Subject: Re: 'Scuse me...
Author:
Posted on: 2013-07-22 14:33:00 UTC
Kirk/Spock, it's based on the new Star Trek movie.
-
Opinions on Atlas (K/S fanfic) by
on 2013-07-22 04:36:00 UTC
Reply
Despite Jim being a flaming Mary Sue, I... I liked it *ducks*. It was plotty and well written! Has anyone else read this? Thoughts? Can Mary Sues ever be anything but pure evil?
-
I can see where you'd think that. by
on 2013-07-23 08:08:00 UTC
Reply
However, most of the talents Kirk has in this fic are ones he has in TOS canon, I believe, and his flaws are lit upon and examined. I have to admit, when I first read the fic I was a bit wary of the possibility of sun shining from every orifice, but I think it's well-written and dealt with well enough all in all.
-
I see where you're coming fromÂ… by
on 2013-07-22 22:05:00 UTC
Reply
But Kirk is already multitalented in canon. I haven't read far, but if they touch on some of his flaws - disregarding authority and being reckless - it won't be Suvian at all. I like it so far, actually.
Mary Sues are always bad, but a character can have Suvian traits without being a Sue. -
Well, it is possible for there to be a good 'Sue... by
on 2013-07-22 19:41:00 UTC
Reply
Rapunzel from Tangled is sometimes used as an example.
But... Slash? I really don't like the stuff. Just answering your final question. -
Well-written Sue is not a Sue. by
on 2013-07-22 21:14:00 UTC
Reply
I kind of want to know your reasons for calling her a Sue.
-
A well-written Sue can be a Sue. by
on 2013-07-23 14:56:00 UTC
Reply
Most likely a parody Sue, in which case the quality of the writing is - as I believe - to be judged by how well the creature fulfills its parody function.
-
A parody is... by
on 2013-07-23 16:40:00 UTC
Reply
... the only case in which, in a PPC context, it is possible to talk about 'a well-written Mary-Sue'.
The reason for that is that the PPC defines a Mary-Sue first and foremost as a type of badly-written character. Someone pointed out long ago that we have a Department of Bad Slash, but not of Bad Mary-Sues. While other chunks of the internet may use different definitions, in a PPC context, (non-parody) 'Sue == badly-written.
hS
PS: Obviously, the same could be said for anything else we deal with. A parody of a bad slash-type 'fic could be a 'good bad slash'. A parody of an implausible crossover could be 'a good implausible crossover'. These are of course very different to 'good slash' and 'plausible crossover' - as 'good [parody] Sue' is different to 'well-written character'. ~hS -
Re: A parody is... by
on 2013-07-24 19:14:00 UTC
Reply
There's something to be said here for the concept of "so bad it's good"...
-
Ahem. by
on 2013-07-24 04:47:00 UTC
Reply
As per usual, this is one angle on the idea, and others of us have other opinions. I know a lot of people consider a Mary Sue a certain character type, possible to be written well or poorly.
(Those people would consider the department of Mary Sues to actually be the Department of Bad Mary Sues, probably. Which would be a point in and of itself - we don't go after boringly mediocre 'fics, after all.) -
Which is sort of a problem. by
on 2013-07-24 09:26:00 UTC
Reply
Picture the following scenario:
Lacksidacksical (posting to the Board): Well, I define a 'Mary-Sue' as any powerful female character, whether they're well-written or not.
[You wait; time passes]
Oaken Thorinshield (posting to a different thread): Mary-Sues? Bah, I hate 'em, one and all. Not a single redeeming feature to their entire species.
Suesette (a random outsider): Wutuf?!
Suesette (posting to a blog): The Protectors of the Plot Continuum is an internet hate-group who despise powerful female characters; in their rampant mysogyny, they declare that there is 'not a single redeeming feature' in any portrayal of a woman who is not passive and weak...
The PPC: Wutuf?!
Obviously (I hope obviously) people can use the term however they choose elsewhere on the internet. But in the PPC - in our stories and in our discussions - it's a technical term. And a technical term really should have a single definition.
Given that we have a 'Department of Mary-Sues', and given that we have been declaring literally since the third line of the first story that 'Mary-Sues are bad' (with no qualifications), I fervently believe that definition should include 'badly-written'.
hS
PS: Lacksidacksical and Oaken Thorinshield are two of my Generic Boarders. They are not intended to represent anyone in particular. Oaken Thorinshield has an agent named Morrigan, which is irrelevant but awesome. ~hS -
Speaking of the definition... by
on 2013-07-24 14:13:00 UTC
Reply
I've been working on a re-write of the wiki article to make it less contradictory, because right now it really is, and that's not useful. This is the updated short-form definition I'm working from:
A Mary Sue is an unintentionally flat fictional character recognizable by a marked disconnect between what the narrative says about it versus what the narrative shows about it. The Mary Sue character is almost always the central focus of its story, and the plot serves it rather than itself serving the plot. It achieves its goals with minimal effort, out of proportion to what the audience would expect given the setting(s), culture(s), and other natives of the universe it inhabits.
I think that better supports the current primary traits, which I believe do add up to "poorly written"; how can a character that acts unbelievably, gets unbelievable treatment from other characters, and is doted on by the narrative without doing anything to earn it be anything but?
Also, I think it's worth noting that in the PPC universe, a character isn't a Mary Sue (thus qualifying for assassination) unless there are sufficient charges against it, and the charges almost always have to do with bad writing (throwing characters OOC, creating minis, creating Designated Bastards/Love Interests/etc., mucking with timelines, causing events to eventuate for the sole benefit of the OC without regard for the plot, etc.). The deck is pretty stacked here.
That's not to say people aren't allowed to enjoy Sue stories—nobody here has the authority to tell anyone else what not to like—but within the PPC universe, "good Mary Sues" don't make much sense. And hopefully, this definition actually separates those enjoyable, well-written characters from the kind the PPC goes after anyway, which I think is the ultimate goal here: to refine our definition until it only encompasses the objectively bad stuff, thus eliminating any potential doubt about whether we're targeting stories that don't deserve it. Because we shouldn't be targeting stories that are anything but objectively badly written. That should be plain. I aim to make it more so.
~Neshomeh -
I'm currently... by
on 2013-07-24 15:13:00 UTC
Reply
... running my agents through a mission for the Department of WhatThe. One of the main characters has been determined to be a flagrant character replacement - but not a Mary-Sue, mostly due to her not actually doing very much. That means I'm a) making sure I don't call her one, and b) thinking very hard about what to do with her once she's been charged.
It would have been very easy to just say 'main character, doing bad stuff to the story, therefore Mary-Sue' - but I think it's more informative, and more worthwhile for me to write, if I don't do that.
On the flip side, my other ongoing mission includes several discussions on what exactly makes her a 'Sue... all of which comes together as a 'Thank you! Precise definitions are awesome'.
hS
Oh, right, comments on what was actually posted...
I think your short definition is a good one. In my quick read-through, it's hitting the following points:
-Gender-neutral - since the article really refers to both Sues and Stus
-'unintentionally' - Parody 'Sues are not real 'Sues (by which I mean, they aren't a problem)
-'flat', 'marked disconnect', 'central focus' - I think these three points come together to signify that they are badly-written. You can, obviously, have a flat character who doesn't ruin the story - if they're a minor character, or in some cases if they're a silent protagonist. But if they're the focus of the story, then yeah, they need to have depth; counterexamples (such as a lot of sci-fi stuff) generally shift the focus to the world, not the character. So the 'flat' and 'central focus' points already make a Mary-Sue a feature of mediocre writing at best. The 'disconnect' shunts it over into bad. That said, I would still like to see 'poorly-written' appear in the article, even if not in the short definition.
-'the plot serves it' - this is a very important point. Again, and I hope this point will be made, this isn't about being active or passive - it's about whether the character exists to improve the story, or whether they exist to showcase themselves, and use the story to that end. The standard 'is better at fighting than [canon warrior]' charge is one of many, many examples of how this can be done (contrasted to 'is better at fighting than [canon warrior] due to [believable reason which is plot-relevant]' - if a trait could be removed without the plot being affected, that's usually a bad sign).
I think most of your other points expand on either 'disconnect' or 'the plot serves it'.
And (I can't access the Wiki from here, so forgive me if it's already there) I think it needs to be clear that the secondary traits - sparkly hair, half-fairy, soulmate of Legolas, etc etc - do not only appear in Sues; they can be used as warning signs, as charges, and as things to comment on (and how!), but they aren't diagnostic. A character with every 'Sue Trait' in the book still isn't a Mary-Sue... if she's well written, and her traits serve the plot, and so on. But that's not very likely...
hS
(PS: Does anyone else get the urge to go through a Litmus Test and come up with a character and story which can hit every 'secondary trait' on the list without being a Mary-Sue?) -
Re: Litmus Tests and Secondary Traits by
on 2013-07-25 02:37:00 UTC
Reply
I ran into something like that with two of my favorite Star Trek characters, Data and Seven of Nine. Data, being an android, has many of the secondary characteristics - superhuman phsyical and mental abilities, being able to play multiple instruments and speak many languages with little effort, etc. He even has a tragic past, and positive personailty traits such as curiosity and kindness. But he's still a compelling character because he always gets challenged in his spotlight episodes. One has him dealing with how to convince a group of people to evacuate their home planet. He has no emotions, so convincing people to leave something they had an emotional connection to was very hard.
Seven is even worse - she has most of the knowledge of the Borg collective, superhuman stength, and is ridiculously gorgeous and can sing. But she deals with her Borg tragic past in a realistic way, sort of retaining Borg characteristics (a desire for efficiency and a belief that she is superior), but gaining human ones (loyalty to her friends). Her Borg nature alienates people, yet she does want to be human. She's interesting to watch because of that struggle.
I guess my point is, while these characters have a lot of secondary Suvian traits, they're examples of how to give a character these traits and do it well. And the key, I think, is to challenge the character. Mary Sues shape the plot to favor them. Good characters and the plot interact - the plot shapes the character's development, and the actions and choices the characters make because of that development shape the plot. -
Re: I'm currently... by
on 2013-07-24 17:03:00 UTC
Reply
I'd definitely be willing to read that.
-
I think I read that...? by
on 2013-07-22 16:11:00 UTC
Reply
Yes, I'm pretty sure I did. If not, someone recommended it to me once.
I...think I liked it too? Sorry, it's obviously been rather a while since I read it...
I also don't think I've ever met you, so I'll assume you joined/returned sometime in the past month. Hi! I'm DawnFire; nice to meet you! Here, have some Swiss Bleepolate and some Gummyblee IDICs as a welcome [back] gift :)
~DF -
'Scuse me... by
on 2013-07-22 13:16:00 UTC
Reply
But what's a K/S fanfic? I want to join the discussion too! (and I can't know that if I've no idea what you're talking about...)
-
Re: 'Scuse me... by
on 2013-07-22 14:33:00 UTC
Reply
Kirk/Spock, it's based on the new Star Trek movie.
-
Atlas by
on 2013-07-22 11:19:00 UTC
Reply
Could I have a link to it?
-
*embarrassed* by
on 2013-07-22 14:35:00 UTC
Reply
http://archiveofourown.org/works/652116
*mutter* could've sworn I'd *mutter* loose my own head next *grumble*