Subject: Re: Are those Frequently Asked?
Author:
Posted on: 2016-11-02 04:01:00 UTC
I wish I could point out an example but I can't find it at this time. I assume that this is the reasoning behind many different Mary-Sues'/Gary-Stus' powers even if it is rarely said aloud.
How would you counter this?
"My heroes have to be Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus or they won't triumph over the villains!"
And this?
"My villains have to be Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus or my heroes defeating them won't be impressive!"
"My heroes have to be Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus or they won't triumph over the villains!"
If non Sue/Stu characters triumph over the villain, then it makes it all the more satisfying to read/watch. When non Sue/Stu characters triumph, it's because they've learned to overcome or cope with one of their weaknesses that was holding them back, or win by sheer luck, which makes it all the more believable as well. But be careful you don't have them overcome all their weaknesses, because then they become Sues/Stus. Plus, what if the characters don't triumph over the villain? What if they lose once in a while? A bit more interesting, don't you think?
"My villains have to be Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus or my heroes defeating them won't be impressive!"
While a stronger, perfect villain may be harder for your heroes to defeat, it doesn't make for an interesting villain, and villains can be plenty strong without being Sues or Stus. If you don't give your villain any sort of relatable anything (i.e. Your villain abhors humans but can't stand to hurt fluffy bunnies), they will simply become a disgusting being that the heroes can throw rocks at. While they may be evil, they're human (or orc, or elf, or snake-man, or Dalek) too, so they're going to have flaws. Maybe your villain can't shut-up, and always gives away his plans, which are subject to change at the drop of a hat. Or maybe he's so quiet, his minions never know exactly how to carry out his plans. The possibilities are endless.
"If I give my Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus even one flaw, they will fail!"
No one who isn't completely perfect can ever succeed? Dang, guess we'd all better just shoot ourselves and get the farce over with.
... Or we could realize that no one is perfect, and yet great achievements are still possible. In fact, what makes an achievement great is the size of the odds that must be overcome by us imperfect beings in order to achieve it. Perfection beats all odds by definition, so it's not impressive at all. Perfection is boring, and insisting on its necessity is insulting to anyone who ever accomplished anything without it—so, basically, everyone.
~Neshomeh
"My villains are so powerful, if I gave my heroes even one flaw, they wouldn't be able to defeat the bad guys!
Response: Then why are you making your antagonists that powerful? You, as the writer, can do whatever you want with your characters. There are many ways to work around a problem like this, like a betrayal from within the tyrant's inner circle, to even just sheer dumb luck.
*applause*
I got a review of one of my missions that I'd posted on the Pit long ago, asking that if I were going to write a mocking story about someone else's poor writing, then why hadn't I offered to be that author's proofreader beforehand?
I...really have no defense to this. She made a good point. Note that the badfic author saw my mission of her badfic and thought it was funny, but I don't know what to say to this other reviewer.
A. The person wants proofreading before or after it's published.
B. The Person still cares about the story. If it's discontinued or hasn't been updated since like 2014 or earlier there is no telling that the author actually cares about it. They might not have even remembered it existed.
C. The person still has access to the story. I made like a fanfic account very young and used it for one terrible drabble and to tell a group some of the ocs who applied were stolen from a friend. I have zero access to that account now so I don't even know the status of the story.
and D. The Author is okay with people they don't know well looking over their unpublished stories.
Did the reviewer want you to volunteer to proofread before the story was published? That would make sense in that that's when beta-reading is supposed to happen, but unfortunately, unless you know the author personally, you'd have to be psychic in order to know the fic needed help before you even saw it.
Or, did the reviewer want you to volunteer after it was published? That suggestion presumes that an author who apparently didn't seek beta-reading at the appropriate time will accept it after the fact because... reasons? Not saying it's impossible, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Either way, it's not anyone's responsibility to go around offering to beta for random strangers. It's the author's responsibility to make sure their work is in good shape before putting it out there for anyone to read and react to. Not that you shouldn't offer concrit or even editing if you feel so moved—that's a really great thing to do—but as the FAQ says somewhere, if it doesn't look like the author put any effort into making the story good to begin with, why should you put in the effort to write a thoughtful and detailed review that will be ignored at best or met with tantrums and flaming at worst? Writing a mission is at least entertaining and may benefit someone else who actually does care about learning to write better.
If you're worried about it, though, you might adopt Araeph's policy of reviewing a fic and seeing what happens before you spork it. If the author responds positively, great! You've helped someone and improved the average quality of fanfiction. If they don't respond or if they get nasty, you can go ahead and spork their work with a clean conscience, knowing that attempting to be nice would be a waste of everyone's time.
~Neshomeh
Or Frequently Stated, in this case? I'm not really in the loop, so I ask because I don't know. If you're proposing an addition to the FAQ, the addition should be, by definition, something that comes up a lot. If they do come up a lot, I'd be curious to see some examples in context.
~Neshomeh
I wish I could point out an example but I can't find it at this time. I assume that this is the reasoning behind many different Mary-Sues'/Gary-Stus' powers even if it is rarely said aloud.
There are plenty of ways to defeat a villain or challenge a hero without simply applying Suvian brute force to the issue. In most canons, the heroes are victorious because they either struggle to gain the power necessary to win, or because they outwit a stronger opponent. Similarly, while the villains are often dangerous not (just) because of superior power, but because of their cunning and ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of others. Moreover, if your hero is so overpowered, how did the villain come to power in the first place (or if your villain is so overpowered, how will the heroes realistically defeat him)?
This argument is especially annoying in fanfiction; the heroes of Lord of the Rings, for example, were perfectly able to defeat Sauron without the aid of Marisuviel the elf wizard princess and her unicorn companion in canon.
It's also important to distinguish between powerful characters and Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus. Being powerful is not enough to make a character a Sue - they must be powerful in uncanonical and/or Speshul ways, as well as possess other Suvian traits. While some people misuse the term Sue by using it to refer to any character with significantly-above-average capabilities, that alone is not what makes them bad writing; they are bad writing because they do not behave and are not treated in ways that are realistic or sensible for the narrative.