case: ([ Zell; Sleepy. ])
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2008-02-10 05:08 pm

[ SECRET POST #401 ]


⌈ Secret Post #401 ⌋

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

1.


__________________________________________________



2.


__________________________________________________



3.


__________________________________________________



4.


__________________________________________________



5.


__________________________________________________



6.


__________________________________________________



7.


__________________________________________________



8.


__________________________________________________



9.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________



23.


__________________________________________________



24.


__________________________________________________



25.


__________________________________________________



26.


__________________________________________________



27.


__________________________________________________



28.


__________________________________________________



29.


__________________________________________________



30.


__________________________________________________



31.


__________________________________________________



32.


__________________________________________________



33.


__________________________________________________



34.


__________________________________________________



35.


__________________________________________________



36.


__________________________________________________



37.


__________________________________________________



38.


__________________________________________________



39.


__________________________________________________



40.


__________________________________________________



41.


__________________________________________________



42.


__________________________________________________



43.


__________________________________________________



44.


__________________________________________________



45.


__________________________________________________



46.


__________________________________________________



47.


__________________________________________________



48.


__________________________________________________



49.


__________________________________________________



50.


__________________________________________________



51.


__________________________________________________



52.


__________________________________________________



53.


__________________________________________________



54.


__________________________________________________



55.


__________________________________________________



56.


__________________________________________________



57.


__________________________________________________



58.


__________________________________________________



59.


__________________________________________________



60.


__________________________________________________



61.


__________________________________________________



62.


__________________________________________________



63.


__________________________________________________



64.


__________________________________________________



65.


__________________________________________________



66.


__________________________________________________



67.


__________________________________________________





Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 16 pages, 384 secrets from Secret Submission Post #058.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 ] broken links, [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] not!secrets, [ 1 ] not!fandom, [ 1 ] too big, [ 1 2 3 ] repeat.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Monday, February 11th, 2008.
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] demyx.livejournal.com 2008-02-10 10:46 pm (UTC)(link)
27. I dunno what most people's definition of "Sue" is, but it seems to be any female character who is a) important to the plot and b) has some significant power that made her important to begin with.

To which I say: if there's nothing special about that character, then why would they be in the story? OK, you don't want some normal boring character in a sea of special people unless it's for a comedic effect like in Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. I don't see why it's OK for the hero to be the Chosen One, but god forbid the female lead has some powers that make her relevant to the story and OH NO, SHE'S A CANON SUE BECAUSE SHE'S SPESHUL.

Well, no shit. Why the hell else would she be in the story?

It seems more like said females just have annoying character traits and it's easier to call them a Canon Sue then to just say "I don't like her." IT'S OK TO JUST SAY YOU HATE THE CHARACTER BECAUSE IF YOU FIND THEM ANNOYING, GUYS, THERE'S NO NEED TO DEVALUE HER ROLE IN THE STORY.

I just don't like hearing that so-and-so is a canon sue because she has some magical powers combined with a perky attitude and good looks when the male lead is probably the most powerful person on the planet and he has an angsty attitude and good looks, but it's A-OK because he's male and goes well with other guys.

Oh yeah, and 50:

I agree and that's entirely the reason I'm going to play this game. I'm sure I'll like it, but it looks like a KH high school AU and it amuses me.
Edited 2008-02-10 22:48 (UTC)

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] svati-arcturus.livejournal.com 2008-02-10 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Well in my opinion Kagome is a bit of a Sue--but then again I think a lot of characters are Sues.

Bella from Twilight comes to mind here.

I think there is a line where it crosses from 'a rationally special person' into 'Mary Sue'. Characters can have faults and still be special.

But at the same time, I agree with you that males never get a bad rap at all. THAT is extremely stupid.

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] demyx.livejournal.com 2008-02-10 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
I knew someone was going to whip out Bella. XD And that's a very good point, BUT! I still don't see her as a Sue, although I admit Twilight was also horribly written. It's just that if Bella wasn't unlucky and didn't taste good, there wouldn't be ... a story, basically (the 'being immune to vampire powers' thing seems alright to me, since every other vampire has a special power and that's what makes Bella interesting to Edward, but there really is no excuse for every boy in her school to fall in love with her, one feeling that way after he almost hit her with his car wtf).

But yeah, I wish someone would call Edward a Stu or something for once. It's not like Edward is the most original or interesting character there (personally, my favorites are Alice and Jacob. >_>)

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] svati-arcturus.livejournal.com 2008-02-10 11:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I see what you mean. But I think that Gary-Stu traits aren't anywhere near as well defined. The two characters I can immediately think of are Harry Potter and Dominic Deegan ;-). I think that Harry has Stu traits (super talented at certain things, is the key to everyone, etc.) but certainly flawed enough (really brash, kind of an idiot, can be an asswad, isn't good at everything, etc.).

Dominic Deegan, on the other hand...don't get me started ;-). Of course, Dominic Deegan only exists on the internet, so its a little different.

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] demyx.livejournal.com 2008-02-10 11:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh yeah, it's definitely easier to write a Mary Sue than a Gary Stu. I don't think Harry is a Stu at all for the traits that you mentioned, he was a decent character, I think.

but IAWTC with Dominic Deegan, oh yes. I only read so far into that because I liked the Orc chick (crap, I forget her name now), but Dominic himself just became so... boring.

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] forchancookie.livejournal.com 2008-02-10 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Word. So much word. All of a sudden every female character is a Sue? I don't think so. You don't have to like them, but c'mon, just writing them off because you don't like them is pretty dumb.

I'm sure this has something to do with all the slash and yaoi fangirls who suddenly hate all female characters. It's just another way to write off the females.

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] demyx.livejournal.com 2008-02-10 11:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, that's pretty much the sentiment I get. I know a lot of times people just don't like females because they don't like their personality or character or something, and that's fine with me, but to then call her a Canon Sue and say like the story is better off without her or something is just... eh.

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] sarajayechan.livejournal.com 2008-02-11 12:07 am (UTC)(link)
IT'S OK TO JUST SAY YOU HATE THE CHARACTER BECAUSE IF YOU FIND THEM ANNOYING, GUYS, THERE'S NO NEED TO DEVALUE HER ROLE IN THE STORY.

IAWTC
herongale: (aya- hello world)

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[personal profile] herongale 2008-02-11 02:30 am (UTC)(link)
Ya know, this argument is such a red herring. Because most people who are willing to call "canon sue" are also just as willing to call "canon stu." It's not a gendered thing, it's a matter of stereotypical characterization with unrealistic and inflated important in relation to the plot. This is an aspect of BAD WRITING and pro writers are just as suseptible to it as amateurs.

I would have much more respect for this argument if people said that they didn't want to hear the term "canon sue," period, INCLUDING in relation to obvious self-insert fanfics. Because either there is no such thing as a "canon sue," or there is.

If there is, then there is absolutely no logical reason to presume that this is a phenomenon that is somehow only restricted to fanfiction.
herongale: (Default)

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[personal profile] herongale 2008-02-11 02:35 am (UTC)(link)
(and to clarify... yes, even in fanfiction, a sue can be a "canon sue"... FOR THAT STORY.)

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] demyx.livejournal.com 2008-02-11 04:42 am (UTC)(link)
I wasn't talking about fanfiction, I was talking about source material, so I dunno where you got all that stuff about fanfic self-inserts from(which I don't defend, if you wanna make an awesome lead character, then write your own original fic).

I just don't like hearing all my favorite characters being decried as Mary Sues when half the time they aren't, and when the reasons people give me for said character being a Mary Sue can apply to the male counterpart, but the male is forgiven because he's "cooler" or something. I agree there are badly written males and females, but there good characters getting labeled as "Sue" for no good reason too. The stuff about there being no "Canon Sues" is just my opinion and I know people won't agree with it and I don't expect them to.
herongale: (Default)

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[personal profile] herongale 2008-02-11 06:19 am (UTC)(link)
I know you were not talking about fanfiction. But a bad original character is a bad original character, whether it occurs in fanfiction or in an original story. Either Mary Sues can exist in both formats, or they exist in neither. It is illogical to state that a character in an original piece of fiction cannot exhibit the traits of a Sue just because she happens to come with her own special little world. It's not the WORLD that defines a "Sue," but rather characteristics native to the OC.

All I'm saying is that either Mary Sues can exist across all forms of fiction, or they don't exist at all. There is nothing that requires them to be tied to derivative fanworks only.

Although it might hurt your feelings to have your favourite characters called "Sues," and although perhaps at least half the time those accusations are meritless, it does not follow that there are NO such things as Canon Sues. All it means is that the term is overused.

And I really don't buy the argument that female characters are disproportionately targeted. Some people, I'm sure, are sexist about this. But I don't think it's actually as prevalent as people like to imagine; everyone I know (including myself) who uses the Canon Sue label is just as quick to call someone a Canon Stu. A good many of my favourite anime series involve characters who are indisputably Canon Stus.

I suspect that your experience reflects your fannish preferences; you might see it more with female characters, perhaps because you pay more attention to those characters than other fans might. Slash fen are more likely to notice Canon Stus, for example, since they tend to prefer male characters.

The anon who posted the secret originally under discussion was saying that he/she looks down on people who think Canon Sues exist. I was not suggesting you said that, but since it WAS said, I think that point deserves to be countered. Anyone is free to look down on anyone for any reason, of course: but no one has to agree that said reasons are logical or fair.

Re: tl;dr comment to 27

[identity profile] demyx.livejournal.com 2008-02-11 06:34 am (UTC)(link)
Ah, I see your point now. And yeah, that is a damn good argument, one that I can't really counter, heh. My original point was that the term is overused, yeah, but I do know I can't say canon sues don't exist (I don't ever say a character is a Sue/Stu, I say they're poorly written, so I think I'm just calling them the same thing under a different title. Hm...)

I didn't agree with the original sentiments that people who think canon sues exist were wrong though, or that they were sexist, I just agreed that the term was thrown away WAY too much. But the heart of my comment was sort of "Yeah, female characters get shafted, rargh!".

Thank you for the discussion though! (not being sarcastic XD;) You are right, and I think I might have to renounce my opinion since I can't really think of any counter-argument on that, and well... I kinda agree. and besides, just because a character is a "Sue" doesn't necessarily mean people would hate them. I saw more than one secret about how people sometimes prefer "perfect" characters, so maybe the label isn't as bad as I think anyway.