My problem with so-called "Mary Sues" is a different one.
Most "Mary Sues" are not written with the intention to write a good story. They are only written as an indulgence, as a sweet dream, and mostly by young authors.
By now the term "Mary Sue" has degenerated to nothing but a stupid, venemous label. "Mary Sue" has become a stupid, venemous label that does not contribute at all to a sensible debate of good or bad characterization. All that this label does is intimidate and scare (teenaged) writers.
I want to have no part in discouraging teenagers (or adults!) to spend time writing down and sharing their dreams, even if the writing is lazy or atrocious. I think no matter how bad a story is, it is wonderful to put down dreams into words and to spend your free time in a creative way than say, just go shopping or watch TV all the time.
As you mentioned "lazy": I think if reviewers or critics rely too much on simple labels, they are lazy, too.
What so difficult about writing "I think this is a one-dimensional character, because..."?
And a last comment to clichés: I read a story that was full to the brim with purple prose and the attempt at unusual descriptions. I longed for a well-placed cliché. If clichés are not overused, they are just as neutral as words such as "say", "reply" or "look". And "butterflies in a stomach" don't make me wince, but some attempts at originality really, really do.
*sigh*
I think canon is interesting, because it can give a story depth and detail. Tolkien's world that is so rich and multi-layered... that's what makes it fascinating enough for me to even want to write fan fiction about it.
But I can't stand it when people get so canon-obsessed that they are not able to read a story for its own quality anymore. And I absolutely *hate* it when canatics start making teenagers who just wanted to have a bit of fun feel bad about their stories.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rosecarmine
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 02:27 pm (UTC)Most "Mary Sues" are not written with the intention to write a good story. They are only written as an indulgence, as a sweet dream, and mostly by young authors.
By now the term "Mary Sue" has degenerated to nothing but a stupid, venemous label. "Mary Sue" has become a stupid, venemous label that does not contribute at all to a sensible debate of good or bad characterization. All that this label does is intimidate and scare (teenaged) writers.
I want to have no part in discouraging teenagers (or adults!) to spend time writing down and sharing their dreams, even if the writing is lazy or atrocious. I think no matter how bad a story is, it is wonderful to put down dreams into words and to spend your free time in a creative way than say, just go shopping or watch TV all the time.
As you mentioned "lazy": I think if reviewers or critics rely too much on simple labels, they are lazy, too.
What so difficult about writing "I think this is a one-dimensional character, because..."?
And a last comment to clichés: I read a story that was full to the brim with purple prose and the attempt at unusual descriptions. I longed for a well-placed cliché. If clichés are not overused, they are just as neutral as words such as "say", "reply" or "look". And "butterflies in a stomach" don't make me wince, but some attempts at originality really, really do.
*sigh*
I think canon is interesting, because it can give a story depth and detail. Tolkien's world that is so rich and multi-layered... that's what makes it fascinating enough for me to even want to write fan fiction about it.
But I can't stand it when people get so canon-obsessed that they are not able to read a story for its own quality anymore. And I absolutely *hate* it when canatics start making teenagers who just wanted to have a bit of fun feel bad about their stories.