You keep using that word: on "Mary Sue"
Apr. 20th, 2010 03:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xparrot(Most of this post came up in a friends-locked comments dialogue with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
horridporrid, who very patiently explained her views until I finally got where she was coming from. I've been lax in keeping up with the rest of the debate, so it's likely this has already been stated elsewhere in this debate. But anyway.) Putting aside issues of writing standards and mocking other fen, it seems the big problem with the term "Mary Sue" is with its imprecision and its gendered nature. The basic concepts, I feel, are sound - but we need another word for it.
As I see it, there are 3 differing but related definitions for "Mary Sue":
1. The original definition, the one that most fans agree on (they may differ on whether it's positive or negative or whatever, but 99% of fans understand what is meant): an OC in fanfic that is a thinly veiled self-insert, wish fulfillment char with a tendency to dominate the story and warp the canon about her/himself; it's the written form of the self-insert daydreams that the majority of us indulged or still indulge in. This concept was originally identified as "Mary Sue" because the majority of such chars found in fanfic are female, as the majority of fanfic authors are female and gender their self-inserts to match. Female-written Mary Sues are often but not always paired with a favorite character from canon. Male fic authors do write them - the "Marty Stu" or "Gary Stu" can be found in anime and VG fic, often in the form of a super-powered OMC able to defeat the villain too strong for any of the heroes.
Such chars are more commonly written by younger authors with less than solid writing skills, which explains some of the antipathy with which they're looked upon. Such chars are also disliked because they run counter to many fans' reasons for reading fanfic -seekergeek describes the phenomenon as the "Stranger in the Living Room"; those of us who read fanfic to get more of specific (canon) characters and relationships are annoyed by the intrusion of chars who change the nature and focus of the canon.
This doesn't mean that such a concept isn't a valid fanfiction style; clearly many fans enjoy interacting with their fandoms in this way. But it's not what's expected in many fic communities, and because it's most commonly the province of younger fans, it's probably always going to be regarded with a certain amount of derision.
2. The secondary definition of "Mary Sue" evolved from the first, and was adopted by certain literary circles outside of fandom: it describes a main character (in original fiction) who is intended to be the stand-in for the audience as well as the author, and the entertainment in the story is derived from sympathizing with the character through their travails and sharing in their triumphs. In girl-aimed lit, such heroines are often put-upon and suffer beautifully before ultimately finding fortune and love (Sarah Crewe in A Little Princess is a classic example of a younger version; Twilight's Bella is a modern teen example); in boy-aimed lit they start out as wimpy weaklings but end up stronger than anyone (Peter Parker becoming Spiderman). Especially in kids-lit such chars can cross gender boundaries (I think Harry Potter was meant to work for boys & girls.) Really, most stories that center around a single protagonist (as opposed to an ensemble story, or a partner/love story focused on both parties) end up becoming a variation on this - Superman is maybe an archetypal variant. They all tend to have an element of wish-fulfillment fantasy - the reader is intended to dream about being the protagonist. Sometimes, if the char is too obviously the Author's stand-in, it can impede with the reader's identification.
The "Mary Sue" of fandom was adopted to refer to this trope because she is perhaps the most obvious example of it, being as it recasts other types of stories into this model, rewriting a canon to center it around the hero/heroine.
This trope, like the fanfic Mary Sue, is valid literary device - because of its nature it can easily be problematic (when it intersects with privilege especially -thedeadparrot's My Problem With Sues discusses the issue eloquently) but it's also a fun and potentially empowering fantasy. I think it's particularly popular in juvenile fiction because teens tend to feel put-upon and like imagining themselves (or heroes like them) as "special". (And I wonder if adults often are less taken by these tales because they can't identify as easily with such protagonists...or else we relate to them in different ways. We love our "Woobie"s, but we don't want to be them; we want to be the one comforting them.)
3. The tertiary definition of "Mary Sue" used by some fans developed from the second - as a criticism of canonical characters, usually female, who were perceived as having unfair advantage and a lack of flaws, and who are seen as warping the canon around them in the same way that Mary Sue chars do in fanfic (often, it is suspected, because the canon's writers are identifying with/crushing on/lusting after those chars and giving them breaks). From this it extended into being interpreted as an insult for any female char you don't like (though I think for most fans who use it, they mean it in the canon-warping sense, that the presence of the character changes the canon into something they don't like, in ways they find unconvincing.)
This last definition is the most subjective, and depends a lot on how a fan is viewing a work. If you like Harry Potter the character, then you're inclined to see the books as the second sort of trope, and Harry is naturally the center of the fictional universe; while as if Draco or Snape is your favorite, then you'd be more inclined to see Harry as a canon-warping character, and want the story to be about more than him.
The thing is, all three of these definitions are valid critical concepts - even the last, while quite subjective, can explain why a story may be unsuccessful for much of the audience. This is not to say that they're justifiable reasons to trash a young writer's confidence, but they are extant and common tropes in fiction (fan and otherwise), so it makes sense to have a label for them.
The problem with the current label is that while such chars can be male as easily as they can be female (Rodney McKay could certainly be considered one!) defining them with the gendered term "Mary Sue" means that female chars are much more likely to be described as such; it became an easy go-to criticism of female chars, while rarely applied to male chars, a very unfortunate double standard, especially if it means that writers become hesitant to write female chars (afraid that they'll be labeled "Mary Sue"s) while not giving the same consideration to male chars.
So it seems to me we need a new, gender-neutral term for this concept. Any thoughts?
ETA: Apparently ElfQuest had "Wottaguy/Wottagirl" for the original Mary Sue - much less gendered, maybe I'll start using that!
horridporrid, who very patiently explained her views until I finally got where she was coming from. I've been lax in keeping up with the rest of the debate, so it's likely this has already been stated elsewhere in this debate. But anyway.) Putting aside issues of writing standards and mocking other fen, it seems the big problem with the term "Mary Sue" is with its imprecision and its gendered nature. The basic concepts, I feel, are sound - but we need another word for it.As I see it, there are 3 differing but related definitions for "Mary Sue":
1. The original definition, the one that most fans agree on (they may differ on whether it's positive or negative or whatever, but 99% of fans understand what is meant): an OC in fanfic that is a thinly veiled self-insert, wish fulfillment char with a tendency to dominate the story and warp the canon about her/himself; it's the written form of the self-insert daydreams that the majority of us indulged or still indulge in. This concept was originally identified as "Mary Sue" because the majority of such chars found in fanfic are female, as the majority of fanfic authors are female and gender their self-inserts to match. Female-written Mary Sues are often but not always paired with a favorite character from canon. Male fic authors do write them - the "Marty Stu" or "Gary Stu" can be found in anime and VG fic, often in the form of a super-powered OMC able to defeat the villain too strong for any of the heroes.
Such chars are more commonly written by younger authors with less than solid writing skills, which explains some of the antipathy with which they're looked upon. Such chars are also disliked because they run counter to many fans' reasons for reading fanfic -
seekergeek describes the phenomenon as the "Stranger in the Living Room"; those of us who read fanfic to get more of specific (canon) characters and relationships are annoyed by the intrusion of chars who change the nature and focus of the canon. This doesn't mean that such a concept isn't a valid fanfiction style; clearly many fans enjoy interacting with their fandoms in this way. But it's not what's expected in many fic communities, and because it's most commonly the province of younger fans, it's probably always going to be regarded with a certain amount of derision.
2. The secondary definition of "Mary Sue" evolved from the first, and was adopted by certain literary circles outside of fandom: it describes a main character (in original fiction) who is intended to be the stand-in for the audience as well as the author, and the entertainment in the story is derived from sympathizing with the character through their travails and sharing in their triumphs. In girl-aimed lit, such heroines are often put-upon and suffer beautifully before ultimately finding fortune and love (Sarah Crewe in A Little Princess is a classic example of a younger version; Twilight's Bella is a modern teen example); in boy-aimed lit they start out as wimpy weaklings but end up stronger than anyone (Peter Parker becoming Spiderman). Especially in kids-lit such chars can cross gender boundaries (I think Harry Potter was meant to work for boys & girls.) Really, most stories that center around a single protagonist (as opposed to an ensemble story, or a partner/love story focused on both parties) end up becoming a variation on this - Superman is maybe an archetypal variant. They all tend to have an element of wish-fulfillment fantasy - the reader is intended to dream about being the protagonist. Sometimes, if the char is too obviously the Author's stand-in, it can impede with the reader's identification.
The "Mary Sue" of fandom was adopted to refer to this trope because she is perhaps the most obvious example of it, being as it recasts other types of stories into this model, rewriting a canon to center it around the hero/heroine.
This trope, like the fanfic Mary Sue, is valid literary device - because of its nature it can easily be problematic (when it intersects with privilege especially -
thedeadparrot's My Problem With Sues discusses the issue eloquently) but it's also a fun and potentially empowering fantasy. I think it's particularly popular in juvenile fiction because teens tend to feel put-upon and like imagining themselves (or heroes like them) as "special". (And I wonder if adults often are less taken by these tales because they can't identify as easily with such protagonists...or else we relate to them in different ways. We love our "Woobie"s, but we don't want to be them; we want to be the one comforting them.)3. The tertiary definition of "Mary Sue" used by some fans developed from the second - as a criticism of canonical characters, usually female, who were perceived as having unfair advantage and a lack of flaws, and who are seen as warping the canon around them in the same way that Mary Sue chars do in fanfic (often, it is suspected, because the canon's writers are identifying with/crushing on/lusting after those chars and giving them breaks). From this it extended into being interpreted as an insult for any female char you don't like (though I think for most fans who use it, they mean it in the canon-warping sense, that the presence of the character changes the canon into something they don't like, in ways they find unconvincing.)
This last definition is the most subjective, and depends a lot on how a fan is viewing a work. If you like Harry Potter the character, then you're inclined to see the books as the second sort of trope, and Harry is naturally the center of the fictional universe; while as if Draco or Snape is your favorite, then you'd be more inclined to see Harry as a canon-warping character, and want the story to be about more than him.
The thing is, all three of these definitions are valid critical concepts - even the last, while quite subjective, can explain why a story may be unsuccessful for much of the audience. This is not to say that they're justifiable reasons to trash a young writer's confidence, but they are extant and common tropes in fiction (fan and otherwise), so it makes sense to have a label for them.
The problem with the current label is that while such chars can be male as easily as they can be female (Rodney McKay could certainly be considered one!) defining them with the gendered term "Mary Sue" means that female chars are much more likely to be described as such; it became an easy go-to criticism of female chars, while rarely applied to male chars, a very unfortunate double standard, especially if it means that writers become hesitant to write female chars (afraid that they'll be labeled "Mary Sue"s) while not giving the same consideration to male chars.
So it seems to me we need a new, gender-neutral term for this concept. Any thoughts?
ETA: Apparently ElfQuest had "Wottaguy/Wottagirl" for the original Mary Sue - much less gendered, maybe I'll start using that!
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 03:03 am (UTC)And now I realize that I don't even know where to begin with all of the unquestioned assumptions - that "good writing" is every fan writer's top priority (not even close!), that everyone agrees on what "good writing" entails, that my personal definition of Mary Sue and the way it's often used in fandom are the same, that *I* even use it consistently myself ... omg.
The most critical issue, I think, is the double standard you're talking about, and the way that the term Mary Sue has come to be used in fandom; whatever the origins and original definition, the way that it's wandered and subsequently come to be used in fannish discourse is a problem, and the fact that fangirl after fangirl has spoken up to say that the anti-Mary Sue climate in fandom has had a chilling effect on her fic writing is a big problem, and one that I had no idea even existed! I was absolutely floored the first time I ever heard anyone say that - a month or so ago, a pretty well-known SG1 slash writer on my flist mentioned that she's reluctant to write any of the female canon characters because she's afraid they would be taken for Mary Sues. I was astonished. I had no idea that anyone felt that way. And now, seeing more and more people speak up to say that they used to write and then stopped, or wanted to write and never started, or changed what they wanted to write to fit with fandom's dominant paradigm ... omg omg omg, I had no idea.
And, kind of like I've started questioning my negative reaction to certain female characters like Gwen and Rose over the last couple of years (what am I reacting to? what about the character is making me dislike them? is it rational? is the level of my dislike out of proportion to the way I'd react to a similar male character?) I'm doing it now with my reaction to what I would have considered Mary Sues in the past. It's made me rethink some of the terms with which I critique, and my underlying emotional reactions.
It's also made me think about something I've said in the past about "Sand & Light", my long Trigun fic: that if I hadn't been a newbie and I'd known the "rules" when I wrote that story, I would never have tried to write it. It's kidfic, there's a ton of female OFCs ... I've never regretted writing the story, and in fact I had a rollicking good time with it, but I've always considered it sort of an obvious newbie writer story and something that I wouldn't try to write today, now that I've "learned" that kids and OFC main characters and so forth are cliches, and know better than to do that. I just thought of it as having become aware of more ways to make my writing better, and being aware of mistakes I used to make but don't plan to make anymore. But now I'm looking back on it going, "srsly, self, what? You wrote a story that broke all the so-called rules, and a lot of people liked it, and you're proud of it - and yet you consider it a mistake that you wouldn't make again? How is that a good thing?"
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 07:42 am (UTC)(There's the case, too, that for all this discussion has been focused on OFCs, I really don't find that OMCs are that much more common. At least not in the circles of fandom I've been in. As minor chars maybe, but not leads.)
And now, seeing more and more people speak up to say that they used to write and then stopped, or wanted to write and never started, or changed what they wanted to write to fit with fandom's dominant paradigm ..
But...isn't that how it always is? You have personal experience that trying to write an unpopular het pairing (or hell, an unpopular slash pairing, see the woes of Ronon/Rodney fans) often can leave you feeling oppressed and ostracized by Fandom. And then there's the trials and tribulations of being a gen writer in some circles (and of course smarm, which has nearly been stamped out of existence - "late and unlamented" I recently saw it called, based on the idea that it's fundamentally homophobic, which I obviously disagree with...)
I'm not saying that any of this is a good thing, it's more just how communities function. And yes, ideally I'd like "Fandom" to be a more accepting place of all genres. I just don't feel Mary Sue is a unique case.
--Which isn't to say that the people in support of Mary Sue now are trying to make it into a special case, but it ended up feeling that way to me, that there's so much work being put into defending Mary Sue as an empowering icon and such, rather than just saying, "Hey, some people like writing 'Sues, why don't we let them enjoy themselves?"
And, erm, all of this rambling isn't really intended as an argument to anything you said, because you were describing how it's affecting your personal views and obviously that's got nothing to do with me!
(You "learned" not to write kid-fic, though? Huh, I always thought of that as an accepted genre, with as many supporters as detractors. Isn't Iowa one of the most popular SGA fics? ...But then, from my perspective m-preg is an accepted genre, too, so maybe my problem is that I tend to interpret fandom as more open and accepting than most do, so end up confused about how anyone could feel oppressed by it...hmmm!)
(Or maybe my problem is that I tend to interpret "cliche" as "kink", so never make the connection that "cliche" could mean "bad writing", at least not when it comes to fanfic. I am the one who has unabashedly written an avalanche in 3 fandoms and counting - I like my cliches! Hmmm again...)
(Or maybe...I just need to shut up and stop rambling on! ^^;;;)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 07:42 pm (UTC)I think the Mary Sue posts are just trying to do that - consciousness-raising, basically: bringing up points that aren't made very often, providing meccas for fans who've been feeling marginalized by the fannish zeitgeist to run to going "omg, someone who feels like I do! omg! affirmation! yay!" Which is one of the things we're in fandom for, isn't it?
Speaking only for myself, reading those posts has certainly made me approach the issue in a different way; I think I'll be a lot less likely to reach for the term and even the concept of "Mary Sue" when I'm writing public posts or critiquing someone's writing from now on. My first reaction to having to abandon Mary Sue as a term of critique was "omg, how will I ever express myself???" but what I've realized is that the term (and concept) are a crutch; having to push myself that little bit harder to explain (even if just to myself) what it is about the character that's failing for me as a reader (is it how she's described? how the other characters react to her? because she wins too easily? because the story never explains how she would've had time to acquire all those skills? am I just bothered by the existence of an OC, period?) is actually going to make me a better, more aware writer in the long run. Plus, I won't be accidentally hurting or offending people, and I think that's a good outcome too.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 08:40 pm (UTC)Hmm. I see this, and I think it's true for the most part. I think what bothers me is that a lot of the recent run of fan debates seem to get this feeling of moral judgment - that it's not just about saying, "I like this concept, let me have my fun!" but about saying, "This concept is Good and Pro-Feminist and if you do not support it then you are a bad fan and a bad woman and a bad person."
Which isn't what most people posting are going for, I don't think, and yet the feeling is still there. I think it's because in the current lj environment it's easy for these debates to expand to include all of Fandom, so it becomes less about carving out a niche for your taste in your space, and more about making a point about what you perceive as General Fandom Practice (when of course there is no such thing!)
It's the difference between going, "I don't want char bashing on my journal," which I totally agree with and support; and going, "I don't want to see character bashing anywhere in fandom ever," which I disagree with (even though it seems to put me on the wrong side of the current zeitgeist!)
Incidentally - with lj working the way it does, I don't know how it's possible to avoid such discussions spiraling out to include all of fandom, and I certainly don't believe such discussions shouldn't happen! Especially since I obviously like joining in them, too. I...don't know what I'm saying here, really, except expressing how I end up feeling, personally, and why I end up flailing at a lot of these things even when I largely agree with them...(sometimes with both sides. Makes things difficult ^^;)
My first reaction to having to abandon Mary Sue as a term of critique was "omg, how will I ever express myself???" but what I've realized is that the term (and concept) are a crutch; having to push myself that little bit harder to explain (even if just to myself) what it is about the character that's failing for me as a reader
*laughs* Ahh, and this might be part of my problem, too, because it would never occur to me to just say "This char is a Mary Sue"; I'd always explain why I thought that, what wasn't working and why I thought it was a problem...
...Really, I think I am coming at all this from a strange place, because it occurs to me that as recently as last year I wrote a MUNCLE fic that started with describing the beauty of an OFC and ended with her having a very good night with Napoleon, and it never once occurred to me to worry that she might be assumed to be a Mary Sue. (Admittedly the fic was subtextual Napoleon/Illya, but I was much more concerned about presenting the OFC fairly and not making her out to be just a misogynist prop than I was about getting accused of Mary Sueing....!)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 10:43 pm (UTC)I think what bothers me is that a lot of the recent run of fan debates seem to get this feeling of moral judgment - that it's not just about saying, "I like this concept, let me have my fun!" but about saying, "This concept is Good and Pro-Feminist and if you do not support it then you are a bad fan and a bad woman and a bad person."
mmm ... well, I think there are moral issues in some of it, is the problem. You can't separate morality from fandom; you can't separate your own individual moral choices from your fannish choices. Fandom's a microcosm of the real world, not separate from it. ... and I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but it's awfully close to it.
I see a lot of artists and authors who seem to feel that being an ~*ARTIST*~ and making their ~*ART*~ is entirely separate from being a human being, and, um, no, it's not. ("You can't pass judgment on me for what I just said, because I am a ~*PLUMBER*~!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, I guess ...) Fandom is the same way - we're fans second, human beings first, with all our human emotional baggage, and prejudices and triggers and such.
As a general rule, I think that fandom needs to chill (and practice a bit of Golden Rule, too) when it comes to character preference, shipping preferences, favorite and least favorite tropes, and so forth. But in a lot of areas these things intersect our real-life experiences, making it hard to respond to them with pure logic. And the way that other people react to us in fandom because of those choices (and because of what we let spill over of our RL lives) influences our social experience in fandom too, and that spills back into our lives - it's not as simple as "hey, you go spork newbie writers over there; I'll have my slash-bashing comm over here; you have your x/y pairing comm over there; we'll all be happy!" (And it's also not so simple that someone who does one of those things can be dismissed as a bad person or being out to hurt people, of course.)
The overall culture of fandom, I think, tends to privilege self-expression over kindness - the freedom to be ourselves over trying to minimize our harm on other people. There are a lot of positive aspects to that; I know way more people in fandom than in RL who are "out" in various ways - gay, bisexual, poly, kinky, trans; lots of people who talk openly about having mental illness or food intolerances or practicing a non-mainstream religion or what have you. There's a huge "be you, be proud!" vibe to fandom that I think is really awesome. But the negative flip side is the reluctance of people in fandom to speak up when someone else is engaging in behavior that's hurtful or harmful or even poisonous to the fabric of the fandom as a whole. And I don't know what the answer is, because I hate the idea of fans going around "policing" fandom for inappropriate behavior (and doubt if it would result in a kinder fandom anyway), but the opposite extreme would be no one every critizing anyone else's behavior ever, and there are instances of fannish misbehavior that totally earn every bit of condemnation that's thrown at them.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-22 02:39 am (UTC)You can't separate morality from fandom; you can't separate your own individual moral choices from your fannish choices. Fandom's a microcosm of the real world, not separate from it. ... and I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but it's awfully close to it.
This, yes - I don't think fandom is exempt from morality! But yeah, I've been sounding that way. My bad, definitely not my intent!
On further pondering, what bothers me about the moral arguments is not that they're being made - because hells yeah, fandom has got its Issues, and it'd be immoral for us to ignore them for the sake of entertainment! But at the same time...when Fandom gets into these social responsibility arguments, especially when judging the morality of an aspect of fandom, there's a privileging of the intellectual and the educated over those who don't have the education or the experience to debate fine moral points (or who just don't like getting into debates, or who have more trouble debating online in text vs verbally in real life, etc.) The fangirl who bashes Char X might have valid reasons for feeling how she does, but not the tools to express those reasons to the fangirl who judges her bashing is misogynist and she should cut it out. (Which is again different from the fangirl who says, "I love Char X, and wish she wasn't treated so badly.")
(This is one reason why RaceFail didn't rub me the way a lot of the current meta debates do, because the majority of it was pros on pros, and if you're a professionally published author I expect you to have a certain facility with written self-expression/explanation. Ditto to why I'm okay with intense and even vicious criticism of any pro-published work, because if you put yourself out there like that, you should be ready to stand up for what you print (or else cop to your mistakes.) But fandom doesn't have this barrier, shouldn't have this barrier...)
This, too:
I see a lot of artists and authors who seem to feel that being an ~*ARTIST*~ and making their ~*ART*~ is entirely separate from being a human being, and, um, no, it's not. ("You can't pass judgment on me for what I just said, because I am a ~*PLUMBER*~!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, I guess ...) Fandom is the same way - we're fans second, human beings first, with all our human emotional baggage, and prejudices and triggers and such.
Yes, definitely! And yes, putting the artist above the audience I tend to feel is Wrong (*judge judge judge*).
(Oh, those judgmental Plumbers! "Copper pipes are superior, any fool knows!")
It feels like there's a spectrum - say, at one end, there's me with my crazy OTPs, and you know how I can completely lose my shit when they get messed with. That's totally my problem and not anyone else's, my responsibility to deal it it. And then near the other end of the spectrum there's the woman with triggers such that she can get flashbacks from reading a graphic rape scene, who'd really like her fellow fangirls to warn for such, and that's more fandom's responsibility (IMO anyway). And somewhere in between the two there's a line, between what's personal responsibility and what's fandom's, and I don't know where it is (though I think a lot of this Mary Sue debate is falling in the middle of it...)
Which leads us to this:
I hate the idea of fans going around "policing" fandom for inappropriate behavior (...), but the opposite extreme would be no one every critizing anyone else's behavior ever, and there are instances of fannish misbehavior that totally earn every bit of condemnation that's thrown at them.
Yes, exactly! This is where I keep ending up - wringing my hands going "Can't we all just get along?" and having no idea how to manage that without oppressing* somebody. *joins you in confusion*
* "Oppressing" is not the word I want, as it sounds more facetious than I mean, but I can't figure out the right one! *whacks brain, hoping more vocab falls out*
no subject
Date: 2010-05-21 11:40 pm (UTC)It's not.
People can be so ridiculous sometimes. No one is forced to read anything they don't want to. WHY get one's panties in a twist because someone has written a Mary Sue into THEIR story. Uhm...maybe they are just interesting enough to insert something of themselves in an obvious way and come up with a - *gasp* entertaining story!
It's not my cup of tea, but I certainly don't think anyone who writes a Mary Sue has automatically written a poor, not entertaining story. Thank God whatever it is that you wrote, you did so before you had the stone tablets of "THOU SHALT NOT" were beat over your head!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-22 04:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-22 03:01 pm (UTC)That's right. We ALL take stories personally, but we need not take ALL stories personally. The stories that touch us, set our imagination on fire, stir up memories, make us better, or just plain entertain us when we desperately need it, etc...are stories that we internalize and make personal.
Those in fandom who are the loudest and say the most derisive comments about the Mary Sue type-character, take it as a personal affront that the author wrote the story as though the author wrote it specically to piss them off. That's what I think is silly.
It's a cold, hard fact that while many don't care for it, there are some who do.
Based on my own eperience in fandom, I can tell you this: if one of the really brilliant writers I know in fandom wrote a fic with a Mary Sue it it, there is a good chance that I would actually like it.
I think we can't not. The whole reason why we're in fandom is because we're heavily invested readers. But that means we just have to work extra hard at letting go of trying to micro-manage what other people write, I guess...
True. And don't forget...fandom FIRST is about the right to freedom of self-expression. That someone cares to share their fic only means that those who care to, can enjoy the product too. It is a mistake to think that being in fandom means FIRST writing to please the unknown masses, who believe you me, are more than happy to read your writings and not even acknowledge it in any way, shape, or form.