fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2790 ]

[ SECRET POST #2790 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2790 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 069 secrets from Secret Submission Post #399.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am so entirely tired of this kind of thing. In all honesty I don't even believe much in Mary Sue Traits anymore, because I feel like it's putting emphasis on the wrong thing. Instead of making a list of traits that Mary Sues have but OTHER characters can have as well, emphasis should be put on the things that make them Sues which is favoritism and preferential treatment by the narrative itself.

Mary Sues are characters that a.) are so perfect that aren't challenged by the story events, and that b.) get obvious favoritism from the author. You could have a decent flawed and reasonably treated character that is pretty, has a tragic past, or has some kind of special status but is a good character , and a middle class ordinary girl who is a complete Mary Sue because of how the author gives her everything she wants.

This would be great. Too much emphasis of treating the symptoms, when they can be benign and linked to great characters, not enough on the sort of thing that these are symptomatic of, which is more important.

But a list of symptoms is a lot easier to target than a cause behind them, it seems. :/

And there's the whole thing of people jumping on the term just because they don't like the character, regardless of anything else.

Edited 2014-08-23 20:24 (UTC)

Personally I think instead of looking at what traits a character has, you could target WHY they had them.

Cause with some things, knowing WHY a creator gave their character that can tell you more than the existence of the trait itself.

And there's the whole thing of people jumping on the term just because they don't like the character, regardless of anything else.

I do hate that.

For a second I thought "Wait, didn't I say that?" but then I realised different angles, and you seem to be suggesting a way to see more than the symptoms. Which is good!

Yep. Because with different motivations, a trait can go down VERY differently.

EX: http://jaybiejay.tumblr.com/post/94547695379/poor-reason-to-give-your-oc-a-tragic-backstory

Here are six motivations for one choice, three good and three not so much. The good ones basically amount to 'because it's part of/challenges the character' or 'because it makes an interesting character where as the others are either cheapening shortcuts and fetishization.

The former three reasons would almost definitely result in a poorly written "sympathy sue" like we've seen many times before, especially in the hands of an beginner. I even believe that in the case of an expert they might end up in a mediocre character because the focus is more on 'to get this reaction to my character' rather than portraying their situation and plight properly.

The best way to describe it is that "when you use traits as a shortcut or to cut corners or "cheat" , then you end up with the trait appearing to be 'Sueish'."

Well the poor reasons ones are pretty obvious that they are poor, right? (Especially the "acceptable shitty behaviour" one, which is kinda becoming a pet peeve to me).

(I double checked against that list with some characters of mine that have tragic backstories, and realised that I didn't really intend to go into them when I finally work on their stories. Just know them and know the effects on their behavior and hint at them, because they themselves don't really want to talk about it.)

I agree. I feel like those are basically cheapening. Cheapening what is a serious issue.

The few times I've been a beta reader/character advisor for an OC, when it came to their backstory- I would caution them against tragic backstories (unless they were prepared for doing lots of research and work) for THIS reason. Not "because it's Mary Sueish" but because"if you're not careful you could cheapen what's a serious issue"

The crazy thing?

That explanation almost always works (so far anyway, though the people I worked with were fairly reasonable). It's important to remember the REASONS we advise people against writing something. "Because it's Mary Sueish" is not really a reason and relying on it weakens critique skills.

I never told them "you shouldn't have tragic/abusive back-stories" because I didn't think it would do any good, it's better to tell them "if you're GOING to do it, here's what you do". That way at least you know they have the proper information and knowledge. Because with many young writers, chances are good they'll do it anyway. Also considering some of my works I'd be hypocritical. XD

Research is almost always a must for good stories. And stories that are fun to write may not be fun to read.

Glad to hear it works!

And, of course, real people can have tragic backstories too.

Indeed.

It's easy to get carried away with "OH THIS IS SO COOL" and forget about story when you're a young writer, and sometimes when you're older.

It can help to appeal to someone's decent side and talk to them like a friend who's on their side. Be honest but in a way that's tactful and kind. Talk with them as if you KNOW they can do really well if just given the chance.

I agree. One of my character's emotionally abusive grandparents were inspired by the experiences of friends of mine. I wanted to call to attention the kind of subtler emotional abuse that doesn't get enough attention or recognition. How it can hurt just as much and be just as powerful and equally difficult since there's not as much outward signs. His broken self image as a result of their abuse becomes a big issue as the story goes on. One of his challenges is to learn to like himself. The biggest and most worrying part of it is that he doesn't dwell or brood on it, he really just sort of accepts it as normal and doesn't think there's anything wrong with him hating himself.

(at one point in the story when he almost loses a sibling , he almost shuts down and gives up, deciding he has no purpose other than to be around for someone else's sake.)

I wrote it so that it's not stated "[name] is depressed and hates himself", but it can be seen in his actions and what he thinks and does.

Indeed, indeed.

Clever! And showing, not telling, which is often good. Though in story creation, sometimes the strongest scenes can come from not strictly following rules (e.g. a scene based around a character realising that they are depressed).

Yeah.

I want to avoid brooding, I made him self aware in some respects about himself (sometimes bordering on being overcritical) and basically just writing him like "what would a person with these issues DO? how would they react?"

Showing through actions can be more powerful than words, IMO. I just want to write a character with self hate issues that's genuine, and not a typical brooder.

Sounds pretty good to me!

Thanks! I hope I can pull it off well.

+1, and your definition works equally well with Mary Stus.

Yep I like to think that the problem with Mary Sue lies in favoritism and that is something that can happen regardless of gender.

That and putting all of one's favorite traits in one character which leads to favoritism which leads to Mary Sue.

Instead of making a list of traits that Mary Sues have but OTHER characters can have as well, emphasis should be put on the things that make them Sues which is favoritism and preferential treatment by the narrative itself.

Yes, this, exactly. Sometimes people think because a character herself is well-written and flawed, that means she can't be a Sue, but no no no, when the story is built around her like she shits gold no matter what the actually does, that's a Sue.

Agreed.

It's common for some people to give their characters flaws just to say they have them but they're never treated in story as such. If they count as flaws they HAVE to effect them in story, they have to have negative repercussions for the character. If they don't , they're not flaws.

Also- The problem with going by traits is that CONTEXT changes everything.

Giving them flaws just in name... like Bella Swan and Anastasia Steele? Yeah, that's pretty much what usually happens. To be honest, I'd rather read about a "perfect" character that acknowledges its perfection than characters like those two.

To be honest, I'd rather read about a "perfect" character that acknowledges its perfection than characters like those two

Weirdly, that's why Barbie: Life in the Dreamhouse works for me. Barbie is portrayed as and is acknowledged as being a pretty much perfect and extremely talented person (well, doll), but she's still an interesting character to me and I find her very likable. Of course, the fact that the show is an affectionate parody and very self aware also helps a lot

I think the concept is largely incoherent applied to characters in original works, where you can't by definition, upstage the main cast with an character insert. Yes, there are exceptions (Wesley Crusher) but they're exceptions.

Eh...I would argue that it is still more possible than you would think to have characters in original fiction that are given lots of favoritism. I've read books where I felt like the protagonist was a little over-favorited.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2790 ]

THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP

Re: THANK YOU OP