News Martin-Green: Burnham’s Journey From Failure To Self-Forgiveness

[Groppler Zorn]

The whole season is Burnham learning about emotions, filling in the part of herself that did not get developed in her youth and early adulthood.

If I’m interpreting your point correctly then that would assume that Burnham learned nothing in the 7 years she was on the shenzhou. She didn’t seem very Vulcan in the first episode and Georgiou would be a pretty lousy captain if she let Michael be overly emotional with no concept or control of her feelings. I actually agree with your point here, the problem is that Michael’s backstory doesn’t align with what the writers think they did with her character.

Because her initial wrong decision in the pilot episode prioritized her own interests despite seeming to prioritize the many.

Was her initial decision wrong in light of the finale though? Michael argued that they should give the Klingons a “Vulcan hello”. That is, they should use force to stand up to the empire. In the finale they give L’Rell a bomb and she threatens the Klingons until they call off the war. That is, they use the threat of force to stand up to the empire. The way I see it, Michael was proven right all along. It doesn’t seem that she actually learns anything other than to stick to her convictions at all costs.

The person we see the end of the season is not at all the person we saw at the beginning

In terms of her rank and position that’s true. In terms of her character the only thing she has learned for sure is that she was wrong to demonise the Klingons. And that’s only because she interacted with one who looked like her (AshVoq). And while that’s a positive step, it’s not exactly the same as Sisko learning to be ok with being the emissary and moving past the death of his wife. Or Worf learning to be ok with being a pariah and moving past the death of his wife. Or Damar going from being a by the book officer to a military commander to a revolutionary and learning to be ok with Bajorans and dealing with the death of his wife - so many wives die in DS9 I never realised that until now. But, those changes were over 7 years, we’re only talking about 18 months with Michael so maybe she just doesn’t seem so different. Hopefully she’ll mature if DSC runs to 7 seasons.

 

[Tuvix5675]

Burnham made a mistake in the pilot, instead of doing "a fly-by" like she said she would and like her captain authorized, she step foot on the beacon, making her a trespasser-her curiosity got the best of her. Killing the torchbearer Klingon was an act of self-defense, I don't see this as a mistake. However, it is these two mistakes that make her "responsible" for the war in the series. T'Kuvma fires first, not the Federation or the Shenzhou under her order, triggering the firing war, that actually initiates the war between the Klingons and the Federation. I personally don't think she's responsible for the war. The trespass could have been forgiven and Capt. Georgiou should have offered an apology, however, the Klingons were already trespassing in Federation space, so that makes them the provocateurs of the entire chain of events leading to war.

 

[plynch]

1. I came to DSC wanting to like it, and do not now hate it.
2. I watched each ep with expectation.
3. The character arc as described by a member near the top of the thread was sure buried, if that was the writers' intent: from violating starfleet principles to sticking by them. I guess I can see it. The change wasn't clear to me when I watched it, but I had forgotten how the earlier eps went, honestly. If they wanted us to notice the change, a bit of dialog would have helped, but whatever.
4. She seems to go from "I'm right, the authority figures are wrong" to "I'm right, the authority figures are wrong." The zeitgeist of our times, each person his or her own authority, be a rebel, "think different" etc.

 

[eschaton]

4. She seems to go from "I'm right, the authority figures are wrong" to "I'm right, the authority figures are wrong." The zeitgeist of our times, each person his or her own authority, be a rebel, "think different" etc.

This is one of the reasons people claim Burnham is a fanfiction character honestly. Not so much that she believes that she is right, but that the show - except for in the prologue - again and again sets up the situation so she is right. Even the prologue is a bit muddled, because it's heavily implied that the other Klingon ships took T'Kuvama's lead because they saw the Federation's "we come in peace" as a provocation - and that perhaps they would not if a "Vulcan Hello" was given.

But after that every time Bunham is aware enough to know what's going on (e.g., not when Ash/Voq and Lorca are tricking her) she makes the right calls. And repeatedly has to argue with other crew members to do The Right Thing. She is right because she is The Protagonist. She is right because she is Very Special.

You can argue, of course, that the Captains of past Treks have been in this situation as well. But I don't think this is universal. Captains sometimes had bad judgement - either in terms of ethics, or the consequences of their actions. They sometimes had good judgement, but followed orders which they disagreed with. And they sometimes did everything "right" yet had things blow up in their face. Voyager was the only series I think really suffered because of the "Captain is always right" dynamic - so for example whenever Seven and Janeway butted heads about what the right course of action was, by the end of the episode we always saw that Janeway's approach was right, and Seven's was wrong. TNG did this a little bit in the early years (where Worf's role was mostly to say something stupid in the ready room) but it grew past this.

Regardless, protagonist-driven shows need to have characters who don't always make the right call after their initial fall from grace. What makes the character focus interesting is not knowing where things are going. Are they going to do a heel turn, or a reverse heel turn? Are they going to get comeuppance for past shitty actions? Are they going to hit bottom and really learn from their mistakes? Burnham as depicted on the screen is pretty boring in terms of her decision-making process, which is why they keep trying to surround her with drama to keep things fresh.

 

[Lord Garth]

Maybe this is the inherent issue with having the main character not be the Captain? If the Captain is always right, then people are less likely to have a problem with it because the Captain is the Authority Figure.

If Kirk, Picard, or Sisko disagreed with an Admiral, we were always inclined to take their side because the Captain was still in command and an Authority Figure who was disagreeing with another authority: an Admiral who was corrupt or clueless. Or, as Kira once put it in "The Search, Part I" when talking to Odo: "I don't care about what some idiot Starfleet Admiral thinks."

Burnham -- like Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway -- is "correct" but because she's not The Captain -- and was stripped of rank for most of the first season -- she's had to butt up against her shipmates and her immediate superiors on the same ship.

 

[plynch]

I am most familiar with TOS. Kirk often was doing a mission or patrol of starfleet and something comes up. Sometimes he has to buck the authority figure. Though most often it seems he represents the wishes of starfleet or the federation. BUt no one is trying to make the case he had a character arc.

I do now see Burnham as coming to embrace or reembrace fed principles after her early (in the show) slipups. But I am also tired of the rebel/individualist as the only good/cool type in our society. Basically Elon Musk. Or Mr. Trump. Cooperationnwithin systems is also a good thing. Maybe it's just me, It's an ok show overall. Kept me tuning in every week. Peace to all.

 

[lawman]

The whole season is Burnham learning about emotions, filling in the part of herself that did not get developed in her youth and early adulthood. ... Each episode sees a bit of Burnham's humanity restored and a bit of her Vulcan upbringing tempered.

Interesting take on things. If we look at it this way, then the show has a really negative take on Vulcan culture and its philosophy of logic.

The Shenzhou crew knew enough about the Klingons to know that they weren't facing the Betazoids or Deltans, but not having had any contact with the Klingons for over 100 years, the crew was not about to abandon Starfleet first contact protocols so easily.

But the show itself hedged its bets with the "100 years" dialogue, and as I pointed out, it wasn't really true in canon. There had been contacts... at least enough to form a foundational set of expectations. It certainly didn't quality as a "first contact."

Your last post said the war was avoidable,That is what I was responding to.

Whoops, mea culpa, I guess I did post that Starfleet protocols got the Federation into an "avoidable war." Would've been better to phrase that as a war some saw as avoidable.

Although as I'm sure you'll recall, Saru continued to have problems with Burnham for some time after her arrival.

A bit longer than the others, yes, but that seems at least partially due to past resentments between the two predating the "mutiny."

But I get that continued friction between Burnham and the crew over Burnham's past is something you apparently wanted to see.

Wanted to? Not so much, but it was something the show led us to expect. Personally I'd just like to have seen more interaction between her and other crew members; there really wasn't much. (And what there was was almost always one-on-one conversations; as others have pointed out, the show seemed to bend over backward to avoid larger group dynamics.)

Yeah, the Emperor was a bad person, no doubt, but she did have a kind of code of honor. This is not unlike the Klingon's code of honor.

I really don't think she did. (Unless you're of the school that thinks the Klingon notion of "honor" is transparently situational and self-serving, in which case I'd agree.)

Burnham simply chose the lesser, or least untrustworthy, of the two. I saw this as yet another logical decision.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I saw literally nothing trustworthy about MUGeorgiou. At the end of episode 12 I was practically yelling at the screen for Michael to ditch the maniac and reunite with Lorca, and if you revisit my posts from that week you'll see that's what I was honestly expecting as well, because it seemed like the only sane move... and of course then in #13 (what I consider the show's shark-jumping episode, or near enough to one) she went and did the exact opposite.

Okay, if there were no themes set up, how are you going to then condemn the show for not following through on these non-existent "themes"?

And, I'm pretty sure I've read you stating that DSC failed to follow up on themes the show created. Can't have it both ways, but maybe I'm wrong. I'll go back and check.

To clarify: the show clearly tried to set up some themes. It did a fairly ham-fisted job of it from the start, with lots of self-undermining bits built in, but the potential was at least there for some interesting things to be developed later. It then systematically failed to develop those things in any meaningful way.

To quote a fairly thoughtful post-season critique from Vulture, "Even in this barest outline [of the show's premise], you can see the potential to consider a multitude of worthwhile thematic dimensions about war, human ethics in the face of great loss, and how communities are formed. But there is something insincere, even empty, about Discovery’s consideration of these ideas to date." For example, "It’s rare to witness stories of men dealing with the aftermath of their rape treated with sincerity and respect, and here, Discovery came closest to marrying its brutal nature with Star Trek’s overarching sincerity about examining the human condition. Ash’s story and Latif’s tenderhearted performance certainly opened up intriguing avenues. But once the long suspected theory of Ash being the Klingon Voq was confirmed... this fascinating thread about male vulnerability became muddled. It was all too apparent that Discovery didn’t quite know what to do with Ash after this twist. His decision in the season finale to join L’Rell — who is still his torturer and rapist, at least as far as his memory is concerned — seemingly runs counter to his goal to live peacefully."

(And as the same piece goes on to comment, "What [Michael] represents versus how she is written creates fissures in the series, exemplifying how we know nothing of the few developed characters on Discovery beyond their traumas. Their dreams, desires, and interests aren’t legible, only the grit of their miseries. ... In the finale, Michael regains her place in Starfleet as a commander, stops the war with the Klingons she initially sparked, and gets kind recognition from her adoptive father, but I still have no idea who she is beyond the death of her parents and her various failures as a Starfleet officer." Spot on, IMHO.)

 

[skip bittman]

But mainly a journey that involved a lot of standing around looking constipated.

 

[gblews]

Legally speaking, it wouldn't be mutiny in the modern sense, because mutiny is a conspiracy, which means more than one person has to be involved. The use of the term mutiny in such a sloppy fashion makes me feel like the writers really don't understand military terminology.

Nevertheless, Burnham was charged and convicted of mutiny despite whatever the writers' understanding of current military terminology might have been.

I can certainly think of individual episodes of Trek where characters have done similar things - albeit sometimes under the influence of a foreign intelligence. Although in some cases that wasn't the case. I remember one Voyager episode near the end of its run - Renaissance Man - where The Doctor impersonates Janeway (and several other crewmembers) in a plot to steal the warp core in order to save Janeway's life. Hell, what Saru did in Episode 8 was arguably in terms of breach of command (and potential ramifications) just as bad as Burnham, but he didn't even get a slap on the wrist.

Considering there have been 6 TV shows and some 13 movies, I'm pretty sure one could pick out any scene in any show or movie, and find another scene in another show or movie that contradicts the first scene. So this point really doesn't mean much.

Now, one can take the position that if Georgiou had survived, she would have told the full story, and Burnham would have had a reprimand on her record - maybe been demoted - but not charged with mutiny. That's my headcanon anyway.

To what "full story" do you refer? Had she lived, Georgiou would have been a witness for the prosecution in Burnham's mutiny trial. She certainly could have put in a good word for Michael, but that wouldn't have been enough to get Burnham off the hook.

And since Burnham wasn't charged with anything related to the away mission to T'Kuvma's ship, there would not have been any need for Georgiou to absolve her of anything.

 

[gblews]

4. She seems to go from "I'm right, the authority figures are wrong" to "I'm right, the authority figures are wrong." The zeitgeist of our times, each person his or her own authority, be a rebel, "think different" etc.

This is an oversimplification which misses Burnham's character growth from the first episode to the finale and misses the point made by her role in moving the mission against the Klingons away from Starfleet committing genocide.

In the end, Burnham had grown from a person willing to cast aside Starfleet ideals and principles in pursuit of "victory, no matter the cost or means", to a person who sees the value in those principles. Starfleet itself, however, due to the ravages of war, had moved away from those principles themselves. At the Battle of the Binary Stars, Burnham was probably right, but for the wrong reasons. At Quonos, she was right for the right reasons.

But the show itself hedged its bets with the "100 years" dialogue, and as I pointed out, it wasn't really true in canon. There had been contacts... at least enough to form a foundational set of expectations. It certainly didn't quality as a "first contact."

As far as DSC is concerned, Starfleet had no contact with the Klingons for over 100 years. If something you saw in one of the movies or other spins gets in the way of your enjoyment of DSC, well that's unfortunate.

Wanted to? Not so much, but it was something the show led us to expect. Personally I'd just like to have seen more interaction between her and other crew members; there really wasn't much. (And what there was was almost always one-on-one conversations; as others have pointed out, the show seemed to bend over backward to avoid larger group dynamics.)

I don't recall the show leading us to expect continued conflict between Burnham and the Disco crew.

You should talk to echaton, he thought there wasn't enough pone on one between crewmembers. What are ya gonna do.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I saw literally nothing trustworthy about MUGeorgiou.

Just to be clear, my position is that MU Geogiou was the least untrustworthy between her and Lorca.

To quote a fairly thoughtful post-season critique from Vulture,

You realize that finding others who agree with you, even Vulture writers, doesn't make your opinion objectively correct, right?

 

[lawman]

As far as DSC is concerned, Starfleet had no contact with the Klingons for over 100 years. If something you saw in one of the movies or other spins gets in the way of your enjoyment of DSC, well that's unfortunate.

WTF? Either DSC is part of existing Trek continuity or it isn't. Most defenders of the show are insisting that we should accept the word of the producers that it is. If you're arguing here that it isn't and it can actually only be appreciated by disregarding existing Trek continuity, then I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.

(The fact is, though, that you're wrong about "as far as DSC is concerned," since as I noted the show did hedge its bets about the degree of non-contact, and did acknowledge specific incidents during the preceding century. The specific line in "Vulcan Hello" was "a warrior race we've hardly spoken to for a hundred years." And in an interview, Aaron Harberts put it like this: "I would say that the show starts in a place where the Klingons and the Federation have been hating. The last real large battle is the battle of Donatu V, 10 to 12 years before our show begins. That’s sort of the last big military incident battle between the two. So we’ve had a decade or so of no contact." IOW, any way you slice it, Starfleet was already aware that the Klingons were hostile and warlike.)

You realize that finding others who agree with you, even Vulture writers, doesn't make your opinion objectively correct, right?

Why yes, I do. That's probably why I didn't claim any such thing. We're discussing opinions about the merits of entertainment, after all; there is no such thing as "objectively correct."

However, the article I quoted was well-written and thoughtful, and helps corroborate that the line of argument I've offered is at least credible and defensible. So you can't really avoid responding to it merely by pointing out that it's subjective opinion, because, well, so is just about everything else in this discussion.

 

[Tuskin38]

As far as DSC is concerned, Starfleet had no contact with the Klingons for over 100 years.

Well they had no formal contact, there were some skirmishes between them with in those 100 years, T'Kuvma even references the Battle of Donatu V in the first episode.

Edit:

Oh Lawman said that already.

 

[gblews]

WTF? Either DSC is part of existing Trek continuity or it isn't. Most defenders of the show are insisting that we should accept the word of the producers that it is. If you're arguing here that it isn't and it can actually only be appreciated by disregarding existing Trek continuity, then I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.

My point is, I don't get hung up on minor (what might be perceived as) canon conflicts. Trek is too large to have to make sure that everything that happens in one episode has to conform to what was stated in a scene in one of the other shows or movies. This activity, to me, is akin to a dog chasing it's tail. There are some cononical things that would stop me, but it would have to be major. Something like "no ship named Enterprise ever existed in Starfleet". That, I would find hard to accept.

But stuff I consider minor, I ignore.

(The fact is, though, that you're wrong about "as far as DSC is concerned," since as I noted the show did hedge its bets about the degree of non-contact, and did acknowledge specific incidents during the preceding century. The specific line in "Vulcan Hello" was "a warrior race we've hardly spoken to for a hundred years."

Okay, so like I posted earlier, Starfleet knew enough about the Klingons to know "they weren't facing the Betazoids or Deltans...". I don't see where "haven't had contact in over 100 years", or "had little contact with in 100 years" is anything more than a nitpick.

And in an interview, Aaron Harberts put it like this: "I would say that the show starts in a place where the Klingons and the Federation have been hating. The last real large battle is the battle of Donatu V, 10 to 12 years before our show begins. That’s sort of the last big military incident battle between the two. So we’ve had a decade or so of no contact." IOW, any way you slice it, Starfleet was already aware that the Klingons were hostile and warlike.)

But this still doesn't change the bottom line which is that that the Battle of Donatu V, apparently still didn't give the Shenzhou crew and Starfleet the info it needed to conclude that their current engagement protocols with the Klingons may not have been adequate.

If your question now is, why not, I would ask the same question. Didn't stop me from enjoying the episode, however.

Why yes, I do. That's probably why I didn't claim any such thing.

Okay, but that was the only reason I could see for your posting an article that supports your position. IMO, with regard to the issue at hand (the previous issue re: themes), I think both you and the author of the article are wrong, respectfully.

However, the article I quoted was well-written and thoughtful, and helps corroborate that the line of argument I've offered is at least credible and defensible.

So, this makes it sound like you really are trying to use the article to prop up your argument. Or perhaps you feel the article explains your position better than you have.

So you can't really avoid responding to it merely by pointing out that it's subjective opinion, because, well, so is just about everything else in this discussion.

I can't?

Look, I'll debate your stated opinions, as I have been, but I won't get into a debate with the author of an article who is not here to respond to me directly.

 

[gblews]

Maybe this is the inherent issue with having the main character not be the Captain? If the Captain is always right, then people are less likely to have a problem with it because the Captain is the Authority Figure.

If Kirk, Picard, or Sisko disagreed with an Admiral, we were always inclined to take their side because the Captain was still in command and an Authority Figure who was disagreeing with another authority: an Admiral who was corrupt or clueless. Or, as Kira once put it in "The Search, Part I" when talking to Odo: "I don't care about what some idiot Starfleet Admiral thinks."

Burnham -- like Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway -- is "correct" but because she's not The Captain -- and was stripped of rank for most of the first season -- she's had to butt up against her shipmates and her immediate superiors on the same ship.

Excellent points. This might explain some of the vitriol that's been directed at Burnham during season 1. I don't think I've read this anywhere else, but I think it is at the heart of some of the criticism. It betrays a certain lack of understanding of one of the show's most basic premises', not to mention DSC's main character.

I think this post should be pinned and made required reading in this forum. Congrats.

 

[lawman]

But this still doesn't change the bottom line which is that that the Battle of Donatu V, apparently still didn't give the Shenzhou crew and Starfleet the info it needed to conclude that their current engagement protocols with the Klingons may not have been adequate.

If your question now is, why not, I would ask the same question.

Okay, we can agree about this much, at least.

Didn't stop me from enjoying the episode, however.

Not this, however. Because for me it kinda did. (Along with several other factors.)

The opening two-parter just Didn't Make Sense in a number of ways, which made it awfully hard to enjoy... and the fact that it set up the scenario on which much of the rest of the season was built, well, didn't do any favors to the rest of the season.