Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
As a matter of fact, the Holyhead Harpies are an exclusively female Quidditch team. Welsh feminists ftw! *has Quidditch Through the Ages open* *is a nerd*
Let's say that a fic features Ash, but he is completely, totally out of character (or has an altered backstory ets.) - even to the point that he can't really be recognized as Ash anymore. Can the author really say their fic features Ash or should it be called an original character instead?
The basics of a character should be there. Each character has their recognizable traits, and without them, the character is no longer how they are in canon. Then the author really can't claim to be writing fanfiction starring those canon characters, if they don't really act like their canon selves.
*goes back to play in her alternate universe fics*
On the other hand, Rowling's Hermoine Granger has been lauded as being an excellent female role model. And in fact, the whole wizarding world is much more accepting of women. Such examples are found in many portions of the book, one simple example is mixed gender sports team (in the sport of quiddich).
I don't consider myself a fan of Harry Potter and I make sure to spell canon terms/names correctly.
That said, if Rowling can be touted as an activist for feminist rights, how come the female professors all have to report to men? Why aren't there any female witches on level with Dumbledore? Why is Hermione only the "sidekick"? Why was it only the female students who liked Lockhart and Trelawney, while all the male students knew that they weren't good teachers? Why is Hermione the only female who is given any sort of attention? (Ginny wasn't that great of a developed character, if one thinks about it.) In the Philosopher's Stone, why did Hermione have to be rescued by Harry and Ron from the troll, even though she was intelligent to know what to do? Why do her emotions get in the way of her knowledge? (Them wimmin and their emotions! Not in our potato field of manly literature!) Why was it only her change that failed when the trio wanted to sneak into Slytherin? Why is Hermione not doing anything more important than wandering around studying why the boys are out on adventures saving the day?
Speaking of Ginny, she was an embarrassed mess when she met Harry. She was the one targeted by the diary in the second book. The reader is told that it is boring listening to "the silly little troubles of an eleven-year-old girl."
The female characters all lose their control in situations while the boys remain calm. Harry gets his broomstick, and all the boys want to ride it and have fun. The girls just want to touch it (Ooer) and admire from afar. McGonagall loses her control in situations. Trelawney is not given a drop of respect, and her profession, which is female-dominated (in that world), is also not given respect.
So the Harry Potter books are also not without their faults. All those criticisms (with the exceptions of your spelling) are taken from essays written by feminists.
These aren't my views, by the way. I'm just bringing them up for the fun that will ensue.
Let's say that a fic features Ash, but he is completely, totally out of character (or has an altered backstory ets.) - even to the point that he can't really be recognized as Ash anymore. Can the author really say their fic features Ash or should it be called an original character instead?
The basics of a character should be there. Each character has their recognizable traits, and without them, the character is no longer how they are in canon. Then the author really can't claim to be writing fanfiction starring those canon characters, if they don't really act like their canon selves.
*goes back to play in her alternate universe fics*
"Quidditch" and "Hermione."
I don't consider myself a fan of Harry Potter and I make sure to spell canon terms/names correctly.
That said, if Rowling can be touted as an activist for feminist rights, how come the female professors all have to report to men? Why aren't there any female witches on level with Dumbledore? Why is Hermione only the "sidekick"? Why was it only the female students who liked Lockhart and Trelawney, while all the male students knew that they weren't good teachers? Why is Hermione the only female who is given any sort of attention? (Ginny wasn't that great of a developed character, if one thinks about it.) In the Philosopher's Stone, why did Hermione have to be rescued by Harry and Ron from the troll, even though she was intelligent to know what to do? Why do her emotions get in the way of her knowledge? (Them wimmin and their emotions! Not in our potato field of manly literature!) Why was it only her change that failed when the trio wanted to sneak into Slytherin? Why is Hermione not doing anything more important than wandering around studying why the boys are out on adventures saving the day?
Speaking of Ginny, she was an embarrassed mess when she met Harry. She was the one targeted by the diary in the second book. The reader is told that it is boring listening to "the silly little troubles of an eleven-year-old girl."
The female characters all lose their control in situations while the boys remain calm. Harry gets his broomstick, and all the boys want to ride it and have fun. The girls just want to touch it (Ooer) and admire from afar. McGonagall loses her control in situations. Trelawney is not given a drop of respect, and her profession, which is female-dominated (in that world), is also not given respect.
So the Harry Potter books are also not without their faults. All those criticisms (with the exceptions of your spelling) are taken from essays written by feminists.
These aren't my views, by the way. I'm just bringing them up for the fun that will ensue.
Feminists, like many groups with -ist at the end of their label, are idiots. They look to find fault with everything... I've read a few articles suggesting that the Iron Man movie was sexist and racist. It appalls me how ludicrous people really are.
If you want me to comment on each of those points, or go into the Iron Man issue, please say so. I'm raring to rant, but I also could let it slide.
You like it? I've been wanting to make an MMZ theme for a while now, but I couldn't find the right artwork to use. I finally buckled down earlier tonight and did a thorough Google Image search...it seems to have payed off.
As for sustenance, I am currently sipping chocolate milk and writing my next chapter. *applause*
...*applesauce*
How clear cut are your villains and heroes? Do you like them to be rigid opposites, or closer, with the line between good and evil blurred?
Ah. Great question. My fics have a recurring theme, in that they explore what it's like to choose between keeping either what you most care about, or keeping everything else besides that thing. Very few of my characters get to keep both. Some don't get to keep either. Some choose to become evil in order to keep one or both. Some lose one or both due to becoming evil. Some lose one or both in order to stay righteous.
Long story short, a lot of my villains are extremely tragic figures. My philosophy is to make the reader hate them, and then hate to hate them, because of the things they go through or the reasons they do the things they do. Likewise, I have many heroes that are also tragic figures, because they gave up what they wanted for the greater good, and it often ruins them. On top of that, some villains end up giving up what they want for the greater good, and become heroes, while some heroes give up the greater good for their own desires and become villains.
I do have quite a few "clear cut" villains and heroes as well, but I simply like my conflicted characters way more.
How clear cut are your villains and heroes? Do you like them to be rigid opposites, or closer, with the line between good and evil blurred? Oh, once I really get going with Shattered, you will not know what colour Elina's cloak is, never mind whose side she's on. Then there's all the people that might be Galactic agents or might not be. And even if they are, they still might not be. Or they might be Avos cultists and Galactic agents, or neither, pretending to be both. And is it the Cult of Avos that's the antagonists here, or Team Galactic? And is joining one or the other really such a bad idea?
Heh, the Cult of Avos is your own creation, so you have more flexibility there, but it'll be interesting to see how you try to bend Team Galactic into a favourable light (if you do try and aren't just toying with us. XD)
I prefer chocolate cakes, but that cake sure does look good. I actually am capable of making cakes like that, although they never look as good because I'm sloppy. It's going to be eaten in a minute anyway, so why bother? In that sense, I'm not a very good cook (even though cooking is a hobby of mine), seeing as how I never pay attention to the aesthetics of my creations like one should.
How clear cut are your villains and heroes? Do you like them to be rigid opposites, or closer, with the line between good and evil blurred?
I simply can't write stories that have bad guys with whom one cannot identify. The have to have some good reasons to do what they do, they have to have redeeming qualities... I can't have characters who are eeeeevil just for the heck of it (although, depending on the genre, the characters might seem like they are evil just for the heck of it and their true motives might never be told to the reader - that's okay, too), because it bothers me. So, I always spend hours working on my bad guys' backstories to make them credible enough as, you know, antagonists. Not just something like "A CAR KILLED MY KITTEN SO I WILL DESTRRRRROYYH ALL TEH CARS IN THE WORLD!" or "A POLICEMAN WAS MEAN TO ME YEARS AGO SO I WILL GAIN WORLD DOMINATION AND TELL ALL THE POLICEMEN OFF!!! MWAHAHA!" Yeah, I think you get the picture.
So, I'd like to think that my bad guys are hanging just on the wrong side of the line that separates good and bad. As for my heroes, they are often a bit more good than one would hope. I don't like them to do all kinds of heroical deeds just because it's the right thing to do, but I'm still sometimes guilty of writing stuff like that. Of course, the real, important things they do always have a better reason. I would never make someone save teh world just because they think it's the right thing to do or because they are the only one who can do it or something like that.
I don't know, really. They are slightly opposite-ish, but still closer to the separating line than complete opposites would be.... Or something.
On another note, I hate it when in movies and books the gang of the bad guys has no loyalty towards each other. Why wouldn't they be friends as well? Why can't there be evil friends? I think there should be evil friends.
There can indeed be evil friends, but evil people tend to want to get power or money. Power breeds jealousy, and jealousy does tear apart friendships, including evil ones. :P That's why more alliances break down on the antagonists' side. Of course, that doesn't mean they all have to. ;)
That said, if Rowling can be touted as an activist for feminist rights, how come the female professors all have to report to men? Why aren't there any female witches on level with Dumbledore? Why is Hermione only the "sidekick"? Why was it only the female students who liked Lockhart and Trelawney, while all the male students knew that they weren't good teachers? Why is Hermione the only female who is given any sort of attention? (Ginny wasn't that great of a developed character, if one thinks about it.) In the Philosopher's Stone, why did Hermione have to be rescued by Harry and Ron from the troll, even though she was intelligent to know what to do? Why do her emotions get in the way of her knowledge? (Them wimmin and their emotions! Not in our potato field of manly literature!) Why was it only her change that failed when the trio wanted to sneak into Slytherin? Why is Hermione not doing anything more important than wandering around studying why the boys are out on adventures saving the day?
Speaking of Ginny, she was an embarrassed mess when she met Harry. She was the one targeted by the diary in the second book. The reader is told that it is boring listening to "the silly little troubles of an eleven-year-old girl."
The female characters all lose their control in situations while the boys remain calm. Harry gets his broomstick, and all the boys want to ride it and have fun. The girls just want to touch it (Ooer) and admire from afar. McGonagall loses her control in situations. Trelawney is not given a drop of respect, and her profession, which is female-dominated (in that world), is also not given respect.
So the Harry Potter books are also not without their faults. All those criticisms (with the exceptions of your spelling) are taken from essays written by feminists.
These aren't my views, by the way. I'm just bringing them up for the fun that will ensue.
The main reason HP isn't like that is because, writers aren't Gods (I'm a Monotheist). J.K. Rowling may be seen as a feminist in her own right yet she does not actively join feminist activities (i.e. speeches, marches, and the such). I admit, most of the things you just said are true, but then if we were to change that and make all the women in HP the best, the series would then be viewed as sexist. Most of the women/girls in HP are portrayed as such because in real life, most adolescent girls are actually like that. Which is why we have female rights activists. Furthermore, HP has a, mostly male dominated world because real life is like that too. I'm not sexist by the way.
Finally, back to my first point, writers aren't gods therefore, they can't be expected to notice every single detail. Even if it conflicts with their beliefs (feminism). I have this to say.
I'm not sexist, these are just my views, I'm slightly crazy therefore this should not be taken to heart. I don't want to start a flame war.
*Back to regular FFL business*
Txty, that cake looks delicious. *Has a slice*
And I just had sweet and sour fish but I'm still hungry.
How clear cut are your villains and heroes? Do you like them to be rigid opposites, or closer, with the line between good and evil blurred?
Not clear-cut but blurred. My protagonist has a grey line that could be swinging either way. And Ostile, thinks of the world differently. So my fics villains and heroes are not clear and could be both.
Emuehehe. If anyone wants a slice, they can always come into some text test chambers for research...8D
And I like evil evil people. Ones that you hate. So that when they get pwn't, you like it. Not ones that are awesome and you relate to and then you get sad when they lose. I don't like those ones. T_T
Clandestine calamities intervene upon the severity of the penance of apparitions dehumanized by diminutive partitions, thus derived from chastity, the soul is unassailable.
Protip, although it's going to sound like mini-modding: Pretentious, off-topic spam is still spam. (It also implies that you need to rely on a thesaurus in order to make yourself sound intelligent. That's now how you win best vocabulary, dear.)
As for the Gary Stu/Marty Stu debate... *motions to what Astinus said* And yes, Gary Stu is used more often.
Let's say that a fic features Ash, but he is completely, totally out of character (or has an altered backstory ets.) - even to the point that he can't really be recognized as Ash anymore. Can the author really say their fic features Ash or should it be called an original character instead?
I'm going to have to agree with you, Ninja Caterpie. This isn't Ash. This is a character created by someone who fails to understand what the terms "fanfiction" and "characterization" mean.
I could go into the entire "what fanfiction is"/"why canon is important" rants (which are really the same thing, but whatever), but the gist of it is pretty simple. If the character lacks any traits they're most noted for that someone who's incredibly familiar with the character comes in to read your story and doesn't recognize the character, then the only thing that makes the person who they are is a name. The person isn't a person anymore. Even if someone grows, there should still be something that's recognizable in them because otherwise, if we didn't have that rule, fanfiction authors would have every right to just make up whatever BS they want and call it Ash Ketchum. And violating canon to make up whatever BS you want, unless it's crack, defeats the purpose of what a fanfiction is.
Actually, to make it even clearer, I'm going to use two examples. First, there's Ash himself. He's grown since the beginning so he's no longer an impulsive little dumb ****. That's clear in that he's now planning battles carefully, and he hasn't really had a "seriously, you're dumb" moment like the entire stalker/streaker conversation in "Sparks Fly For Magnemite." However, he's still pretty clearly Ash. He has a passion for Pokémon, he loves battling, he's honest, and he's incredibly outgoing and kind. Compare this to Pokémon MASTER's Ash who prefers solving everything with his fists, spits in the face of the Pokémon League, and is an all-around loner/jerk to every single person he meets. I really don't think any amount of trauma would force the bubbly ten-year-old we all know and love to transform into someone you'd be more likely to meet in a bar fight (throwing stools).
For another example, there's actually Bill. Spoilers for those of you who think I'm just being a fangirl here.
Spoiler:
Now, I'm not bringing him up because I'm a fangirl. I'm bringing him up because everyone rapes his character. His character tends to vary by canon, but this is what's consistent: Bill is intelligent (clearly, because he technically said up yours to the laws of physics with every single invention he's ever created), eccentric, sweet (see Special for a lot of examples, although the anime hinges on this part as well), cautious, down-to-earth (i.e., not pretentious, so it's not difficult to understand what he's saying), but extremely clumsy and occasionally oblivious to the world around him. He adores Pokémon to the point of making them the center of his life, and he loves what he does for a living.
As a contrast, this is what I've seen people do to him:
1. Make him actually psychotic to the point where he doesn't care about the well-being of his test subjects. (One fic on FFNet has him walking calmly out of the Teleporter to greet a trainer when the Pokémon he'd been separated from was turned inside-out.)
2. Have him be stuck-up/stuffy to the main cast. (Even the anime version actually speaks pretty casually to Ash and company.)
3. Dumb him down to the point where he repeats mistakes he's made in the past (usually because people don't understand he doesn't just exist to be turned into a Pokémon/trapped in a costume... both of which were one-time errors) or he knows less about Pokémon than the other main characters. (Sorry, but unless you have another researcher character, he probably knows more than your Mary Sue. He's been stated as knowing more than Professor Oak.)
4. Turn him into a Diglett and have him describe himself as an "Oscar Meyer wiener." I swear to God, this happened, but I can't find the culprit anymore.
Short put, folks, I don't care what your reason is. This is not Bill. This is actually even missing the point of his character, especially given that no amount of reasoning could probably explain any of the above.
The point is even if you explain that the character is OOC, if you rape the characterization, you rape the characterization. It's not just the name that makes a character who he is. That's like saying I'm going to write about one of you, fail to get any part of your personality right, and still call it, for example, Citrinin. (I mean, Citrinin, how would you like being described as a whiny, emo teenager in a serious bit of fic? Not accusing you of anything. Just using you for a point. In any case, you probably wouldn't like that, would you?) Sure, you're writing about fictional characters who can't actually complain, but as a fan writing fanfiction, you've got to respect canon.
As for logical explanations, even then, there's got to be some serious examples if it's not crackfic. (For crackfic, yeah, no one really cares what you do, so do whatever you want.) I doubt amnesia would do it. Traumatic events probably would, but even then, they actually have to be seriously traumatic. "I watched my friend get killed" kind of traumatic. And even then, you've got to go with a logical response, and you can't completely dump the character's old personality unless they're really ****ing crazy right now. *motions to River Tam as a perfect example* Go watch the R. Tam Sessions to see traumatic events change a character in a way that's actually believable.
I can't believe no one's used the opportunity to quote Portal.
How clear cut are your villains and heroes? Do you like them to be rigid opposites, or closer, with the line between good and evil blurred?
Depends on what the story needs. In some cases, it's been pretty clear who antagonists and protagonists are. (For example, Tybalt of MKD. Agent 009 of AEM. Even, arguably, Professor Nettle of the latter fic.) In other cases, the line tends to be a bit more blurred, depending on whose perspective you're watching things from. A few examples of blurred heroes and villains are behind the spoiler... because this is just flipping spoilertastic.
Spoiler:
A Midsummer Knight's Dream
- The Trio. At first, they looked like they wanted to eliminate Viola but were doing a really half-assed job about it. Then, it turns out they were really testing her for a rather important reason that's about to be brought up, and they were just conning clear-cut villain Rosaline.
- Mercury and the gang are all friends of Viola and look like good guys... until you realize they're Montagues who frequently engage in the gang wars that are threatening the innocent people of Verona City and are therefore exactly what Viola and all the other neutral citizens are against.
- The Controller, the mastermind behind the game. Creating a game to promote senseless violence? Sure, it did that... to dismantle the two-party system by having both parties go at each other's throats and to lure out the real heir of the Prospero House in order to stage the revolution that's meant to bring about peace once and for all. So, if you're doing it for the ultimate good of mankind and it's actually a reasonable plan...
Anima Ex Machina
- Professor Nettle. For some reason, people keep saying they weren't fully expecting her to be so completely evil she's a member of Team Rocket. I shrug and go, "'Kay. Sure."
- The NDF. Sure, they're antagonists to Bill (what with the constant "lulz, trying to kill you/contain you/keep you in exile" bit), but then you realize that if they weren't there, mankind would have no one to defend them against the ixodida.
- Adam. It keeps going back and forth between wanting to be an antagonist and wanting to be a protagonist. At the risk of spoiling the ending for you, he eventually does decide.
- Lilith. She seems like a total antagonist, but what she's after is the well-being of a species that no longer has a planet. Not to mention once Adam decides, Lilith's position becomes a bit clearer.
- The mysterious observers that make you think they're about to invoke Human Instrumentality. They're not what you think at all.
I don't consider myself a fan of Harry Potter and I make sure to spell canon terms/names correctly.
That said, if Rowling can be touted as an activist for feminist rights, how come the female professors all have to report to men? Why aren't there any female witches on level with Dumbledore? Why is Hermione only the "sidekick"? Why was it only the female students who liked Lockhart and Trelawney, while all the male students knew that they weren't good teachers? Why is Hermione the only female who is given any sort of attention? (Ginny wasn't that great of a developed character, if one thinks about it.) In the Philosopher's Stone, why did Hermione have to be rescued by Harry and Ron from the troll, even though she was intelligent to know what to do? Why do her emotions get in the way of her knowledge? (Them wimmin and their emotions! Not in our potato field of manly literature!) Why was it only her change that failed when the trio wanted to sneak into Slytherin? Why is Hermione not doing anything more important than wandering around studying why the boys are out on adventures saving the day?
Speaking of Ginny, she was an embarrassed mess when she met Harry. She was the one targeted by the diary in the second book. The reader is told that it is boring listening to "the silly little troubles of an eleven-year-old girl."
The female characters all lose their control in situations while the boys remain calm. Harry gets his broomstick, and all the boys want to ride it and have fun. The girls just want to touch it (Ooer) and admire from afar. McGonagall loses her control in situations. Trelawney is not given a drop of respect, and her profession, which is female-dominated (in that world), is also not given respect.
So the Harry Potter books are also not without their faults. All those criticisms (with the exceptions of your spelling) are taken from essays written by feminists.
These aren't my views, by the way. I'm just bringing them up for the fun that will ensue.
It seems like these authors were nitpicking to the very last bit. I mean there is some things one would have to accept, such as there being a main character, as well as a headmaster or mistress regardless of gender, in this case both were determined by the author. I believe Madame Maxime, while not as smart as Dumbledore, was on the same level as Dumbledore (both heads at their respective schools). But otherwise it sounds as though the views displayed are getting into plot devices that wouldn't not be considered feminist, I'd think. I mean if you as an author have two options, for something part of the story, I don't think chosing one of the options over the other will validate non-feminism.
I also don't have it with me, but I have an essay on feminism for the Harry Potter series, in a Philosophy book I bought a while back.
Protip, although it's going to sound like mini-modding: Pretentious, off-topic spam is still spam. (It also implies that you need to rely on a thesaurus in order to make yourself sound intelligent. That's now how you win best vocabulary, dear.)
Bah! I say... Bah! I'd never use a thesaurus. ;_; If one may look closely as to what I wrote, then they would know why. I know there is no way to prove it, so I hope my word is enough.
How clear cut are your villains and heroes? Do you like them to be rigid opposites, or closer, with the line between good and evil blurred?
Most of the time with my characters they're clear cut as you already know who's the protagonist and the antagonist that are against them. However, NE is a bit different:
Spoiler:
Perhaps I'm going to need to break down each character to make this easier:
-Bunny and Jenny: Both are protagonist of course. Bunny got framed, Jenny helped her, and the two are on the run and trying to figure out the situation at the same time.
-Jacob: Okay, him I have a lot of people confused if he's a protagonist or antagonist and I can understand. Jacob is not against Bunny and Jenny when the three were traveling together. In fact, he wanted to help them get out of the situation. However, when his Xatu "showed" the girls the truth (that he's the real criminal and not Bunny), that causes him to run away and break apart from them. The girls and Jacob later went against each other at Snowpoint City. I guess you can say he wanted to help but then one event suddenly made him go against them. Lucas and Timmy: They aren't clear cut either. The two are against Bunny and Jenny the first time around, but then as the story progresses, they found more clues and even have doubts if Bunny is the criminal they should be looking for. They were a tad too late in saving Bunny and Jenny from harm, though.
