![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Well, I did it. I did what I said I would I refuted an argument that came up months ago. I refuted anon, a mouse's argument about the lasso of truth.
On SCANS _DAILY!
asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/40
That is my argument. Anon is welcome to refute it in his own blog, we'll link it on WFA. I will not refute his refuting, because I've said my piece, I've represented another side to the argument, and I'm content with that, and I have too much experience with internet arguments to be caught in a circlejerk. I just wanted the good readers of WFA to know there's another side. I would appreciate it if Anon did NOT come over to my blog to argue with me, when and if he sees this. I did not do the same for him, when he first posted it, I posted a kneejerk reaction, but I hope he'll forgive that.
I also said I was going to refute Noah's argument that WW is a Mary Sue later, but I've decided not to. I think Noah pretty much dismissed any veiws opposite to his own by dismissing Wonder Woman as a Mary Sue and saying that's what fans like bluefall (and I assume myself) want her to be a Super Sue, therefore making our opinions, I suppose, irrelevant compared to his. And then he said Gail SIMONE wrote Wonder Woman as a Mary Sue, and I laughed. I'm not sure Gail's actually capable of writing Mary Sues. Not to mention the current Wonder Woman arc is dealing with Wonder Woman getting carried away with anger and making what even she admits are dubious moral choices.
You could make an argument every single superhero is a Mary Sue. It's a trapping of the genre that superheroes are omnipowerful and ultra competent and iconic. If you don't like it, fine. But don't dismiss the character and their fans because of it.
Mary Sue is a very weighted word to throw around. It's not a card you pull if you want to have a long and reasoned argument about the character, I would think. It's a card you pull if you want to dismiss somebody. By saying Wonder Woman is an author insert, or a fan insert, you're effectively dismissing that author and fan and saying the character is worthless, as they are hollow and are just an insert. Noah's done a hundred posts explicating why Wonder Woman's a Mary Sue, and if I don't feel like arguing them because I've been effectively dismissed. I am, after all, a Mary Sue lover, since I love a worthless character like Wonder Woman who is absolutely a Mary Sue.
Mary Sue is fine for fanfic. There are tons of them out there. For instance, Rose Potter is definitely a Mary Sue. Wonder Woman doesn't even come close to that. She, for example, loses on occasion. Once you start arguing actual published characters are Mary Sues, it gets, well, trickier.
Once again, I'm not trying to start an argument. I've said my piece, Noah is welcome to refute, I'll post it on WFA, but that's all I'm saying on the matter (unless Noah proves me amazingly wrong somehow, in which case, I will acknowledge this). I just wanted my two cents out there.
- Mood:
discontent
Comments
I disagree with him too, but I just don't care. If he wants to say Di's a Sue, go ahead! It's silly, but it's no skin off my back.
I agree, I'm not that fussed, but I felt people might read certain posts and believe them simply because there was no counterpoint, and I feel it my duty to provide one so they can make up their own minds.
You rock super hard btw :]
Funny how those flouncers tend to return.
Also, to dismiss WW as some Mary Sue... see, makes me wonder what would happen if someone dismissed Captain Kirk as a Mary Sue. After all, he gets to score with a lot of women, is charismatic, charming, handsome, strong, commanding...
See, it just hurts my head to think of WW as a Mary Sue. I mean, she's an established character and everything, so what makes her a Mary Sue? Because she's awesome? I seriously don't see this being applied to Superman or Batjerkassholeman.
What happened with the kid is that she broke that obligation - she couldn't accept that the king was right or that his truth and the boy's mother's truth could be reconciled, and so she tried to impose her own truth, and ignore her duty and principles. So she lost the ability to use the lasso. Just like the king, when he stopped being concerned about his land and people, lost the ability to control the land. The land rebelled, went nuts, and rejected its guardian; the Truth rebelled, went nuts, and rejected its guardian.
Diana can't usually exert enough force to impose her own will over the Truth, of course; only in magically-charged Jarhanpur was it possible, which is why she had to ask Jarhanpur's help to restore her connection (and therefore the lasso). But none of that affects the Truth, at its core: Ailani was a prisoner, and miserable in Jarhanpur, and her child was being held against her will. That was unquestionable truth. Rama Khan loved his land and people, and had their best interests at heart, and the child was essential to that. That was also unquestionable truth. Neither is particularly subjective, and they aren't really contradictory; the only problem was Diana's refusal to see that.
Still, even if the lasso looks into the depths of their soul, can it expose misinformation that they genuinely believe? Not self-delusion, but actual misunderstanding? If Batman tells Superman that he's going to Gotham when he's really planning to go to New York, and then Wonder Woman puts the lasso on Supes and asks him where Bats is going, does the lasso pull what Supes knows out of him or does it pull information about Bats' actual destination out of the cosmos? I guess what I'm asking is, can the lasso make somebody give information they don't actually know? Not having read much Wonder Woman, I'm not actually sure what the answer is.
At least, I think that's how it works. I've never seen if used on someone who is misinformed.