Subject: I believe that...
Author:
Posted on: 2013-03-11 00:30:00 UTC
"stylistic" is the word you were looking for when you eventually settled on "artistic."
-
Well written Sues by
on 2013-03-07 20:40:00 UTC
Reply
Sorry I've been gone for a while, and sorry I haven't said hi to the newcomers in that time. Exams suck hard.
So I was thinking that not all Mary Sues are horribly written. I mean, the main character in Daughter of Smoke and Bone was a definite Sue (naturally bright blue hair, extremely talented artist, gorgeous, all the guys want her), and the story and prose was still fairly enjoyable. So do you guys know any other well written Sues, and what do you have to say about the? -
So, about the Mary Sue wiki article. by
on 2013-03-09 16:10:00 UTC
Reply
Jumping in a bit behind the times here, but between this and the recent Eragon thread, I am getting the sense that y'all might like to see some tweaks to the current wording of the Mary Sue wiki article, since as it stands, there is the potential to create this kind of confusion. I think the emphasis needs to be that a Mary Sue story can be enjoyable, but the phrase "if written well" should be taken out in favor of something more clear, yes? Any other thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
Also, I think I'd like to expand on the Canon Sue section, to explain what constitutes story-warping in their case (hS, I might borrow some of your language from this thread if that's okay). Plus, the main Canon Sue article is ugly-looking and needs some revision, IMO. Again, any suggestions are welcome.
~Neshomeh, who still exists; just got a little wrapped up in other stuff for a while. -
Possibly? by
on 2013-03-09 20:48:00 UTC
Reply
There seems to be a dualistic view - that Mary Sue is an archetype that can be written well or poorly, but is skewed towards poorly, or that a Mary Sue is, by definition, poorly written. We've hashed this out multiple times, and it keeps coming up, and those of us who have taken firm stands have rarely, if ever, stepped down from them. I'd be in favor of an explanation of the two definitions - since it is, after all, a key component of the organization.
-
Looking at the primary traits... by
on 2013-03-10 03:09:00 UTC
Reply
It seems to me that a character that A. does not behave like a believable-for-the-context person, B. does not get believable-for-the-context treatment from others, and C. is successful just because the plot says so, in fact, is not well written (presuming, of course, that the story was intended to be taken seriously). So, perhaps without notice, I think that question may have been settled as far as the "official" definition is concerned. And, if you consider the in-universe outlook on Sues, I think it's the only one that fits. I can't recall ever seeing an agent argue that Sues can be written well, even though Boarders have.
That said, I agree that some kind of explanation of the archetype definition wouldn't go amiss. I think I may have even made a case for it in the past...? I'm not sure. But anyway, there's an explanation of the definition of Sues as author inserts already, so I don't see why another one couldn't go in. Maybe "Alternative Definitions" could be its own section under "A Brief History."
~Neshomeh -
I still don't think so. by
on 2013-03-09 20:34:00 UTC
Reply
I think that the primary way a Mary-Sue story can be enjoyable is if it is to some degree self-aware - which of course slips it neatly over into parody, which makes it not a Mary-Sue.
The alternate version is a MS-esque character who is nevertheless a background component to a well-written story - which again, isn't a Mary-Sue story, in the same way that Lord of the Rings isn't a social study on Orc tribes, even though there's a bit of that in there.
The alternate-alternate version is an (over)powered character who nevertheless faces conflict - who isn't a Mary-Sue.
And the alternate-alternate-alternate version is enjoying a story in spite of the protagonist being a Mary-Sue, which I guess is what is being suggested here - so for instance worldbuilding that trumps the characters - which... I suppose is possible. But that doesn't make it well-written. Possibly for this 'if it has other aspects which are well-written enough to entertain despite the Sue'.
But that's still not 'a Mary-Sue story [that] can be enjoyable' - it's a story which is enjoyable despite and in spite of the raging Mary-Sue inserting herself into it.
hS
(Oh, and the alt-alt-alt-alternate is 'so bad it's funny' and other variants. "Legolas was riding along the woods and one day he found a baby whaped in colth...")
(And yes, you can borrow anything) -
Here's what I'm thinking. by
on 2013-03-10 03:28:00 UTC
Reply
What I have in mind is mostly the alternate-alternate-alternate version (people sure seem to enjoy some Sues despite the fact that they are Sues), but also, I think there needs to be a distinction made between technical quality, meaning SPaG, and artistic(? is there a better word?) quality, meaning everything else. A Sue story can be technically well-written in that the SPaG passes muster, but the Sue itself is still not a well-crafted character by our current definition, is what I'm aiming for.
I feel like a couple of distinctions need to be clarified, SPaG vs. Characterization/Worldbuilding/Etc. being the main one. Plus, see my response to VM above.
Does that make more sense?
~Neshomeh -
Re: Here's what I'm thinking. by
on 2013-03-11 05:19:00 UTC
Reply
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Please tell me if my summary is correct:
1) There is no such thing as a "well-written Sue" in the sense of a Sue that fits in with the story. By definition, it's impossible: to use your words, a Sue "A. does not behave like a believable-for-the-context person, B. does not get believable-for-the-context treatment from others, and C. is successful just because the plot says so."
2) A "well-written Sue" in the sense that the story is free from technical (SPaG) errors can exist (and some of them have been sporked very well by Araeph in a certain series of posts for heave_ho).
3) A "well-written Sue," in the sense that the story is free of technical errors, stylistic errors, and is entertaining despite the Sue, is theoretically doable. But if an author has the worldbuilding skills to do that, then he should try to fix the characterization problems that make the Sue a Sue in the first place. -
That sums it up nicely. by
on 2013-03-11 16:13:00 UTC
Reply
And, especially on the subject of stories that people enjoy despite their Sues, I'm particularly thinking of canon Sues—some of us do, in fact, get something out of Eragon and Twilight despite their problems, and I'm sure there are other examples. It does theoretically go for fanfic Sues, too, though.
~Neshomeh -
I believe that... by
on 2013-03-11 00:30:00 UTC
Reply
"stylistic" is the word you were looking for when you eventually settled on "artistic."
-
Agreed definitely on the SPaG bit. by
on 2013-03-10 09:43:00 UTC
Reply
It irks me when people leave glowing reviews on Suefics with nearly flawless SPaG, because to some people, Sues only exist in fics with a horrendous grasp of grammar. Or something like that. I mean, there was a Suefic I read once where the writing style was phenomenal, but the Sue was just so Sue that she more or less ruined it for me.
The only alternate-alternate-alternate Sue I can think of is Meghan Whimblesby, and she's technically a parody Sue. -
There are those like Rapunzel from Tangled, by
on 2013-03-09 07:23:00 UTC
Reply
who dance around with all sorts of Sue traits but turn out likeable anyway.
And there are those like Meghan Whimblesby, who fall into Middle-earth, join the Fellowship, and get Legolas, and yet somehow you still support and cheer for her. (Mostly because the author likes to make her suffer realistically while undergoing all of that canon-bending stuff.)
I think Meghan might be the sort of "well-written Sue" that you might be considering because she bends Canon, yet does it in an entertaining way (or in a way that doesn't make you want to strangle her). -
Re: Well written Sues by
on 2013-03-08 09:02:00 UTC
Reply
Well, I've seen Harry Potter referred to as a well-written Canon Stu, but...it depends on the definition, really. I mean, if we're going with that if it's well-written and has a plot beyond the MC, then it's not a Stu, then...well, it wouldn't count.
Basically, the opinion that I've seen--and at least partially share--is that Harry is rather a Stu, but Rowling's world is so detailed and full of three-dimensional secondary (and even bit) characters that the books are incredibly enjoyable to read. Any thoughts? Have any of you seen this opinion before?
~DawnFire -
Out of sheer curiosity... by
on 2013-03-08 16:33:00 UTC
Reply
...what are the arguments that support Harry being a Stu?
-
Tying threads together by
on 2013-03-08 00:51:00 UTC
Reply
In my opinion, firemagic and hS hit it on the head (and it seems that you're getting it): it's all in how you define Sue. Now I haven't read Daughter of Smoke and Bone, but according to what you said, she does not seem like a Sue, since the story does not revolve around her. And if the MC herself has to deal with actual conflict (as opposed to just breezing through everything with her sooper speshul powers because *everyone knows* that nothing should go wrong for the heroine) then that settles it: she's no Sue.
In short, I think that there is a difference (albeit a slight one) between an author loading her main character with so many powers that it breaks the suspension of disbelief even given the continuum, and a full-blown Mary Sue.
P.S.: At the risk of sounding pedantic, it seems that we Anglophones have a problem with pluralizing Deus ex Machina. If you are open to consulting the original Latin, consider Dei ex Machinis. -
Latin plurals... by
on 2013-03-08 08:09:00 UTC
Reply
... are all very well, but surely the gods are all coming from the same machine? In which case, Dei ex Machina would be more appropriate.
Okay, my actual reason for replying... it's not entirely about whether the character deals with conflict. There are many Mary-Sues who are captured and tortured (and then sexed back to health by Legolas, but I digress). The question is whether the author has to deal with conflict when it arises, or just gives the character everything.
To take two examples:
Marianna was walking through the woods when suddenly a pair of Orcs leapt out from behind a tree. "Now we have you!" one snarled, grabbing her by the arm. "You will never escape!"
Obviously Marianna is in a 'conflict' situation - but the author isn't. She's handed her character a situation, without anyone having to work to get it. Essentially, this scene exists solely to move the characters to their next positions.
Marianna hadn't slept in three days. She had lost track of exactly which mountain she was on - she wasn't even entirely sure what range it was in! All she knew was that she had to keep running, keep moving away from-
She tripped, for the hundred thousandth time, shredding even more of her jeans and gaining new cuts on her hand. With a part of her mind - a part that remained calm despite the horrific danger - she wondered how many scratches it would take before she infected herself with something.
When she stood up, an Orc shoved her back down. "Now we have you!" it snarled. "You will never escape!"
That scene exists as a scene in its own right. The end result is exactly the same, but here Marianna hasn't twisted the story to get herself captured as fast as possible - she's done what any normal person would do, and bolted. What happens after she bolts? Well, (thinks a non-Mary-Sue author) they need to hunt her down...
hS -
I thought that Tawaki... by
on 2013-03-08 21:15:00 UTC
Reply
and a certain recent newbie were the only ones beside myself who knew Latin!
*The more you know....*
But that is why I deliberately chose the word "consider" in my post: because I knew that depending on what is being pluralized (the gods only, or the machines as well), the term could be dei ex machina or dei ex machinis.
Latin aside, back to the main point: I totally agree with what you just said. It seems that I may have misunderstood your previous post or misspoke in what I intended to be a tying-things-together post.
So, going back to the main question: Is there such a thing as a well-written Mary Sue? Depends on how you define Sue. If one goes strictly by the PPC's definition of Mary Sue, the main points of which you and others have pointed out, it's very hard, if not impossible, to have a well-written Sue. On the other hand, If one is more loose in one's definition (e.g., all that makes a Sue is sooper speshul powers), then it is possible to have a well-written Sue. -
If one defines things loosely enough... by
on 2013-03-08 22:03:00 UTC
Reply
... then pretty much any protagonist can be called a Mary-Sue. Think about the unlikely luck given to characters like Frodo Baggins - or Oliver Twist - or Rincewind. But, obviously, none of them are Suvian, and you'd need a pretty darn loose definition to claim they were.
(And if you define things loosely enough, you could potentially claim I know Latin. :P)
hS -
Actually, I think Latin's fairly popular around here. by
on 2013-03-09 10:53:00 UTC
Reply
I know a smattering, but I'd probably have to consult a dictionary and tables of endings for most of it, now, and I only ever got taught the present tense. I also remember somebody complimented me on using proper Latin endings once... Kitty Noodles, maybe?
Perhaps Latin and good writers are drawn to one another (perhaps because good writers are less likely to be afraid of Latin's copious amounts of grammar, or because being drilled in said grammar encourages good writing). -
HmmÂ… by
on 2013-03-07 22:44:00 UTC
Reply
I think you're talking about the story being written well despite having a Sueish character. Well, Star Trek: The Next Generation had the famed Canon Sue Wesley Crusher, but the show was still excellent, and even the episodes with him weren't that bad, mostly because they worked on debunking his Sue-ish-ness (there's one where his genius-kid science experiment escapes and threatens the ship). They still weren't the high points of the show, though, and as I go down my lists of favorite episodes, I find that he doesn't play a big role in any of them.
In fanfiction, I've found Suefics that have decent SPaG and keep everyone in character, yet are still blatant Suefics. I will be less likely to spork them, though, since there isn't as much to laugh at. -
Er... Difficult question, this. by
on 2013-03-07 22:15:00 UTC
Reply
I could plug my more sue-ish characters as being well written, but that of course is just ego stroking, and I generally try to tone down my characters' benefits with equal or greater detriments anyhow, so they don't count.
I guess I could try and claim that Batman is a well-written Stu and see how that goes. -
Sara Douglass? by
on 2013-03-07 21:56:00 UTC
Reply
Have you ever read any fantasy novels by Sara Douglass? It's been a long time since I read anything by her, but I remember that she always gave her main characters tons and tons of powers. I mean, like, entire categories of magical abilities. They were usually (if not always) special chosen ones from birth or before, often with angsty pasts, and they could do whatever the plot required. And everyone loved them. I think. I might be misremembering one or two.
But the stories themselves were very interesting and well written nonetheless. -
Well, if ancient mythology counts... by
on 2013-03-07 21:17:00 UTC
Reply
Than just about everyone featured was either a sue or an anti-sue. To be fair, most were either firstborns, gods, or had divine blood running through their veins. So that works.
Another well written canon!sue, in my opinion, would have to be Princes Cadence. She is the pink alicorn princess of love with a special name amongst ponies (though translated roughly from italian, her name is My Love Song, which does sound a little more like a pony name), who foalsat Twilight and is engaged to Twilights brother who is captain of the royal guard and we never heard of before. If I had found that character premise in a fanfiction, she would find herself impaled with a spork so fast.
Yet, I think, she works. Somehow, some way, the writers of the show made her work, and work really well. Not well enough for best princess role, but well enough that I would not kill her if I went absolutely insane and began killing of perceived canon Sues as well. I think the reason as the way she was introduced: we saw the villain cloaked as her first. Then, once Chrysalis was revealed to be a villain, and we see Cadence for the first time, her determination to protect her fiancee, Twilight, and the rest of pony kind, you start to like her. Then when you see that she truly cares for anyone who is willing to be loved, and will even sacrifice her own life to protect those she loves... You actually like her as a character. So there you go ladies and gentlemen, a well written Sue, who has no reasons she should be able to be well written.
However, I assume you mean well written Mary Sues from fanfiction. In that department... Nyx from Past Sins? I don't know, I have not found one other than her who even makes me hesitate. I don't think she is brilliantly well written, and personally am not a fan of hers, but when one character has the fandom split almost in two over whether she is a good character who deserves all of our love, or if she is a flaming Mary Sue who needs to die for the preservation of canon, she definitely gets some hesitation and a mention here. She lies on the absolute border of being a bad Mary Sue and a good Mary Sue, but her Mary Sueness is almost undeniable.
Actually, that said, has anyone else read Past Sins? If you have, what did you think about it and the character of Nyx? If you have not, here is the link to the fic: http://www.fimfiction.net/story/41596/Past-Sins
Pen Stroke is a good author, I think. I have read some of his other works and enjoyed them quite a bit. However, this fic, his most famous one, is the center of a huge amount ofgory fights to the deathdebates, almost all of them about Nyx. As a Mary Sue killing group, it seems like a reasonable place to decide, definitively, whether Nyx is good or bad. Keep in mind, this is not about if the fic is good or bad, this is just about the character of Nyx. -
...No. by
on 2013-03-08 08:10:00 UTC
Reply
I am going to make a voodoo doll of you and throw it into a blender for mentioning Past Sins.
...Not really, but still. One of those things I just... Don't want to see mentioned ever.
Also, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on Cadence being well-written, but if I went into detail, I'd probably get yelled at here. I'm not very good at expressing my opinions on certain subjects without resorting to metaphorically beating people over the head with them... -
I see what you mean about Cadance, but... by
on 2013-03-07 22:25:00 UTC
Reply
...Still not a fan. It felt to me like the problems of those episodes should have been solved by the Mane Six, not a new character we just met. Also, she was apparently an important part of Twilight's backstory, yet we never met her before. Same with Shining Armor - if Twilight loved him so much, why did she never mention him? Also, I hear that Cadance was added so that there could be a pink princess pony for little girls - well, that comes across as gender stereotyping to me. Just a bit. *sarcasm* So, shoved in, upstages main characters, and propagates gender stereotypes. Smells like Sue to me.
So yeah, not a Cadance fan. Hope I haven't sounded too rant-y. -
Ah, yes, but whos fault is that? by
on 2013-03-08 04:55:00 UTC
Reply
Remember, despite it's quality, the show is basically a 22 minute long commercial for the toys. In the chain of command, there are yhe animators, then the writers, then the directors, but above them is Big Daddy Hasbro. Hasbro has full creative controll over the cartoon. They just decided to allow the artists to do -almost- whatever they want, but the controll is still there. That's why Celestia and Luna are called 'princesses' and Cadence is an alicorn of love. She was going to be a normal unicorn who had a very loving personality, but hasbro wanted a new pink alicorn princess to sell, and thus Cadence became a Mary Sue. Is she the best? No, but she is the best with what the writers had.
Just my opinion. Apricot, since you currently have the computer, your thoughts? -
Yeah, I guess. by
on 2013-03-08 13:32:00 UTC
Reply
But they managed to work other concessions to Hasbro in a less obviously forced way. They needed to have a fashionable pony so they could sell outfits, and Rarity happened. She's fashionable but that doesn't make her any less of a strong character. They needed to have princess ponies, and that was simply a matter of changing the title. The job is still queen. It also seems slightly justified in that two princesses rule.
Or, so that the plot of "A Canterlot Wedding" isn't completely screwed over, that the changelings did something to the Elements of Harmony that made them inactive, and Cadance and Shining Armor's love made them active so that the Mane Six could use them. It just seemed to me that a season finale should have involved the Mane Six using the Elements of Harmony, not just helping some new pony so she can douse Canterlot in saccharine love.
So they could have done better, but you're right, it's not as bad as it could have been. She could have been a main cast member and not just a recurring character. She could have completely upstaged them rather than partially.
Speaking of controversial things in MLP fandom, what is your opinion of Alicorn!Twilight? My feeling is that it was really sudden and the episode was incredibly rushed, but if they explain it next season, I'll be okay with it. They better show some pressures of being a princess, some alienation from society because of her new high status, some crashes as she learns to use her wings, etc. If they don't, then they took my favorite character and Sued her, andthere will be bloodI will be upset and pretend fourth season isn't canon. -
...Twiacorn... by
on 2013-03-08 20:13:00 UTC
Reply
Deep breaths man, you can do this.
...Twiacorn...
I hate Twiacorn. No, not Twilight, she is still best pony in my opinion, but I hate the wings. Why? Because I liked good old unicorn Twilight, being with her friends, reading books, fighting Ursa Minors. Now she is a princess for absolutely no reason than Big Daddy Hasbro wants yet another toy with girly colorization.
From tweets from the creators, what you are hoping for is what is going to happen, but what I am hoping for is that the change is temporary. I don't know, perhaps Star Swirl the Bearded comes back and changes he into a powerful unicorn wizard pony, maybe Discord takes her wings away and Twilight prefers it because the stress of princesshood it too great, I don't know. All I know is: I hope she ditches the wings. Really, REALLY hopes she ditches the wings. -
That would be really awesome. by
on 2013-03-10 15:18:00 UTC
Reply
Especially if it were
QDiscord. I had a plot bunny before I saw the Twiacorn episode which involved Discord switching around their species, kind of the way the cutie marks were swapped, only better, because they would know what was happening to them and be upset about it i.e. Dash hates being an Earth pony. So, say I wrote this fic, and Discord made Twilight an Earth pony. She creates a spell to counteract Discord's magic and restores herself to unicorn, not alicorn.
Not like I have time to write said fic, but if you want to take the plot bunny, go ahead. I was thinking Dash, Twilight, and Rarity as Earth ponies, Pinkie as a pegasus, Applejack as a unicorn, and Fluttershy left unchanged, because a. Fluttershy is Discord's friend and b. she would care if she became a unicorm or Earth pony. She's already sort of an Earth pony and she'd just use her magic to help her animals.
It's funny that with how huge the brony fandom is the Hasbro doesn't realize making decisions like that isn't necessarily the best policy. Maybe it's just me, but I also think if a little kid is watching MLP and then wants the toys, it's because she wants toys of her favorite characters, not because she wants a princess pony. That is such a gender stereotyped way of looking at things, I could just scream! (eeee…) So both kids and bronies will be fine with good stories and interesting characters, and if they want to sell more toys, they should just expand the cast of background ponies. -
Ack, *the not...yhe. oopse. (nm) by
on 2013-03-08 04:57:00 UTC
Reply
-
Yeah, that sounded a little rant-y by
on 2013-03-07 22:28:00 UTC
Reply
But that may be because I had to sit and wait for you to finish writing that post when I had real work to do on the laptop.
And you're sitting next to me right now. -
I define the answer as 'no'. by
on 2013-03-07 20:51:00 UTC
Reply
By my understanding and definition of a Mary-Sue, a Sue is badly written. Any premise can be well-written: you can write a good story about a godlike character for whom everything goes right. That makes them not a Mary-Sue.
A Mary-Sue is someone who warps the story. She - or rather her writer - will twist everything to make sure she gets what her writer wants for her. That twisting is what makes the story bad, and is what makes her a Mary-Sue.
If she gets what her author wants for her without having to break the story to do it, she isn't a Mary-Sue.
hS -
Re:no by
on 2013-03-07 21:56:00 UTC
Reply
So it's not the character itself, it's the way the story bends to the character's will? Basically, no matter how gorgeous and talented and whatever the character is, as long as the character gets what he/she wants without too many Deus Ex Machina's and plot contrivances, he/she isn't a Sue?
If that's the case, I'd still prefer my characters more realistic, but I guess that works. -
If that's the case... by
on 2013-03-07 20:54:00 UTC
Reply
...it might be interpreted that 'Sues can only appear in fanfiction.
-
Not exactly. by
on 2013-03-07 22:55:00 UTC
Reply
The defining characteristic of a Sue - at least, in my opinion - is breaking rules of canon. For example, Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation breaks Star Trek canon because he pilots the Enterprise as a teenager (aren't there qualified personnel for that?) and is allowed to do so by Captain Picard despite Picard's dislike of children. Badly written means the writer breaking their own rules to make the character more speshul. In fanfiction, this is more common because you have to play by someone else's rules. But it can still happen in original fiction.
-
I see! (nm) by
on 2013-03-08 01:40:00 UTC
Reply
-
It depends on how you define Sue by
on 2013-03-07 20:49:00 UTC
Reply
I mean, the PPC definition kinda means that having an engaging plot doesn't really happen. Anyways, any character can seem Sueish broken down into parts. How did that MC act? If she had actual flaws and suffered consequences she's not really a Sue.
-
MC by
on 2013-03-07 22:03:00 UTC
Reply
She didn't really have flaws (almost everything she did was portrayed as good) and to be honest, the story was basically a paranormal romance :) I know, I know.
But there was really good world building, the prose was gorgeous, and I liked the secondary characters. Also, there was a nice angels vs devils war that wasn't your cliched good vs evil kind of conflict, more like Gray and Gray Morality.
So I guess she wasn't a Sue, because there was a plot outside of her.
