Marvel Civil War: It’s like Stan Lee-style fanfiction. See there? It perfectly communicates my conviction that this is just another, albeit glorified, example of a long Marvel/Stan Lee tradition of pointless, unjustified hero-fights, just to serve the all-powerful Comparative Heirarchy, and the entire concept (DOoD! all teh Marvel charcters fiting!) sounds like really bad fanfiction.

Well, no, that’s not what Mary Sue were, at least originally. It was someone inserting themselves into a story… which entirely breaks the universe it’s based in. The presence of the Mary Sue makes everyone else act out of character. In Lord of the Rings, the Mary Sue would make – say – Aragorn and Legolas and Gimli and whoever else all fall in love with them. Fundamentally, it is *impossible to have a good story with a real Mary Sue in it*.

Conversely, weakening the definition to be an Author insert it BY DEFINITION makes author-insertion a bad thing, from mere levels of aesthetic disgust rather than the effects it has on a narrative. This is an absolutely loathsome position, which – if expanded into general fiction as people try to do – rejects everything from Dante’s Inferno to Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas.

(Even with Fanfiction, it’s entirely possible to author-insert a character into even fanfiction without it being a Mary Sue. You just have to write it well. There’s all sorts of satirical or meta-analytical reasons a writer may try to do.)

It’s a bloody useless phrase. It’s always been a personal bugbear and makes my palms itch.

KG

God help me…I agree with Apodaca!!

Funny, I’ve thought that a few times when I’ve agreed with you.

I guess even us broken clocks are right twice a day.

Yes, if your new character comes along, and is outrageously overqualified for their age or experience, is extremely powerful and the main character falls in love with him/her then yes, that is a Mary Sue. If your character is just tough, or particularly evil, then no, that is NOT a Mary Sue or even neccesarily a ‘Pet Character’, its just a NEW character.

Right.

The terms are designed just for the characters who fit the “outrageously overqualified for their age or experience, is extremely powerful and the main character falls in love with him/her” stuff.

most people writing comics came in as fans.
so most of it is more or less fan fiction, ain’t it?
they just get to collect a check from the stuff they write.

Well, that’s actually exactly what makes it NOT fan-fiction. If you’re hired to write that story, then it’s not fan-fiction. It may still resemble it in style, but that’s the integral identifier of fan-fiction.

Non-professionally written.

Yes, because at least “unfunny” is at least a general indicator of quality. “Fanfiction” is completely neutral without a more specific context.

Uh, no. “Fan-fiction” is completely derogatory, regardless of howmuch you read or write.

Here’s why the fan-fiction comparison, without any explanation, doesn’t work as criticism:

Well, no comparison without explanation really works as criticism. Naming it is only part of a critique. You should also explain how you came to that conclusion.

Not everyone agrees with, or is even aware of, the claim that all fan fiction is bad.

It doesn’t matter, though, because that claim doesn’t have any bearing on the criticism. I’ve never heard someone make a comparison to fan-fiction in a complimentary way. Even Brian’s initial post against the use of it describes it as a derisive remark.

And most people understand the concept of bad fan-fiction.

I’m sorry, but if we had no “Pet Characters” than we would have no NEW characters correct? Was Hercules Roy Thomas’ pet character in Avengers? Or Hawkeye Stan Lee’s? I don’t think so, I think they were just NEW characters.
“Mary Sue” seems to be used by at least someone for every new character and I don’t think its apt. Yes, if your new character comes along, and is outrageously overqualified for their age or experience, is extremely powerful and the main character falls in love with him/her then yes, that is a Mary Sue. If your character is just tough, or particularly evil, then no, that is NOT a Mary Sue or even neccesarily a ‘Pet Character’, its just a NEW character. And frankly, in some books, we NEED new characters.

1. Not everyone agrees with, or is even aware of, the claim that all fan fiction is bad. Yeah, we can assume you’re talking about bad fan fiction when you use the critique negatively, but by that logic, we can compare anything to anything. (“This comic reads like a TV show. By which, of course, I’m referring to a bad TV show”)

2. Fan fiction in and of itself is criticized for so many different things, using it as a comparison could mean almost anything. Call a work “fan fiction”, what does it mean? Poor dialog, amateurish grasp of plotting, overly flowery descriptive passages, characters acting out of character, too much emphasis on obscure continuity, Mary Sues, everybody suddenly fucking everybody else, what?

What he said.

What does that mean? All the bad elements of fanfiction except not? Most of the problems with fanfiction are competency issues – basically people who, pardon the expression, can’t write for shit.
But since T states that McDuffie’s work IS competent, what exactly does he view as negative about it? What additional elements does he view as negative about fanfiction in general? This is what is not clearly elucidated and become difficult for the casual reader (which, I’d venture to say, most readers are,) to penetrate.

There’s good fan-fiction and bad fan-fiction. Many of today’s writers got their starts because someone noticed their personal fan-fiction and thought that it was good enough to pay them for it. Devin Grayson is a very clear example, whether you like her work or not.

Then there’s bad fan-fiction. This type of work can often characterized as pieces which are rife with misspellings, poor grammar and syntax, many internal contradictions, and a disregard to established characterization or continuity.

To say that something is reminiscent of “fan-fiction” says nothing of one’s opinion of the work. It is indeed similar to comparing the work in question to “pre-Raphaelite architecture”.

In order for a reviewer to use the term as a criticism, he must first explain what he considers to be BAD (about) fan-fiction – at least once – and then contrast the work in question to said fanfic. Otherwise, usage of the term tells the reader nothing concrete – it can be construed in many different ways. So, sure, some readers may get it – but only those who are extremely familiar with the reader’s likes and dislikes. Those who are not on such intimate terms with the reviewer are more likely than not to feel lost and confused.

‘Continuty porn’ is one I wouldn’t mind clarified. In the very same TF comics not one issue would go by without at least a half-dozen callbacks to previous TF moments. The thing is, none of those had happened in the title’s own continuity, they were all from other things (the movie, etc) and had little or no relevance to the plot; they were put in simply to stroke the fans. Sounds like something the phrase continuity porn might apply to, but I know from the context of reviews using the phrase it doesn’t. The only other phrase I’ve ever seen used to describe such gratuitous winks to the fanbase was the rather coarse ‘fan-wank’.
In that regard, ‘fan-fiction’ doesn’t seem quite so bad.

The simple use of the phrase doesn’t really mean a whole lot, because it’s become a cliche, and cliches are absolutely useless for providing practical details.

“I’m guessing this post originally came about from me calling Dwayne McDuffie’s work extra-competent fanfiction in the Declarative Rabbit thread”

Most of the post is actually from a post I did last year.

When I saw MarkAndrew point out his complaint about the use of “fan-fiction,” I thought, “Oh hey, I did a whole post on just that topic!” and saw it wasn’t on the current blog, so I figured I’d re-write the original piece as a “Cronin Theory of Comics.”

So I don’t mean to come off like I’m just busting your chops with this piece.