Thread Closed
(03-19-2015, 01:10 PM)Qhora Bajihri Wrote:They can, but their detractors must be portrayed as wrong, universally so. Batman isn't a Mary Sue. I find it strange that people think this is the case. It differs from writer to writer, but his flaws tend to get far more attention from writers than his strengths, to juxtapose him with his rogues gallery as being similar but having a moral compass.(03-19-2015, 12:24 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote: "Mary Sue" is sexist when someone -wants- it to be sexist. As others have said, it was designed as basically a checklist of traits to define a self-inserted/original character in a preexisting setting/story/world.
Pretty much what I think, although I don't think self-insertion is restricted to preexisting settings. You can make a beautifully original setting and insert yourself into it with the whole author-failure-to-engage problem Warren mentioned.
Because of its origins, the term has a feminine leaning, and people can use it, if they so desire, to demean the gender without taking into account that self-insertion is a genderless concept. And sometimes people so desire. And the sexism that can be there perpetuates.
Batman is a bad example, though. He's a hero, but he's far from universally approved of within his own canon. The police are constantly on his case for vigilanteism in pretty much every variation of his existence. There are plenty of characters within his world who consider him a threat to law and order. He's just a hero, regular type. Heroes by definition are loved, but while he has fans, he has detractors, too. Mary Sue can't have detractors.
ã€Œè’¼æ°—ç ²ã€ã‚’使ã‚ã–ã‚‹ã‚’å¾—ãªã„!
AV by Kura-Ou
Wiki (Last updated 01/16)
My Balmung profile.
AV by Kura-Ou
Wiki (Last updated 01/16)
My Balmung profile.