Subject: No, they weren't.
Author:
Posted on: 2011-11-14 00:45:00 UTC

The points were phrased as 'to consider in the future,' but they were pretty much in response to issues under discussion. You said that yourself. How does that make your thoughts unrelated?

The phrasing of the opening was baffling to me, too. Between that and the questions raised, it read to me as saying, "Writing the Agents as Sues/Stus is just fine and is 'cool' so long as these considerations are dealt with," which are hugely, hugely far from infallible. How many times have Sues and Stus had a scene be emotional for them merely for the sake of melodrama? Same for having a power or use of a power--it's easy to have a Two-Edged Power or Tragic Back Story Bestowing Strength. Those questions are usually answered by an author, and sometimes even technically within world rules.

In fact, Astral's did so, both in the mission and the Wiki.

But because that check isn't infallible in either direction (Sue or non-Sue) it made the post come off strongly as apologetic.

As a side note: if the thoughts were unrelated to the discussion, why post in this thread?

Reply Return to messages