<p>Respond or not, this reply is for the benefit of others reading… </p><p>My analogy was not meant to be a "proof", but to *illustrate* the point. </p><p>Look, we have to have a touchstone, something to act as an authority. Wikipedia is just as good as any in its role as an online "encyclopedia" which we all can access. As such, the article about Mary Sues opens with "In Fan Fiction". Not "In fiction" with a reference to it originating in fan fiction. </p><p>The previous post studiously ignores the point, instead muddying the waters by trying to bring up what *other* analogies might as well fit. In essence, changing the focus of the discussion. </p>

<p><i>Not </i>a fallacious analogy. Just because definitions can change, doesn't mean this particular definition has. There is no general consensus for the definition you're proposing. It's at best a potential change to the defintion proposed by a small minority.  </p><p>You're hair-splitting to the point of absurdity. Get off your fucking high horse and quit thinking that you're the only one who is capable of making a reasoned argument. Robin's argument is vaild and you're just too butt-hurt to admit it.  </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>McJediProbie wrote: <i>Not </i>a fallacious analogy. Just because definitions can change, doesn't mean this particular definition has. There is no general consensus for the definition you're proposing. It's at best a potential change to the defintion proposed by a small minority.  </p><p>You're hair-splitting to the point of absurdity. Get off your fucking high horse and quit thinking that you're the only one who is capable of making a reasoned argument. Robin's argument is vaild and you're just too butt-hurt to admit it.  </p> </i></div>
<p>You're flip-flopping like crazy. There's "no consensus," but I'm "in the minority" & it's not invalid to claim I'm using the word wrong? </p><p>Okay, I'll "get off my fucking high horse" if you can <i>prove any of this</i>. Otherwise, I'm just considering this ad hominem. </p><p>By the way, the best explanation I've heard for a valid analogy is as follows: "X & Y share traits A & B, & on the basis of this, we predict that they also share C. But we still have to test that prediction." Following this definition, the analogy was invalid, because there's nothing to base the prediction on, it is simply assumed. </p>

<p>Since Canon Sues are totally a thing, it's pretty arbitrary whether you go with "Canon Sues are Mary Sues with the distinction of being canon while non-canon Mary Sues are typically simply called Mary Sues" or "Mary Sue exclusively refers to fanon characters while the similar BUT MEANINGFULLY DISTINCT (somehow) corresponding concept for canon characters is called Canon Sue". </p><p>And Robin, did you really have to involve race in an analogy about character tropes? "So just as a person can talk and act like, say, a black person" <i>Right</i>, a person's race totally makes them "act and talk" a certain way... That's pretty offensive, you know. </p>

<p>No flip-flopping at all. Consensus means overwhelming majority. You're in the minority. Your position is not recognized by the majority. Therefore, there is no consensus agreeing with your position. That's <i>exactly</i> what I said before. It's really not that hard.  </p><p>WTF are you even talking about? An analogy is just a comparison. He said "Calling a canon character that acts like this a Mary Sue is like calling a goofy white guy who acts street black: no matter how much they act like it, they will never actually be that." There is no extra trait that he's claiming they have. This is an analogy offered for it's lay purpose: to explain a position, not to reason to a new position. It's like saying "I feel like a fish out of water." It's explaining a trait the two objects share, not hypothesizing about some third trait they might share. But you're apparently so obsessed with proving that you're the only person here whose opinion matters because your conclusions are supported by unassailable, holy logic that you can't see that.  </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Supermensch wrote: Since Canon Sues are totally a thing, it's pretty arbitrary whether you go with "Canon Sues are Mary Sues with the distinction of being canon while non-canon Mary Sues are typically simply called Mary Sues" or "Mary Sue exclusively refers to fanon characters while the similar BUT MEANINGFULLY DISTINCT (somehow) corresponding concept for canon characters is called Canon Sue". </p> </i></div>
<p>Nice point, although I don't know if TVTropes is on the same sort of "Encyclopedic" level as Wikipedia. But still, yes there is a distinction. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Supermensch wrote: And Robin, did you really have to involve race in an analogy about character tropes? "So just as a person can talk and act like, say, a black person" <i>Right</i>, a person's race totally makes them "act and talk" a certain way... That's pretty offensive, you know. </p> </i></div>
<p>First, you don't know *my* ethnicity. You *don't know* who I grew up among and watched and which mannerisms *I* exhibit. Nor any of the conflicts I had was drawn into while growing up despite trying to thread lines of avoidance between THREE neighborhood racial camps. I may have the right to use the ones I did. And frankly, and despite my skin tone I am legally black, what *I* find offensive are those who try to sanitize racial *realities*. MUST racial tropes define ethnicities? No, they shouldn't. However when someone of an ethnicity tries NOT to use the street argot of their area, they are ridiculed and told to their faces that they "are not ______". Apparently I was an "Oreo" as I grew up. </p><p>THAT is what *I* find offensive. But this is not the forum or venue to discuss it. If any wish to discuss this aspect further, feel free to find me on any of my other wikia talk pages <i>where I admin</i>. You can find a list of my wikias on my Central profile. </p><p>SECOND, please note that my INITIAL version of the analogy was as sanitized as I could make it, not identifying anything beyond "one ethnicity" versus another. However it was challenged, so I brought it down to a level I hoped the other poster could grasp. </p>

<p>Hmm, McJediProbie, speaking of "consensus", when I googled "Mary Sue trope definition" to see what others considered the "accepted" definition, I found on the first hit  that this very subject (on whether or not it includes canon characters) is a controversial topic, which suggests that there is not a clear consensus. Which begs the question, is there really a consensus on this matter? If there is indeed, would you be so kind as to provide evidence of such? </p><p>Since this has become such a point of contention, I'm somewhat curious, seeing as I can't recall witnessing a discussion focused on the definition of the term itself being debated. Granted, I don't hang out in fanfiction and discussions about them and generally try to avoid that, maybe it's more common there. On that, is this distinction maybe more important/pronounced/etc to that set of people, whereas those not into fanfiction might use the term to interchangably be either canon or noncanon? </p><p>As for the analogy, Rachel Dolezal immediately comes to mind. Thoughts? </p><p>Now, more generally at the topic, not particularly a direct response to McJediProbie: </p><p>And either way, I don't see Jinora as a Mary Sue (or Canon Sue if you prefer) anyways. That seems like a fairly unsupported claim. Is it safe to say that there is a general consensus that she's not one? If not, <i>compelling</i> reasons that she is? </p>

<p>What is clear is that the original meaning only applies to a fan-created character. If there really is no consensus because of an unresolved controversy over whether to include canon characters, then the default in a neutral analysis of a character should be to fall back on the original definition. It's totally fine to have a conversation on whether to expand the definition, but until a consensus is actually reached one way or the other, you can't have a neutral, objective analysis by using a "suspect" defintion (or at least as neutral and objective as something like this can get).  </p><p>As to the analogy, I really don't care what Robin compares the issue to. He can compare it to race, or roses, or raisins, or rock and roll, or anything he wants. My issue is with the way Neo Bahamut is strawmanning the form of the analogy to try and dismiss it. He's saying that Robin says "Object X and Object Y share trait A, therefore they must also share trait B." That's not what happened at all. Robin said "Object X and Object Y share trait A." That's it. He didn't say anything about any other trait that he predicts X and Y to share. And except for the possible case of this Rachel Dolezal, who appears to be an *<i>extreme*</i> outlier to what we know about Object Y, Robin's right.   </p><p>Do I think Jinora is a Mary/Canon Sue? No, not really. I think there are other characters that better fit that mold.  </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Love Robin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Supermensch wrote:
And Robin, did you really have to involve race in an analogy about character tropes? "So just as a person can talk and act like, say, a black person" Right, a person's race totally makes them "act and talk" a certain way... That's pretty offensive, you know.</i></div>
<p>First, you don't know *my* ethnicity. [...] MUST racial tropes define ethnicities? No, they shouldn't. However when someone of an ethnicity tries NOT to use the street argot of their area, they are ridiculed and told to their faces that they "are not ______". Apparently I was an "Oreo" as I grew up. </p><p>THAT is what *I* find offensive. </p> </div> <p>No, I don't know your ethnicity, though I dunno what that has to do with the problematicness of the statement. I think racial identity politics can certainly be... sketchy. But finding one issue offensive doesn't make everything else inoffensive. </p><p>Anyway, the reason why I find the statement problematic is because claiming people act certain ways because of their race is the thing racists and xenophobes do to justify the assertion that certain races/non-Western foreign immigrants are inherently predisposed towards violence and crime. </p>

<p>As to the Mary Sue stuff, I hope we can all agree to the consensus that the precise definition of the term isn't as widely agreed on as some of us would like. </p>