Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x06 - "Lethe"

[The Memetic Susurrus]

I've seen this criticism repeatedly. Maybe it has merit - after all she was raised vulcan, and her main story arc is her inability to successfully compromise between her logic based detached up bringing and the fact that she is a human with real emotions that can't be ignored. Thats her story, and its difficult to see how 'likeable' such a character can be.

Leaving this aside, where is it written that a lead has to be likeable? That hasn't been an expectation for years now. Nevermind the fact that there are a number of intentionally 'likeable' characters in the show to appease fans (Stamets and Tilly for example).

As I explained in the rest of the paragraph that was excised, it is her background as a mutineer that makes her unlikable, in my mind. Had she simply made a tactical mistake and the redemption arc was built around her learning to become more seasoned, I submit my reaction would've been very, very different. Instead, she substituted her seven years of experience in Starfleet for that of a seasoned, battle-hardened commander of decades of experience--her mentor and friend, mind--on a one-in-a-million chance that she was right in assessing the strategic background of the situation and Philippa was wrong. And, what's more, Michael was wrong in that assessment.

So, no, it isn't her, per se, that I find unlikable. It was her actions, her behaviour. Her redemption arc, for me, is a delta that goes up a steep cliff and one I will probably never fully accept (in part because of the arrogant presumption by the writers that mutiny is a redeemable action in anything other than extreme circumstances; a slap in the face to those who actually understand what a chain of command is and why it exists). There are very, very, very few circumstances where mutiny is an acceptable option. Not one of them are present in the pilot episodes. I think that was a storytelling error on behalf of the creators because, at least for some of us, that fatally compromises their chosen protagonist.

And that's the problem I see with your second paragraph. Protagonists are supposed to at least be relatable. I find nothing to relate with Burnham about. She was wrong strategically, she was wrong tactically; she was arrogant, presumptuous, and contemptuous of those who she should have been supporting. How am I supposed to sympathise with that?

As for the assumption that Stamets and Tilly are 'likable'...well, to each their own. I find neither particularly likable, though Stamets has grown on me a tad in a grumpy-but-not kind of way.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Ugh. Field promotions, I get...if you're already a line officer or NCO in extremis. But a cadet? And, really, I have yet to figure out why on Earth a cadet is on a supposedly classified, experimental ship. I'm not talking about the real reason why Tilly is there--which, I presume, is to appeal to certain demographics CBS believes, rightly or wrongly, will help keep the show afloat--but the in-universe reason. If she's an uber-genius, she's certainly not demonstrating it, yet. She's no more or less intelligent than any of the other uber-geniuses we've seen thus far on the ship, which appears to be the entire compliment (arguably, minus Saru, who, whilst canny, doesn't appear to be written as overly-intelligent). She simply seems to be built from the Wesley archetype and, like the latter, gets the same kind of split-reaction from fandom. Some think she's adorkable, others think she is rather less-than-appealing, personality-wise.

During the run with Burnham, when Tilly took to lecturing her, I actually turned to my wife and said "This is probably the first time I actually felt sympathy for Burnham!" For me, at least, Tilly falls flat and until I find an in-universe reason for her existence on Discovery, I can only assume it's bad writing to put her there, combined with big data analytics from producers who feel they need to include certain archetypes to round out the cast.

Or, heck, maybe they'll kill her off later on, thus doubling down on the grimdark. Or maybe they just felt that they ran the risk of making Discovery too dark and they needed comedic relief. Hence...Tilly.

Why does she need a super special reason to be there? It's a posting. There's a war on. They need every hand they can get helping all the ships run and every ship needs grunts and basic number crunchers right along with the super geniuses. There's plenty of work to go around.

Also, I'm currently rewatching TNG season 1 (today saw the one with the Anticans/Selay): Tilly isn't even in the same universe as Wesley when it comes to irritating characters with no reason to be around.

 

[Amaris]

I wonder if he's not getting used to the needles so much as each time the ship jumps they have to use up a new clone.

So somewhere in the bowels of Discovery is a cargo hold stuff to the brim with five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred Stamets.

That's a lot of cups of coffee.

 

[Feron]

Why does she need a super special reason to be there? It's a posting. There's a war on. They need every hand they can get helping all the ships run and every ship needs grunts and basic number crunchers right along with the super geniuses. There's plenty of work to go around.

Also, I'm currently rewatching TNG season 1 (today saw the one with the Anticans/Selay): Tilly isn't even in the same universe as Wesley when it comes to irritating characters with no reason to be around.

Yep, season one TNG Wesley definitely had a corner on the irritating and completely unnecessary characters market.

I'm not a huge Tilly fan, but at least so far she is not nearly as irritating as Wesley was on a regular basis. She is actually trying to learn and improve, for one thing, while Season one Wesley was a know-it-all who professed to know everyone's job better than they did.

 

[The Memetic Susurrus]

Why does she need a super special reason to be there? It's a posting. There's a war on. They need every hand they can get helping all the ships run and every ship needs grunts and basic number crunchers right along with the super geniuses. There's plenty of work to go around.

Also, I'm currently rewatching TNG season 1 (today saw the one with the Anticans/Selay): Tilly isn't even in the same universe as Wesley when it comes to irritating characters with no reason to be around.

Cadets haven't graduated the academy. Hence, no postings, per se. Training cruises, sure, but you don't put cadets on warships in the middle of a war. There should be more than enough manpower to suffice without robbing the cradle. And you certainly don't give them the kind of security clearances needed to even know about the existence of Discovery, much less serve on her. It's just bad writing. I had the same problem with Saavik, to an extent, and Valeris, though the latter was more the weird costuming error that made her a LtCdr that threw me off.

Funny, I react to Wesley almost the same way I react to Tilly. They are clearly the same archetype, the only difference being at least they put Tilly in the framework as someone about ready to graduate the academy; she was already on her way to becoming an officer. Wesley was just a dependent and that annoyed the Dickens out of me, in the way he kept on getting in the way...

 

[Manuuk7]

Does he believe that humans are equal?

Ok, I've been on Trekbbs for over six months now, have made quite a few posts. Why am I still a newbie?

 

[Tomalak]

And that's the problem I see with your second paragraph. Protagonists are supposed to at least be relatable. I find nothing to relate with Burnham about. She was wrong strategically, she was wrong tactically; she was arrogant, presumptuous, and contemptuous of those who she should have been supporting. How am I supposed to sympathise with that?

You aren't supposed to sympathise or relate to her actions - the whole point was that she was so blinded by trying to be an acceptable Vulcan to make Sarek proud/prove herself to other Vulcans that she reacted it a completely inappropriate manner.

Any human could see her actions were wrong, but she has her human emotions and convictions tied together with her sense of logic. Basically she's the worst of both worlds in that moment - utterly convinced she's right and reacting impulsively to get her own way.

She totally fucked up because she didn't listen to Georgiou well enough. Despite all she learned she still felt her logic was infallible because that's how she'd been brought up to think. It's the nature/nurture dichotomy.

But she fucked up with the best of intentions. She wanted to do the right thing to prevent a war, in the event she caused one. I thought it was a nice way to subvert the Star Trek convention - usually the brilliant character has a moment of inspiration and saves the day with quick thinking, often by overriding the chain of command.

This was the flip side - what happens when it doesn't all work out in 43 minutes.

 

[BillJ]

Heading to a neutral site with two redshirts to meet with Klingons would seem to be dangerous. I wonder why Cornwell didn't give someone the 411 that Lorca would need to be removed from command of the Discovery? If she didn't come back.

 

[The Memetic Susurrus]

Yep, season one TNG Wesley definitely had a corner on the irritating and completely unnecessary characters market.

I'm not a huge Tilly fan, but at least so far she is not nearly as irritating as Wesley was on a regular basis. She is actually trying to learn and improve, for one thing, while Season one Wesley was a know-it-all who professed to know everyone's job better than they did.

...you mean, like Tilly's lecture to Burnham during their run? ;-)

Granted, Wesley was bad 24/7/365 and Tilly, not as much. I still don't find Tilly likable or, rather, the archetype as likable or, hell, even necessary, particularly on a ship like Discovery.

 

[BillJ]

Any human could see her actions were wrong, but she has her human emotions and convictions tied together with her sense of logic. Basically she's the worst of both worlds in that moment - utterly convinced she's right and reacting impulsively to get her own way.

But she was right. If they had destroyed T'Kuvma's ship in Federation territory, then there likely wouldn't have been a war to begin with.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

No he seemed to do it quite well.

Here is a man with a drinking problem.

 

[XCV330]

Why does she need a super special reason to be there? It's a posting. There's a war on. They need every hand they can get helping all the ships run and every ship needs grunts and basic number crunchers right along with the super geniuses. There's plenty of work to go around.

And to add to that, Starfleet has some traditions that are more throwbacks to earlier navy practice (such as commodores). In this instance Starfleet also uses midshipmen on active duty. Kirk was a midshipman at the Academy, but Peter Preston was a midshipman on board Enterprise in a combat situation. I don't know if they use Cadet and Midshipman interchangeably, but it would seem Starfleet has a history of putting advanced trainees on active duty (Red Squad, etc).

At this point they don't even apparently require any kind of Academy training as Burnham was presumably also inducted as a midshipman rather than going to officer candidate training school.

 

[Feron]

...you mean, like Tilly's lecture to Burnham during their run? ;-)

Granted, Wesley was bad 24/7/365 and Tilly, not as much. I still don't find Tilly likable or, rather, the archetype as likable or, hell, even necessary, particularly on a ship like Discovery.

Oh, Tilly does definitely have the juvenile smack-talk going, but OTOH she was still actually running at Burnham's urging in an effort to improve herself.

Wesley would have just displayed some high school track trophy and declared that he was superior in that as well so there is no need for him to push himself.

 

[Noname Given]

They did? I don't recall that. I plan on watching that movie this week, since I watched "Wrath of Khan" not to long ago so that will be a neat thing to spot. Is at the bar were McCoy tries to get o arrange a ride?

Jason

Yes, all the Vulcan male 'monks' were bald.

 

[Manuuk7]

Yep, season one TNG Wesley definitely had a corner on the irritating and completely unnecessary characters market.

I'm not a huge Tilly fan, but at least so far she is not nearly as irritating as Wesley was on a regular basis. She is actually trying to learn and improve, for one thing, while Season one Wesley was a know-it-all who professed to know everyone's job better than they did.

OMG, had forgotten about Wesley. No thanks for reminding me

 

[eschaton]

Heading to a neutral site with two redshirts to meet with Klingons would seem to be dangerous. I wonder why Cornwell didn't give someone the 411 that Lorca would need to be removed from command of the Discovery? If she didn't come back.

In all fairness, this is a common Trek flaw. I just rewatched In The Pale Moonlight the other night, and it had the same issue. Vreenak's shuttle wasn't actually blown up until after meeting with the Dominion, two days after he discovered Sisko faked the holorecording of the Dominion's planned invasion of the Romulan Empire. The entire conclusion would have fallen apart if Vreenak had sent a message home ASAP, but the story dictated he didn't. It was still a great episode despite this one glaring plot hole however.

 

[The Memetic Susurrus]

You aren't supposed to sympathise or relate to her actions - the whole point was that she was so blinded by trying to be an acceptable Vulcan to make Sarek proud/prove herself to other Vulcans that she reacted it a completely inappropriate manner.

Any human could see her actions were wrong, but she has her human emotions and convictions tied together with her sense of logic. Basically she's the worst of both worlds in that moment - utterly convinced she's right and reacting impulsively to get her own way.

She totally fucked up because she didn't listen to Georgiou well enough. Despite all she learned she still felt her logic was infallible because that's how she'd been brought up to think. It's the nature/nurture dichotomy.

But she fucked up with the best of intentions. She wanted to do the right thing to prevent a war, in the event she caused one. I thought it was a nice way to subvert the Star Trek convention - usually the brilliant character has a moment of inspiration and saves the day with quick thinking, often by overriding the chain of command.

This was the flip side - what happens when it doesn't all work out in 43 minutes.

I agree 100% with everything you've said. Really, honestly, I do. I get what they were doing--the writers--and yes, it is a very interesting subversion of the trope. But the problem I have, as I said, was the larger, meta-point: do the writers actually think I'm supposed to in any way, shape, or form feel a mutineer is worthy of anything other than utter and total contempt? They obviously do, else she would not be the protagonist and primary POV character. I think they are wrong, ethically and morally. And that is that.

I simply do not care if she did this or that "with the best of intentions." That is not a mitigating factor in the military. That's an excuse by your defence attorney used to make sure you don't serve life in Leavenworth.

My whole point was that I think they--the writers--made a mistake by pulling the mutiny angle. It is a bridge too far and it is more telling of their worldview than it is about anything else that they think something like that is remotely acceptable or should be lauded in any way (and, yes, they are lauding it by showing she's redeemable; I'm of the opinion that there are very few instances of mutiny that are redeemable and, off-hand, I cannot think of one in historical memory).

I see the dramatic irony they're trying to build. I get the story-arc they want to tell. But I simply find it problematic, to say the least, and you would think that they would want their protagonist and POV character to at least be relatable to the widest audience possible. So far, that does not appear to include me but, then again, I am one person.

 

[XCV330]

OMG, had forgotten about Wesley. No thanks for reminding me

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So that you can say goodbye, properly.

 

[Amaris]

I agree 100% with everything you've said. Really, honestly, I do. I get what they were doing--the writers--and yes, it is a very interesting subversion of the trope. But the problem I have, as I said, was the larger, meta-point: do the writers actually think I'm supposed to in any way, shape, or form feel a mutineer is worthy of anything other than utter and total contempt? They obviously do, else she would not be the protagonist and primary POV character. I think they are wrong, ethically and morally. And that is that.

I simply do not care if she did this or that "with the best of intentions." That is not a mitigating factor in the military. That's an excuse by your defence attorney used to make sure you don't serve life in Leavenworth.

My whole point was that I think they--the writers--made a mistake by pulling the mutiny angle. It is a bridge too far and it is more telling of their worldview than it is about anything else that they think something like that is remotely acceptable or should be lauded in any way (and, yes, they are lauding it by showing she's redeemable; I'm of the opinion that there are very few instances of mutiny that are redeemable and, off-hand, I cannot think of one in historical memory).

I see the dramatic irony they're trying to build. I get the story-arc they want to tell. But I simply find it problematic, to say the least, and you would think that they would want their protagonist and POV character to at least be relatable to the widest audience possible. So far, that does not appear to include me but, then again, I am one person.

Considering how many Trek characters, who have been heroes, have outright murdered others, I'm not sure they went anywhere near "too far." In a desperate attempt to save the Federation from war, Burnham inadvertently helped start one, or at least was in the wrong place at the wrong time (depending upon one's point of view). Her intentions were good, her motives pure, she just made an error in the execution. I'm willing to forgive her for that error, because I'm a flawed, imperfect being who understands how such a thing could happen. You may not connect with it, but I can. So, works for me!

 

[Noname Given]

Was it just me or did the writers and producers realize the screwup of the "D7" in the previous episode and tried to alleviate the problem in the dialogue of this one? At one point somebody on Discovery refers to the ship that captured and was holding Lorca as a Bird-of-Prey. Now, we know that continuity within the Trek universe isn't spotless and never will be and both B&B and Abrams f'd up and called Klingon warships by the wrong name ("Warbird"). I guess we could always look at this as a producer correction or a happy mistake that will now let us handwave the prison ship away as a class of Bird-of-Prey and not a D7 battle cruiser.

Hey. Works for me. Unless the producers say otherwise this line of dialogue might solve the issue.

^^^
Well. it's part the story she heard - IE You can infer elements change and the story/rumor gets passed around the ship from person to person.

Doesn't change that on screen the computer of the Shuttle stated "Klingon Class D7 Battlecruiser". <--- That saud, I believe they're going to get around it by the following eventually:

- Previous to the war, the Empire was divided among 24 Houses. There is no 'Central government (This explains how Voq sat their for 6 months at the 'Battle of the Binaries' site. Her had no House members to call to come and help him repair - and all T'Kuvma's house ships were there and either disabled or destroyed - Thus T'Kuvma's former House allies were all there.)

- As a result there is no unified design of ship - each House has it's own tweaks, and certain technology available only to it (IE Stuff like T'Kuvma's House's Cloaking tech.) So the Federation just classifies a Klingon vessel at a certain displacement and weopons layout a 'D7 Class'.

- Once the Empire is unified (and the Unification holds) they'll either pick one House's design as a standard (or design a new ship integrating all the best tech from each House and we then get the 'classic' D7 design we all know (and most TOS fans love) that appears during Kirk's (and later) timeframe.

[Yeah, I know - that's a lot of hoops to jump through and I kind of doubt the writing staff put that much thought into something like this, but I guess we'll see. ]