Basically, needs of the plot.
Burnham's Mutiny... Not Canon?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
SPOCK: Curious. Very well. For twenty-four hours we'll agree this conversation did not take place.
VALERIS: A lie?
SPOCK: An omission.
Spock: 1, Mirror Mirror: 0.
Spock covering up for family? Probably not the first time.SPOCK: Curious. Very well. For twenty-four hours we'll agree this conversation did not take place.
VALERIS: A lie?
SPOCK: An omission.
Spock: 1, Mirror Mirror: 0.
SPOCK: Curious. Very well. For twenty-four hours we'll agree this conversation did not take place.
VALERIS: A lie?
SPOCK: An omission.
Spock: 1, Mirror Mirror: 0.
No, Poor TOS writing , 0
A side question related to the mutiny, which I am sure has been addressed elsewhere, but this newbie couldn't find where.
How is it that Burnham caused the war? How is she responsible for 8126 deaths? She powered up weapons, they were powered down, and the Klingon ship did not attack (which could lead to her be blamed for provocation, even though her ship did not fire). Instead, the Klingons waited around until their ships showed up, then the Federation ships showed up, and then they commenced the attack.
How on earth did Burnham's mutiny affect any of that? Yeah I got that she broke all the rules and attacked her captain and that's bad and all that, but what is the logic for pinning the blame for the war on her?
It's the biggest item affecting the series' lead character, and I am completely baffled.
How is it that Burnham caused the war? How is she responsible for 8126 deaths? She powered up weapons, they were powered down, and the Klingon ship did not attack (which could lead to her be blamed for provocation, even though her ship did not fire). Instead, the Klingons waited around until their ships showed up, then the Federation ships showed up, and then they commenced the attack.
How on earth did Burnham's mutiny affect any of that? Yeah I got that she broke all the rules and attacked her captain and that's bad and all that, but what is the logic for pinning the blame for the war on her?
It's the biggest item affecting the series' lead character, and I am completely baffled.
You are not the only one. They were kinda unclear about how exactly she is supposed to have started the war. It was either killing the Torchbearer in self-defense or killing – instead of capturing – T'Kuvma, which supposedly makes him a martyr in the eyes of the other Klingons who just started following him like five minutes ago. At this point I'm not sure we will get a better explanation so I just roll with it and see where the story goes.
Got it, thanks.
Neither of those explanations make a lick of sense, of course. The Torchbearer incident has no connection with the mutiny, and anyway her actions were guiltless. And if her crime was killing T'Kuvma, well that also had nothing to do with the mutiny, and occurred after the 8126 were already dead (or whatever the numbers were in those ships that were lost, maybe some of those 8126 came later, I don't know).
Then again, Michael killing T'Kuvma immediately after explaining why he should not be killed didn't make sense, either. It's an odd show, it does so many seemingly difficult things right, but a couple of these very basic plot issues seem to be off, and they could so easily have been addressed, just by changing a detail or two.
Well, to be fair, I don't think they said she started a war because of the mutiny. The two things aren't necessarily related. As for Burnham killing T'Kuvma instead of taking him prisoner, I guess that was because of rage (he just killed her captain, mentor and friend) and because she wanted to make sure her phaser would disable T'Kuvma. My problem is more with the statement that killing T'Kuvma makes him (1) a martyr and (2) starts a war with folks who very obviously wanted a war.
As @Michael said the mutiny is not the cause of the war. In fact, the mutiny was an attempt to prevent war. The Klingons probably don't care that Burnham was a mutineer.
Burnham's killing of T'kuvma was impulsive. Impulsive actions don't tend to make sense.
This is it. She changed her phaser to kill and shot T'Kuvma even when she was the one explaining to everyone why capturing him alive was so important.
So if Burnham did not exist, and Captain Georgiou had killed T'Kuvma as she had planned, the war would have been the Captain's fault? Even after the Klingons had fired first and obliterated a Federation starfleet? Then Georgiou would have been court martialed and disgraced (although presumably not sentenced for life, since she wasn't also a mutineer.)
Seems .. unlikely. If killing a violent enemy leader who has attacked your people were a crime, Kirk would have been locked up long ago. OK, long ago in the future, if that makes any sense.
If you believe Burnham, capturing him T'Kuvma might have humiliated him to the extent where the Klingons wouldn't have followed him, and thus ended the war. Could be. In that case, yeah I could see blaming Burnham for starting the war -- well OK, for continuing it. But of course she couldn't capture him, her choice was to let him live or die. But not capture.
Kirk swept it under the rug.
More like he buried the problem.
That was James R. Kirk, though. No relation.
I addressed this upthread, but in case you didn't see it: in a day and age where one's mind can be hijacked by a nefarious alien, I'm sure Starfleet decided to modify the definition of mutiny to being an action carried out by an individual NOT under said control. That takes care of pretty much every instance of "mutiny" that people are claiming in TOS.
As for the other ones (Amok Time, The Menagerie): Starfleet also realized the importance of placating powerful alien species that can really fuck up the Federation (physically or politically) if they so choose.
Last edited:
Oh course he does...that's why he chooses to NEVER talk about her in any way, shape or form.
[Oh, and it's why Spock LIED in resoponse to Chekov's question about any previous records of mutinies aboard starships in TOS - "The Tholian Web" - including the one he carried out aboard the 1701 a year before Chekov got there (see TOS - "The Menagerie (Part I)")...
]
Sentencing Burnham to life imprisonment for this mutiny is complete bullshit, also. This is a Starfleet comprised of 'wide eyed explorers.' Considering she had a storied career and was connected to a powerful Vulcan, I can't see the Dark Tribunal sentencing her to anything more than 20 years and a dishonorable discharge. Maybe they couldn't read the verdict because of the bad lighting.
Burnham was charged with dereliction of duty, assaulting an officer and mutiny. Not for anything she did to T'Kuvma or starting a war. So I'm not sure what Georgiou would have been charged with if her plan had been implemented. Though she could very well be looked at as the person who started the war.
Similar threads
