.066
I 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.