<div class="quote"><i>Supermensch wrote:
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.</i></div>
<p>As I stated up-thread: hell, the character to whom the designation is a reference is what would be called a "Parody Sue" nowadays.  (There was some question as to whether or not she was a parody, so I looked it up.  And the author <i>was</i>, in fact, snarking stories in which ridiculous over-the-top original characters immediately win every heart the author deems worth winning, save the day repeatedly, and—as often as not—die at the end because they're too good for this sinful universe.)
</p><p>Interestingly enough, it seems that the character—albeit on a technicality—is actually considered <i>canon</i>.  (And Memory Gamma decided to run with that.) </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:
So it's wrong to dismiss someone's argument as invalid, fallacious, or stupid? <p>Oh wait, I see what has you 2 so mad, <i>someone did it to you</i>. You're just venting your personal frustrations with me. </p><p>I see no reason to continue addressing this subject, especially since the argument has deteriorated to "Oh yeah? Well, you're wrong because I don't like you!" </p> </i></div>
<p>It's wrong to dismiss someone's argument as invalid, fallacious, or stupid when it is none of those things. Robin gave you an argument by definition, followed by a simple comparison to help explain the definition at issue. Then you misconstrued (possibily deliberately) that as something completely different and dismissed that argument without actually addressing the real argument by definition. You told us what you *think* the definition should be, but you by yourself thinking that does not make make that definition valid. You need the consensus of a much larger group of people for that, and you simply don't have it, and I think you recognzied that so you latched onto something else to attack. So attack what he compares it to all you want. That doesn't do anything to undermine the definition that's at issue. That definition stands independent of any comparison or analogy anyone can make. So you're not wrong because I don't like you. You're wrong because you're trying to apply principles of logic that are simply inapplicable to this case. And <i>that </i>is invalid, fallacious, and stupid. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>McJediProbie wrote:
<i>Not </i>a fallacious analogy. Just because definitions can change, doesn't mean this particular definition has.</i></div>
<p>These last two paragraphs are why it's so hard to really nail down a definition of "Mary Sue": the term has started to be used in a much wider context, and to mean much wider things, than it once did, and there's no way to figure out which of those characteristics are necessary and sufficient to define a Mary Sue. </p><p>So, how do you know what the majority of people think? </p><p>Also, if i'm not wrong, Love Robin is a bissexual middleaged woman maried with children and a therapist. </p>

<p>We know that when the term was first coined, a majority of analysts applied it only to fan-created characters. The article you linked specifically says "Originally, the term used to apply exclusively to fanfiction." Then over time it started to gradually be used more widely. But those wider uses have still not been accepted by enough analysts to justify incorporating them into the definition. Just the simple fact that there's <i>this</i> <i>much</i> controversy about it is indicative of that. Until there is a consensus on that, the proper way to conduct an analysis on the topic is to fall back to the last definition that was firmly established by a majority. </p>

<p>A sex therapist. Who dismisses all available research on inbreeding depression as "scare tactics." Right, & I'm the Queen of England. </p> <div class="quote"><i>(There was some question as to whether or not she was a parody, so I looked it up. And the author was, in fact, snarking stories in which ridiculous over-the-top original characters immediately win every heart the author deems worth winning, save the day repeatedly, and—as often as not—die at the end because they're too good for this sinful universe.)</i></div>
<p>Yeah, now that I look again, it says that right on the page. </p>

<p>God save the queen! </p><p>Soooo, yeah, Jinora. Maybe Pema was Mr. Spock's daughter. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Weltall8000 wrote: God save the queen! </p><p>Soooo, yeah, Jinora. Maybe Pema was Mr. Spock's daughter. </p> </i></div>
<p>And she dodecawields lightsabers. </p>

<p style="font-weight:normal;">I sense some projected jealousy/insecurity/hate toward a fictional character that's not entirely healthy... :P</p> <p style="font-weight:normal;">Real talk though, I can see how Jinora sometimes comes off as deus ex machina in ways that doesn't entirely make sense, but then again, neither does the whole 'spirit world' business. Trying to apply real-world logic to powers beyond our understanding is kind of moot, don't you think? So she has weird and oddly timely spirit powers that manifests at convienient times... but honestly that's not Jinora's fault, she was born with these weird things (decided by the creators of the show). I can see why people would take issue with that but I find the degree of vitriolic hate disproportional. Heck, the Avatar is a character born with the spirit of Raava and the ability to bend all sorts of weird things that's overpowered by standard of the show itself (even Zaheer said the Avatar's power is limitless). So why don't people find the whole premise of superpowers overrated? Also, if you want to nitpick, Jinora isn't the only one who all of a sudden discovers powers at critical moments, Bolin did too. There wasn't any indication on why he would be or should be able to lavabend but voila, he lavabent at the most opportune time.</p> <p style="font-weight:normal;">At the end of the day, it's fiction, it's a kids show. The "good guys" are suppose to be able to beat the "bad guys" and somehow (doesn't always need to make perfect sense) always save the world. It's an escape from real world where things can actually not work out and sometimes "bad" things do happen to "good" people. And the point of the series isn't who has what powers when, it's friendship and personal growth and how we can deal more kindly with each other, to empathise no matter our disagreements. So how about let's not over-analyze every detail and every character, and let's put hate aside and celebrate what the show is truly about? Just a thought.</p>

<p>Jinora is an atrociously superfluous character whose entire contribution to the series consists of two actions, one of which came entirely out of left field and one of which was sketchy: her contribution to Vaatu's defeat and her mysterious knowledge that the Red Lotus was using mercury to poison Korra respectively. </p><p>Also, she has poor taste in men. </p><p>However, I wouldn't go so far as to say she sucks. Even a superfluous character can be charming at times. </p>

"Mysterious." Mercury has a very distinct appearance.