About Mirror Georgiou in ”Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2“

For all we know, Barzans are normally sociopaths

 

I'll judge that when its over.

They can present however they want. However, we can interpret it how we want. 'Tis the nature of art.

 

I'm reminded of a quotation from McCoy--Spock, I've found that evil usually triumphs unless good is very, very careful.

The challenge for the show is to demonstrate that tension. Will they be successful? Who knows? But I'd rather they try than the alternative of treating Georgiou as irredeemably evil. The ambiguity of whether she will change, or whether she will drag others to her point of view--that's something I'm interested in exploring. A constant barrage of "that's a bad idea" type dismissal of an "evul charactah"? Not so much.

 

While I basically disagree with the OP, I do think this question definitely exposes the essential problem with the whole concept of the Mirror Universe as Everybody's Asshole Version. At some point the character has to make some sort of transition to someone that is appealing on at least *some* level, and which will need to be dispensed with next season or early in the Section 31 show.

 

It's an extension of the nature/nurture debate. Is there such a thing as an innately evil person? Furthermore, what does "evil" mean in a world where default social norms are what we would view as deviancy in our world?

Obviously reality is far more nuanced than what a Mirror vs Prime Trek universe can illustrate. Despite the simplicity, the opportunity to explore the question of whether someone is irredeemable is available here (and, if the positive, humanist future that is allegedly at the core of Trek is worth any consideration, it should be remembered that rehabilitation and redemption form the cornerstone of a progressive notion of any justice system. While such redemption usually requires a form of punishment, as well as penance, the former would be difficult to practically impose in the Georgiou situation.)

The journey for the character has the potential to be very interesting--I guess we'll see if all involved are up to the challenge of presenting it to us as such.

 

Foolishness. Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.

 

This needs to be remembered. If Georgiou is irredeemable then humanity is beyond evolving and improving.

 

I see you've adapted well to the one world fascist order. Sshh. Don't tell anyone else. Bad for morale.

 

All I know is this topic needs to get out of First Gear or, when the forum for the series is created, every single thread is going to come back to this every single time. And it'll be extremely repetitive and extremely exhausting. We can't have this all the time, or it's going to become less of a discussion and more like an endurance test. On both sides of the issue.

 

You're basing this on one line of dialogue?

Nhan does not strike me as a sociopath. She would never have been able to rise to such high rank - or serve under Chris Pike at all - if she was.

She may have a wicked sense of humor, which I DO find likely, but I don't see her as a psycho. Not by a long shot.

 

No, but others apparently are.

 

^ And as I said, I don't get it.

So Nhan said "yum yum" one time. Big deal. Doesn't mean she's a psycho. It means she may like to have a laugh now and again.

Remember, this is the same person who openly apologized to Burnham for spacing Airiam. Does that sound like something a crazy person would do?

 

Still with the cannibalism??? Words have meaning, and as awful a person as she is, cannibal is not one of them.

 

^ The term 'cannibal' would likely have a new meaning in the Trek future where there are many different sentient species.

It only means "humans eating other humans" today, because that's all we have. Throw aliens into the mix, and the term would probably include them as well.

 

Unfortunately, that use of the term is probably gonna stick in this instance.

 

It was a dumb line, but the character isn't crazy or anything.

 

Why does sentience play a role? Cannibalism is not reserved for the sentient. Mice can be cannibalistic, as are many, many other species. It is only for Species X consuming Species X. If sentience played a role in the term any human who eats pork could be called a cannibal.

 

Cannibalism. Note, especially, the second definition.

 

The easiest way to look at it is: how would you regard a human eating a Romulan or a Vulcan or another species we're already familiar with?

For the simple reason that we were first introduced to the Kelpiens as them being just another link on their own planet's food chain, we look at them through a specific lens, but if we had gotten to know them any other way, there probably wouldn't even be an argument.

 

If Georgiou is a cannibal, then so is L'Rell and so was Voq. I don't hear much lately about the eating habits of those two. Lorca also might've been a cannibal.