featherxquill | In Which Feather Quill Rants...

Current Mood: all fired up

Entry tags:

feminism,
rant

In Which Feather Quill Rants...

I want to rant about MARY-SUES. Ergh, I hear you sigh. Not another person who found Fanfiction dot net and realised it was full of SHIT.

Well, actually, no.

This rant is in favour of Mary Sues. Well, kind of. I would like to know what Mary-Sues actually ARE. I know the 'dictionary' definition, but what that is and what it equates to in people's minds are two totally different things.

This is not something I have trouble with much anymore, since I haven't played (rp-d or fanficced) with my OFC much at all in the last six months, but it used to be something I came up against all the time. Hatred of OFCs, hatred of Mary-Sues. Being called Mary-Sue by people who hadn't even stopped to watch you play, but decided on it by simply glancing at your signature.

What exactly makes a female character a Mary-Sue? Commonly, it is the assumption that the writer/rp-er is making an idealised version of herself, that a MS is just too perfect to be real.

What bothers me is what makes a character be seen as a Mary-Sue. Any character who is seen to be both attractive AND intelligent is a Mary-Sue, any character who is more powerful than (than what? than Harry? than Dumbledore?) is seen as a Mary-Sue. And fandom hates them. Men hate them. Women hate them. Everyone seems to hate them.

What bothers me is the idea that a woman CANNOT be all of those things - beautiful, intelligent, sexy, powerful. The assumptions that these kind of women are to be bashed, flamed and put down - even in fanfiction - is distressing to me.

Thank God, women like this do exist. There are women in the world - in the workforce, in academia, wherever - that are all of these things. Flick through any glossy magazine. Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Lopez. Beautiful, sexy, rich, powerful, famous. Often cut down by reporters. If these women were written into fiction, would they be Mary-Sues?

I have heard people call Hermione Granger a Mary-Sue, just for being intelligent. The most horrible thing to do to Hermione, according to some readers, is to make her beautiful. Why is that? Is Hermione only allowed to be seen as a real woman while she is either intelligent OR sexy? Why can she not be both? When is she ever described in canon as being ugly? Admittedly, there are many writers out there who completely ignore canon and turn characters into horrible parodies of the ones we know and love, but why does a Hermione who decides that hey, maybe it would be nice to straighten my hair a bit immediately become a Hermione-sue? (Go and read Anna's Roman Holiday for a story where Hermione is both intelligent and sexy, and STILL a real, three dimensional, recognisable character.

And what about the male characters? People talk about 'Gary-Stu', but hardly as often as they talk about his female counterpart. Gary-Stuism usually happens to Snape, and usually involves some sort of makeover. But I'm not really sure that's what qualifies as a Gary-Stu, in terms of the 'projection' definition.

I have a friend who RPs Snape (or at least used to), and he refuses to believe that Snape could ever fall in love. Now, is something like that really canon at all? We know nothing at all about Snape in that capacity. All information we have about him is filtered through Harry, and through the channels of student/teacher relationships. We know NOTHING about Snape's desires for romance/relationships or lacktherof. Yes, this is going somewhere.

What interests me is that for a MALE RPer of Snape (and the other male Snape rpers that I know), the attraction seems to be to play a complete and utter bastard of a man who can tell people off as he pleases, or (in the case of the foremost Snape) take rp lovers that he will never care for or want for more than sex. Is this Snape 'canon'? Is snarky!bastard!hateful!Snape more canon than one who shows emotions in private? Is he more of a believable man than a woman who is intelligent, sexy and powerful? I don't really think so. I think the desire to play a Snape who is mean and nasty stems as much from perceived 'canon' Snape as it does from a desire to inhabit a factional character and act in a way that you would never be able to in RL, and hence exactly what women are criticised for when they create 'Mary-Sue' characters.

I don't think any of these characters are Mary-Sues. Obviously, I don't extend this to include those characters who have ten animagi forms, are part fairy and part Tolkien elf, are Snape's daughter and Dumbledore's granddaughter and both Harry and Draco's sister and going out with Ron, but I heartily dislike characterisation of all beautiful, intelligent, powerful female characters as Mary-Sues. Thanks to feminism and the battles fought in the past, women are able to be all of these things in the real world. Don't crucify them when they appear in the fictional one.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Great points! I, too, am in favour of original characters...and if they're well written, they absolutely do not deserve the crap they get just by their being non-canon!

I've always viewed Mary Sue (through all the Mary-Sue bashing I've seen) as meaning the author putting their own characteristics into a previously non-existent character and making that character something special (and sometimes altering a canon character to be more like themselves so that they can live through a character they adore and want to be more like). Basically, it's a way of putting themselves into a position of prominence among canon characters of a story they love--and often very badly so. People call Hermione a Mary Sue, probably, because Jo has said there are elements of herself in Hermione--I think this is people just looking to be difficult. I've also seen fic that's likely among the worst cases of Mary Sue-ing ever...years before the term had even been coined...lol

From what I understand it's not so much bashing on the Zeta-Joneses, Hermiones, et al, of the world...more like the authors turning themselves into Zeta-Joneses and Hermiones and Snapes and giving themselves a role they otherwise would never inhabit.

Some good points, though.

I really do not have a problem with a Sue as long as it is well written. Although there are some that just make you roll your eyes and hit the backspace button. What also has to be remebered is most of the Sue writers at the Pit are fledgling writers trying to find their voice. But still, some of the stuff published is so horrible that it does give Sue-ism a bad name, and maks many people stay away from that kind of writing.

I don't mind a good mary-sue from time to time as long as she isn't too perfect. Yes she can be beautiful, intelligent, and powerful, but she needs a flaw and most writers fail to give her that one thing that would make her human. Flaws are what makes humans perfect. Dumbledore, as powerful and intellegent as he is, makes mistakes, Harry is still growing and learning, Hermione is wrong from time to time. That's what we love about these charectors. They are real to a point. They can preform magic yet still be like kids we went to school with, like teachers we had in school.

What I'm saying is that no one is 100% perfect, there will always be something wrong with an individual. That is the downside of most Mary-Sues, they are too perfect. They got the looks, the power, the smarts, and they step in the way and can never be wrong. I've ran into too many of those fics and it just makes my stomach wrench and want to rip my eyes out.

Thanks! That was very refreshing. And thanks also to the four responses above. I too like to remember that young writers have to crawl before they can walk. And besides, its unbecoming in readers to pitch fits over the quality of something we don't pay for. ;D

I find the pivotal hallmark of a Mary Sue is not so much her looks and abilities (multiple animagi, wandless lightning bolts, and exotic ancestry aside) as what she's doing with them that really gums the story up. And reveals the Author-Sue standing in self dialog: "I'm Princess Poofy/Gothy/Hotbod! I have awesome powers and everyone loves me! I can do anything I want! So I'm going to...um...I'll...I'll...wear leather pants! With a thong showing in the back! I'll stick my gum in Draco's hair and call him a doodoo-head! I'll play my favorite music really loud! I won't have any parents or a curfew and, and, and, I'll have sex! Yeah! And, and, stuff! Yeah! I'll have lots of great stuff!

You get the idea. World enough, and time...and a fourteen year old's taste, sensibility, lifeskills, and agenda. That's a MarySue.

You go, girl! Personally, I think that Mary Sues should only exist in badfic. Frankly, it's hard to write fanfic for any length of time without introducing new characters. I mean, come on. And even though some of my favorite original characters (Billie from "True Nature" comes loudly to mind) could easily be called Mary Sues, I like to think they are fun and complex and at least interesting to read.

I have much more problem with badfic and bad characterization than with Mary Sues, personally.

Okay, I'm admitting it. I am both a Mary-Sue and a Gary-Stu (I'm bi, so I figure nobody really cares about the gender of the characters I create even if they're based on myself). OC's are fun to write, create, etc. but as was stated above, they can't be perfect or they're stupid. My current OC, for example, is named Raven Knight (okay, okay, it's a stupid pun . . . but I couldn't think of anything better) and is the lead singer in a "local" band (you know, the kind that plays in pubs and probably never puts out an album) that Remus plays guitar for. She's sexy, she's smart, she's a good singer. But she's also a touchy little bitch. (Think Snape on one of his really, really, really bad days.) Cross your eyes at her and she's liable to go nuts on you. I've had several people tell me (since I openly admitted that she is in fact a self-insert, even though she looks very little like me and I deliberately made her vocal abilities better than mine) that she is one of the best self-inserts/Mary-Sues/OFC's they've ever seen, and when I ask why, they say it's because she acts real. She's a Muggle and although she's been exposed to the magical world via Remus and his friends, she's not entirely accepting of all of it. She's not ready to believe at the drop of a hat that it might be all real and not just a joke. Her only magical powers consist of having an extraordinary ability to make everyone within a 100-mile radius run and hide when she slams a door just right (PMS ROCKS). She's not related to any of our dear heroes or heroines.

I think the people who make themselves into Dumbledore's daughter, Snape's daughter (yes, I've seen that happen when a rather lurid Mary-Sue outlined her genealogy - she somehow ended up with three parents, all of whom were male - James Potter was the other one), McGonagall's niece, and then said character is 17 but only starting now at Hogwarts because she THOUGHT she was a Squib all this time and really isn't, but in spite of that she knows more about magic than the entire Trio combined, is better in Potions than even Snape, and SHE is the one who REALLY has to fight Voldemort because she was ACTUALLY Harry's "identical" twin (I hated to point this out to the poor girl, but identicals are ALWAYS the same gender . . . ) - what they're out for is to say "Nyah, nyah, look, I'm better. I'm more powerful. I can do so much better than (insert author's name here, including JKR's name) because *I* know how to create an all-powerful character!" and they miss the point that the HP characters are so poignant, so endearing, so REAL because they ARE real - everyone knows the bossy know-it-all who can quote Shakespeare (Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, whoever) at the drop of a hat; the overshadowed, hand-me-down-world adventurer; the perservering kid from a shitty background; the playground pariah who grows up into a son of a bitch because he doesn't know anything different; the Mr. Chips who, in spite of his great advice and warm, calming demeanor, can never be quite right because he cares too much; the practical joker who stops at nothing for a good laugh. They're part of the life of EVERYONE. I could in fact take my own social circle and rename everyone in it to fit a Harry Potter character - even Dumbledore.

I think there is a difference between OC's, self-inserts, and Stues (my word that encompasses both genders): self-inserts may or may not stick around for a long time (Raven's shown up twice in a 21 chapter story, and her part is usually comic relief), but they're essentially you, as you truly are (unless you give yourself black hair instead of blonde *coughcough*), faults and peccadilloes and everything. OC's may or may not be based on you, yourself, as you are, or on anyone you know. All characters start as OC's, even Harry and Snape and Dumbledore. They are JKR's OC's. Stues are the annoying characters who can do all and see all and be all because they (think) they kick ASS, y'all, and who's going to stop them?

Wow - I'm sorry, I wrote you a novel! (geez . . . I guess this explains why all my friends encourage me to write fanfiction.) Anyway . . . okay . . . I commented . . . I think I'm going to just slink away in shame now . . . because my mouth is too big . . . *snort*

I don't write much fanfiction anymore. I am trying to get a published writing career going. But It can be just as tough to create your own characters for your own universe and have them not labelled Mary sue. Many of my friends don't understand there's a fine line between between 'write what you know and have experienced' and Mary Sueness.

so it isn't just in fanfic. I even have a friend that unless the story is male/male slash, her Mary Sue radar goes overboard.

I want to say one other thing: there's a fine line between an intelligent, well-created self-insertion character and a Mary sue. People don't get it, nor do they seem to get that canon characters can be MS-by-proxy, also known as 'placeholder characters'.

*Holds up a lighter*
Thank you so much for writing this! I've created a couple of original characters and am CONSTANTLY afraid of them being called Mary-Sues. True some characters are OVERLY powerful, or OVERLY beautiful, but most characters that people call Mary-Sues are actually just characters that are slightly above normal. I hope more people read your essay!

Obviously, I don't extend this to include those characters who have ten animagi forms, are part fairy and part Tolkien elf, are Snape's daughter and Dumbledore's granddaughter and both Harry and Draco's sister and going out with Ron, but I heartily dislike characterisation of all beautiful, intelligent, powerful female characters as Mary-Sues

My, albeit limited, experience with this fandom so far is that there are four kinds of writers, three kinds of readers and five kinds of 'Sues'

Writer 1: Fantasy-- she (almost always a she in this fandom) is writing about the magical parts of the books, those things which are, inherently, unbelievable.

Writer 2: Romance-- she is writing about interactions between characters, usually romantic ones. Whether she uses Canon Characters or Other Characters, she's writing about their love lives and how they relate to one another.

Writer 3: Adventure-- she is writing about a chain of events. It's very plot heavy, with exciting battles and dramatic rescues

Writer 4: Psychological-- she is writing character studies and exploring the inner workings of a character's mind.

All of these can be happy, sad, fluffy, dark, dramatic or stark. The best fics (and in a broader sense, the best literature-- this is not unique to fanfiction) combines elements of two or more of these. At the end, though, there will be a slant in one direction or another. Something is more important than the others, is the driving force behind the work.

There are three kinds of readers:

Reader 1: Escapist-- she reads because she's had a long, hectic day at work/with the kids, and for just a little while, she wants to lose herself in a story.

Reader 2: Empath-- she reads for largely the same reasons as the Escapist, but she puts herself *in* the story and runs around in one of the character's shoes. She doesn't merely lose herself, but she becomes someone else for a while and is able to live a life that is more exciting, more romantic, more dramatic or more whimsical than hers is.

Reader 3: Critic-- she reads for the literary merit, for the joy of reading. She's a thinker, and she will never get lost in the story-- she analyzes every word, and she wants to be taken on an intellectually stimulating journey.

There are two types of Sues:

Reader's Sue, who is an idealization of something that is basically real, and a character whose shoes the reader can step into unobtrusively; and

Writer's Sue, who is the self-insert of the author.

And, of course, there are combinations thereof and there are characters who are not sues at all, but momentarily putting those aside.

It's a matter of combining writers, readers and characters (and remember, there is no inherent intelligence or ability in any of these classifications-- we've all read horrible psychology, we've all seen stupid readers who were very full of themselves and we've all seen miserable characterizations... but I'm writing to the middle ground here, not the extremes).

So, assuming reasonably good writing, reasonably reasonable readers and reasonably inoffensive sues...

Romance writer + Escapist reader + Writer's Sue = Potentially a good combination. The escapist is reading a story, and she can read your story and enjoy the character who is your own self insert (provided your self insert doesn't develop nasty habits like single-handedly taking down a dozen Death Eaters)

Romance writer + Escapist reader + reader's Sue = Potentially a good combination. Really, the escapist reader is the easiest to write for, because she doesn't expect you to make everything perfect. As long as she can immerse herself in the story, she's happy.

Romance writer + Critical reader + Reader's Sue = Dodgy. Romance is a very formulaic genre, and chances are the critical reader isn't going to be thrilled with much that's in it, anyway. It's predictable, which frees up the reader to think an awful lot about the characters.

Romance writer + critical reader + Writer's Sue = Friction. The critic isn't occupied with the story, and therefore has plenty of time to critique the characters. And when the character she's critiquing is the writer's stand-in, there is high potential for sparks to fly.

(cont)

Romance writer + empathetic reader + reader's Sue = Match Made in Heaven. This is a lovely genre for the empathetic reader to put herself into because the endings are happy, the girl gets her man, and fluffy babies result. Whatever conflict was there is going to be resolved. It's very neat, and it ends very nicely.

Romance writer + empathetic reader + Writer's Sue = either heaven or hell. If the reader is able to share the stand-in with the writer, then this works just as well for her as the reader's sue. If the reader and writer have similar desires and expectations, this works well. If the writer is into goth and the reader is into glam, though, the writer's sue is going to get in the reader's way of self-insertion, and it will not be a happy fit.

Adventure writer + escapist reader + writer's Sue = potential. Once again, this reader is usually pretty easy going. as long as there is nothing that blatantly stands in her way, she's going to check her disbelief at the door and enjoy a good story.

Adventure writer + escapist reader + reader's Sue = potential. Once again, this reader is usually pretty easy going. as long as there is nothing that blatantly stands in her way, she's going to check her disbelief at the door and enjoy a good story.

Adventure writer + empathetic reader + writer's Sue = either heaven or hell. If the reader is able to share the stand-in with the writer, then this works just as well for her as the reader's sue. If the reader and writer have similar desires and expectations, this works well. If the writer is into goth and the reader is into glam, though, the writer's sue is going to get in the reader's way of self-insertion, and it will not be a happy fit.

Adventure writer + empathetic reader + reader's Sue = Excellent potential. Like romance, adventure lends itself well to the empathetic reader-- just like she dreams of Prince Charming, she also dreams of saving the day. Any time you let the empathetic reader come out on top, you're making her happy.

Adventure writer + critical reader + writer's Sue = Not half bad, provided the action is good. As long as the plot carries along and the Sue doesn't distract, this is a potentially happy couple.

Adventure writer + critical reader + reader's Sue = Again, not half bad, though this reader is likely to notice the lack of characterization. The critical reader tends to be more critical of a reader's Sue than the Writer's Sue, because from a literary perspective, the Writer's Sue is often better developed than the Reader's Sue.

Fantasy writer + escapist reader + writer's Sue = Great fit. The reader is looking to lose herself, and the less resemblence the story bears to her own problems, the better. This is a reader who wants to read about more interesting places than where she lives and more interesting characters than the ones she has to deal with. As long as the character is believable, she's going to buy it.

Fantasy writer + escapist reader + reader's Sue = Great fit. The reader is looking to lose herself, and the less resemblence the story bears to her own problems, the better. This is a reader who wants to read about more interesting places than where she lives and more interesting characters than the ones she has to deal with. As long as the character is believable, she's going to buy it.

Fantasy writer + empathetic reader + writer's Sue = = either heaven or hell. If the reader is able to share the stand-in with the writer, then this works just as well for her as the reader's sue. If the reader and writer have similar desires and expectations, this works well. If the writer is into goth and the reader is into glam, though, the writer's sue is going to get in the reader's way of self-insertion, and it will not be a happy fit.

Fantasy writer + empathetic reader + reader's Sue = Blissful. Like romance and adventure, fantasy also lends itself well to the empathetic reader-- in fact, fantasy often combines the two, giving this reader the best of both worlds-- she gets to be a romantic important character, an Arwen type or an Eowyn-- sword-weilding, beautiful, powerful and in love with the hero.

Fantasy writer + critical reader + writer's Sue = Seldom a good combination. Once again, this writer is not occupied enough with the story to leave the characters alone, and if she's critiquing the writer's stand-in, there's a high potential for offense.

Fantasy writer + critical reader + reader's Sue = Tetchy. This reader is going to notice the lack of characterization, and her eyebrows have already migrated to her hairline because the genre is so difficult for her to believe to begin with. You have to give this reader something to occupy her mind, and most fantasy won't do it.

Psychological writer + escapist reader + writer's Sue = Iffy. This reader wants to *escape* real life, not to be confronted with it. If she reads a writer's Sue that is a heavy psychological study, she's probably going to be reminded of someone she has to deal with in real life, and probably won't be thrilled. The only thing that turns this reader away is too much reality.

Psychological writer + escapist reader + reader's Sue = Not so hot. This reader doesn't necessarily want to lose herself in fiction, but if she does, she wants it to be a nicer world than the one she left. Psychological studies are often a hallmark of angst, and they can leave this reader feeling raw and dissatisfied.

Psychological writer + empathetic reader + writer's Sue = either heaven or hell. If the reader is able to share the stand-in with the writer, then this works just as well for her as the reader's sue. If the reader and writer have similar desires and expectations, this works well. If the writer is into goth and the reader is into glam, though, the writer's sue is going to get in the reader's way of self-insertion, and it will not be a happy fit.

Psychological writer + empathetic reader + reader's Sue = Danger. Code Red. This reader is getting lost in the character, remember? She is *becoming* the character. The psychological study is not a very safe place for her to do this. She is less likely to get her happy ending here, but even worse, it's not going to be a romantic unhappy ending. She isn't going to die heroically to save the world, and she isn't going to pine away for love. There is high potential for this reader to become psychotic with this story, because it's too raw for her.

Psychological writer + critical reader + writer's Sue = One sided bliss. The reader loves having something so real and raw to sink her teeth into, but the writer must be prepared for the critique. The critical reader recognizes psychology, and is going to be quite willing to discuss it at length, often in terms of how realistic it is and how 'screwed up' the character is. Given that this character is the writer's stand-in, there is once again a high potential for offense.

Psychological writer + critical reader + reader's Sue = True love. This reader really 'buys' this character, and there's plenty of room for her to analyze and think about it. This Sue isn't well-developed enugh to set off this reader's 'reality sensors', but she's interesting enough to intrigue the critic. This is a story the reader is likely to tout as 'brilliant', much to the writer's elation.

Now, if it were only so easy to guage writers and readers and characters, there'd be less 'Sue' accusation thrown around. For the critic, the challenge is to keep the character intriguing without flagging her as unrealistic. For the escapist, the character simply needs to stay out of her way. For the empath, the character needs to be 'safe' to 'become', and familiar enough that nothing stands in her way.

And any time a reader's expectations are not met, the cry of Sue! is the result.

</long, rambling, unsubstantiated observations>

are part fairy and part Tolkien elf

Why not?

Well, okay, ALL of those are drastic. But what's wrong with an OC who isn't human? Look at Fleur.

I think OC's are treated unfairly because of the really bad ones. I mean, it's fine not to like OC's - I just draw t he line at people who wank those who cchoose to write them.

Powerful doesn't mean shagging half of Hogwarts or obsessing over a particular character from the books. J-Lo is not intelligent, she wears fur, for goodness sake.

What bothers me is the idea that a woman CANNOT be all of those things - beautiful, intelligent, sexy, powerful.

No, you're using an argument in a place that makes no sense. Women can be these things but most British women AREN'T supermodels and that's the entire point. By giving people absolutely no flaws, they have no depth.

I see where you're coming from but you need to look at it from a different perspective.

Thank you for addressing this, since rampant Mary-Sue accusations are what's been keeping me afraid of writing OCs for so long. I liked that you pointed out that females (whether fictional or real) who embody all those qualities are often cut down by others, a lot more often than the male characters are. There's so much misogyny in our culture, that I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of it since women are so often considered a threat. In the end I'm wondering whether Mary Sues/Gary Stus are just described as such because they draw attention away from the characters of canon - in which case, I'm totally guilty of writing them; how else are we going to get to know the character?

Oh, believe me, I don't have a problem with characters that aren't human. My OFC, Lucretia, is a vampire, part of what leads some people to immediately assume her to be a non fleshed out Sue, because vampires are not strictly HP canon.

Well said. I've ranted about the not-so-subtle sexism involved in the Mary Sue witch-hunting before, so I'll try to keep this brief, but I'd venture to say that a LOT of the female characters in fanfic who get labeled "Mary Sues" wouldn't raise an eyebrow if they were male. The idea that women are not supposed to be Good At Stuff is so ingrained in pop culture that people actually miss the fact that in the Potterverse, they are; JKR has given us, as of OotP, an excellent cast of interesting and competent female canon characters. (Of course, quite a few readers, under the influence of too much fanfic, insist on labeling Hermione / Ginny / Tonks / Luna "canon Sues" -- an accusation I have never heard anyone level at Bill or Cedric or Sirius. But that is another rant for another time.)

Oh, sorry if I jumped on you! I can get a tad... ranty about OC's.

And where is this Lucretia fic? Sounds rather neat.

I'm not suggesting that someone who is beautiful, sexy, intelligent and powerful has no flaws. I'm not suggesting that these women are perfect, just that these traditional signifiers of Sue-ism seem to be these things. Many such women are competitive, obsessive, bitchy, power-hungry, self-obsessed. When a character liek this is depicted in a story and everyone loves her, I find it hard to believe, yes. Women like this are often hated/picked on by the media and other women (as your statement about J-Lo illustrates).

Some OFCs can be unrealistic, but I dislike the dissmissal of strong, beautiful women as Mary-Sues.

"I think the people who make themselves into Dumbledore's daughter, Snape's daughter (yes, I've seen that happen when a rather lurid Mary-Sue outlined her genealogy - she somehow ended up with three parents, all of whom were male - James Potter was the other one),"

did you ever see this (http://piratemonkeysinc.com/ms1.htm)?

OMG YES!!! I have! But the daughter of Snape-James-Dumbledore was the weirdest. She even had a hyphenated name. *shakes head to rid it of disturbing images*

The most horrible thing to do to Hermione, according to some readers, is to make her beautiful. Why is that? Is Hermione only allowed to be seen as a real woman while she is either intelligent OR sexy?

No, it's that she doesn't have to be beautiful to be a woman. She can have frizzy hair and hunch her back with the weight of all her books and hide away in a corner of the library and she's still presented as a positive character. She doesn't have to wake up at an ungodly hour of the morning to use Sleek-Easy potion and plaster on makeup, and neither does she have to suddenly become inexpicably beautiful.

Yes, there are women in the world who are Mary Sues, who are beautiful and wealthy and intelligent and thin and everything they can possibly want. Pick up a glossy magazine, like you said: we've got plenty of those role models. But these are not most women. Most women do not wear a size two, are not dating Brad Pitt, are not paid millions of dollars to star in a movie.

Hermione is - or at least should be - most women: she's extremely intelligent, somewhere between ugly and beautiful, sometimes rather bossy, but is still every bit as much a woman as Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Here via the Daily Snitch.

Thank you for saying this. Myself, I don't judge a Mary Sue based on the conventional version. I don't mind Original Characters. Oftentimes, they're nessary for the plot. However, when you insert an original character and write them in badly, then I call them Mary/Gary. It all depends on the author's writing ability.

I know it's crucial for young authors to write, even if it means producing large amounts of rubbish. I can remember stories that I wrote when I was younger (and indeed, even now) that have horribly perfect, cliches of characters. However, after writing, and then reading those stories, I could see that this 200k story I had just produced was utter and complete trash. I'd examine, and prod at the story until one day (hark!) I finally realized that I was writing the dreaded Mary Sues. You see, it wasn't that my characters were intellegent, amiable and beautiful people, but rather, it was that I had wrote them like the child I was. I had made them the most perfect people I could, because in my ten-year-old world, I had thought that perfect people were something that needed to be in stories. Now, I look at my stories and make sure that the writing in it exceeds the normal thirteen-year-old standard.

So, it's not the character that annoys me, it's the writing abilitly. If you can't see that your story is not captivating in the least bit, and is badly written and in need of editing, then I'll probably click the back button.

-Lizz

Word. And a particularly insightful look at Snape. I know that most of the players at Miliway_bar are women, but most of the characters are male. But the male - male RPing is an interesting phenomenon.
I find Mary Sues to be characters who are impossibly related to canon, know things (or give the impression of knowing things) that no other character could know (because of MS special relationship with the author), and who have impossible powers.
I don't have much to say, but that htis is interesting, is making me think, and has pushed me further into "where do Mary-Sue's come from" essay.

"he refuses to believe that Snape could ever fall in love. Now, is something like that really canon at all? We know nothing at all about Snape in that capacity. All information we have about him is filtered through Harry, and through the channels of student/teacher relationships. We know NOTHING about Snape's desires for romance/relationships or lacktherof. Yes, this is going somewhere."

You have a point there - assuming an incapacity into a character without canon evidence is as silly as making them do something that canon evidence (vice versa) says they cant; i.e it's technically against canon to make Voldemort fall in love - unless the writer *really* knew what he/she was doing & explained the shift very well - but not for Snape. JKR has said that the idea of someone falling in love with him is pretty awful, but she may simply be commenting on the fact that he is a generally unpleasant person & that he may have done something pretty awful in the past. She has never actually said (or wrote)that it was impossible & with the next book just about to come out there may be more hints that way about him.
(good places further reading on Snape Snape in love, an editorial (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/madampuddifoot/edit-rlabozetta01.shtml), & Motivation matters (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-subtlescience01.shtml) (about his committment to the side of light) & a good discussion on the development his character (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=58536)).

"Obviously, I don't extend this to include those characters who have ten animagi forms, are part fairy and part Tolkien elf, are Snape's daughter and Dumbledore's granddaughter and both Harry and Draco's sister and going out with Ron"

They are probably the bad apples that are spoiling it for the rest - I've read some downright irritating SS/OFC fics where the OC was just too impossible/took over too much/warped the canon folk unrecognisably OOC, but I've also read some really greatfics with that pairing. For example, there is this (http://fanfiction.mugglenet.com/viewstory.php?sid=25663) (on muggle.net). Believable, gracefully written, nice balance between the canon character & the OC.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

In Which Feather Quill Rants...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Writers, Readers and Sues (Part 1)

Re: Writers, Readers and Sues (Part 1)

Writers, Readers and Sues (Part 3)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject