> I ran a character I've created through it and got 47 too - despite not > really thinking she's much of a Mary-Sue.
I'm completely non-enamoured of this test. I plugged in a character of my creation and scored 104. The character in question is a psychopathic vigilante who ends up being hunted down and killed like a dog. Now I'm sure someone's going to make the pathetic and obvious retort, but I honestly couldn't have written a character who was less of a Mary-Sue if I tried.
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org> wrote: > This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
> ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ;
> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I > can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free > Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of > Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with > too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in > ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
> _Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same vein. It's > a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have endless ruminations > on what it really means to be a witch, *again* we have an > anthropomorphic personification trying (and failing) to become > human, *again* we are told about the hard lives of the "plain > folks", and so on. The Nac Mag Feegle are there, but bring > nothing new to the party, and mainly show up to briefly repeat a > few of their established tricks (follow Tiffany in her dreams, > dress up as a human, etc.)
I started out feeling the same way, but the book is saved from that, for me, perhaps mainly by the appearance, and more importantly the active appearance, of Roland. It's not _all_ witches this time, and everybody on the Chalk is not insignificant compared to Tiffany. That's new, and that's important.
> > And things that stand out like an > > American tourist in Soho, like using a footnote to state > > the names of three guards who have nothing whatsoever to do > > with the story. Were those three people who paid for or > > "won" having their name in the book, and The Author failed > > to or forgot write them in before the book was completed?
> Can't be that, the guards were first named in WFM.
Besides, the point is not the particular names; the point is that they're such ordinary, teenage-boy names. Kev, Nev and Trev, your mates from school - not Pte. Kevin Hardbottom and Sgt. T. Henry Kickspur.
"8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote: > Thirdly, the notion that a story or its characters are not "complete" > unless the protagonist has a romantic relationship is monumentously > stupid. It's true only in a VERY limited range of genres (like, the > "romance" genre, obviously), and not at all beyond them.
Indeed, in the original context of the word "protagonist", it was often not true. Orestes have a romantic relationship in the Eumenides? He didn't have the time...
dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote: > In article <efs74q$254...@mud.stack.nl>, 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote: > >Secondly, whatever an anima might be, what the hell does one have to > >do with the Discworld? I ask this noting that you have blatantly > >implied that there *is* such a thing as an anima on the Discworld, by > >stating that your test is applicable to Rincewind.
> I'm not surprised you're confused. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
> I've been using a very rough explanation of a bunch of concepts I came up > with over about - gee, twenty years now - taking bits of terminology from > various books and articles and adding them to my own made up terms, in > order to sort out the patterns I was seeing in stories.
> So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female principle > represented by (usually) a woman in the story, which the (usually > male) protagonist must connect with as part of his development as > a human character. If the main character does not make some kind of > significant connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that > main character as not having completed his development, thus he is > incompletely developed.
That's a bit simplistic, isn't it? What if the main character is gay? What if the story is set in a women's prison? What about Lord of the Flies?
"Anastasia" <house_damod...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Emma Anne wrote: > > I actually think Tamar is on to something, though I don't agree that > > opposite sex bonding is necessary. But it does feel like a > > protagonist is somehow incomplete if he doesn't have some kind of > > transformative relationship with *someone* during the course of the > > story.
> What about transformative experiences that don't involve other people?
I can't think of any stories like that, but I certainly wouldn't want to exclude them.
> It's certainly a way to look at some stories.
> I'm not in favor of total alienation, but I am not sure I'm totally able to > buy into the necessity of having a transformative experience with another > person in order to be complete.
> Just personally, I'm wrestling with the idea that you can be a complete > person by yourself. It's my life, not literature, but if transformative > experiences with other people are necessary for wholeness, I'm screwed.
Leo Breebaart wrote: > Agreed, thought I can see some parents being uncomfortable about > the slightly higher incidence of sexual themes in this book.
Well, apart from the obvious parallels with by far the 'softer' versions of the Mills & Boone/Silhouette Desire/Harlequin Romance/etc[1] book brands, I think the only bit I had half a mind to think uncomfortable (to someone in the position of being parent to a younger child) was Tiffany's revelation about being useful due to having 'little hands' and Annagramma's "you mean up its..." uncompleted question.
But then I thought that perhaps it is a case that small persons without any inkling of what that might refer to are going to pass over that (being left insufficiently explicit), those that do know to what it refers to in livestock terms aren't going to be bothered and those who know enough about only the human aspects aren't going to be any more corrupted by that than by whatever source(s) their existing knowledge came from.
Of course, I may have missed/forgotten something more explicit.
[1] All from memory, those brandnames. I readily admit that I dipped into this stand of books as a teenage boy, if only because it was near the bookshelf I got my fix of Asimov and Clarke and Pratchett and the rest of them...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:25:31 +0100, David Chapman wrote: >From the Collected Witterings of Elin, volume 23: >> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I ran a character I've created through it and got 47 too - despite not >> really thinking she's much of a Mary-Sue.
>I'm completely non-enamoured of this test. I plugged in a character of my >creation and scored 104. The character in question is a psychopathic >vigilante who ends up being hunted down and killed like a dog. Now I'm sure >someone's going to make the pathetic and obvious retort, but I honestly >couldn't have written a character who was less of a Mary-Sue if I tried.
The test has almost nothing to do with defining a Mary Sue, and everything to do with the self-insertion by the author. Hence the emphasis on characters in Role Playing Games, where almost by definition the character is a self-insertion of its creator.
Mary Sues are as much defined by the story they're in as in their characteristics. She's described as morally superior, talented, skilled, trained, knowledgeable, etc ad nauseam. She almost never demonstrates these abilities. She succeeds simply by virtue of being Mary Sue.
The way Mary Sue is portrayed is frequently off putting. Which is why so many readers hate her. Yet all the other characters in the story ignore this and immediately adore and admire her. (Mary Sues can often be identified by the reactions of the other characters. If they adore and applaud for no apparent reason, watch out.)
"She's amazingly intelligent, outrageously beautiful, adored by all around her -- and absolutely detested by most reading her adventures."
Later on: "Mary Sue must die for many reasons."
"The death keeps Mary Sue memorable to those who really interest the author, fixing her in their minds as in amber, at the peak of her loveliness and strength and nobility and virtue. The death also means that the Mary Sue never fails; having died, she can't go on to accidentally do something stupid or unnoble or unvirtuous. Nor can she become unbeautiful."
Hardly chopped liver, is it? The rest of the article is well worth reading.
This is real Mary Sueism:
"Suddenly, Beowulf saw Mary Sue standing there, in the great hall Heorot, shyly drinking mead. She looked just like me and was absolutely beautiful. 'Hwæt!,' said Beowulf, looking really cute. 'Who are you? I think I would like to marry you.' 'Arrrr!' said Grendel, suddenly appearing in the great hall and drinking blood from the guards' own veins. 'You can't have her! I want to marry her!' 'Tee hee,' said Mary Jane, looking more beautiful every minute."
The legendary hero and the villain immediately start fighting over her, for no apparent reason. Mary Sue's presence does not change the action of the story, just its focus: Mary Sue. Mary Sue does nothing but giggle, grow more beautiful, and be oblivious. Those are all characteristics of a Mary Sue story.
> > I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I > > can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free > > Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of > > Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with > > too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in > > ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
> > _Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same vein. It's > > a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have endless ruminations > > on what it really means to be a witch, *again* we have an > > anthropomorphic personification trying (and failing) to become > > human, *again* we are told about the hard lives of the "plain > > folks", and so on. The Nac Mag Feegle are there, but bring > > nothing new to the party, and mainly show up to briefly repeat a > > few of their established tricks (follow Tiffany in her dreams, > > dress up as a human, etc.)
> I started out feeling the same way, but the book is saved from that, for > me, perhaps mainly by the appearance, and more importantly the active > appearance, of Roland. It's not _all_ witches this time, and everybody > on the Chalk is not insignificant compared to Tiffany. That's new, and > that's important.
I would have liked Roland's part to be longer. It was a bit cursory, I thought.
>> [2] I can't quite convince myself that I've solved her name. >> Simple "Treason" sounds wrong; she doesn't seem to be a betrayer. >> Is it a pun on "Missed Reason"? Does anybody have a better idea?
> Me neither. I wonder if the weaving is a clue...
Replies to self - "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive"
>> I started out feeling the same way, but the book is saved from that, for >> me, perhaps mainly by the appearance, and more importantly the active >> appearance, of Roland. It's not _all_ witches this time, and everybody >> on the Chalk is not insignificant compared to Tiffany. That's new, and >> that's important.
> I would have liked Roland's part to be longer. It was a bit cursory, I > thought.
If there's a fourth book, maybe he will. I suspect from the clues that he's turning into a Verence, though.
>> > And things that stand out like an >> > American tourist in Soho, like using a footnote to state >> > the names of three guards who have nothing whatsoever to do >> > with the story. Were those three people who paid for or >> > "won" having their name in the book, and The Author failed >> > to or forgot write them in before the book was completed?
>> Can't be that, the guards were first named in WFM.
>Besides, the point is not the particular names; the point is that >they're such ordinary, teenage-boy names. Kev, Nev and Trev, your mates >from school - not Pte. Kevin Hardbottom and Sgt. T. Henry Kickspur.
The names rhyme, indicating that the characters are essentially identical, like Huey, Dewey, and Louie. They are typical teenage-boy names, yes. So are Will and Bill, and those names go back to the twelfth century at least. Why can't minor characters have ordinary names?
In article <Xns98517D8BC9120daib...@130.133.1.4>, Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com> wrote:
> dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney) >> Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>Richard Eney <dicc...@radix.net> wrote: <snip> >>>> He came very close with Conina, close >>>> enough to be afraid for his wizard-ness.
>>>Don't forget Interesting Times.
>> I don't recall Rincewind feeling any threat to his >> wizardness in IT. Fear for his life, yes.
>Now someone mentions it, there's definitely *some* sort of >connection between Rinso and Pretty Butterfly. She makes him >think of potatoes, IIRC...
Good catch. But she's the scary kind; he wasn't as attracted to Pretty Butterfly as he was to Conina.
>>So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female principle >>represented by (usually) a woman in the story, which the (usually >>male) protagonist must connect with as part of his development as >>a human character. If the main character does not make some kind of >>significant connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that >>main character as not having completed his development, thus he is >>incompletely developed.
>In one story (Non TP) the main character is hit >by a crashing UFO and when they rebuild him, they >do so as a woman. Does that constitute making a >connection with the opposite sex?
I would say yes, it does. Whether or not the character is entirely successful at making the change, there is a strong interaction that happens because of something outside. The character must become involved with the realities of the new body and also with the social interactions and expectations as a result of the new body.
Samuel Delaney wrote several stories in which characters change sex, in societies in which that is a common, inexpensive, and quick operation with complete results right down to the DNA. [I think one was titled _Titan_ (because it takes place on a moon of Jupiter called that) but I'm not sure.]
Richard Bos <rl...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote: <snip> >> I'm not surprised you're confused. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
>> I've been using a very rough explanation of a bunch of concepts I came up >> with over about - gee, twenty years now - taking bits of terminology from >> various books and articles and adding them to my own made up terms, in >> order to sort out the patterns I was seeing in stories.
>> So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female principle >> represented by (usually) a woman in the story, which the (usually >> male) protagonist must connect with as part of his development as >> a human character. If the main character does not make some kind of >> significant connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that >> main character as not having completed his development, thus he is >> incompletely developed.
>That's a bit simplistic, isn't it? What if the main character is gay? >What if the story is set in a women's prison? What about Lord of the >Flies?
Yes it's a bit simplistic. It's part of a schematic concept of an underlying meta-story pattern that can have many variations. All humans contain both energies, and contact with one's softer/harder side that is normally suppressed in a rigidly defined society will qualify as contact with that, since the Anima/Animus is a part of the psyche. It's just that in most stories it's personified by another character in the story.
IIRC, in Lord of the Flies, the main character, though not the most self-aware of characters, is aware that the lack of any female presence on the island may have had something to do with how events worked out. It would be possible to see that story as an example demonstrating what happens when the Anima isn't present.
In article <4528cd09$0$27376$ba4ac...@news.orange.fr>,
anarchic_teapot <the_peanut_gall...@spamcop.net> wrote: >anarchic_teapot a écrit : >> Richard Eney a écrit :
>>> [2] I can't quite convince myself that I've solved her name. >>> Simple "Treason" sounds wrong; she doesn't seem to be a betrayer. >>> Is it a pun on "Missed Reason"? Does anybody have a better idea?
>> Me neither. I wonder if the weaving is a clue...
>Replies to self - > "Oh what a tangled web we weave > when first we practise to deceive"
>I suppose she got better at it over the years.
"But when we've practiced for a while How vastly we improve our style."
Maybe I divided the words in the wrong place: Miss Treason - Mist'ry 's on (mystery's on? mysteries on?)
In article <4528cdb6$0$27376$ba4ac...@news.orange.fr>,
anarchic_teapot <the_peanut_gall...@spamcop.net> wrote: >Emma Anne a écrit : >> Richard Bos <ralt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_. <snip>
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
>>> I started out feeling the same way, but the book is saved from that, for >>> me, perhaps mainly by the appearance, and more importantly the active >>> appearance, of Roland. It's not _all_ witches this time, and everybody >>> on the Chalk is not insignificant compared to Tiffany. That's new, and >>> that's important.
>> I would have liked Roland's part to be longer. It was a bit cursory, >> I thought.
>If there's a fourth book, maybe he will. I suspect from the clues that >he's turning into a Verence, though.
IIRC "I Shall Wear Midnight" is the working title for the fourth book, but there's no specified date for it yet.
I didn't think Roland was turning into a Verence, not quite. I think he's beginning to show some real initiative. It seemed to me that he startled Tiffany a time or two, doing things she hadn't expected. For one thing, he seemed to manage to disentangle from the Summer Queen without much (any?) help from anyone else. Maybe his experiences in WFM weren't all useless.
> In article <4528cd09$0$27376$ba4ac...@news.orange.fr>, > anarchic_teapot <the_peanut_gall...@spamcop.net> wrote: >>anarchic_teapot a écrit : >>> Richard Eney a écrit :
>>>> [2] I can't quite convince myself that I've solved her >>>> name. >>>> Simple "Treason" sounds wrong; she doesn't seem to be a >>>> betrayer. >>>> Is it a pun on "Missed Reason"? Does anybody have a >>>> better idea?
>>> Me neither. I wonder if the weaving is a clue...
>>Replies to self - >> "Oh what a tangled web we weave >> when first we practise to deceive"
>>I suppose she got better at it over the years.
> "But when we've practiced for a while > How vastly we improve our style."
> Maybe I divided the words in the wrong place: > Miss Treason - Mist'ry 's on (mystery's on? mysteries on?)
Perhaps it has been overlooked that Miss Treason has a first name?
eumenides = The Furies, who we know as pursuing characters of Greek tragedies and doing unpleasant things to them
Miss Treason looks and sounds like a Fury should, but is really a traitor to Fury-ism.
On the other hand, eumenides has root "menos" meaning "demeanor", and so eumenides would parse to something like good-hearted or good-spirited, but I cannot see that applying to Miss Treason. Shortening "good" to "god" and working on "spirit" gives "godspirit", hence Miss Eumenides Treason is godmother who looks wicked but is really a traitor to wickedness, because she's really doing good.
Treason to the Furies
== Cliff
"Its the way you ride the trail that counts..." - Dale Evans
dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney) writes: > Samuel Delaney wrote several stories in which characters change > sex, in societies in which that is a common, inexpensive, and > quick operation with complete results right down to the DNA. [I > think one was titled _Titan_ (because it takes place on a moon > of Jupiter called that) but I'm not sure.]
You're thinking of John Varley, not Samuel Delaney.
In case anyone's interested, there's a darkly funny, fairly representative Varley short story on-line at:
anarchic_teapot <the_peanut_gall...@spamcop.net> writes: > > I would have liked Roland's part to be longer. It was a bit > > cursory, I thought.
> If there's a fourth book, maybe he will. I suspect from the > clues that he's turning into a Verence, though.
At DWCon 2004 Terry said he was thinking of writing a total of five books in the Tiffany Aching series. The fourth would be _When I Am Old I Shall Wear Midnight_; the fifth one was at that time untitled, and might not even happen. I remember him being quite definite about five being the absolute maximum, however.
The time: 02 Oct 2006. The place: alt.books.pratchett. The speaker: dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
> [2] I can't quite convince myself that I've solved her > name. Simple "Treason" sounds wrong; she doesn't seem to be > a betrayer. Is it a pun on "Missed Reason"? Does anybody > have a better idea?
Does there need to be one? Sometimes Discworld characters just have names...
-- Dave Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/ "The need to compile lists is a personality disorder, as is the need to assert the superiority of some things over other things." -Jeremy Hardy
> In article <45258a5e.16418...@news.xs4all.nl>, > Richard Bos <rl...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com> wrote: >>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com>
> SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
> 18
> 16
> 14
> 12
> 10
> 8
> 6
> 4
> 2
> 0
>>>> And things that stand out like an >>>> American tourist in Soho, like using a footnote to state >>>> the names of three guards who have nothing whatsoever to do >>>> with the story. Were those three people who paid for or >>>> "won" having their name in the book, and The Author failed >>>> to or forgot write them in before the book was completed?
>>> Can't be that, the guards were first named in WFM.
>> Besides, the point is not the particular names; the point is that >> they're such ordinary, teenage-boy names. Kev, Nev and Trev, your >> mates from school - not Pte. Kevin Hardbottom and Sgt. T. Henry >> Kickspur.
> The names rhyme, indicating that the characters are essentially > identical, like Huey, Dewey, and Louie. They are typical > teenage-boy > names, yes. So are Will and Bill, and those names go back to the > twelfth century at least. Why can't minor characters have ordinary > names?
It has also struck me that Kev, Trev and Nev are some of the sons of Nanny Ogg. So either that proves how common the names are, or that they've moved away from Lancre.
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org> wrote: > anarchic_teapot <the_peanut_gall...@spamcop.net> writes:
> > > I would have liked Roland's part to be longer. It was a bit > > > cursory, I thought.
> > If there's a fourth book, maybe he will. I suspect from the > > clues that he's turning into a Verence, though.
> At DWCon 2004 Terry said he was thinking of writing a total of > five books in the Tiffany Aching series. The fourth would be > _When I Am Old I Shall Wear Midnight_; the fifth one was at that > time untitled, and might not even happen. I remember him being > quite definite about five being the absolute maximum, however.
Makes sense. She's already thirteen, you can only have a grand, book-worthy adventury every so many years, and by the time she's an adult they're no longer really youth books, are they?
On 8 Oct 2006 18:07:57 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>The time: 02 Oct 2006. The place: alt.books.pratchett. The >speaker: dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>> [2] I can't quite convince myself that I've solved her >> name. Simple "Treason" sounds wrong; she doesn't seem to be >> a betrayer. Is it a pun on "Missed Reason"? Does anybody >> have a better idea?
>Does there need to be one? Sometimes Discworld characters just >have names...
But so rarely that I'm always suspicious when it does happen.
-- "I think that's the other reason I love the Discworld stories. One time the story is all "myffy" when suddenly you stumble across the joke and your head hits the next available wall while at another bit you laugh at a joke or situation and almost swallow your tongue when you think about it for a second longer." - Volker Hetzer in abp
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com> wrote: > The time: 02 Oct 2006. The place: alt.books.pratchett. The > speaker: dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>> [2] I can't quite convince myself that I've solved her >> name. Simple "Treason" sounds wrong; she doesn't seem to be >> a betrayer. Is it a pun on "Missed Reason"? Does anybody >> have a better idea?
> Does there need to be one? Sometimes Discworld characters just > have names...
There's also a Miss Treason in Madeleine E. Roberts' "Sarah Tolerance" series.
However, considering that the DW character's first name is Eumenides, my guess is that she's a fourth Fury.
