[ SECRET POST #2594 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2594 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 094 secrets from Secret Submission Post #371.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think the real reason people keep saying Mary is a Mary Sue was because she wasn't enough of a Purity Sue for them, tbh.

Yes, of course she's a Mary Sue, who else could actually stand getting married to that Gary Stus of all Gary Stus, Sherlock Holmes.

I also don't get why people keep thinking that Dr Watson is such a pushover in this series - Mary wanting to discount him in her mind when she was 15 or 16 is understandable, but why do the readers insist on taking a moody teenagers opinion as valid, anyhow?

[tweedisgood]

I think it is much more that she is far too like her creator - down to ethnicity, interests, etc. Usually a MS giveaway. I disagree that Homes is a Stu anyway - if anything, that is Watson, given ACD's own personality and interests.

As others have said, Russell wanting to downgrade Watson is one thing. King puts it in Holmes' mouth. It left a nasty taste for me and, even if it's a conscious attempt at "unreliable narrator" (and it does not read that way on the page), is so clumsily done as to be yet another reason not to bother.

[(Anonymous)]

Authorial Self Inserts and Sue/Stus are not the same things, though a character can be both at the same time.

I think ACD's Holmes was clearly a Stu, with Watson being his self insert.

Mary, on the other hand, is both, IMO. I don't dislike either self insert characters or Sues/Stues, anyway, or I never would have gotten into the fandom in the first place.

Mary is a good character because she's engaging and fun to read about, IMO, and that's quite good enough for me.

Holmes and Watson, on the other hand, have an rather interesting relationship from an in canon viewpoint. Watson obviously has a life of his own, and Holmes is only a small part of it, though he still obviously considers Holmes to be an good friend. Holmes, on the other hand, seems to have very few people he even can even call a casual friend until Mary Russell comes along.

[tweedisgood]

Ah, we see Holmes and Watson rather differently, then. Holmes to me is a hastily-assembled bundle of quirks who took on a life of his own, almost in spite of his creator, not someone whom that creator admired and looked up to, which seems to be your definition of Stu?

I didn't find Mary at all interesting to read about, hence another reason to part company. I love female characters, btw, so it isn't a gender issue, which is another thing often levelled at Russell-dislikers - not that I am assuming you are/will.

Different strokes.

[intrigueing]

I don't really think Holmes is a Stu though. He's a hyperidealized character, yes, which is related to (but not synonymous with) Stuishness, but Stu's are generally someone, as tweedisgood says, that the author admires, agrees with, looks up to, sympathizes with, and/or is generally very protective of. Holmes is none of that. A character is not a Stu just by character traits, but by authorial intent and narrative perspective as well. Not to mention Holmes's massive character flaws are not presented in a Stu-ish way at all (i.e., a means to an end, romanticized, or justified.)

Perhaps we're just not using the same understandings of the terms?