What is a flock of Mary Sues called?

[gunhilltrain]

I still need to read that. I took one of those online "you write like..." tests and his name came up. It was the first I'd heard of him.

I like his essays for the most part, but a 1,000 page novel? The reviews of it that I've seen are not promising. And, unfortunately, he passed from suicide in 2008. The two collections of essays that I remember are A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again and Consider the Lobster.

 

[intim8]

a 1,000 page novel?

I eat those for breakfast. That makes me want to read it even more.

I recently binge-read a 2700 page science fiction series, one of those that is a single story, in about two weeks. Read the entirety of Harry Potter in just a little more than that. I prefer them massive like that and actively look for them.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Yeah, probably because of the pantsing thing. None of it was planned out, it just came off the top of my head as it went.

Well, I'm a pantser too, but I've got to hand you the prize for "Let's see what happens next!"

 

[intim8]

Well, I'm a pantser too, but I've got to hand you the prize for "Let's see what happens next!"

Actually, I'm a plotter. I just make 300k word long outlines.

I've got two other big ones I wrote at that time, 100k and over 250K. They're not bad, but definitely not as good. The reason I came back to this one the other day is that it has been coming in and out of my head ever since I wrote it.

And don't get me started on what I have pantsed for Aces, Aces2, Aces3, and ancilarry stories in the same universe.

 

[AlinaX]

I would let them borrow from the Crows. A murder of goths.

A crypt of goths?

But Mary Sues? An exclusion? A paradox? A self-awareness?

My problem is less with Mary Sue and more the intrusion of a perfect romantic hero into the heroine's tale.

 

[nice90sguy]

presumably it's the "perfect" you have a problem with.

 

[Britva415]

What is a flock of Mary Sues called?

Are there three of them? That would be a "fuckmarrykill" of Mary Sues.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I'd have to say that I'm very guilty of the use of these idealized characters. I want them to be likable and my stories are too short (10-20k) to go very deep into their personality.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Just post the damn thing as is.

 

[lovecraft68]

A crypt of goths?

But Mary Sues? An exclusion? A paradox? A self-awareness?

My problem is less with Mary Sue and more the intrusion of a perfect romantic hero into the heroine's tale.

Unfortunately, it seems the only two recurring staples in mainstream erotica for men, are Mr. Perfect in every way, or the troubled bad boy that only she can save.

Both are fine for the fantasy, both are dangerous in different ways in real life.

I always saw Mary Sue as a term pertaining to a character, not specific gender, but as I said in another post in the toxic reviewer culture its exclusively female because most of them are male and squeal any 'strong female" is woke and full of shit, and any strong man is a way for these losers to vicariously live through a man who is as real as a comic book.

I've enjoyed bad ass female leads for as long as I can remember, and my novels feature them. If I ever caught a break and my work got noticed I'd be "pushing toxic feminism"

 

[StillStunned]

I always saw Mary Sue as a term pertaining to a character, not specific gender, but as I said in another post in the toxic reviewer culture its exclusively female because most of them are male and squeal any 'strong female" is woke and full of shit, and any strong man is a way for these losers to vicariously live through a man who is as real as a comic book.

You should read more trashy fantasy fiction. Just off the top of my head I can name three male characters who regularly get called out as Mary Sues: Drizzt Do'Urden and Elminster from the Forgotten Realms novels, and Kvothe from Patrick Rothfuss's "Kingkiller" duology (I don't necessarily agree with this one, but there are plenty of people who do).

 

[TheLobster]

There is a world of difference between badass female characters like Ripley or even Lara Croft, and the forced and flat cardboard cutouts like Captain Marvel or Rey from SW sequels.

Whether the latter are “woke” or not I’ll leave to Youtube scholars. Their cardinal sin is that they are painfully predictable and utterly boring.

 

[AlinaX]

presumably it's the "perfect" you have a problem with.

It's all the tropes that go along with it:
- the hero riding to the rescue so that the heroine gets saved and doesn't need to be kick-ass
- he can be a ruthless bastard in many ways, rich and capable too, but he's tender and vulnerable with her
- his love life is non-existent for reasons, often involving erectile dysfunction, but with her he's a wonderful and empathic lover
- when things get explicit, he is maculinity personified and in glorious detail, and she is a featureless void to be filled
- any other sexually available women are evil whores

It's a weird idealisation of what a man should be so that his woman can feel uniquely loved and protected and taken care of in every meaningful way.

I do understand the fantasy, the idea escaping from a reality of imperfections into a life of zero aggravations and no responsibility or cares. But it's also a patriarchal fantasy of man as hunter-gatherer and woman as property.

As Bond's manhood was engulfed by the old babushka's wet, horny cunt, her vodka-tainted breath hot against his chest, he longed to meet a sweet, young, innocent girl for once, one he could install in his draughty Scottish mansion. What joy it would be to come home from his arduous missions to a home and a faithful wife whose days were spent in simple pursuits like decorating and cooking. A wife who could be a mother too, to two young boys, a girl as well, and she would send them all outside to play in the heather when he returned to her, his cock hard in anticipation and without the need for the little blue pills that he now popped daily.

 

[AlinaX]

There is a world of difference between badass female characters like Ripley or even Lara Croft, and the forced and flat cardboard cutouts like Captain Marvel or Rey from SW sequels.

Whether the latter are “woke” or not I’ll leave to Youtube scholars. Their cardinal sin is that they are painfully predictable and utterly boring.

At the risk of awakening the bull in this china store...

Rey from TFA was a delightful character whose potential was squandered in the later films. There were misteps, I accept. The film could have maybe shown more of how she lived alone, enough to suggest a use of nascent Jedi skills in fights and piloting and in desert survival. She could have been a little less innocent than played by Daisy. These things were hinted at, but ultimately the need for a Disney heroine played against the realism.

But I loved Rey in TFA. She was the new Luke Skywalker, captured up from humble origins into a galactic war. I loved her wide-eyed astonishment at seeing other worlds, and so much water. She was a character with huge potential, and...

... ended up doing very little in TLJ until the end, and TROS went, "Fuck all that," and screwed up the whole franchise.

 

[nice90sguy]

man as hunter-gatherer and woman as property

I think that stereotype is almost as bad as the one you're criticising.


In hunter gatherer societies, typically men hunt and women gather. The sexual dimorphism that this causes leads women to have better verbal skills, as they work in large groups, and talk a lot amongst themselves. The men become very good at "focusing", because hunting and tracking prey is often solo work, and requires long periods of persistence.

The relative value of hunting vs gathering is around the same -- about 50% of sustenance comes from each method.

Men and women are treated with equal respect, although elders are given the most respect. Nobody is treated as property.

"Women as Property" is more likely seen in raiding, nomadic warring tribes, like the original bands of nomads that gave rise to the three big monotheistic religions which govern a lot of modern society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadza_people

 

[AlinaX]

I think that stereotype is almost as bad as the one you're criticising.
In hunter gatherer societies, typically men hunt and women gather. [...]

Okay, but I was talking about modern mythology, not actual societies.

 

[nice90sguy]

I'd call it a deliberate distortion (not by you, but by perpretrators of the story that primitive people treat women as property), not a mythology. It's kind of important to know where, and why, that "myth" orginates, and who created it.
It helps explain why so much of the world does hang on to it.

"Women as Property" shouldn't be confused with dowry culture. The reason dowry is paid to bride's family is that historically women worked, and raising children took them out of the workplace, so their family needed to be compensated for that.

 

[StillStunned]

"Women as Property" is more likely seen in raiding, nomadic warring tribes, like the original bands of nomads that gave rise to the three big monotheistic religions which govern a lot of modern society.

I recently read a book about the history of Mesopotamia in which the author argued that women didn't occupy a lower status than men until the rise of abstract (i.e. transcendent) deities, as opposed to earlier, more specific ("imminent") deities, at the time of Assyria's emergence.

The idea being that as people began believing in gods as intangible concepts, rather than natural phenomena, this placed those gods above nature - and so humans must also be above nature, being made in their god's image. Except the female biology is a constant reminder that we're all part of nature. So the natural conclusion is that women must be lesser creatures.

I'm not sure how widely this theory is accepted, but it would explain a lot.

 

[StillStunned]

"Women as Property" shouldn't be confused with dowry culture. The reason dowry is paid to bride's family is that historically women worked, and raising children took them out of the workplace, so their family needed to be compensated for that.

Strictly speaking, that's called a "bride price". A dowry goes the other way: from the bride's parents to the groom. Essentially it represents her share in the family inheritance.

 

[nice90sguy]

Yes, I was talking about bride price.

 

[StillStunned]

Yes, I was talking about bride price.

Which is sometimes called bride dowry. Just to confuse us all.

 

[AlinaX]

I recently read a book about the history of Mesopotamia in which the author argued that women didn't occupy a lower status than men until the rise of abstract (i.e. transcendent) deities, as opposed to earlier, more specific ("imminent") deities, at the time of Assyria's emergence.

I'm so daftly happy to see 'immanent' used in the wild, and a little disappointed therefore to see the misspelling, lol.

 

[StillStunned]

I'm so daftly happy to see 'immanent' used in the wild, and a little disappointed therefore to see the misspelling, lol.

My excuse is that it was an audiobook.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The idea being that as people began believing in gods as intangible concepts, rather than natural phenomena, this placed those gods above nature - and so humans must also be above nature, being made in their god's image. Except the female biology is a constant reminder that we're all part of nature. So the natural conclusion is that women must be lesser creatures.

I'll add another wrinkle to that. Idol deities led to organized religions, which became institutions. These institutions historically have survived and conquered with numbers (population), and being that it is far easier to just have numbers born into your faith institution than it is to convert people, it was in the best interests of these kings/pharaohs/popes etc to remove women's rights to education and property, making them dependent upon men (a husband) to survive in society, which made the man the boss, and if the boss wants to do it every night, then that's what the boss gets and the family has nine children instead of three. More people, more taxes and tithes, more economy, more soldiers. It's also why the pope says 'no birth control or you go to hell'. How dare we deny the pope our wombs?

Anyways, you can put the thread back on track now. : P

 

[nice90sguy]

Might as well use this thread to plug my latest story.

Buried in the 30,000+ words of verbiage is the core idea I wanted to write:

And she'd told them all the real reason they were coming, although most of them had guessed anyway; for the next few centuries, with the help of the life-extending magic of hypo, they were going to participate in a social experiment. And that experiment was the entire reason she'd designed and built the Artemis in the first place. And terraforming it was just part of her grand plan for humanity: A new gynocracy.

She would take thirty-one fertile women, along with the sperm from thirty thousand men, and bootstrap a female-led communal society. Child-raising would be shared...

...

Through most of history, men had expended energy protecting themselves and their offspring by fighting enemies, and by hunting and farming. And women mainly raised their offspring, and helped with the farming. When food got scarce, or their backs were against the wall, the men would take charge, because they were bigger and tougher, and there would be a lot fighting to do.

But in her new world, here on the Artemis, there would be plenty of food, and no enemies to fight. There would be no scarcity, hence no property. In Diana's new world, the men would not need to be big and tough, and the women would not need protecting. So the women would take charge, because the men would have very little to do except fixing stuff while the women kept life going, and raised the offspring.