Current annoyance: the concept of the Mary Sue.
What a foolish and narrow concept! I happened across this once again today - a 'test' of some sort on the matter - and thought for interest's sake to attempt it with figures in my own rating. Now, as it stands, a score over 35ish is considered painfully Mary Sue... my score on that was in the 70s. Now, I figured, this certainly cannot be right, and rather frustrated me.
So I put in as best I could figure the charactaristics of the great hero of perhaps the greatest (and certainly most influencial) work of Western literature, the Iliad. And sure enough, Akhilleus ranks in the 70s (and, certainly, this is why my creations do as well, as my style is nearest that of antiquity.) I did not do Herakles from the rest of the Greek corpus, but from what I saw of the questions, he would certainly rank in the 100s. In fact, he would probably fit in all the most damning cliches of having killed his family, it not being his fault, and so on and so forth.
Yet the writers of those works penned literature of far more lasting appeal and deeper thought that many that would be technically not be considered Mary Sueish. So something is amiss in the matter.
And thinking about it, my conclusion is that the concept, and any such addeneded quizzes, are narrowly based and biased to a single form of storytelling driven heavily by character (as opposed to, say, story and event, as most of the ancient works were), and more than this characters that are deeply disadvantaged or flawed, a storytelling style that is extremely modern: mostly this is a hallmark of novels (though not all even of those can be classified as it), and more than this of a focus on the vulgar, as opposed to the noble.
See, the ancient writers favoured writing about noble characters, the fortunate and the handsome and all - things which the concept of the Mary Sue finds particularly damning. Their tragedies were based around the fall of people who were highly blessed. And even when there was not a fall, the characters were typically of brilliant in aspect. Unlike we who have this idea of 'inner' beauty, to, say, the Greeks, it was quite the opposite: something that was 'good' was 'beautiful.' The two went in accord, and something that was ugly was something that was evil. Look only to the Iliad: every single character that makes an appearance is of the nobility save the unfortunate (and ugly!) Theristes. Aristotle would say this is because characters such as these have futher to fall, and make better subjects for stories because of that.
The problem is, for thousands of years that was the storytelling style, and it worked. Those works are still read and loved to this day. Yet along comes the novel - which has its own virtues - and the arrogance of the common. This pervades many fields. I see it in, say, the few Archaeology classes. Suddenly it's scorned to look at the great structures and buildings of magnificence, and all thought is bent to the lives of the common folk. Now that might have its virtue, but there is a certain arrogance that has crept into it that the common is really where one's head should be at.
And this is, I think, the very same thought, albeit in literature, that has given rise to the atrocity of the highlighting of the Mary Sue. What is considered good writing of character (at least by the form of the quiz) is that which is of common personality, is unexceptional, does nothing truly great and is deeply flawed. Now, who is to say that that is superior? Why must our works deal only with such topics and write in such ways to be good? It's ridiculous!
In short, if someone can write well, it doesn't matter how much of a Mary Sue a character is. Indeed, some of the most memorable characters in all of literature are such.
As a quick tangent, I think the same holds true for the concept of 'purple' writing. This is thrown around as though it's the hallmark of inferior writing, but from what I have been able to tell, some of the best writers of history have made use of it to good effect. As vulgarity (that is, the common) is lauded over and against the Mary Sues, so here simplicity and utter clarity is held chiefmost. Yet why? Why is that the end all and be all of writing? For Shakespeare, and some would argue him the best of all writers in our language, was said to have tried all styles except simplicity. And Aeschylus, my own dear ancient Tragedian, was by no means clear of diction! I think his phrases are 'purple' beyond anything anyone else could think of. Yet he is a master!
So in both of these situations I am frustrated. What's going on with this?
Let us all lay aside the scornful use of the terms Mary Sue and Purple... maybe they are not the villains we have been told, but instead the highest hidden virtues. Let they who wish read about the doings of fishmongers... but these works they declaim as cliched and inferior are in fact the works of dreams and high flown imaginations, more beautiful to behold and more touching to the soul.
