How the heck is Katniss a Mary Sue?

[Redryhno]

Isn't that the part in the book where she's still basically just a piece of property?

Except to the extent that all married women in this setting are pieces of property, no.

It is literally a passage about how Dany wears Dothraki clothing while living among the Dothraki, among whom she is the cultural equivalent of a queen. I realise the TV show had that whole obnoxious "if you want your man to respect you, you must learn how to do the sex gud" section, but in the books Dany's sense of objectification stems from the way she was treated in Pentos and the circumstances surrounding her wedding, not the way she was treated by Drogo himself or by the Dothraki.

If you have to cut off over half of an opinion-/statement-thing and question regarding emphasis so you can tell someone else that they're wrong no matter what as you are starting to continually do, I don't think you exactly have an argument for your opinions anymore.

But hell, you think "the loose clothing made her chest hurt" is exactly the same as the line you're complaining about, gives the same amount of detail, and tells you all you need to know about the scene being set, so what do I know.

And here we come to the goalposts moving. You originally talked about female characters, then female character written by men, now western women written by men. Continue if you must, but you've lost my interest and have still yet to do anything other than bash the examples put forth by others.

I feel like this shows nothing, except that you have straw-manned my argument repeatedly to try and pretend I'm saying more than I actually have, and I'm starting to wonder if you're engaging in this argument in good faith.

Straw-manning? Nah. Constant speculation because you give no input of your own and just bash everyone else's opinions of good writing they put forth with the exception of the one time you did and got so many things wrong on various levels? Absolutely.

If you give no options or opinions or chances for others to understand where you're coming from, stop expecting them to keep going along with it without asking questions and probing shit because you refuse to engage on the same level.

Everything is constantly bashed, even well regarded literary and cinematic classics are routinely bashed by someone. That was never the point. Bashing twilight was a huge pop culture phenomenon engaged in by practically everyone who wasn't a fan. Entire, hugely popular memes are dedicated to it. Heck, I've bashed Twilight for years. In all that time, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've ever thought about the Transformers films.

Yes, but even the biggest fans of the Bayformers movies bash them from what I've seen. I do not see the 50 Shades of Twilight fanbase doing the same with the extreme exception of women that read them as kids and then grew up and laugh at themselves about it.

You put forth the Transformers as just as successful, just as popular, just as beloved(by the fanbase) and completely the male equivalent to Twilight, while you demand that everyone else find you boys and men in the same situations as the women in 50 Shades and Twilight. And when they do, you say "that's not what I was talking about" or "I've ever heard of it therefore it doesn't count".

You're right, that was lazy of me and I should have specified.

Spoiler: That said, do you genuinely think that horror as a genre does not and has never employed highly gendered genre tropes which some might argue do not exactly reflect or promote a particularly healthy view of women..

And for the record, I like this film. But come on, we can see what's going on here, and it's not a better love story than Twilight.

Like what you wanna like, but if I'm not mistaken, that is a slasher. Which is a portion of horror that is like supposed to be half yelling at the screen, and the other half sex and how many times somebody can be thrown through a woodchipper. And looking it up, it seems like it was written and directed by women. Which sorta calls into question your own assertions that it's solely men that write women with tits involved first and foremost. Or is that not at all what you meant this time as well? And I would certainly hope it's not a love story, power tools and underwear don't set well together.

Now, I find myself being forced to ask you, at exactly what point am I supposed to believe that you argue in good faith? You offer no real solutions or examples, only present problems and how to make them look better specifically to you. The solutions of others and the examples of others don't meet your standards, yet your standards have yet to be set by yourself beyond a vague notion of "better than what you said".

But we're getting off topic, so I'll just bow out at this point, because I don't think you really have any solutions to your problems that make sense for anyone but your own ego.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The term "Mary Sue" is entirely colloquial. It's flexible enough and vaguely defined enough that it can be a blanket thrown over almost any protagonist if the person making the charge is motivated enough to dislike them.

It's like having a four page forum argument trying to decide whether or not something is "cool". If you're having fun, keep at it, but no one is actually proving anything here.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In fairness, the only reason Luke manages to take that shot at all without being blown to smithereens by Vader, like every pilot (all of whom presumably outranked him) that attempted it before him, is Han's timely intervention.

Yup, I didn't bring it up because it'd be a strike against him on the Mary Sue chart. Other characters bending their personalities or motivations to help the Mary Sue is namely one of them, and Han Solo coming back to save Luke could easily be interpreted in that fashion.

Let me be clear: I don't think Luke is all that Sue-ish, but neither is Ray. My post to burnout is mostly meant to show that the circumstances in both scenes are not what describes, Luke's being far more Sue-ish and Rey's being much less so then how he portrays them.

I mostly think burnout needs to watch TFA again. I mean, hyping Kylo "I got wounded by the only person to ever lose a lightsaber fight with a stormtrooper" Ren as some Darth Vader level swordsman? They always leave that part out for some reason...

If we're bringing up Gary Stus, I'm surprised nobody has brought up Kirito from Sword Art Online yet.

He's so cool even his sister wants a piece of him.

 

[Abomination]

I don't care for the debate as to what a "Mary Sue" is, as that's now a toxic cesspit of accusations of sexism with no discussion value.

Katniss is not what I would consider to be a character I find interesting. She has next to no agency and after her attempt to save her sister by volunteering as tribute she just gets swept along in what feels like a railroaded D&D campaign. Any protest she makes or attempt to do something gets steamrolled by outside effects. She's nothing more than a PR tool, and if that's the message the author is trying to make about "heroes" in political upheaval scenarios then they nailed that point home.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Katniss is not what I would consider to be a character I find interesting. She has next to no agency and after her attempt to save her sister by volunteering as tribute she just gets swept along in what feels like a railroaded D&D campaign. Any protest she makes or attempt to do something gets steamrolled by outside effects. She's nothing more than a PR tool, and if that's the message the author is trying to make about "heroes" in political upheaval scenarios then they nailed that point home.

As a few other posters have pointed out previously in this thread, The Hunger Games is more your typical "high school sucks and growing up is hard"-allegory, just put into a scenario where that allegory gets really weird tonally. As such, Katniss being swept up in bigger things she's unable to control and just trying to do her best of the situation is actually pretty on point with the message. Because growing up is hard and a lot of what you have to do and what's expected of you is beyond your control. Katniss lacks agency because the intended reader (a high school student) is likely to feel something similar about their own situation.

 

[Abomination]

As a few other posters have pointed out previously in this thread, The Hunger Games is more your typical "high school sucks and growing up is hard"-allegory, just put into a scenario where that allegory gets really weird tonally. As such, Katniss being swept up in bigger things she's unable to control and just trying to do her best of the situation is actually pretty on point with the message. Because growing up is hard and a lot of what you have to do and what's expected of you is beyond your control. Katniss lacks agency because the intended reader (a high school student) is likely to feel something similar about their own situation.

What kind of High Schools demand all the fucked up shit that goes on in the Hunger Games?

I mean, I can see SOME points of comparison but it's a real stretch to see the allegory between children being thrown into a battle royale and failing an SAT.

And then if that's the point of her character she still has next to no character, as she's designed to be someone the reader can imagine themselves being. She's the least interesting person in her own story.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

What kind of High Schools demand all the fucked up shit that goes on in the Hunger Games?

I mean, I can see SOME points of comparison but it's a real stretch to see the allegory between children being thrown into a battle royale and failing an SAT.

As has been said, the decision to make a metaphor about high school and growing up by setting it in a Battle Royale with children and a subsequent revolution against the corrupt regime has a lot of troubling aspects.

And then if that's the point of her character she still has next to no character, as she's designed to be someone the reader can imagine themselves being. She's the least interesting person in her own story.

She has plenty of character, the discussion about her decisions and actions in this thread proves that much. The question is rather if she's an interesting character. How you come up on that question largely depends on how much tolerance you have for the typical YA-trope of the reader insert character.

 

[CaitSeith]

I don't care for the debate as to what a "Mary Sue" is, as that's now a toxic cesspit of accusations of sexism with no discussion value.

Katniss is not what I would consider to be a character I find interesting. She has next to no agency and after her attempt to save her sister by volunteering as tribute she just gets swept along in what feels like a railroaded D&D campaign. Any protest she makes or attempt to do something gets steamrolled by outside effects. She's nothing more than a PR tool, and if that's the message the author is trying to make about "heroes" in political upheaval scenarios then they nailed that point home.

I wouldn't be surprised. Or more like, Katniss was always just another piece of chess on the big scheme (a game between President Snow and President Coin).

 

[Drathnoxis]

The Elder Wand doesn't function like other wands though, so the 'rules' can't really be applied.

Where in the book does it say this? Because Harry basis his theory about how he owns the Elder Wand on Olivander's statements on wand ownership as it related to the wand he took from Malfoy. If you are referring to outside sources, they just don't count. A story should be able to hold up on it's own material no matter how much Rowling writes in her codex site or whatever.

-While the Hallows aren't named until book 7, the groundwork for them was laid in book 6 with the Resurrection Stone.

-The point of the Hallows isn't to kill Voldemort. The entire point of them is to subvert that expectation - Dumbledore flat lays out to Harry that he hoped Hermione would steer him away from the Hallows to have him focus on the Horcruxes. While the Hallows play a role in Voldemort's defeat, they're not the be all and end all of it. The Hallows represent more of a temptation to the characters than as a tool, and as a means of character examination (where Harry, Hermione, and Ron each name what Hallow they would choose).

-It's more that the wand's allegiance is to Harry than the rebounding that kills Voldemort. And as for the laws, again, the Elder Wand is written as an extremely powerful wand with unique magic.

The resurrection stone wasn't named as such until the Deathly Hallows. It was just a ring with a curse on it.

The entire point of the Hallows is to allow Harry to kill Voldemort. Harry had no alternative means. If the Elder Wand hadn't backfired Harry would be dead or faced up against the greatest wizard ever known without any recourse. Rowling stuck in Hallows at the last minute to give Harry an out. In fact, the entire book was filled with cheats like this.
-Voldemort suddenly forgetting that Harry can read his mind and stopping the Occlumency he's been using against him for the past 2 years.
-Ron miraculously being able to perfectly repeat words in a magic language that he hasn't heard for months
-One of the dumbest kids in their year being able to cast an insanely powerful fire spell that just so happens to be one of the only things that can destroy horcruxes.

The wand shouldn't even belong to Harry. Grindelwald never defeated anybody to gain ownership of the wand, he just picked it up!

And now Harry was hurrying along a dark corridor in stout little Gregorovitch?s wake as he held a lantern aloft: Gregorovitch burst into the room at the end of the passage and his lantern illuminated what looked like a workshop; wood-shavings and gold gleamed in the swinging pool of light, and there on the window ledge sat perched, like a giant bird, a young man with golden hair. In the split second that the lantern?s light illuminated him, Harry saw the delight upon his handsome face, then the intruder shot a Stunning Spell from his wand and jumped neatly backwards out of the window with a crow of laughter.

If simply picking it up is enough for Grindelwald to gain ownership, why doesn't it work for Voldemort? Simply because Harry needed to own the wand or the story wouldn't work.

It would be a DEM if it explicitly dropped into Harry's hands with the explicit purpose of being used for a single function. Which it isn't. The groundwork for the wand is laid out well in advance before its use in killing Voldemort.

It meets all of the criteria for DEM from TV Tropes.

1 Deus ex Machina are solutions to a problem. They are never unexpected developments that make things worse, nor sudden twists that only change the understanding of a story.

2 Deus ex Machina are sudden or unexpected. This means that even if they are featured, referenced or set-up earlier in the story, they do not change the course of nor appear as a natural or a viable solution to the plotline they eventually "solve".

3 Deus ex Machina are used to resolve a situation portrayed as unsolvable or hopeless. If the problem could be solved with a bit of common sense or other type of simple intervention, the solution is not a Deus ex Machina no matter how unexpected it may seem.

4 Deus ex Machina are external to the characters and their choices throughout the story. The solution comes from a character with small or non-existent influence on the plot until that point or random chance from nature or karma.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina

1: Obviously it's a solution. This doesn't really count for anything, moving on.

2: Even though the Elder Wand was "referenced" and "set-up" earlier, it never appears that it will be the solution to Harry's dark wizard problem and it certainly doesn't affect the course of the story. In fact it shouldn't be the answer to the problem because it works in a way that we've never seen happen and doesn't follow the rules that were used to justify it working.

3: There is no way for Harry to kill Voldemort without the Elder Wand backfiring.

4: The Deathly Hallows on the whole have incredibly small influence on the plot. They are barely relevant at all apart from the whole Elder-Wand-360-no-scopes-Voldemort thing.