Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
How much more annoying would it be if his name were Cevin? Like Kevin but with a hipster-esque C instead of a K.
This is making me clench my hands furiously.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
It turns out Clevin's name was supposed to be Kelvin but his dad misspelled it.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited July 2017
Ooooh! Oooh! I just thought of the bold twist SFP has coming! Clevin is secretly a murderous supervillian who kills people by forcing all their atoms to a standstill, known to the public only as Kelvin! He hides in plain sight under the obvious-pseudonym of Clevin! SFP has slouched her way into a death trap!
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+2
Options
Kevin CristI make the devil hit his kneesand say the 'our father'Registered Userregular
I wish my life was so easy I could spend pages debating a fictional character's weird name. My god.
I don't like to brag, but I work 40hrs a week, and spend 10-15 hrs of my offtime working on homework for school, and still have time to make jokes about dumb names. I am deffo living the dream.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Only indirectly related, but I never heard of that Overly Sarcastic Production channel before, and it seemed pretty neat! I may have to check it out more.
Which is good, because I was just thinking I don't already spend nearly enough time watching youtube videos...
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Mary Sue's/Marty Stus are generally what happens when;
A young person gets massively engaged with a setting, generally a fantastical one.
Despite this, they are too emotionally immature to deal with the complexity of adult interaction/the ongoing cocktease of the sub plots drives them insane, and their love of the setting is tinged with massive frustration that X character is not resolving Y issue and A character hasn't told B character how they really feel etc.
Therefore, they create a story within which their frustrations are resolved through the intervention of a character whose attitude, presence, nature etc forces the existing characters to listen. The virtuous and otherwise are given their just desserts and the writer's ongoing frustration has been channelled into a character who is the avatar of everything the writer would do and say were they part of that world.
Like man childish fantasies, however, they are often incredibly reactionary, irrational and at times even highly immoral. In order to get these silly characters to listen, the self insert literally bangs their heads together, and afterwards thank them for it! Except that of course, that's violent coercion and assault. But it's what the author wants to do do there it is. A supremely childlike response.
In that sense, most of what people call Mary-Sues and Marty Stus are actually just badly written. The real deal is the author avatar, given the power to enact all of their childish, immature judgements upon the beloved subject of their obsession. It's pretty forgivable really, they tend to be created by frustrated teenagers. I understand. They grow out of it.
If only the blizzard writers had grown out of it....
The original use of Mary Sue doesn't work outside of fanfiction and other derived works, since one of the key identifiers is the way the character warps the original narrative. If a character is canon part of the original narrative, it's impossible for them to really deform it in the same way, because that's the story's actual author-intended shape, even if it seems unlikely and distorted to the reader.
The contemporary use mostly seems to express that the reader feels a character is executed amateurishly, doesn't deserve the time and attention the author is giving them, and is somehow interfering with what the reader feels the "true" story should be. These criticisms aren't necessarily without merit, but if that's what you want to say, it's better to just say that specifically without using a piece of terminology that comes loaded with such a strong gender bias.
Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
Those criticisms are common enough that it's useful to have a quicker to use term.
If your main complaint is the waste of a few extra keystrokes, I really don't think it's worth it. If there's one thing this discussion has proven, calling something a Mary Sue in this day and age doesn't articulate a clear position at all, given the evolution of the term and uncertainty surrounding it. So if what you value is a union of clarity and brevity, the Mary Sue debate fails on both fronts, with misogynist undertones as a bonus.
Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
Those criticisms are common enough that it's useful to have a quicker to use term.
If your main complaint is the waste of a few extra keystrokes, I really don't think it's worth it. If there's one thing this discussion has proven, calling something a Mary Sue in this day and age doesn't articulate a clear position at all, given the evolution of the term and uncertainty surrounding it. So if what you value is a union of clarity and brevity, the Mary Sue debate fails on both fronts, with misogynist undertones as a bonus.
In context I've always found people know what it's referring to, and I think you overstate its misogynist undertones.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Those criticisms are common enough that it's useful to have a quicker to use term.
If your main complaint is the waste of a few extra keystrokes, I really don't think it's worth it. If there's one thing this discussion has proven, calling something a Mary Sue in this day and age doesn't articulate a clear position at all, given the evolution of the term and uncertainty surrounding it. So if what you value is a union of clarity and brevity, the Mary Sue debate fails on both fronts, with misogynist undertones as a bonus.
In context I've always found people know what it's referring to, and I think you overstate its misogynist undertones.
The thing is, "always knows what it's referring to." is part of the problem of the misogynist undertones. Because as noted in this discussion, the roots of the term are a lot more varied than just one thing (bad self insert? Character too over-powered? etc.), so in practice it far too often becomes, "that lady is too cool."
The example of this that first made me start rethinking the term was when someone in the comments of Dumbing of Age called Sal a "Mary Sue" because she turned out to be good at skating. And it made me realize how far more often a Mary Sue is a criticism of a female character than a male character. Also, when it is used for a male character, it is always a dweebo nerd-style character, like Westley Crusher or (as in this thread) Clevin - that is, characters who are bad at displaying traditional masculinity. Hmmmm.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Those criticisms are common enough that it's useful to have a quicker to use term.
If your main complaint is the waste of a few extra keystrokes, I really don't think it's worth it. If there's one thing this discussion has proven, calling something a Mary Sue in this day and age doesn't articulate a clear position at all, given the evolution of the term and uncertainty surrounding it. So if what you value is a union of clarity and brevity, the Mary Sue debate fails on both fronts, with misogynist undertones as a bonus.
In context I've always found people know what it's referring to, and I think you overstate its misogynist undertones.
The thing is, "always knows what it's referring to." is part of the problem of the misogynist undertones. Because as noted in this discussion, the roots of the term are a lot more varied than just one thing (bad self insert? Character too over-powered? etc.), so in practice it far too often becomes, "that lady is too cool."
The example of this that first made me start rethinking the term was when someone in the comments of Dumbing of Age called Sal a "Mary Sue" because she turned out to be good at skating. And it made me realize how far more often a Mary Sue is a criticism of a female character than a male character. Also, when it is used for a male character, it is always a dweebo nerd-style character, like Westley Crusher or (as in this thread) Clevin - that is, characters who are bad at displaying traditional masculinity. Hmmmm.
I honestly feel tempted to see Mary Su as a sexist critique when people use it as a blanket term for, let's say Rey, rather than use specific critiques.
"She's a Mary Sue!"
vs.
"Her power leap in one movie was greater than Luke's in three and it requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, even with all the reasons Abrams gave for her victory."
But I've long since stopped expecting nuance from the internet.
Those criticisms are common enough that it's useful to have a quicker to use term.
If your main complaint is the waste of a few extra keystrokes, I really don't think it's worth it. If there's one thing this discussion has proven, calling something a Mary Sue in this day and age doesn't articulate a clear position at all, given the evolution of the term and uncertainty surrounding it. So if what you value is a union of clarity and brevity, the Mary Sue debate fails on both fronts, with misogynist undertones as a bonus.
In context I've always found people know what it's referring to, and I think you overstate its misogynist undertones.
The thing is, "always knows what it's referring to." is part of the problem of the misogynist undertones. Because as noted in this discussion, the roots of the term are a lot more varied than just one thing (bad self insert? Character too over-powered? etc.), so in practice it far too often becomes, "that lady is too cool."
The example of this that first made me start rethinking the term was when someone in the comments of Dumbing of Age called Sal a "Mary Sue" because she turned out to be good at skating. And it made me realize how far more often a Mary Sue is a criticism of a female character than a male character. Also, when it is used for a male character, it is always a dweebo nerd-style character, like Westley Crusher or (as in this thread) Clevin - that is, characters who are bad at displaying traditional masculinity. Hmmmm.
It was applied to batman and superman like, a page ago. I remember seeing it frequently used to describe the male main character of that one crappy anime that was big a few years ago, SAO. I say again, it's not used in a misogynist way to the degree you imply. Just repeating that it's misogynist isn't going to change that.
The original use of Mary Sue doesn't work outside of fanfiction and other derived works, since one of the key identifiers is the way the character warps the original narrative. If a character is canon part of the original narrative, it's impossible for them to really deform it in the same way, because that's the story's actual author-intended shape, even if it seems unlikely and distorted to the reader.
The contemporary use mostly seems to express that the reader feels a character is executed amateurishly, doesn't deserve the time and attention the author is giving them, and is somehow interfering with what the reader feels the "true" story should be. These criticisms aren't necessarily without merit, but if that's what you want to say, it's better to just say that specifically without using a piece of terminology that comes loaded with such a strong gender bias.
The term works in original fiction as well, it just gets more debatable.
Especially obvious it can be in shared universes like DC and Marvel comics, where different writers either create their own characters to add to stories, or use their pre existing favorite characters in ways that make other characters less than they are.
Maybe a creators pet would be a better term, though it's not really the same lot of the time.
When we get back to them, it'll be after she's explained everything in a completely satisfactory manner that Annie fully understands and accepts, and they never need to reference it again.
Posts
No it's Qlevin Ethan Levin like in Ben 10.
This is making me clench my hands furiously.
Mods, please change my name to "Cevin Krist"
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Unlike me, who has exactly enough time on their hands.
Those two are still going at it in Feast For A King. The comic is NSFW.
http:// feastforaking .com/comic/page-3912/
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Does Ronnie know about this?
I don't like to brag, but I work 40hrs a week, and spend 10-15 hrs of my offtime working on homework for school, and still have time to make jokes about dumb names. I am deffo living the dream.
...are you saying he spells it Marty but pronounces it Morty?
He can NEVER know.
New reaction pic?
*insert "it's funny you think that" reaction pic*
Which is good, because I was just thinking I don't already spend nearly enough time watching youtube videos...
Oops.
If only the blizzard writers had grown out of it....
The contemporary use mostly seems to express that the reader feels a character is executed amateurishly, doesn't deserve the time and attention the author is giving them, and is somehow interfering with what the reader feels the "true" story should be. These criticisms aren't necessarily without merit, but if that's what you want to say, it's better to just say that specifically without using a piece of terminology that comes loaded with such a strong gender bias.
Monster Pulse
If your main complaint is the waste of a few extra keystrokes, I really don't think it's worth it. If there's one thing this discussion has proven, calling something a Mary Sue in this day and age doesn't articulate a clear position at all, given the evolution of the term and uncertainty surrounding it. So if what you value is a union of clarity and brevity, the Mary Sue debate fails on both fronts, with misogynist undertones as a bonus.
The thing is, "always knows what it's referring to." is part of the problem of the misogynist undertones. Because as noted in this discussion, the roots of the term are a lot more varied than just one thing (bad self insert? Character too over-powered? etc.), so in practice it far too often becomes, "that lady is too cool."
The example of this that first made me start rethinking the term was when someone in the comments of Dumbing of Age called Sal a "Mary Sue" because she turned out to be good at skating. And it made me realize how far more often a Mary Sue is a criticism of a female character than a male character. Also, when it is used for a male character, it is always a dweebo nerd-style character, like Westley Crusher or (as in this thread) Clevin - that is, characters who are bad at displaying traditional masculinity. Hmmmm.
Is skin about to Assume Direct Control?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Annie is fine with the situation in Gunnerkrigg Court
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I honestly feel tempted to see Mary Su as a sexist critique when people use it as a blanket term for, let's say Rey, rather than use specific critiques.
"She's a Mary Sue!"
vs.
"Her power leap in one movie was greater than Luke's in three and it requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, even with all the reasons Abrams gave for her victory."
But I've long since stopped expecting nuance from the internet.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Dumbing of Age
Skin Horse
The term works in original fiction as well, it just gets more debatable.
Especially obvious it can be in shared universes like DC and Marvel comics, where different writers either create their own characters to add to stories, or use their pre existing favorite characters in ways that make other characters less than they are.
Maybe a creators pet would be a better term, though it's not really the same lot of the time.
Ok, now we're just being trolled.