Michael, Spock, and a hero complex

[Nyotarules]

So yeah, after the events in ST: D; it seems Spock doesn't practice what he preaches.

A lot of people do not

Shame they didn’t invent counsellors until the 24th century. DSC should have had a Dax host on board as a precursor to Ezri

23rd century Starfleet not showing counsellors or some kind of therapists on deep space missions seems ridiculous

See I love the future jump - for all the reasons you suggest. Federation civil war leads to stagnation of technology meaning that the disco isn’t a millennium out of date tech and weapons-wise when she gets to the 32nd

However wars do not lead to technological stagnation, in fact it's the opposite, society would not stagnate by 1000 years, not even WWII had that effect on society.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

23rd century Starfleet not showing counsellors or some kind of therapists on deep space missions seems ridiculous

Agreed. The psychological well-being of the crew seems to fall to the CMO and I only remember Julian (of the Doctors overall) being adept at doing that before Ezri turned up

However wars do not lead to technological stagnation, in fact it's the opposite, society would not stagnate by 1000 years, not even WWII had that effect on society.

Sorry I meant the aftermath of the war leads to stagnation. Basically the federation is so devastated that they regress. I know it’s a bit of a stretch but not entirely beyond the realm of possibility. Otherwise it’s the Borg or something - some kind of cataclysm (they could dig up red matter as a substitute for Omega molecules maybe) that batters the federation to bits and literally sets them back a thousand years. With the right writing it could work. Or maybe the disco doesn’t end up in federation space in the 32nd and is surrounded by Kazon (or similar) with lesser technology. Or the Mintaakans - they should be spacefaring by the 32nd - they could have migrated to the delta quadrant or outside the galaxy or something. Ok this is hurting my brain now - I’m still curious to see what they come up with

 

[SJGardner]

Put us on the writing team, coach, we’re ready!

Be careful what you wish for... if I were on Discovery's writing team, it would soon get buried under a veritable avalanche of Burnham/Tilly romance ideas and I'd totally forgot about the plot
Ah well, there's always fan fiction.

See I love the future jump - for all the reasons you suggest. Federation civil war leads to stagnation of technology meaning that the disco isn’t a millennium out of date tech and weapons-wise when she gets to the 32nd

However wars do not lead to technological stagnation, in fact it's the opposite, society would not stagnate by 1000 years, not even WWII had that effect on society.

It really all depends on what kind of setting the future will have. I have to admit I never gave much thought to a Federation that survives but is advanced to the point of recognizability, as I can't really think of good story ideas that could work there, more on an account of my general unfamiliarity with these kinds of hyper-advanced settings than anything else. But if Discovery goes for an Andromeda- or Foundation-style analogy for the collapse of the Roman Empire, then we could end up with a technology level roughly comparable to that of the 23rd century, depending on how severe and recent that collapse is. Technology and knowledge itself might not be entirely lost, but a large scale societal collapse could lead to a loss of infrastructure leaving much of it in ruin, with the survivors scavenging and reverse-engineering whatever they can with the resources they have. There could be a lot of reasons why civilization collapsed, from apocalyptic scale wars to interstellar disasters or even unstoppable, all-consuming nanobot swarms.

Personally, I'm intrigued the most by the pitch for an animated series from the mid-2000s, which was to take place in the aftermath of a war during which huge amounts of Omega particles were detonated, cutting most of the galaxy off from subspace travel. Especially because the Spore Drive would immediately make the Discovery of strategic importance in a place like this.

 

[Lord Garth]

Micheal Burnham will be Joan of Arc minus the gruesome ending. And certain circles online might as well view Michael Burnham the same way people in Medeival Times viewed Joan of Arc. The ones who tried her for heresy.

 

[gblews]

So at a couple of points in season 2, Spock admonishes Michael for essentially having a hero complex and taking on responsibility for everything (most often alone) when she doesn’t have to.

Michael seems to acknowledge this and even agree with this assessment, showing a little more personal growth (that began in season 1 with her telling Tilly she’d given her really bad advice).

My questions are: does the resolution of season 2 undo this revelation for Michael, and how might it affect her character in season 3?

Remember that Michael is literally the centrepiece around which all the events of season 2 revolve given that she is the Red Angel and that she must send the signals that retroactively make the whole season happen. She is also the object of some martyrdom by sacrificing her life in the 23rd to exile Control in the 32nd.

Isn’t that enough to give anyone a hero complex?

Burnham doesn't have a "hero complex". Hero complex's are borne out of ego which fosters a desire to be seen as brave and heroic. Nothing we've seen in DSC has indicated that Burnham is acting out of ego. If you disagree, please point to what we've seen that indicated that Burnham is acting out of ego.

On the contrary, what we have seen is Burnham acting motivated mostly by guilt. She thought, against logic, that she started the Klingon war and Lorca used her guilt to help him complete his agenda. "You started the war, don't you want to help end it?", remember? She felt guilt about the Red Angel because her and her mother's involvement, so she felt it her responsibility to make the sacrifice to end the threat by Control.

Burnham's attitude has been, "if I break it, I'll fix it". Will this continue into season 3? I think it will. It is the attitude of many heroes, borne not out of ego but selflessness. And Burnhem is, after all, a hero. But the difference now is, she is aware of her problem, so it is likely we'll see discussions about it, but not like the ones we heard between her and Spock.

Possibly Georgiou, but she may have her own megalomania issues

This question implies that you think Burnham is a megalomaniac? If so, why do you think this?

Maybe Saru? Although Michael never seemed to respect Saru (at least not in the same way she respected Spock).

It appeared to me that Burnham has the utmost respect for Saru.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Nothing we've seen in DSC has indicated that Burnham is acting out of ego

When Burnham interacts with Pike and his science officer when they first board discovery Michael’s ego is in play there. With Connolly (was that his name? The guy who got splatted by the asteroid) Michael responds in kind to his attitude - showing that she couldn’t rise above it. With Pike she displays irritation that Pike wouldn’t let her finish (when she says “as I’m trying to explain” on the bridge). This is evidence of her ego in play. It’s a carry over from season 1 where she thinks she’s smarter than everyone - probably a result of being brought up on Vulcan.

acting motivated mostly by guilt

Mostly yes. The rest of the time her ego is in play.

Lorca used her guilt to help him complete his agenda. "You started the war, don't you want to help end it?", remember?

This could also be interpreted as appealing to Michael’s ego. “You’re so important to these events since you kicked the whole thing off. Wanna be remembered as the one who ended it?”

This question implies that you think Burnham is a megalomaniac? If so, why do you think this?

I didn’t mean to imply that at all, apologies. I meant that Georgiou had megalomaniacal issues because she was the empress of an sadistic and evil regime. I don’t think Burnham is a megalomaniac.

It appeared to me that Burnham has the utmost respect for Saru.

I don’t think she respects him the way she does Spock (again, apologies for poor phrasing). This is understandable given Michael and Spock’s history. My point is without Spock to challenge Michael in the future the growth she demonstrated in s2 May be nullified in s3

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Burnham/Tilly romance ideas

I actually like this idea - that could add a whole new level to their relationship. There’s nothing that says (or needs to say) either Michael or Tilly are exclusively straight.

if Discovery goes for an Andromeda- or Foundation-style analogy for the collapse of the Roman Empire, then we could end up with a technology level roughly comparable to that of the 23rd century,

I think they’d have to do that - otherwise the first battle discovery got into she’d be blown to bits by being a millennium out of date!

with the survivors scavenging and reverse-engineering whatever they can with the resources they have

That could be cool - someone could have tried reverse engineering the spore drive —>

huge amounts of Omega particles were detonated, cutting most of the galaxy off from subspace travel. Especially because the Spore Drive would immediately make the Discovery of strategic importance in a place like this.

Which would make discovery the most important ship in the galaxy as it’d be the only one that could go anywhere - unless someone else tried to reverse engineer the spore drive (as I mentioned above) and you have a season long arc of the disco battling this new spore ship while they try to rebuild the federation?

 

[SJGardner]

When Burnham interacts with Pike and his science officer when they first board discovery Michael’s ego is in play there. With Connolly (was that his name? The guy who got splatted by the asteroid) Michael responds in kind to his attitude - showing that she couldn’t rise above it. With Pike she displays irritation that Pike wouldn’t let her finish (when she says “as I’m trying to explain” on the bridge). This is evidence of her ego in play. It’s a carry over from season 1 where she thinks she’s smarter than everyone - probably a result of being brought up on Vulcan.

I still don't think it's mainly an ego problem with her. As someone raised on Vulcan, she doesn't really know how to deal with her negative emotions, like being irritated by the stubborn stupidity of others. I'll admit I don't quite remember her sabre-rattling with Pike, other than that it was indeed controversial. However, Connolly was, to put it bluntly, an annoying smartass who picked quarrels over pedantic word definitions and whose very last action in his life was lecturing her on how to fly a landing pod she had designed and tested herself. Burnham being pissed off at him was perfectly justified. Just like her irritation at Landry's stubborn contrarianism and utter lack of common sense was.

On the contrary, what we have seen is Burnham acting motivated mostly by guilt. She thought, against logic, that she started the Klingon war and Lorca used her guilt to help him complete his agenda. "You started the war, don't you want to help end it?", remember? She felt guilt about the Red Angel because her and her mother's involvement, so she felt it her responsibility to make the sacrifice to end the threat by Control.

Burnham's attitude has been, "if I break it, I'll fix it". Will this continue into season 3? I think it will. It is the attitude of many heroes, borne not out of ego but selflessness. And Burnhem is, after all, a hero. But the difference now is, she is aware of her problem, so it is likely we'll see discussions about it, but not like the ones we heard between her and Spock.

I'm really, really happy you've raised this. This is spot on how I see her as well; this is why I always use Chronic Hero Syndrome instead of hero complex when talking about her... for me, at least, this is a much more fitting description of her self-blaming, shouldering-the-burden way of thinking. But even if I'm using the phrase incorrectly, the point still stands that I believe her heroism is mainly guilt-based as well.

I'd definitely like to see it being addressed in Season 3. If Discovery found itself in a dystopian place, or if a tragedy or disaster befell it, she might start blaming herself for taking her friends there and putting them in danger. I think this would definitely be worth exploring - her crewmates would now be personally involved in and directly affected by the event(s) she's blaming herself for (the Klingon war was too big and impersonal, while the Red Angel was something from her own past), and I'd find it very interesting to see how it affects her relationship to them.

 

[gblews]

When Burnham interacts with Pike and his science officer when they first board discovery Michael’s ego is in play there.

She also shows a healthy ego when she first comes aboard the Shenhou. That all disappears, however, after her mutiny, her role in the war, and subsequent trial and sentencing. We are given ample on screen evidence that Burnham's ego has been crushed by the time she arrives on the Disco to serve under Lorca. She does seem to be back to her old self to start season 3, but it is obvious that she has grown out of the ego that she showed on the Shenzhou.

But the question is not whether or not Burnham has an ego, it is whether her tendenncy to attempt to right wrongs for which she takes responsibility, is driven by what you called a "hero complex" or ego..

With Connolly (was that his name? The guy who got splatted by the asteroid) Michael responds in kind to his attitude - showing that she couldn’t rise above it. With Pike she displays irritation that Pike wouldn’t let her finish (when she says “as I’m trying to explain” on the bridge). This is evidence of her ego in play. It’s a carry over from season 1 where she thinks she’s smarter than everyone - probably a result of being brought up on Vulcan.

Again, no one is saying Burnham has no ego. I am waiting for whatever you've seen in seasons 1 and 2 that shows that Burnham's ego drove her to acts of heroism.

This could also be interpreted as appealing to Michael’s ego. “You’re so important to these events since you kicked the whole thing off. Wanna be remembered as the one who ended it?”

Uh, no. Lorca says to Burrnham, "you started this war, don't want to (help) end it"? That question takes aim straight at Burnham's guilt and we are shown that it was that question that caused Burnham to decide to stay on DSC and help end the war.

If you disagree please explain to me why.

I don’t think she respects him the way she does Spock (again, apologies for poor phrasing). This is understandable given Michael and Spock’s history. My point is without Spock to challenge Michael in the future the growth she demonstrated in s2 May be nullified in s3

I still don't believe Burnham has more respect for Spock than she does for Saru, who is her superior officer. You may have mistaken Burnham's 'love" for Spock, borne out of having grown up with him, as opposed to her "love" for Saru which is relatively new having arisen out of recent battles.

I think we'll see Saru, Tilly, Georgiou, challenge Burnham in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons next season.

I think Burnham's propensity to allow guilt to influence her actions, however, is simply part of the character's personality. Spock never tried to pull her away from this, he just pointed out to her when she was doing it. She can discuss this with any of her crewmates.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

She also shows a healthy ego when she first comes aboard the Shenhou

Well we don’t have much evidence for that - only a couple of scenes and Sarek has to tell her to behave. I’d suggest it’s debatable whether a human raised by a culture where emotions are suppressed would develop a healthy ego, but I don’t think we have enough evidence of Michael when she arrives on the Shenzhou to draw a firm conclusion.

But the question is not whether or not Burnham has an ego, it is whether her tendenncy to attempt to right wrongs for which she takes responsibility, is driven by what you called a "hero complex" or ego..

Agreed. Based on our discussion here I would suggest that Spock’s implication that this is the case with Burnham (linking right back to my original post in this thread) is perhaps incorrect.

I guess the issue becomes less about Michael feeling that she *must* act heroically and more about her ego telling her “only I can deal with this because I’m the smartest and my ideas are better than everyone else’s”, and this sometimes includes actions that could be interpreted as heroic. This vibe is more muted in season 2 than in season 1, but it’s definitely still there. This is perhaps why Spock feels he has to admonish Michael for it - where it transpires that Michael is perhaps projecting her feelings about Spock onto everyone else (these interactions actually made Michael make *much* more sense to me as a character).

I am waiting for whatever you've seen in seasons 1 and 2 that shows that Burnham's ego drove her to acts of heroism.

This is an interesting angle I’d not fully considered, I must confess. I think the only bona fide example of this would be Michael’s mutiny. There are definitely other examples of her ego coming into play in seasons 1 and 2, but not necessarily things that drove her to acts of heroism. Generally I wouldn’t characterise Michael as a particularly heroic character.

But, some examples from season 2 that show her ego in play (that don’t necessarily drive her to heroism, but show a pattern of behaviour that sometimes results in potentially heroic acts) are as follows:

Michael telling Spock he needs to return to logic regarding the red angel. Spock has had direct contact with it at that point. Michael thinks she knows better.

If Spock is right that Burnham feels “every burden is hers alone” is she perhaps a martyr rather than having a hero complex?

Also, given that Burnham frequently appeals to logic, why did she go and rescue Spock? That wasn’t logical - based on all the evidence, Spock was a fugitive. Is Michael a hypocrite? Probably not, it’s more likely her egotistical decision to save Spock was based on the belief that she was right - rather than taking the logical course. I tend to agree with Spock that Burnham has a “penchant for the dramatic”.

Michael telling Leland that he hasn’t told her all she needs to know (“not if I’m the mission sir”). Cornwell admonishes her for this.

She thinks she is right about section 31 even compared to Ash, who has literally been working with them for months at this point.

Amanda’s description of Burnham as “persistent” could also relate to her ego. When one considers oneself consistently to be right, one tends to persist with one’s convictions. This is perhaps why Michael’s ego is so heavily bruised by the mutiny. Because she was *wrong*. Her logic failed her.

Uh, no. Lorca says to Burrnham, "you started this war, don't want to (help) end it"? That question takes aim straight at Burnham's guilt and we are shown that it was that question that caused Burnham to decide to stay on DSC and help end the war.

That’s certainly one interpretation and I see where you’re coming from, I just don’t entirely agree. I would guess Lorca cares less about Michael’s guilt and self pity (given his background) but more about dragging her out of her depression by appealing to her ego. He’s basing his actions on what he knows about *his* Michael - a character we’ve never seen. Given that we only know about Prime Michael’s feelings regarding the mutiny, etc. the whole interaction is open to interpretation.

If you disagree please explain to me why.

I’d refer you to my previous post in addition to what I’ve explained above as to why I disagree

I think we'll see Saru, Tilly, Georgiou, challenge Burnham in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons next season.

Fingers crossed. There’s a lot of potential for season 3.

 

[Pauln6]

23rd century Starfleet not showing counsellors or some kind of therapists on deep space missions seems ridiculous

Not strictly true. Both Dr Dehner and Dr Noel were psychiatrists. They didn't have mamby pamby lay therapists, they had medically qualified shrinks. It makes more sense to have multi-skilled experts on a small ship.

Ilia, the template for Troi, was the navigator but her openness and empathy would have been used to make her an unofficial counsellor in Phase II.

 

[gblews]

Agreed. Based on our discussion here I would suggest that Spock’s implication that this is the case with Burnham (linking right back to my original post in this thread) is perhaps incorrect.

Exactly what is it you are agreeing with me about?

What did Spock say to Burnham that made you think he was telling Burnham that her tendency to attempt to take problems onto her shoulders and remedy the situation, is based on Burnham's ego?

I guess the issue becomes less about Michael feeling that she *must* act heroically and more about her ego telling her “only I can deal with this because I’m the smartest and my ideas are better than everyone else’s”, and this sometimes includes actions that could be interpreted as heroic. This vibe is more muted in season 2 than in season 1, but it’s definitely still there. This is perhaps why Spock feels he has to admonish Michael for it - where it transpires that Michael is perhaps projecting her feelings about Spock onto everyone else (these interactions actually made Michael make *much* more sense to me as a character).

What is this, like the nineteenth time I've asked you to provide on screen evidence that concretely states that Burnham's heroism is solely because of her ego? None of what you write above shows that her ego is the cause of her heroism. These are just things that may or may not indicate Burnham, generally speaking, has an ego, but certainly does not definitively show her ego drives her heroism.

This is an interesting angle I’d not fully considered, I must confess. I think t

he only bona fide example of this would be Michael’s mutiny.

Burnham states on screen that the reason she perpetrated a mutiny was to save the crew. Now, please point to on screen evidence that definitively shows this statement was not Burnham's true reason for the mutiny.

But, some examples from season 2 that show her ego in play (that don’t necessarily drive her to heroism,

Then there is no point to posting these examples, because the subject at hand is your assertion that Burnham's ego is the thing that drives her heroism.

Also, given that Burnham frequently appeals to logic, why did she go and rescue Spock? That wasn’t logical - based on all the evidence, Spock was a fugitive. Is Michael a hypocrite? Probably not, it’s more likely her egotistical decision to save Spock was based on the belief that she was right - rather than taking the logical course. I tend to agree with Spock that Burnham has a “penchant for the dramatic”.

Burnham has NEVER stated that she adhered strictly to logic, she's human after all. Hell, Spock is a Vulcan and even he doesn't always adhere to logic. Her decision to rescue Spock was based on her love for him and the belief that he could help with the Red Angel mystery. At least that is what we saw in the episode. The episode gave no indication that Burnham rescuing Spock was ego driven. Again, show me the on screen evidence that we were being told Burnham's ego was what drove her to rescue Spock.

Michael telling Leland that he hasn’t told her all she needs to know (“not if I’m the mission sir”). Cornwell admonishes her for this.

What does this relate to whether or not Burnham has a "hero complex"?

She thinks she is right about section 31 even compared to Ash, who has literally been working with them for months at this point.

Amanda’s description of Burnham as “persistent” could also relate to her ego. When one considers oneself consistently to be right, one tends to persist with one’s convictions. This is perhaps why Michael’s ego is so heavily bruised by the mutiny. Because she was *wrong*. Her logic failed her.

None of this is on screen proof that Burnham has a hero complex. These are just things that you are using to justify your "interpretation" of the character as being driven by ego with respect to her heroism.

The problem is, you just don't like or respect Burnham and this is fine. But you need to stop claiming Buurnham has character flaws that you are unable to prove through actual on screen evidence.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Exactly what is it you are agreeing with me about?

What did Spock say to Burnham that made you think he was telling Burnham that her tendency to attempt to take problems onto her shoulders and remedy the situation, is based on Burnham's ego?

What is this, like the nineteenth time I've asked you to provide on screen evidence that concretely states that Burnham's heroism is solely because of her ego? None of what you write above shows that her ego is the cause of her heroism. These are just things that may or may not indicate Burnham, generally speaking, has an ego, but certainly does not definitively show her ego drives her heroism.

Burnham states on screen that the reason she perpetrated a mutiny was to save the crew. Now, please point to on screen evidence that definitively shows this statement was not Burnham's true reason for the mutiny.

Then there is no point to posting these examples, because the subject at hand is your assertion that Burnham's ego is the thing that drives her heroism.

Burnham has NEVER stated that she adhered strictly to logic, she's human after all. Hell, Spock is a Vulcan and even he doesn't always adhere to logic. Her decision to rescue Spock was based on her love for him and the belief that he could help with the Red Angel mystery. At least that is what we saw in the episode. The episode gave no indication that Burnham rescuing Spock was ego driven. Again, show me the on screen evidence that we were being told Burnham's ego was what drove her to rescue Spock.

What does this relate to whether or not Burnham has a "hero complex"?

None of this is on screen proof that Burnham has a hero complex. These are just things that you are using to justify your "interpretation" of the character as being driven by ego with respect to her heroism.

The problem is, you just don't like or respect Burnham and this is fine. But you need to stop claiming Buurnham has character flaws that you are unable to prove through actual on screen evidence.

You realise I’m agreeing with much of your interpretation here? Apologies if that’s not coming across. That was the point of my initiating the discussion - to discuss my interpretation of Michael’s character and whether or not she had a hero complex.

Based on our discussions I am happy to concede that my original interpretation was incorrect (as I’ve stated) and that this is not the case where Michael is concerned, so thanks for pointing that out.

I’m happy to conclude the debate at this point since I’m getting a very defensive vibe from you about Michael and I don’t want to get into an actual argument over Michael Burnham here neither am I going to presume to tell you what you “need” to do or not do.

Thanks for the chat! LLAP

 

[gblews]

You realise I’m agreeing with much of your interpretation here? Apologies if that’s not coming across. That was the point of my initiating the discussion - to discuss my interpretation of Michael’s character and whether or not she had a hero complex.

I know you won't do this but I'd LOVE to see where in your previous posts you were agreeing with me. For a second there it looked like you might be, but then it seemed you made a passive/aggressive left turn back to the position of your original post in this thread.

Based on our discussions I am happy to concede that my original interpretation was incorrect (as I’ve stated) and that this is not the case where Michael is concerned, so thanks for pointing that out.

I'm glad, and you're welcome.