![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kricketsI don't read a lot of fic these days. I can't fully explain it. Call it laziness or what-have-you. I actually think it relates to the fact that I stopped following most fandom sharing comms including fic-related comms a very long time ago. I chose instead to simply join those comms without following, and mostly just follow newsletter comms. [I've actually been thinking of changing that pattern lately.] Also, my, erm, ...interests differ from a lot of what is written. So there's that.
Regardless, over the last two days or so I've been reading [okay, skimming] this epic Mary Sue related discussion over at metafandom and I came to the realization that I don't really have an opinion on this at all. I think the reason for this is that, generally speaking, I just do not read OCs in fic. [If they're a major enough character to be noted in the header.] It doesn't matter if it's the male or female variety. This is true probably 95% of the time. No offense to anybody, of course. It's simply a reading preference -- like character or pairing preferences. [I think this strongly correlates to the amount of investment/interest I have in my favorite canon characters, whereas OCs don't generate any investment/interest from me at the starting gates.]
Therefore, due to my lack of experience reading these types of characters, I don't have the ability to notice patterns or pick out things that would qualify an original character as a "Mary Sue/Gary Stu" or to have developed any pet peeves regarding the writing of OCs.
Essentially, my opinion on the issue overall is that I have no opinion. I've never had a chance to form one because of the types of fic I read. [Or more accurately, the types of fic I don't read.] I'm sure this has to be true of a lot of us.
Come to think of it, my only opinion would really be that new and young authors, or any authors really, should not be berated for common rites of passage that many of us seem to go through. We all grow and evolve, or at least we try to, at one starting point or another. There's nothing particularly wrong with that.
*cue cumbaya & handholding*
A side note,
Long ago, my idea of what defined a "Mary Sue" was simply a character as a self-insert. Which, unless you know the author very well, I don't think would be easy to pick out. [Unless named after the author, perhaps.] But I know that now most people have other, more widely accepted, definitions of what constitutes a "Mary Sue," so this simple way of thinking is no longer as relevant as I once thought.
Regardless, over the last two days or so I've been reading [okay, skimming] this epic Mary Sue related discussion over at metafandom and I came to the realization that I don't really have an opinion on this at all. I think the reason for this is that, generally speaking, I just do not read OCs in fic. [If they're a major enough character to be noted in the header.] It doesn't matter if it's the male or female variety. This is true probably 95% of the time. No offense to anybody, of course. It's simply a reading preference -- like character or pairing preferences. [I think this strongly correlates to the amount of investment/interest I have in my favorite canon characters, whereas OCs don't generate any investment/interest from me at the starting gates.]
Therefore, due to my lack of experience reading these types of characters, I don't have the ability to notice patterns or pick out things that would qualify an original character as a "Mary Sue/Gary Stu" or to have developed any pet peeves regarding the writing of OCs.
Essentially, my opinion on the issue overall is that I have no opinion. I've never had a chance to form one because of the types of fic I read. [Or more accurately, the types of fic I don't read.] I'm sure this has to be true of a lot of us.
Come to think of it, my only opinion would really be that new and young authors, or any authors really, should not be berated for common rites of passage that many of us seem to go through. We all grow and evolve, or at least we try to, at one starting point or another. There's nothing particularly wrong with that.
*cue cumbaya & handholding*
A side note,
Long ago, my idea of what defined a "Mary Sue" was simply a character as a self-insert. Which, unless you know the author very well, I don't think would be easy to pick out. [Unless named after the author, perhaps.] But I know that now most people have other, more widely accepted, definitions of what constitutes a "Mary Sue," so this simple way of thinking is no longer as relevant as I once thought.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-15 10:04 pm (UTC)I'm currently following, as it's being written, a Dawn-centric story about her and her OC Slayer girlfriend and their adventures around the country, that I find to be extremely well-written and would recommend to anyone, regardless of their opinion on the subject.
On the other token, I don't go out looking for OC stories, they sometimes just fall in my lap. I tend to get myself hooked on the summary and whether that hooks my attention, rather than worry about if there are characters or pairings I may or may not like (both canon and original). Sometimes I'm pleased with the result, sometimes I'm not. But it has more to do with the quality of writing than the characters themselves.
Of course, I probably open myself up to a lot more fanfics anyway simply by not having any squicks, but that's probably a whole other conversation...
no subject
Date: 2010-04-16 10:56 pm (UTC)There are definitely some things that I choose not to read due to squicks. Abusive, sadist type stuff for example. But then honestly, there's no limit to what fandom can produce. I swear they write shit that I never even knew existed and therefore didn't even KNOW to avoid, lol.
To be perfectly honest, aside from my weird pairings, I'm really kind of vanilla. If you could consider liking a fair amount of dark-and-twisty angst in my fics - though not completely dreadful - a "vanilla" thing.