LotV Trailer!

[Aldrius]

I was merely questioning how Aldrius can arbitrarily dictate that discussing a story's tropes as somehow being not serious enough for this story.

Because TV Tropes really has no credibility (and this is self-admitted, they're incredibly lackadaisical)... it's not really worth referencing either way. Especially if it's not providing key criteria or clear examples.

I don't have a problem with tropes in of themselves. Well, for the most part.

I just as I said, find THIS trope ("Sues") incredibly... I can't think of the word right now. It's just such a subjective term.

- - - Updated - - -

I was merely questioning how Aldrius can arbitrarily dictate that discussing a story's tropes as somehow being not serious enough for this story.

Because TV Tropes really has no credibility (and this is self-admitted, they're incredibly lackadaisical)... it's not really worth referencing either way. Especially if it's not providing key criteria or clear examples.

I don't have a problem with tropes in of themselves. Well, for the most part.

I just as I said, find THIS trope ("Sues") incredibly... I can't think of the word right now. It's just such a subjective term.

[Nissa]

I think that's a personal problem. Aldy. Mary Sue is fairly objective, and it's very easy to see when a character is the favorite of the writer. Not that everyone uses the term in the most objective manner, but still, saying "Mary Sue" isn't at least mostly objective is like saying "literally" isn't objective because too many people use it as hyperbole.

[Turalyon]

Because TV Tropes really has no credibility (and this is self-admitted, they're incredibly lackadaisical)... it's not really worth referencing either way. Especially if it's not providing key criteria or clear examples.

At the worst, they are but another opinion (especially when it comes to the "Sue") yet somehow your opinion is more credible and worth referencing in comparison? That's how you're coming across.

At the least, they provide a useful starting point in identifying and describing literary devices/patterns and how they may be used. In Kerrigan's case for BW, the descriptions of a Villain Sue and God-mode Sue are certainly applicable.

[Aldrius]

Mary Sue is fairly objective, and it's very easy to see when a character is the favorite of the writer.

Except it's not, most writers like their protagonists and put something of themselves into them... otherwise they wouldn't be their protagonists. The line between 'character the author likes' and 'mary sue' is not clear at all.

At the worst, they are but another opinion (especially when it comes to the "Sue") yet somehow your opinion is more credible and worth referencing in comparison? That's how you're coming across.

I'm saying you can't really use TV Tropes as a source. My opinion is my opinion. I'm not putting what I say forward as authoritative, merely my own take on something.

- - - Updated - - -

Mary Sue is fairly objective, and it's very easy to see when a character is the favorite of the writer.

Except it's not, most writers like their protagonists and put something of themselves into them... otherwise they wouldn't be their protagonists. The line between 'character the author likes' and 'mary sue' is not clear at all.

At the worst, they are but another opinion (especially when it comes to the "Sue") yet somehow your opinion is more credible and worth referencing in comparison? That's how you're coming across.

I'm saying you can't really use TV Tropes as a source. My opinion is my opinion. I'm not putting what I say forward as authoritative, merely my own take on something.

[Nissa]

Except it's not, most writers like their protagonists and put something of themselves into them... otherwise they wouldn't be their protagonists. The line between 'character the author likes' and 'mary sue' is not clear at all.

....So how long have you been writing? Spotting obvious favorites is really easy, particularly when other characters don't get as much love. Besides, "character the writer likes too much" and "mary sue" are the same thing, because a mary sue arises out of being liked too much/representing the author. "Too much", as in significantly more time, attention, and good things happening to the mary sue.

I'm saying you can't really use TV Tropes as a source. My opinion is my opinion. I'm not putting what I say forward as authoritative, merely my own take on something.

Well, your opinion is wrrrrrroooooooooonnngggg!!! Lol. Except for about TVtropes. That site is a drain on inspiration, with its attempts to overcategorize everything.

[Turalyon]

I'm saying you can't really use TV Tropes as a source. My opinion is my opinion. I'm not putting what I say forward as authoritative, merely my own take on something.

So it's your opinion that it's inappropriate to use a source, that specifically deals with tropes, to describe a "Mary Sue" (or in this case, a particular type of Mary Sue), which is an example of a trope? Ooookayyy..... I think you made more sense when you just said (paraphrased) that Mary Sue is too ill-defined to describe the character arc of Kerrigan in BW.

[Aldrius]

....So how long have you been writing? Spotting obvious favorites is really easy, particularly when other characters don't get as much love. Besides, "character the writer likes too much" and "mary sue" are the same thing, because a mary sue arises out of being liked too much/representing the author. "Too much", as in significantly more time, attention, and good things happening to the mary sue.

This is all super subjective, there's no concrete evidence or hard facts on what makes a character get 'too much attention'. Not every character deserves the same attention, not every character works for a writer as much as others do.

It isn't always easy to spot because different readers like different things. More often than not I find when people are trying to say someone's a "Mary Sue" it amounts to: So hey, I don't like this main character, good things happen to them and they're not a character I like, so obviously he's a mary sue."

Like if I HAD to define it, I'd say the criteria for a Mary Sue character would have to be REALLY extreme. Like when I think Mary Sue I think like a 12 year old girl's self-insertion fan-fiction where she hooks up with her favourite anime character, and the story's boring and it has nothing to do with what that anime is about. And it doesn't really make sense in the context of the show it's based off of.

So it's your opinion that it's inappropriate to use a source, that specifically deals with tropes, to describe a "Mary Sue" (or in this case, a particular type of Mary Sue), which is an example of a trope? Ooookayyy..... I think you made more sense when you just said (paraphrased) that Mary Sue is too ill-defined to describe the character arc of Kerrigan in BW.

I'm saying trying to find some authoritative resources on a really, really childish made-up internet term which is incredibly poorly defined, when there aren't even examples provided (the way there are for most of the tropes on TV tropes; which makes those pages at least somewhat better resources).

Some of the tropes on TV Tropes I think make a lot of sense and show interesting trends. But only as points of interest, I don't find them very academic, even if I find them interesting. There's just no good oversight.

Mary Sue I've always thought was just a way for people to look at something and go "I don't like that character, they're dumb, why does the writer spend more time writing them. Obviously they love them and are giving them unwarranted attention." Especially since most professional video games are written by teams, not a single individual.

- - - Updated - - -

....So how long have you been writing? Spotting obvious favorites is really easy, particularly when other characters don't get as much love. Besides, "character the writer likes too much" and "mary sue" are the same thing, because a mary sue arises out of being liked too much/representing the author. "Too much", as in significantly more time, attention, and good things happening to the mary sue.

This is all super subjective, there's no concrete evidence or hard facts on what makes a character get 'too much attention'. Not every character deserves the same attention, not every character works for a writer as much as others do.

It isn't always easy to spot because different readers like different things. More often than not I find when people are trying to say someone's a "Mary Sue" it amounts to: So hey, I don't like this main character, good things happen to them and they're not a character I like, so obviously he's a mary sue."

Like if I HAD to define it, I'd say the criteria for a Mary Sue character would have to be REALLY extreme. Like when I think Mary Sue I think like a 12 year old girl's self-insertion fan-fiction where she hooks up with her favourite anime character, and the story's boring and it has nothing to do with what that anime is about. And it doesn't really make sense in the context of the show it's based off of.

So it's your opinion that it's inappropriate to use a source, that specifically deals with tropes, to describe a "Mary Sue" (or in this case, a particular type of Mary Sue), which is an example of a trope? Ooookayyy..... I think you made more sense when you just said (paraphrased) that Mary Sue is too ill-defined to describe the character arc of Kerrigan in BW.

I'm saying trying to find some authoritative resources on a really, really childish made-up internet term which is incredibly poorly defined, when there aren't even examples provided (the way there are for most of the tropes on TV tropes; which makes those pages at least somewhat better resources) is just a little futile.=

Some of the tropes on TV Tropes I think make a lot of sense and show interesting trends. But only as points of interest, I don't find them very academic, even if I find them interesting. There's just no good oversight.

Mary Sue I've always thought was just a way for people to look at something and go "I don't like that character, they're dumb, why does the writer spend more time writing them. Obviously they love them and are giving them unwarranted attention." Especially since most professional video games are written by teams, not a single individual.

[Nissa]

This is all super subjective, there's no concrete evidence or hard facts on what makes a character get 'too much attention'. Not every character deserves the same attention, not every character works for a writer as much as others do.

It's actually very objective. While a character being around for a longer amount of type by itself won't dictate a favorite, a combination of time, avoidance of seriously bad things, the gaining of several powers, the lack of defeats, the large number of fawning subjects of affection, and other characteristics all contribute to alert the reader/viewer that this character is nothing more than a fantasy indulgence on the part of the writer. Even people who aren't writers or even particularly observant will notice when a Mary Sue is present, so clearly there are objective factors signalling the presence of an overly favored character.

It's the combination of characteristics that brings about a Mary Sue, not necessarily one of them. For example, a casanova character might have lot of women, but he'll be a wimp, or stupid, or unable to be serious, or be in a type of story that isn't altogether serious. Or, a character might have a lot of power, but no friends. Or a character might be on screen a long time, yet goes through a lot of suffering.

Keep in mind, however, that I am only arguing against your notions about a Mary Sue. I am not saying Kerrigan is one (she clearly isn't) or that TVtropes is worthwhile (only if you're really, really bored and aren't a writer).

Like if I HAD to define it, I'd say the criteria for a Mary Sue character would have to be REALLY extreme. Like when I think Mary Sue I think like a 12 year old girl's self-insertion fan-fiction where she hooks up with her favourite anime character, and the story's boring and it has nothing to do with what that anime is about. And it doesn't really make sense in the context of the show it's based off of.

Actually, a lot of the time the context of the story is specifically designed to support the Mary Sue. For example, Sword Art Online bends over backwards to give Kirito power, the admiration of every type of woman (including his cousin), and opportunity to be the lone hero that can defeat anything and figure out important secrets.

I'm saying trying to find some authoritative resources on a really, really childish made-up internet term which is incredibly poorly defined, when there aren't even examples provided (the way there are for most of the tropes on TV tropes; which makes those pages at least somewhat better resources).

Given as a Mary Sue is not a childish, made-up internet term, I disagree. Kirito from SAO is one example.

Mary Sue I've always thought was just a way for people to look at something and go "I don't like that character, they're dumb, why does the writer spend more time writing them. Obviously they love them and are giving them unwarranted attention."

Ah, here we go, I see the problem. You've seen so many people abuse the label Mary Sue that, for you, it has lost all meaning. Well, just because a couple of boys cry wolf, doesn't mean there aren't wolves on the mountain.

I do agree that the existence of teams prevents Mary Sues. I also agree that any writer worth their salt will easily avoid creating a Mary Sue. A couple of my friends (amateur writers) even tend to kill or hurt their favorite characters. However, that doesn't stop a Mary Sue from existing as a concept. In fact, there are some genres that specifically create Mary Sues because the readers of that genre want to insert themselves into the self-insert character (this happens primarily in romance and thrillers, sometimes scifi/fantasy).

[Aldrius]

Given as a Mary Sue is not a childish, made-up internet term, I disagree. Kirito from SAO is one example.

Well the internet definitely invented it (I think the term is named after a character from a Star Trek fanfic if I remember correctly). In general I just think it's a pretty... useless term. There are much better, more in-depth ways to describe why a character is flawed outside of 'they're just a self-insertion power fantasy for the author!'.

I guess I can't argue with Kirito -- at least from what I know about him, but that whole series is a pretty shallow fantasy story anyway.

Typically I just... I mean maybe it's just that I have pretty good taste (not to sound conceited) I don't see a lot of characters that fit the criteria for what a Mary Sue supposedly is. Twilight and Sword Art Online are banal and I've never bothered to read them, though.

But like, I'm just thinking about the main character from Naoki Urasawa's Monster for example. The guy is almost a saint. He's caring, generous, a highly skilled surgeon, everyone pretty much loves and respects him and he even LOOKS like the mangaka, Naoki Urasawa, A LOT like him. And he's the only Japanese character in a series set in Germany. It would be VERY EASY to say he's a self-insertion Mary Sue character.

But I'd want to punch anybody in the face who says he's a Mary Sue. Because he is a very, very good character. With lots of depth, and he's incredibly sympathetic and captivating. And he goes through a lot of changes as well.

Even Tyrion in Game of Thrones, in part fits some of the criteria for what a Mary Sue is. He's cleverer, he's more honorable (more so in the show, but still), he's sympathetic. George R. R. Martin obviously relates to him in part. But he's definitely not a Mary Sue.

- - - Updated - - -

Given as a Mary Sue is not a childish, made-up internet term, I disagree. Kirito from SAO is one example.

Well the internet definitely invented it (I think the term is named after a character from a Star Trek fanfic if I remember correctly). In general I just think it's a pretty... useless term. There are much better, more in-depth ways to describe why a character is flawed outside of 'they're just a self-insertion power fantasy for the author!'.

I guess I can't argue with Kirito -- at least from what I know about him, but that whole series is a pretty shallow fantasy story anyway.

Typically I just... I mean maybe it's just that I have pretty good taste (not to sound conceited) I don't see a lot of characters that fit the criteria for what a Mary Sue supposedly is. Twilight and Sword Art Online are banal and I've never bothered to read them, though.

But like, I'm just thinking about the main character from Naoki Urasawa's Monster for example. The guy is almost a saint. He's caring, generous, a highly skilled surgeon, everyone pretty much loves and respects him and he even LOOKS like the mangaka, Naoki Urasawa, A LOT like him. And he's the only Japanese character in a series set in Germany. It would be VERY EASY to say he's a self-insertion Mary Sue character.

But I'd want to punch anybody in the face who says he's a Mary Sue. Because he is a very, very good character. With lots of depth, and he's incredibly sympathetic and captivating. And he goes through a lot of changes as well.

Even Tyrion in Game of Thrones, in part fits some of the criteria for what a Mary Sue is. He's cleverer, he's more honorable (more so in the show, but still), he's sympathetic. George R. R. Martin obviously relates to him in part. But he's definitely not a Mary Sue.

[Turalyon]

There are much better, more in-depth ways to describe why a character is flawed outside of 'they're just a self-insertion power fantasy for the author!'.

This I can agree on. I've always liked to call it "authorial intrusion" to describe why a character may feel too good/unnatural to be "true" for a particular fictional world or when a plot seemingly bends itself to accommodate a character/thing/event.

But I'd want to punch anybody in the face who says he's a Mary Sue. Because he is a very, very good character. With lots of depth, and he's incredibly sympathetic and captivating. And he goes through a lot of changes as well.

Even Tyrion in Game of Thrones, in part fits some of the criteria for what a Mary Sue is. He's cleverer, he's more honorable (more so in the show, but still), he's sympathetic. George R. R. Martin obviously relates to him in part. But he's definitely not a Mary Sue.

He's a Mary Sue.

Jokes aside, I think the problem lies in the terms description (of which there are many it seems) having largely pejorative connotations. I mean, does the term "Mary Sue" really have to describe a character in a negative manner/light though (even though everyone who uses it, does so)? A trope is supposed to be something neutral, afterall. Can there be such things as well-written Mary Sues, I wonder?