Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bungee the Spider

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:44:00 PM9/9/05
to
Glancing off to the side I spot what looks like a tiny spider dangling
from a note I pinned to the wall. It seems to be bobbing up and down on
an invisible thread. Taking a closer look it's just a tiny fly caught in
a web, moved by I don't know what, but never mind that.

It got me to wonder how many non-children's stories there are with
spiders as viewpoint characters. (Actual 8-legged spiders with spidery
thoughts. Naturally, that's SF thinking spiders, rather than common
animals. For example, genetic upgrades or magic are valid improvements
to the species as such.)

(This may just start another book list thread. It's not a search for
recommendations.)

--
Tina
No good internet access. ('Cause there is none.)
### XP v3.40 RC3 ###

Bateau

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 10:30:31 AM9/10/05
to
Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>Glancing off to the side I spot what looks like a tiny spider dangling
>from a note I pinned to the wall. It seems to be bobbing up and down on
>an invisible thread. Taking a closer look it's just a tiny fly caught in
>a web, moved by I don't know what, but never mind that.
>
>It got me to wonder how many non-children's stories there are with
>spiders as viewpoint characters. (Actual 8-legged spiders with spidery
>thoughts. Naturally, that's SF thinking spiders, rather than common
>animals. For example, genetic upgrades or magic are valid improvements
>to the species as such.)
>
>(This may just start another book list thread. It's not a search for
>recommendations.)

Fritz Leiber has a spider phobia and it shows in his writing.

marks...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 10:55:01 AM9/10/05
to
Tanya Huff - Valors Choice has an alien spider like being - from memory
the Mictok.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:39:21 AM9/10/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Glancing off to the side I spot what looks like a tiny spider dangling
> from a note I pinned to the wall. It seems to be bobbing up and down on
> an invisible thread. Taking a closer look it's just a tiny fly caught in
> a web, moved by I don't know what, but never mind that.
>
> It got me to wonder how many non-children's stories there are with
> spiders as viewpoint characters. (Actual 8-legged spiders with spidery
> thoughts. Naturally, that's SF thinking spiders, rather than common
> animals. For example, genetic upgrades or magic are valid improvements
> to the species as such.)
>
> (This may just start another book list thread. It's not a search for
> recommendations.)

I suppose Dr. Prilicla of Sector Twelve General Hospital (James White)
may not count as spidery enough for you, since after placing difficult
patients under restraint he does not eat them, but he gets most of the
viewpoint in _Double Contact_, the rest being Murchison's.

Mike Schilling

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:41:57 AM9/10/05
to

"Bateau" <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote in message
news:uer5i11clicsuc9qu...@4ax.com...

>
> Fritz Leiber has a spider phobia and it shows in his writing.

I would guess the same about Tolkien.


David M. Palmer

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 3:16:47 PM9/10/05
to
In article <1126366761....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"rja.ca...@excite.com"> wrote:

In "A Deepness In The Sky" many of the main characters are spideroids
(in form, not necessarily in spidery thoughts, although <rot13> gung'f
cnegvnyyl orpnhfr gurl jrer cbegenlrq ol na vagragvbanyyl haeryvnoyr
aneengbe </rot13>).

--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 5:33:00 PM9/10/05
to
Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:

>> It got me to wonder how many non-children's stories there are
>> with spiders as viewpoint characters. (Actual 8-legged spiders
>> with spidery thoughts. Naturally, that's SF thinking spiders,
>> rather than common animals. For example, genetic upgrades or
>> magic are valid improvements to the species as such.)
>>
>> (This may just start another book list thread. It's not a search
>> for recommendations.)

> I suppose Dr. Prilicla of Sector Twelve General Hospital (James
> White) may not count as spidery enough for you, since after
> placing difficult patients under restraint he does not eat them,

That doesn't make it 'not spidery enough'. Nothing wrong with thinking
spiders using their abilities for other things than the animals do.

> but he gets most of the viewpoint in _Double Contact_, the rest
> being Murchison's.

[left in for context]

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 5:50:41 PM9/10/05
to

Ah, sorry. Six legs. And wings.

I can offer you a more spider-like alien in a Star Trek novel, _The
Wounded Sky_, although in other respects it may not be a book that
you'd like - and she doesn't get much viewpoint time, but she does have
time to reflect on how much she misses her spider lover - whom,
according to tradition and with mutual consent, she killed and ate.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 6:14:00 PM9/10/05
to
David M. Palmer <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:

> In "A Deepness In The Sky" many of the main characters are
> spideroids

Not eight legs, not spiders.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 8:42:00 PM9/10/05
to
Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

[Thinking spiders as characters?]

[Character in "Double Contacct"]

> Ah, sorry. Six legs. And wings.

Ah, well...

> I can offer you a more spider-like alien in a Star Trek novel,
> _The Wounded Sky_, although in other respects it may not be a
> book that you'd like

I feel compelled to repeat:

(This may just start another book list thread. It's not a
search for recommendations.)

It doesn't matter whether I'd like it. I was just wondering whether
there are such books, in a statistical sense.

> - and she doesn't get much viewpoint time, but she does have time to
> reflect on how much she misses her spider lover - whom, according to
> tradition and with mutual consent, she killed and ate.

LOL. Neat. (Even though it makes no sense.)

art...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 9:27:26 PM9/10/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Glancing off to the side I spot what looks like a tiny spider dangling
> from a note I pinned to the wall. It seems to be bobbing up and down on
> an invisible thread. Taking a closer look it's just a tiny fly caught in
> a web, moved by I don't know what, but never mind that.
>
> It got me to wonder how many non-children's stories there are with
> spiders as viewpoint characters. (Actual 8-legged spiders with spidery
> thoughts. Naturally, that's SF thinking spiders, rather than common
> animals. For example, genetic upgrades or magic are valid improvements
> to the species as such.)
>
> (This may just start another book list thread. It's not a search for
> recommendations.)
There was a thread a couple years ago called "spiders as people".
Plenty of examples

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 5:05:01 AM9/11/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:

> > - and she doesn't get much viewpoint time, but she does have time to
> > reflect on how much she misses her spider lover - whom, according to
> > tradition and with mutual consent, she killed and ate.
>
> LOL. Neat. (Even though it makes no sense.)

Of course not. If it made sense, it would be The Black Jewels again.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 9:37:39 AM9/11/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> [Thinking spiders as characters?]
>
> [Character in "Double Contacct"]
>
> > Ah, sorry. Six legs. And wings.
>
> Ah, well...
>
> > I can offer you a more spider-like alien in a Star Trek novel,
> > _The Wounded Sky_, although in other respects it may not be a
> > book that you'd like
>
> I feel compelled to repeat:
>
> (This may just start another book list thread. It's not a
> search for recommendations.)
>
> It doesn't matter whether I'd like it. I was just wondering whether
> there are such books, in a statistical sense.

I know it's different with you, but in general I feel if I mention a
book then by default I'm recommending it, unless I say otherwise. So I
decided to say otherwise. The book is quite interesting up until a
point where all the Star Trek crew start holding hands together, then
it really is too fannish for people who don't have quite a high
tolerance for fannishness.

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 1:44:26 PM9/11/05
to
In article <uer5i11clicsuc9qu...@4ax.com>,
Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote:

Snakes, too -- viz, _The Big Time_.

And thanks, Tina, for starting a civil discussion.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 5:44:00 PM9/11/05
to

>> [Thinking spiders as characters?]
[...]


>> It doesn't matter whether I'd like it. I was just wondering
>> whether there are such books, in a statistical sense.

> I know it's different with you, but in general I feel if I
> mention a book then by default I'm recommending it, unless I say
> otherwise. So I decided to say otherwise.

Obviously.

> The book is quite interesting up until a point where all the Star Trek
> crew start holding hands together, then it really is too fannish for
> people who don't have quite a high tolerance for fannishness.

It's a real Star Trek tie-in (or something), or just full of ST
sterotype characcters?

What's fannish in a book?

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 9:05:49 PM9/11/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:
> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Tina Hall wrote:
> >> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > [_The Wounded Sky_,

> > The book is quite interesting up until a point where all the Star Trek
> > crew start holding hands together, then it really is too fannish for
> > people who don't have quite a high tolerance for fannishness.
>
> It's a real Star Trek tie-in (or something), or just full of ST
> sterotype characcters?
>
> What's fannish in a book?

It's a new story (well, some years ago now) using Captain Kirk and his
Starship Enterprise, but with some modern refinements such as a
holodeck - well, I won't swear to the holodeck in this book, but one is
slipped into some of the books around the time this was written. You
only get one holoprogram at a time, and it takes a lot more setting up.
If the holodeck is there, then so is the talking recreation deck
computer. I suppose that the ship's computers falling in love with
Captain Kirk is canonical, at least in one episode, but they got it
fixed.

I think that Diane Duane is in love with too many of the characters,
and that's what makes it fannish. For one thing, it means that the
characters are too much in love with each other. I don't much like
Trek books about their early meetings where they hate each other's
guts, but, well, as I say, holding hands is too much - well, again, I
won't swear they actually get that far, but it's still pretty sappy.
Dr. McCoy, I think, is even allowed to comment on how unrealistic it
is.

I think there's also a nod towards C. S. Lewis's "The Last Battle", but
that just might be explicitly acknowledged in the text. "'Spock, this
is just like that bit in C. S. Lewis's "The Last Battle", isn't it?'
said Captain Kirk. 'Affirmative, Captain. I was reading the book
myself last night, and the similarity is most striking.'"

Oh, and mark it down some more since they manage accidentally to
destroy the entire universe, with a new experimental engine, or anyway
badly damage the universe. Then they fix it. By doing the "Last
Battle" bit. Huh.

I may have some details wrong, but by heck I'm not reading it again
right now just to get it right. Maybe some time soon I will have a
need for comfort and reassurance and an aversion to intellectual
honesty, and then it's there on the shelf for me.

If it's a Mary Sue, then I suppose the spider is the author character.
The spider flirts outrageously with Kirk, and also with Scott, but I
think she only wants him for his dilithium crystals.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 4:52:00 AM9/12/05
to

>>> [_The Wounded Sky_,
>>> The book is quite interesting up until a point where all the
>>> Star Trek crew start holding hands together, then it really is
>>> too fannish for people who don't have quite a high tolerance
>>> for fannishness.
>>
>> It's a real Star Trek tie-in (or something), or just full of ST
>> sterotype characcters?
>>
>> What's fannish in a book?

> It's a new story (well, some years ago now) using Captain Kirk

[...]


> I suppose that the ship's computers falling in love with Captain Kirk
> is canonical, at least in one episode, but they got it fixed.

Ah. That clears that.

> I think that Diane Duane is in love with too many of the
> characters, and that's what makes it fannish.

I think I understand what you mean.

> For one thing, it means that the characters are too much in love
> with each other.

Hmmm... Can't follow that. I was more thinking along the line of turning
them into some idealized personal (her) fantasy version. Ending up
having them behave out of character - at least looking out of character
to other people.

> I don't much like Trek books about their early meetings where
> they hate each other's guts, but, well, as I say, holding hands
> is too much -

That (holding hands) sounds terribly schmaltzy, on the other hand.

> well, again, I won't swear they actually get that far, but it's still
> pretty sappy. Dr. McCoy, I think, is even allowed to comment on how
> unrealistic it is.

Having a character criticise something a reader might is actually quite
neat. I see it as a nod, the author acknowledging something.

<snip>

> If it's a Mary Sue,

What was a Mary Sue again?

> then I suppose the spider is the author character.

<blink>

Oh, that _was_ the topic.

> The spider flirts outrageously with Kirk, and also with Scott, but I
> think she only wants him for his dilithium crystals.

Hehe.

Gary R. Schmidt

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 8:36:27 AM9/12/05
to
rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
[SNIP]

> If it's a Mary Sue, then I suppose the spider is the author character.
> The spider flirts outrageously with Kirk, and also with Scott, but I
> think she only wants him for his dilithium crystals.
>
Oh, you mean Ks't'l'kt, or whatever her name is (looks over shoulder,
ah, yes, there's "Spock's World"... "K's't'lk".) And she doesn't want
Scotty for his dilithium, she wants him fer his engines!

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

Bateau

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 9:12:22 AM9/12/05
to

I just read that. I read two of the short stories based on it too.

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 1:27:06 PM9/12/05
to
In article <fkvai15tkul0hevpp...@4ax.com>,
Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote:

> >>
> >> Fritz Leiber has a spider phobia and it shows in his writing.
> >
> >Snakes, too -- viz, _The Big Time_.
>
> I just read that. I read two of the short stories based on it too.
>

Yeah, some of Leiber's best work. I suppose I've read "The Big Time" 4
or 5 times now.

Still, my absolute fave Leiber is "Gonna Roll the Bones". The apotheosis
of Joe Slattermill. The celestial crap-table. The fateful throw of the
dice! Plus, the best closing line in all of SF: "Ur jnyxrq ubzr, ohg
gbbx gur ybat jnl, nebhaq gur jbeyq" (quote from memory)

Now I can't remember the name of Joe's tomcat, darn it -- but clearly
pTerry remembered it, when he wrote Greebo.

Happy reading--
Pete Tillman

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 4:04:42 PM9/12/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> That (holding hands) sounds terribly schmaltzy, on the other hand.
>
> > well, again, I won't swear they actually get that far, but it's still
> > pretty sappy. Dr. McCoy, I think, is even allowed to comment on how
> > unrealistic it is.
>
> Having a character criticise something a reader might is actually quite
> neat. I see it as a nod, the author acknowledging something.

I often see reviewers pointing out that a story has such glaringly
unreasonable plot defects that even the characters are complaining
about them. This in fact means that the author must be aware of the
unusual, in the reviewer's opinion inadequate, turn that the story is
taken, but they don't rewrite it.

Possibly I was exaggerating a bit about what McCoy does say in this
story. In the actual TV story, of course, there was at least one group
fistfight in most episodes, and if this wasn't with Klingons or Gorn or
someone like that, then it was often amongst the Enterprise crew
themselves. Someone said something cutting at dinner and it was
handbags out. :-)

On reflection, another aspect of the story may have annoyed me more -
McCoy explaining that the unusual circumstances of the story, with the
whole crew temporarily in love with each other, can't be recreated
again. This is used a lot too, when a writer wants to use an idea that
would turn every other story upside down; for instance, say someone
dies, but the Transporter still has a record of them, so they put it in
reverse and bring the character back to life. Well, if they could do
that every week, then the show would lose a lot of suspense. So
someone explains they can't do it again for some absurd reason.

> <snip>
>
> > If it's a Mary Sue,
>
> What was a Mary Sue again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue describes it as,
"Mary Sue (or simply Sue) is a usually derogatory expression for a
fictional character who is an idealized stand-in for the author, or for
a story with such a character. A Mary Sue therefore goes beyond a
conventional author surrogate character." Basically a daydream written
down. You get to save the ship, romance your favourite character,
maybe even nurse them through illness... great for you, dull for other
people.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 8:14:00 PM9/12/05
to

>>> well, again, I won't swear they actually get that far, but it's
>>> still pretty sappy. Dr. McCoy, I think, is even allowed to
>>> comment on how unrealistic it is.
>>
>> Having a character criticise something a reader might is
>> actually quite neat. I see it as a nod, the author acknowledging
>> something.

> I often see reviewers pointing out that a story has such
> glaringly unreasonable plot defects that even the characters are
> complaining about them.

Plot defects as in inconsistencies? There's no excuse for that.

I had other things in mind, like laws of physics in a world with magic
not working as they would in a world without magic. Or other laws. Say,
in a made up world, yellow and green always mix to purple, consistently.
That's fine. A characcter pointing out how that's odd is a nod.
(ObRambling: I'd have liked something like that in the Black Jewels
Trilogy, where the order of the colours made no sense, and no reason was
given for why they had that order.)

Maybe I just have a colour fetish. They provided the framework for the
thing I'm amusing myself with, too, in an unreasonable but consistent
order.

> This in fact means that the author must be aware of the unusual, in
> the reviewer's opinion inadequate, turn that the story is taken, but
> they don't rewrite it.

I think we agree on that angle. It is of course possible that the author
just found it unusual but nice, rather than inadequate.

> Possibly I was exaggerating a bit about what McCoy does say in
> this story. In the actual TV story, of course, there was at
> least one group fistfight in most episodes, and if this wasn't
> with Klingons or Gorn or someone like that,

Gorn! The context I'm far more familiar with them (though I remember the
episode) is a computer game.

> then it was often amongst the Enterprise crew themselves. Someone
> said something cutting at dinner and it was handbags out. :-)

Maybe it is fortunate that I have no recollection of that. :)

> On reflection, another aspect of the story may have annoyed me
> more - McCoy explaining that the unusual circumstances of the
> story, with the whole crew temporarily in love with each other,
> can't be recreated again. This is used a lot too, when a writer
> wants to use an idea that would turn every other story upside
> down;

Yes, that is annoying.

> for instance, say someone dies, but the Transporter still
> has a record of them, so they put it in reverse and bring the
> character back to life. Well, if they could do that every week,
> then the show would lose a lot of suspense. So someone explains
> they can't do it again for some absurd reason.

Not just in TOS either.

>> <snip>
>>
>>> If it's a Mary Sue,
>>
>> What was a Mary Sue again?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue describes it as,
> "Mary Sue (or simply Sue) is a usually derogatory expression for
> a fictional character who is an idealized stand-in for the
> author, or for a story with such a character. A Mary Sue
> therefore goes beyond a conventional author surrogate character."

Are there cross-gender Mary Sues?

> Basically a daydream written down. You get to save the ship,
> romance your favourite character, maybe even nurse them through
> illness... great for you, dull for other people.

Heh. One should leave that stuff where it belongs; daydreams, or if it
has to be written; fanfic. Of course tie-ins are just that, so maybe
it's not surprising to find it executed there.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 9:03:03 AM9/13/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue describes it as,
> > "Mary Sue (or simply Sue) is a usually derogatory expression for
> > a fictional character who is an idealized stand-in for the
> > author, or for a story with such a character. A Mary Sue
> > therefore goes beyond a conventional author surrogate character."
>
> Are there cross-gender Mary Sues?

That could mean any of several different things, but the answer to most
of them is Yes!

(The Wiki article describes different opinions about the right name for
a non-female wish-fulfilment character, and for other variations.
Sticking with Mary Sue seems best to me.)

Bateau

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 9:15:25 AM9/13/05
to
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:
>In article <fkvai15tkul0hevpp...@4ax.com>,
> Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote:
>
>> >> Fritz Leiber has a spider phobia and it shows in his writing.
>> >
>> >Snakes, too -- viz, _The Big Time_.
>>
>> I just read that. I read two of the short stories based on it too.
>
>Yeah, some of Leiber's best work. I suppose I've read "The Big Time" 4
>or 5 times now.

I don't think I would reread it. It wasn't very good.

>Still, my absolute fave Leiber is "Gonna Roll the Bones". The apotheosis
>of Joe Slattermill. The celestial crap-table. The fateful throw of the
>dice! Plus, the best closing line in all of SF: "Ur jnyxrq ubzr, ohg
>gbbx gur ybat jnl, nebhaq gur jbeyq" (quote from memory)

I read that quite a while ago. I didn't like it either. Now that I think
of it none of the stories in The Mind Spider And Others and The Book of
Fritz Leiber stood out as being very good to me. Some of them are even
bad.

Kris Kennaway

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 2:51:38 PM9/13/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]

On 2005-09-13, Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote:

> I read that quite a while ago. I didn't like it either. Now that I think
> of it none of the stories in The Mind Spider And Others and The Book of
> Fritz Leiber stood out as being very good to me. Some of them are even
> bad.

I was entirely unimpressed by "The Book of Fritz Leiber" as well. The
only way I could rationalize it given the praise I've heard for his
writing is that it contains "previously uncollected" writings, which I
interpreted as "previously uncollected for good reason".

Kris

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 12:19:00 PM9/13/05
to

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue describes it as,
>>> "Mary Sue (or simply Sue) is a usually derogatory expression
>>> for a fictional character who is an idealized stand-in for the
>>> author, or for a story with such a character. A Mary Sue
>>> therefore goes beyond a conventional author surrogate
>>> character."
>>
>> Are there cross-gender Mary Sues?

> That could mean any of several different things, but the answer
> to most of them is Yes!

Several? What meanings other than "The Mary Sue has the opposite gender
of the author's" are there?

> (The Wiki article describes different opinions about the right
> name for a non-female wish-fulfilment character, and for other
> variations.

Do those other variants include male authors?

> Sticking with Mary Sue seems best to me.)

Yep.

Do you have examples? (For both cases.)

(Asking in a statistical sense again.)

Justin Bacon

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 5:58:06 PM9/13/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Tina Hall wrote:
> >> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue describes it as,
> >>> "Mary Sue (or simply Sue) is a usually derogatory expression
> >>> for a fictional character who is an idealized stand-in for the
> >>> author, or for a story with such a character. A Mary Sue
> >>> therefore goes beyond a conventional author surrogate
> >>> character."
> >>
> >> Are there cross-gender Mary Sues?
>
> > That could mean any of several different things, but the answer
> > to most of them is Yes!
>
> Several? What meanings other than "The Mary Sue has the opposite gender
> of the author's" are there?

Google "cross-gender" and get back to us. Suffice it to say that your
intended meaning is, in fact, the *least* intuitive meaning of what you
said.

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 6:03:57 PM9/13/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Tina Hall wrote:
> >> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue describes it as,
> >>> "Mary Sue (or simply Sue) is a usually derogatory expression
> >>> for a fictional character who is an idealized stand-in for the
> >>> author, or for a story with such a character. A Mary Sue
> >>> therefore goes beyond a conventional author surrogate
> >>> character."
> >>
> >> Are there cross-gender Mary Sues?
>
> > That could mean any of several different things, but the answer
> > to most of them is Yes!
>
> Several? What meanings other than "The Mary Sue has the opposite gender
> of the author's" are there?

Oh, several transsexual options - or so I imagine; I'm not competent to
discuss the menu in detail, but it exists.

It isn't terribly unusual for a happy heterosexual female reader to
identify with a male character. Apparently certain types of male
homosexual pornography have a strong female following, for instance.
And some fictional setups make it difficult to send in a female proxy,
or to rewrite an existing character as your proxy.

> > (The Wiki article describes different opinions about the right
> > name for a non-female wish-fulfilment character, and for other
> > variations.
>
> Do those other variants include male authors?

Apparently they do. The Wiki article does, in fact, speculate that
most Mary Sue characters are females with female authors.

> > Sticking with Mary Sue seems best to me.)
>
> Yep.
>
> Do you have examples? (For both cases.)
>
> (Asking in a statistical sense again.)

We're talking about bad writing specifically. So, few that I'd care to
remember. The Wiki piece names some names, including Diane Carey's
_Dreadnought!_ and _Battlestations!_ I'm not sure that those qualify
but they did annoy me like hell, with the female protagonist holding up
the action to give lectures on politics and economics to her sidekicks.
Come to think, a non-Sue character probably would have been told to
shut up.

I think only once in each of those two books do we get the good joke
that while Carey's hero and team are blundering around, Captain Kirk
and Mister Spock have done most of the "save the day" work offstage
with the same proficiency that they usually manage in the TV show -
overpowered the guards, released the hostages and sent them to safety,
reprogrammed the self-destruct mechanism, signalled Starfleet Command -
not one or another of these things, but /all/ of them. We just weren't
there to see them do it. I don't mind it being repeated because they
/always/ do it.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 13, 2005, 10:55:00 PM9/13/05
to

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue describes it as,
>>>>> "Mary Sue (or simply Sue) is a usually derogatory expression
>>>>> for a fictional character who is an idealized stand-in for
>>>>> the author, or for a story with such a character. A Mary Sue
>>>>> therefore goes beyond a conventional author surrogate
>>>>> character."
>>>>
>>>> Are there cross-gender Mary Sues?
>>
>>> That could mean any of several different things, but the answer
>>> to most of them is Yes!
>>
>> Several? What meanings other than "The Mary Sue has the opposite
>> gender of the author's" are there?

> Oh, several transsexual options - or so I imagine; I'm not
> competent to discuss the menu in detail, but it exists.

> It isn't terribly unusual for a happy heterosexual female reader
> to identify with a male character.

Weren't we talking about authors? I just thought that that Mary Sue
thingy was authors putting themselves as characters into the story,
wish-fulfillment daydream or something, and there I wondered whether
there are any that do that with characters of the opposite gender...

> Apparently certain types of male homosexual pornography have a strong
> female following, for instance.

Does lesbian pornography with a male following have the readers identify
with anyone? After all, two women is a common male fantasy, but with the
idea that they're wanted for participation because the women can't do
without them. (Don't know what women think about it, I don't understand
them. I'm only drawing parallels here.)

But anyway, I'd strongly object to identifying having anything to do
with reading or watching pornography. At least as far as I am concerned.
The good thing is that it _doesn't_ involve me.

(On a random note, the last thing I want in pornography is 'characters',
or their thoughts, never mind any of that identifying stuff that I don't
get anyway. No, no need to suggest anything, I know where to find what I
like.)

> And some fictional setups make it difficult to send in a female proxy,
> or to rewrite an existing character as your proxy.

I've never had a problem with inserting some character in my (not
written, only thought up) fanfiction. Of course that isn't meant to
entertain readers...

>>> (The Wiki article describes different opinions about the right
>>> name for a non-female wish-fulfilment character, and for other
>>> variations.
>>
>> Do those other variants include male authors?

> Apparently they do. The Wiki article does, in fact, speculate
> that most Mary Sue characters are females with female authors.

Eh, that contradicts the 'apparently they do'. Typo?

>>> Sticking with Mary Sue seems best to me.)
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Do you have examples? (For both cases.)
>>
>> (Asking in a statistical sense again.)

> We're talking about bad writing specifically.

Yes, probably, but I'm curious.

> So, few that I'd care to remember. The Wiki piece names some names,
> including Diane Carey's _Dreadnought!_ and _Battlestations!_ I'm not
> sure that those qualify but they did annoy me like hell, with the
> female protagonist holding up the action to give lectures on politics
> and economics to her sidekicks.

Ew. (As in 'I can understand why it annoyed you'.)

> Come to think, a non-Sue character probably would have been told to
> shut up.

Hm. That brings up another related question. Can you have multiple Mary
Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)

> I think only once in each of those two books do we get the good
> joke that while Carey's hero and team are blundering around,
> Captain Kirk and Mister Spock have done most of the "save the
> day" work offstage with the same proficiency that they usually
> manage in the TV show - overpowered the guards, released the
> hostages and sent them to safety, reprogrammed the self-destruct
> mechanism, signalled Starfleet Command - not one or another of
> these things, but /all/ of them. We just weren't there to see
> them do it. I don't mind it being repeated because they /always/
> do it.

:)

Dr Hermes

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 12:01:10 AM9/14/05
to

Group: rec.arts.sf.written Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2005, 2:55am (EDT+4)

From: Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)

This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival Mary Sues in
the same situation, competing to get all the usual scenes in before the
other one does. Maybe even simultaneous drawn-out dying scenes, each
having saved everyone else and each getting a touching farewell speech
at the same time, interrupting each other.

http://community.webtv.net/drhermes/DRHERMESREVIEWSHome/

Christopher Adams

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 12:25:00 AM9/14/05
to
Dr Hermes wrote:

> Tina Hall wrote:
>
>> Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
>
> This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival Mary Sues in
> the same situation, competing to get all the usual scenes in before the
> other one does. Maybe even simultaneous drawn-out dying scenes, each
> having saved everyone else and each getting a touching farewell speech
> at the same time, interrupting each other.

There was a webcomic about various Harry Potter fanfiction Mary Sues being
placed into the new house, Sparklypoo, that had to be created to deal with the
massive influx of foreign transfer students with multiple nonhuman ancestors,
improbably-coloured hair, and SPESHUL powers, and how the head of their house
contrived their eventually murderous infighting as they struggled to resist the
draining of their SPESHULness into the teacher herself, who promptly used the
power to get it on with Snape, Lupin, Legolas, et cetera.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
The geek with roots in Hell!
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

Who do you blame when your kid is a - brat?
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese - cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a - shame!
You know exactly who's - to - blame:
The mother and the father!


David Johnston

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 1:03:10 AM9/14/05
to
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:55:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:


>> Apparently certain types of male homosexual pornography have a strong
>> female following, for instance.
>
>Does lesbian pornography with a male following have the readers identify
>with anyone?

Sure. It isn't much more of a stretch to imagine yourself as one of
the girls than the idea that two lesbians are going welcome you into a
menage a trois after all.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 5:13:00 AM9/14/05
to
Dr Hermes <drhe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina(Hall) wrote:

>> Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)

> This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival Mary
> Sues in the same situation, competing to get all the usual scenes
> in before the other one does. Maybe even simultaneous drawn-out
> dying scenes, each having saved everyone else and each getting a
> touching farewell speech at the same time, interrupting each
> other.

Heh. Nice image.

But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to rescue the
day? Can't they just sort of tag along?

Do they have to be "I want to be a hero." types?

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 5:13:00 AM9/14/05
to

<scratching head>

My WSOD stops at 'What would they want with each other?'. <g>

(Not that I have an answer for 'What would they want with a guy.', but
that does make slightly more sense.)

Seriously. How does that work?

What about female viewpoint hetero stories?

Bateau

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 7:26:17 AM9/14/05
to

I have just read one and a half books of Frederik Pohl's short stories.
A couple of times I stopped half way through a story and thought "I am
really enjoying this much better than that other crap." It's my kind of
sci fi. It's about ideas. It's not just about people with a few sci fi
trappings in the background. I was getting really sick of that shit.
I like sci fi you can sit there and think about for a while after you've
read it.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 8:06:49 AM9/14/05
to
Dr Hermes wrote:
> Group: rec.arts.sf.written Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2005, 2:55am (EDT+4)
> From: Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>
>>Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
>
>

I have several Mary Sue characters but I'm not sure if they ever
actually MEET each other, at least in the true sense of the word.

>
>
> This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival Mary Sues in
> the same situation, competing to get all the usual scenes in before the
> other one does. Maybe even simultaneous drawn-out dying scenes, each
> having saved everyone else and each getting a touching farewell speech
> at the same time, interrupting each other.

It'd take a good writer to pull it off. "Nine Men and a Little Lady"
has a different take on the "many Mary Sues" phenomenon, of course.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 8:09:09 AM9/14/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:
> Dr Hermes <drhe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>>Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina(Hall) wrote:
>
>
>>>Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
>>
>
>>This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival Mary
>>Sues in the same situation, competing to get all the usual scenes
>>in before the other one does. Maybe even simultaneous drawn-out
>>dying scenes, each having saved everyone else and each getting a
>>touching farewell speech at the same time, interrupting each
>>other.
>
>
> Heh. Nice image.
>
> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to rescue the
> day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>
> Do they have to be "I want to be a hero." types?
>

They do not HAVE to be, but the thing that gives Mary Sues their bad,
bad rep is that MOST Mary Sues are perfect wish-fulfillment vehicles,
which means that they get to save the characters they want to save,
beat up the villains they want to beat up, and **** the characters
that they want to ****.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 11:51:33 AM9/14/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:
> Dr Hermes <drhe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> > Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina(Hall) wrote:
>
> >> Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
>
> > This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival Mary
> > Sues in the same situation, competing to get all the usual scenes
> > in before the other one does. Maybe even simultaneous drawn-out
> > dying scenes, each having saved everyone else and each getting a
> > touching farewell speech at the same time, interrupting each
> > other.
>
> Heh. Nice image.
>
> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to rescue the
> day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>
> Do they have to be "I want to be a hero." types?

Given we /are/ choosing to talk about bad fiction, a kibitzer character
is possible, but still potentially a defect. However, it can be
interesting to watch over the shoulder of, say, a visiting TV news
crew. I think this has worked better in published _Babylon 5_ and
_Stargate SG-1_ than in _Star Trek_, 'cause the first two shows have a
bit more reality. Various serious authors write themselves as ensigns
or palace guards with only a couple of dialogue lines.

What this isn't, I think, is Mary Sue. Mary Sue doesn't join the team
(or inhabit an existing team member) and then do nothing, she (or he)
does /everything/, while the regular cast watch in amazed appreciation.
Of course maybe the character isn't ambitious to succeed, she's (or
he's) just naturally wonderful.

David Gerrold gives himself a whole chapter in Trek novel _The Galactic
Whirlpool_, apparently, as ship's librarian (I thought they had a
computer to do that), delivering a long lecture about where a
mysterious spaceship came from - having not realised the senior
officers didn't already know. Come to think, that /does/ sound like a
Mary Sue job. But he doesn't reappear, I think, and the story as a
whole works fairly well.

Taki Kogoma

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 12:50:55 PM9/14/05
to
On 14 Sep 2005 08:51:33 -0700, "rja.ca...@excite.com"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...

>David Gerrold gives himself a whole chapter in Trek novel _The Galactic
>Whirlpool_, apparently, as ship's librarian (I thought they had a
>computer to do that), delivering a long lecture about where a
>mysterious spaceship came from - having not realised the senior
>officers didn't already know. Come to think, that /does/ sound like a
>Mary Sue job. But he doesn't reappear, I think, and the story as a
>whole works fairly well.

IIRC, _Galactic Whirlpool_ is a reworking/expansion of one of three
story outlines he submitted to Gene Coon in '66. One of the others
("A Fuzzy Thing Happened...") was eventually sold as "The Trouble
With Tribbles".

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)

Default User

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 2:16:43 PM9/14/05
to
Sea Wasp wrote:

> Dr Hermes wrote:
> > Group: rec.arts.sf.written Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2005, 2:55am (EDT+4)
> > From: Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
> >
> >
>
> I have several Mary Sue characters but I'm not sure if they ever
> actually MEET each other, at least in the true sense of the word.


Are they actually Mary Sues or just cameo appearance for yourself?


Brian

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 2:22:01 PM9/14/05
to
I wrote:

> >Still, my absolute fave Leiber is "Gonna Roll the Bones". The apotheosis
> >of Joe Slattermill. The celestial crap-table. The fateful throw of the
> >dice! Plus, the best closing line in all of SF: "Ur jnyxrq ubzr, ohg
> >gbbx gur ybat jnl, nebhaq gur jbeyq" (quote from memory)


Kris Kennaway <kk...@xor.obsecurity.org> wrote:

Well, no accounting for taste, and it's certainly true that much of what
Leiber wrote hasn't aged well (or wasn't very good to start with).
Still, I think BIG TIME and "Bones" are the works most often cited as
his best.

So, both of you can cross ol' Fritz off your list with a clear
conscience.... <G>

Happy reading--
Pete Tillman

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 5:05:00 PM9/14/05
to
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:

>> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>>
>> Do they have to be "I want to be a hero." types?

> They do not HAVE to be, but the thing that gives Mary Sues their
> bad, bad rep is that MOST Mary Sues are perfect wish-fulfillment
> vehicles,

Ah, so it's not an inherent part of the definition, but optional.
(Could, after all, mean 'perfect wish-fulfillment'.)

<frown>

I guess there's dispute over that, too, as is over "what's sci-fi,
what's fantasy"...

> which means that they get to save the characters they want to save,
> beat up the villains they want to beat up, and **** the characters
> that they want to ****.

And I thought my keyboard was broken.

Anyway, I get the impression that the uber-powered Mary Sue looks like
the closest thing to what other people misunderstand I want in
characters. In a way, the characters in the thing I'm amusing myself
with might all, except the females, be Mary Sues (not sure whether that
is actually the case). But there's no 'hero' anywhere in sight. And no
stereotypial saving, beating, or fucking either.

The thing that has me suspect they're Mary Sues is that they are
probably wish-fulfillment vehicles.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 6:36:00 PM9/14/05
to
Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Dr Hermes <drhe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina(Hall) wrote:

>>>> Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
>>
>>> This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival
>>> Mary Sues in the same situation, competing to get all the usual
>>> scenes in before the other one does. Maybe even simultaneous
>>> drawn-out dying scenes, each having saved everyone else and
>>> each getting a touching farewell speech at the same time,
>>> interrupting each other.
>>
>> Heh. Nice image.
>>
>> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>>
>> Do they have to be "I want to be a hero." types?

> Given we /are/ choosing to talk about bad fiction, a kibitzer
> character is possible, but still potentially a defect.

What's a kibitzer characcter?

> However, it can be interesting to watch over the shoulder of, say, a
> visiting TV news crew.

With this I assume that kibitzer means just that; looking over the
shoulder.

But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can see that
there aren't only heroes and watchers.

Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with its villages
regularly visited by raiders. The <head of country> assembles an army
and kicks the raiders out. End of story. No heroism, but no watchers
either. Just the efficient <head of country> and his fellows.

> I think this has worked better in published _Babylon 5_ and _Stargate
> SG-1_ than in _Star Trek_, 'cause the first two shows have a bit more
> reality. Various serious authors write themselves as ensigns or
> palace guards with only a couple of dialogue lines.

Hmmm... Maybe it's the genre, writing in an already existing universe
rather than making your own up, that doesn't allow for something between
these two possibilities. The predefined settings are full of their own
heroes...

> What this isn't, I think, is Mary Sue. Mary Sue doesn't join the
> team (or inhabit an existing team member) and then do nothing,
> she (or he) does /everything/,

Ah, here we have the first dispute on the definition. Someone else
posted that that doesn't have to be the case... Must be in the nature of
the matter.

> while the regular cast watch in amazed appreciation.

That still sounds awful however it's phrased.

> Of course maybe the character isn't ambitious to succeed, she's (or
> he's) just naturally wonderful.

That isn't any better. Perhaps worse.

> David Gerrold gives himself a whole chapter in Trek novel _The
> Galactic Whirlpool_, apparently, as ship's librarian (I thought
> they had a computer to do that), delivering a long lecture about
> where a mysterious spaceship came from - having not realised the
> senior officers didn't already know.

"Having not realized the senior officers didn't already know."?

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 5:46:24 PM9/14/05
to

Mary Sues, certainly. I like to think of them as GOOD Mary Sues, but
they're definitely Mary Sue, or rather Marty Stu.

David Johnston

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 6:39:26 PM9/14/05
to
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:36:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:

>


>But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can see that
>there aren't only heroes and watchers.
>
>Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with its villages
>regularly visited by raiders. The <head of country> assembles an army
>and kicks the raiders out. End of story. No heroism, but no watchers
>either. Just the efficient <head of country> and his fellows.

Stuff like that happens all the time in milsf. However of course the
military leader is a hero. But of course in a Mary Sue version of the
same story, the Mary Sue by definition must be the love of the
military leader's life and must somehow save the day.


rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 7:43:54 PM9/14/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Tina Hall wrote:
> >> Dr Hermes <drhe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina(Hall) wrote:
>
> >>>> Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
> >>
> >>> This strikes me as a great idea for a humorous story. Rival
> >>> Mary Sues in the same situation, competing to get all the usual
> >>> scenes in before the other one does. Maybe even simultaneous
> >>> drawn-out dying scenes, each having saved everyone else and
> >>> each getting a touching farewell speech at the same time,
> >>> interrupting each other.
> >>
> >> Heh. Nice image.
> >>
> >> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
> >> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
> >>
> >> Do they have to be "I want to be a hero." types?
>
> > Given we /are/ choosing to talk about bad fiction, a kibitzer
> > character is possible, but still potentially a defect.
>
> What's a kibitzer characcter?

As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who kibitzes.
Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.

> > However, it can be interesting to watch over the shoulder of, say, a
> > visiting TV news crew.
>
> With this I assume that kibitzer means just that; looking over the
> shoulder.
>
> But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can see that
> there aren't only heroes and watchers.
>
> Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with its villages
> regularly visited by raiders. The <head of country> assembles an army
> and kicks the raiders out. End of story. No heroism, but no watchers
> either. Just the efficient <head of country> and his fellows.

Well, no ridiculous heroism. Perhaps you didn't mean "just sort of tag
along" the way I read it. I thought you were describing a character
who doesn't do anything, they just happen to be there when things
happen.

> > I think this has worked better in published _Babylon 5_ and _Stargate
> > SG-1_ than in _Star Trek_, 'cause the first two shows have a bit more
> > reality. Various serious authors write themselves as ensigns or
> > palace guards with only a couple of dialogue lines.
>
> Hmmm... Maybe it's the genre, writing in an already existing universe
> rather than making your own up, that doesn't allow for something between
> these two possibilities. The predefined settings are full of their own
> heroes...

Well, you can have a guest character (in Trek an ambassador, a
scientist, an alien with godlike powers) who creates, or stumbles into,
a situation in their field of special interest which the regular crew
then have to rescue them from - or a situation that imperils the
regular crew before the guest character produces the solution,
sometimes at great personal cost (metaphorically).

> > What this isn't, I think, is Mary Sue. Mary Sue doesn't join the
> > team (or inhabit an existing team member) and then do nothing,
> > she (or he) does /everything/,
>
> Ah, here we have the first dispute on the definition. Someone else
> posted that that doesn't have to be the case... Must be in the nature of
> the matter.
>
> > while the regular cast watch in amazed appreciation.
>
> That still sounds awful however it's phrased.
>
> > Of course maybe the character isn't ambitious to succeed, she's (or
> > he's) just naturally wonderful.
>
> That isn't any better. Perhaps worse.
>
> > David Gerrold gives himself a whole chapter in Trek novel _The
> > Galactic Whirlpool_, apparently, as ship's librarian (I thought
> > they had a computer to do that), delivering a long lecture about
> > where a mysterious spaceship came from - having not realised the
> > senior officers didn't already know.
>
> "Having not realized the senior officers didn't already know."?

It's a bit difficult to explain, and possibly doesn't make sense...
apparently "Specs" (he wears spectacles) works pretty much alone in the
library computer room, likes to read old space history shows,
recognised "Wanderer", the Lost Cometary Colony, as soon as Enterprise
got near to it and immediately started to prepare a video presentation
for the senior officers when they stopped by to get full background
information on it - assuming that they too would have recognised at
once "Oh, I remember that, I expect there's a video tape in the
library" and popped down to see. But in fact, the command crew are
puzzled by an apparently human, not alien, generation ship - which
technically "Wanderer" originally wasn't. At first, they think it /is/
alien; it isn't on a straight line from Earth.

So he goes into his spiel, tells the history of "Wanderer" - politics,
economics - and at the end, showing the bosses out, he also mentions he
put the show onto the in-ship cable television network the day before.
So maybe he did get a little too much down.

On the non-Sue side of the argument, he's half-terrified of his
visitors, and they don't watch in amazed appreciation, really. In
fact, they heckle, they talk amongst themselves...

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 11:44:00 PM9/14/05
to
David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>> But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can see
>> that there aren't only heroes and watchers.
>>
>> Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with its
>> villages regularly visited by raiders. The <head of country>
>> assembles an army and kicks the raiders out. End of story. No
>> heroism, but no watchers either. Just the efficient <head of
>> country> and his fellows.

> Stuff like that happens all the time in milsf. However of course
> the military leader is a hero.

So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The lack of
hero was a major part of the example.

> But of course in a Mary Sue version of the same story, the Mary Sue by
> definition must be the love of the military leader's life and must
> somehow save the day.

Ok, another question for statistics: Where do you find that with the
military leader being female, and her love saves the day?

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 11:44:00 PM9/14/05
to
Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> Tina Hall wrote:

>>>> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>>>> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>>>>
>>>> Do they have to be "I want to be a hero." types?
>>
>>> Given we /are/ choosing to talk about bad fiction, a kibitzer
>>> character is possible, but still potentially a defect.
>>
>> What's a kibitzer characcter?

> As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who
> kibitzes. Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.

Thanks.

"Kibitz" did ring a bell, but it insists it's an old fashion word (not
used today), probably German, and won't be understood here, so it can't
be what I thought it was. Thus the qeuestion.

>> Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with its
>> villages regularly visited by raiders. The <head of country>
>> assembles an army and kicks the raiders out. End of story. No
>> heroism, but no watchers either. Just the efficient <head of
>> country> and his fellows.

> Well, no ridiculous heroism. Perhaps you didn't mean "just sort
> of tag along" the way I read it.

It was meant as taking part in the proceedings in a non heroic way. I
didn't find a better phrasing right then (thus the 'sort of').

The point is in everyone just doing their job, nothing outstanding.

> I thought you were describing a character who doesn't do anything,
> they just happen to be there when things happen.

That's the other extreme possibility for 'tag along', I guess.

The negative side of my meaning is often executed by teenagers; a group
of kids feeling brave, do something stupid, and little Joe tags along,
and does the same stupid things, like walking through a subway tunnel
from one station to the next, in between normally scheduled trams.
(Note; the power supply for those is on lines overhead, no third rail,
here.)

>> Hmmm... Maybe it's the genre, writing in an already existing
>> universe rather than making your own up, that doesn't allow for
>> something between these two possibilities. The predefined
>> settings are full of their own heroes...

> Well, you can have a guest character (in Trek an ambassador, a
> scientist, an alien with godlike powers) who creates, or stumbles
> into, a situation in their field of special interest which the
> regular crew then have to rescue them from - or a situation that
> imperils the regular crew before the guest character produces the
> solution, sometimes at great personal cost (metaphorically).

What a lucky coincidence that they're all in place just then.

Statistical question: Are there any non-humorous/satirical stories that
involve such a guest appearing, and he has nothing to do with the
solution?

>>> Galactic Whirlpool_, apparently, as ship's librarian (I thought
>>> they had a computer to do that), delivering a long lecture
>>> about where a mysterious spaceship came from - having not
>>> realised the senior officers didn't already know.
>>
>> "Having not realized the senior officers didn't already know."?

> It's a bit difficult to explain, and possibly doesn't make
> sense...

<snip explanation>

Ah, that clears it up.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 11:44:00 PM9/14/05
to
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> Default User wrote:
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>> Dr Hermes wrote:
>>>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>>>>> Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
>>>>
>>> I have several Mary Sue characters but I'm not sure if they
>>> ever actually MEET each other, at least in the true sense of
>>> the word.
>>
>> Are they actually Mary Sues or just cameo appearance for
>> yourself?

> Mary Sues, certainly. I like to think of them as GOOD Mary Sues,
> but they're definitely Mary Sue, or rather Marty Stu.

By your definition, where's the difference between a Mary Sue and a
cameo appearance of yourself?

Will Frank

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 9:55:24 PM9/14/05
to
Tina Hall e-mused:

>>>What's a kibitzer characcter?
>
>>As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who
>>kibitzes. Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.
>
> Thanks.
>
> "Kibitz" did ring a bell, but it insists it's an old fashion word (not
> used today), probably German, and won't be understood here, so it can't
> be what I thought it was. Thus the qeuestion.

It's Yiddish, actually, so it definitely has some German in it.

--
Will "scifantasy" Frank - wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to
die." --Inigo Montoya, /The Princess Bride/

David Johnston

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 10:20:40 PM9/14/05
to
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:13:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:


>


>But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to rescue the
>day? Can't they just sort of tag along?

If the story doesn't revolve around a Mary Sue, she isn't a Mary Sue.


David Johnston

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 10:32:33 PM9/14/05
to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:44:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:

>David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:


>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>>> But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can see
>>> that there aren't only heroes and watchers.
>>>
>>> Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with its
>>> villages regularly visited by raiders. The <head of country>
>>> assembles an army and kicks the raiders out. End of story. No
>>> heroism, but no watchers either. Just the efficient <head of
>>> country> and his fellows.
>
>> Stuff like that happens all the time in milsf. However of course
>> the military leader is a hero.
>
>So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The lack of
>hero was a major part of the example.

The leader in your example IS a hero. Building an army out of next
to nothing (and we know it is next to nothing because countries that
already have effective militaries don't have regular visits by
raiders) and using it to defeat the bad guys is heroism by any
standard I am familiar with. It would be a phenomenal achievement,
and future generations would laud his name. and append "the Great" to
it.

>
>> But of course in a Mary Sue version of the same story, the Mary Sue by
>> definition must be the love of the military leader's life and must
>> somehow save the day.
>
>Ok, another question for statistics: Where do you find that with the
>military leader being female, and her love saves the day?

I've never seen that. While I have seen fictional female military
leaders, I've never seen any Mary Sue or even Marty Stu fanfiction
about them.

Wayne Throop

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 10:19:55 PM9/14/05
to
:: What's a kibitzer characcter?

: "rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who kibitzes.


: Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.

Huh? I thought it was closer to being Yiddish for "backseat driver".
Involving in its basic use the giving of unsolicited advice.
That is, the essence of kibitzing is speaking, not looking.

Not to be confused with kibbutz, which is Hebrew for "farm"[1].
Though I suppose a passerby could kibitz about the running
of a kibbutz.

judge: "You will be banished to a farm."
warlock: "Oh no, 'farm' is code for..."
auntie roon: "... a farm. On the whole, I would rather be dead."

--- Juniper Lee, "Ding Dong, the Witch Ain't Dead"
(wording only vaguely approxmiate)

"I d'wanna *go* to Fresno!"

--- a Paradis Demon, Juniper Lee, "The World Acording to LARP"
(I think I got the wording right on this one...)

But I digress.

[1] Well, not really, but it's the only meaning that made the
following references work.


Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Mike Schilling

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 11:13:18 PM9/14/05
to

"Will Frank" <wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:dgakac$o4a$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...

> Tina Hall e-mused:
>
>>>>What's a kibitzer characcter?
>>
>>>As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who
>>>kibitzes. Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "Kibitz" did ring a bell, but it insists it's an old fashion word (not
>> used today), probably German, and won't be understood here, so it can't
>> be what I thought it was. Thus the qeuestion.
>
> It's Yiddish, actually, so it definitely has some German in it.

That doesn't follow, necessarily; much Yiddish comes from Hebrew or the
Slavic languages. "Yontiff", for instance, which is Yiddish for "holiday",
comes from Hebrew "yom tov" (good day).

You're right about kibitz, though.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kibitz


Danny Sichel

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 11:19:01 PM9/14/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:

> By your definition, where's the difference between a Mary Sue and a
> cameo appearance of yourself?

Cameo appearance = tiny role.

Mary Sue = HUGE role.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:32:00 AM9/15/05
to
David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?

> If the story doesn't revolve around a Mary Sue, she isn't a Mary
> Sue.

I think that's the third definition now.

Could you agree with the others on what a Mary Sue is before we continue
the discussion?

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:32:00 AM9/15/05
to
David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
>>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>>>> But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can
>>>> see that there aren't only heroes and watchers.
>>>>
>>>> Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with
>>>> its villages regularly visited by raiders. The <head of
>>>> country> assembles an army and kicks the raiders out. End of
>>>> story. No heroism, but no watchers either. Just the efficient
>>>> <head of country> and his fellows.
>>
>>> Stuff like that happens all the time in milsf. However of
>>> course the military leader is a hero.
>>
>> So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The
>> lack of hero was a major part of the example.

> The leader in your example IS a hero.

No he isn't. Do we want to argue what a hero is, now? The leader here is
just doing his job.

> Building an army out of next to nothing (and we know it is next to
> nothing because countries that already have effective militaries don't
> have regular visits by raiders)

Not true. We're talking SF here (with added magic as an option), and the
military can't be everywhere. To do something about raiders they'd have
to know where they come from, too.

It's not about the military action at all, either, but the proceedings
of the leader doing his job without any heroism thrown in. That _is_ the
sole cause for the example. If you don't like this one, make up a better
one.

> and using it to defeat the bad guys is heroism by any standard I am
> familiar with.

Nah. Doing your job effectively is not heroic, it's efficient. The
leader is supposed to look after the people, after all.

> It would be a phenomenal achievement, and future generations would
> laud his name. and append "the Great" to it.

Why? Does Joe the Great cart away your rubbish, too? Or do you even know
the name of the guy who does that? Do you laud the head of your bank for
not losing your money?

>>> But of course in a Mary Sue version of the same story, the Mary
>>> Sue by definition must be the love of the military leader's
>>> life and must somehow save the day.
>>
>> Ok, another question for statistics: Where do you find that with
>> the military leader being female, and her love saves the day?

> I've never seen that. While I have seen fictional female
> military leaders, I've never seen any Mary Sue or even Marty Stu
> fanfiction about them.

Hm. Odd. Whatever happened to emanzipation?

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:32:00 AM9/15/05
to
Will Frank <wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Tina Hall e-mused:

>>>> What's a kibitzer characcter?
>>
>>> As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who
>>> kibitzes. Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "Kibitz" did ring a bell, but it insists it's an old fashion
>> word (not used today), probably German, and won't be understood
>> here, so it can't be what I thought it was. Thus the qeuestion.

> It's Yiddish, actually, so it definitely has some German in it.

Yiddish has German in it? Or has it just kindly shared some words with
German?

(Either would explain why it rang an 'out of context' bell.)

David Johnston

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:29:22 AM9/15/05
to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:32:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:


>>> So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The
>>> lack of hero was a major part of the example.
>
>> The leader in your example IS a hero.
>
>No he isn't. Do we want to argue what a hero is, now?

Probably. After all, if you make up your own idiosyncratic
definitions for words there is little surprise that nobody can
answer your questions.

The leader here is
>just doing his job.

Most people who have been called heros were doing their jobs.
The job in question just happened to be important enough and they did
it well enough to excite admiration.

>
>> Building an army out of next to nothing (and we know it is next to
>> nothing because countries that already have effective militaries don't
>> have regular visits by raiders)
>
>Not true. We're talking SF here (with added magic as an option), and the
>military can't be everywhere.

It doesn't have to be everywhere. Part of effectiveness is being able
to get where you need to be in time to do some good, either by having
the requisite mobility, or by anticipating likely targets in advance.


To do something about raiders they'd have
>to know where they come from, too.

Gathering required intelligence is also part of effectiveness.

>
>> It would be a phenomenal achievement, and future generations would
>> laud his name. and append "the Great" to it.
>
>Why? Does Joe the Great cart away your rubbish, too?

Does my rubbish pose an immediate threat to lives? Does it require
someone exceptionally able to deal with the problem? Defeating an
invader, particularly one who has heretofore had the advantage is not
a matter of routine convenience. It's dangerous, unpredictable, and
a matter of life and death.

Or do you even know
>the name of the guy who does that? Do you laud the head of your bank for
>not losing your money?

I do if the bank is on the verge of collapse through previous
mismanagement and the new head of the bank managed to save it through
hard work and superior administrative skills.

David Johnston

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:30:34 AM9/15/05
to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:32:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:

>David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:


>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>>> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>>> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>
>> If the story doesn't revolve around a Mary Sue, she isn't a Mary
>> Sue.
>
>I think that's the third definition now.

I doubt it. You may not recognise the same definition when phrased in
different words though.

Kris Kennaway

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 2:59:25 AM9/15/05
to

I forgot to mention that I loved "Bones", which made it easier to
believe the above since I know he wrote at least one good thing.
Thanks for the other recommendation.

> So, both of you can cross ol' Fritz off your list with a clear
> conscience.... <G>

:-)

Kris

Christopher Adams

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 4:37:26 AM9/15/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:
>
> Statistical question: Are there any non-humorous/satirical stories that
> involve such a guest appearing, and he has nothing to do with the
> solution?

I can think of two Star Trek novels with this factor:

"Q-Squared" by Peter David and "Dark Mirror" by Diane Duane. In the latter the
"guest star" is actually part of the solution, but not in the "giving the
regulars the solution" sense. He joins in with the team and helps them out.

You might actually like the latter novel - there's lots of decent people working
at their job efficiently. Of course, there's also lots of (necessary)
self-examination of feelings by the characters. I suspect the contrast between
the good guys and the bad guys would be satisfying to you.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
The geek with roots in Hell!
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

Who do you blame when your kid is a - brat?
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese - cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a - shame!
You know exactly who's - to - blame:
The mother and the father!


Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:14:51 AM9/15/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Default User wrote:
>>
>>>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dr Hermes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>>>Can you have multiple Mary Sues? (Or rather, do they exist?)
>>>>>
>>>> I have several Mary Sue characters but I'm not sure if they
>>>>ever actually MEET each other, at least in the true sense of
>>>>the word.
>>>
>>>Are they actually Mary Sues or just cameo appearance for
>>>yourself?
>>
>
>> Mary Sues, certainly. I like to think of them as GOOD Mary Sues,
>>but they're definitely Mary Sue, or rather Marty Stu.
>
>
> By your definition, where's the difference between a Mary Sue and a
> cameo appearance of yourself?
>

The cameo is brief and has only minimal effect on the story; at most,
a cameo will provide a piece or two of useful information.

By contrast, Mary-Sue will be, if not THE main character, at least A
main character. She will play a crucial role in many events.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:18:12 AM9/15/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:
> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
>
>>Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>
>>>But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>>>rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>>
>
>>If the story doesn't revolve around a Mary Sue, she isn't a Mary
>>Sue.
>
>
> I think that's the third definition now.
>
> Could you agree with the others on what a Mary Sue is before we continue
> the discussion?
>

No. It's like discussing the divide between "fantasy" and "science
fiction". While there are clear cut examples that everyone will agree
upon, the dividing line is drawn in many places by many different people.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 7:31:50 AM9/15/05
to

Tina Hall wrote:
> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> > Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
> >> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> >>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
> >>>> But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can
> >>>> see that there aren't only heroes and watchers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with
> >>>> its villages regularly visited by raiders. The <head of
> >>>> country> assembles an army and kicks the raiders out. End of
> >>>> story. No heroism, but no watchers either. Just the efficient
> >>>> <head of country> and his fellows.
> >>
> >>> Stuff like that happens all the time in milsf. However of
> >>> course the military leader is a hero.
> >>
> >> So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The
> >> lack of hero was a major part of the example.
>
> > The leader in your example IS a hero.
>
> No he isn't. Do we want to argue what a hero is, now? The leader here is
> just doing his job.

It's only an example... but why /is/ he doing it? Whether he's the
local warlord or the warlord's trusted lieutenant, or just a worried
citizen, we haven't established a reason why he can't ride away in the
other direction and become a merchant seaman, hide in the cellar till
it's over, or turn traitor for a nice pension from the conquering
invaders. He goes to war at personal risk - presumably. To the extent
that that isn't for personal profit - the cases of warlord and perhaps
warlord's lieutenant - if it's altruistic, then it's heroic.

Same goes for the rest of the army. In real life, people have joined
up for the steady salary, under duress (child soldiers particularly),
for the opportunity to rape and pillage and carouse and other forms of
recreation (the British Army apparently does a lot of skiing and jungle
hiking), because girls like a guy in uniform (I believe this actually
varies, but it's part of the recruitment spiel) - or because they
believe in the cause. Maybe other reasons. Again, if they're fighting
for something they believe in - and it isn't something like, say, the
subjugation and exploitation of all other races (the British are still
very unpopular in many parts of the world) - then how can it not be
heroic?

> > Building an army out of next to nothing (and we know it is next to
> > nothing because countries that already have effective militaries don't
> > have regular visits by raiders)
>
> Not true. We're talking SF here (with added magic as an option), and the
> military can't be everywhere. To do something about raiders they'd have
> to know where they come from, too.
>
> It's not about the military action at all, either, but the proceedings
> of the leader doing his job without any heroism thrown in. That _is_ the
> sole cause for the example. If you don't like this one, make up a better
> one.

We don't have to be talking about SF. This has happened in real life.
We could be talking about Belgium or Andorra or Somalia or somewhere.
England - Alfred the Great (see?)

If it's SF then maybe you build an army of robots. Robots can be
heroic too, but only if they're programmed for it.

> > and using it to defeat the bad guys is heroism by any standard I am
> > familiar with.
>
> Nah. Doing your job effectively is not heroic, it's efficient. The
> leader is supposed to look after the people, after all.

Who says? Maybe that's the social contract, but often enough the
leader is just the biggest local gang leader who levies as much tax
from the peasants as he can get away with. Just because he lives in a
castle doesn't mean he's King Arthur. He may be William The Conqueror.

> > It would be a phenomenal achievement, and future generations would
> > laud his name. and append "the Great" to it.
>
> Why? Does Joe the Great cart away your rubbish, too? Or do you even know
> the name of the guy who does that? Do you laud the head of your bank for
> not losing your money?

I imagine the banker gets a generous annual bonus on top of his salary,
as a reward for not fouling up, although I'm not sure he deserves it;
but you don't want to make angry the guy who has custody of your dough.
Our respect for refuse service workers is tempered by a suspicion that
if they could get a better job then they would (such as mine - so they
should look up to me, right?), but I'm glad they do what they do so I
don't have to, and these days you also have to give credit for
organised efforts in recycling.

> >>> But of course in a Mary Sue version of the same story, the Mary
> >>> Sue by definition must be the love of the military leader's
> >>> life and must somehow save the day.
> >>
> >> Ok, another question for statistics: Where do you find that with
> >> the military leader being female, and her love saves the day?
>
> > I've never seen that. While I have seen fictional female
> > military leaders, I've never seen any Mary Sue or even Marty Stu
> > fanfiction about them.
>
> Hm. Odd. Whatever happened to emanzipation?

Well, probably there are several reasons, a major one being wide
recognition that Mary Sue stories are lousy, chiefly gratifying to the
author who casts him/herself in the role. But since as of 2005 the
original story that corresponds to the description given must still be
considered to be one of a woman triumphing in a conventionally male
role, a fan writer putting the character in a subordinate role to a
male Mary Sue would be fundamentally betraying the original story: the
original character's success by her own efforts and talents is most of
the point of her. But I don't say it never happens; a story that is
essentially a romantic or sexual fantasy could go that way,
particularly the kinky ones. Some people are going to like the idea of
Honor Harrington or Princess Leia in their dungeon. (Leia even has
that canonical interrogation scene.) That fantasy is probably harmless
on a scale of how far they go towards constructing and using an actual
dungeon or elements thereof, and with or without one or more /willing/
playmates. Certainly if it's just a fantasy, or if the safeword is
used correctly, then no one gets hurt.

Whether someone else's fantasy written down is attractive depends
partly on whether you like what they like.

Not precisely the same thing, but there's an early and often-reprinted
comics story from _Mad_ where Wonder Woman with a very slightly
different name ends up a downtrodden housewife! In the official
comics, Wonder Woman is, amongst other things, a terrifying soldier
with titanic strength... and yet some of the official stories, both old
and new, are quite kinky anyway. Used to be, maybe still is, that if
she was tied up with her own magic rope then she lost her
super-powers... used to happen a lot. Of course if she isn't tied up
then most stories are over in two pages as she quickly busts heads that
need busting, which is awkward for the publisher. But then her
standard costume was progressive for swimwear in the old days, never
mind when addressing the United Nations. I can't wholeheartedly
complain...

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 7:53:05 AM9/15/05
to

Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Will Frank" <wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:dgakac$o4a$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > Tina Hall e-mused:
> >
> >>>>What's a kibitzer characcter?
> >>
> >>>As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who
> >>>kibitzes. Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> "Kibitz" did ring a bell, but it insists it's an old fashion word (not
> >> used today), probably German, and won't be understood here, so it can't
> >> be what I thought it was. Thus the qeuestion.
> >
> > It's Yiddish, actually, so it definitely has some German in it.
>
> That doesn't follow, necessarily; much Yiddish comes from Hebrew or the
> Slavic languages. "Yontiff", for instance, which is Yiddish for "holiday",
> comes from Hebrew "yom tov" (good day).

Isn't there any Yiddish or Hebrew in German? I see it as like that
famous condiment situation...

> You're right about kibitz, though.
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kibitz

I take the point that in modern use, a kibitzer specifically is a
spectator, at for instance a street accident or a husband-and-wife
argument rather than an event organised for an audience, who provides
unsolicited public comment. If you just watch or take pictures then
you aren't kibitzing.

A story about an ordinary person thrown in with "heroes" need not be
without merit, like the egregious Mary Sue. Leaders need followers,
and some of the followers can have interesting stories without stepping
into the spotlight with the regular cast. The more leisurely and more
sophisticated 1980s and 90s Star Trek shows did that a few times, with
occasional characters O'Brien and Barclay and sometimes the red-shirt
no-name folks (although the colours were changed in the twenty-fourth
century; mustard yellow, I think?) Occasionally they do do something
spectacular, but mostly they're there for the paycheck.

Original Trek also sometimes had guest characters who didn't do a whole
lot, such as the ambassador who just stands around on the bridge
kvetching for forty minutes until Captain Kirk sorts things out some
that someone the ambassador is supposed to meet is actually willing to
have the conversation, or an old girlfriend of Kirk's who doesn't have
any kind of axe to grind, but is basically just visiting.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 2:45:00 AM9/15/05
to

Ok that's your definition. Don't know whether we're up to four yet, or
whether it matches someone elses', but it doesn't fit with the one from
the poster I asked the question.

Wayne Throop

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 11:10:18 AM9/15/05
to
: "rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: I take the point that in modern use, a kibitzer specifically is a

: spectator, at for instance a street accident or a husband-and-wife
: argument rather than an event organised for an audience, who provides
: unsolicited public comment. If you just watch or take pictures then
: you aren't kibitzing.

In the way I've heard the term used, it doesn't need to be a spectacle,
nor need the comment be "public" in any watching-a-fire sense.
For example, "there was too much kibitzing during the chess match".
There is the element of spectation there, but it's quite possibly
limited to three people in what-one-would-normally-called-private, the
two playing and one kibitzing. And indeed, literal back-seat-driving
is a subset of kibitzing, and that can involve only two people.
Or solitaire, ie, "you should put the that red three on the black four"
is a kibitz.

Leading, of course, to an endless stream of "how many folks-of-type-X
does it take to kibitz at a Y" jokes. Sadly, few of which are funny...

Default User

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:10:12 PM9/15/05
to
Wayne Throop wrote:

> :: What's a kibitzer characcter?
>
> : "rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com>
> : As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who
> kibitzes. : Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.
>
> Huh? I thought it was closer to being Yiddish for "backseat driver".
> Involving in its basic use the giving of unsolicited advice.
> That is, the essence of kibitzing is speaking, not looking.


Yeah, the classic kibbitzer is the person who stands behind you while
you play cards and gives unsolicited advice on what to play.


Brian

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:16:00 PM9/15/05
to
In article <dgakac$o4a$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Will Frank <wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote:

> Tina Hall e-mused:
>
> >>>What's a kibitzer characcter?
> >
> >>As the dictionary will tell you, a kibitzer is a person who
> >>kibitzes. Oh, all right. A spectator at a free spectacle.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > "Kibitz" did ring a bell, but it insists it's an old fashion word (not
> > used today), probably German, and won't be understood here, so it can't
> > be what I thought it was. Thus the qeuestion.
>
> It's Yiddish, actually, so it definitely has some German in it.

--and still in current use in USA English. Fairly popular word.
kibitz: 
to offer unwanted advice, e.g. to someone playing cards; to converse
idly, gossip (from Yiddish kibetsn)


Saw a list (in Safire's column?) of the 5 most popular Yiddish words in
English. Google's not finding it, dammit. But
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Yiddish_origin

--brings up "maven", one of the 5 (or 10?), which would have never
triggered my Yiddish-detector. From Hebrew mevin 'one who understands'.

And here's one for Kage Baker's Company-folk:

gelt: 
chocolate coins eaten on Chanukah (from Yiddish ’ gelt 'money')

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:38:46 PM9/15/05
to
In article <slrndii6ud...@xor.obsecurity.org>,
Kris Kennaway <kk...@xor.obsecurity.org> wrote:

> > Well, no accounting for taste, and it's certainly true that much of what
> > Leiber wrote hasn't aged well (or wasn't very good to start with).
> > Still, I think BIG TIME and "Bones" are the works most often cited as
> > his best.
>
> I forgot to mention that I loved "Bones", which made it easier to
> believe the above since I know he wrote at least one good thing.
> Thanks for the other recommendation.
>

I went to the bookshelf last night, to discover that my copy of THE BIG
TIME.... wasn't there! So I picked up his "Destiny Times Three" (1945)
to reread instead. This is a "utopia under threat" secret-history, the
one with the cool theme-colored skylons-- the Opal Cross, the Grey
Twins, the Blue Lorraine! It's sort of an Elder Eddas meets Lovecraft
plot, and it creaks a little now, but the setting is unforgettable.

It reads something like an outline for a larger work -- and is, because
Leiber was asked to cut it down for wartime publication in Astounding.
"My anima never forgave me," he writes in the afterword -- he had to cut
all the female characters to get it down to 40,000 words, which gave it
"a ghostly, cold, lonely male quality". A pity he never went back to it.
"Dx3" is sonmething of a lead-on to THE BIG TIME, so if you like that,
you may want to try it.

Happy reading--
Pete Tillman

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:32:00 PM9/15/05
to
Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
>>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>>>>>> But that wasn't what I meant by the question. Surely you can
>>>>>> see that there aren't only heroes and watchers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Say you've got a story with a small country somewhere, with
>>>>>> its villages regularly visited by raiders. The <head of
>>>>>> country> assembles an army and kicks the raiders out. End of
>>>>>> story. No heroism, but no watchers either. Just the
>>>>>> efficient <head of country> and his fellows.

Now, it's cclear you don't like the example. Suggest an alternative that
matcches 'not hero and not watcher'.

>>>>> Stuff like that happens all the time in milsf. However of
>>>>> course the military leader is a hero.
>>>>
>>>> So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The
>>>> lack of hero was a major part of the example.
>>
>>> The leader in your example IS a hero.
>>
>> No he isn't. Do we want to argue what a hero is, now? The leader
>> here is just doing his job.

> It's only an example... but why /is/ he doing it?

He's doing his job.

> Whether he's the local warlord or the warlord's trusted lieutenant, or
> just a worried citizen, we haven't established a reason why he can't
> ride away in the other direction and become a merchant seaman, hide in
> the cellar till it's over, or turn traitor for a nice pension from the
> conquering invaders.

He's a responsible person that takes his job seriously, not as a place
to wield power, but to look after his people.

> He goes to war at personal risk - presumably.

He read the job description carefully, and agreed to the terms.

> To the extent that that isn't for personal profit - the cases of

> warlord and perhaps warlord's lieutenant -if it's altruistic, then
> it's heroic.

Nope. He's just doing his job. That stuff is what he's there for, after
all.

> Same goes for the rest of the army. In real life,

This is SF, not real life. It's an example to show something _between_
hero and watcher.

> Maybe other reasons.

<digressing> You could have a culture where they were born that way,
like ants are for example. </digressing>

> Again, if they're fighting for something they believe in - and it
> isn't something like, say, the subjugation and exploitation of all
> other races (the British are still very unpopular in many parts of the
> world) - then how can it not be heroic?

What's heroic about doing your job?

>>> Building an army out of next to nothing (and we know it is next
>>> to nothing because countries that already have effective
>>> militaries don't have regular visits by raiders)
>>
>> Not true. We're talking SF here (with added magic as an option),
>> and the military can't be everywhere. To do something about
>> raiders they'd have to know where they come from, too.
>>
>> It's not about the military action at all, either, but the
>> proceedings of the leader doing his job without any heroism
>> thrown in. That _is_ the sole cause for the example. If you
>> don't like this one, make up a better one.

> We don't have to be talking about SF.

It's what I'm talking about. <insert polite decline to enquiry of
whether we could talk about real life; I'm not interested>

> If it's SF then maybe you build an army of robots. Robots can be
> heroic too, but only if they're programmed for it.

How can robots be anything but machines functioning along their design
purpose?

>>> and using it to defeat the bad guys is heroism by any standard
>>> I am familiar with.
>>
>> Nah. Doing your job effectively is not heroic, it's efficient.
>> The leader is supposed to look after the people, after all.

> Who says?

I do.

> Maybe that's the social contract, but often enough the leader is just
> the biggest local gang leader who levies as much tax from the peasants
> as he can get away with.

Not in my example. You do still remember the purpose of the example? How
about getting back to the topicc rather than arguing an example that you
obviously can't accept, thus making it irrelevant, and the discussion of
it as well.

>>> It would be a phenomenal achievement, and future generations
>>> would laud his name. and append "the Great" to it.
>>
>> Why? Does Joe the Great cart away your rubbish, too? Or do you
>> even know the name of the guy who does that? Do you laud the
>> head of your bank for not losing your money?

> I imagine the banker gets a generous annual bonus on top of his
> salary, as a reward for not fouling up, although I'm not sure he
> deserves it; but you don't want to make angry the guy who has
> custody of your dough. Our respect for refuse service workers is
> tempered by a suspicion that if they could get a better job then
> they would (such as mine - so they should look up to me, right?),
> but I'm glad they do what they do so I don't have to, and these
> days you also have to give credit for organised efforts in
> recycling.

No heroism anywhere in that paragraph.

>>> I've never seen that. While I have seen fictional female
>>> military leaders, I've never seen any Mary Sue or even Marty
>>> Stu fanfiction about them.
>>
>> Hm. Odd. Whatever happened to emanzipation?

> Well, probably there are several reasons, a major one being wide
> recognition that Mary Sue stories are lousy, chiefly gratifying
> to the author who casts him/herself in the role. But since as of
> 2005 the original story that corresponds to the description given
> must still be considered to be one of a woman triumphing in a
> conventionally male role, a fan writer putting the character in a
> subordinate role to a male Mary Sue would be fundamentally
> betraying the original story:

The ccharacter? The male was supposed to _be_ the Mary Sue in this case.

> the original character's success by her own efforts and talents is
> most of the point of her.

So why can't that be true for male chcaracters?

> Not precisely the same thing, but there's an early and often-reprinted
> comics story from _Mad_ where Wonder Woman with a very slightly
> different name ends up a downtrodden housewife!

Is there any way to look at/get that? (I used to like Mad as a teenager.
Mad TV is still ok.)

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:32:00 PM9/15/05
to
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
>>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>>>> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>>>> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>>>
>>> If the story doesn't revolve around a Mary Sue, she isn't a
>>> Mary Sue.
>>
>> I think that's the third definition now.
>>
>> Could you agree with the others on what a Mary Sue is before we
>> continue the discussion?

> No. It's like discussing the divide between "fantasy" and
> "science fiction".

Ah, yes. I could draw up a chart with <poster name:definition>, to keep
track of it, but that doesn't help with a coherent discussion on Mary
Sues. Whenever you get to discuss it with PosterA, PosterB will chime in
and claim a question doesn't apply, beccause it doesn't fit his
definition.

I'm quite willing to switch angles, being impartial to the actual
definition, but replying from a basis with a different definition to the
one disccussed is like trying to drive a train on a cross-ccountry
motorbike-drive area. It's not going to work.

> While there are clear cut examples that everyone will agree upon, the
> dividing line is drawn in many places by many different people.

You're just out to confuse me!

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:32:00 PM9/15/05
to
David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>> David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
>>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>>>> But (more seriously back to the subject) do Mary Sues have to
>>>> rescue the day? Can't they just sort of tag along?
>>
>>> If the story doesn't revolve around a Mary Sue, she isn't a
>>> Mary Sue.
>>
>> I think that's the third definition now.

> I doubt it. You may not recognise the same definition when
> phrased in different words though.

Wonderful. Now we've moved on from different defintions to a dispute on
whether they exist.

You ccan disccuss that with the people that have those other
definitions, whether you like them existing or not. I'm impartial.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:32:00 PM9/15/05
to

How does that match with your earlier "They don't have to be [heroes]"?

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:32:00 PM9/15/05
to
David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>>>> So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The
>>>> lack of hero was a major part of the example.
>>
>>> The leader in your example IS a hero.
>>
>> No he isn't. Do we want to argue what a hero is, now?

> Probably.

Find someone else then. I'm not interested in _that_ discussion.

The conversation is about an example of a characcter that's between hero
and watcher. A participant just doing his part.

You may offer an example that fits that.

>> Not true. We're talking SF here (with added magic as an option),
>> and the military can't be everywhere.

> It doesn't have to be everywhere. Part of effectiveness is being
> able to get where you need to be in time to do some good, either
> by having the requisite mobility, or by anticipating likely
> targets in advance.

Can't you read? There's added magicc as an option.

How are they supposed to know where they should be in advance of the
raiders popping up out of nowhere in random placces and disappearing
before anyone (apart from the dead) knows what happened, for example?

>> To do something about raiders they'd have to know where they come
>> from, too.

> Gathering required intelligence is also part of effectiveness.

That's part of the proceedings _after_ the raiders hit, not before they
even know that raiders exist.

>>> It would be a phenomenal achievement, and future generations
>>> would laud his name. and append "the Great" to it.
>>
>> Why? Does Joe the Great cart away your rubbish, too?

> Does my rubbish pose an immediate threat to lives?

Yes.

> Does it require someone exceptionally able to deal with the problem?

Yes.

Not that that has anything to do with it.

> Defeating an invader, particularly one who has heretofore had the
> advantage is not a matter of routine convenience.

Acctually it is. That's part of the job description of 'leader'.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:32:00 PM9/15/05
to
Christopher Adams <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:

>> Statistical question: Are there any non-humorous/satirical
>> stories that involve such a guest appearing, and he has nothing
>> to do with the solution?

> I can think of two Star Trek novels with this factor:

> "Q-Squared" by Peter David and "Dark Mirror" by Diane Duane. In
> the latter the "guest star" is actually part of the solution, but
> not in the "giving the regulars the solution" sense. He joins in
> with the team and helps them out.

Nice.

Does it have to be fanfic, or are there any in regular works? (One
poster/author here as already mentioned that he has Marty Stus.)

> You might actually like the latter novel

No, if I want fanfic, I make up my own, and don't pay money for the
story of someone whose posts I didn't even read.

> - there's lots of decent people working at their job efficiently.

Your decent people aren't the same as my decent people.

The question was statisticcal, not in search of reccommendations.
Experience shows that anything that's supposed to match my requirements
does anything but, thus such recommendations are suspicious by default.

David Johnston

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:38:52 PM9/15/05
to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:32:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:

>David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:


>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>>>>> So stuff like that doesn't happen all the time in milsf. The
>>>>> lack of hero was a major part of the example.
>>>
>>>> The leader in your example IS a hero.
>>>
>>> No he isn't. Do we want to argue what a hero is, now?
>
>> Probably.
>
>Find someone else then. I'm not interested in _that_ discussion.
>
>The conversation is about an example of a characcter that's between hero
>and watcher. A participant just doing his part.
>
>You may offer an example that fits that.

The Starship Enterprise features many guys who walk down corridors on
their way to doing things that make the ship runs. They get no or
almost no lines and are paid no attention. They are just participants
doing their parts.


>
>>> Not true. We're talking SF here (with added magic as an option),
>>> and the military can't be everywhere.
>
>> It doesn't have to be everywhere. Part of effectiveness is being
>> able to get where you need to be in time to do some good, either
>> by having the requisite mobility, or by anticipating likely
>> targets in advance.
>
>Can't you read? There's added magicc as an option.

So what?

>
>How are they supposed to know where they should be in advance of the
>raiders popping up out of nowhere in random placces and disappearing
>before anyone (apart from the dead) knows what happened, for example?

Our hero must be pretty darn extraordinary to solve that problem.
Just makes him more heroic, and helps explain why the military is
ineffective before he comes along.


>>>> It would be a phenomenal achievement, and future generations
>>>> would laud his name. and append "the Great" to it.
>>>
>>> Why? Does Joe the Great cart away your rubbish, too?
>
>> Does my rubbish pose an immediate threat to lives?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Does it require someone exceptionally able to deal with the problem?
>
>Yes.

Then Joe must be a pretty extraordinary fellow dealing with my
carnivorous garbage with unusual resourcefulness. A story about
how he defeats it is a story featuring Joe as a hero.

>
>> Defeating an invader, particularly one who has heretofore had the
>> advantage is not a matter of routine convenience.
>
>Acctually it is. That's part of the job description of 'leader'.

"Doing your job" and "being a hero" are not mutually exclusive things.

When your job is difficult and important and you fulfill it better
than most people could so that you attract attention for your
achievement, that's heroism.

This reminds of the idiotic scene in an Honor Harrington novel where,
after being taken prisoner, Honor masterminds a flawless escape of
literally thousands of prisoners then afterwards tries to turn her
medal down on the grounds that "she was just performing her duty",
apparently failing to realise that military people doing their duty
with exceptional success, under exceptionally adverse conditions are
in fact the ones who get medals.

David Johnston

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 3:41:06 PM9/15/05
to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:32:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
wrote:


>You ccan disccuss that with the people that have those other
>definitions,

No, I can't. First I'd have to see a definition that conflicts with
mine and I haven't.

Wayne Throop

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 5:40:12 PM9/15/05
to
: rgo...@block.net (David Johnston)
: This reminds of the idiotic scene in an Honor Harrington novel where,

: after being taken prisoner, Honor masterminds a flawless escape of
: literally thousands of prisoners then afterwards tries to turn her
: medal down on the grounds that "she was just performing her duty",
: apparently failing to realise that military people doing their duty
: with exceptional success, under exceptionally adverse conditions are
: in fact the ones who get medals.

Heh! Indeed. But my memory of it is that it isn't quite so bad.
That is, "I was just doing my job" is what she *said* her reason was.
But the reason actually was, that she didn't want the publicity
attendant on getting the medal.

Not that that isn't idiocy also, since after all, somebody who turns down
a medal is going to get a certain amount of publicity also, perhaps more
than somebody who meekly accepts it. And it's not like no matter *what*
she did she was going to remain a ridiculously prominent public figure.
But that was what drove her to grope around for a reason to avoid it,
naict. And we can suppose her panicky contemplation of public exposure
unhinged her reason. Or that's what we were meant to suppose, I suppose.

And anyways, some of the other characters pointed out that she was
being silly, did they not?

Midnighter

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 5:55:44 PM9/15/05
to

"Tina Hall" <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote in message
news:MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...

> Christopher Adams <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>> Tina Hall wrote:
>
>>> Statistical question: Are there any non-humorous/satirical
>>> stories that involve such a guest appearing, and he has nothing
>>> to do with the solution?
>
>> I can think of two Star Trek novels with this factor:
>
>> "Q-Squared" by Peter David and "Dark Mirror" by Diane Duane. In
>> the latter the "guest star" is actually part of the solution, but
>> not in the "giving the regulars the solution" sense. He joins in
>> with the team and helps them out.
>
> Nice.
>
> Does it have to be fanfic, or are there any in regular works? (One
> poster/author here as already mentioned that he has Marty Stus.)

You know there is one thing that hasn't been discussed. Evil Mary Sue's.

The evil pontificating villian is sometimes a mary sue.


Will Frank

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:05:56 PM9/15/05
to
Wayne Throop e-mused:

<snip: Honor Harrington turns down Parliamentary Medal of Valor: "I was
just doing my job.">

> Heh! Indeed. But my memory of it is that it isn't quite so bad.
> That is, "I was just doing my job" is what she *said* her reason was.
> But the reason actually was, that she didn't want the publicity
> attendant on getting the medal.

Probably a combination of both. The fact that she didn't think it applied
to anyone else--she flat-out said that Harkness, the senior chief[1] who
really masterminded the escape, should get the medal, and he gets
it--indicates a difference.

Come to think of it, her argument isn't really "I was just doing my job,"
it was "I had nothing to lose." She was going to be killed anyway, she
claims, so is that heroism or simply desperation?

> And anyways, some of the other characters pointed out that she was
> being silly, did they not?

Just about everybody, yeah. She finally gets the medal later, and at some
point we hear her internal monologue suggest she "couldn't avoid it that
time."

--
Will "scifantasy" Frank - wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu
"Who are you? What do you want? Why are you here? Where are you
going?" --Lorien, /Sleeping In Light/
[1] I think that was his rank...I'm bad with details like that.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:27:27 PM9/15/05
to

No, it's just the way things are. If you have a discussion about
comparing SF and Fantasy, people have to at least partially accomodate
the fact that many of the participants will have definitions that
vary. The "outlier" definitions -- for instance, those who ONLY define
Science Fiction to be "Stories which are science based or focus on a
scientific/engineering issue and involve technology and theories which
are clearly possible using our current knowledge" -- will tend to be
disregarded during discussion and a middle ground acknowledged by most
participants.

A few people will stay on the outskirts of the discussion and insist
on their variant definitions, of course. That's just the way
discussion in an ad-hoc, uncontrolled forum like this goes.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:38:21 PM9/15/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Tina Hall wrote:
>>
>>>Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Default User wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>Are they actually Mary Sues or just cameo appearance for
>>>>>yourself?
>>>>
>>>> Mary Sues, certainly. I like to think of them as GOOD Mary
>>>>Sues, but they're definitely Mary Sue, or rather Marty Stu.
>>>
>>>By your definition, where's the difference between a Mary Sue
>>>and a cameo appearance of yourself?
>>
>
>> The cameo is brief and has only minimal effect on the story; at
>>most, a cameo will provide a piece or two of useful information.
>
>
>> By contrast, Mary-Sue will be, if not THE main character, at
>>least A main character. She will play a crucial role in many
>>events.
>
>
> How does that match with your earlier "They don't have to be [heroes]"?
>

Crucial Role doesn't mean "is the hero", that's how. Mary Sue can, of
course, be the omnicompetent super-heroine adored by all who see her
-- the online fanfic "Nine Men and a Little Lady" parodies virtually
ALL the worst possible traits and cliches in bad "Lord of the Rings"
Mary Sue fics -- but it's equally possible for her to be the
right-hand man/woman of the Hero, the kidnapped Love Interest, the
Mysterious Source of Knowledge, or any one of a number of other roles
of crucial significance to the plot without necessarily
herself/himself being the Hero. In some, they're even the Villain,
though that's rare.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 8:29:00 PM9/15/05
to
David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>> You ccan disccuss that with the people that have those other
>> definitions,

> No, I can't. First I'd have to see a definition that conflicts
> with mine and I haven't.

Read the other posts in this thread, then, instead of stalking me for no
other purpose than to argue.

Troll.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:43:47 PM9/15/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:

>>"Q-Squared" by Peter David and "Dark Mirror" by Diane Duane. In
>>the latter the "guest star" is actually part of the solution, but
>>not in the "giving the regulars the solution" sense. He joins in
>>with the team and helps them out.
>
>
> Nice.
>
> Does it have to be fanfic, or are there any in regular works? (One
> poster/author here as already mentioned that he has Marty Stus.)

Clive Cussler actually shows a transition through his books from
"Cameo" to "Mary Sue". In some of his earlier Dirk Pitt novels, "Clive
Cussler" just shows up as a cameo appearance -- something kinda cute
but he has no real effect on the plot. But after a while "Clive
Cussler" shows up and has critical, need-to-know information or
need-to-have equipment, etc., that Dirk, the hero, needs RIGHT NOW.
He's an additionally ANNOYING Mary Sue in that his Authorial Power
makes Dirk, usually the kind of guy to remember anything and
everything he encounters, forget him every time; he just remembers
Some Guy Who Helped Us, Can't Quite Remember His Name...

Christopher Adams

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:45:50 PM9/15/05
to
Tina Hall wrote:

> Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>> I can think of two Star Trek novels with this factor:
>
>> "Q-Squared" by Peter David and "Dark Mirror" by Diane Duane. In
>> the latter the "guest star" is actually part of the solution, but
>> not in the "giving the regulars the solution" sense. He joins in
>> with the team and helps them out.
>
> Nice.
>
> Does it have to be fanfic, or are there any in regular works? (One
> poster/author here as already mentioned that he has Marty Stus.)
>
>> You might actually like the latter novel
>
> No, if I want fanfic, I make up my own, and don't pay money for the
> story of someone whose posts I didn't even read.

There's a big difference between authors writing tie-in fiction and authors
writing fanfiction.

One can be paid for the rights to one's fanfiction, but the essential motivation
for creativity is different - fanfiction writers seek to participate (not
necessarily in the sense of Mary Sues or authorial self-inserts, though the fact
that these are so common is diagnostic) in some way in the universes they're
writing about, whereas tie-in authors are often just doing it for the money or,
in the case that they genuinely like the property they're writing about, still
lack that essential "I want to be *involved*" impulse.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia

SERENITY - The Future Is Worth Fighting For

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html


Shadow Wolf

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 7:21:16 PM9/15/05
to
Will Frank <wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote in news:dgcr84$2fnb$1
@netnews.upenn.edu:

>
>> And anyways, some of the other characters pointed out that she was
>> being silly, did they not?
>
> Just about everybody, yeah. She finally gets the medal later, and at some
> point we hear her internal monologue suggest she "couldn't avoid it that
> time."
>
>

She gets it for a separate incident (to wit, taking a missile for the
Queen), and the Queen isn't going to back down a second time.

--
Shadow Wolf
shadowolf3400 at yahoo dot com
Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
AIF at http://www.geocities.com/shadowolf3400

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 7:23:37 PM9/15/05
to

I think we're going to end up without agreeing. In the real world, I
don't think anyone faces a /real/ threat to life and limb without a
good reason. ...Well, it so happens I just heard a BBC World Service
programme "Discovery" about risk and why some people like it (I presume
it's still on their Web site), but let's set that aside. Fights to the
death weren't mentioned.

If I thought someone where I work was going to try to kill me tomorrow,
do you know what - I think I wouldn't go.

> > Same goes for the rest of the army. In real life,
>
> This is SF, not real life. It's an example to show something _between_
> hero and watcher.

I think the way that you set up the story, it was bound to look heroic
- unless, as I say, the leader is our proverbial "Evil Overlord"
defending the boundaries of his totalitarian state.

> > Maybe other reasons.
>
> <digressing> You could have a culture where they were born that way,
> like ants are for example. </digressing>

Oh, yeah. There's a bunch of SF stories where a species, or a culture,
comes in different varieties, including soldier. And sometimes it's
inconvenient to have a breed of soldiers around who aren't much good
for anything else and who get bored easily, if a civilisation develops
to the point of not having wars so much any more.

The station BBC Radio 4 has been running a "Book of the Week" entitled
_Persian Fire_ by Tom Holland. Xerxes of ancient Persia levies an army
from his whole empire to go conquer Greece. This also should be still
on their Web site, and I just checked elsewhere to see how the story
ends... where it's got to so far, I think, is that the Spartans kill a
heck of a lot of Persian subjects. Trained soldiers, probably not
biologically determined. But, like insects, they practice eugenic
termination on their own offspring. And organised pederasty is the
mentoring programme. Funny what sticks in your mind...

> > Again, if they're fighting for something they believe in - and it
> > isn't something like, say, the subjugation and exploitation of all
> > other races (the British are still very unpopular in many parts of the
> > world) - then how can it not be heroic?
>
> What's heroic about doing your job?

Well, professional soldiers sometimes get medals for what may as well
be called heroism, I think. At the same time, they were drawing a
salary.

> >>> Building an army out of next to nothing (and we know it is next
> >>> to nothing because countries that already have effective
> >>> militaries don't have regular visits by raiders)
> >>
> >> Not true. We're talking SF here (with added magic as an option),
> >> and the military can't be everywhere. To do something about
> >> raiders they'd have to know where they come from, too.
> >>
> >> It's not about the military action at all, either, but the
> >> proceedings of the leader doing his job without any heroism
> >> thrown in. That _is_ the sole cause for the example. If you
> >> don't like this one, make up a better one.
>
> > We don't have to be talking about SF.
>
> It's what I'm talking about. <insert polite decline to enquiry of
> whether we could talk about real life; I'm not interested>

If it's SF or fantasy utterly disconnected from reality past present or
future, then /I'm/ not especially interested. I think I already
mentioned King Arthur; I actually think the fictional world of knightly
chivalry is just pretty weird - even before the Holy Grail comes into
it - and I believe myself to be reliably informed that your actual
knight on horseback was more like a bandit or highwayman. There are
versions of these stories with more reality but then they tend to lose
the poetry.

Again, fairy tales. I don't want to give the impression that I'm
seriously unhappy with fairy tales, but if it's about, say, a meek
little tailor who simply decides to play tricks on giants and dragons
and trolls and malevolent unicorns and he comes out of it without being
set on fire or torn limb from limb and marries a princess, just because
the storyteller wants it to be so - well, I'll take it as a joke, but
it isn't serious plotting.

Again, some fairy tale heroes are models of virtuous living rewarded -
a bit like in _The Pilgrim's Progress_ - and while I doubt that God or
the universe really rewards virtuous life as easily as it's sometimes
portrayed in such stories, I can accept it as a plotting choice.

> > If it's SF then maybe you build an army of robots. Robots can be
> > heroic too, but only if they're programmed for it.
>
> How can robots be anything but machines functioning along their design
> purpose?

It depends what you mean by "robot". Isaac Asimov has robot characters
in his fiction who are both artificial objects built by engineers, and
intelligent moral actors, although his earliest-set robot stories are
merely about machines that talk and have very simple thought processes.

> >>> and using it to defeat the bad guys is heroism by any standard
> >>> I am familiar with.
> >>
> >> Nah. Doing your job effectively is not heroic, it's efficient.
> >> The leader is supposed to look after the people, after all.
>
> > Who says?
>
> I do.
>
> > Maybe that's the social contract, but often enough the leader is just
> > the biggest local gang leader who levies as much tax from the peasants
> > as he can get away with.
>
> Not in my example. You do still remember the purpose of the example? How
> about getting back to the topicc rather than arguing an example that you
> obviously can't accept, thus making it irrelevant, and the discussion of
> it as well.

Well, I want to pick at the idea of the leader who defends a territory
against armed force for a reason other than personal profit. In
history, including modern history, there are plenty of leaders who
haven't; they flee, they capitulate, they collaborate... I think the
guy who does otherwise actually is something special.

Now I'm presuming that defending the territory actually is a very risky
act. It needn't be, though. Depending partly on who you're facing -
an organised army or an untrained gang of bandits - a show of force may
be an effective defence without actually going into battle; you can
just scare your enemy off, and no one gets hurt. So it needn't be more
dangerous than the work of a police officer - which is not exactly
safe, either, but isn't near-certain death like a First World War
infantry attack or a Roman circus gladiator career.

Heroism, I suppose, consists of facing up to danger, for the right
reasons - the bandits aren't heroic - and the closer you get to
immediate danger, the more heroic you are. I think you also have to be
actually capable of doing something constructive, or else you're just
being stupid.

> >>> I've never seen that. While I have seen fictional female
> >>> military leaders, I've never seen any Mary Sue or even Marty
> >>> Stu fanfiction about them.
> >>
> >> Hm. Odd. Whatever happened to emanzipation?
>
> > Well, probably there are several reasons, a major one being wide
> > recognition that Mary Sue stories are lousy, chiefly gratifying
> > to the author who casts him/herself in the role. But since as of
> > 2005 the original story that corresponds to the description given
> > must still be considered to be one of a woman triumphing in a
> > conventionally male role, a fan writer putting the character in a
> > subordinate role to a male Mary Sue would be fundamentally
> > betraying the original story:
>
> The ccharacter? The male was supposed to _be_ the Mary Sue in this case.

That's what I meant; I'm sorry if I didn't express it clearly. It's
particularly egregious Mary Sue-ism to push the main hero of a story
out of the spotlight so that your own character can shine. In fact,
it's the most pointless, too. It's taking away what makes the original
character what she is; so why try to do that with that character?

> > the original character's success by her own efforts and talents is
> > most of the point of her.
>
> So why can't that be true for male chcaracters?

I think it isn't so in quite the same way. It's commonplace for a
military hero to be male; for a female character it's usually a prize
that they had to fight for, to some extent going against conventional
female roles and expected behaviour, giving up those rewards for the
success that she wants. Fan fiction - and fiction generally - usually
is written by people who at least partway like most of the characters,

> > Not precisely the same thing, but there's an early and often-reprinted
> > comics story from _Mad_ where Wonder Woman with a very slightly
> > different name ends up a downtrodden housewife!
>
> Is there any way to look at/get that? (I used to like Mad as a teenager.
> Mad TV is still ok.)

Well, now. http://www.sufferingsappho.com/wrap/fun/fun.html has some
coverage of "Woman Wonder", along with other Wonder Woman pictures with
comical captions - but I think those are not actual published Wonder
Woman stories, but "make Wonder Woman say something funny in this
picture". As for Woman Wonder, "This unlikely hero parody first
appeared in MAD Magazine issue #10, and was created by Harvey Kurtzman
(story) and Bill Elder (art)... the full story has been reprinted (in
color) in a DC Comics trade paperback called, 'MAD About Superheroes.'"
It's also appeared in a 1940s/50s novel-size digest of _Mad_ - I
probably have a copy there, if I can find it - and in a relatively
recent series of colour reprints of the early, nearly-all-comic-strip
_Mad_, which I bought but now couldn't lay my hands on, as well as
EVERY ISSUE OF _MAD_ UP TO 1998 on a set of seven CD-ROMs titled
_Totally Mad_.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 8:03:01 PM9/15/05
to
Christopher Adams wrote:

>
> There's a big difference between authors writing tie-in fiction and authors
> writing fanfiction.
>

The BIG difference is that the tie-in authors get paid. I say this as
an author of "real" books and of fanfic.

> One can be paid for the rights to one's fanfiction, but the essential motivation
> for creativity is different - fanfiction writers seek to participate (not
> necessarily in the sense of Mary Sues or authorial self-inserts, though the fact
> that these are so common is diagnostic) in some way in the universes they're
> writing about, whereas tie-in authors are often just doing it for the money or,
> in the case that they genuinely like the property they're writing about, still
> lack that essential "I want to be *involved*" impulse.
>

Some do, some don't. It's still fanfic. It's just "fanfic for hire".
For instance, I'm not a fan of Angel, or of Firefly, but if a
publisher said to me "I'll pay you 10k to write an Angel or Firefly
tie-in", I'd learn the essence of the show and write something to
appeal to the fans. In effect, I'd find a broad-based fanfic mindset
(that was publishable, of course... there's subjects fanfic commonly
tackles that is, um, probably not acceptable for broad-issue tie-in
novelization...)

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 8:10:03 PM9/15/05
to

Well, the Wikipedia article I pointed to recorded different points of
view on appropriate terminology for characters on the Mary Sue
spectrum.

My own preference (and when I use a word it means what I want it to
mean) is that any new or substantially upgraded character in
shared-world fiction (whether originally designed as shared-world, or
co-opted in fan fiction), whose plotline better serves the author's
appetites than the reader's, counts as Mary Sue, regardless of sex.
But not every ill-written character is Mary Sue.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 8:39:00 PM9/15/05
to
Midnighter <torture...@gmail.cam> wrote:
> "Tina Hall" <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote

[Mary Sue...]

>> Does it have to be fanfic, or are there any in regular works?
>> (One poster/author here as already mentioned that he has Marty
>> Stus.)

> You know there is one thing that hasn't been discussed. Evil Mary
> Sue's.

Hey, that sounds interesting.

> The evil pontificating villian is sometimes a mary sue.

Do you have examples?

Will Frank

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 8:56:42 PM9/15/05
to
Shadow Wolf e-mused:

>>>And anyways, some of the other characters pointed out that she was
>>>being silly, did they not?
>>
>>Just about everybody, yeah. She finally gets the medal later, and at some
>>point we hear her internal monologue suggest she "couldn't avoid it that
>>time."
>
> She gets it for a separate incident (to wit, taking a missile for the
> Queen), and the Queen isn't going to back down a second time.

I know, I'm just saying, even then she thinks she doesn't deserve it--she
just got "turned into a hero(ine)[1]. Again."

--
Will "scifantasy" Frank - wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu

"Surprised to see me?"
"A little. I'm more surprised that I lived so long."
"Batman, Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne, Batman. Or...have you met?"
(simultaneous) "Not now!"
"Great. What did they use to call it? Stereo?"
--Bruce Wayne (Old), Batman (Bruce Wayne), and Batman (Terry
McGinnis), /Time, Warped/
[1] That there's a separate word for "female hero" bothers me ever so
slightly, really, because etymology notwithstanding there's no reason
"hero" needs to be masculine-only.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:12:00 AM9/16/05
to
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:

>>> "Q-Squared" by Peter David and "Dark Mirror" by Diane Duane. In
>>> the latter the "guest star" is actually part of the solution,
>>> but not in the "giving the regulars the solution" sense. He
>>> joins in with the team and helps them out.
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> Does it have to be fanfic, or are there any in regular works?
>> (One poster/author here as already mentioned that he has Marty
>> Stus.)

> Clive Cussler actually shows a transition through his books from
> "Cameo" to "Mary Sue". In some of his earlier Dirk Pitt novels,
> "Clive Cussler" just shows up as a cameo appearance

This reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock. Didn't he appear in his movies,
too? (Though perhaps playing a small role rather than as himself, but
the latter did happen in the Three Investigators - if that's what they
were called in English; those kids' detective stories.)

> -- something kinda cute but he has no real effect on the plot. But
> after a while "Clive Cussler" shows up and has critical, need-to-know
> information or need-to-have equipment, etc., that Dirk, the hero,
> needs RIGHT NOW. He's an additionally ANNOYING Mary Sue in that
> his Authorial Power makes Dirk, usually the kind of guy to
> remember anything and everything he encounters, forget him every
> time; he just remembers Some Guy Who Helped Us, Can't Quite
> Remember His Name...

I can see where that is annoying.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:12:00 AM9/16/05
to
Christopher Adams <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Christopher Adams wrote:

>>> You might actually like the latter novel
>>
>> No, if I want fanfic, I make up my own, and don't pay money for
>> the story of someone whose posts I didn't even read.

> There's a big difference between authors writing tie-in fiction
> and authors writing fanfiction.

Not where it matters; someone writing in someone elses' universe.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:12:00 AM9/16/05
to
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>>> Tina Hall wrote:
>>>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Default User wrote:

>>>>>> Are they actually Mary Sues or just cameo appearance for
>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary Sues, certainly. I like to think of them as GOOD Mary
>>>>> Sues, but they're definitely Mary Sue, or rather Marty Stu.
>>>>
>>>> By your definition, where's the difference between a Mary Sue
>>>> and a cameo appearance of yourself?
>>>
>>> The cameo is brief and has only minimal effect on the story;
>>> at most, a cameo will provide a piece or two of useful
>>> information.
>>
>>> By contrast, Mary-Sue will be, if not THE main character, at
>>> least A main character. She will play a crucial role in many
>>> events.
>>
>> How does that match with your earlier "They don't have to be
>> [heroes]"?

> Crucial Role doesn't mean "is the hero", that's how.

Now you're my hero. A slightly weaker form of "Crucial Role but not
hero" is what I was trying to get at with that example somewhere in this
thread.

It's just that crucial role seems to be equal with hero for some...

> Mary Sue can, of course, be the omnicompetent super-heroine adored by
> all who see her -- the online fanfic "Nine Men and a Little Lady"
> parodies virtually ALL the worst possible traits and cliches in
> bad "Lord of the Rings" Mary Sue fics -- but it's equally
> possible for her to be the right-hand man/woman of the Hero, the
> kidnapped Love Interest, the Mysterious Source of Knowledge, or
> any one of a number of other roles of crucial significance to the
> plot without necessarily herself/himself being the Hero.

Can they exist without a hero? (Really, does there have to be a hero in
every fiction?)

> In some, they're even the Villain, though that's rare.

You mentined a character shifting from cameo to Mary Sue in some other
post. Is there one that shifts from Mary Sue to Villain over the course
of different stories, or the reverse?

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:13:00 AM9/16/05
to
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:

>>> While there are clear cut examples that everyone will agree
>>> upon, the dividing line is drawn in many places by many
>>> different people.
>>
>> You're just out to confuse me!

> No, it's just the way things are.

<sigh>

If some newbie would misunderstand that line as serious rather than
chuckling, I might understand, with difficulties. It's even got an
exclamation mark.

> If you have a discussion about comparing SF and Fantasy, people have
> to at least partially accomodate the fact that many of the
> participants will have definitions that vary.

Let's talk about the definitions of exclamation marks.

> The "outlier" definitions -- for instance, those who ONLY define
> Science Fiction to be "Stories which are science based or focus on a
> scientific/engineering issue and involve technology and theories which
> are clearly possible using our current knowledge" -- will tend to be
> disregarded during discussion and a middle ground acknowledged by most
> participants.

Is this an opportunity to plug Yet Another Useless Definition?

Science Fiction: Has technology.
Fantasy: Has magic.
Has technology and magic: Horror.

Whee.

> A few people will stay on the outskirts of the discussion and
> insist on their variant definitions, of course. That's just the
> way discussion in an ad-hoc, uncontrolled forum like this goes.

I don't understand any definition varying from the one given above.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:14:00 AM9/16/05
to
Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> David Johnston wrote:
>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

>>>You ccan disccuss that with the people that have those other
>>>definitions,
>>
>> No, I can't. First I'd have to see a definition that conflicts
>> with mine and I haven't.

> Well, the Wikipedia article I pointed to recorded different
> points of view on appropriate terminology for characters on the
> Mary Sue spectrum.

He's trolling. His sole purpose is to meet whatever I say with nonsense
claims.

> My own preference (and when I use a word it means what I want it
> to mean)

I like that bit in the brackets.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:17:00 AM9/16/05
to
Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Rja.ca...@excite.com <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> If I thought someone where I work was going to try to kill me
> tomorrow, do you know what - I think I wouldn't go.

You're not the fictional leader of a fictional country, are you?

Now, how about that thing that is neither hero nor watcher?

>>> Same goes for the rest of the army. In real life,
>>
>> This is SF, not real life. It's an example to show something
>> _between_ hero and watcher.

> I think the way that you set up the story, it was bound to look
> heroic - unless, as I say, the leader is our proverbial "Evil
> Overlord" defending the boundaries of his totalitarian state.

No. I don't even know what's supposed to be heroic about it.

>>> Maybe other reasons.
>>
>> <digressing> You could have a culture where they were born that
>> way, like ants are for example. </digressing>

> Oh, yeah. There's a bunch of SF stories where a species, or a
> culture, comes in different varieties, including soldier. And
> sometimes it's inconvenient to have a breed of soldiers around
> who aren't much good for anything else and who get bored easily,
> if a civilisation develops to the point of not having wars so
> much any more.

Heh. That's for those people who like Stupid Internal Conflict getting
in the way of the story. In a good story, they get to hunt for food and
help the worker caste with whatever they do. That's what they've got
brains for, rather than being mere fighting machines.

>>> We don't have to be talking about SF.
>>
>> It's what I'm talking about. <insert polite decline to enquiry
>> of whether we could talk about real life; I'm not interested>

> If it's SF or fantasy utterly disconnected from reality past
> present or future, then /I'm/ not especially interested.

Ok, then let's drop it.

>>> If it's SF then maybe you build an army of robots. Robots can
>>> be heroic too, but only if they're programmed for it.
>>
>> How can robots be anything but machines functioning along their
>> design purpose?

> It depends what you mean by "robot". Isaac Asimov has robot
> characters in his fiction who are both artificial objects built
> by engineers, and intelligent moral actors,

If it's a machine, it's programmed.

>>> Maybe that's the social contract, but often enough the leader
>>> is just the biggest local gang leader who levies as much tax
>>> from the peasants as he can get away with.
>>
>> Not in my example. You do still remember the purpose of the
>> example? How about getting back to the topicc rather than
>> arguing an example that you obviously can't accept, thus making
>> it irrelevant, and the discussion of it as well.

> Well, I want to pick at the idea of the leader who defends a
> territory against armed force for a reason other than personal
> profit.

Ok. The original example was made up out of whole cloth just to provide
an example. Details weren't important. I'll change that, providing
details that match the 'not hero' type.

It's Fantasy. The leader actually cares about the people and only has
the position because he's the best qualified for it, with only a few
others that could step up if something happens to him. He knows what to
do and who to set to which task, and whom to ask for things he doesn't
know.

> [...] I think the guy who does otherwise actually is something
> special.

But by definition no hero. The word is _competent_, not _outstanding_.

> Now I'm presuming that defending the territory actually is a very
> risky act.

Difficult primarily. They don't know where the raiders come from, what
they are, how they get 'in', how they get 'out'. They just find a few
people butchered (males, fighter types, kids), with others missing
(worker types, females), as well as food/cattle missing. No witnesses
left alive. One possibility is even that the missing people all cracked
up and killed the others (no easy task, obviously, due to the castes).

> It needn't be, though. Depending partly on who you're facing - an
> organised army or an untrained gang of bandits

They don't know who they're facing.

> - a show of force may be an effective defence without actually
> going into battle; you can just scare your enemy off, and no one
> gets hurt.

Not applicable in this case. The raids won't stop; the raiders are
determined. Oh, and of course Evil (ew), but not very smart.

> Heroism, I suppose, consists of facing up to danger,

That thought is out of place. The point is doing the job right. Danger
is just a part of the job description, nothing special about it.

> for the right reasons - the bandits aren't heroic - and the closer you
> get to immediate danger, the more heroic you are. I think you
> also have to be actually capable of doing something constructive,
> or else you're just being stupid.

I can agree to heroism being stupid.

>>> But since as of 2005 the original story that corresponds to the
>>> description given must still be considered to be one of a woman
>>> triumphing in a conventionally male role, a fan writer putting
>>> the character in a subordinate role to a male Mary Sue would be
>>> fundamentally betraying the original story:
>>
>> The ccharacter? The male was supposed to _be_ the Mary Sue in
>> this case.

> That's what I meant; I'm sorry if I didn't express it clearly.
> It's particularly egregious Mary Sue-ism to push the main hero of
> a story out of the spotlight so that your own character can
> shine. In fact, it's the most pointless, too. It's taking away
> what makes the original character what she is; so why try to do
> that with that character?

Maybe that's where the wish-fulfillment steps in. I'd quickly get bored
with making up a Mary Sue in some fanfic daydream.

>>> Not precisely the same thing, but there's an early and
>>> often-reprinted comics story from _Mad_ where Wonder Woman with
>>> a very slightly different name ends up a downtrodden housewife!
>>
>> Is there any way to look at/get that? (I used to like Mad as a
>> teenager. Mad TV is still ok.)

> some coverage of "Woman Wonder", [...] As for Woman Wonder, "This


> unlikely hero parody first appeared in MAD Magazine issue #10,
> and was created by Harvey Kurtzman (story) and Bill Elder
> (art)... the full story has been reprinted (in color) in a DC
> Comics trade paperback called, 'MAD About Superheroes.'" It's
> also appeared in a 1940s/50s novel-size digest of _Mad_ - I
> probably have a copy there, if I can find it - and in a
> relatively recent series of colour reprints of the early,
> nearly-all-comic-strip _Mad_, which I bought but now couldn't lay
> my hands on, as well as EVERY ISSUE OF _MAD_ UP TO 1998 on a set
> of seven CD-ROMs titled _Totally Mad_.

Wow.

That looks like something I should ask the bookstore for.

Tina Hall

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:35:00 AM9/16/05
to
Will Frank <wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote:

> [...] hero(ine)[1].

> [1] That there's a separate word for "female hero" bothers me
> ever so slightly, really, because etymology notwithstanding
> there's no reason "hero" needs to be masculine-only.

!

Tell it to the twits that warp the German language, appending an '-in'
(-ess, or -ine if you like) to _every single fucking word_ that sounds
vaguely like it could be meant to apply to males only.

Worker and workeress.
Pilot and pilotess.
Teacher and teacheress.
Driver and driveress.
Captain and captainess.
Carpenter and carpenteress.
...

To quote a parody along that line:

"Lieber Zuschauer and Zuschauerinnen, daheim vor den Fernsehern und
Fernseherinnen..."

("Dear watchers and watcheresses, at home in front of the televisions
and televisionesses...")

Just the ones that caused it, the only ones where it applies, failed to
get one; EmanzInnen (feministesses).

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages