??????
|
Post by supergojita3 on Feb 1, 2021 22:39:54 GMT
I was called to review this thread by both sides, so I'll give my takes on this before taking any action: It's clear this conversation is not being fruitful. But I think what both of you are having here is more of a problem of semantics, since you still both seem to think this character still causes problems/is bad writing. In my take, she is not so much of a Mary Sue as she is a plot tumor/creator's pet. However here comes the problem I can't go too strict about book definitions about this. After all TVtropes is not a medical or scientific page, nor contains direct pages of a work. It's merely an observation/description of that; tropes, which can be quite ambiguous at time. For example, whereas TVtropes doesn't consider some other trivial factors, in my experience Mary Sue characters have an air of badass charisma which Bra clearly lacks, and the page doesn't even mention that. Would this really be invalid tho? After all these pages get updated relatively constantly where they add and remove points. As long as people explain their rationales right and are respectful, this should be fine. If this is not possible, just hop off from the topic. My advice is not to focus on variable terms used on TVtropes 100% (although they're useful they're clearly not inalienable stuff) and focus instead on what's wrong with the character separately. After all, even if Mary Sues are a cheap writing device, one on it doesn't automatically cause problems. Zen Buu is not really a problem for the story for example. You're also both bordering on absolute thinking: Either she's 100% mary sue even if she misses some traits, or she's totally not one just because she lacks 2 or 3 aspects. Maybe it'd help if you worked with percentages? I can agree with creators pet, and plot tumor, although I don't know what that is currently, I'm willing to hand wave that one on account this isn't the thread for it and it distracts from the main focus.
So, this to me is a more objective discussion rather than subjective.
A mary sue was coined by a star trek magazine writer, and it dealt with fan fiction. as such her terminology should hold the most weight.
Any colloquial changes are somewhat moot.
So from the objective terminology, It is objective that she is not a mary sue, though that doesn't change that she could be perceived in the subjective sense.
Is she good? is she well written?
I don't think so, although I like the character in spite of this. And that is reasonable to suggest.
Now, the creators pet is something she objectively fits.
When I say objective vs subjective, its like saying George bush was president, vs saying George bush was a great president.
1 is objectively true, the other is subjective.
when dealing with assigning a character a status, such as mary sue, we do have hard terminology set up by the original authors intent and what she used it to signify.
the colloquial usage is only true in the sense that people used a term incorrectly, and now it means something than what it actually means. That is to say, "you're wrong, but I know what you mean"
I don't think that there is much to add to this conversation, but maybe we could agree to disagree, or even add other terms that we do agree on.
Creators pet and such applys objectively and it works for me. I do note that most parties involved did agree to the creators pet, so maybe we should call this conversation to a close.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Conqueror Geng on Feb 1, 2021 23:01:03 GMT
I was called to review this thread by both sides, so I'll give my takes on this before taking any action: It's clear this conversation is not being fruitful. But I think what both of you are having here is more of a problem of semantics, since you still both seem to think this character still causes problems/is bad writing. In my take, she is not so much of a Mary Sue as she is a plot tumor/creator's pet. However here comes the problem I can't go too strict about book definitions about this. After all TVtropes is not a medical or scientific page, nor contains direct pages of a work. It's merely an observation/description of that; tropes, which can be quite ambiguous at time. For example, whereas TVtropes doesn't consider some other trivial factors, in my experience Mary Sue characters have an air of badass charisma which Bra clearly lacks, and the page doesn't even mention that. Would this really be invalid tho? After all these pages get updated relatively constantly where they add and remove points. As long as people explain their rationales right and are respectful, this should be fine. If this is not possible, just hop off from the topic. My advice is not to focus on variable terms used on TVtropes 100% (although they're useful they're clearly not inalienable stuff) and focus instead on what's wrong with the character separately. After all, even if Mary Sues are a cheap writing device, one on it doesn't automatically cause problems. Zen Buu is not really a problem for the story for example. You're also both bordering on absolute thinking: Either she's 100% mary sue even if she misses some traits, or she's totally not one just because she lacks 2 or 3 aspects. Maybe it'd help if you worked with percentages? I can agree with creators pet, and plot tumor, although I don't know what that is currently, I'm willing to hand wave that one on account this isn't the thread for it and it distracts from the main focus.
So, this to me is a more objective discussion rather than subjective.
A mary sue was coined by a star trek magazine writer, and it dealt with fan fiction. as such her terminology should hold the most weight.
Any colloquial changes are somewhat moot.
So from the objective terminology, It is objective that she is not a mary sue, though that doesn't change that she could be perceived in the subjective sense.
Is she good? is she well written?
I don't think so, although I like the character in spite of this. And that is reasonable to suggest.
Now, the creators pet is something she objectively fits.
When I say objective vs subjective, its like saying George bush was president, vs saying George bush was a great president.
1 is objectively true, the other is subjective.
when dealing with assigning a character a status, such as mary sue, we do have hard terminology set up by the original authors intent and what she used it to signify.
the colloquial usage is only true in the sense that people used a term incorrectly, and now it means something than what it actually means. That is to say, "you're wrong, but I know what you mean"
I don't think that there is much to add to this conversation, but maybe we could agree to disagree, or even add other terms that we do agree on.
Creators pet and such applys objectively and it works for me. I do note that most parties involved did agree to the creators pet, so maybe we should call this conversation to a close.
Objectively she ticks many boxes of Mary Sue but misses some important points. I'd add this to other tropes too. Most writers avoid playing tropes too straightforwardly in order to not be so predictable. There is a bit of dissonance here since Mary Sue is technically used as a exchangeable word for "shitty character". And there are many bad things about Bra which "Mary Sue" alone can't be enough to describe. Either way, I think I already gave my verdict about what I think of the topic itself. I doubt there's a single trope that can single handedly entail what's wrong with this character. I posted this time only to attempt to avoid a flame war or you going in circles. The purpose was not to say either of you was right. It was just to tell both of you to disengage if the conversation is clearly not going anywhere.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Saudade on Feb 1, 2021 23:45:09 GMT
I was called to review this thread by both sides, so I'll give my takes on this before taking any action: It's clear this conversation is not being fruitful. But I think what both of you are having here is more of a problem of semantics, since you still both seem to think this character still causes problems/is bad writing. In my take, she is not so much of a Mary Sue as she is a plot tumor/creator's pet. However here comes the problem I can't go too strict about book definitions about this. After all TVtropes is not a medical or scientific page, nor contains direct pages of a work. It's merely an observation/description of that; tropes, which can be quite ambiguous at time. For example, whereas TVtropes doesn't consider some other trivial factors, in my experience Mary Sue characters have an air of badass charisma which Bra clearly lacks, and the page doesn't even mention that. Would this really be invalid tho? After all these pages get updated relatively constantly where they add and remove points. As long as people explain their rationales right and are respectful, this should be fine. If this is not possible, just hop off from the topic. My advice is not to focus on variable terms used on TVtropes 100% (although they're useful they're clearly not inalienable stuff) and focus instead on what's wrong with the character separately. After all, even if Mary Sues are a cheap writing device, one on it doesn't automatically cause problems. Zen Buu is not really a problem for the story for example. You're also both bordering on absolute thinking: Either she's 100% mary sue even if she misses some traits, or she's totally not one just because she lacks 2 or 3 aspects. Maybe it'd help if you worked with percentages? I can agree with creators pet, and plot tumor, although I don't know what that is currently, I'm willing to hand wave that one on account this isn't the thread for it and it distracts from the main focus.
So, this to me is a more objective discussion rather than subjective.
A mary sue was coined by a star trek magazine writer, and it dealt with fan fiction. as such her terminology should hold the most weight.
Any colloquial changes are somewhat moot.
So from the objective terminology, It is objective that she is not a mary sue, though that doesn't change that she could be perceived in the subjective sense.
Is she good? is she well written?
I don't think so, although I like the character in spite of this. And that is reasonable to suggest.
Now, the creators pet is something she objectively fits.
When I say objective vs subjective, its like saying George bush was president, vs saying George bush was a great president.
1 is objectively true, the other is subjective.
when dealing with assigning a character a status, such as mary sue, we do have hard terminology set up by the original authors intent and what she used it to signify.
the colloquial usage is only true in the sense that people used a term incorrectly, and now it means something than what it actually means. That is to say, "you're wrong, but I know what you mean"
I don't think that there is much to add to this conversation, but maybe we could agree to disagree, or even add other terms that we do agree on.
Creators pet and such applys objectively and it works for me. I do note that most parties involved did agree to the creators pet, so maybe we should call this conversation to a close.
Language, terms and everything else are not set in stone and much less objective. As you pointed out it started to describe something, Star Trek fan girls putting their OC in fan fictions of that universe, and it became something more broad, seeing as Mary Sue in DBM exists and Salagir is not a girl, at least not that we know of, and Bra has so many Mary Sue's qualities that it's almost impossible to not draw parallels and make the obvious connections. This is not math in which 1+1:2 but a discussion that is made by analising character behaviour and troupes, it's not uncommon for something to not fit all like a glove because that's what happens in a discussion about a subjective concept about a character that does not actually exists, you are just being extremely obnoxious and dismissing arguments. If Mary Sue is a Mary Sue and not a self insert why Bra shouldn't be one because she lacks 2 characteristics but ticks literally everything else?
|
|
??????
|
Post by Conqueror Geng on Feb 2, 2021 1:46:41 GMT
I'm kind of curious what consequences did Vegeta really face for his actions because the only thing that comes to mind is the perfect cell situation which let's be fair a lot of people screwed up in regards to Cell obtaining perfection. If we mean losing to android 18 I don't see how that qualifies because nothing was going to change that particular outcome one way or another. -Got defeated by a bunch of weaklings (Yayirobe, Gohan, Krilin). -Was forced to then work with them in the face of a bigger threat. -Got killed while crying by the same threat -Saw someone, from lower class, almost matching him in his fight in Earth -Same low class achieved the SSJ leyend he, himself, the prince was supposed to have. -He was sorta forced into the Earthling lifestyle up to the point of having a child with a human woman -Got his arm broken right after finally going SSJ -Got an even better SSJ and got broken due to allowing his opponent to power up -Got his son killed when he finally was developing some sort of liking to him -Got seriously depressed after Goku's death and stopped training for a while. I could go on. Vegeta had his worldviews turned upside down quite a few times and also received severe physical punishment many times. You could say his life wasn't that nice either before meeting Goku. He likely was dealt a good humiliation more than a few times by Freeza or his stronger warriors. Weren't we already done with this Vegeta shit a lot of times before and declared that everyone trying to equate Bra with Vegeta was an intellectually dishonest moron?
|
|
??????
|
Post by Shady Doorags on Feb 2, 2021 2:05:04 GMT
I originally said "she isn't one but is just as bad" for multiple reasons, the main being was that she was clearly a flawed character and the story acknowledge that. What made her just as bad was the fact that the story wasn't properly handling her flaws. Instead of Bra having to face consequences for her actions, she was constantly given easy outs either from other characters, or randomly having a senzu when she needed it most.
But after chapter 79, there's no getting around it. This character is a flat out Mary Sue. She's an OC, she's the offspring of an impossible couple, she's more powerful than the main characters of the story with significantly less effort to get there, the story allows her to do whatever she deems is righteous with little to no consequences and easily forgives even her biggest mistakes, characters who criticize her are forcefully humbled while other fan-favorites back her up, she does the impossible on multiple occasions, the plot and characters bend specifically to make her look good (I genuinely get angry every time I think of Gotenks defending her, it's so insanely out of character that I want to vomit) and the list goes on and on. I think some people will still try to use the "she's flawed and is therefore not a Mary Sue" argument, but here's why that no longer works. A) a Mary Sue being flawless does not define a Mary Sue, it's just a symptom. Mary Poppins is practically perfect in every way but does not meet the definition of a Mary Sue because of how her story is written. And B) every flaw Bra had was pushed onto Vegetto in chapter 79, meaning that within the context of the story, she is essentially flawless. "It's not her fault she lost control, it's Vegetto's fault for not being a better role motto."
Even if you still don't want to use the specific term "Mary Sue", I think what's important is to acknowledge the horrible parts Bra has played in DBM and how the creators constantly pandering to her is genuinely ruining this story.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Saudade on Feb 2, 2021 2:32:57 GMT
I originally said "she isn't one but is just as bad" for multiple reasons, the main being was that she was clearly a flawed character and the story acknowledge that. What made her just as bad was the fact that the story wasn't properly handling her flaws. Instead of Bra having to face consequences for her actions, she was constantly given easy outs either from other characters, or randomly having a senzu when she needed it most. But after chapter 79, there's no getting around it. This character is a flat out Mary Sue. She's an OC, she's the offspring of an impossible couple, she's more powerful than the main characters of the story with significantly less effort to get there, the story allows her to do whatever she deems is righteous with little to no consequences and easily forgives even her biggest mistakes, characters who criticize her are forcefully humbled while other fan-favorites back her up, she does the impossible on multiple occasions, the plot and characters bend specifically to make her look good (I genuinely get angry every time I think of Gotenks defending her, it's so insanely out of character that I want to vomit) and the list goes on and on. I think some people will still try to use the "she's flawed and is therefore not a Mary Sue" argument, but here's why that no longer works. A) a Mary Sue being flawless does not define a Mary Sue, it's just a symptom. Mary Poppins is practically perfect in every way but does not meet the definition of a Mary Sue because of how her story is written. And B) every flaw Bra had was pushed onto Vegetto in chapter 79, meaning that within the context of the story, she is essentially flawless. "It's not her fault she lost control, it's Vegetto's fault for not being a better role motto." Even if you still don't want to use the specific term "Mary Sue", I think what's important is to acknowledge the horrible parts Bra has played in DBM and how the creators constantly pandering to her is genuinely ruining this story. Every "Flaw" she has is not a flaw or has no consequence, Salagir managed to write something so awful that he turned Bra mistakes onto Vegetto, every mistake she made is because of Vegetto, worse yet, he broke his own definition of what is Vegetto(nor Goku or Vegeta) and they made the characters blame Vegeta because he was majinized too, every trash minicomic making bra the victim, her crying but also being beautiful every fucking times even when she's murdering everyone, him defending her every single fucking time. A person just needs to read the Tv tropes Mary Sue page and drink a shot everytime Bra has the same characteristic, this person will probably enter alcoholic coma. I'm on mobile and the dude before already made a shortlist but it can be even bigger. Just going to throw random words for Bra. Double Sayajin(lmao) Passive We're all in this one She's so cool She's so beautiful She's so strong Wow, this raw power Wow incredible techniques So smart So resourceful So heroic(u19 promise, lol) It's your fault, Dad You know nothing about me(classic mary sue trope btw, has a perfect family and perfect life but still is the poor girl with the actually dark past that is awful, but the author is so blind that he thinks the backstory that he's so smart to have created a great thing but it's actually a joke) A clone of other Bra, but better Never loses Is never wrong Everyone bows to her I could go on for days, and my memory of this comic is not that good, nor my English, and neither my will to go back and read everything again just so I can make more obvious points.
|
|
??????
|
Post by supergojita3 on Feb 2, 2021 4:57:17 GMT
I originally said "she isn't one but is just as bad" for multiple reasons, the main being was that she was clearly a flawed character and the story acknowledge that. What made her just as bad was the fact that the story wasn't properly handling her flaws. Instead of Bra having to face consequences for her actions, she was constantly given easy outs either from other characters, or randomly having a senzu when she needed it most. But after chapter 79, there's no getting around it. This character is a flat out Mary Sue. She's an OC, she's the offspring of an impossible couple, she's more powerful than the main characters of the story with significantly less effort to get there, the story allows her to do whatever she deems is righteous with little to no consequences and easily forgives even her biggest mistakes, characters who criticize her are forcefully humbled while other fan-favorites back her up, she does the impossible on multiple occasions, the plot and characters bend specifically to make her look good (I genuinely get angry every time I think of Gotenks defending her, it's so insanely out of character that I want to vomit) and the list goes on and on. I think some people will still try to use the "she's flawed and is therefore not a Mary Sue" argument, but here's why that no longer works. A) a Mary Sue being flawless does not define a Mary Sue, it's just a symptom. Mary Poppins is practically perfect in every way but does not meet the definition of a Mary Sue because of how her story is written. And B) every flaw Bra had was pushed onto Vegetto in chapter 79, meaning that within the context of the story, she is essentially flawless. "It's not her fault she lost control, it's Vegetto's fault for not being a better role motto." Even if you still don't want to use the specific term "Mary Sue", I think what's important is to acknowledge the horrible parts Bra has played in DBM and how the creators constantly pandering to her is genuinely ruining this story. Every "Flaw" she has is not a flaw or has no consequence, Salagir managed to write something so awful that he turned Bra mistakes onto Vegetto, every mistake she made is because of Vegetto, worse yet, he broke his own definition of what is Vegetto(nor Goku or Vegeta) and they made the characters blame Vegeta because he was majinized too, every trash minicomic making bra the victim, her crying but also being beautiful every fucking times even when she's murdering everyone, him defending her every single fucking time. A person just needs to read the Tv tropes Mary Sue page and drink a shot everytime Bra has the same characteristic, this person will probably enter alcoholic coma. I'm on mobile and the dude before already made a shortlist but it can be even bigger. Just going to throw random words for Bra. Double Sayajin(lmao) Passive We're all in this one She's so cool She's so beautiful She's so strong Wow, this raw power Wow incredible techniques So smart So resourceful So heroic(u19 promise, lol) It's your fault, Dad You know nothing about me(classic mary sue trope btw, has a perfect family and perfect life but still is the poor girl with the actually dark past that is awful, but the author is so blind that he thinks the backstory that he's so smart to have created a great thing but it's actually a joke) A clone of other Bra, but better Never loses Is never wrong Everyone bows to her I could go on for days, and my memory of this comic is not that good, nor my English, and neither my will to go back and read everything again just so I can make more obvious points. never loses? she wasn't going to beat buu in space and lost control of herself and failed to beat buu which she was going for. and later when buu showed up, had he wanted to, he could have killed her. he was toying with her. later during buus rampage, she couldn't touch buu for all his powers, and gast beat him. she lost to her u18 clone in a shouting match. during the majin rebellion, she lost to babadi, and was enslaved. she also lost to gohan and needed a senzu. this wasn't like vs kold, she wasn't playing around that time. she would have lost on her own. >Everyone bows to her what? this better me a metaphor. at the most, the crowd prevented her murder and talked vegetto down while gast held him in place. I must have forgotten that part. >Double Sayajin ok? is vegetto a mary sue then? he is also a double saiyan. all this means is that these characters have excessive flaws in addition to their buffs from this dna. she's a hybrid and isn't even anywhere near as strong as her father, a thing most hybrids have the potential to do very quickly. She's actually less impressive than gohan in this regard as he surpassed his father at like 11, shes 16 and isn't even close. >Passive thats...huh? thats a dumb phrasing on salagirs part. even he admitted that it wasn't his best choice. I could see him changing that line much like how AT changed gohans age in dbz from 3 to 4. >We're all in this one I don't know what you mean by this. >She's so cool I don't think anyone but pan thought she was cool. and that was only because of the ssj hair. >She's so beautiful this is typical of most db females. bulma, launch, teen chichi, random females roshi gropes. Thats not unusual. 99% of them are good looking. >She's so strong this is true. but you have to take into account the genre, and work of fiction. db is all about power. each new villain or character is usually as strong or stronger than the last, with few exceptions. vegeta was stronger than radditz, then the ginyus, then freeza, then the androids, then cell, and finally buu. this isn't exclusive to villains either. trunks shows up and kills both freeza and kold with ease. this mary sue comes from the future, is the son of vegeta and bulma and foretells of how his mother and father will get together, the new threat, has medicine for gokus virus he will get and is a ssj as well. he is incredibly cool, and strong and is an attractive male. He is also passive in the sense he does what daddy wants him to with few exceptions. he only disobeys when he lets cell go, other than that, he follows orders and thats it. then in dbs he gets either a healing power, or some rando lssj inspired ssj ikari form, and has future mai fall in love with him, and also present mai. he even somehow uses a genki dama atack that he never saw anyone use, and proceeds to destroy the main threat before it evolves into the universe or some stupid shit. even the manga has him power up to ssj3 levels as a ssj2, and no one else can this either. >Wow incredible techniques her techniques aren't really all that good. she basically has the clone ability of tenshinhan, and the ghost kamikaze thing going on, but instead of blowing up it binds the opponent. Its liek the ring binding gotenks has but worse? even vegeta could do this in the anime. he bound goku to mock him before he broke free. these aren't incredible, so much as less effective versions of other techniques. if you are strong enough, you could break out of this move too. krillin has a kienzan for example that can cut through anything. Thats objectively better than some technique that accomplishes a lesser feat and being able to cut through anything that isn't brolly. krillins incompetence with the move doesn't make it any less impressive, and he created the move. bra had to learn it from someone else. >So smart I don't think she's really all that smart. she used her senzus vs kold and exposed her trump card on a foe she didn't need to do so against. thats sloppy and stupid. >So resourceful mm. maybe she is resourceful, but not so that it would be anything special. I could see krillin doing the senzu thing and goku in dbs suggested they use senzus for the TOP, and had them for against goku black and zamasu. thats maybe not so resourceful, but common sense to use what you have in abundance, and not so much to blow the lid off that you have them vs kold. >So heroic(u19 promise, lol) I would also offer to help u19. And so did goku, and goten, and maybe others. this isn't anythign special to her either. "we make wishes all the time at home" so its like a millionaire giving a poor bum like 20 bucks. she doesn't really want or need the wishes. though it still was a good thing to do, even if she was a bitch about it to him. >It's your fault, Dad I think by the end of that, she concluded that they were both at fault. "yadda yadda, I got problems but so do you" or something. I will admit, I'd prefer she just admit she was in the wrong and move on, but this particular thing wasn't a big deal for me. >You know nothing about me(classic mary sue trope btw, has a perfect family and perfect life but still is the poor girl with the actually dark past that is awful, but the author is so blind that he thinks the backstory that he's so smart to have created a great thing but it's actually a joke) I think (and this is my own personal interpretation) that the whole thing stems from bra having a victim mentality, not so much that she is a victim. So by that, she went ssj2 and blew up the planet, solar system and anyone in it really, and goten. instead of going "what! oh no! thats terrible!" she is like "lol. stronger than gohan!" and was like "oh whoa is me! I'm being punished and talked meanly by daddy!" I'd say trunks has a darker hidden history and worse than her. in the anime they played this cool flash back thing and I loved it. it really was the worst for him, and despite his positive attitude, he had it rough. >A clone of other Bra, but better Stronger, sure, but bra isn't a fighter. she chose that lifestyle and lamented it somewhat in dbm, but isn't kakarotto also a clone but "better" in that he's immortal? sure he's weaker, but even if they did blow him to pieces he'd live and regenerate in like 2 months or less according to salagir. and well, theres also the fact shes not the same bra. she has a different father, so she only has the same name. theres a trunks in the human champ world. u9 or whatever, but he's fully human. or do you mean clone as in "has the same name"? I'm not sure what you mean entirely. she isn't really a clone or even double. or was it metaphorical? >Is never wrong well. she thought zangya was bojacks girlfriend. she thought kold only had 1 form instead of 2. she thought going ssj2 would finish off buu and it backfired immensely. she also thought that outfit she wears is even stylish. ok all kidding aside she isn't "never wrong" and theres maybe more examples I can't think of right now. >what does this mean I'd say it might mean that considering everything, the label "mary sue" might not apply considering we know its origin and who coined the term. www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/these-women-coined-term-mary-sue-180972182/"Soon after Paula Smith and Sharon Ferraro launched one of the earliest “Star Trek” fanzines, they started noticing a pattern to the submissions they were receiving. Each began the same way: a young woman would board the starship Enterprise. “And because she was just so sweet, and good, and beautiful and cute,” Smith recounts, “everybody would just fall all over her.” Looking back, Smith says, it was obvious what was going on: “They were simply placeholder fantasies,” she says. “And, certainly, I can't say I didn't have placeholder fantasies of my own.” But the thing that had attracted the two friends to “Star Trek” was that the show—which had gone off the air for good in 1969, four years before they launched their zine—was intelligent. These submissions, says Smith, were not intelligent. “There were very good stories coming out at that time,” adds Smith, who is now 67. “But there was always a huge helping of what we started calling in letters to the editors of other zines, a Mary Sue story.” so, even if other people did redefine the term, its only a mary sue in name only and lacks the creators original intent. Its a female insert character. That being said, creators pet certainly does apply, and that might even be as bad or worse depending on how its done. A true "mary sue" would be salagir writing a male character that fulfills his fantasy of beign in the db world. @saudade I'm not against language evolving, but these are colloquial usages, vs the actual definition. colloquial terms are more or less like slang, you aren't really usign the correct term, but we get what is intended. I'm using the formal term mary sue, vs the colloquial slang you guys are using. so when you say "mary sue" its more or less a slang for somethign else, like "creators pet" or somethign else. I use slang and other such colloquials myself, but usually by accident, or for convenience. Would it be proper to suggest that maybe this misunderstanding stems from such colloquialisms? are you being literal in the use of said term, or is it slang? For an example, my grandma scolded me for not using the right word on something,and I said as much "you're right, but I was using a colloquial phrase. uh, refresh my memory, what would the right terminology be?" whats funnier is that I don't recall the term in question, but I do recall the exchange between us.
|
|
??????
|
Post by kinnikuman on Feb 14, 2021 22:37:56 GMT
Sadly yes she is. This is sad because there were ways till now to fix it. Heck You could have kept the Majin rebellion too if you had kept Ginyu in the driver seat.
|
|
??????
|
Post by supergojita3 on Feb 15, 2021 6:46:03 GMT
Sadly yes she is. This is sad because there were ways till now to fix it. Heck You could have kept the Majin rebellion too if you had kept Ginyu in the driver seat. I would say no, but that doesn't mean she isn't other things, like the creators pet and other things. from all the definitions I've seen, most would indicate a mary sue is a self insert character, like from the star trek article from the smithsonian that interviews the person who created the term. "“There were very good stories coming out at that time,” adds Smith, who is now 67. “But there was always a huge helping of what we started calling in letters to the editors of other zines, a Mary Sue story.” so, even if other people did redefine the term, its only a mary sue in name only and lacks the creators original intent. Its a female insert character. That being said, creators pet certainly does apply, and that might even be as bad or worse depending on how its done. A true "mary sue" would be salagir writing a male character that fulfills his fantasy of beign in the db world." A mary sue is usually just the throw away term people use, despite the actual term meaning something very specific. Its more or less a colloquial term that differs from what it actually literally means. I suppose it could be like calling someone an ass hole. they aren't literally the hole of an ass, but it does express a meaning that you can confer upon the person, that they are a bad or wretched individual. A mary sue she might not be, in that she's not salagirs self insert character, but the story does revolve around her and I can understand why that might be annoying. I'll be honest, I guess I could stand to see a little less of her and this brolly special right now is refreshing.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Riskfan on Mar 10, 2021 2:10:58 GMT
Haha man i havent been here in years. My opinion hasnt changed, i still view bra as a mary sue.
|
|
??????
|
Post by supergojita3 on Mar 10, 2021 22:22:27 GMT
Haha man i havent been here in years. My opinion hasnt changed, i still view bra as a mary sue. ok. So, who's insert character is she then? I guess salagir could be closeting himself as secretly wanting to be female. I mean theres no proof he isn't, and with gohan wearing boxers in the latest chapter, maybe this is actually the case. It was a point for debate in the comments until that discussion was banned. I WONDER WHY. ok. I guess if we were using the actual definition, salagir might just be secretly wanting to be a woman, and this is his gender bent insert persona. Oh wait, you meant the incorrect definition, mostly in line with the creators pet? Well, why not both? No reason sally doesn't want to feel like a woman.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Namikaze on Mar 10, 2021 23:20:56 GMT
I remember making a comment that she'd have a similar development to Korra from "The Legend of Korra", but all of this is basically if she said screw the world, wallowed in her own self-agonization, purposely revived Vaatu to fuse with him, and finally massacred all her friends because all along she never cared about her duties as the Avatar.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Son Pan on Mar 10, 2021 23:57:20 GMT
Since the Mary Sue definition and what constitutes one is murky why don’t we ask if we think U16 Bra is a badly written character or not? I feel like that is the heart of this discussion. If we get too caught up on definition it is not going to be a fruitful discussion.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Axalon on Mar 10, 2021 23:58:05 GMT
Nah she's a Mary Sue at this point.
Arguing over whether it's a self-insert Mary Sue is semantics. The term has grown over the decades and encompasses more than this, generally speaking in terms of either wish fulfillment or upstaging canon characters to the point of overlapping with Creator's Pet.
Rey Palpatine Skywalker is a Mary Sue character and JJ Abrams certainly isn't a woman either.
Regardless, Bra is a poorly written character and DBM has suffered for it.
|
|
??????
|
Post by supergojita3 on Mar 11, 2021 3:04:42 GMT
Nah she's a Mary Sue at this point. Arguing over whether it's a self-insert Mary Sue is semantics. The term has grown over the decades and encompasses more than this, generally speaking in terms of either wish fulfillment or upstaging canon characters to the point of overlapping with Creator's Pet. Rey Palpatine Skywalker is a Mary Sue character and JJ Abrams certainly isn't a woman either. Regardless, Bra is a poorly written character and DBM has suffered for it. The definition is very important. This is already defined, so using the term incorrectly doesn't mean bra is any better. The term creators pet which was defined earlier does define bra quite well. So while I get what you mean, the term is technically inaccurate, but I get that you mean another term. this is an example of a colloquial usage, where the term is technically and literally incorrect, but most of us get what you really mean. its like using sympathy and empathy incorrectly, but we get the intention behind it. "I could care less" is another example. To say you could care less means you do care, even by the tiniest slim margin. to say you could NOT care less means you simply don't care at all. saying you could care less and calling her a mary sue are both incorrect, but we get the intention. so while she's not salagirs insert character, that doesn't make her good or well written. to call her a mary sue is simply incorrect from a technical and literary stand point, but I can get what the intention is. She's soaking up so much screen time that she is the "creators pet". Even if we went by such defining features like "over powered" or too strong, she's still weaker than zenbuu, vegetto, brolly, and well, even the canon db super cast. so she's not number 1 in terms of strength even in the comic itself ignoring the actual canon that recently came out. as far as techniques go, they aren't all that special. binding techniques have been a staple of db for like ever, since db and also dbz. clone techniques have been around since db with tien. teleporting was already established by goku and kaioshin, so that isn't anything new. her "resourcefulness" isn't all that special. she hoarded some beans into a tournament that allows you to bring with you stuff if you want to. she didn't need to use them and only did so to mess with kold. all she had to do was warp kold outta there and she wins. the rest of the fight was just filler. she plays with kold until he has too much of a margin of victory in terms of power and she warps out of there dumping him into space. using the senzu only revealed how bad she is at being a superior tactician, because now everyone knows she has access to them. so even if we were to define a mary sue as beign supremely OP, she isn't number 1 even in the manga itself. so that means she is only better than the main cast, but even then she was weaker mentally than vegeta and lost to a magic spell with undefined mental control properties. So where does this leave us? I'd say, change the poll questioning to "is bra a creators pet/plot tumor" and I'd say yes and change my answer, the rest of you would keep you answers the way they were. Because this isn't really a poll that is based on opinion, when a mary sue is a defined concept. It's like asking a poll where the question was "is bra a pork chop" and the only answers are yes and spaghetti. how does this even engage the reader? I would say that adding an addendum to the main question of "is she" in terms to a mary sue, perhaps add the context that you aren't using the technical literal definition, but rather that you are using a colloquial definition, and add what the defined terms are, as opposed to leaving it vague. this should not be a "readers choice" or "choose your own definition". The other thing is that even in db, characters have been known to be "OP" in their own right. goku is constantly 1 step ahead of everyone. when vegeta has ssj2, he has ssj3. when freeza has his 100% power, he's a ssj. vegeta got a zenkai, so did goku and he has the kaioken on top of it. I suppose you could note that goku isn't always the strongest, but neither is bra. I will note that goku has less screen time per chapter than bra even in the OG dragon ball, always getting side lined with injuries, death, a heart virus, being ko'd, on another planet, etc etc, and that he does more with less. I will agree that bra is getting kinda boring for me. so this brolly chapter is refreshing for me. so, in conclusion, an addendum that defines what bra is in terms of "what she is even if the definition isn't technical or literal" with defining traits that aren't typical of what a mary sue is with other categories, like creators pet and so on would be more helpful and appropriate. I'd even change my vote if it were flagged as mary sue, creators pet or some other thing as of yet undefined, so long as the following traits are set up "x traits" I'd be cool with that. To be fair, I have not seen any official sites that define mary sue put down any traits other than an insert character. So I am under the impression its just a quick and easy defintion people put down because they didn't do any research. That being said, tweakig the term used would change my vote. so long as its more technically accurate. This is very much like asking if 18 is an android. Because technically, she is not. she is a cyborg. The dub calls hers an android despite it being incorrect. And the term just stuck despite being wrong. An android is more like a robot that looks human, while a cyborg is a human with machine parts. I believe technically, having a pace maker makes someone a cyborg, though I'd have to look into it. I call 18 an android while knowing it to be incorrect and the wrong term out of habit and to speak to other db fans. It gets my message across while most people just nod and continue about their business. It does get brought up at times and we all go over the technical babble of it all and shake hands at the end of the day. (Originally, an android was a robot that resembled a man, whereas one that resembled a woman was a gynoid.) I get what you guys mean even if mary sue is the wrong term.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Axalon on Mar 11, 2021 4:56:49 GMT
As I already said, there are varying definitions of the term. If you want to use the dusty old Star Trek version go for it, but you can't call someone else wrong when they use a more modern variation of the term Mary Sue. Your own post even highlights this. My opinion is "nah" because she has too many flaws and isn't liked. someone sabotaging her murder isn't "liking" somone. I googled the definition of a mary sue and it reads as such: "A “Mary Sue” is either a female or male (sometimes called a “Gary Stu”) character who embodies the perfect hero/heroine. Often, she is an idealized version of the author herself. Mary Sues are usually beautiful, talented, have few or no flaws, and are loved by everyone." OFTEN she is an idealized version of the author. Often does not mean always. Sticking to this sole definition and caveat of how it MUST be a self-insert and insisting anything to the contrary is wrong and trumpeting it every time someone chimes in with "I think she's a Mary Sue" is circular, semantic bullshit that Conqueror Geng wanted this thread to avoid.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Saudade on Mar 11, 2021 22:50:06 GMT
As I already said, there are varying definitions of the term. If you want to use the dusty old Star Trek version go for it, but you can't call someone else wrong when they use a more modern variation of the term Mary Sue. Your own post even highlights this. My opinion is "nah" because she has too many flaws and isn't liked. someone sabotaging her murder isn't "liking" somone. I googled the definition of a mary sue and it reads as such: "A “Mary Sue” is either a female or male (sometimes called a “Gary Stu”) character who embodies the perfect hero/heroine. Often, she is an idealized version of the author herself. Mary Sues are usually beautiful, talented, have few or no flaws, and are loved by everyone." OFTEN she is an idealized version of the author. Often does not mean always. Sticking to this sole definition and caveat of how it MUST be a self-insert and insisting anything to the contrary is wrong and trumpeting it every time someone chimes in with "I think she's a Mary Sue" is circular, semantic bullshit that Conqueror Geng wanted this thread to avoid. I would give up, 3 people already danced the same dance with him and he insists on using a term from 30 years ago, even though language and meaning is not set in stone nor immutable, it is already past the point of tiring to be insanity.
|
|
??????
|
Post by supergojita3 on Mar 11, 2021 23:55:25 GMT
As I already said, there are varying definitions of the term. If you want to use the dusty old Star Trek version go for it, but you can't call someone else wrong when they use a more modern variation of the term Mary Sue. Your own post even highlights this. My opinion is "nah" because she has too many flaws and isn't liked. someone sabotaging her murder isn't "liking" somone. I googled the definition of a mary sue and it reads as such: "A “Mary Sue” is either a female or male (sometimes called a “Gary Stu”) character who embodies the perfect hero/heroine. Often, she is an idealized version of the author herself. Mary Sues are usually beautiful, talented, have few or no flaws, and are loved by everyone." OFTEN she is an idealized version of the author. Often does not mean always. Sticking to this sole definition and caveat of how it MUST be a self-insert and insisting anything to the contrary is wrong and trumpeting it every time someone chimes in with "I think she's a Mary Sue" is circular, semantic bullshit that Conqueror Geng wanted this thread to avoid. >Often does not mean always. You misunderstand the quote. An idealized version as opposed to a plain or realistic version. >but you can't call someone else wrong when they use a more modern variation of the term Mary Sue. But I cited 7 examples of sites that posted the same definition. This then begs the question, where is the other or alternative defintions coming from? This seems to me that people who aren't writers are pulling the definitions from places that are either unofficial (most likely) or they made up their own definitions. So for example my line of work is that of a meat cutter, but I'm not a butcher. there are those who call my line of work "a butcher" but they are incorrect and the 2 terms don't exactly line up. A butcher is a person who breaks down the carcass from start to finish or at least makes the first distinct break down. some even kill the animal too. A meat cutter is someone who takes the already broken down primals and sub primals and cuts the meat into merchandised portions for sale to those who wish to purchase it. The point of that explanation is to make certain that there are distinctions within the meat industry, and even if non meat cutting personnel use the wrong terms, they are still wrong even if a certain number of people use it. People who aren't butchers and people who aren't meat cutters shouldn't be able to define what the terms mean and don't determine how those jobs are defined. Like wise, if a lot of people used the wrong term in fiction and writing, those non writing personnel who use the wrong term aren't going to be in a position to define or redefine the terms in question. So while being a "writer" is a very vague and broad title, we would likely attribute that to people who work for publishing firms, the star trek magazine where the term originated, novelists and so on and not some random blogger who insists otherwise because their friends like to call chekhovs gun "that thing we use whenever because its there". Writing a tweet, or working as a secretary for a magazine firm or whatever isn't quite the same as writing say, lord of the ring or the grapes of wrath. Case in point, in highlander the source, the guardian has a neck armor he uses to take out 1 guy, and protects hi from sword slashes. It goes away and is never used again. I don't know if I'd call using the mcguffin in the first act and tossing it 8 minutes into the film qualifies as a checkhovs gun, but imagine if it were redefined because people continued to incorrectly use the term. anything could be checkhovs gun and the term would lose any meaning if we threw the term at whatever we wanted. Anton Chekhov, the man who I assume coined the term has defined it as such where a gun introduced in the 1st act must be fired by the 2nd or 3rd act, otherwise its a pointless thing to introduce. we typically don't question this logic, as its quite cut and dry. The same logic, really should apply to all thematic definitions. so, instead of dismissing the argument, perhaps we should stick to using correct terminology. Now, the proper term people are probably thinking of is creators pet, and maybe some other such things. I would say something that soaks up all the screen time by definition would be more apt. @ Saudade I've already addressed the definition part. I'm not dismissing the complaints thrown at bra, so much as I'm wondering if we can get a more correct definition. "The main characteristic of the Creator's Pet is that the writers' focus on him is detrimental to the show. It's not that the parts featuring this character necessarily suck more than the rest, but that so much effort is being directed to him that it detracts from the quality of the series as a whole. It's as if the writers think that there's nothing more important than browbeating the viewers into falling in love with this one character. And it never works. In fact, shilling a character excessively can cause other characters to be drawn into the hatred." Put into big scenes for no reason (Character Focus) Talked up by the other characters (Character Shilling) I think this aspect of the creators pet applies. And is worse than any definition of mary sue I've seen. This would actually be worse than a mary sue. So its not defending bra, rather on my part, its a diss.
|
|
??????
|
Post by Axalon on Mar 12, 2021 0:30:55 GMT
You misunderstand the quote. An idealized version as opposed to a plain or realistic version. Nah. "A “Mary Sue” is either a female or male (sometimes called a “Gary Stu”) character who embodies the perfect hero/heroine." This is the first sentence that defines it. "Often, she is an idealized version of the author herself. Mary Sues are usually beautiful, talented, have few or no flaws, and are loved by everyone." This clarifies that often the perfect hero/heroine is an idealized version of the author herself. Curious then that you chose to omit this part from the very first source you provided. So even the legendary Dictionary.com doesn't have an iron grasp of the term and reinforces what I and others have been saying. Need I go on? This is all semantic opinions and bullshit. You throwing out random comparisons about butchers and androids is just fluff that also serves no meaning.
|
|
??????
|
Post by supergojita3 on Mar 12, 2021 0:50:46 GMT
You misunderstand the quote. An idealized version as opposed to a plain or realistic version. Nah. "A “Mary Sue” is either a female or male (sometimes called a “Gary Stu”) character who embodies the perfect hero/heroine." This is the first sentence that defines it. "Often, she is an idealized version of the author herself. Mary Sues are usually beautiful, talented, have few or no flaws, and are loved by everyone." This clarifies that often the perfect hero/heroine is an idealized version of the author herself. Curious then that you chose to omit this part from the very first source you provided. So even the legendary Dictionary.com doesn't have an iron grasp of the term and reinforces what I and others have been saying. Need I go on? This is all semantic opinions and bullshit. You throwing out random comparisons about butchers and androids is just fluff that also serves no meaning. >A “Mary Sue” is either a female or male (sometimes called a “Gary Stu”) character who embodies the perfect hero/heroine." >>This clarifies that often the perfect hero/heroine is an idealized version of the author herself. Where did you get this definition? if this is from the google part I quoted, cool, but this doesn't fit bra either. then she isn't a perfect hero. So then I guess she doesn't fit this part at all. She's not an insert character either. >So even the legendary Dictionary.com doesn't have an iron grasp of the term and reinforces what I and others have been saying. Need I go on? Dictionary.com didn't invent the term, and the other example you posted doesn't fit bra. So, I guess she isn't a mary sue then? We already know the origin of where the term comes from, and also chekhovs gun. We don't redefine chekhovs gun even if many people use the term incorrectly. >This is all semantic opinions and bullshit. You throwing out random comparisons about butchers and androids is just fluff that also serves no meaning. Not exactly. you missed the point. my point was that people who don't work in the field of writing don't dictate what terms are defined as, much like how people who don't work in the meat industry don't define meat industry terms. I'm not using my own interpretation on the mary sue term, I'm using the original creators interpretation, and the cited sources of other sites, and even other deviations I've posted don't line up with the definitions tossed out on here. also, informal is defined as being unofficial, which is what most of the definitions are that are used outside of the one created by well, the creator. another definition being: of or denoting a style of writing or conversational speech characterized by simple grammatical structures, familiar vocabulary, and use of idioms, e.g., tu in French. so while I'd say the alternate use of mary sue that you are using is more akin to an idiom. it does not literally mean what you are suggesting, but I get what you are saying, even if it is not literally accurate. It's like the saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs". you aren't actually talking about eggs. Calling her a mary sue, well, she isn't really, but I get the meaning regardless. you think she's a blight to the comic, takes up too much time and panels. etc etc. or something like that. she doesn't have to actually be a mary sue to be called that, and maybe you are using a less proper and more informal term of "mary sue"? a colloquial usage like I suggested before? or even just an idiom. I think we agree on mostly everything else but the actual term. and does the term really matter to you? does a rose called by anything else not smell just as sweet? is bra any less boring now whether she's a sue or a creators pet?
|
|