Showing posts with label Mary Sue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mary Sue. Show all posts

Monday, January 2, 2017

In Defense of ReaderX



     You may or may not know what I'm talking about with the title there.

     To start, some of you may have read my ode to fanfiction sometime back, in which I espoused the joys and even intimated the necessities of the craft.  Fanfiction is in my heart and soul and there's pretty much literally no downside; it allows fans of a work to express their love for it, critique its flaws, play around in the sandbox that was left to them, and even advertises the original work--there's more than one story/webcomic/movie I've read/watched/consumed primarily because my friends were writing fanfiction about it.

     Of course, fanfiction, like all fiction, has its downsides, like the dreaded (or maybe overblown?) Mary Sue character that wrankles everyone's hides, or the inevitable kinky stories that come about, inspiring nosebleeds and squick in roughly equal measure.  But perhaps most divisive, and extremely unique to the fanfiction genre (medium?) are ReaderX stories.

     These are stories that are typically told in the second person (the "you" form), and insert the reader as a character into the world of the story (or often an AU), as a potential love interest or current paramour to one or more of the characters within.  Occasionally these stories are told in a platonic sense, the Reader just hanging out with their best buds or going on an adventure, but it's usually romantic and often sexual.

     These types of stories take Mary Sue to the next level--Mega Sue perhaps?  MarySuetron?  Sailor Maryoon?--and don't even try to disguise the self-insert into the narrative; it is blatantly and purposefully an adventure of wish-fulfillment in romance land, often poorly written and more than a little clunky in execution.  This is largely because these types of stories are usually written by young (usually teen or preteen), inexperienced writers still trying to get a feel for how to write a story in general.  To compound the issue, that very phenomena creates an echo chamber of young, inexperienced writers with very few solid examples of how to pull off certain techniques which are in actuality quite advanced--the very idea of a ReaderX, while an old tradition, is still experimental, seldom done, and more extremely seldom done well.  How often have you seen someone write well just in the second person?

     R.L. Stine, Andrew Hussie, and a few fanfiction writers are the only examples I can think of.  Then you add an attempt to actually make it about the audience member sitting at home--not just a character which the audience member assumes the shape of in the telling--and it becomes a thousand times more complex.

     But many are still enjoyable despite the clunkiness, and some are even excellent in quality!  Like any other genre of fiction, there's a whole spectrum of quality.

     And yet, regardless of the quality of any individual piece, the ReaderX is a genre which is extremely polarizing; it seems like you either love it (in which case you consume and produce it voraciously) or you absolutely detest it, in which case you either distance yourself from it or make it part of your life's work to shit on it.

     To be clear, there are a lot of very valid reasons for people to hate the genre; some people don't care for second person, some people can't separate certain conventions of the genre from the potential that lies beneath, some people just don't care for it, and that's fine.  I'm not writing this to insist that everyone love ReaderX stories; what I am doing is entreating you to listen, open your mind, and allow me to make my case in their defense--and thereby, in the defense of those who write and read ReaderX.

   
     There's this thing that's very prevalent in the fanfiction community in which people are unable (or unwilling) to separate a fictional work from its author, so when something bothers someone they take it out on the person who wrote the piece.  Sometimes this is rooted in validity--when an author writes something that very clearly promotes queerphobia, misogyny, or racism, for instance, the desire to correct them stems from a good place, and is usually the right thing to do.

     But often the issue isn't with the author at all--the reader just doesn't like the genre of the fic, or the way it's written, or something about it squicks them, and instead of just saying, "I don't like this" or trying to give the author constructive criticism, they take it out on the author for having the audacity to write something so atrocious, how dare they, and they lump anyone and everyone who writes in that genre into this category of HORRIBLE BAD EVIL and toss them in the public fires of shame.

     Again, there's nothing wrong with not liking something!  But publicly shaming an entire group of people for the things they like to read and write isn't a solution to the problem; the solution is to not look that thing up.  Put it on Tumblr Blacklist, read the tags or summary before you dive in, and avoid it if you know you don't like it; don't beat kids up for liking something.  Because that's what you're doing, in this specific instance; beating up kids.

     ReaderX fics are silly, self-indulgent, are often poorly written, contain too little substance, and can on occasion develop their own cultish subfollowings that are breeding grounds for toxicity (like any and every work of literature that has ever existed), and they're difficult at times to take seriously. but they aren't meant to be taken seriously!

     In my experience, ReaderX fics are written and read by preteen and teenage girls that are absorbed in a fictional work to the exclusion of social lives they probably didn't have to begin with.  They have crushes on the fictional characters in a given work--as many people of all ages, sexes, and sexualities do--and they want to explore that attraction in the only place possible; fiction.  There's no chance that they'll ever meet these characters in real life, let alone have a relationship with them, and they know that.  They're not deluding themselves into thinking that the laws of reality will bend so they can smooch APH Germany or go superhero hunting with Megamind.

     The kids who wind up deeply entrenched in ReaderX culture are often depressed and isolated.  They're the type of person who has always retreated to fiction because the real world didn't want them, and all they want is to be wanted; they need that outlet, those twenty minutes of smiling as they pretend that this person they've attached themselves to cares about them.  It's no different from pretending that you're your favorite character as you read a book, except the story in question was specifically written with that in mind.

     To kids like this, ReaderX stories can be very therapeutic.  It's like daydreaming on paper, but sharing that daydream in such a way that others can experience it too, exposing themselves to daydream scenarios that they never would have thought up by themselves while simultaneously allowing themselves to step outside their own heads.  

      As one of those kids myself, ReaderX stories helped me survive depression.  It definitely wasn't the prevailing reason that I lived through it, but it helped; in the seven and a half years during which my depression was at its worst, I probably put in enough hours reading ReaderXes to fill up at least a month.  ReaderXes allowed me to leap into the head of a blank template that had friends that loved her and a romantic interest that valued her, and because it didn't just happen in my head, like a daydream, I wasn't beholden to all the things my brain insisted were Cold Hard Fact--the "you're unloveable"s, the "this is stupid"s, the "everyone hates you"s that often made daydreams unsustainable and entirely unsatisfying.

     Even if a kid isn't depressed and has no mental health issues, if they're just a perfectly healthy child with an active imagination and they want to indulge themselves in a fluffy adventure of which they're the central figure, so what?  It's as healthy as daydreaming, and more productive, since any writing at all is practice in story-telling and reading can teach a great many things (even if it's just what not to do).

     Actually, it may be healthier than daydreaming, which has been linked to Alzheimer's; daydreaming can cause false memory paths to be created which go nowhere--they trail off and wither, taking up space in the brain.  At least if it's written down, it has a basis in the concrete world, and when read it's neurologically no different from reading a short story.

     Reading and writing ReaderXes is really no different from playing pretend as a child and trying to save the princess from the tower, though admittedly it is a less physically active pursuit.

     Are ReaderXes the pinnacle of literature?  Hell no!  But there's nothing wrong with them, and I think it's time we stopped acting like there was.  More to the point, it's time we stopped acting like there's something wrong with reading or writing them.  When you attack someone for reading/writing something you don't like, you're telling them that it's not all right to like that thing, and in my experience the kids who revel in self-indulgent literature are the ones who are most likely to believe you when you badmouth them.  Saying they're shitty isn't revealing new information, you're just reinforcing what they already believe about themselves, and shoving them deeper into the very mindset that made many of them flee to self-inserts in the first place.

     I mean for Christ's sakes, just let kids be kids!  The act of enjoying a story about themselves isn't hurting you, or anyone else for that matter.  You liked ridiculous stuff when you were that age, too, and no matter how far you try to run, you'll never be able to escape that; nor should you.  Interest in things that seem silly or unproductive is nothing to be ashamed of; we're all human, and we all like to indulge ourselves from time to time.

     So next time you're thinking about tearing someone down for reading or writing ReaderX fanfiction, type "Reader/[your favorite character]" into AO3 and see if you still hate them when you're done.

     Or better yet, just don't.  Keep your complaints to the fics themselves if you have to, and away from the people who write them.  Otherwise you might have to put up with me *cracks knuckles* Tourette's Girl, protector of outcast children everywhere!

     (But seriously guys, being mean to kids isn't cool and it doesn't make you "edgy" or anti-establishment; it just makes you a bully.  Grow up.  Learn to separate the wrongs of an author from flaws in their artwork.)

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Catching and Killing the God-Mod



     Mary Sues, as I have previously discussed, started out as characters that changed the behavior of the universe and characters around them to fit the whim of the author--usually because they're author inserts in the first place.  But since those early days of Star Trek fanfiction, the term Mary Sue has come to represent any character (usually female) who happens to be too perfect, with too few flaws.  Really, the term Mary Sue has evolved to mean a confusing number of things, too numerous to pin down--it now means so much that it means nothing.

     Ignoring for now the original definition of a Mary Sue, I'm going to fixate on "too perfect" characters--Our Aylas, our Supermans, our Eragons, we know the type; over-powered and under-flawed, these are characters who always know what's best, always do what's right, always win, and never have any substantial problems that need more than a few chapters of angst to fix.

     While nothing in writing is inherently bad, these characters are definitely not on the "inherently good" side of the bell curve.  They're not harmful, they don't hurt people--but they're boring.  They bore you absolutely to death.  When your character is overpowered and underflawed, every battle they ever face is going to feel contrived, so nothing is ever going to feel satisfying.

     When I was coming up in the (*shudder* Warriors) role playing ranks, waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy back in 2009, we had a specific name for these characters--we called them "God Mods."  As in, "This character has been modified to assume a God-like status."  Creating or playing a God-Modded character was the act of God-Modding, and made you a God-Modder.

     In role play, this was seen as an unfair advantage, and many site homepages had this among their top three on the list of rules, right up there with no Power Playing.  It could result in penalties as severe as suspension or even banishment.  In writing God-Mods can't get you banned, but they can severely damage the quality of your story.

     While a God-Mod can be an author insert, and can be a Mary Sue as originally described, it may only be an author's favorite character (an "author's baby" gone wrong).  God-Mods tend to be super smart, super attractive, and super important (for no obvious or even tangible reason), and they also tend to have talents and sometimes literal superpowers far surpassing that of other characters within.  Essentially, the God-Mod is the very epitome of in-world perfection.  If they have any flaws at all, they're either informed flaws (flaws which the narrator tells us about, but which we never bear witness to) or "cute"/useful flaws--he's so clumsy it's adorable, teehee, or he has a terrible temper, but only when he's talking to bad guys.

     Just being amazing isn't enough--amazing characters can be plenty overpowered and still manage to register as non-God-Mods, because fully realized characters, super or not, have flaws and limits of both mind and body.  They may be unjustifiably cruel at times, their powers may only work for a small ten-minute window each day, they may not really be able to hear out of their left ear at all, and only have normal (i.e. NOT SUPER) hearing in the right, etc.

     Whatever your character's limits and flaws, abilities and disabilities, they need to be meaningful--your character should be truly, honestly challenged in their endeavors.  The villain should be strong enough to pose a real threat to your hero, and your hero should be flawed enough to make it conceivable that she might fail.  You can't worry about a character if they don't have the capacity to fail, and without worry there's no staying power--no matter how interesting the plot, people won't want to read about how Mister Perfect saved the day as he yawned into his palm just by flicking his perfectly-manicured nails in the villain's general direction.

     Don't let the God Mods win, folks; seek them out and wrangle them in, murder them that they may be reborn into a more imperfect form.  Only then will they truly shine.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

#SueQuest: Questioning The Validity of Mary Sue



     The other day, trying to find a control to use for The Mary Sue Litmus Test (for the sake of a blog post, you see), I asked my friend Rebekah if I could use her, thinking that she, a real person, couldn't possibly test positive for Mary Sue.  I started asking questions, and Rebekah and I ended up turning it into something of a game, then into a livetweet session, which we lovingly entitled #SueQuest. 

     But the more questions we answered, the more it seemed like my friend truly was a Mary Sue--something straight out of a bad high school drama, almost.  Even with a metric fuckload of desuifers, she ended up scoring a forty-five--five points away from "BURN IT AND RUN!" territory!

     It seemed hilarious, of course, but it really got me thinking.  Thus, I tested myself--and I also came out a Mary Sue, with 43 points of Sueness!   And this is without answering any of the "Is this character named after you?" type questions.  In fact, the only person I tested who didn't end up a Mary Sue was my dog, Amy--and she still had 27 points, placing her in the "be very careful" range.
 
She is little more than a very tiny bug.


     I'm not about to say that this means anything--certainly not anything concerning Syera Miktayee, whose website I enjoy and frequent quite...um....frequent...ly.  Shut up.  It's not like it's just this one test--Rebekah and I came up a Mary Sue on every test I could find.

     But it does remind me of a few posts by the women down at Rewriting Mary Sue, and some points that have been made--how the term Mary Sue began as a term for bad fanfiction author inserts who bent the entire fabric of the universe to their whim so that things would turn out well for them; for whom there was never any question of winning, for whom the best always occurred, the worst flitting through only briefly, trivially, and with great contrivance; but how it has now come to mean any character who happens to have too much power or be too good at too many things--and the fact that the term is disproportionately leveled against females.

     As Jenn Lyons pointed out in one of the above links, male characters have to be so Mary Sue that they're freaking SUPERMAN before anyone will call them a Mary Sue--or Gary Stu, if you prefer the more masculine term.  When a man is Batman, he's Batman; when a woman is Batman, she tends to get slapped with a citation.

     One of our goals as writers is to create realistic, three dimensional characters that still manage to be out-of-this-world fantastic--most of us don't read superhero stories to see how regular "normal" people are processing the events.  We read superhero stories to watch people with amazing abilities overcome impossible odds using their incredible talents!

     But how can we ever expect to see realistic, three-dimensional characters if two American teenagers from the real world (without superpowers, I might add) register as Mary Sue right off the bat?  I definitely agree that characters who bend the world to their whims are a problem, as are overpowered, unflawed characters (though the term for this, I was originally taught, is God-Modded), but I think this is something definitely worth considering the next time you decide to trash a Mary Sue.  Do you have a problem with this character because she doesn't have realistic flaws, because she makes things stop making sense?  Or do you dislike her because you think she's too smart and too beautiful and too talented all at the same time?  There's an expectation in society that women are to be only one or two of these, never three, and never, ever any more than that.

     If you're ever in doubt, play the sex-swap game; if you make this character a man, do you have the same reaction?  If you compared her to a male superhero, how does she rank?  Is she really as bad as Superman?  Or are you just upset that this portrayal of a woman is going against the grain of the stereotypes you've been taught to separate them into?

     I encourage you all to play the #SueQuest game; test yourself, your friends, your family--just don't forget to tag it if you do, so I can see what your outcomes are!  What are your thoughts on Mary Sues?  Feel free to discuss your Sue Views or deconstruct some characters in the comments section!