Except that everything seems to be set up to prove her right in the end, though not quite as blatantly as in season 3.
I find it remarkable through what lengths the writers went through to make Michael Burnham not look like she failed.
It's a prime example of a manufactured triumph for Michael Burnham.
Objectively Michael Burnham failed in her mission.
What shouldn't happen, the overarching narrative thread of the last three episodes, the launch of the isolytic weapon and the destruction of the DMA, did happen.
But Michael Burnham can't fail.
Through narrative framing and redirecting of the attention of the audience they made it look like Burnham succeeded.
The writers gave Burnham multiple smaller and personal subgoals:
- Michael Burnham's goal was to not kill Booker. Michael Burnham succeded.
- Michael Burnham's goal was to talk down Booker. Michael Burnham succeded.
- Michael Burnham's goal was to prevent Booker from using the weapon. Michael Burnham succeded. Tarka used the weapon.
You see how this works?
We, the audience, know that Tarka was the driving force, not Booker.
It was Tarka's weapon, Tarka's plan, and Tarka stole the spore drive. Booker was only an accomplice, a getaway driver.
Yet almost all discussions on the Discovery centered around Booker.
The two yellow shirts on the bridge talked about Booker.
Burnham and Nhan talked about Booker.
During the briefing for the boarding mission, they talked about Booker's anger and grief and trying to convince him. Tarka was dismissed as the "wild card" not as the driving force.
The two yellow shirts on the shuttle talked about Booker.
Booker, Booker, Booker, Booker.
"Book will be locked up for life". Why not both of them?
He stole tech? No! Tarka did!
Book is about to use an isolytic weapon? No! Tarka is!
"What Book's done"? What about Tarka! He was the driving force, not Booker.
It this almost comical how much the writers try to redirect the audience's attention away from Tarka and towards Booker. Thus, stopping Booker was a success, and failing to stop Tarka was just an oversight. That's how it's narratively framed.
Nhan failed her mission.
Her goal was to prevent that weapon is used and take over command if Burnham loses her objectivity.
She failed in both cases.
Yet the show narratively frames her as not having failed.
Originally introduced as an opponent, but because she aligns herself with Burnham, she shares in Burnham's success and is ultimately framed as a success.
In addition to that, she also learned a lesson from Burnham. She learned to find some middle ground.
Listening to Burnham and finding some middle ground is exactly what lead to her failure, but narratively it is framed as a victory.
Writing insanity. It's the Michael Burnham show, and if the writers need a manufactured triumph for Michael Burnham, they will write one.
Unlike in the last episode, there was no scene where Burnham or Nhan was reprimanded for their objective failure.
Omitting a dress-down scene, omitting any consequence for failure, also contributes to the narrative framing of the episode as a victory for Burnham and Nhan.
