whole society being destroyed because of Prime Direction and they expressed their "sorrow" in a very conventional way (a minute of silence!), and then Picard being angry with Worf's brother for smuggling them onto Enterprise.
Yes, Archer is indeed a bit too much a martyr and this is not the best quality in a captain: for example in the Minefield he is not ready to let someone of his crew die, even if putting his own life on risk may be not the best solution, given the situation, but it makes him such an interesting character, especially in the 3rd season!
I am less convinced about Trip's and T'Pol's torments and tribulations, which is a pity. I think they both had a lot of potential, but their "tortures" were inflicted a bit forcifuly on them.

 

[commodore64]

Inner Light! I think it's why I like that episode so much. Yeah, Data definitely elicited more sympathy than Picard, but I still liked him.

I'm less convinced about Trip's and T'Pol's torments and tribulations, which is a pity ....

I thought T'Pol almost had too many and without focus. I felt sorry for her when I found out she had Panar Syndrome. I felt bad when she got addicted to trellium, but not pity. I felt sorry for her when her mom died. Spock's pain was pretty consistent: I'm a creature caught between two worlds where neither completely understand me; I have chosen to live as a Vulcan, which means I've had to deny all emotion including the love of my mother, my friends and possibly a woman.

T'Pol was an outsider. I think that already made her understandable. I'm not sure why they tacked on a bunch of other stuff. I think when I said there were story lines where the character just suffered, I was specifically thinking about Trip and T'Pol.

Trip. He was a great character in season 1 and 2. The whole death of his sister, I thought, was so overplayed that I didn't care. When other characters mentioned it, I kinda felt like saying, "Oh, geez, like that's new!" His whining in season 4 made him less identifiable. At least, that's just me.

 

[miriel68]

I thought T'Pol almost had too many and without focus. I felt sorry for her when I found out she had Panar Syndrome. I felt bad when she got addicted to trellium, but not pity. I felt sorry for her when her mom died. Spock's pain was pretty consistent: I'm a creature caught between two worlds where neither completely understand me; I have chosen to live as a Vulcan, which means I've had to deny all emotion including the love of my mother, my friends and possibly a woman.

Yes, indeed. T'Pol's sorrows were kind of forced upon her from outside, they were not necessarily part of her character, which made her far less interesting. And her love story with Trip was a waste of possibility, IMO.

Trip. He was a great character in season 1 and 2. The whole death of his sister, I thought, was so overplayed that I didn't care. When other characters mentioned it, I kinda felt like saying, "Oh, geez, like that's new!" His whining in season 4 made him less identifiable. At least, that's just me.

Agreed. The sister came out of blue and his sorrow was not even played in a consistent way in the 3rd season, or even worse, it was used as a pretext for his relationship with T'Pol.


Archer also had one "torment" I didn't care almost at all, which was his "daddy syndrom". But other than this, the torment behind his transformation from an innocent explorer to a ruthless soldier was very convincing and very consistent, too. The symbolic rapresentation of this metamorphosis was for me the way he killed Doolim in Zero Hour.

 

[DevilEyes]

I thought T'Pol almost had too many and without focus. I felt sorry for her when I found out she had Panar Syndrome. I felt bad when she got addicted to trellium, but not pity. I felt sorry for her when her mom died. Spock's pain was pretty consistent: I'm a creature caught between two worlds where neither completely understand me; I have chosen to live as a Vulcan, which means I've had to deny all emotion including the love of my mother, my friends and possibly a woman.

Yes, indeed. T'Pol's sorrows were kind of forced upon her from outside, they were not necessarily part of her character, which made her far less interesting.

How so? Both the Padar Syndrome and the Trelium-D addiction were the result of her attraction to the forbidden fruit (as far as Vulcans were concerned) - her desire to experience/get in touch with her emotions. Neither of these were forced upon her from the outside without her own choice (even when B&B were so adamant in pretending in "Stigma" that it was so, thus contradicting "Fusion").

 

[miriel68]

[
How so? Both the Padar Syndrome and the Trelium-D addiction were the result of her attraction to the forbidden fruit (as far as Vulcans were concerned) - her desire to experience/get in touch with her emotions. Neither of these were forced upon her from the outside without her own choice (even when B&B were so adamant in pretending in "Stigma" that it was so, thus contradicting "Fusion").

Yes, that's right. However, it has never been explored WHY she was so attracted to the forbidden fruit. Also, it was ok to throw on her one disease, but two? A bit too much, in my opinion. Another interesting aspect, which troubled me very much about T'Pol in these two occasion was her disloyal and irresponsible behaviour towards Archer, which has been not explored deeper, either.

 

[commodore64]

Archer also had one "torment" I didn't care almost at all, which was his "daddy syndrom". But other than this, the torment behind his transformation from an innocent explorer to a ruthless soldier was very convincing and very consistent, too. The symbolic rapresentation of this metamorphosis was for me the way he killed Doolim in Zero Hour.

I agree. I thought a mistake from the writers is that we didn't get to see Daddy [Henry Archer] snubbed by the Vulcans in such a way the audience could agree the Vulcans were holding humanity back from advances. I also think we could've seen the son watching the limelight of his father thinking it was both a blessing a a curse. I mean, it's not hard to imagine it's difficult to be the child of a famous figure (the Bush girls, Obama's children, Goldie Hawn's kid, etc.). I think a vague allusion in that same show could've really solidified that part of Archer's character is to think about his family and at the same time feel burdened by its shadow.

Yes, that's right. However, it has never been explored WHY she was so attracted to the forbidden fruit. Also, it was ok to throw on her one disease, but two? A bit too much, in my opinion.

Agreed. You know what would've made a great story is that she took trellium-D to cope with Panar Syndrome. Also, we get a glimpse into T'Pol's love for species other than Vulcans in Fallen Hero, but ... that's pretty much it. In that story, V'Lar (your cool av) indicates that T'Pol has always been more open minded than the other Vulcans. I remember thinking at the time, "Whoah!" I'm not sure this was ever really explored in a way I found satisfactory. I mean, T'Les told T'Pol kind of the same thing. It would've made a great story to show how T'Pol joined the Earth Vulcans and why, and maybe the tension between her and Soval. (You sure didn't see it in Broken Bow. They seemed like they were cut from the same cloth.) It would explain why she hung around Enterprise in early season 1 and why she wanted to meld with Tolaris, I think.

It would do a lot for me in understanding her character.

 

[gblews]

Yes, that's right. However, it has never been explored WHY she was so attracted to the forbidden fruit.

Actually it was. In Home T'Les explains that T'Pol was simply born that way. She states that T'Pol's emotions have always been close to the surface and hard for her to control. In Awakening, T'Les reiterates the point with her dying breath, telling T'Pol that she became a Syrannite in hopes of presenting T'Pol with the true teachings of Surak which might help T'Pol one day gain control over her emotions.

In retrospect, I think T'Pol was my favorite character even though when the show was on I didn't think so. I did enjoy watching her go through it -- the pain, that is.

From the Trell encounter she learned that "Vulcans aren't so tough afterall', which I think led to her being more accepting herself and her little "quirks".

By season 4 she was no longer the irrationally self righteous, naive, know it all Vulcan officer who thought the sun rose and set on what the Saval and the High Command and the Vulcan Science Academy believed. Against the backdrop of her mother's death, her (practically) forced marriage and divorce, she discovers that everything she once had believed in about Vulcan society and it's history was a lie.

But from these tragedies she begins a personal journey which leads to further self awareness and cultural enlightenment. Along the way, she finally also learns a lesson she had been trying to teach the humans, to objectify the races.

 

[miriel68]

Yes, that's right. However, it has never been explored WHY she was so attracted to the forbidden fruit.

Actually it was. In Home T'Les explains that T'Pol was simply born that way. She states that T'Pol's emotions have always been close to the surface and hard for her to control.

Well, in fact I didn't intend to say that it never has been EXPLAINED, but that it never has been EXPLORED. I liked T'Pol expecially in the 1st and 2nd season, then, unfortunately, I felt that her character was a bit abused and at the same time, strangely underdevelopped.
For example, I was very disappointed that the topic of her failure as commander in Azati prime was not brought forward. What about a sense of guilt for all these people killed in attack of Xindi and for her irresponsible behaviour in the opening of Damage? These were all things that should have caused her some torment (talking about characters "tortured") Instead, it was all reduced to her being afraid of not being able to suppress her emotions any more

 

[commodore64]

Yes, that's right. However, it has never been explored WHY she was so attracted to the forbidden fruit.

Actually it was. In Home T'Les explains that T'Pol was simply born that way. She states that T'Pol's emotions have always been close to the surface and hard for her to control.

Well, in fact I didn't intend to say that it never has been EXPLAINED, but that it never has been EXPLORED. I liked T'Pol expecially in the 1st and 2nd season, then, unfortunately, I felt that her character was a bit abused and at the same time, strangely underdevelopped.
For example, I was very disappointed that the topic of her failure as commander in Azati prime was not brought forward. What about a sense of guilt for all these people killed in attack of Xindi and for her irresponsible behaviour in the opening of Damage? These were all things that should have caused her some torment (talking about characters "tortured") Instead, it was all reduced to her being afraid of not being able to suppress her emotions any more

Great explanation and couldn't agree more.

 

[gblews]

Yes, that's right. However, it has never been explored WHY she was so attracted to the forbidden fruit.

Actually it was. In Home T'Les explains that T'Pol was simply born that way. She states that T'Pol's emotions have always been close to the surface and hard for her to control.

Well, in fact I didn't intend to say that it never has been EXPLAINED, but that it never has been EXPLORED.

Well okay, but how do you explore the reasons "why she was attracted to the forbidden fruit (the forbidden fruit being emotions)" once it has been explained by indication, that she was simply born that way?

To keep on topic, I also liked the way Trip was "tortured" in season 4. When it first became known that Trip's feelings for T'Pol and his inabilility to get her to admit hers for him, would drive him from the ship, I was disappointed to say the least. I thought it would make his character look weak - and it did.

But such good things came from it that I see now where Manny the Reeves-Stevenson's were taking us. Trip returns to save Enterprise having regained his confidence, his sense of purpose, and the strength from his belief that T'Pol did care and most importantly, even if she didn't, Ent was where he belonged.

Yes, sometimes torture is good.