If you've written a really long first novel the publisher likes but which they don't think they can break out as a bestseller, they will probably publish it as two or more novels, to get around the recent B&N decision not to stock nonbestsellers with a price point about $24.95. (I think it was $24.95, but it may have been $26.95 -- memfault.)
surely they don't fit the self-insertion definition, having been written by female authors, or the perfection one, having obvious faults despite being (in one case literally) Renaissance men? Was the accusation along the lines of "authors fell in love with them" yet again? (Are we not to be allowed any wish-fulfillment, dammit?
I semisympathize, since I've been thinking of a post on the witch hunt for Mary Sues -- but I have to object to the idea that a change of gender rules out self-insertion. I don't think people--whether readers *or* writers--necessarily identify themselves exclusively with their gender. And I do think that Lymond is idealized, with romanticized faults, and receives the excessive attention (whether loving or hating) of characters who ought by rights of character-integrity be more concerned with their own lives: that is, yes, I do think Lymond is a Mary Sue, and as I mentioned above I think Ellen Kushner has done some interesting commentary on that via more fiction.
But as with many Neat Ideas, a lot of people will latch onto Mary Sue as a Rule and a Category instead of a term to use for analysis.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 06:04 am (UTC)surely they don't fit the self-insertion definition, having been written by female authors, or the perfection one, having obvious faults despite being (in one case literally) Renaissance men? Was the accusation along the lines of "authors fell in love with them" yet again? (Are we not to be allowed any wish-fulfillment, dammit?
I semisympathize, since I've been thinking of a post on the witch hunt for Mary Sues -- but I have to object to the idea that a change of gender rules out self-insertion. I don't think people--whether readers *or* writers--necessarily identify themselves exclusively with their gender. And I do think that Lymond is idealized, with romanticized faults, and receives the excessive attention (whether loving or hating) of characters who ought by rights of character-integrity be more concerned with their own lives: that is, yes, I do think Lymond is a Mary Sue, and as I mentioned above I think Ellen Kushner has done some interesting commentary on that via more fiction.
But as with many Neat Ideas, a lot of people will latch onto Mary Sue as a Rule and a Category instead of a term to use for analysis.