Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x15 - "Will You Take My Hand?"

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Sarek was not a doctor, He certainly may not have understood what was going on with her. However, there is no indication that teenage Burnham carried any symptoms of PTSD into aduthood. Because of that, I think it can be plausibly argued that she either didn't require treatment as a child (because she didn't suffer from PTSD), or that she did receive treatment and was cured of the condition.

Is one ever really "cured" of something like that? I would think it's more like a lifelong process of recovery and management, with relapses and recurrences of symptoms that may have subsided and lain dormant for periods being an ever-present possibility.

Yes, PTSD in adult Burnham is nothing but fanon, which of course usually means nothing in terms of what is actually happening in the show. The reason Burnham was agitated and upset after she woke up in sick bay was because she had just had an encounter with a Klingon.and wanted to report it to the captain right away. That's why she ran out sick bay without her uniform. It was as simple and as clear, as that.

Fans, over thinking it as usual, took the scene with teenage Burnham and the way adult Burnham acted after the encounter with the Torchbearer, and drew the conclusion that adult Burnham was suffering from PTSD, when this was never established on screen. Other fans picked up on this unsubstantiated storyline and accepted it as fact. Thus, fanon.

Is your argument here with respect to the usage of the precise term PTSD, in context of what defines its formal diagnosis by today's standards, as it seems to be in the case of @The Memetic Susurrus? I do get that, and if the the point is that laypeople are too often too quick to throw around too loosely medical terms of which we don't fully understand the nuances in such discussions, it's one well taken...although ultimately there's really very little point in appealing to the DSM-5 here; it will be as obsolete by 2256 as the DSM-I, by which Culber and Stamets suffer from "sociopathic personality disturbances" because of their homosexuality, is today. Or even more so.

Call it whatever you like or think most accurate, but irrespective of whether a doctor or lawyer—in the here and now or the 23rd century—would deem it to meet the threshold of a particular medical condition or legal mitigating factor, the upshot is that lingering emotional issues stemming from her childhood trauma (and compounded by her subsequent Vulcan upbringing, even as it may well have helped her to cope by developing the "shell" that Georgiou spent seven years picking away at) were quite clearly portrayed as being triggered and brought to the surface by her encounter with Rejac (which also led her to sustain a concussion and radiation poisoning, BTW, so add great physical stress on top of great emotional stress into the mix) and exerting an influence on her judgment and actions in "The Vulcan Hello"/"Battle at the Binary Stars" (DSC). This is no more "fanon" than Picard's supposedly resolved issues surrounding his assimilation experience re-asserting themselves in First Contact. It's a recurring element of the story and her character as written and depicted.

BURNHAM: My commitment to this course of action is not emotional!

Cool story, sis.

Burnham abandons her dearly-held Starfleet principles and mutinies out of fear of losing a second family to the Klingons, having already lost one, and guilt over feeling responsible for her parents' death. Sarek and Georgiou both sensed this, and each cautioned her about it, but she dismissed these concerns. Whether or not there was a certain arguable logic to her plan, such as it was, and whether or not it could have worked, is irrelevant. She panicked. She was emotionally overwhelmed. Clinically ill or not, she certainly wasn't well, nor acting so rationally as she initially insisted. She even admitted as much herself.

I seem to recall that when last we spoke of this at the conclusion of the first half of the season, you were also denying there had been any deliberate suggestion that Lorca might have had ulterior motives in puppeteering his officers like so many chess pieces, rather than merely being a dedicated captain doing as dedicated captains ought...which of course was directly followed up on after the break, just as this was. Subtly or unsubtly, these plotlines were foreshadowed and telegraphed from the outset. I don't believe for a moment it's a case of overthinkers reading in something that isn't there. (Not to say that doesn't happen sometimes, naturally.)

I don't know why she made the deliberate decision to kill T'Kuvma... her action was not an emotional response.

She thought she could still save Georgiou's life. She couldn't see that she was already dead from where she was standing, and Saru hadn't yet told her. From her point of view, T'Kuvma was killing Georgiou, rather than having just killed her (as we the audience could see from ours). Michael valued Georgiou's life over T'Kuvma's, despite the stated logic of her own plan dictating that she should have done the reverse. Georgiou was a second (or rather third) mother to her, whom she feared losing and felt guilty over placing in jeopardy in the first place. Not to mention anger at the Klingons, too. Those emotions were all in the mix when she made that split-second decision. How could they not be?

-MMoM

 

[johnjm22]

While I agree with you that Trek is a greater universe than just TOS era, what a business needs to look for is a return on product that's out there. Like it or not, Trek can't be sustained in the open market, competing with the oversaturation of Star Wars and other Sci-Fi adventures on just the fans. If the money comes in from product bearing Kirk or Spock's likeness, more than Picard or Data, then they need to ensure a good return for the company.

Besides that, I know non-fans, just casual viewers, who like the feel of TOS era more than TNG. TOS has the look, feel and vibe people now are into (witness the 2017 Gucci campaign).

As jaime pointed out, it's a complex picture. You're right that TOS is more iconic today. The TOS merch is objectively cooler. It's got that nostalgic 60's thing going for it. TNG merch is dorky.

But there's more too it than that. While TOS is more recognizable in the general public, more people watch TNG era Trek even today.

Plus I think that the TNG era had a lot more done within it than the TOS era on screen. It got fatigued

I very much agree with this. That's part of the reason I think the TNG movies were bad. There series had been on for 7 seasons it was out of gas. TOS got cut short.

and maybe even referring to it a lot would bring back that tiredness.

In my early post I said I don't want TNG/VOY/DS9 re-hashed or referenced (if that's what you mean). That wasn't my point.

 

[The Memetic Susurrus]

Is one ever really "cured" of something like that? I would think it's more like a lifelong process of recovery and management, with relapses and recurrences of symptoms that may have subsided and lain dormant for periods being an ever-present possibility.

Yep. That is certainly quite possible, even likely, if it's an actual case of PTSD and not ASD (which it wouldn't be if she's still symptomatic decades later). In fact, that's a very sobering longitudinal assessment and well-phrased, if I may say so.

Is your argument here with respect to the usage of the precise term PTSD, in context of what defines its formal diagnosis by today's standards, as it seems to be in the case of @The Memetic Susurrus? I do get that, and if the the point is that laypeople are too often too quick to throw around too loosely medical terms of which we don't fully understand the nuances in such discussions, it's one well taken...although ultimately there's really very little point in appealing to the DSM-5 here; it will be as obsolete by 2256 as the DSM-I, by which Culber and Stamets suffer from "sociopathic personality disturbances" because of their homosexuality, is today. Or even more so.

Since I got drug into this--not that I mind!--let me push back a tad here (and not by much, really). I won't defend the American Psychiatric Association on DSM-I, -II, -III, -IV, or -5 because, frankly, I don't buy into the same assumptions they do (my degrees are in psychology and biological psychiatry's conceits are far too reductionistic for my tastes) nor, professionally, do I have to (the DSM applies to psychiatrists, not psychologists, counsellors, social workers, or non-physician psychoanalysts). That having been said, a helluva lot has changed in our research base since the Fifties and Sixties. We have a much better understanding of etiology of mental illness now than we did then and, unless you think what we've learned is incorrect, the likelihood that we'll suddenly dispense with major categories of mental illness between now and the 23rd century does not seem very likely. We may add to our understanding but wholly reconceptualise it? I may be wrong, but I just don't see it. Will the DSM-5 be obsolete by 2256? Sure. But, I suspect, the DSM-15 will still likely have a diagnosis of PTSD and its symptomology will likely as not be very similar to what it is now. That's because the DSM is all about symptoms, not etiology (though they do make attempts to link it to some cause, in places). It doesn't tell you how something occurred, just what the symptoms are and what they are presumed to be correlative of. And, as our understanding of mental illness improves, we're finding that this kind of nosology is, well, not as helpful. Personally, I find the PDM-2 (Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual-2) much more useful because it's more holistic and takes into account human behaviour conceptualised as a spectrum rather than a discrete set of affects and behaviours that, somehow, if you get seven ticks on your list of symptoms but not six you definitely have [insert diagnostic category].

I guess what I'm saying is that, yes, perhaps how we understand PTSD--what experiential, genetic, epigenetic, and behavioural correlates there are to its diagnosis--may shift by the 23rd century, but we can only guess how that will go and how knowledge of mental health issues will evolve over the decades ahead. We have to assess what we see on the screen based on what we know today and, by today's standards--which, I am asserting, will likely be added to but not subtracted from--I just don't think Michael's case qualifies as PTSD, not the least of which because Starfleet isn't likely to allow someone like that to continue serving, if found out. Bad dreams frequently, sure. Even an occasional flashback, okay. But full-blown PTSD? There are reasons why that'll get you medically discharged from the service.

Call it whatever you like or think most accurate, but irrespective of whether a doctor or lawyer—in the here and now or the 23rd century—would deem it to meet the threshold of a particular medical condition or legal mitigating factor, the upshot is that lingering emotional issues stemming from her childhood trauma (and compounded by her subsequent Vulcan upbringing, even as it may well have helped her to cope by developing the "shell" that Georgiou spent seven years picking away at) were quite clearly portrayed as being triggered and brought to the surface by her encounter with Rejac (which also led her to sustain a concussion and radiation poisoning, BTW, so add great physical stress on top of great emotional stress into the mix) and exerting an influence on her judgment and actions in "The Vulcan Hello"/"Battle at the Binary Stars" (DSC). This is no more "fanon" than Picard's supposedly resolved issues surrounding his assimilation experience re-asserting themselves in First Contact. It's a recurring element of the story and her character as written and depicted.

Yeah, Picard jumping right back into the centre seat after his assimilation was a bit too fantastical, for me. I figured he would've been a lab-rat for xeno-biologists, cyberneticists, and behavioural scientists of all stripes and disciplines for years, if it had been handled realistically.

Your point on Burnham's upbringing is one I started to think about the other day as being, ironically, a factor in how she (apparently dysfunctionally) deals with her relationships. I even said--tongue firmly implanted in cheek--that her being raised by Vulcans might have given her something akin to Reactive Attachment Disorder. I don't particularly care for the way the psychiatric community has formulated that diagnosis but it seems, just based on what we've observed, she has something similar to a dismissive-avoidant attachment style.

Good catch, that one. Brings up a whole plethora of things that would be interesting to think about, such as how you baseline "normal" behaviour in humans that have been adopted by, say, Andorians, Vulcans, Tellarites, or Klingons.

Burnham abandons her dearly-held Starfleet principles and mutinies out of fear of losing a second family to the Klingons, having already lost one, and guilt over feeling responsible for her parents' death. Sarek and Georgiou both sensed this, and each cautioned her about it, but she dismissed these concerns. Whether or not there was a certain arguable logic to her plan, such as it was, and whether or not it could have worked, is irrelevant. She panicked. She was emotionally overwhelmed. Clinically ill or not, she certainly wasn't well, nor acting so rationally as she initially insisted. She even admitted as much herself.

Yup, wholly agreed. To me, though, I saw that as a person, under enormous stress, making a bad tactical decision. I've seen it before. Many soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines have done so under situations where you simply don't have the time to think carefully and have to rely on heuristics.

I seem to recall that when last we spoke of this at the conclusion of the first half of the season, you were also denying there had been any deliberate suggestion that Lorca might have had ulterior motives in puppeteering his officers like so many chess pieces, rather than merely being a dedicated captain doing as dedicated captains ought...which of course was directly followed up on after the break, just as this was. Subtly or unsubtly, these plotlines were foreshadowed and telegraphed from the outset. I don't believe for a moment it's a case of overthinkers reading in something that isn't there. (Not to say that doesn't happen sometimes, naturally.)

We're Trekkers and Trekkies. We overthink as a secondary mutation !

Good points, all. Thanks for bringing me into it! I really am going to miss the week-to-week play-by-play with you folks! I'll do my best to stick around here. This is too much fun!

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I meant that the fans tend to come up with the wildest most convoluted explanations, conclusions, etc, which are usually way out of line with what the writers intended, whether one likes what the writers intended or not. The belief that adult Burnham suffers from PTSD without any on screen evidence is a prime example.

Except there is onscreen evidence that Burnham encountering a Klingon brought up some seriously unresolved issues from her childhood that lead to her having an emotional breakdown. Both Sarek and Georgiou acknowledge Burnham's past with the Klingons as influencing her behaviour. It's pretty logical for one to assume that Burnham would be suffering from PTSD considering her actions during the battle at the binary stars were considered out of character by Georgiou. In the Season finale Burnham tells Tyler that she listened to her father being murdered and it is implied that she listened to her mother being raped then murdered. How could she come away from that experience without having PTSD?

 

[fireproof78]

How could she come away from that experience without having PTSD?

Depends on how soon she gets therapy afterwards.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Depends on how soon she gets therapy afterwards.

I don't think Burnham ever got therapy, at least none that would have been effective for a human. Based on what we've seen, it can be assumed that Sarek adopted Burnham fairly soon after the attack. It seems that Burnham was taught to suppress her emotions instead of dealing with them, hence her discomfort around emotions in general later in life.

 

[gblews]

Is one ever really "cured" of something like that? I would think it's more like a lifelong process of recovery and management, with relapses and recurrences of symptoms that may have subsided and lain dormant for periods being an ever-present possibility.

I really don't know.

Is your argument here with respect to the usage of the precise term PTSD,

My position is that adult Burnham is not shown to have PTSD, because that is the condition others have been saying she has. She is also not shown to have a phychological disability of any kind as an adult.

Call it whatever you like or think most accurate, but irrespective of whether a doctor or lawyer—in the here and now or the 23rd century—would deem it to meet the threshold of a particular medical condition or legal mitigating factor, the upshot is that lingering emotional issues stemming from her childhood trauma (and compounded by her subsequent Vulcan upbringing, even as it may well have helped her to cope by developing the "shell" that Georgiou spent seven years picking away at) were quite clearly portrayed as being triggered and brought to the surface by her encounter with Rejac (which also led her to sustain a concussion and radiation poisoning, BTW, so add great physical stress on top of great emotional stress into the mix) and exerting an influence on her judgment and actions in "The Vulcan Hello"/"Battle at the Binary Stars" (DSC). This is no more "fanon" than Picard's supposedly resolved issues surrounding his assimilation experience re-asserting themselves in First Contact. It's a recurring element of the story and her character as written and depicted.

At no point are we shown that adult Burnham has anything but physical injuries after her rescue from the Klingon shrine. At no point are we shown or told that she has a debilitating mental condition of any kind. Please point out the specific scenes or dialogue which you believe supports your belief.

I don't believe any such on screen evidence exists, but the fact that so many fans have decided, based purely on speculation by other fans, that adult Burnham is suffering from a mental disability has tuned that belief into fanon.

BURNHAM:

My commitment to this course of action is not emotional!

Cool story, sis.

With respect to the series of photos, Burnham was emotional because she thought the ship was in danger of bring destroyed. Besides, just being emotional, especially under such circumstances, certainly is no indication of mental illness.

Burnham abandons her dearly-held Starfleet principles and mutinies out of fear of losing a second family to the Klingons, having already lost one, and guilt over feeling responsible for her parents' death. Sarek and Georgiou both sensed this, and each cautioned her about it, but she dismissed these concerns. Whether or not there was a certain arguable logic to her plan, such as it was, and whether or not it could have worked, is irrelevant. She panicked. She was emotionally overwhelmed. Clinically ill or not, she certainly wasn't well, nor acting so rationally as she initially insisted. She even admitted as much herself.

Your phychoanalysis of Burnham is nothing but speculation on your part.

She wasn't "well" because of her physical injuries.

Sarek told her to be careful that her feeling about the Klingons were not the sole influence on her actions. Her going to ask Sarek's advice before acting was a good indication that Burnham was thinking logically rather than allowing her emotions to be her sole guide.

What scenes or dialogue show that Burnham was "overwhelmed" by her emotions?

I seem to recall that when last we spoke of this at the conclusion of the first half of the season, you were also denying there had been any deliberate suggestion that Lorca might have had ulterior motives in puppeteering his officers like so many chess pieces, rather than merely being a dedicated captain doing as dedicated captains ought...which of course was directly followed up on after the break, just as this was. Subtly or unsubtly, these plotlines were foreshadowed and telegraphed from the outset. I don't believe for a moment it's a case of overthinkers reading in something that isn't there. (Not to say that doesn't happen sometimes, naturally.)

Yes, I recall. I mentioned this in my initial post about the finale and stated that I was wrong about that. Does this have some bearing on the discussion currently at hand?

I think I'm aware of the scenes that you interpret as indications that Burnham was mentally ill, but I'm looking for the scene that shows this without the need for interpretation.

 

[gblews]

Except there is onscreen evidence that Burnham encountering a Klingon brought up some seriously unresolved issues from her childhood that lead to her having an emotional breakdown.

As a child, yes, but not as an adult. As an adult she shows none of the symptoms she displayed as a child.

 

[fireproof78]

As a child, yes, but not as an adult. As an adult she shows none of the symptoms she displayed as a child.

Do not underestimate the power.

 

[Yanks]

boy, I hate to break it to you, but every Trek is SJW Trek. If you hate the idea of social justice so much, you might be fan of the wrong franchise

Never like this before.

 

[Yanks]

There have been several moments in the series that were clearly not meant to be taken literally. Example: in the scene where Burnham was working on the problem Stamets gave her, there weren't really people phasing in and out of reality around her - that was meant to depict the passage of time. I took this as another one - obviously, she wasn't really lecturing in the middle of the room where admirals were giving out awards, so I could either take the scene as what her mere presence there after what she had done represented to the assembly, or, what she was thinking during the assembly.

That's an interesting take I hadn't considered.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

As a child, yes, but not as an adult. As an adult she shows none of the symptoms she displayed as a child.

That is not accurate. Burnham broke down because of her encounter with the Klingon on the obelisk. She succumbs to irrational fear, becomes openly hostile, and engages in destructive behaviour via trying to incite mutiny. All of those are symptoms of PTSD. In the finale we also see her unable to be in the same room as a group of laughing Klingons because it takes her back to the murder of her parents. That is also a symptom of PTSD.

 

[Yanks]

Since it is the finale and I just finished it I'll say this was as good a first season of Trek since probably TNG but in some ways stronger. Mainly cause they charted a narrative vs the old way of doing mostly stand alone shows.

I rated DSC higher than any series I've rated. But when you put out a season in this format, you've got to nail it at the end.

This was too easy and contrived... and not very Star Trek when you think about it.

Their solution to the war was to give a murdering torturer psychopath a weapon of mass destruction and installed her as the leader of a bunch of terrorists.

We haven't learned anything.

 

[Yanks]

If what DIS is doing it pandering to TOS fans, then they're doing terrible job with it!

TNG didn't get good until it stopped trying to be TOS.

 

[Paradise City]

It's not trying to be TOS. Duscovery want to operate from a blank canvass so they can write what they will but also they want to impress the fans. They wanted to do both but wound up kinda impressing noone. They went with the Easter Egg approach, dropping references fans would recognise as opposed to fidelity to canon, the aesthetic or anything else in Trek to date. The reality is that fans are a stickler for detail and consistency so Cornell namedroppin' Archer and the Enterprise being crowbarred in for next season in the finale just isn't enough.

Frankly, my problem is there are a good episodes generally, it didn't mesh as an arc at all and the finale was unconvincing and rushed.

 

[Mr. Nova]

After watching the ending of the episode, I just noticed they did a shot very similar to either the first or last shot of The Cage (can't remember which) where they zoom in from outside of the ship, through the bridge dome, and top-down into the bridge just before we encounter the Enterprise. Nice touch.

 

[Yanks]

She thought she could still save Georgiou's life. She couldn't see that she was already dead from where she was standing, and Saru hadn't yet told her. From her point of view, T'Kuvma was killing Georgiou, rather than having just killed her (as we the audience could see from ours). Michael valued Georgiou's life over T'Kuvma's, despite the stated logic of her own plan dictating that she should have done the reverse. Georgiou was a second (or rather third) mother to her, whom she feared losing and felt guilty over placing in jeopardy in the first place. Not to mention anger at the Klingons, too. Those emotions were all in the mix when she made that split-second decision. How could they not be?

Nice to meet you. I understand Michael's relationship with MU G.

But stun wouldn't work to stop him? Stun had been knocking them down right at left mear minutes before. There was no reason to make the swich to kill.

 

[gblews]

That is not accurate. Burnham broke down because of her encounter with the Klingon on the obelisk. She succumbs to irrational fear, becomes openly hostile, and engages in destructive behaviour via trying to incite mutiny.

I don't agree that Burnham "broke down". She was anxious to warn Georgiou that there were Klingons present in the area. She then went to contact Sarek to get his advise and to question him as to how the Vulcans had handled their "first contact" with Klingons, all very logical steps. If Burnham had been "overwhelmed by her emotions" and had predetermined she was going to attack the Klingons, I think she would never have contacted Sarek. She would simply have lured Georgiou to her ready room and pinched her and gone out and ordered the attack.

Since Burnham obviously took the Vulcans' reaction to be the best course of action for the Shenzhou, it can be surmised that if Sarek had told her that the Vulcans used diplomacy successfully, there would not even have been a mutiny. The reason I bring this up is because the mutiny is being presented as a result of the symptoms of PTSD or whatever the mental illness fans think Burnham had.

Finally, Burnham had the perfect opportunity to wipe out the Kingon race in the finale and she threatened another mutiny if Starfleet followed through with their plan. That doesn't sound like someone with a pathological hatred or fear of Klingons.

All of those are symptoms of PTSD. In the finale we also see her unable to be in the same room as a group of laughing Klingons because it takes her back to the murder of her parents. That is also a symptom of PTSD.

I don't recall the scene in the finale. Can you refresh my memory?

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I don't agree that Burnham "broke down". She was anxious to warn Georgiou that there were Klingons present in the area. She then went to contact Sarek to get his advise and to question him as to how the Vulcans had handled their "first contact" with Klingons, all very logical steps. If Burnham had been "overwhelmed by her emotions" and had predetermined she was going to attack the Klingons, I think she would never have contacted Sarek. She would simply have lured Georgiou to her ready room and pinched her and gone out and ordered the attack.

Since Burnham obviously took the Vulcans' reaction to be the best course of action for the Shenzhou, it can be surmised that if Sarek had told her that the Vulcans used diplomacy successfully, there would not even have been a mutiny. The reason I bring this up is because the mutiny is being presented as a result of the symptoms of PTSD or whatever the mental illness fans think Burnham had.

Finally, Burnham had the perfect opportunity to wipe out the Kingon race in the finale and she threatened another mutiny if Starfleet followed through with their plan. That doesn't sound like someone with a pathological hatred or fear of Klingons.

I don't recall the scene in the finale. Can you refresh my memory?

Burnham was more than anxious. Everyone on the shenzhou bridge was anxious about the Klingons, but no one else attempted mutiny or went along with Burnhams mutiny attempt. Considering that Burnham goes from a model starfleet officer about be offered her own command before meeting the Klingons to the behaviour that leads her to mutiny after meeting the Klingons, it's clear that it was the act of encountering a Klingon that triggered a pretty severe and uncharacteristic (in Georgiou's assessment) emotional response in her.

There's a saying I heard once that i'm going to paraphrase, which is that people only ask for advice when they want to hear that they are right. Burnham getting Sarek's advice was done in the hopes that this would be enough to convince Georgiou to fire on the klingons. Burnham attacked Georgiou as a last resort because Georgiou refused to listen to her. Those were not the actions of a rationally thinking person. We've seen first officers vehemently disagree with the actions of their captains but I can't think of any instances which escalated to the levels of Burnham.

By the time we get to the finale, Burnham has changed as a person. She says it herself in her confrontation with Cornwell. That she made a decision at the expense of her principles at the start of the war and that she was wrong. It's entirely possible that the Burnham we see in the first episode would have gone along with Cornwell's plan, but the Burnham of the finale is different. Yes, she may still distrust the Klingons and be afraid of them but that doen't mean she is willing to endorse a plan to wipe them all out. Burnham says to Ash it would be simpler if she could hate the Klingons, but she can't and all she sees around her on Qo'nos is people living their lives and she can't bring herself to wipe out a peoples home.

The scene I am talking about occurs when Burnham and Tyler come across the group of Klingons playing a game. Tyler decides to join in to try and get information, as he remembers that Voq was quite good at this particular game. Burnham's stay for a bit but is shown to be visibly very uncomfortable at the Klingons laughing and being raucous and leaves. Ash eventually finds her and asks why she left and Burnham then confesses what happened to her parents. Burnham blames herself because she delayed the holiday she was to go on with her parents to witness a supernova. Then the Klingons attacked, Burnham was hidden by her parents but was forced to listen as Klingons broke in killed her father quickly and then in her words, 'took longer' with her mother. In light of this, the mental impact on Burnham of coming face to face with a Klingon for the first time since they killed her parents and how it influenced her actions t the battle of the binary stars is pretty evident.

 

[Mr. Nova]

This episode would have been so much better if they just did the Time Reset with the Spore Drive. It would have tied the Spore Drive to the finale, it would have given the Crew and Stamets something to do, Burnham could properly stop the war before it begins.

And if they had done that, the same people would be complaining about the reset. Truly a no-win scenario.