(03-19-2015, 05:14 PM)undefined Wrote: These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

(03-19-2015, 05:43 PM)Verad Wrote:

(03-19-2015, 05:14 PM)undefined Wrote: These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

Why?

I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.

So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.

(03-19-2015, 06:05 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: "My Immortal" is not good.

(03-19-2015, 06:05 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: The same reason "The Room" is considered an awful movie: The trope was defined by writers submitting material for fanzines and fan-publication, and they were only interesting or fun to read if you happened to be the author. While I'm sure they could be marveled upon and enjoyed like all bad media, there's still a line between "So bad it's good" and "so bad it's horrible."

Power fantasies are potent things we can lose ourselves in. The key is being able to have a wide-spread audience do that. When it becomes self-obsessed writing it's not accessible, which means it isn't good as a consumer product, which was the original intent.

"My Immortal" is not good.

(03-19-2015, 06:32 PM)Verad Wrote:

(03-19-2015, 06:05 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: The same reason "The Room" is considered an awful movie: The trope was defined by writers submitting material for fanzines and fan-publication, and they were only interesting or fun to read if you happened to be the author. While I'm sure they could be marveled upon and enjoyed like all bad media, there's still a line between "So bad it's good" and "so bad it's horrible."

Power fantasies are potent things we can lose ourselves in. The key is being able to have a wide-spread audience do that. When it becomes self-obsessed writing it's not accessible, which means it isn't good as a consumer product, which was the original intent.

"My Immortal" is not good.

Self-obsessed writing can and has been quite commercially successful; Twilight and 50 Shades are very self-obsessed. The usual distinction between commercial success and aesthetic quality applies.

But, to be clear, self-obsessed power fantasies can also be aesthetically successful, critically successful, and commercially successful (although for pre-commercial texts like medieval romances and the epics I suppose "culturally successful" might be the better term). While I don't agree with the politics of the movie, American Sniper is a good recent example. Poets did quite well talking about themselves before the modernist movement made poetry inaccessible to the reading public. There's a fair bit of precedent in the commercial sphere for self-obsession and power fantasy to intersect and make a good bit of money in the process to both popular and critical acclaim.

But you mention "My Immortal," a text that will never go anywhere near a publisher, not simply because of its aesthetic failings but because it's fanfiction. It's not a commercial text. It is, in someway, unable to be legitimized through the usual channels. I wonder if the author-function has something to do with this.

(03-19-2015, 05:43 PM)Verad Wrote:

(03-19-2015, 05:14 PM)undefined Wrote: These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

Why?

I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.

So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.

(03-20-2015, 01:03 AM)Ryoko Wrote:

(03-19-2015, 05:43 PM)Verad Wrote:

(03-19-2015, 05:14 PM)undefined Wrote: These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

Why?

I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.

So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.

Well, in fiction it's just personal preference. I personally hate just about anything involving superheroes. I think the very idea is insulting to the resilience and ingenuity of normal humans. But certain media appeals to certain people, and not everyone has to like everything.

However, it's a bit different when it's a group experience. I myself have had to remove a few people from Pathfinder campaigns because power-tripping ruins the fun for everyone else. Why lead a group of rag-tag adventurers on an epic quest to find Purplebeard's lost gold when your local hyper-wizard can just divine it's location and then teleport it to you? And good news, he didn't even need to get out of bed to do it.  
From an observer perspective, the problem with overpowered characters is that creativity basically requires restrictions. Arthur Dent had infinitely more interesting adventures than Superman ever did, because he was facing similarly impossible issues, but had none of the tools with which Superman solved those problems, forcing him to improvise. This creates compelling narrative. 

From an in-world perspective, superheroes cannot coexist with humans in a realistic environment, only rule us. Freedom cannot exist while Superman exists. See, it is established that Superman is greater than the combined might of all humanity. He never loses, he simply has setbacks. But eventually he wins, without fail. In this world, democracy cannot truly exist. Self-determination cannot exist. If we are allowed to make choices, it is only because Superman allows us to. Because if we upset him, he could destroy us all. We would have no recourse against him. No balance of power, no ability to rise up against tyranny. Just helpless ants being vaporized by a flying invincible jackass with laser vision. All of our elections, our wars, our revolutions, our social movements, all made irrelevant just by this one man existing. Countless millions die to shape our world, but for what purpose, when Superman has the final say? 

I understand that most people will never try to take a character that far. But there has to be a clear limit.

(03-20-2015, 07:48 AM)Imo Wrote: I'll just pop in it say that anyone who thinks Superman is a bigger Mary Sue than Batman really hasn't been paying attention to the comic book fandom, and to writers who revere the latter to the point they might as well have a Bat-altar in their bedroom.

(03-20-2015, 07:55 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: Well, I'm right here and just posited that point. Care to elaborate on it rather than merely stating it's incorrect? I don't read Superman comics as a rule because I don't find them interesting, so I'm painting with stereotypes on my proverbial brush.

(03-20-2015, 08:17 AM)Imo Wrote: Sure. Most of Batman fans, and a lot of his writers, consider him an unreachable mental colossus, who can beat anyone with enough preparation. And among nerds, someone who's super-smart is a bigger power fantasy than someone who's super-strong. Especially if through that brain he's able to defeat the super-strong guy.
Batman has a lot of flaws, but they're the cool kinds of flaws, like being mistrusted by The Man, or his obsessive determination. Mary Sues often have those kinds of flaws - flaws that are bad on paper, but in practice their purpose is to showcase how awesome you are.

Do note that we're talking about bad writers here. A good writer will create a more three-dimensional image of Batman... But they will also create a more three-dimensional image of Superman. Either character can be written good or bad. Batman has more fanboys, though.
(I actually prefer Batman, despite everything that was said here.)

1. a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known; preconceived idea, favorable or, more usually, unfavorable
   
   
   
   
2. 1. a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it; unreasonable bias: a prejudice against modern art
      
      
      
      
   2. the holding of such judgments or opinions
      
      
      
   
   
   
   
3. suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, creeds, regions, occupations, etc.
   
   
   
   
4. injury or harm resulting as from some judgment or action of another or others