Subject: Not nearly as eloquent as everybody else...
Author:
Posted on: 2010-04-14 14:55:00 UTC
I just wanted to ask:
Wasn't "Mary Sue" ALWAYS a negative term? I mean, we get the phrase from the famous Star Trek fanfic that MOCKED that kind of character. When was it ever neutral?
Storming the Battlements or: Why the Culture of Mary Sue Shaming is a Bully Culture
It is a very interesting essay and I found it through someone's LJ and I'm wondering what everyone here thinks.
I think the author of the essay must've been someone whose friend got PPC'ed or Sue-shamed somehow. Mary Sues aren't female empowerment characters -- often they act shallow and vapid and replace strong female characters.
I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. All I can say is this: I've written rants when someone gave me hard crit. Long-winded rants, sometimes. This piece of pseudo-academia, though, takes the cake. It's giving a mature mask to an otherwise immature reaction. Mary Sues are unacceptable. In fact, sometimes the Sues are bullies in their own right.
I only wish I'd discovered the PPC boards sooner, so I could have given my two cents in the heat of this battle. Right now, I have to settle for comfortably smouldering.
...by being caught up in real life concerns. Silly me.
I found out about all this brouhaha today by reading a post on Geek Feminism that was much more concise and in the same vein as Mary Sue sporking = misogyny, bullying, and marginalization of women writers.
It's the last part that really bugs me. There is marginalization of women writers -- it is real, and needs to be addressed. Honest criticism of bad writing =/= not being able to get published in fantasy or sci-fi unless you take a male name (CJ Cherryh is who I'm referencing specifically). Female writers are still marginalized, especially in 'genre' writing.
But no, instead of addressing problems in the book-publishing industry, let's say that sporking is the real problem here.
Give me a break.
You know, I'm a feminist, and proud of it...I understand -- I really do -- that there is misogyny and abuse in telling people to grow a thicker skin when they're dealing with real marginalization. I deal with it every day. If I can't get published because I'm a woman and you tell me to grow a thicker skin, that is misogynistic. Telling me my writing is what's preventing me from getting published because my characters are unbelievable, or my setting sucks, or my dialogue isn't connected well enough (which is a real problem in my writing that I've been working on), is not misogyny. It is criticism.
(Now, if you specifically said my characters were unbelievable because most of them are women and strong and defy traditional gender roles, then yeah -- sexism right there. But that's not the same as saying "This passage is awkward, and your MFC seems a bit OOC." Not at all.)
Also, what I find very interesting is that it seems okay to criticize bad writers if they're male, or have a male OC that warps the canon. How is it feminist to want to give women special treatment because they can't handle criticism?
There are not enough headdesks in the WORLD for this.
I'm so riled up I wrote 15 pages worth of essay last night at work. Here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc42qtdb_2c4rnmrc6
In addition to all the points which have been made, quite validly, by others, you put JRR Tolkien and JK Rowling on the same level! Absolutely unacceptable! Rowling doesn't touch Tolkien, man.
Rowling makes more money than the Queen of England, but of course you're entitled to your own opinion
Money or fame earned from writing is not the same as skill at writing.
Otherwise you'd be putting Meyer and Paolini at the same level, no?
Hell no. At least Paolini uses a tried and true formula for his stories (the Hero's Journey for anyone interested)
Your font's painfully big and there's a grammatical error in the author's note. Um. Ow.
"In the anonymity of the internet, age, gender, sexual orientation, and/or shoe size mean nothing."
I disagree. We can be as anonymous as we choose, but the billion people making up the internet all have ages, genders, orientations and shoe sizes. Those circumstances and thus those biases are not nothing. They are of utmost importance to whoever happens to be currently talking, and the fact that each individual is an individual and thus differs in those circumstances must be noted - the net is not made of automatons.
Incidentally, the more I stare at that paragraph, the more I want to rip it to shreds. And not necessarily in our favour.
"The PPC and Deleterious do not “bully,” anybody and certainly not because of them being female, pre-pubescent, or writing female characters."
Misplaced comma. And yes, actually, we kind of do. Boosette and her lot are coming across as those horribly cliquey snooty high school girls you see in films, sure. But so are we. We do think we're better than the so-called fanbrats. We do rate our ability to tell a story higher. We do bitch about people with the temerity to write about noncanonical relationships and events. We do take note of female OCs more than male ones. We do predominantly target the works of female and/or prepubescent authors. Look through all the published missions, make a pretty graph of it, and you'll see it's true. We do exactly what we're accused of doing. The difference is in the why - we're being accused of simply being mean, when we're in fact railing at bad writing when the characteristics of bad writing are defined by a culture that automatically views women as lesser.
"Canon does not work like that."
But fanfic does. Being at odds with canon continuity is not a crime. Doing so without justification and without suitable storytelling ability to make it believable is.
"As Eleanor Roosevelt, certainly an empowered female, once put it, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”"
Um. Bullcrap. Try being female.
"Your font's painfully big and there's a grammatical error in the author's note. Um. Ow."
Fixed, seems Google Docs doesn't have size 16 font.
"I disagree. We can be as anonymous as we choose, but the billion people making up the internet all have ages, genders, orientations and shoe sizes. Those circumstances and thus those biases are not nothing. They are of utmost importance to whoever happens to be currently talking, and the fact that each individual is an individual and thus differs in those circumstances must be noted - the net is not made of automatons.
Misplaced comma. And yes, actually, we kind of do. Boosette and her lot are coming across as those horribly cliquey snooty high school girls you see in films, sure. But so are we. We do think we're better than the so-called fanbrats. We do rate our ability to tell a story higher. We do bitch about people with the temerity to write about noncanonical relationships and events. We do take note of female OCs more than male ones. We do predominantly target the works of female and/or prepubescent authors. Look through all the published missions, make a pretty graph of it, and you'll see it's true. We do exactly what we're accused of doing. The difference is in the why - we're being accused of simply being mean, when we're in fact railing at bad writing when the characteristics of bad writing are defined by a culture that automatically views women as lesser."
I may have worded that poorly. What I mean to say is that we don't go after bad writers because they happen to be preeteen and/or female, but because they're bad writers. To me at least, gender, age, and demographic are meaningless against the fact that their writing makes me want to punch babies. And I can buy that we bully, but it is certainly less awful that the bullying they do against us and any other well meaning reviewer by lashing out at any critical opinion and siccing well-meaning but misguided white knights on them.
"But fanfic does. Being at odds with canon continuity is not a crime. Doing so without justification and without suitable storytelling ability to make it believable is."
Maybe its just me, but I figure the original author and anyone s/he has designated as official writers for a canon as the ultimate authority on the canon, thus it irks me to no end, especially when an author claims they know more about the canon than the creator!
"Um. Bullcrap. Try being female."
Listen, I'm all about female empowerment. I believe anything a man can do a woman can do. However, it seems that half the feminists (like Boosette and her ilk) are whiny victims while the other half are the feminazis that believe women should be superior in every way. Please tell me I'm wrong, but not that I'm a mysoginist because I do want gender equality.
However, it seems that half the feminists (like Boosette and her ilk) are whiny victims while the other half are the feminazis that believe women should be superior in every way. Please tell me I'm wrong, but not that I'm a mysoginist because I do want gender equality.
Well, I won't call you a mysoginist, but recognizing only two types of feminst is a grose, grose generalisation.
I just have one question about that: Would you say we think we're better PEOPLE, or that we think we're better WRITERS? (Forgive the caps, please; I can't seem to make HTML formatting work.) I know it might be nitpicking, but I think that's really kind of an important distinction.
However, during the day and a half when my family's internet got cut off due to technical conditions, I was leaning toward the former, as Boosette got under my skin at that time. I'm all right now, though.
It ought to be the latter, certainly. I worry sometimes that some of us lean towards the former.
For me it is the latter, or at least, I know better what makes a good story, not that I can actually write one.
Though, a lot of people who send me complaints about missions seem to think that I think I am a better person. They're quite addament about it.
Not so much better people anymore as just better writers who want to do something about the decay all around us.
As flattered as some people might be at a paean to the Good and Mighty PPC, I for one feel uncomfortable with it. It's one thing to correct someone's ideas about us when you perceive that they're wrong; it's quite another to paint the PPC as some great and noble calling and attempt to...well...defend our honor. Although I see some glimpses of the former, your essay does the latter in abundance. Only someone taking the PPC far too seriously would do that.
We make fun of bad fanfiction with an organization headed by sentient flowers and punctuation. Let's move back toward silliness, shall we?
So you know, thinly veiled insults and extra helpings of cliche don't help make an impressive response.
Was directed more at Boosette than anyone else, but I can certainly remove it.
And yes I may have turned up the prose a bit, but if someone is going to take the PPC seriously I feel we should answer seriously, if only increase the lulz when we drop the bomb that this whole thing is decidedly NOT serious.
I could use some peer review on that. Its 15 pages and probably could be three separate essays if I wanted it to be.
*breathes in*
*breathes out*
Right. So. This discussion seems to be approaching a point at which it will no longer be productive for anyone. That means it's time to take a step back and attempt to regain some objectivity.
Let's be clear about a couple of things:
1. Boosette and her friends don't like the way we do things. That's okay--they have that right. Yes, even if they don't precisely understand our point of view.
2. We don't agree with the majority of what she said about us, or how she said it. That's okay, too.
To sum up, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Right? Right.
Now then. I think most of us would be fairly happy to quietly go back to business as usual, without further unpleasantness, but if we want to continue a dialogue with our fellow human beings, we're going to have to cool our heads and come up with an actual line of communication, 'cause what's happening right now doesn't count--it's more akin to shouting at each other from either side of a ravine. We've done the whole "circle the wagons" thing; to switch metaphors, we've also run up the colors and fired a warning shot across the bows. Now it's time for parley, if they'll have it, or surrender if not. Because this isn't war, and we don't want war. We just want to get the facts straight.
However that may be, let's be clear about one more thing for ourselves: we've received a critique, and we of all people ought to respect that. We may not agree with all of it, we may not like the form it's taken, but hey, we can take it, right? And some important issues in our community have come to light because of it. I believe those issues deserve their own thread, up at the top where everyone will see it, so I'm going to start one tomorrow, after I've slept and had some time to compose my thoughts some more. Keep an eye out for it.
In the meantime, don't anybody say anything, here or anywhere else, without thinking it through first, all right? Let's not let this get out of hand.
~Neshomeh, moderating.
I have, however posted a friends-only rant about this on my LJ, however, which may not agree with what you said, and was composed at a time when I didn't have my feelings in order (yesterday). I'm sorry. Just know that what is written on it was only my private feeling about this matter, and nothing else.
I'm going to keep away from this issue from now on; her opinion isn't important enough to me to spend any more time on it. I don't have trouble sleeping because I've PPCd some badfics, and that's all I really care about.
So, since this is a wide-open public forum, well known organization, and very well known by some of the people with boosette, and because I (and probably other people) told them, they eventually got around to answering this thread/Araeph's response. Bear in mind that the following is a quote from the person who directed me to this 'Board about five years ago, and the person who is responsible for me actually writing like a coherent adult, and not (A/N: LOLZ lyk dis!!!) anymore. It's not some ignorant, just-stepped-into-fanfic kid who's got her feathers ruffled.
"We don't need to do a rebuttal to their argument. We've already won. The vast majority of fandom agrees with us, and is sick of being shamed and harassed for what they write. The PPC can think they're right and correct and the good guys all they like; we really don't care, because we (despite their protestations) aren't bullying people weaker than us, and they are."
This, though, is the community's response. Or as much as we're going to get.
Personally, I dislike much of this thread here, especially the part where people go "Oh, but we don't target canons, so she didn't do the research!" If I had any real interest, I'd go back and find all the times people have labeled a character Canon Sue/Stu. I've had entire debates on whether Tamora Pierce's characters (most of them, not all) fit the bill. No, we don't target canons in missions, but there are plenty of people who have asked to, over the years. I will say that we do target both male and female targets, so I'm not certain about the "anti-feminist!" thing. That's a bit out of line.
But their points about being unnecessarily harsh and cruel struck a chord with me. I got a bit upset when I realized that nobody really seems to bother giving authors concrit anymore, if they want to just eviscerate the story. That bothers me. If our interests are in trying to improve fandom, shouldn't we try to help people improve? I know most of the people on here started out writing utter shit, I sure as hell did, and would we have improved if no one had ever bothered pointing out-- nicely or mockingly-- our flaws, and how to fix them?
More to the point, we can go on and on and on about how Sues really are horrible horrible horrible things, and personally I'm not a fan of OOC or bad syntax, but in the Constitution itself, it says
"17. Mary Sues are generally despised and though most of the Regulars will (probably) treat you with respect if you like them, this Board is not the best place for you. 18. If you hate Lord of the Rings, this Board is definitely NOT the place for you. You’ll find pretty much everyone here in disagreement with you."
Mary Sues are GENERALLY DESPISED. Not The Evil That Stalks Us All In Everything. Just... we don't like them. Okay. But it also says no flaming, and that Regulars should treat their fans with respect (at least, all the other parts of the Constitution lean that way on top of it).
But there's also a rule against flaming, and against abuse, and I have seriously been somewhat freaked out by the number of people around here who seem to quietly applaud trolling and flaming. That's not helpful. Part of my problem with Boosette's rant was that she seemed to lump us, a bunch of people who I've always kind of thought of as fairly easygoing, definitely capable of holding a decent conversation with a badfic author if they made an effort (which has been done in the past, I think), or a debate on Sues, an intelligent debate, in with the people who post reviews like "Your character is a Sue and you should die in a fire for writing her." That... that's not what the PPC is supposed to be about.
It says so in the original series. "I don't like that these stories can make me a common flamer." (Jay, Children of the Earth.)
So yeah. I don't think the PPC is a herd of evil bloodthirsty wolves and bullies, but I think we walk a fine line sometimes, and it's a good idea to keep it in check.
I don't think that showing their response will really help anything.
I will say though that if anyone here is here just so they can troll and flame people because they think that's what the PPC does they're totally in the wrong place and don't belong here at all.
I was planning on saying more and there was this long rambling rant that involved me saying I was proud of my little sister for writing fic even if it wasn't the best written ever just because she's writing for the sake of it, but I just found out my innocent but of scathing wit and well-timed eyerolls little sister wrote pseudo-femmeslash (moderately tame but still) so I need to go down some bleepka and try to not think too hard on it.
*wanders off mumbling and wondering why her precious little sister couldn't've been a normal bugger and start with Suefic instead*
This whole thing looks like it's headed towards a community flame war. I want no part of it.
But you're right; we need to watch out for that line. "Constant vigilance," as Mad-Eye Moody says.
It seems as though the only way someone can be this blinded to the harms of Mary Sues is if one of her or her friend's characters has been taken down. Do we know if any of her stories has been the subject of a mission? If so, was it a particularly violent assassination? That would most likely create a feeling of dislike, especially if she had connected to the Sue, though this seems like it is rather out of proportion. A Sue team, perhaps?
I'm going to agree with everyone who said that Boosette has a misconception of misogyny, Mary Sues, female empowerment, and the PPC. She probably didn't look into these things much further than the basic definitions. She does have a point about bullying the Suethors, though. The PPC does have to make sure that we don't start insulting the Suethor in that sort of way. That problem isn't very common, though, so there wasn't much of a reason for Boosette to bring it up as if it were a plague. I also don't like that she neglected to mention that the PPC pretty much fits the same age group as fanfiction authors. And that many of us are female. And that there are male Suethors, too.
What really ticked me off is the fact that she seemed to imply that the PPC hates characters like Keladry of Mindelan. Keladry is my favorite character! I even like Daine, the true canon Sue of the Tortall books. (Watch out for cursing from this point on.) She's basically calling me a misogynistic, cold hearted, bullying bitch for disliking bad fanfiction, which isn't too far from the truth, except for the misogynistic and bullying parts. Still...
I'm not sure why Boosette went off and wrote this essay/rant. I mean, I'm pretty sure she's the same Boosette from the Goldenlake forum. That Boosette is highly opinionated, yes, but she hasn't gone off in an essay-long, meandering rant on that forum. She didn't even rail me for being a PPC agent when I blatantly made it known there from the very beginning. I sure hope she doesn't try to glean support from the Goldenlake community, though. People already think I'm insane there, and this wouldn't make matters better. I'm trying to make the PPC look positive to the Tortall fans, not negative.
Anyway, this was a very interesting essay. Thanks for linking it.
...who regularly flames Mary Sues, I'm guessing I'm the one she imagines when she talks about the PPC. All of her points seem fairly invalid when she starts by equating Mary Sues with all strong female characters. Because that's just wrong. There's nothing feminist about bad writing, even if it is glorifying women. Mary Sue isn't applied to strong women, just badly written strong women who aren't part of a regular continuity. I write strong female characters all the time. Hell, I love strong women. That's why this pisses me off so much.
And who died and put you in charge of feminism?
Nobody? Your line of questioning is odd. I prefer stories with strong female leads. I read and write stories with strong female leads. I don't think that qualifies me as "in charge of feminism."
As for how strong my women are? They're strong enough to not have their lives revolve around men. Strong enough to solve their own problems. Strong enough to have flaws and work with or around them.
Do you go and tell the writer "BOO YOU SUCK, GO TAKE YOUR SUE AND DIAF"? or do you say "Your Mary Sue sucks because she does *blank*"?
I do MSTs. The authors generally don't find out about them.
That will only lead to tears and confusion.
I just wanted to ask:
Wasn't "Mary Sue" ALWAYS a negative term? I mean, we get the phrase from the famous Star Trek fanfic that MOCKED that kind of character. When was it ever neutral?
On Wikipedia I think it was there's a bit about how for a while people called all self-insert characters "my Mary Sue" but then it became a negative term.
Once again, the author didn't do the research. {= P
~Neshomeh
There's this OFC I like. She's friends with the best con man in the world even though she's married to the FBI agent who sent him to prison. She's stubborn and emotional and sharp as a whip, and even though she could do anything in the world she has a job where she makes things pretty because she loves it. Sometimes she gets hysterical and her husband leaves his job to come home and fix the things that are making her hysterical. And she once had her office torn apart by the bad guys! And then her straight-laced husband PUNCHED THE BAD GUY IN THE FACE and it was awesome and he got suspended for it. Also she's gorgeous and she's shaped kindof like me, ie: round. Which might have something to do with her actress being pregnant, but a girl can wallow in vicariously sized awesome for as long as it's available, right?
Her name is Elizabeth Burke. She's the best thing about White Collar.
There's this OFC I like. She's kindof inappropriately in love with her boss and doesn't really know what to do about it, and doesn't know that she can do anything about it.
Um, about right here is where you should have read up on your definitions of Mary Sue.
She's also the best damned helmswoman in the galaxy (otherwise she wouldn't be piloting the flagship space-vehicle), and when her captain is stupid and gets himself roofied and kidnapped and almost turned out to pasture as a stud, as it were, she takes a team down to the planet and BLOWS THE TOP OFF THE MOUNTAIN where the bad guys are keeping him. And when that appears to not work, she takes a small team inside the mountain (well: this doesn't work either,
Here would be good, too.
since all they guys on the team get left back at home, and it's just her and this other chick, and you can see where this is going, right?). So the bad guys try to make her captain choose a mate from the available females! And they tell him all about her private fantasies about him! And even though she's pretty MORTIFIED ABOUT IT,
Oh, definitely here. Mary Sues and mortification do not go hand in hand.
she helps take one of the bad guys hostage so they can escape! But then when the bad guys are twirling their collective mustaches and talking about breeding a race of artisans and stuff, she OVERLOADS HER SIDEARM TO KILL EVERYONE THERE rather than let her descendants live as genetically engineered slaves. Word of God has that she's the most beautiful, smartest, capable person on her planet for the year she was born, and that she was designed to be that way. She has lots and lots of Issues and an interpersonal inferiority complex because of this.
Her name is Number One. She's from the Star Trek Pilot film The Cage and unless you've been living under a rock these past six months you know she is my FAVORITE thing about the Star Trek franchise.
There's this OFC I like. She really wanted to be a knight all her life, and she was raised in Japanalogue so she's not good at expressing her feelings, and her parents are TOTALLY BEHIND HER in becoming a knight. But the training master isn't! He doesn't believe women SHOULD be knights cause they're weak and hysterical and easily frightened! So she works REALLY HARD and makes friends and lives with people who don't like her and has a dog and birds even though pages aren't allowed to have pets. The training master even loves her dog! And she has a secret rich benefactor who equips her with the best weaponry EVER and turns out to be her childhood hero - the only other female knight in the land! And she gets crushes on all her BFFs (okay well, just the one BFF and then the BFF's cousin) and then then the commander of this really awesome division of elite soldiers PICKS HER AS HIS SQUIRE. He is hilarious and snarky and like a grown up version of Our Heroine and that's awesome. On her first mission with him she adopts a baby griffin and it's pretty much a disaster until its parents show up and DON'T ACTUALLY KILL her even though griffins always kill anyone who touches their babies! And then when she finally gets her shield, she gets handed the command of a refugee camp! But it's okay because her old training master, the one who didn't believe in her? HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND. She's the only one he TRUSTS enough for the job! Nobody else would be able to do it RIGHT! And at the end after lots of action and kidnappings and questing to slay the bad guy, she comes home and she's not hanged as a traitor even though she committed treason by disobeying a direct order from her liege during wartime!
Her name is Keladry of Mindelan, from Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small, and I LOVE HER LOTS.
Oh, I love Keladry of Mindelan to the ends of the earth. She’s one wonderful character, not least because she worked her ass off every waking moment to achieve all that she did and had a crippling fear of heights that almost prevented her from rising to knighthood. She’s a much better character than SuperSue Veralidaine Sarrasri.
Hmm, something in common. At least we’re off to a good start!
*
Gene Roddenberry married Number One's actress. Tamora Pierce is on-record as having said that Kel is her favorite character to write.
You can see where I'm going with this.
Yes, and good old trodden ground it is, too: the unfortunate misconception that because we don’t share your opinion that Mary Sues are awesome and cool characters, that we automatically MUST dislike all female characters who actually ARE awesome and cool!
Writing these women as they appear in canon would constitute writing them as "Mary Sues" -- They're special. They're competent, they're attractive, they have weaknesses and insecurities
It baffles me why anyone would post a long rant in support of Mary Sues without knowing exactly what a Mary Sue is.
and by virtue of being protagonists and first-string supporting characters, they warp plots and universes and other characters to their needs.
You can only “warp” a story to your needs if it didn’t revolve around you in the first place. A world revolving around a main character is only a problem if the story is fanfic and a Sue has replaced a canon character as the protagonist.
Elizabeth is Peter Burke's greatest weakness; Kel talks to the king and gets him to rescind a law she doesn't like; Number One is executive officer of the Federation Starfleet flagship despite being only a lieutenant and is "the most experienced officer on the ship," second to Pike himself, to boot.
These characters are awesome. No really, look at these characters: how awesome are they?
I’m not familiar with the other two characters, but they sound a helluva lot better than Marty Stu Eragon or what’s-his-face from Twilight.
*
Once upon a time, the term "Mary Sue" was a value-neutral genre descriptor:
Hah!
Original (female, let's be real here)
Yes, denying Marty Stu’s existence is always a good idea.
characters who entered the story, won the admiration of all the canon characters around her, who won the day and maybe developed a romantic relationship with one or more of said canon characters (usually the author's favorite).
Pat Pflieger writes her paper, 150 Years of Mary Sue:
The Cinderella portrayed by Drew Barrymore in the movie Ever After, especially, is everything that defines the Mary Sue -- intelligent, funny, beautiful, physically strong, competent, lovable -- but there isn't the hint of self-deprecation we see in some of the Mary Sues cited above. From Schumann's paper, we get a sense that young teenaged girls now aren't as willing to abdicate their natural powers as were girls of previous generations; it's their right to be competent and strong, and to carry off the occasional prince over their shoulders.
The term was coined in 1974. It is not the value-neutral term it once was, and you only have to look so far as Protectors of the Plot Continuum (PPC) to see this for yourself. Or Godawful Fanfiction. Or marysues, or deleterius, or ...
Let's look at PPC. The website intro reads:
But changing the *main plotline* of the canon story is ridiculous. (Except in speculative AU "what-if" type stories.) And Mary Sues upstage the canonical main characters, which really should not happen. If you want to be the main character, try doing original fiction. Then you can even publish it without breaking copyright laws, maybe even get rich. But if you do that, please knock your character down a few notches from "angel".
*grins* Jay and Acacia. Gotta love ’em.
The Fanlore description of PPC reads:
Protectors of the Plot Continuum, often abreviated PPC, is a cross between sporking and an RPG. The PPC is an organisation dedicated to the elimination of badfic. It is divided into various departments such as the Department of Mary Sues and the Department of Bad Slash. Writers create characters called Agents who go into badfic, spork the story, and fix it by killing Mary Sues, exorcising OOC characters, and otherwise restoring the story universe back to its original state.
Translated, roughly:
If by “roughly” you mean “like Babelfish on 40 proof,” then yes, your explanation of what the PPC does is indeed a translation.
PPC goes around bullying tweens, teens, young women and yes: older women, too –
You could have just said “PPC goes around bullying people who write Sues”; the fact that you didn’t, coupled with your choice to list “tweens” first, suggests that you are making age a factor in your “bully” argument.
Funnily enough, “Tweens, teens, young women, and yes: older women, too—” is exactly how I would describe the members of the PPC themselves. We have some younger members, and some older members; almost all of us are young women. When we started out, the average age of a PPCer was a whopping sixteen years old. It has since gone up to *gasp* twenty and a half. We’re almost old enough to drink, we are!
For the most part, Suethors actually share our gender and age bracket. So, there is no need to bring up the youth of Suethors in your argument. (There is no need to bring up their gender, either, but I will address that part momentarily.)
for daring to write fanfiction not up to their (dubious) standards.
Hoo boy, there’s a lot of ground to cover with that one phrase.
Let’s start with:
1. Please explain to me how writers are “daring” anything when creating a fanfic Mary Sue. Yes, PPC and GAFF and the like make fun of Mary Sues, but if you look at any major fandom—LotR, HP, PotC, Star Trek—and calculate the ratio of Mary Sue authors to Mary Sue mockers…I’m afraid we are badly, badly, outnumbered. In fact, having one’s Suefic mocked by the PPC is akin to being struck by lightning in its rarity. Heck, if you want to write what everyone else in fandom is writing, get lots of reviews from like-minded writers, and have fellow writers come to your defense for any criticism whatsoever of your beloved fic, Mary Sue is the way to go! She’s not defying convention. She IS the convention.
2. We set the standards for good and bad fanfiction? We did no such thing.
The original story, the canon, set all those standards far better than we ever could. All we do is remind fans what those standards are.
And yes, writing fanfic that’s as good as canon is still a bar most fans can’t hope to reach. But you see, Boosette, the PPC doesn’t look for fic to mock near the bar. It looks past the bar beneath that bar, and the bar under that, and finally peels back the mat underneath the lowest bar and boggles at the grime found underneath. The stories by supposed fans who seem to have forgotten that the high bar even exists.
3. Please explain to me which of our standards you find to be dubious, and why.
For writing original female characters, minor canon characters and major canon characters in a manner that is empowering to them.
Again, we seem to have so much in common! We too write original female canon characters, minor canon characters, and major canon characters is a manner that is empowering to us. But unlike the Suethors, we understand that just giving a character heaps and heaps of power for no reason isn’t empowering. Neither is stomping all over the personality of a well-developed canon character just to puff up Sue’s ego. It doesn’t make the Mary Sue better, or as special as the author thinks she is. After all, any author can rain a golden shower of gifts on a pet character; why does that make the character great?
What is empowering is allowing a character to earn power for herself by virtue of the conflicts that arise in a story. Even having a character try to earn power and fail honorably is more empowering than just imbuing a character with incredible abilities and watching her take out ridiculously enervated villains.
Ultimately, Mary Sue is bowling-with-bumpers safe as a way to experience a story. She is unrealistically beautiful, inhumanly powerful, and always gets rewarded for everything she does with only the barest of struggles. She can’t fail. She can’t get humiliated. The story itself will dutifully remove all real obstacles from her shining path. And a character who needs her author to do all that work for her is not a character who has any sort of power. On the contrary, that character is weak.
An expanded version of my already expansive reply can be found here:
http://community.livejournal.com/the_ppc/52523.html
Muahahaha.
I'm strongly tempted to send her the link.
The original writer is already aware of our presence. In no time she will come scurrying back to the halls of her betters, unaware that even in her diminuitive state she treads on the holy grounds of ancients. An ignorant little fly, incapable of even comprehending what she fights. What she truly fears.
For we are the terror in the hearts of sues. We are the precursors, whose existence alone proves that the end is only a matter of time. Does the prey comprehend the minds of its hunter? Does a cornerstone comprehend an entire building? No, it cannot. Our minds are alien to it. Our merest thought processes register above the scale of their most complex cognitive functions. WE ARE THE STAR GODS, AND WE WILL RETU-
I feel sick. Maybe I've been reading about eldritch abominations too much. In any case, If the essay writer finds it, then that'll be good, but there's no need to send it to her. It isn't as lulzy when it's all set up.
This is a subject that should be responded to. There's no point in composing this long response if we aren't even going to show it to her.
Send her the link. If she chooses not to respond to it, or responds poorly, that's on her. Everyone here seems quick to think that this woman's opinion cannot be changed, when there's always the possibility that it can be - especially with as thorough a rebuttal as was made here.
It's too late now, as the link has been sent, but there is pleanty of "point" in writing a long response without showing it to her - affirming things for ourselves. Several people around here have been wondering if her argument does indeed mean they are bad people, or behaving badly; as a community, we have every right to go on a long spiel to console each other, but deliberately sending it to someone who is already arguing with us is another matter.
And I doubt opinions can be changed - certainly not in this manner. Even if the rebuttal was perfect, people don't take kindly to 'being wrong', and there is a whole community out there who will stick together. They're not going to roll over and show their bellies because of a well-worded response. I also don't think it's any of our business to try and make someone's opinion change; if she doesn't like us, I'm sorry, but she can't ban us from the Internet and so there's no real harm that can be done. Why provoke a fight?
She picked a fight - specifically by citing misleading ideas and misconstruing facts. I'd consider it a responsibility to address them, lest people see only her side of the story and take it as truth - preferably in a venue as public as possible.
And opinions can be changed. Maybe she only has these opinions because she didn't realize what a Mary Sue is. Maybe she wasn't aware of what the content of most Mary Sue stories are. Actually facing her with these realities could mean she gives significant ground in the argument.
There's no point in just assuming she won't change and just letting her stew in ignorance - that kind of goes against the entire purpose of the PPC, which is educating people about why specific writing styles are bad.
But perhaps I should phrase myself better: Letting this issue go may not be the right thing to, in terms of high morals and the like, but I think it's probably the wisest thing to if we want to keep everything generally happy around here.
(Of course, if you think you can change my opinion, you're welcome to try to change it, but do bear in mind that I don't want changed, and that's a hard barrier to overcome.)
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
~ Edmund Burke
I was thinking of comparing her to the Klu Klux Klan. And the 'majority who is with her and doesn't want to be shamed and harrased for what they write' to the 'majority' who were with them during Recontsruction (No offense, I plead semi-insanity).I still hate Boosette (though much less now, I hope), but I saw the virtue of turning the other cheek because when I think of acting on my hatred, I become depraved and stupid. It might be different with you, but i'm sticking with Sedri and July and giving out my reasons for doing so. These are only my toughts. I may only be a special case, and one that doesn't apply to you. I just want Sedri to know that there is one more person who agrees with her. If I insulted you, i'm sorry. I'm just a person who doesn't recognize the consequences of his actions until more than a day has passed.
...I judged that it was a safe bet. If I'm wrong, I'm the one who both wrote the essay and sent her the link; if she does want to "fight", it'll probably be just against me, and she'll probably keep it on her own journal.
Other Suethors might come to our Board and provoke a flame war, but I think the chances of that happening here are small. The reason is that, at the end of her tirade, Boosette tells anyone who disagrees with her that they are welcome to "shut their mouths" on her journal, because it is her "safe space". She has also screened her journal not only to ban anonymous comments, but to ban comments from anyone who isn't on her "Access List." This leads me to believe that she doesn't feel nearly as confident giving an opinion so vocally when she's on a site devoid of a legion of loyal defenders. And since I gave her a link to the essay on LJ, rather than the Board, the chances of spammage here are much reduced.
Whether anything will come of it, I don't know. But I guess we'll find out soon!
I like the additions. They make things clearer. {= )
As of Boosette's ETA 7, our presence has been noted. Having followed the link provided for our benefit, I fail to see the point. Yes, there are other people talking about their various opinions of Mary-Sues out there. Some of them are us. Can we please stop making vague references to teh Intarwebz and draw some kind of concise, meaningful, well-supported conclusion now? Please?
That said, do you think linking her to our part in the discussion would help? If so, please do!
~Neshomeh
Expanded, hmm? I must go and read it again. :)
As for sending her the link... do it if you like, but I don't expect anything good will come of it. Then again, it's your livejournal; I'm sure you can block her if she gets too nasty. Or her friends do.
For writing Tenth Walkers, for writing fourth members of the Harry Potter trio, for making Christine Chapel an Olympic-level figure skater before she entered nursing. For empowering themselves through their writing.
…
You do know that the number of Mary Sues who force their way into the main plotline by humiliating or killing off strong female characters that were already there far exceeds the number of Mary Sues who actually support the female canon characters’ agency and right to their own love interests, don’t you?
You do know that the strong female canon characters who are warped into Mary Sues in fanfiction almost always get, not just sooper speshul abilities, but physical transformations to make them more physically appealing to men?
That’s the problem with Mary Sue. Her incessant need to hog the spotlight means she tramples over characters, timelines, plots, romances, deaths, and births, just so she can exist. In doing so, she disparages some of our most beloved, and if you will, empowered female characters!
You are mistaken if you think that Mary Sue cares about female empowerment. Mary Sue only cares about empowering Mary Sue. She will wreak havoc on every existing character, and as mentioned before, her treatment of pre-existing female characters is particularly shabby. At least the canon male love interest for the Sue only gets a fanfic lobotomy. But the unfortunate female canon characters who were originally paired with the canon males…well, it’s probably best just to continue with my response, rather than think of some of the things I’ve seen done to get a strong female canon character out of the way of a Sue.
The Call of Mary Sue isn't just limited to PPC, of course, nor is the mission directive: Check out deleterius's userinfo page:
If you find your story here and are upset about it, try to relax.
There are reasons you should try to relax:
1. Throwing a tempter tantrum will only serve to amuse us further.
2. Amusing us further will cause us to sink our claws and teeth in deeper.
3. Throwing a temper tantrum will not incite me to remove your fic. So long as no LJ TOS issues are being violated, it will stay posted. Don't like it? Sucks to be you.
4. "But it's fanFICTION, I can do whatever I want!" No, you can't. Move along.
And from the linked rant, by magdaleina (in 2005, I will grant you: ancient internet history, back before we talked about why this sort of thing was even discussed, before anyone had bothered questioning whether this behavior was bullying, was harassment, was anything other than okay.).
I’m not sure why you think that people weren’t questioning us in 2005. People have been ranting against the PPC and its allies since its inception in 2001! As for the LJ comms, a Suethor whose work was featured on Marysues waaay back in 2003 very kindly (and in such a feminist way!) called the community “a world full of bitches and lesbos”. We’ve taken it all in stride, really.
However, criticizing a story and criticizing a person are two very different things. I hope you have noticed that, whatever I have said so far about Mary Sues, I have refrained from insulting anything about the Suethors except their writing. It’s PPC policy to do the same on missions.
Anyone has been welcome, at any time, to critique the PPC’s own writing style. (We would hope, of course, for it to be a well-written, funny, and entertaining piece of writing.) In fact, someone did that a long time ago. The result? We hosted that story on our own website. Yep, we sure are evil and oppressive.
What those intimidated by criticism fail to realize is that they needn't remind anyone -- specifically not a fan of a book who actually read it -- that their work is fiction (because half the time, the reviewer would rather not believe the story was ever written, much less whether it's real or not). What a reviewer is actually questioning is the merit of the writer's fandom; whether or not they are a true fan.
Instead of, "write to the best of your ability", the message is: Don't you dare write characters who are too perfect! Don't you dare write characters who are too flawed! Don't you dare make your characters too forthright or too timid, too connected to canon characters or not connected enough!
I would really like to know where it is said or implied in any of our archives that a Suethor’s character might be too flawed. But to get back to the point…Suethors can write self-inserts who are as perfect as they like. Their avatars can be as all-powerful and cool and rebellious and beautiful as the midnight stars, with no argument from us at all.
They just can’t do it with someone else’s characters.
Without wishing to speak for the entire PPC, I would sum up our message as: “If you’re going to borrow other people’s stories without permission, at least make sure the characters and plotlines are treated with respect and returned in recognizable condition.”
You’d think that wouldn’t be too hard…ah, well.
Don't you dare put any of yourself into your characters, lest you commit the crime of pepper jack cheese!
Pepper Jack Cheese, from the Godawful Fanfiction Dictionary, linked above:
Pepper Jack Cheese = Where a badfic author includes silly little details that have nothing to do with the plot, for his/her own amusement. Well known sporker Pottersues came up with the term from a Harry Potter fanfic where the author repeatedly mentioned that Hermione liked pepper jack cheese (which isn't available in the UK) just because it was the author's favourite cheese.
Every author puts some of his/herself into a character; to pretend otherwise would be foolish. But there’s a difference between putting some of yourself into a character and making a self-insertion. And if you don't know the difference between those two things, you really have no business posting an essay on Mary Sues.
And if you do, if you dare: we'll make fun of you for it, we'll mock you for it, we'll question your worth as a writer and as a person
Show me the place where we have questioned a Suethor’s worth as a human being, and I’ll show you Napoleon bungee-jumping off Mount Everest.
behind your back!
Ah, so you think we should mock their stories to their faces? Well, believe me, we’ve tried. It never ends well…for either us or them. What ends up happening is:
1. Suethor throws a temper tantrum.
2. All her friends join in. They resort to personal attacks first, not the other way around.
3. Since we don’t really care what Suethors think of us, instead of being contrite or angry, we are heartily amused. Sometimes, we’ll try to explain what we were trying to do, to no avail.
4. Inevitably, the Suethor gets even more upset that we aren’t mending our vile ways, and resorts to sockpuppetry so she may defend her shoddy writing more vocally.
5. When this doesn’t work, she will take things a step further and try to get the PPCing or sporking removed from whatever site it’s hosted on.
And that last one is the clincher, really. We never...ever…ever try to get a Suefic taken off fanfiction.net unless is it blatantly violating the Terms of Service. But Suethors will try to get our mockery removed for no reason other than that they want it gone. Since this has often worked even though we are careful not to violate posting rules, it’s enough of a hassle that we have learned to keep the mockery among those who will actually appreciate it.
(Of course, even if we offer up constructive criticism in a polite review with no mention of the PPC or mockery, 1. and 2. will usually happen anyway. Bless fandom and its huge sense of entitlement about positive feedback!)
We'll dogpile you and we'll get all of our friends to tell you you're wrong-wrong-wrong for daring to question us,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wipes away tears of laughter*
I can see it now. “Shh, don’t question the PPC…or else!”
Boosette, the Suethors aren’t questioning us when they write their stories. Most of them don’t even know we exist—thanks to the mocking-behind-their-backs policy that you so derided, the vast majority live on in blissful ignorance that a single bad word has been said about their idealized, emerald-eyed creations.
We’re the ones questioning their writing. They’re just typing up whatever they jolly well feel like no matter how terrible it is, posting it in a public place for all to see, demanding feedback for this very poor fanfiction, and then complaining if the feedback is negative.
to defend yourself, and if we're feeling really ambitious we'll make you cry and then laugh about it!
And yeah, this bears a remarkable resemblance to the bullying a goodly number of us experienced as geeky misfits, growing up.
Geeky misfits. Again, an epithet most members of the PPC would proudly say applied to them—much more than the Suethors, in this case, because geeks are actually familiar with and have a respect for the source material(s) that they claim to be fans of.
This is the environment of Mary Sue. This is the context and the history, today, of Mary Sue.
That is your history of Mary Sue. Here’s my preferred version, from PotCverse:
Once upon a time, there was a movie. It was fun, witty, and thoroughly enjoyable. Many people loved this movie, for various reasons. Some loved it for the scathing one-liners, some for the fact that it was a pirate movie, and some loved it for its technical aspects, such as costumes and sea battles, and whatnot.
And there were those who loved this movie for two (and sometimes three) reasons. These reasons had nothing to do with the movie, not really. They mainly had to do with how H0TT!!!1! the three male leads were. Now, these reasons, while decent reasons when compiled with others, were very shallow on their own. But many ignored this fact, and focused on the hormone induced lusting of t3h h0ttn355 of the leads.
Some lusted after these men in the quiet of their own minds, and it was good. Everyone has fantasies, after all. But there were others who decided they absolutely HAD to share these idle daydreams with the rest of the world. So, they wrote down these fantasies, and posted them on a notorious website known as fanfiction.net.
In all fairness, there were some fantasies that were very well done. They were cohesive, and enriched the original plot of the movie. And the fans who read these stories were very, very happy. And then there were other fantasies. These stories were crude, poorly crafted, and irritating. And the fans wept with rage and sadness, seeing their beloved movie being turned into a playground for pubescent teenagers.
The fans watched as the main character of the movie fell in love again and again with a girl named Mary Sue. Mary Sue came in many shapes and sizes, but it was she the entire time. Each time Mary Sue made someone fall in love with her, something was lost. A little bit of the magic that made everyone adore this movie died. The more Mary Sue appeared, the more the magic died. Pretty soon, the universe the movie took place in was unrecognizable. And the true fans wept.
Moral of the story? Your Mary Sue kills canon.
So to abandon for a moment my quasi-professional tone:
Your tone was quasi-professional?
If you think that you can use "Mary Sue" as a value-neutral term in this environment, and with this history, you are contributing to the environment which approves and encourages the bullying and harassment of women for the sin of daring -- daring! -- to write characters in such a way that is empowering to them.
Mary Sue is not defined in any dictionary as “empowered/strong female character.” Mary Sue is only a fantasy of what her author wants to be, and all too often what the author thinks men want her to be. In fanfiction in particular, this involves:
-An obscene emphasis on a pre-determined model of beauty.
-The idea that romantic love is superior to all other relationships.
-The obligatory male-rescues-female-from-rape-and-she-falls-for-him scenes that populate at least half of her stories. (Or worse, the obligatory male-rapes-female-and-she-falls-for-him stories! Bleaugh.)
-The cheap way her author portrays sensitive issues like abuse, abandonment, and prostitution—as simply devices to get a quick pity-fix for her heroine.
-A penchant for manufacturing misogyny in an otherwise egalitarian universe in order to “prove” that she is good or better than men.
-A disturbingly high tolerance for controlling, tyrannical love interests as long as they are hawt.
None of these things has anything to do with real empowerment. But all of them have to do with the fundamental selfishness that defines Mary Sue—the fundamental idea that she is better than everyone, that only she can be better than everyone, that the whole rest of the world had better stand back in awe at her awesomeness…and most of all, that anyone in the story who doesn’t respect her will fear her. Because if they don’t, they will suffer the author’s, I mean her, swift and terrible retribution.
Writing "Mary Sues" is empowering. Writing them being awesome is empowering. Calling Mary Sue, and contributing to an environment such as the above, which encourages the denigration of female awesomeness in fiction,
As a GAFFer once said...Mary Sue is not a hero. She usually doesn't have one single thing going for her that makes me respect and adore her, the way that the author OBVIOUSLY expects me to do. I don't find these supposedly perfect people who get all good things without so much as struggling for it interesting. I never got anything for free, why should they?
A reward, or a victory, is so much sweeter when you've fought for it - I know this from my own, personal experience - and THAT'S the sort of feel-good entertainment that I want! I want to see the long struggle. I want to be inside the character's head as he's overcoming all his difficulties... at the end of the book, I want to cry with happiness. I want to feel that all that hard work, all that suffering and struggling, PAID OFF!
Mary-Sue has too easy a time - as much as I might LIKE to identify with her, I can't. I want my heroes to EARN their feel-good, like I've done, because that's an INFINITELY greater feeling than just getting everything for free... like Mary Sue does.
which encourages the bullying and harassment of participants in female awesome, is participating in that culture.
Calling "Mary Sue" in this environment is shaming women for empowering themselves.
Then our environments are very different. Calling “Mary Sue” in the PPC is telling a flat, unrealistic, stereotypical character exactly what she is, so that a three-dimensional character (the Agent)—who is usually female herself, I might add—can get rid of Mary Sue and her canon-warping ways and enjoy a good fandom in peace.
Maybe you should come over to our environment. It’s climate-controlled and story-centric.
There is no substantive harm in writing a "Mary Sue" -- there is no substantive harm in creating a character, original or otherwise, who "warps the world around them", who is "adored by all for no particular reason", who wins the day.
Even if the character perpetuates all the most damaging Harlequin romance novel clichés?
Even if the character insults and degrades a beloved character of yours? (And if you say to me, “It’s only a story,” I will say to you, “Then why are you so upset about us mocking only stories”?)
Even if all the female OCs in a fandom are lily-white, silky-haired, green- or blue-eyed, and anorexic-thin with huge breasts, because the Suethors honestly can’t imagine that their real selves would be attractive to a male hero, so they give themselves imaginary extreme makeovers to win their idol’s heart?
Sue-mocking isn’t about female characters being too powerful, Boosette. It’s about any character being too powerful and too perfect with too few negative consequences. The nature of the medium (fanfiction) means that most Suethors happen to be female, not that the PPC is specifically out to get female Suethors.
But here’s some real harm, if you want it: Mary Sue, in all her super special glory, continues the very wrong idea that superb female achievement can only be won in an exaggerated, fictional scenario.
Who cares, really, if fantastic SuperPunkRockGoddess triumphed over Persephone and won Hades’ heart? There was never any doubt! What does it matter if Riellanaiëlvaniela defeated ten legions of orcs in your fanfic? It doesn’t say a thing, good or bad, about what a real woman, a real person, could actually do or not do! All it says is that someone wanted it to be true, but didn’t really believe it could be, because the scenario itself is not believable in the context of that particular universe. And worse, it implies that an ordinary woman—a woman who gets a man she loves but sweats and smells during training, a woman who is not as physically strong as an orc but wins the fight through sheer determination, a woman who achieved greatness but learned the cost was high, as all great people do—simply could not measure up, so a super-powered one had to do.
Truth is, without authorial interference, a Sue divested of all her special attributes would be just a cardboard cut-out that a realistic woman could crush beneath her feet.
There is substantive harm in bullying and shaming real people for empowering themselves through their writing.
If Mary Sue truly “empowered” these authors, then wouldn’t the authors act more, well empowered? Wouldn’t the authors be mature enough not to be flustered and go into shrieking conniptions when some stranger on the Internet happened to not like their story? Wouldn’t the authors say, “Hey, my heroine can do anything regardless of what all those people think…and so can I”? Wouldn’t they say, “My character is so awesome, she can take any attacks thrown at her from obnoxious reviewers”? Or even, heaven forbid, “Maybe they have a point, and I can write better”?
Let me tell you, a reaction like that from a Suethor would make me very happy. Yet Mary Sue’s presence in a piece of fiction seems to make the author more sensitive to criticism, more entitled to praise, more overprotective of the Mary Sue. Because the Mary Sue is so much the author’s darling, so much the author’s insertion and avatar, that the author has trouble separating her Sue from herself. And that is not the mark of a character who makes her author stronger.
Words have power. Words cause harm. Words hurt, and the wounds they leave are deeper and longer-lasting than many physical wounds.
We know that words have power. That’s why we don’t like Mary Sue messing with the words of stories that we love.
I nearly stopped writing entirely, as a teen, after having my work and my OC called "Mary Sue". I have friends who did stop writing because of it.
Do you know how many of us PPCers have written Mary Sues in the past? Almost all of us. And the only reasons we stopped creating them were: we grew out of it, or someone actually had the honesty to call us on it. (Option B being the more frequent occurrence.)
You know, when I was looking through some of my younger writings, I had several of my cherished OCs called “Mary Sue.” By me. But also indirectly by my dad, who years ago tried to hammer into my skull the fact that my “kickass” femmes weren’t really so kickass if I had to write all the male characters and antagonists as lumbering, bumbling idiots in order to make my Sues seem that superior. (If there’s one thing a Mary Sue can’t stand, it’s a real, true, honest-to-goodness challenge at which there’s a chance she’ll get bested.) Back then, I didn’t understand what he meant. I wish I had.
I’m so glad that I found the PPC and realized that I was creating Mary Sues before I shipped off the unfortunate darlings to try and get a wider audience! It hurt, realizing how much work my fantasy characters needed, but it would have hurt a lot worse if I had written Suefic well into my twenties, then gotten a scathing rejection letter from a real editor as opposed to an anonymous online snarker.
My point being, I am sure that calling a character a Mary Sue—when it ís one—has caused fanfic authors pain in fandom. But I think it helped avoid pain and disappointment in many cases, too.
Before anyone says: "Oh, they/you should just have sucked it up and grown a thicker skin! Learn to accept criticism!"
Actually, what I was going to say was, “If you don’t think there is actually anything wrong with creating a Mary Sue, why are you so upset when people call it one?”
Think.
You are blaming the victims of bullying for their bullies' behavior.
I am thinking…I am thinking back on my school days and the bullies I have seen and dealt with.
I don’t think there has ever been an occasion where a bullying “victim” chose to go to school with hair a mass of snarls, a shirt fished out of the garbage, bubble wrap shoes, and pink glitter on her nose, and yelled out to the schoolyard for all to hear, “WHAT DO U THINK?! PLS REVUE MY APEARENCE!!!”
And that is exactly what Suefic writers, with their needless plot contortions to shoehorn the Sue in, the carbon-copy characterization of “rebellious princess” or “pure flower”, their blatant refusal to let their self-inserts fail at anything, their zealous worship of the supermodel physique, and of course their endless demands for reviews, have done.
That is Not. Okay. Ever.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, this is the baggage the term "Mary Sue" comes with. This is the context. This is the culture and the environment and the experience of many, and it cannot be divorced from the term itself.
When someone says, "your semantic choices are hurting me" the decent human being response is to access how you can stop hurting people with your semantic choices, not to throw up your hands and go:
"BUT I DON'T WANNA! I LIKE MY HURTFUL WORDS!! YOU'RE JUST BEING OVERSENSITIVE!!!"
So, it’s not a decent response to call a Mary Sue (who is a fictional character) a Mary Sue, but it is decent and humane to use loaded words like “bullying”, “misogyny”, and “denigration of female awesomeness” on real people whose only crime is mocking flat fanfiction characters?
*tips her hat cordially*
Thank you, Boosette, for being a sterling example of not using cruel semantic choices on real people! You have truly shown me how not to insult the misfit geeks of fandom.
Happy ’Sueing,
~Araeph
Thank you, Araeph. That was a much more inspiring version to read. :)
One thing in particular:
In fact, having one’s Suefic mocked by the PPC is akin to being struck by lightning in its rarity.
*lights up*
HEY! NEAT!
*starts throwing lightning bolts, Zeus-style, and cackling madly*
Beautifully put, and if you fancy it, I'd heartily approve of posting this and linking the essayist to it.
Something posted at the site where this essay was published, and containing all the counterpoints that had already been posted there (Mary-Sues conform to patriachal ideals more often than not, majority of PPCers are female and empowered, words are taken out of context).
Hmm. This is interesting. I agree with the people who say that Mary Sue is not a feminist icon, of course, and I also agree that the author seems a bit uninformed about the actual definition of a Mary Sue.
However.
I think there are a couple of valid points made. One of them is that I think the Suethors do have a right to know if they're being mocked, although I acknowledge that that can sometimes go badly. However, although I feel a little out of line for saying this, but I agree with those below who said some of the criticism could get too harsh, and I think the PPC is in fact guilty of that. I mean, I'm aware that there is a policy against directly insulting the author. I have also noticed that this policy gets obeyed about as often as the laws about downloading music for free get obeyed. There are a lot of comments along the lines of "How can people possibly be this stupid?!", disregarding the fact that good writing doesn't correlate directly to intelligence; emphasis on the directly. Also, I could be wrong, but it seems to me to be a pretty common gag to have one agent beg to attack or kill the Suethor. THAT, I think, is out of line, and we could maybe lay off. I'm familiar with getting pissed off, but you know, maybe reach for the chocolate first.
I don't think we're a clan of bullies or the inherent downfall of feminism or anything, and I do love the PPC, and I did enjoy the missions I'm referencing, and the last thing I want is to offend anyone, so if I did, allow me to prostrate myself apologetically at your feet with a peace offering of absolutely heavenly pizza and a sincere expression of regret. But I do think a good bit more attention could be paid to the "insult the Sue, not the Suethor" policy.
... Ignore my making myself look like an idiot by adding my reply to this little spin-off discussion and not the main one. Is editing possible?
However, no one's going to hold a little thing like that against you. {= )
Also, I completely agree with everything you said. I would make the argument that it's the agents saying those things, which may be perfectly reasonable, in-character sentiments from their point of view; however, there's no doubt that the agents act as avatars for our own opinions, so it really wouldn't hurt to police our language more. Even if they also say similar things about their own authors. That's different.
~Neshomeh
Thanks. I feel validated, now; doubly so because I'd thought of that excuse and discarded it for similar reasons.
I still don't agree with 99% of what the writer of the essay was saying, but I had been thinking along these lines a bit.
I have included comments about annoying Author's Notes in both of the missions I have written. Do you think that that falls under this?
I don't know, but I guess it really depends on the egregiousness. If they're insulting people, I'd say go for it; ditto the infamous Bryan thing. Stuff like emoticons or general attitudes is maybe unnecessary, though, especially since it's an informal area of the thing where those things aren't really inappropriate. In-text notes, I personally would feel free to snap at the placement, but make it clear that the issue was the placement, not the content. Bottom line: Ask "Am I insulting the author's writing/sense of where to put notes or am I insulting the author?" Just my guesses, though.
Admitting that we have our faults certainly isn't the same as saying the essay's author got it right. I think that's one of those logical fallacies, though I couldn't name it. {= P
As for the second part... I guess I'd have to see them, but offhand I'd say that finding Author's Notes annoying is no more offensive than finding bad writing annoying. It's just a question of phrasing: are you railing against the content of the note, or the presence of the note? If the latter, you're fine. If the former, is it because it's irrelevant and takes you out of the story, or because you disagree with it on a personal level? The first is probably okay; the second, maybe not so much.
~Neshomeh, handing out lots of pennies in pairs today.
I commented on it having random information about unrelated stories that had been deleted, and having the same horrible grammar that afflicted the rest of the story.
I didn't go past the fourth chapter, but if I had, I probably would have commented on the fact that the entire fifth chapter was an Author's Note.
After all, we read a story to read the story, not be interrupted by pointless chatter.
When writing my fanfics, there has only been one time that I really, really needed to say something about an event in the story that couldn't be squeezed into narrative or put in the chapter's opening notes (because it would have spoiled things) - so I put it in the end. If she doesn't absolutely need to tell us something at that exact point - not before, not after - then maybe there's a case for it. Otherwise, bah.
That last part probably qualifies, especially if it was on the Pit since that's explicitly against the rules. I might have left the extraneous info alone, but it's hardly my call.
It is my opinion that author's notes have no place inside the story. It's fine if you want to accompany a note along with the link to the story - but putting notes /into/ the story does many bad things, most importantly breaking suspension of disbelief.
They also rarely have anything relevant and interesting to say.
I was talking about ones at the beginning or end of the chapter, or is that what you were referring to? I actually like reading ones that aren't interrupting the story; they're a little like DVD extras, in my opinion.
Like you, I enjoy author's notes at the beginning and/or end of a chapter--as long as they are at least partly relevant. Talking about some completely unrelated story or event is not what should go there. Talking about something that happened which inspired the story/chapter, and going into how it compares with the written version is interesting. Giving world background information (in original fiction) or little known facts that tie into what we have just/are going to read is great. In-text authors notes, however, just needlessly interrupt the action. If it is a note about a certain usage of a word, it can easily be referenced at the beginning or end, without breaking the flow. In my story for the March madness, for example, I refer to several people as "servants". We think of something different now than what I was intending, so I put a note at the stating that, in the story, they have more independence than what we now associate with the word.
I don't mind them at the beginning or end, most of the time. I mean, you have to have your disclaimers and all that. The one that I said something about was a a run-on that was made up of about 8-10 possible sentences, and bubbly information about how another story unrelated to the one I was there to read had stalled and yadda yadda it had been deleted. Even with the extraneous information, I wouldn't have mentioned it if had not been for the terrible grammar.
In fact that entire mission, had not a single charge against canon. It was based firstly on terrible grammar, secondly on legally impossible situations, and thirdly crimes against common sense.
And for anyone else looking in on this conversation. The author in question is not a thirteen year old kid. The author profile claimed to be a twenty year old in college.
Not that those who are bashing us will care in the least, but if a fic sounds very young, I leave it alone. I like the Warriors cats books, even though I am not in the target audience. The fanfiction is particularly bad in that section of fanfiction.net. Given the target audience of those books, many of the stories sound like they were written by kids. They probably were. I leave them alone. I haven't seen anyone mocking stories that sound like they were written by children.
I find it interesting that there has been such an emphasis on the PPC being a bunch of adults picking on innocent thirteen year old kids. Are thirteen year old kids the only ones writing fanfiction these days?
I really doubt it (that 13-year-olds are the only writers). In fact, it's the minimum age on a lot of sites.
Also, I'm fascinated by the way they all assume we're not teenagers.
And I actually saw that mission, I believe. Miah got glitter poisoning?
Yeah, she got glitter poisoning and made kissy noises at Cali.
If I remember right on July's survey, I was the third oldest person to respond to it, and I'm thirty--which I have to inform all of you teenagers is not nearly as old as it sounds! :p
The average age of the author's of stories I have done missions on is 34.5.
It may not be, if the site is biased towards such essays.
It's LiveJournal, right? They aren't as stringent in their standards as FFN. Some people may not like it, but hey, it'd be an answer.
I believe it's Dreamwidth. Similar, but different. Also, the author is heavily filtering replies to that post, so anything we said there would never see the light of day. Apparently disagreeing with her in her "own safe space" of an internet journal is not allowed.
Of course, if anyone has their own Dreamwidth account and wants to do something, that would work.
~Neshomeh
But we could go around asking if someone on the Board has one. You or one of those that made those lengthy responses to the essay can also make one. What are the requirements? I can't do it myself, as i'm male and the Suethor may use that as a point against us. Stupid reason, I know, but still...
I have one, but am also a male, so...
So, what are the requirements?
For joining Dreamwidth? Don't know. I'm part of scans_daily and they made me a member.
So, what are the requirements?
A Response to Storming the Battlements and a Defence of the Sporking Culture, written by a Genuinely Empowered Female. (I'm thinking Araeph, as her response is already there). Or possibly How Mary Sues are Patriachal Icons, not Feminist ones, by a Female Writer. What do you think?
Maybe I'll get lynched for this someday, but I am really, really sick of seeing 'femenine empowerment' and - worst of all - "equality" as a word being thrown around to justify whatever the speaker/author happens to be angry about. I'm sick of it. Whether we use the actual term or not, no one can deny that Mary Sue characters are downright terrible examples of writing, and we can make fun of it if we like - just as talk show hosts or parody movie makers or whomever else in the published/public world can make fun of things. Yes, I think this woman has a point when she says that the term is being applied to broadly, but that doesn't mean it can't be used at all. I've lost count of how many times people misuse words like "dumb", "irony", or _ - that doesn't mean the rest of us can't go on using them properly.
... Wow. I believe that qualifies as a rant. First in a while.
Anyway, in a slightly calmer but more disjointed fasion:
She's making too many connections that aren't there. People tend to be cruel in their critque of Mary Sues - a lot of people tend to be cruel in their critique of real life people - like politicians - as well. That doesn't mean that whomever is shouting that Bush is an idiot is empowered just because she's a woman, or that she is in any way less entitled to her opinion just because a Bush supporter (male or female) shouts her down.
Also, this writer talks about context and fails to acknowledge that characters like Number One are great IN CONTEXT, but shoved rudely into another character's place (say, Captain Janeway), she'd be just as bad. Characters are good in the stories they are written for, and stories don't have room for an endless number of Great Characters.
Last, I agree with Artell - no one is making them post their work in public.
(I'm in a rush - again - so this is all rough. I'll phrase myself better later.)
is an on-going and a very interesting one. I consider myself a feminist, but the problem with feminism as a label is two-fold. First, you have the obvious extremist, 'militant', 'sex is rape' feminists or the like. However, they are a minority of feminism. The second problem is that the patriarchy as it stands obviously defends itself*, and therefore is busy assigning as many negative meanings to 'feminism' and 'empowerment' as possible, by bringing up negative examples and exaggerating them.
Trying to switch from 'feminism' to 'equalism' might be an idea, but any label that feminism takes up would probably quickly get sullied by the extremists and the mainstream anyway. Therefore one might as well stick to their guns. The reason equalism is called feminism is that the female gender is still the disadvantaged gender.
How I understand feminism (and certainly there's no one true definition) is that it's about questioning existing gender roles, problematizing, even polemizing gender, and exposing the way gender is a social construct, and how our society is upholding that construct. (If you know who Judith Butler is, there you go.) I like to think of it as poking my finger in the eye of the status quo to make it notice things about itself.
Mary Sues, on the other hand (and to bring this post back to topic, phew), as stated by myself and many other, smart people here, often work within that framework of traditional gender and uphold those constructs. For instance, they can be weak female characters who must be rescued by males, whose raison d'etre is to marry and bang male characters, etc. Female characters who 'clean up pretty' and wear dresses and play the perfect wife for male canon characters.
The Sues are essentially working *in* the framework of popular culture and media, which is itself dominated by the traditional gender roles, and which helps to uphold them. They are *not*, generally, questioning or dismantling these roles.
Besides, real, actual human females have flaws just as the males.
* The patriarchy isn't a conscious beast or anything; it is merely the male-dominated world with traditional gender roles that we live in today and which dominates the discourse. It's the reason disgusting things like offensive jokes about trans people are still socially acceptable (because they are An Other and cause discomfort by problematizing gender).
A part of the feminist movement is being able to do all of those things - wear pretty dresses, get married and take the role of the housewife, etc. - and still be considered equal.
You brought up a point I meant to make, about those characters being okay IN CONTEXT. It's a bit different when you're inserting your "awesome" character into someone else's universe. It's not your house, you don't make the rules; you obey the house rules. That's just common courtesy.
~Neshomeh, surprised by how well that analogy works and that she's never used it before. O.o
It sounds like a kneejerk reaction to me, and an ill-thought-out one at that. There's a definite suggestion that women writing is good, and I'm down with that, but it's coupled with an assumption that just because someone can pick up a pen and form squiggles, they should proudly display said squiggles to the world.
Having the freedom to write is a good thing. But I strongly object to the idea that writing of poor quality in a public place is "empowering", and that to comment on the quality is "bullying".
It seems to me that to call writing of any quality empowering simply because a woman is able to produce it in fact serves to demean women. It's patronising. Writing should be applauded, where warranted, for its own sake, not because its author has the fortune to live in a society granting (almost) all individuals the requisite education and freedom to put pen to paper. Female authors should be held to the same standards as male authors: they should be judged on the quality of their writing. I would mock a story written by a boy, a black person, a gay person, a disabled person, a French person, someone of any given group you care to name, if their writing was of poor quality, not because of who they are, but because it is poor quality. Hiding behind centuries of oppression is not a valid answer to storytelling skills in need of improvement.
Maybe all of you lot in the DMS do things differently, I don't know. But I was under the impression the PPC's raison d'etre is to spork bad writing, whether it features Sues or not. The writer of the essay doesn't seem to have realised that. Perhaps we're giving the wrong impression somewhere. Perhaps she didn't do the research. Who knows?
You should add that to Neshomeh's article addition - an assumption that just because someone can pick up a pen and form squiggles, they should proudly display said squiggles to the world. Very eloquant. I approve.
And no, we DMSers still look for bad writing first and foremost, but there's really nothing hard about it, because the Sues that make us - me, at least - grit teeth and rip hair out are almost universally coupled with bad writing anyway.
the Sues that make us - me, at least - grit teeth and rip hair out are almost universally coupled with bad writing anyway.
I've tackled a few Sues that weren't coupled with bad writing in the sense of bad grammar and all that. If it had been original fiction I might not have said a word, but they claimed to be writing fanfiction and I did not recognise the canon characters one bit. (and some had history fail in them)
I don't know if my definition of bad writing is different from yours, but when I decide to take on a fic for a mission, it has displayed stupidity: either canon characters are being unusually stupid or the plot is in some way stupid.
I was mostly referring to grammar and spelling, but either point applies. I probably shouldn't have used the word "universal" - there are pleanty of exceptions.
Characterization and plot are as much a part of good writing and good story-telling as grammar and spelling. As is knowing your facts.
~Neshomeh
The essay states that a Mary Sue is an empowered female character. This is not so. A mary Sue is a character who is empowered to the point that the character literally has no flaws, has superficial flaws, or in some cases bereft of talent to give her an excuse to be rescued over and over by an object of affection. Hating them has nothing to do with misogyny.
Everyone has wish fulfillment fantasies (hell, I know I have) and most men keep them to themselves(hell I know I do) because they know that they will be ridiculed because wishing for impossible things is something you keep to yourself. Even then, there are some exceptions (Eragon, anyone?) and these are panned as well. It just so happens that teenage girls are in the category most likely to post this sort of thing online, usually involving characters from recent media. It's not discrimination against anything but the belief that bad characters are... well, bad, and a mary sue is simply an author wish fulfillment.
... then I would be expecting criticism for it. And at that point, I wouldn't care because it would just be me making something completely ridiculous, and just sharing it's ridiculousness with the world.
Yes, but suethors are not expecting criticism. They are expecting everyone to love their character, just as all the characters in the story they are inserting themselves into love them.. Now, if you were just sharing your own personal story I suppose that's fine, but no human should EXPECT uniform praise when it's plainly obvious for all to see that their character is merely them with the reality and interest ironed out.
It's funny to me that the author of this essay thinks PPC missions are intended as attacks against the Suethors. Most of the mission writers I know of don't even contact the original Suethor to begin with. The essay says writing badfic doesn't hurt anyone; well, neither do PPC missions or other sporkings.
Also, as Neshomeh mentioned already, using another term or phrase in place of "Mary Sue" wouldn't change the badness of the stories they appear in, or any reader's reaction to them. To paraphrase Shakespeare, a rose will always the same flower, no matter what we may call it.
Well, I do believe that PPC missions hurt the feelings of the Suethors. It's not a nice feeling when someone takes the micky out of a fic you wrote.
But I then also want recognision for the fact that some badfic actually does hurt. It gives headaches.
The standard "don't like, don't read" doesn't apply here. I mean Suethors don't have to read the missions into their fics. So, if my hurt can apparently stop by not reading the badfic, then their hurt can stop by not reading the PPC mission beyond the point where they established it was about their fic (and that is usually in the opening author's notes).
The author lost me at the suggestion that well-rounded canon characters would be branded Mary Sue.
I stopped reading there. I had a feeling I knew where this was going. Somewhere in the direction of: some people call these characters Mary Sues; they are wrong; therefore all people who call characters Mary Sues are wrong.
There's a logical fallicy in there I can't quite put my finger on. At least not at the moment. Perhaps after a good night of sleep.
I shall leave you with a message I received a few weeks ago.
Someone whose empowerment I apparently shamed (wrote a mission to one of her fics) send me a message telling me she thought it was "piss funny" though she'd been upset about it at first. She said she'd rewritten the story, hoped it was better, and asked me to take a look at it and give her any tips.
I think that's a case where the PPC is empowering. Empowering authors to get better at their craft.
People on this 'Board have called Alanna, from the Lioness Quartet, a Sue, and she's a well-rounded canon character if ever there was one.
I believe that's the Fallacy of Equivocation. I think. Not sure.
I think she failed to demonstrate her point with her examples by failing to illustrate the connections between one and the other. Also missed the point, at least where the PPC is concerned. As Italian for Grandma said, Did Not Do The Research.
And... her entire point is that the term "Mary-Sue" is hurtful and shouldn't be used? Okay. I'm perfectly happy to say "poorly-written, unrealistic, shallow female character" instead if it'll make everyone feel better. {= P
I think I would be less annoyed if I felt we could respond publicly without being told to shut up. The hypocrisy burns us, Precious!
But maybe this warrants a new entry in the FAQ For Other People...
Calling Mary-Sue is misogynist!
There are those who believe that sporking Mary-Sues perpetrates a culture that oppresses young women trying to empower themselves through their writing, and that the term itself is offensive. We disagree.
First of all, many Mary-Sues themselves are NOT empowered characters, and ascribe to the basest tenets of the patriarchy (heterosexual marriage is the true way to happiness, women are homemakers, men win the bread, etc.) (Artell). How many Mary-Sues join the Fellowship only to have Aragorn or Boromir save them in a dramatic manner from a danger that a so-called empowered female could have got out of herself? How many Mary-Sues fall in love with a wholly unsuitable, even dangerous man (e.g. Sweeney Todd, Severus Snape, the Phantom of the Opera), and expect the power of Twu Wuv to turn him into the perfect mate and father so she can have a perfect life? How many Mary-Sue stories depend on a man to complete the fantasy? How is that empowering to women?
Second, the PPC believes that there is no excuse for bad writing, and the fact of the matter is that people who write Mary-Sues are likely to be poor writers. However, there IS such a thing as a well-written Mary-Sue, as shocking as that may seem. We are aware of this. You will never see us sporking a well-written, well-constructed Mary-Sue. Why? Because, as is stated elsewhere, the PPC rarely goes after only moderately bad fics, and we will never go after a good one. Even if it contains a Mary-Sue.
The fact that we primarily spork Sues has little to do with hating female characters and everything to do with hating bad writing. It's like drawing a correlation between ice cream sales and murders: the number of ice cream sales in a month appears to strongly correlate to the number of murders in a month; however, ice cream sales clearly do not cause murders. Both ice cream sales and murders strongly correlate to the temperature of the weather: murders are more likely to occur in warm weather, and so are ice cream sales. Similarly, Mary-Sues alone do not warrant sporking. Even though many sporkings happen to Mary-Sues, it is because of the third factor of bad writing, not the Sues themselves.
Third, a question: would you rather have us use a word other than Mary-Sue? Because we're perfectly happy to say "poorly-written, unrealistic, shallow female character" instead if it'll make everyone feel better.
Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that most fan fiction writers, sporkers and Suethors alike, are female. Although women can certainly be misogynist, it's a bit foolish to overlook this fact when complaining of sexist behavior. Of COURSE most of the works we spork are written by female writers, because that's who's doing most of the writing. If more guys were out there writing terrible stories, we'd spork them, too. Have done, in fact. [Insert links to killed Gary-Stus here]. It's just that they appear with far less frequency than female Mary-Sues written by female writers.
Feel free to add to/refine that. It's heat-of-the-moment right now, probably not the most objective or clear. ^_^;
~Neshomeh
Very nice - I thouroughly approve. One thing, though:
You say "there IS such a thing as a well-written Mary-Sue", but I think you should write that as "a well-written character with all the typical characteristics of a Sue" - clumsier, I know, but we call the Department of Bad Slash such because there is such a thing as good slash, but the DMS doesn't get called "The Department of Bad Mary-Sues" because we don't seem to believe there is such as thing as a Good Sue. I realise that's playing right into the hands of the essay-writer, but it'd probably be the safer way to go.
and Ok, Now Panic!. Both deliberately setting out to take a typical Mary Sue scenario (girl falls into Middle Earth) - but doing it absolutely right.
Girl magically falls into Middle Earth: check
Higher purpose at work: check
Falls in love with an (almost) canon character: check
Well-written, believable, rounded, well-characterised: check.
Genuine character development requiring effort and chance of failure by protagonist: check
Proving it can be done right: priceless
Better to spell it out for clarity.
Another thing about that essay is that the author seems to think that WE think all Original Female Characters are Mary-Sues; that Mary-Sue is synonymous with OFC. That's simply not the case. Mary-Sue was never a neutral genre term as far as I know (speaking of divorcing terms from their context).
I don't know if that bit has any place in the FAQ, though. It's a bit specific to this essay.
~Neshomeh
Better to be too detailed and a bit off-topic than leave holes for people like her to rip apart.
...I'd be happy to do that.
Then we will have 4 cents!
~Neshomeh
I found this essay to be very offensive. How dare she group me and her into the same category. As a woman, I do not feel it necessary to write bad fiction to feel empowered, and it makes me mad that she is implying that that is the only way for women to feel empowered. My life is not that pathetic.
Also, I have always felt that if the writers were going to be that sensitive over their writing that they should keep it to themselves or their close friends. Putting it up on an extremely public website, and begging for people to read it is, well, begging for people to read it. All people, including those who will mock bad writing.
The person writing that essay is missing a lot of points. I like your offer to say "poorly-written, unrealistic, shallow female character."
A lot of people can be unnecessarily cruel when criticizing a Mary-Sue fic. I know, because I can be that at times. We have to remember that we are not here to make fun of aspiring authors, since many of us were at that same point at one time or another.
That said, the author of this essay demonstrates the typical fanbrat tendency of not doing the research. She has a temper tantrum at the beginning of the essay about taking words out of context, and then she goes right ahead and takes Jay and Acacia's words out of context. The rant didn't even really fit in with the point she was trying to make.
And that comic strip? Hah! If she was trying to criticize the PPC, she's a hypocrite, because she's advocating the same sort of behavior she seems to detest in PPC agents.
Then she lists a few awesome female characters who, in different contexts, might be called Sues...and says that we hate them. No we don't, because these characters were handled well. They were special, yeah, but not so much more so than everyone else. They didn't get away with breaking the laws of nature, physics, and their respective governments simply because of their specialness. They had characters, and stuck to them. They didn't try to 'fix' a world that didn't require fixing. When faced with a misogynistic society or situation, they didn't fix it by spewing mindless feminist rhetoric (like the author of this essay), they fixed it by bloody well pulling up their sleeves and *prooving* they could be as good as the boys. Yeah, they saved the day, and they were badass about doing it, but the whole world did *not* revolve around their every little need. *That's* what makes a strong feminine character...the ability to be strong just because she *is* strong.
Eowyn, anyone?
Plus, Mary Sues *are* the product of a misogynistic mindset. You know how everyone criticizes rail-thin models because they threaten the self-image of preteen girls? A Mary Sue is what happens when that negative self-image crosses over into fanfiction, when a girl is convinced that in order to be special, she has to be a goddess...instead of just being herself. I'm convinced that if more girls were satisfied with who and what they are, we would have less Mary-Sues to kill.
The essayist also forgets that, while the majority of fanfic writers *are* female, there are males as well...and they have to put up with the same type of crap that female authors do. For example, the PPC criticizes Twilight, a badfic published by a female author, for obvious reasons. However, it also criticizes the Inheritance Cycle, a badfic published by a male author, also for obvious reasons. This isn't about us trying to repress female authors...it's about us giving male *and* female authors a reality check. If the essayist had cared to actually read the missions, she would have seen that the PPC is an equal-opportunity sporking society.
Anyone who has read the sporkings of "That Series" knows that the PPC isn't misogynistic...the fics the PPC kills are.
And I shall descend from my soapbox now.
There can be unnecessary cruelty. I think the goal should be to help people become better writers. Constructive criticism should always be a part of the 'treatment'. It's the author's prerogative to ignore it.
The point about Mary Sues being misogynistic is an insightful one too, though I don't know if it's misogyny as much as it's poor confidence, or delusions of grandeur, or wish-fulfilment. Maybe more accurately they are a *product* of misogyny? The comparison to body self-image is apt.
intellectually dishonest to hide behind the barrier of feminism and female empowerment to defend poor writing. It demeans female empowerment. Many Mary Sues are NOT empowered characters, and ascribe to the basest tenets of the patriarchy (heterosexual marriage is the true way to happiness, women are homemakers, men win the bread, etc.).
To paint PPC and critics of Sues as misogynistic is doubly dishonest, because PPCers are, in my impression, predominantly female*, which leads to my main point: *fan fiction is mainly written by women.* I just can't find any way around that fact. If a vast majority of fics are by women, then poor fics will also be written mostly by women, and thus you will have way more female Mary Sues.
It reminds me of the way heterosexual white men go about whining how modern society is actually oppressing *them*.
'Bullying' is also disingenuous. No one is making you publish your writing. If you don't like the criticism, you can ignore it, you can not accept it, you can circulate your stories in a closed community. But if you publish it on a place like fanfiction.net, you are implicitly consenting to scrutiny.
* Caveat: women CAN be misogynistic, obviously.