Words do (not) mean things
Mar. 20th, 2010 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
farlaSo someone posted a character on oc_analysis to get validation.
It sort of reminded me of an ongoing issue I have with a lot of fandom communication. We tend to have a lot of terms that are clearly positive or negative, but rarely any consensus on what they actually mean. Generally, everyone is against flames and in favor of some level of concrit. People are in favor of good characters and against bad ones. Generally, everyone has a long list of exactly what traits cause them to draw the line.
See, the person on oc_analysis had decided people disliked her character because they were OC haters. So she came to a place for OCs to get validation and, getting something other than "she's awesome! you're right, totally not a sue!" just decided everyone there hates OCs with a passion. So she's made this thing up about being "Original Character Reviewier Cancer Free" and her description of it basically amounts to "I'll judge OCs fairly based on the information I get rather than making a snap judgement". Which is, you know, completely indistinguishable from something someone who actually meant decent OCs might say, after they'd seen people unfairly calling good OCs sues.
Which is why I can like OCs, write OCs, and still react to hearing people talk about how unfair it is people have prejudices against OCs by immediately looking to see if they're talking about their OC Rainbow Sparkleraven. I remember hearing all sorts of how to write a good OC advice back in the day that basically amounted to how to lure readers in by things like pretending the story was mostly about the canon cast and keeping the OC in a supporting role, and then a couple chapters in making it all about the OC. And I can hate marysues but these days do the same to see if they're talking about ICKY ICKY GIRLS ARE GETTING IN MY CANON. And I demand extensive lists of exactly what we're talking about for any type of feedback discussion.
Meanwhile, and I finally figured out why this pisses me off so very much, you've got the people saying that it's possible to write marysues well. And it's because the term mary sue means "a character who is bad in a particular sort of way". If the fact she's a princess isn't a problem, it's not a mary sue. If you define mary sue to cover good OCs too, then you're taking away a word used to mean something so we can have a synonym for a word we already have, and the insistence than marysue and OC are identical just creates other groups that bash all "marysues" using the same definition. People doing this often tend to be using odd definitions of marysue to start, like it meaning specifically self-inserts. Only again, we've got a perfectly functional way of talking about self-inserts, namely by using that actual word. Instead of actually communicating what they usually mean to say (not every last self-insert/OC romance/long lost sister/etc character is a sue, which you can at least talk about), they say that sueishness is a neutral trait, and discussion starts tying itself into a pretzel as people struggle to work out what exactly the bad type of character is.
Oh, and those inscrutable tags that were bothering me on AooO? Support did get back to me and explained I can look stuff up on their wiki to figure out what tags mean. Except my problem is with tags that have vague/conflicting/overlapping definitions, in large part because they get used differently across fandom, and all their wiki does is tell me that yes, I was right and they're used differently across fandom and so are basically useless for anything specific, and all the cross-fandom tags are doing right now is making that even worse.
I don't even know why it always works out this way. Fandom and culture at large both regularly invent new terms, but fandom seems unable to ever set solid definitions (see "drabble"), and people seem to hate just making up a new term for a new idea if they can stretch an old one to fit.
In sum, I hate how if I don't already know exactly what someone means when they say a term, I have no idea what they're saying and have to either find multiple examples to get a decent baseline or else the whole thing might as be about how I really need think about how I zorphle when tendgo, and stop the rampant grenie of aewd. It renders any attempt at agreeing or disagreeing based on the actual arguments largely moot, especially any time when there are two arguing camps and they both insist the good words belong to what they're doing and the bad ones to their opponents. If I wanted this kind of thing I'd follow politics.
It sort of reminded me of an ongoing issue I have with a lot of fandom communication. We tend to have a lot of terms that are clearly positive or negative, but rarely any consensus on what they actually mean. Generally, everyone is against flames and in favor of some level of concrit. People are in favor of good characters and against bad ones. Generally, everyone has a long list of exactly what traits cause them to draw the line.
See, the person on oc_analysis had decided people disliked her character because they were OC haters. So she came to a place for OCs to get validation and, getting something other than "she's awesome! you're right, totally not a sue!" just decided everyone there hates OCs with a passion. So she's made this thing up about being "Original Character Reviewier Cancer Free" and her description of it basically amounts to "I'll judge OCs fairly based on the information I get rather than making a snap judgement". Which is, you know, completely indistinguishable from something someone who actually meant decent OCs might say, after they'd seen people unfairly calling good OCs sues.
Which is why I can like OCs, write OCs, and still react to hearing people talk about how unfair it is people have prejudices against OCs by immediately looking to see if they're talking about their OC Rainbow Sparkleraven. I remember hearing all sorts of how to write a good OC advice back in the day that basically amounted to how to lure readers in by things like pretending the story was mostly about the canon cast and keeping the OC in a supporting role, and then a couple chapters in making it all about the OC. And I can hate marysues but these days do the same to see if they're talking about ICKY ICKY GIRLS ARE GETTING IN MY CANON. And I demand extensive lists of exactly what we're talking about for any type of feedback discussion.
Meanwhile, and I finally figured out why this pisses me off so very much, you've got the people saying that it's possible to write marysues well. And it's because the term mary sue means "a character who is bad in a particular sort of way". If the fact she's a princess isn't a problem, it's not a mary sue. If you define mary sue to cover good OCs too, then you're taking away a word used to mean something so we can have a synonym for a word we already have, and the insistence than marysue and OC are identical just creates other groups that bash all "marysues" using the same definition. People doing this often tend to be using odd definitions of marysue to start, like it meaning specifically self-inserts. Only again, we've got a perfectly functional way of talking about self-inserts, namely by using that actual word. Instead of actually communicating what they usually mean to say (not every last self-insert/OC romance/long lost sister/etc character is a sue, which you can at least talk about), they say that sueishness is a neutral trait, and discussion starts tying itself into a pretzel as people struggle to work out what exactly the bad type of character is.
Oh, and those inscrutable tags that were bothering me on AooO? Support did get back to me and explained I can look stuff up on their wiki to figure out what tags mean. Except my problem is with tags that have vague/conflicting/overlapping definitions, in large part because they get used differently across fandom, and all their wiki does is tell me that yes, I was right and they're used differently across fandom and so are basically useless for anything specific, and all the cross-fandom tags are doing right now is making that even worse.
I don't even know why it always works out this way. Fandom and culture at large both regularly invent new terms, but fandom seems unable to ever set solid definitions (see "drabble"), and people seem to hate just making up a new term for a new idea if they can stretch an old one to fit.
In sum, I hate how if I don't already know exactly what someone means when they say a term, I have no idea what they're saying and have to either find multiple examples to get a decent baseline or else the whole thing might as be about how I really need think about how I zorphle when tendgo, and stop the rampant grenie of aewd. It renders any attempt at agreeing or disagreeing based on the actual arguments largely moot, especially any time when there are two arguing camps and they both insist the good words belong to what they're doing and the bad ones to their opponents. If I wanted this kind of thing I'd follow politics.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 10:40 am (UTC)Not directly related to your post, but more the link you linked to, but it seems like someone watched Dollhouse and thought the idea would make for a nice
Suecharacter.*headdesk* Sounds like a bitch to write. "I hate popcorn. OMG, I love popcorn! Oh, popcorn is the devil!" Restocking her kitchen every time she meets someone new must be a hassle.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-21 02:35 pm (UTC)(One of the many, many warning signs originally on that profile was the OP kept acting like she was a distinct character and everyone should be interested in hearing about her, even though she was defined by not being one. Which, come to think of it, is an issue all of itself - there's a similar badficcer behavior with OOC canons.)
I do think you could write a decent plot with them, but I suspect you couldn't really make it character-based for obvious reasons. If the storyline itself is engaging, it'd make for a creepy backdrop, but you'd have to really embrace the whole "actually a different person now" bit. Otherwise I don't think it'd work as a main character at all - maybe a side character.
I know I've seen similar things with reincarnation that worked decently enough, and also linked stories taking place in the same universe but with different characters.
Sounds like a bitch to write. "I hate popcorn. OMG, I love popcorn! Oh, popcorn is the devil!" Restocking her kitchen every time she meets someone new must be a hassle.
Actually doing this would be awesome, instead of focusing on angst and major effects and woe is me I'm a super assassin nao. I think the point of continuity would work well as memories - so she'd know that this happens, and she'd probably have developed a system for handling it, although how well she follows it would probably be a mix of personality and how many times she's ignored it to bad effect before (sort of how it's possible for bipolar people to recognize the signs that they're manic and maybe not rush out right then, even though it's pretty hard). She might actually seem a bit emotionally flat, since she'd probably want to avoid extremes of emotion in favor of following longer term plans that hold true across her changing personality. You don't want to rush out and buy trading cards if next week you'll think they're stupid.
Also, I wonder if she'd occasionally get personalities she doesn't like and then go out and try to get a new one. I mean, if I was already an aggregate personality, I might as well hug a couple happy people.