Shadows in the Rain (Star Trek: TOS story)

Fanfiction
Title:	Shadows in the Rain
Author(s):	Arlan Symons
Date(s):	1986
Length:
Genre(s):	slash
Fandom(s):	Star Trek: TOS
Relationship(s):	Kirk/Spock
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Shadows in the Rain is a Kirk/Spock story by Arlan Symons.

This is a very early RPS and was extremely controversial.

It was published in the print zines Shadows in the Rain and Naked Times #9.

Summary

"Spockʼs life becomes intertwined with the actor who portrays him in another reality as they “visit” each other over the years. Time and Space and the thinness between dimensions all play parts in this tale of a universe in which Kirk and Spock are very real… and one in which they are merely fiction… or are they?"

Reactions and Reviews

Once in awhile, a story comes along that is not only good, but becomes better as you sit back and think about it. SHADOWS IN THE RAIN in such a story. The premise is a truly unusual one for fandom, in that it deals with the possibility that "an actor" (which is all he's ever referred to as) who has played Mister Spock (now do we know which actor we're referring, to?) actually encounters the character he's portrayed for years.

When I first began reading this story, I was slightly uncomfortable — not because of the concept, but because of the haunting sense of truth this story conveyed to the reader. This is definitely a K/S story as well as a story about "an actor", and it was that element which made me squirm just a little — not to the point that I wanted to put the story down, but to the point that I couldn't put it down. At the time I first read SHADOWS IN THE RAIN, I was quite certain that it would be nominated for if not win whatever awards were to be given for 1986; and I was rather surprised when the results of the Surak Awards were announced at Shore Leave a couple of weeks ago. SHADOWS did win a nomination, but, unfortunately, it didn't win the award itself. In a way, I suppose that's "good" — simply because it gives me a chance to highlight this story through the printed word.

Essentially, SHADOWS IN THE RAIN is the story of how Spock begins to feel telepathic contact with something he doesn't understand. This contact upsets him slightly, and only after the contact occurs several times does he discuss it with Kirk. Through a meld, they discover that this man ("the actor") played a role in a t.v. science fiction series — two hundred years ago, from the point of view of Kirk and Spock. A "friendship" of sorts is formed between Kirk, Spock and "the actor", leading to some beautifully touching moments all the way around.

A majority of the story is told with some excellent dialogue — from Kirk and Spock as well as between Kirk, Spock and "the actor". The conversations are compelling, interesting (something that's been lacking in much recent fan fiction), and moving. We learn the story of "an actor" who has devoted much of his life to "a fantasy" (read: Spock), and who, through these experiences, becomes enlightened to the possibility that it was more than just a "fantasy".

This story has alternate universe characteristics, in that it involves "cross-overs" from the everyday life we all lead here in the 1980's to the STAR TREK universe where Kirk and Spock reside. Some of the best parts in SHADOWS are the journals kept by "the actor" — wherein he describes these "meetings" with Spock (whom he considers to be a figment of his imagination), as well as diary-type intimate descriptions of "the actor's" inner dreams, hopes and aspirations. The K/S elements of SHADOWS IN THE RAIN are beautifully tender and expressive, told in a flowing prose which borders at times on poetry. Additionally, the term "Spock weather" takes on new meaning as one reads this beautiful story. It seems that thunderstorms and cloudy winter days remind "the actor" of Spock — because, subconsciously, perhaps he is remembering other "encounters" he's had with the Vulcan. Now, whenever it's raining outside, I can't help but remember the story — which usually sends me off to my zine collection to pull it out again.

This story is humorous, melancholy, passionate and tender — a story which was obviously inspired by Leonard Nimoy's book, I AM NOT SPOCK (in fact, there are veiled references to the book within SHADOWS IN THE RAIN). It leaves the reader with a feeling of "satisfied eerieness" — not dissimilar to the sensation one is left with after watching a particularly wonderful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE or THE OUTER LIMITS.

Appropriately, SHADOWS IN THE RAIN appears in NAKED TIMES #9 — which the editor labels as "a special metaphysical issue". SHADOWS is certainly both — special and metaphysical. Normally, I'm not a fan, per se, of metaphysical yarns, but this story and its writer convinced me to try more in the same vein. My only negative comment is that SHADOWS IN THE RAIN appears to be the only published story by Arlan Symons. Of course, considering the potentially controversial nature of SHADOWS, I suspect the author's name is probably a pseudonym for some other K/S writer.

SHADOWS IN THE RAIN is definitely recommended to one and all — particularly if you're a fan of "the actor". This story gives insight into Kirk and Spock, and offers an obviously inspired tender treatment of "the actor" as well.

Sequel, perhaps? Then again, this is the type of story that can only be done once, and while I would love to see another venture into this area, it's possible that "more" would be "too much". If it's perfect, don't fix it. SHADOWS IN THE RAIN is just that: perfect.

SHADOWS IN THE RAIN by Arlyn Symons (who we are assured is NOT the editor of this zine using a pen name) is one of the most daring, unusual, inspiring, thought provoking stories I've ever run across anywhere. I have to give the editor credit for printing it as it is a highly volatile, highly controversial idea ... one you will have to read for yourself to truly believe. This story deals with time tripping, inter-dimensional travel, cross realities, dual time lines and more. The question 'What is and what is not reality?' is given some interestingly possible answers here.

The most disturbing thing about SHADOWS IN THE RAIN is that it encourages a basic tendency in fans to forget the separation between the character and the actor. I realize that this particular story emphasizes separation, yet at the same it undercuts our ability to keep Leonard Nimoy separate from Spock by bringing him into a K/S fantasy. If it is permissible to include Nimoy in a piece of K/S fiction, then why not Shatner? Why not both both of them together? In fact, what's to stop the next writer from coming up with a Shatner/Nimoy story, totally violating the separation between fantasy and reality in K/S? I think it is wrong to place either LN or WS in a K/S story in any capacity whatsoever. We may be sliding down a slippery slope here. There is a definite ethical distinction between fantasizing about fictional characters, and fantasizing about real people. The first is harmless, the second may be hurtful in many ways. I am truly sorry to have to bring any of this up, but it is important to understand where SHADOWS IN THE RAIN could take us. It that direction lies a K/S that is neither moral nor sane.

SHADOWS IN THE RAIN by Arlyn Symons (who we are assured is NOT the editor of this zine using a pen name) is one of the most daring, unusual, inspiring, thought provoking stories I've ever run across anywhere. I have to give the editor credit for printing it as it is a highly volatile, highly controversial idea ... one you will have to read for yourself to truly believe. This story deals with time tripping, inter-dimensional travel, cross realities, dual time lines and more. The question 'What is and what is not reality?' is given some interestingly possible answers here.

... it's one of the VERY best K/S stories ever written. It has elements of fantasy, reality and brings the reader face to face with her own longings. I LOVED this story, written partially in journal form, and partially in third person standard style.

To begin with, I am [D B]. I wrote SITR under 'Arlan Symons' mainly because it was such a departure from my other work. I have done this before; written under pseudonyms because the style or theme in a story is notably different from the rest of my work. I'm saying this because I want it known that I did not use a pen name for SITR out of any embarrassment or concern for being 'found out'. I am very proud of SITR. I think it's my best piece of work to date. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised to find someone so adamantly opposed to SITR as, in my view, it is the gentlest of stories, expressing what I see as the core of not only K/S, but of STAR TREK... Saying that I've started K/S fandom on the road to 'immorality' and 'insanity' by writing a soft, loving, compassionate story is, to me, unbelievable. Right away, I think it is very obvious that [L F] and I have very different definitions of what is moral and what is sane and what is not either. For the record, I am an extremely moral person and I have it on excellent authority that I am perfectly sane. I don't feel I have slipped at all from these standards in writing SITR. If anything, I think I've exercised those very qualities -sanity and morality -- by showing compassion and gentleness and kindness in a genre (K/S) that often slips into sadism, slavery, barbarity, rape, not to mention the odd cannibalism or fist-fuck story. [L F's] worry that I have overstepped the bounds of reality and stepped into fantasy are beyond argument. I admit that she is very right in that statement. What K/S writer hasn't? I am not the one who ever printed "the actor's" possible name; [L F] put a name to him in her letter in OTD. Nowhere in SITR is "the actor" ever named. Invaded this actor's privacy? What privacy? He's a public figure, he's fair game... not that I've tried to 'get' him in any way. SITR was and is intended solely in a complimentary light, solely as a possible insight into the man's psyche. [L F] might say that no one has the right... to do this. But, as I have said, he is a public figure just like Frank Sinatra, Elvis, John Lennon, or Johnny Carson. In other words, he is fair game. As for [L F] wishing that no one paid any attention to SITR, as for her wish that it just disappear without comment, I take a personal slight (or maybe not so slight!) at her attitude. Just because something doesn't meet her standards it should be ignored? Fine place this world would be if it stuck to that kind of thinking... I find [L F's] attitude the sad thing about where K/S fandom seems to be going, not the fact that I wrote SITR. If we, as K/S fandom, start telling each other what we can and can't write, if we start making arbitrary rules about what is 'permissible' or 'right' and what is 'not permissible' or 'wrong*, then that's the shame, that's the direction of 'immorality and 'insanity', not only for fandom but for the world. Intolerance is the ugliest thing alive in the world. It saddens me greatly to see it so very alive and thriving in K/S fandom.

...You are the ONLY person who has named the DREADED name in print. Congratulations. If any harm could have been done, short of mailing the story to the said DREADED name, you've done it. For someone who has gone where no man, etc, and written a CANNIBAL?! story (yikes, what IS K/S coming to?), you certainly have your... ah... nerve? Who gives a flying fuck? The story is innovative, whatever your thoughts on the subject matter. No one disputes the writer's talents. It's certainly not the best nor near the worst writing in fandom. So why the fuss? You aren't trying to bring it to anyone's attention, are you? You really don't think that the DREADED name, even if he read the damn thing, would give a damn, do you? Really? I've heard [L N] asked about K/S. Whatever sells tickets is fine with him. And as your own writing ideas have been considered somewhat., bizarre (to be gently), and no one has climbed down your throat with spurs, why don't you lighten up, [L F]? Come off the ladder and smell the flowers. You're flailing in that tempestuous teapot all alone.

SHADOWS IN THE RAIN holds a special place in my heart, since it comes out and says what a lot of us have been thinking for years.

Regarding "Shadows In The Rain", I will not accede to Dovya's statement that "public figures are fair game'. The public part of their lives may be fair game (such as the acting career of an actor), but we have an ethical responsibility not to probe into their private lives.

The public part of their lives may be fair game (such as the acting career of an actor), but we have an ethical responsibility not to probe into their private lives. Sensationalistic tabloids may do that sort of thing, but we should not sink to their level. If an actor chooses to share his thoughts and feelings with us, that is one thing; but publishing an embroidered version of what he said as part of an erotic fantasy is quite another. I think that ethics need to be much more stringent when you're dealing with individuals who actually exist.

Further, Dovya's claim that "no one knew the identity of the actor" in her story before I "revealed" it is ingenuous. Even supposing readers were totally baffled as to whom he could possibly be after finishing the story, I doubt they were mystified after reading Charlie Powers' Focus column about "Shadows In The Rain". I find it difficult to believe that there is someone who reads this zine who doesn't know the identity of the author of I AM NOT SPOCK. As far as Katherine Johns' statements are concerned, I wouldn't care if the story had been written by Gene Roddenberry. I would still condemn it as unethical. This does not mean that I personally dislike Dovya Blacque or her work, but that I think she has made a serious error.

The story by me that Katherine mentions is, unlike "Shadows In The Rain", unpublished, and for all I know, it may never appear. Yet now it has been judged in print without any opportunity for fandom to see it and decide what they think of it for themselves. I think my story is about love and sacrifice under extreme conditions in a harsh culture. There is no actual cannibalism in it. In fact, there is very little violence in the story, and absolutely no death. I feel it is unfair to place me in the position of defending my work when only a few editors have seen it. Once it's been pubbed, then go ahead and "climb down my throat with spurs" if you think I deserve it. When a story is out there to be judged, people have a right to criticize it, but not before.