Why exactly is Michael Burnham blamed for the start of the Klingon War? My memory of the first two episodes is a bit rusty, but I can't recall anything she did that merits her being blamed for the start of the war. Maybe someone might try to blame her because she stepped on the Klingon "sacred beacon", but she didn't go there without the approval of Captain Georgiou. Maybe some might try to blame her for killing a Klingon, but she was only defending herself. Sure, Michael mutinied against her Captain, knocked her out with a Vulcan nerve pinch, and tried to get the Shenzhou bridge crew to fire on the Klingons. But, Captain Georgiou regained consciousness and stopped the Bridge Crew from firing. It was the Klingons who opened fire on the Shenzhou and thus started the war. So why blame Michael for the start of the war? She never would have gone to the Klingon "sacred beacon" without the approval of Captain Georgious. Was she supposed to just let the Klingon kill her when she was investigating the "sacred beacon?" I can understand if Starfleet Command and Starfleet officers could be mad at Michael for her mutiny, but I don't understand how they can blame the whole Klingon war on her. What are your thoughts?
^ I think that if Michael were put on trial in some intergalactic court, or by Starfleet, she could probably mount a pretty robust defense based on all of what you write. However, she has a problem passing the eyeball test. She went to the Klingon artifact, killed the Torchbearer (by accident or self defense), which angered the Klingons, which led to the war. Wasn't all Burnham's fault, but from a purely technical standpoint, it is not too difficult to see why the Shenzhou crew and many others, see Burnham as the main cause of the war. My big gripe is how Saru or anyone else for that matter, could blame Burnham for Georgiou's death.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense. It makes sense that they would be mad at her for the mutiny, but it isn't like Michael beamed herself and Georgiou over to the Klingon ship where Georgiou would be put in danger or that Michael made T'Kuvma kill Georgiou. Of course, the first season of Discovery would be completely different if Michael didn't feel guilty for "starting the Klingon war" and "being responsible" for Georgiou's death (and if others didn't blame her for these things as well).
I figured it was really a gut reaction. She was a well-respected and beloved captain and her XO who was supposed to protect her fails after the mutiny the same XO started and as far as they saw it, started the war. It’s a natural reaction to want to blame someone or something for a loved one’s death, even if we know it’s irrational. I personally know people who have gotten quite nasty in those situations. They all eventually come around and realize how they were wrong and reaccept her, so I imagine it was purely emotional and they probably regret it. This show is making an effort of having people actually behave how people behave in real life, which is unusual in Trek.
She wasn't officially charged with starting the war (is that even possible?), but for mutiny. The perception she started the war - embraced by herself and others, possibly came from her being the one to draw first blood. Then the mutiny - based on her wanting to fire first. That's not to say that the war wasn't going to continue anyway. Of course her and Georgiou failing to capture T'Kuvma didn't help Michael's status at all. By setting her phaser to kill she did rather give the Klingon Houses unity against the Federation.
Bad writing/Sympathetic Sue trope. This was a gripe I had throughout the show as well, in no way can it even be thought of that she started the war, the Klingons fired first (attacking the Federation satellite), at no point was the Torchbearer death even brought up by the Klingons, in fact, they openly stated they wanted to remain Klingon and it was obvious it was always meant to be an ambush. Part of the Sympathetic Sue trope is that the Mary Sue is blamed for all the woes in the world even though she is always right, and this is exactly what happens with Discovery, she was right all along, if the Shenzhou attacked first, the other Klingons would show up and be like "Oh look crazy T'Kuvma is doing something stupid again" and would have left. We're supposed to feel sympathy for Burnham because we as the viewer know that she was right all along.
I got the sense that the Klingons were spoiling for a war from the very first scene of “Vulcan hello”. I think that Michael blundering onto the beacon thing when she was ordered to do recon only then come back to the ship gave the Klingons the excuse they wanted. I think that also illustrated the naivety of starfleet after a century of no contact with the Klingons. “It’ll be fine - what could go wrong?” seemed to be Michael’s outlook at the start of the show. After that I completely agree that she developed into a sympathetic sue and I struggled to relate to the character (or like her) at all.
She really is though, she's possibly one of my most hated characters I've ever seen on TV. If they dumped Burnham for S2, I would be 100x more excited for it.
At no point does the show suggest she was 'right all along'. It's very clear from the way the show presents it that we are supposed to think she was wrong. Even if not tactically, then in how she acted. She reacted in a panic because of her history with the Klingons, and ended up throwing away her career for nothing. She committed mutiny, and then went over to the Klingon ship with the Captain, who dies over there, and the mission to capture T'Kuvma is a failure. That's all going to look great in front of a hearing. The show makes it clear that we are following Burnham on a redemptive arc where she learns to make the right choice instead of the desperate, immoral, one. Obviously how you think the show did with portraying that is a matter of opinion, but the story is definitely not "she was right all along".
The story doesn't, but the context we are shown does show us, she was right all along. Everyone who watches the show knows if Burnham had got them to fire first, the war would most likely be averted. >The show makes it clear that we are following Burnham on a redemptive arc where she learns to make the right choice instead of the desperate, immoral, one. Too bad she's right all along, right all the time and in the end makes an absolutely mind boggingly stupid choice (handing the bomb over) which becomes a ridiculous deus ex machina and saves everyone and shows how perfect and brilliant Burnham is. Like a typical Sympathetic Mary Sue, everyone thinks she's wrong, she may even doubt herself, but us viewers know she is right all along and she is being treated unfairly.
It's pretty clear at this point that the "Burnham is A Mary Sue" meme is non falsifiable; whatever she does or doesn't do, it's proof that she's a Sue. So I'm not going to argue that. But the idea that she is "clearly right" in the first episode is neither implied by the show nor universally felt among fans. It is funny that the same fans who decry Discovery's darker tone or complain that it isn't Star Trek enough, feel that Burnham was clearly right to consider Georgiou an idiot for sticking to the traditional Star Trek mantra of preferring negotiation and non violence. For my part, I think the original dilemma/choice that constituted Burnham's 'fall from grace' wasn't particularly well thought out and likely the result of one too many rewrites ending up with a story in which the war feels inevitable. It would have made a stronger story if she has taken a positive action which started a war that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
In echo chambers, perhaps. Wesley Crusher is a prime example of a hated TV character. I've yet to see Burnham hated on that level.
I still think while Burnham did the wrong thing in regards to her career, the opening two episodes strongly suggest she was right to suggest they fire first at the Klingons. T'Kuvma's speech to the High Council makes it clear that he (and other Klingons) think the Federation can't be trusted because they claim to come in peace. He then uses a diplomatic overture as evidence to help sway the Council to attack. The implication is if the Shenzhou had fired first, at least some of the High Council wouldn't be swayed, and the war would be a skirmish at the most. Honestly, I have felt for awhile that the reason the opening two episodes feel so disjointed is because there was a hasty rewrite of Bryan Fuller's original work. My own hypothesis is Fuller wanted Burnham to fail much more completely - say by successfully mutinying, firing first, and then causing the Klingon War. However, after his exit, the producers decided that it was too dark a turn to take for the protagonist, and rewrote the opening episodes to make Burnham into a more sympathetic character.
I think the character and the arc would've been stronger if they had dropped the Vulcan Hello/call space daddy non-sense. That Burnham argued her actions from her experience and studies. I can't believe Sarek of all people would give that kind of information to a unstable individual who was clearly in a panic over the Klingons.
It really looks like nothing more than the result of a hasty rewrite to soften the character's responsibility for all that followed. It's true that Burnham's actions in the final cut are pretty inconsequential as regards the outcome of anything, and the severity of her sentencing is nonsensical - particularly as, a few episodes later, we're introduced to a captain who lost his ship, deliberately killed his own crew and is then rewarded by being placed in charge of the most important secret Federation project of the war Bad TV.
I came upon an interesting essay recently by a Hollywood screenwriter. He said that typically glaring plot holes are not the fault of the screenwriter. Usually the "final draft" produced by the writer is pretty coherent. The problem is that further down the chain the script gets mucked up by producers, exeuctives, directors, supervisors, and even the actors, which can easily result in plot-critical elements being warped or even dropped entirely.