10369 réponses à ce sujet

[Raonar]

Mahkara wrote...

Raonar wrote...

Ok, now that I am no longer cooking, I can explain what I was really saying. I was arguing FOR awesome characters and stories that are both epic and psychological engaging. I guess I was using my own stuff as an example, but if yu guys want a REAL combination of these, this is the sort of thing i am reffering to:

Shinji and Warhammer 40,000

Starting immediately after the prologue at least, though you need to know some Warhammer lore and about a ceratin show (anime, yes, i watch those), Called Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Hope I was clear this once.

I'd argue that it's never the mark of a humble person to use their own work as a good example.

That said, Neon Genesis Evangelion is most definitely a story that is both epic and psychologically engaging. That said, none of the characters are "Sues".  Asuka is an arrogant, hot tempered brat (who is also cripplingly depressed), Rei is a bio engineered freak (who's not supposed to be particularly human), and Shinji is the most neurotic person ever to have lived.  All are badly manipulated by Gendo.  None are particularly powerful or awesome, outside of their suits.  And all are quite broken in their real lives. They're about as far from Sues as you can get.

Yes, only this fanfiction I pointed towards is a sort of for want of a nail crossover, where Shinji's childhood is actually happy... and he ends up tunring into a level 20 magnificent bastard in his own right (mostly bcause he finds a Warhammer 40000 tabletop game set, and things go awesome fom there).

[Creature 1]

I have no idea what either of those fandoms are. Why not try LotR? It's an epic, and has some very interesting characters. But to me it is the non-epic characters who are the most interesting. The hobbits, Sam being my favorite. Eowyn. Gimli somewhat. Most of the rest of them are more interesting for what they do or what status they possess than who they are. Strider and Gandalf I don't find particularly interesting, though Gandalf has his moments. Arwen is practically a cipher.

What's most appealing to me about LotR is that it has average people in epic circumstances. If you look at much of Tolkien's other writing, it was all over 9000!!, and appears to have much less appeal in general (never sold as well as LotR and The Hobbit).

[Raonar]

Well, from what I've seen, practically everyone until the age when the events of LOTR happen were mister and missus perfect/perfect/badass race... only some of them had ONE issue that ruined it.

Feanor is the biggest example, because his pride screws over his whole race, even though, otherwise, he is THE father of 'sues' as defined today, although, in context, he can't REALLY qualify as such, considering that EVERYONE was sue-level (over 9000! as you said it ).

Needless to say, Luthien's quest to save Beren and get the silmaril was THE mother of all performances by an extraordinarily empowered girlfriend. Still, if anything in terms of epicness tops that, it's Fingolfin scaring the hell out of Morgoth and almost beating the sod out of him, if not for being backstabbed by a Balrog (and he STILL cut off Morgoth's foot permanently).

The problem with Silmarillion is that it was made like an encyclopedia, so there wasn't much character development.

That said, I was a bit miffed about how the LOTR movies treated Frodo and Faramir, among other things.

But hey, we are moving away from Dragon Age ) We might get reported

Modifié par Raonar, 15 mars 2011 - 09:14 .

[Mahkara]

Creature 1 wrote...

What's most appealing to me about LotR is that it has average people in epic circumstances. If you look at much of Tolkien's other writing, it was all over 9000!!, and appears to have much less appeal in general (never sold as well as LotR and The Hobbit).

I agree!  If you're going to try to learn how to write well, learn from the classics!

And yeah, the reason LotR was so gripping for me was definitely the Hobbits.  I was bored with most of the rest of it.  But the Hobbits really drew me in, as I could identify with these brave, stalwart souls put into circumstances well beyond their abilities, and the heroism of characters called to do a job they did not want...but had to do in order to save the world.  It made for a far more gripping tale than a perfect character who was always heroic and certain.

[Mahkara]

Raonar wrote...

Well, from what I've seen, practically everyone until the age when the events of LOTR happen were mister and missus perfect/perfect/badass race... only some of them had ONE issue that ruined it.

Frodo was a badass?  Sam was?  Bilbo was?  Merry and Pippin were?

Perhaps I am confused as to the meaning of this term...

[Raonar]

Mahkara wrote...

Raonar wrote...

Well, from what I've seen, practically everyone until the age when the events of LOTR happen were mister and missus perfect/perfect/badass race... only some of them had ONE issue that ruined it.

Frodo was a badass?  Sam was?  Bilbo was?  Merry and Pippin were?

Perhaps I am confused as to the meaning of this term...

Everyone until the events of LOTR was supposed to mean everyone except some of those from the age when LOTR takes place onwards. Sigh.

I must be having one of those days... when I just can't get my point across properly.

Modifié par Raonar, 15 mars 2011 - 09:29 .

[Maria13]

Creature 1 wrote...

Raonar wrote...

Uuh... and this contradicts my saing that people CAN be awesome... how exactly?

People can be awesome but da Vinci was more awesome than almost every human who has ever lived.  Michelangelo is in that ranking as well.  So is Plato.  So is Einstein.  If your cast is made of a cohort who would fit in nicely with these people, that is way beyond the bounds of credibility. 

Besides, I fail to see the problem with someone going to 11 when the enemis are taken to eleven as well.

I know.  The problem is that if the story isn't interesting when you crank it down to 4, then it's not really about the characters, it's about the explosions, etc.  That's fine, it's just your preference.  It's not mine, nor many other people's. 

But even most of these had a darker side.

Frankly I prefer Michealangelo, at least he finished most of his works. He was violent and drunk and neglected himself quite a bit.

da Vinci was reputedly cold-blooded he talked to a dying guy and then dissected him a few hours later.  There is also a suspicion he may have been paedophile.

Plato was a crypto fascist.

Einstein was pretty cruel to his first wife and neglected his children.  He used people and was pretty selfish.

If a writer were to bring out those sides of these geniuses then we would have... "Watchmen"!!!

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

All these names of long-dead artists...great artists, I'm sure. The only one I've actually read is Tolkein, besides a few inspirational quotes here and there. I mostly grew up on modern day authors. *shrug*

So...personally I don't think you have to read the classics to learn how to write well. I suppose this makes me an uncultured wannabe writer.

[Mahkara]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

So...personally I don't think you have to read the classics to learn how to write well. I suppose this makes me an uncultured wannabe writer.

I don't know that you need to read *all* the classics (I mean, no one could).  But it's always rather goofy to me when people claim they want to write, but never read.  (Or only read exactly the same thing again and again.)

I used to giggle at the whole, "if you want to write for this magazine, read it all the time" as I was convinced that I was so much more talented and creative than anyone else who would submit to it.  But the truth is, even if you *are* that talented (I'm fairly sure I'm not now...oh, how my illusions vanish with age!), you need to know what's common and uncommon in a given genre so you know when you're breaking a convention or keeping with it, whether the idea you have is unique or over-done to the point of boredom.  (Obviously, this goes more for profesisonal writing, but could be applied to ffic, too!)

I also (personally) find good writing to be a great source of ideas and characterizations.  Let's be frank - I am my age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status.  Trying to write someone who's the opposite of it is *hard*.  Sometimes the easiest way for me to figure out what it might be like is to read biographies/autobiographies/histories/good fiction that describes lives that are way different. And that way, when I write a character, I'm not totally making stuff up in a way that's going to strike readers as false.  (I mean, I'll still screw up, but hopefully less so?)

I also use good characters are referrence material.  (Yes, even for ffic.  My Elissa Cousland is Katherine Howard, Kallian Tabris is a cross between Lisbet and Jack from ME2, and Cauthrien bears a certain resemblance to Paksennarion.)  It's a way to make sure that I don't write them all the same, as that's generally my temptation.   I know what view point *I* have, so I want to write my characters to think and feel the same way I would in a given situation.  But if they do, the story is boring...so I need to remind myself "think of Paks, think of Paks"...or whatever combination of characters I've based mine on.

[Glorfindel709]

Wow I missed a LotR reference talk..... I'm ashamed

Ok, the Silmarillion is not the thing you want to point to as an example of the epicness/sueism of Tolkien. Simply put, there are several reasons for that. First, there are reasons everyone is epic, it's all in the lore. They're not just amazing to be amazing and sing in Breaking Benjamin and have naturally zigzagged colored red and white hair with green eyes that glow like emeralds, but brighter because they're awesome. Second, the High Fantasy elements of Tolkiens stories practically center around the impossible becoming probable. Third, the Silmarillion doesnt have much in the way of character development because, as Raonar said, it was more of a compendium of events, poems, and songs than it was an actual story.

Then we come to LotR - engaging because of the characterization, people you could connect with despite the impossible nature of the fantasy world so different from ours. That being said, some pretty over 9000!! things happen in LotR, mostly Gandalf and ancient weapon/prophecy related things.

I dont think having a character who does incredible or amazing thing makes him or her a Sue, I think it has to do with a mix of character flaws/abilities and the believability of the character.

If you have a character who has never left home before but suddenly finds himself in the wider world doing things that can and will decide the fate of the world as we know it who suffers from greed, rampant self doubt, and a lack of battle skills in a quest that is going to literally require quite a bit of fighting, you have the underdog who grows into his circumstances.

If you have the worldly character who is good at just about everything he attempts but has several deep emotional and psychological issues, you have the redeemable character who though his character growth becomes the best the world has ever seen.

It's only when you have a character who can do no wrong, is skilled at everything, never loses, is loved by everyone for no apparent reason, is loved and respected by everyone even when the charactes he interacts with should infact feel the opposite, and has no real deep issues on his plate do you delve into the area of Sue-ism

Modifié par Glorfindel709, 16 mars 2011 - 12:23 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Oh, there are plenty of merits to just *reading*, so you need not explain them to me.

I'm just not convinced you have to read a lot to be a good writer, or to have a good story. For one thing, not everyone who reads and tries to produce something compelling of their own succeeds. For another, awesome material comes from more sources than books. Reading can teach you writing conventions and genre trends, it can lend inspiration and education, but it can't turn you into a bestselling author no matter how brilliant it is. Are there advantages to reading good stuff? Certainly. Do you *have* to have shelves upon shelves of books under your belt to produce something good of your own? No.

FWIW, *I* think it's goofy when people say 'I want to write'. 'I want to write *professionally*' is different. But 'I want to write'...just go do it already. Nothing stopping you. If you're a writer you'll write no matter what.

Brought to you by a person who hasn't read a new book in over a year, despite having several unread titles in her bookshelf. Including The odyssey.

I won't even get started on the Mary Sue debate. Hasn't it been done to death yet?

[LupusYondergirl]

Mahkara wrote...

I also (personally) find good writing to be a great source of ideas and characterizations.  Let's be frank - I am my age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status.  Trying to write someone who's the opposite of it is *hard*.  Sometimes the easiest way for me to figure out what it might be like is to read biographies/autobiographies/histories/good fiction that describes lives that are way different. And that way, when I write a character, I'm not totally making stuff up in a way that's going to strike readers as false.  (I mean, I'll still screw up, but hopefully less so?)

I really have to agree with this.  And, well, there's often a reason some books are considered classics.  It's because they're REALLY, HONESTLY, TRULY that good.  I mean, if they sucked people wouldn't keep reading them for decades and centuries.

But I'm a freak, I admit it.  I've read the classics.  Probably almost all of them.  If not in school, than on my own.  My Anders?  There's a LOT of Dmitri Karamazov in him.  A LOT.  Maggie is much more of an amalgam.  A bit of Raskolnikov, a bit of Kate from Taming of the Shrew, a whole lot of Janie Crawford from Their Eyes Were Watching God, some Wife of Bath, and probably more than a little Victor Frankenstein.
There's a dash of her namesake in there, Margaret of Anjou, because she was one of the few seriously ass-kicking ladies of the middle ages.  But... she was ass-kicking since she had to tow the line for her nutcase husband, which makes me kind of wish I had saved Margaret for my Hawke and named Maggie something else.

[DreGregoire]

*hands out a square box to the people who think all things should fit into one and multiple square boxes to those who seem to want everything to fit in one*

[erynnar]

Lupus I have a total crush on you! Not only for your writing but for your reading the classics! I too love them! Margaret of Anjou was an ass kicker. I also love the female pirates (who took a typically male driven...um profession) that was brutal and made names for themselves (Grace O'Malley, Mary Smith, Anne Bonny).

[ZerbanDaGreat1]

I've always tried to defy Mary Sue conventions, but sometimes I fear I go too far the other way. For example, Ventus hasn't really done anything spectacular on his own yet. He took on about three men at once one time then fought Majorlaine, but that was with Leliana's help, and he got quite injured. If he uses magic, he does so at a pretty high price. He did bring Leliana back from the brink of death once, but that took Morrigan's help, knocked him out for three days, and he hasn't been able to repeat it.

Elisa's naturally a bit Sue considering the nature of Bioware protagonists. However I tried using the werewolf curse to show her in a more vulnerable state - plus showing how much baggage she's hiding.

Of course I'm the worse judge, so these thing usually require outside criticism.

[Maria13]

@Lupus, I much preferred Aliocha from the Karamazov brothers and am suddenly wondering Sebastian? And of course, as my husband pointed out St Sebastian was a devout and and chaste young Roman who was martyred by being tied to a tree and shot with arrows, (if you can stomach it I would recommend Derek Jarman's movie in Latin 'Sebastiane'). And no-one has much love it seems for Ivan, the journo and atheist... But actually I was thinking of Ivan when I made one of my characters say that he no longer believes in the Maker after being tortured by Howe.

What can I say? I've read a lot and reading comes out in the strangest ways even in FF...

BTW I've read 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' but I read them after too many others and I really do not appreciate Tolkien. His imagination is poor, Middle Earth is the English countryside and the hobbits its denizens, his language is stultifying her was really a linguist turned novelist. His characterisation is stolid and one dimensional, as Mozart says of barroque opera in Peter Shaffer's 'Amadeus' some sound as if "They sound as if they **** marble"... And I never forgave him that in one scene where the protagonists are caught in trees he invents a flock of eagles who swoop down and save them... A very obvious deus ex machina...

This is my opinion, I really don't want to be flamed etc nor do I want to enter into arguments about him because that would involve having to read him again and I really don't want to...

Modifié par Maria13, 16 mars 2011 - 10:47 .

[nos_astra]

What sets my Sue alarm off frequently is not the blatant Mary Sue. Most writers know how to avoid her anyway, at least in this fandom.

No, it's the lack of a acknowledgement of flaws and shortcomings. It's when concern about bad or questionable decisions is handwaved away.

Let's have a look at some decisions in DAO and the lack of appropriate reactions:
Killing Connor or using blood magic to save him, sacrificing Isolde. It's idiotic that Teagan and Eamon quickly accept that there is no other choice and kiss your feet, because clearly there was no other choice. Nonsense, there are almost always other options.

Your character is a blood mage. Nobody cares. Why? Because you are doing good? Think again. So did Joan of Arc and it didn't keep people from burning her.

A character who's extremely reckless and wins by sheer luck, shouldn't be gently scolded, while being patted on the back and silently praised for their awesomeness.

People are not always rational. They can judge and despise your character without being evil or stupid. That's what many stories are lacking. Minor characters are very often abused to highlight the awesomeness of the not too awesome main character.

Mistrust in Zevran is nothing that should be mocked or disregarded, even if your protagonist accepted him into the group or is befriending him.

Recruiting a golem with a broken control rod is a danger. If you are writing about this decision simply claiming that "we do everything that makes us stronger" (even if we end up endangering our mission) is flat.
Letting a murderer out of the cage the authorities have put him is not only about making your group stronger. You could be jailed for freeing a murderer.
Drinking blood a stranger has offered you in exchange for defiling a sacred relic, is extremely dumb. You could die, for crying out loud.

The game does a terrible job at highlighting the possible negative consequences for some actions.
I am willing to suspend my disbelief a while longer while playing, mostly thinking that this is some kind of legend rather than "the true story". I'm much less willing to overlook such things when reading.

It's not about the protagonist really, it's a matter of constructing a system of action and reaction that seems blievable. And a matter of developing three-dimensional additonal characters who are following their own agenda, instead of one-dimensional bootlickers. Then your main character might even get away with a ridiculous amount of awesomeness.

Modifié par klarabella, 16 mars 2011 - 12:51 .

[ZerbanDaGreat1]

@klarabella Nicely put.

1) I've never done anything but save Connor by getting the Circle. It's why in my fic general reactions to Jowan's suggestion are 'hell no'. It's kind of annoying how easily you can get Alistair to back down about it.

2) This is the subject of the WIP chapter. NOBODY besides Morrigan likes the fact that Ven used blood magic. Elisa tolerates it because A) it saved her life and it stopped her killing Zathrian.

3) Eh, on this note I feel I let Ven off too easily sometimes. For example; burning down Redclife village got a couple of snarky remarks from the party. Then again, it did stop the invasion.

4) This is something else I've been facing. I really like Alistair and Sten, but their characters make them sharply opposed to Ven. Thus I try to make sure I'm sparing Ven anything they would have actually done. Plus I don't think anybody liked Ven after they found out he was an abomination.

5) Handwave from me considering the recruitment takes a comedic bent. I admit I didn't touch on it as much as I should.

6) aaaand that's why Shale stays deactivated in the fic . That blood thing is almost cartoonish in how dumb it is. In the fic Elisa's going to accept it, then pull a trollface beside Andraste's ashes and lol at the party ever thinking she'd do it. Then throw it in Kolgrim's face. For great justice.

It's kind of a problem in Bioware games that people rarely call the PC out on his actions. Indeed companions having their own opinions or - gasp - disagreeing strongly with you, is somehow a terrible thing.

[nos_astra]

ZerbanDaGreat1 wrote...

@klarabella Nicely put.

Thank you. I have my moments.

ZerbanDaGreat1 wrote...
It's kind of a problem in Bioware games that people rarely call the PC out on his actions. Indeed companions having their own opinions or - gasp - disagreeing strongly with you, is somehow a terrible thing.

I hope it's not too spoilerish to say, I feel they did better job at giving the characters a mind of their own in DA2.

[Raonar]

Except for the fact that... the mage hawke uses spells rampantly but, for some reason, he never gets hunted.discovered until he gets the title.

Modifié par Raonar, 16 mars 2011 - 12:52 .

[nos_astra]

Raonar wrote...
Except for the fact that... the mage hawke uses spells rampantly but, for some reason, he never gets hunted.discovered until he kills the Arishok and gets the Champion diplomatic immunity.

I'd love to see someone write a fic that explains how Hawke, Anders and Bethany manage to keep a low profile.

DAO was only little better with their one-fits-all explanation of "random guy is allowed to go all magic-y because people believe him/her that she's a Grey Warden". Best protection in the world for apostates: Pretend you're a Grey Warden, people will always believe you and no one will give a damn about the danger of demonic possession. And don't worry about the Grand Cleric, she's deaf and blind. Set Loghain aflame or cause a thunderstorm in the Landsmeet chamber, she won't notice. Neither will anyone else, really.

Modifié par klarabella, 16 mars 2011 - 01:01 .

[Raonar]

Hmm, at the landsmeet, being Grey Warden practically gives you immunity of that sort, although an Arcane warrior COULD just use his magical-enhanced combat skills to win without flashy lights.

[DreGregoire]

Don't the Hawkes kill anybody who sees them use magic? LOL. The people who do know seem willing to keep it under wraps. Anders may get away with more because of the whole healing thing, but he even says the templars are watching him closely.

Besides that; Anders being a grey warden (ex or no) may keep him safe to a certain extent.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 16 mars 2011 - 01:46 .

[Sarah1281]

The Ferelden refugees are all willing to protect Anders (to the death if need be) and yet I did feel that Lirene was just a bit quick to confess he was a mage and where to find him. Bethany and/or Hawke don't have to worry about keeping a low profile until their year as mercenaries/smugglers is up but after that I did think that Bethany brought up her magic a bit much, even if it was usually after I requested she handle things. I guess that does explain why she was gone after while you were on the expedition. She couldn't keep her magic hidden forever.

[Mahkara]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Oh, there are plenty of merits to just *reading*, so you need not explain them to me.

I'm just not convinced you have to read a lot to be a good writer, or to have a good story. For one thing, not everyone who reads and tries to produce something compelling of their own succeeds. For another, awesome material comes from more sources than books. Reading can teach you writing conventions and genre trends, it can lend inspiration and education, but it can't turn you into a bestselling author no matter how brilliant it is. Are there advantages to reading good stuff? Certainly. Do you *have* to have shelves upon shelves of books under your belt to produce something good of your own? No.

FWIW, *I* think it's goofy when people say 'I want to write'. 'I want to write *professionally*' is different. But 'I want to write'...just go do it already. Nothing stopping you. If you're a writer you'll write no matter what.

I 100% agree that there's a huge difference between "I like writing" and "I want to write at a professional level/publish".  They're very different standards, and there are different things someone does, depending on their ultimate goals for writing.

I'd also agree that a great number of people read a lot and are awful writers.  But I don't think that there are any good writers who don't read a fair amount.  While there are sources of inspiration for writing *other* than books (life, movies, TV, whatever), not reading if you want to write would be like refusing to watch movies if you wanted to make them. There are different conventions, styles, etc.  A movie that was *identical* to a book would be awful, and vice versa.