Poll Is Michael Burnham a "Mary Sue"?

[Alan Roi]

I consider complex to be good, makes a character feel like a real person.

I think it interferes with some people's fanon/head canon in some ways, as I've encountered people who don't want the characters they've set in stone their heads to require reevaluation they don't want to have to make. One person I encountered was not happy Burhnam added depth to Sarek, as he/she felt that took away from their preference of Sarek being solely defined by his relationship with Spock.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I think it interferes with some people's fanon/head canon in some ways, as I've encountered people who don't want the characters they've set in stone their heads to require reevaluation they don't want to have to make. One person I encountered was not happy Burhnam added depth to Sarek, as he/she felt that took away from their preference of Sarek being solely defined by his relationship with Spock.

Isn’t that just being selfish though?

 

[Midquest]

I explained why I thought she was a fanfic character type, so check that out.

Thanks, yes, I read your explanation:

Burnham is akin to an author self-insert into a fan fiction. She's awkwardly wedged into the Star Trek mythos for no apparent reason beyond a need to connect the show to TOS. People will bring up Sybok at this point; okay, fair enough. But at least Sybok sort of makes sense. It's not a stretch to say Sarek had a son with another woman before Spock. That is mostly reasonable. But to say Spock has a HUMAN foster sister all of a sudden when Spock's whole character arc was centered upon his acceptance of his human side? Come on.

And my question stands. How is she a fan fic character?

She hasn't been awkwardly wedged into the existing story, has she? I'd argue that Michael makes as much sense as Sybok, especially in light of Sarek's obsession with humanity, which apparently includes multiple human wives. Kind of weird. It seems quite reasonable to me that he'd foster a human child. And given Spock's lifelong struggle with emotion, it makes sense that his siblings would be part of that struggle.

Maybe I'd agree if they had used Michael poorly, but she's been richly and consistently built as a character in her own right. In Season One, Michael is introduced to us as an extremely competent officer who avoids social engagements, which allows her to advance technically without developing emotionally. She never figures out how to have human relationships, never has to deal with her underlying trauma and her prejudice against Klingons. It backfires for her. When pushed emotionally, she mutinies, then martyrs the enemy to protect emotional connections. She retreats into logic, covering up guilt rather than engaging with it.

Michael's story in season one is about how developing as an advocate/mentor (to Tilly; for the Tardigrade; for broken, increasingly confused Ash) enables her to grow emotionally and find her humanity. Doing so allows her to embrace the emotional complexity of friendships and love for the first time. By becoming able to see and value the humanity in others, Michael eventually recognizes that the Klingons, too, are human. She sees the underlying prejudice that motivates her and makes the decision Starfleet couldn't: rather than using war as a shallow means of atonement, she embraces the humanity of her enemy and ends the war.

In season two, she's on a quest to address her failures of emotion, and to do so with a sincerity and humanity that she wouldn't have known how to manage without going through Season One. But she must also deal with the fact that her emotional growth has been almost entirely about caring for others. Spock calls her on assuming others' burdens, and that seems to be a stumbling block for Michael right up to the present.

To me, that's a strong character arc, and one that gains nuance by involving Spock as someone equally split between worlds. Whether or not you like her, though, I still find it hard to see how she's fan fic.

Maybe the question is this: if she's an author proxy, what vicarious satisfaction is the author gaining by creating her?

 

[eschaton]

I think it interferes with some people's fanon/head canon in some ways, as I've encountered people who don't want the characters they've set in stone their heads to require reevaluation they don't want to have to make. One person I encountered was not happy Burhnam added depth to Sarek, as he/she felt that took away from their preference of Sarek being solely defined by his relationship with Spock.

I mean, when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense many people prefer simple characters. After all, human beings are natural storytellers, and our earliest stories - mythologies - don't so much involve set characters as much as archetypes such as "the hero" or "the trickster" who are pulled around as the fates require. The idea of more complicated, realistic characters who require some analysis is more modern, though it at least goes back to the Iliad - possibly earlier.

 

[Midquest]

And if all of us who don't like are such sexist misogynist bigots the why are we not complaining about Janway or Kira or Jadiza? All strong competent women?
We are not, or at least me as I found the interesting characters.

I just don't Burnham are she is aloof and boring.

Is it possible that you meant to quote someone else? Because I didn't mention a single thing about anyone being a sexist misogynistic bigot. My point was, and remains, that if you took a famous, accepted, revered Star Trek character like Spock and put them in Michael's role, people probably wouldn't blink at his competency.

But since you mention it, yes, there's plenty of instances across the internet of people disliking Michael for patently misogynistic and bigoted reasons. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that everyone who doesn't like Michael is in that category, and I certainly didn't, so I'm not sure what I'm getting accused of here.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe the question is this: if she's an author proxy, what vicarious satisfaction is the author gaining by creating her?

I would love to hear an answer to this question. It was the first thing that popped in to my mind is how is the author gaining any sort of satisfaction from this character?

I mean, when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense many people prefer simple characters. After all, human beings are natural storytellers, and our earliest stories - mythologies - don't so much involve set characters as much as archetypes such as "the hero" or "the trickster" who are pulled around as the fates require. The idea of more complicated, realistic characters who require some analysis is more modern, though it at least goes back to the Iliad - possibly earlier.

Depends on the culture, though this is generally correct. However, even expansive mythos with archetypal characters will eventually extend them out. Beowulf is the first example that springs to my mind, where he starts out as a young, godlike, hero, but ends up aging and needing help.

Part of the evolution of storytelling is the ability to craft the rich and complex in a way that can be added on to, and is designed to do so. I think that is where cultural is at right now, at least.

 

[Alan Roi]

I would love to hear an answer to this question. It was the first thing that popped in to my mind is how is the author gaining any sort of satisfaction from this character?
.

To paraphrase Khan:

"I want my wish fulfillment character to suffer, like I suffered!"

Or: No shortage of writer's out there looking for therapy in their fiction, fanfiction or otherwise.

 

[plynch]

I love Janeway for being a great role model to daughter #1 who had a Janeway action figure and autographed pic from Ms. Mulgrew. Love Rey in SW sequels. B'ellan a. Kes. T'Pol's arc makes her one of the great Trek characters. Those who immediately play the sexist card on us who don't like Burnham are out of line and playing into the current zeitgeist of anyone-who-disgres-is-automatically-a-hater.

I like her better just lately as her Messiah complex is being made overt to us per Spock and her actions with Airiam. But early on too many characters told us how great and smart she was.

 

[BillJ]

Those who immediately play the sexist card on us who don't like Burnham are out of line and playing into the current zeitgeist of anyone-who-disgres-is-automatically-a-hater.

I don't think that's it, exactly. It is the people who call her a Mary Sue or being critical of her in a way they wouldn't criticize a male character in the same way that are called out.

For me, the biggest problem with the character is that she comes off as exceptionally dull. Though it has gotten better in season two.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think that's it, exactly. It is the people who call her a Mary Sue or being critical of her in a way they wouldn't criticize a male character in the same way that are called out.

Precisely so. It's the lack of consistency of critique that frustrates me.

 

[BillJ]

I'm assuming you consider Mycroft Holmes a fanfic character type as well, right? he doesn't get mentioned at all for the first 22 Holmes stories even though he's Holmes older brother and closest living relative, forces readers to rethink what they thought of Holmes in a number of ways, and is shown to be every bit as smart as Holmes.

I think there's a big difference in the original creator of the character making changes, and hired guns coming along fifty years later and doing it. YMMV.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I created this poll for a simple reason: every time in a thread someone says Michael is a "Mary Sue", that thread is deranged for pages and pages. So please, discuss here the topic to your heart content and leave the other threads alone.

You're expecting people who call Michael a Mary Sue in every other thread out of ignorance of the term, sexism, bigotry, or trolling to suddenly become rational and respectful of not derailing threads because you've given them another venue to rant in without it being off-topic? They're just going to create more problems in this thread and continue going right on causing problems elsewhere like nothing has changed.

We've discussed the Michael Burnham Mary Sue question ad nauseam in this forum. It's been discussed in other forums. You can't get away from it. It doesn't need another dedicated thread for the trolls to latch onto and cause more problems and bait other people into getting warned. They're not going to see the overwhelming majority of "No" votes in the poll and the umpteenth argument why she doesn't fit the term and suddenly revise their position. These aren't the "revise their position when presented with new facts" kind of people.

Closed.