fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1290 ]

[ SECRET POST #1290 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1290 ⌋

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

101.

__________________________________________________

102.

__________________________________________________

103.

__________________________________________________

104.

__________________________________________________

105.

__________________________________________________

106.

__________________________________________________

107.

__________________________________________________

108.

__________________________________________________

109.

__________________________________________________

110.

__________________________________________________

111.

__________________________________________________

112.

__________________________________________________

113.

__________________________________________________

114.

__________________________________________________

115.

__________________________________________________

116.

__________________________________________________

117.

__________________________________________________

118.

__________________________________________________

119.

__________________________________________________

120.

__________________________________________________

121.

__________________________________________________

122.

__________________________________________________

123.

__________________________________________________

124.

__________________________________________________

125.

__________________________________________________

126.

__________________________________________________

127.

__________________________________________________

128.

__________________________________________________

129.

__________________________________________________

130.

__________________________________________________

131.

__________________________________________________

132.

__________________________________________________

133.

__________________________________________________

134.

__________________________________________________

135.

__________________________________________________

136.

__________________________________________________

137.

__________________________________________________

138.

__________________________________________________

139.

__________________________________________________

140.

__________________________________________________

141.

__________________________________________________

142.

__________________________________________________

143.

__________________________________________________

144.

__________________________________________________

145.

__________________________________________________

146.

__________________________________________________

147.

__________________________________________________

148.

__________________________________________________

149.

__________________________________________________

150.

__________________________________________________

151.

__________________________________________________

152.

__________________________________________________

153.

__________________________________________________

154.

__________________________________________________

155.

__________________________________________________

156.

__________________________________________________

157.

__________________________________________________

158.

__________________________________________________

159.

__________________________________________________

160.

__________________________________________________

161.

__________________________________________________

162.

__________________________________________________

163.

__________________________________________________

164.

__________________________________________________

165.

__________________________________________________

166.

__________________________________________________

167.

__________________________________________________

168.

__________________________________________________

169.

__________________________________________________

170.

__________________________________________________

171.

__________________________________________________

172.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 108 secrets from Secret Submission Post #184.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 2 3 4 5 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 3 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't think that hating one character makes someone a misogynist and I was really disappointed by Ginny's lack of character development and the (boring and annoying, in my opinion) "relationship".

BUT I almost always HATE the use of the term Mary Sue to describe a canon character, partly because I DO see definite misogynist trends there. Very few people call Harry Potter himself a Mary Sue or Gary Stu, despite his being the Chosen One, famous, eventually popular, blessed with luck and the adulation of the girls at his school. Meanwhile, I see Katniss from the Hunger Games slapped with the label all the time, despite not matching nearly as many of the commonly identified elements, in my opinion.

I don't think fanfiction characters and original work characters should be held to the same standards. Of course many main characters from original works are portrayed as extra special, especially in genre fiction. Of course they're the center of attention. Rant over, then. I don't like later-books Ginny, but I would call her a poorly developed and ultimately poorly written character, not a Mary Sue.

I think there are loads of characters in HP that qualify as Gary Stu... Sirius Black, Harry himself, Bill Weasley, Cedric Diggory... but I think at the same time JKR included more recognized flaws in (some of) these characters, where we can see when they are doing something wrong. With Ginny we get less of that, and one could excuse it as being Harry's infatuation with her influencing how the book reads, but I find that even the most beloved fandom characters are sometimes really unflatteringly portrayed even through Harry's eyes. He often describes how bitter and unpleasant Sirius becomes, especially in the 5th book. I can't remember if this ever happened with Ginny, though her appearances are so unmemorable for me that I can't claim with any authority that they don't. But I think that the differences in the fandom's treatment of her in this particular fandom might be related to the differences in the way the narrative treats her, even from other canon females (like Hermione, who is portrayed fully with all her flaws and virtues, making her easier to appreciate because she doesn't read as being flat).

This this this! So much this!

Also I think Bill Weasley and Cedric Diggory are exempt from the Gary Stu label just because they show up so infrequently, and aren't really "important" characters, outside of various individual plot points that they have a part in, you know?

Sirius and Harry, on the other hand, are important characters, and could be labeled as Gary Stus, except JKR actually shows them doing things wrong and having people comment on them being wrong (particularly Sirius).

But Ginny is an important character, but she still seems to lack any sort of flaws, and thus her characterization suffers because of it. I think it's the fact that she is a character that should be more developed but isn't that causes backlash against her.

I mean, come on, JKR managed to pack development of the entire Malfoy family withi like, two books. And they were important characters who also didn't have very much "screentime." So I refuse to believe that she couldn't have done the same with Ginny.

So...basically, teal deer: what you said.

Yeah, I included Bill and Cedric because I consider them more Stuish than Harry or Sirius, because they don't have flaws that are ever actually revealed to us. But at the same time they don't bother me, even still, since Bill is a totally minor character who only really appears randomly to be fawned over by Fleur or looked up to by Ron and Ginny, so I think that's his function - to be admired and be an example to the others. But he's not a central character and thus it doesn't really irritate me, and he served as character development for Fleur since she showed genuine love for him not based in shallow things, and was able to fix her relationship with Molly through that. Cedric was pretty much perfect, but he's the sacrificial lamb - the death isn't as horrific if the person who dies isn't one of the 'pure, sweet, beautiful' etc. And neither of them are prominent enough to bug people, yeah, lol. But the mate of the lead character deserved to have a little more attention, because even if she isn't there as OFTEN as some of the others, she is an emotional stake for Harry and we need to know why he loves her, not just that he does.

I talked about this in my replies below, but I think that's the thing: I don't think Bill or Cedric or Stus, because they're not author self inserts. They're just what is often called flat characters, or two-dimensional characters. Something these kinds of characters have all bad traits, sometimes all good, and sometimes all neutral, depending on their role in the plot. They are only important in terms of their (usually limited) role on the plot and their function regarding the main character(s).

Ginny's one, too, and she's only important because she's Harry's girlfriend, so all we know about her is that she's ever-so-cute.

I don't think flat characters are always bad writing (they show up in most stories somewhere) as not every character can or should be well rounded, but they can be bad writing, if they show up to often or in the wrong place.

Whoa, typo city. Sorry.

But Ginny has flaws. Time and time people here go on and on about how she has such an awful temper and how she judged Fleur harshly (and she's shown to be in the wrong in these cases in the text) so I don't get how people call her a sue and an evil person at the same time. It can't be both ways. When I think of characters who's flaws are acknowledged in the text, I think of the Weasley twins or Luna, not Ginny because she is shown to be wrong.

But then I disagree that there was much development on the Malfoy family.

I did a reread and found a surprising amount of Harry acknowledging the twins as being wrong, which was interesting, because I think twins fans tend to gloss over these bits entirely. Though eventually Harry becomes weirdly desensitized and stops caring when the twins are doing something wrong, along with most other characters he likes, probably around book 5 when he seems to be suffering from PTSD (imho).

Ginny (once she's come out of her shell) has flaws to (some) readers. But she doesn't suffer any consequences of those flaws in canon. Her terrible temper only means moments where she puts the smackdown on people and leaves them in the dust. Her judging Fleur comes a little close since at least she's left unhappy when Molly accepts her, but only Molly gets told off for her unfair judgments. Within her own world if there's a scene with Ginny in it she's going to come out well.

Eh. I don't hate Ginny, though I used to pretty severely dislike her. Time heals and all that, I suppose. My main issue with her was the lack of showing and extreme wealth of telling about everything that made her awesome. She went from a quiet, somewhat shy girl with a fascinating and terrible event in her past (who, in that incarnation, I actually really liked) to the Fiery, Fiesty Love Interest (tm).

Suddenly it was like she was super Ginny: Capable of our pranking the twins! Braver than Ron and somewhat more clever as well! Able to out-hex Draco Malfoy! Almost (but not quite as) good at being a Seeker as Harry!

It was a bit much, especially since her personality did a one-eighty to go with it. Ginny came across very much as a Mary Sue to me, which was especially disappointing because I really did like her up through GoF.

The difference between Harry and Ginny is that while Harry has his own Gary Stu traits, he had vivid flaws to go with them. And those flaws were even often acknowledged! I thought the whole thing where girls were falling over themselves to catch his eye was somewhat overdone, but the text openly admitted that Harry could be spiteful, short sighted, and judgmental. While his flaws weren't fully explored or recognized, he was also the POV character, so of course he came across in an sympathetic manner.

Ginny wasn't the POV character at anytime, so it was easier to see her flaws and harder to see those flaws as sympathetic. Combine that with the text refusing to acknowledge those flaws to begin with, and you have a textbook example of a budding Mary Sue.

See, it's not that I don't see (and agree re: Ginny's and Harry's characters) with what you're saying, but this is my problem with the entire term, or really, how diluted the term has become.

In the beginning, Mary Sue or Gary Stu seemed like a pretty easy to recognize (and common) character type. They were always the author's idealized self written into a pre-existing universe, and they warped the universe around them.

I think that the problems with Ginny relate instead to her as the first type of cliche you mentioned, the Love Interest (tm). She (or he) isn't someone the author identifies with, or that the audience is supposed to identify with. They're just the Hot Dream Girl or Hot Dream Guy. The reason you don't see any of their flaws is because they're only important as a shallow love interest (or to be really cynical, attractive trophy) for the main character. So the author only bothers to show you the traits that make them lovable, usually how pretty and popular they are.

One reason it's not the same thing is that the story doesn't become all about them. Nobody cares much about Ginny; she's just Harry's Girlfriend.

I guess another reason why I'm resentful of the term is that, while I don't think Harry is Gary Stu either, I've seen plenty of people explain these kinds of legitimate defenses away to show how a (usually always female, and I didn't come into this with an agenda, it took years to notice this) different character is still a Mary Sue, after all. Arguments like: those aren't really "flaws," just things every teenage boy understandably has; the text forgives him those flaws too easily; it doesn't matter that he has flaws, what matters is everything's All About Him, and Deus Ex Machina things happen to make less work for him; etc. I don't buy it; I don't think he's a Stu. I do think Harry is a typical Wish Fulfillment character (for the audience and a little for the author), and that's fine.

But I do agree with your assessment with the problems with Ginny's character, 100%. I, also, really liked young Ginny at first, and really hated her once she became the stereotypical Fiesty Love Interest. I just don't like how thinly the term Mary Sue has been spread, it could now apply to any poorly developed character, no matter how minor, provided the author only bothers to show their good points.

Where do you go that people don't call Harry a Stu? Pretty much any time the Mary Sue discussion crops up, so does he. (Though most often to defend the concept, it seems... so I dunno what that says about your point... I forget where I was going with this.)

Actually, that's my point. People seem more likely to defend male characters against Stu accusations than female characters. See my reply above; it's not that I don't think that Harry is a much more flawed and well-developed character than Ginny, it's that I think Ginny's a Crappy Flawless Love Interest, and not a true Mary Sue, by my understanding of the original definition. I don't think Harry's one, either. I think true Mary Sues in original fiction are more rare than they're made out to be (Wesley Crusher fits the original definition I'm familiar with better than most, being an actual idealized author insert).

Yes, but Harry fucks up an awful lot to be called a Gary Stu.

I actually agree. I talked about this a bit in my reply to ginzai above. I don't think Harry's a Stu, but I feel female POV protagonists who also mess up a lot get labeled as Mary Sues quite a bit, and aren't defended against them, as Harry always is. Katniss from HG is the one I was thinking of, she does some really awful things and has plenty of flaws, but I often see her labeled as a Sue and everyone nods and agrees.

As for Ginny, I just think Ginny is just a different kind of poorly written character than a Mary Sue: the Shallow Love Interest.

Pfft. They should just start calling it a Harry Stu.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #1290 ]

Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.

Re: Yes, this rant again. Sorry.