Timewaster's Guide Archive

Well, the Omegas should set a rule about that in case of future occurences like this.  I say that it's published so we can read it, agreed?

I'm simply saying that a Mary Sue has a tendency to reflect certain types of wish fulfillment that are not common to normal characters.  A Mary Sue tends to have so many powers and skills that half of them won't even show up in the story and are simply there to fluff up the character, compared to normal character who has a few particular skills or powers.  While the inclusion of superhuman powers is wish fulfillment by itself, it's of the type and level that makes an interesting character.  Whereas a Mary Sue has these traits but on such an enormous scale as to destroy the credibility and conflict of the character, such that we don't want to read about it.  Wish fulfillment doesn't create a Mary Sue, it is an excess of such that makes it fit under such a brand.

I get what you're saying FGR.  And the concept of the Mary Sue existed long before it was given a name, just sayin'.

Fireborn, that would be an alteration of the term. Pretty sure it comes from Star Trek fanfiction where a writer named Mary Sue something put a character named Mary Sue something into the fic who Kirk fell in love with and who solved everyone's problems. A too-perfect character who bears no resemblance to the author is  just called bad writing/poor characterization.

You're mostly correct as to the origin of the term, but the fanfic you're referring to was actually a parody of the phenomenon.  And isn't bad writing what a Mary Sue is anyway?  While a Mary-Sue is often a vehicle for self-insertion, that's not all it is.  Look it up at tvtropes.org to see what I mean.

I think the definition of Mary-Sue that they used on Writing Excuses doesn't really fit the concept as I've observed it.  I think they thought it meant putting too much of yourself into a character, whereas a Mary-Sue might not be like the author at all, but is simply a too perfect character.  There are further nuances to it, but I'm off-topic as is. >.>

Quote from: Fireborn on May 19, 2010, 05:03:02 AM

An opinion I hold which I think separates magic from science is that magic is inherently unknowable through science.  It's effects and causes cannot be derived through known physics.  That does not mean that magic doesn't have rules, far from it, simply that these rules are incompatible with scientific law on a very basic level.  While their effects may be measurable according to scientific principles (a rock thrown with magic will still be stopped by a wall), but the essential things that make them up cannot.

This is interesting.  I've never really thought deeply about this subject before, and I like this attempt to delineate between science and magic, but I have several quibbles  with this definition, and would like to ask a few questions.

What does "Magic is inherently unknowable through science" actually mean to you, Fireborn?  How do you limit "science" such that it can't study magic, assuming it is remotely regular and empirically observable?  What does it mean to be  deeply incompatible with scientific laws on a deep level when so-called "scientific laws" are simply the regularities observed in the universe as we have seen it so far?

It seems to me that a lot of people, including in this thread, somehow treat "Science" as a branch of knowledge fundamentally distinct from other ways of knowing things.  It isn't.  Science is a deeply human field, as well as a natural field, and it takes the world as it is given.  Most of what really distinguishes science from other fields are the careful checks and balances on what needs to be done in order for something to be considered known, but does not limit the fields of study or what is actually possible, as long as it can be systematically repeated.

Well, I think of magic as being made of different stuff, such that it exists on a different level from matter that makes it direct observation impossible.  It's only when you get large amounts of magic together and watch how it reacts with normal matter (say, through allomancy?) that you can really observe it all.

And to be clear, when I say science I mean natural laws like physics that have simply been observed by scientific processes.  So, theoretically, magic could fit into science, it would simply exist under a different umbrella from other things.

An opinion I hold which I think separates magic from science is that magic is inherently unknowable through science.  It's effects and causes cannot be derived through known physics.  That does not mean that magic doesn't have rules, far from it, simply that these rules are incompatible with scientific law on a very basic level.  While their effects may be measurable according to scientific principles (a rock thrown with magic will still be stopped by a wall), but the essential things that make them up cannot.