You're okay fireproof78 you don't resort to the personal slights in exchanges of often quite different opinion. Anyway, got a bus to catch
I'm not sold on the idea that Burnham is a bona fide anti-hero, anyway. It's kinda too soon to tell. She's certainly a hero with major flaws, but the question regarding what category she falls into is: what is she going to do about her flaws going forward? The place where she starts out is to become overwhelmed by her flaws, let them control her actions rather immaturely, and then to metaphorically fall on her own sword when things go to shit. If I might speculate as to the root cause here, it might even be as simple as the idea that she was a human raised in an environment more ideally suited to an alien race, and that she was unable to mature in a way that would be healthy for a human being. Consequently, her behavior, especially under severe stress, is grossly immature, both for person generally and also relative to her own potential as a human being. If it's anything like this, there is a lot of room for personal growth. In any case, in a serial, i.e. non-episodic, format, there is potential for the main character to undergo significant changes over the course of the series. So, even if she starts out in anti-hero territory, there is no reason why she has to remain there. I mean, look at Han Solo.
I wouldn't call Burnham an anti-hero. To me, anti-heroes have qualities that in and of themselves would be considered negative, but are applied on the side of good. I'm not sure this applies to Burnham. She's viewed as a criminal because of the perception of what she did in the first episode. She got blamed for the war, but actually she was *right* and if she had succeeded in her plan to take the first shot it probably wouldn't have prevented the war but could have made the initial battle less bloody. The anti-hero is the 'chaotic good' on the D&D alignment spectrum. Burnham is neutral good. Han Solo was an anti-hero originally but got retconned to a regular old hero in the special edition. Greedo's crooked point blank shot de-antied his heroism.
Yes. Let's also not overlook the childhood trauma that led to her being put into that environment in the first place, either. If you were terrorized and had your parents murdered by a band of sadistic clowns when you were a young child, and you had grown up never having the chance to fully deal with that, and then were suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by clowns, you might well become overwhelmed too.
On the subject of Starfleet Officers losing their shit... What about Picard going full Tony Montana, throwing a screaming rage fit and gunning down someone he probably knew beforehand was an assimilated Crewmember of his ? I don't see anyone giving him a hard time because he lost his nerve in that situation. Also, he almost went like Commodore Decker and risked the lives of his crew to "hunt his whale". If Lily wasn't there, who knows, maybe he would've sacrificed all of those folks because of personal trauma. And we're talking about Picard, perhaps the most sanctimonious Captain we ever had in Star Trek... Commodore Decker himself after almost killing everyone on the Enterprise had his death lamented by Spock and Kirk because they knew he was on an altered state. But Michael, oh, Michael... She killed the butcher who murdered her mentor in front of her. She killed a guy who fired first on a fleet of explorers who weren't planning to have a war. So we should giver her a hard time instead and pretend she is the first character in Trek history to do that sort of thing.
Kirk has repeatedly lied in his mission reports when you think about it. Gave both Mitchell and Decker glowing posthumous commendations when they died, rather than truthfully chronicle their blatant wrongdoings. Probably did the same for others , but I can't remember.
When we look at what Burnham did how does that compare to Data basically getting ready to kill Kivas Fajo in cold blood? Burnham was wrong to kill Kuvas but you do have "crimes of passion" where people aren't thinking straight and do something out of pure anger. Data kind of did that as well though it must have come from a different perspective since he can't feel emotion. Jason
Maybe we'll find out the details of what happened to Loca's ship later this season or next. But one thing is certain, as unfortunate as destruction of the ship and deaths of his crew was, if it had been a criminal action, Lorca would be in prison. The manipulation of the psych tests was not a crime. In fact, it could be argued that the fact that he was able to manipulate the test meant that the test may have been inadequate, or that Lorca actually wa psychiatrically fit for duty. With respect to playing the recording of the people dying, it was done to motivate the Discovery crew. Lorca knew that his crew, especially Burnham and Stamets, who were in charge of getting the spore drive to work, would have to perform extroidinarily, in order to complete the task of saving those people. That broadcast was crucial to getting that extra bit out of the crew. The act of "motivating" people, getting them to want to perform at peak efficiency, is a form of manipulation. Manipulation is not necessarily morally wrong, depending on how it's done and for what purpose. Football, basketball, soccer coaches and others, do it all the time. So, just calling it "manipulation", as you are doing, doesn't automatically make it morally wrong. With regard to the notion that Lorca manipulated Stamets into that last spore jump, as I have been saying since the episode aired, there is no on screen evidence of manipulation by Lorca. People who don't like Lorca or who think Stamets is weak minded, or something, interpret the exchange between the two as "manipulation". I didn't see any manipulation. I saw Stamets being what he has been throughout the first 9 episodes, a selfless officer who has served his ship and the Federation with extroidinary distinction, and wished to continue that service.
This situation with Lorca has become almost a need to counter every thing he has done like it should be excused. You say the manipulation of the psych test is not a crime like it is okay that he got away with it. Is it really? The test result was in part what excused his PTSD as not important enough to be a factor that would be a detriment to him being a captain of another crew. The result of his test was not a true reflection of his state of mind. Legal, I don't know, but it was not the truth. This is where someone says Kirk was worse or Janeway. Yet Lorca if he owned his truth has cheated the system. Cornwell saw that and why should her expertise be dismissed? I 'get' that people want to hero worship Lorca but it truly surprises me that he is seen as someone who is not damaged and because of that is not still making decisions based on his unreliable state.
I wouldn't call the Queen helpless, not even in that state. This is Borg, after all. For all Picard knew, the bits could have reactivated themselves and possibly assimilated him or someone else. Hugh, in "I Borg", could be considered helpless, because he was in the brig and quite confused. The Queen was neither.
^ And even that is understandable. Picard is lashing out because of the trauma he directly experienced as a result of Borg assimilation.