New Info on Michael Burnham

[EightiesKid]

Sarek must be the worst dad ever. Ok, that is an exaggeration, but he is really not so great. Sometimes I wonder if he developed later after marrying Amanda humanphobia or just emotionphobia? For a guy who married a human woman he really has a lot of problems with emotions in others.

First there was Sybok who got banished for liking emotions too much and I suspect Sarek was for the banishment, too. Then there is Spock who is actually half human, but was pressured by his father to act like that wasn't the case. So first he impregnates a human woman, but then doesn't want the child to be part human. Where is the logic in that? It is also really crap father and husband behaviour to practically tell your son that his mother is a lesser being whose nature is worth less than that of Vulcans. And now there is also Michael. A fully human girl he is raising for some weird reason as a Vulcan. Why? I mean even if he feels too incapable and inexperienced to raise a human girl in a human way, there is still his wife. Why is he not just letting Amanda take the lead in Michael's upbringing? Then he could just follow his wife's example or just add his Vulcan perspective. There is really no good reason to raise Michael completely as a Vulcan, especially as she isn't a baby anymore when he takes her in. She for sure was used to act like a human as a little kid.

And by the way does Michael not have any relatives left? No grandparents? No uncles and aunts? No family friends? Really no one? Is there no one who would take her in out of love instead of a feeling of responsibility?

I'm curious about Michael's character, and eager to learn more.

As for Sarek, yeah, I can certainly see how he may not be up for any "Father of the year" awards anytime soon. However, I've always had trouble with the Sybok story given that he was retconned into the canon for purposes of Star Trek V. I think looking at Sarek's relationship with Spock is a better barometer of Sarek as a parent. Like many parents I have known - Sarek had trouble expressing affection towards his son. However, in his defense, when he learned of Spock's passing, Sarek immediately journeyed to Earth to speak to Kirk in Star Trek 3. The novelization describes Sarek upon Kirk's first seeing him as if he likely had not slept since receiving the news of Spock's death. Sarek does a lot then to help his son, he seeks out Kirk, and then urges the fal tor pan ritual. Upon questioning, Sarek admits that where his logic fails him where his son is concerned. So yes, Sarek is not a touchy-feely father, but he clearly cared deeply for Spock.

 

[Cake]

I'm curious about Michael's character, and eager to learn more.

As for Sarek, yeah, I can certainly see how he may not be up for any "Father of the year" awards anytime soon. However, I've always had trouble with the Sybok story given that he was retconned into the canon for purposes of Star Trek V. I think looking at Sarek's relationship with Spock is a better barometer of Sarek as a parent. Like many parents I have known - Sarek had trouble expressing affection towards his son. However, in his defense, when he learned of Spock's passing, Sarek immediately journeyed to Earth to speak to Kirk in Star Trek 3. The novelization describes Sarek upon Kirk's first seeing him as if he likely had not slept since receiving the news of Spock's death. Sarek does a lot then to help his son, he seeks out Kirk, and then urges the fal tor pan ritual. Upon questioning, Sarek admits that where his logic fails him where his son is concerned. So yes, Sarek is not a touchy-feely father, but he clearly cared deeply for Spock.

While I agree that he cared for Spock that in itself is not much use to a child, when he acts like he doesn't and puts way too much pressure on the child to squash one half of his heritage. And when Spock decided to join Starfleet, which is really not anything bad, he broke off his relationship with Spock and they didn't speak for 18 years. Later in life he admitted his mistakes and realized what a bad father he was. I guess better late than never. But when Spock was still young and needed him, he really wasn't there for him.

I am curious how he will behave with Michael exactly. Based on the time period we should not get a father of the year winning Sarek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Never had any problem with it. After all, the character was meant to be exceptional as captains go

Was he?

 

[Mudd]

Never had any problem with it. After all, the character was meant to be exceptional as captains go

So is Burnham.

Why tell these kinds of stories about the unremarkable?

 

[Timo]

...On the other hand, the individuals of interest need not be in positions of prominence - merely in the right place at the right time. Kirk commanded what now looks like a midget starship, and interpreting it as a "ship of the line" takes some effort. Burnham isn't seen commanding anything, and the ship she initially serves on looks like a relic from the previous century. Both supposedly stumble upon important things, though.

Remarkably, Kirk was virtually never commanded to places or events of importance. (The one time he was, in "Amok Time", he refused.) Shit just happened on his watch, or then he had to take charge of a mission on which he was supposed to be a mere chauffeur. And then his professional excellence ensured triumph. Will the same be true of Burnham, after a couple of rather different main characters - the actually important Picard, the accidentally divine Sisko, the castaway Janeway, the out-of-his-depth Archer?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tuskin38]

I've always had trouble with the Sybok story given that he was retconned

Not sure how Sybok is a retcon, I don't think there was anything saying Spock didn't have a brother.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Not sure how Sybok is a retcon, I don't think there was anything saying Spock didn't have a brother.

I agree. It's not like Spock spoke about his family.

Heck, as forum member "InfiniteBatmans" pointed out in his excellent blog about Journey to Babel, Spock didn't even tell his best friends that his father was the Vulcan Ambassador until Kirk was face-to-face with Sarek. If it weren't for the Babel conference (or the earlier Pon Farr), I think TOS Spock would have been fine never telling his friends anything about his family or details of his life back on Vulcan.

Of course, one could argue that those sudden revelations about Spock's personal life were driven by plot -- i.e., it's not as if the Spock character was created with the idea in mind all along that his father is the Ambassador and/or that he has a betrothed back home. But still, "driven by plot" is what creates much of what becomes canon....

...Just like the plot of ST:FF giving us the revelation that Spock has a half-brother is canon.

If someone calls Sybok a ret-con, then they may as well call it a ret-con when, more than halfway through TOS season 2, we find out Spock's father is the Ambassador to the Federation.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

So is Burnham.

Why tell these kinds of stories about the unremarkable?

I've often wondered why we hear so many complaints about female characters being "Mary Sue"-types, but there are so few complaints about male kick-ass characters being "Gary Stu"-types...

...or whatever the male counterpart to a "Mary Sue" is called. I think the fact that "Mary Sue" is such a well-known idea while there seems to be no such unanimity about the name of the male counterpart is telling; it tells me that very few people complain when a male character (such as Kirk) is ultra-capable of excelling in any situation handed to him, but many more criticize the idea that a female character is able to do the same.

Having said that, we don't know enough about Burnham to say that she is ultra-capable of handling any situation thrown her way. She may be more capable than others, but still have some flaws. We'll have to watch and see. However, even if she is something of a Kirk counterpart (which I doubt)...then so what? (and I ask that to the forum in general, Serveaux -- not specifically to you).

 

[BillJ]

I don't care if Burnham is a Mary Sue, as long as she's interesting.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I don't care if Burnham is a Mary Sue, as long as she's interesting.

I think we will find that the "Mary Sue" complaints end up being animated by a lack of interest in some fans for a female lead who has the same abilities and strengths normally reserved for male leads.

 

[Krandor]

I think we will find that the "Mary Sue" complaints end up being animated by a lack of interest in some fans for a female lead who has the same abilities and strengths normally reserved for male leads.

Sometimes but not always. I'd ray early season wesley crusher would fall into that category since he could do things nobody else on the ship could.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Sometimes but not always. I'd ray early season wesley crusher would fall into that category since he could do things nobody else on the ship could.

Burnham won't be a Wesley. Wesley stands alone.

 

[Krandor]

Burnham won't be a Wesley. Wesley stands alone.

True, true, but he was definitely a male mary sue especially early on. Who needs a starfleet academy degree when you have wesley.

 

[Jedi_Master]

As the "Wesley" style character has never appeared in any subsequent Star Trek, I think the writers learned their lesson.

 

[Krandor]

As the "Wesley" style character has never appeared in any subsequent Star Trek, I think the writers learned their lesson.

IIRC the wesley character was a product of Roddenberry.

 

[Mudd]

I've often wondered why we hear so many complaints about female characters being "Mary Sue"-types, but there are so few complaints about male kick-ass characters being "Gary Stu"-types...

Yep.

 

[Mudd]

Sometimes but not always. I'd ray early season wesley crusher would fall into that category since he could do things nobody else on the ship could.

Crusher - although I didn't dislike him - is just about the single legitimate example of calling a character in aired Star Trek a "Mary Sue/Gary Stu." Roddenberry was pretty explicit in identifying with the kid as a fantasy alter ego, including lending his own middle name (the original version of the character was suggested by another writer, and was female.

Of course, GR was quick to describe Kirk as his own projected fantasy persona as well - but then, on a more general level that's what writers do all the time.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Crusher - although I didn't dislike him - is just about the single legitimate example of calling a character in aired Star Trek a "Mary Sue/Gary Stu." Roddenberry was pretty explicit in identifying with the kid as a fantasy alter ego, including lending his own middle name (the original version of the character was suggested by another writer, and was female.

Of course, GR was quick to describe Kirk as his own projected fantasy persona as well - but then, on a more general level that's what writers do all the time.

If I was a writer I would much rather be Kirk than Wesley.

 

[The Librarian]

I agree. It's not like Spock spoke about his family.

Heck, as forum member "InfiniteBatmans" pointed out in his excellent blog about Journey to Babel, Spock didn't even tell his best friends that his father was the Vulcan Ambassador until Kirk was face-to-face with Sarek. If it weren't for the Babel conference (or the earlier Pon Farr), I think TOS Spock would have been fine never telling his friends anything about his family or details of his life back on Vulcan.

Not only did Spock not tell Kirk and McCoy beforehand, he didn't volunteer the information when they arrived. It was only after Kirk offered to let Spock beam down for a few hours than he was forced to speak up and admit Sarek and Amanda were his parents.

 

[Noname Given]

If someone calls Sybok a ret-con, then they may as well call it a ret-con when, more than halfway through TOS season 2, we find out Spock's father is the Ambassador to the Federation.

^^^^
Or that he was a Romulan Commander Star Trek fans have named Keras. (Sorry.)