FANDOM


  • Why in the name of Raava does everyone seem to LOVE Jinora??!!  She did absolutely nothing and is just full of bison crap.  Jinora's more full of it than Juicy's nose!  Jinora supposedly deserves her tattoos and is now the youngest airbending master of all time, passing Aang... Let me just say that is crap!  The main thing about her that I hate Jinora is mostly throughout Books 3 and 4.  Yes, she supposedly came to the rescue in the Book 2 finale when she did who knows what as the "queen of the fairies". But the worst came after, as a "master" she did absolutely nothing for example, how she gets captured every season multiple times and does nothing except call for Korra to help her.  Aang in Book 2 of ATLA was able to free himself with just airbending when it comes to vines trying to subdue him. Because of this she does not deserve to have the title previously held by Aang!  This was just done because of her popularity in the fandom.  Let's face it... the creators absolutely love the fans, why else would they do a Korrasami ending (which was the best and my number one ship okay), but seriously Jinora was said to "help lead the new Air Nation while Korra was recovering" by Tenzin but she did nothing, just sat around on her butt trying to "connect with Korra's energy" and studying while Kuvira is going all dictator on the Earth Kingdom.  She was just jealous of Meelo's airbending farts, Ikki, and their awesomeness!

      Loading editor
    • Can sense a lot of hate here. While I do not totally disagree, i think you may be letting a few things cloud your judgement. let me lay some things out, and see how you feel after. Becoming a full airbending master, while it is a martial art and fighting technique, is probably around 25% Spiritual, 25% culture, and 50% airbending technique(36 in fact) and practice. So Jinora has been training with Tenzin since she was able to bend, assuming pretty young (3-4 yrs old?) And this was not a big class of training students, it was 1 on 1 until Ikki and meelo could train. So if you conisder Tenzin a good master, I am sure she learned quite a lot over her training (30-34 techniques? She was quite good in the spining panel exercise). Plus she did not travel like nomads (Aang) so she was probably training a ton on the Island. So then comes the spiritual and cultural side. It is said that she studies Air culture a Ton and is well versed in it. While it does not make you a better bender, it is a big part about understanding what airbending is and where it came from. So now spiritual. She has shown a very high proficiency for spirituality. She can mediate into the spirit world, use Astral projection at will and well, and she can personally interact with spirits. Now does she show a ton of amazing airbending moves like Aang did at that age? No. Does she get caught a lot and panic? Yes. But not all masters are created equal. Tenzin, a bonified BA and airbending boss, could not meditate into the spirit world at 40 (or so), yet Jinora could at 11. That is a pretty impressive feat and not to be taken lightly in Airbender culture. She also did step up pretty big at the end of season 3, not too just save Korra with some crazy spiritual energy, but to lead the Airbending nation with confidence and a calm mind. In no way is she as strong of an airbender as Aang was, but she does possess a lot fo unqiue and powerful attributes of an Airbending master. You are entitled to your opinion, just laying out some facts and view points of my own.   

        Loading editor
    • Not to mention that for the longest time there were no other airbenders but her siblings. That is an IMPORTANT factor. Remember that before her there was only Tenzin. As there were things he could not do, should *he* have been a master? Perhaps, perhaps not. However as at the time he was the ONLY airbender other than Aang—for a while the ONLY AB in the world—so the WORLD NEEDED to see a "Master", and with no one else, he HAD to be it. Much like if you advertise for a job and only 1 person shows up, you work with what you have.

      Now, Jinora was the eldest child. No arguing she was the better AB of them. Fortunately HC unlocked a lot more ABs. Jinora was *years* ahead of any of them. Not just in skills but in *knowledge*. Who will teach them? The airkids were already tasked at doing that, but surely the New ABs *needed* to see more masters than just Tenzin, and certainly Jinora was the best suited one of her siblings and any of the new ones.

      BTW, according to many interviews with creators and staff, the *entire show* was finished BEFORE Book3 started. That means that they were writing Korrasami WITHOUT fan feedback since at the time there were very very very few "crackshipping" Korrasamians. Same applies to Jinora's arcs.

      So really, while Bryke may love the fans, they were not pandering to any fanservice.

        Loading editor
    • I complete agree with the OP. I absolutely hate Jinora and all she stands for, even after reading the above comments saying stuff like "She's had a long time to be trained by Tenzin." But I have to agree with the OP. I don't understand why Jinora has such a strong spiritual connection? I don't know why she does! There is no logical reasoning for why she has such a huge connection to the spirit world! At the end of Book 2, she's the one who comes and helps Korra, but where did all of this power suddenly come from? I smell a big Mary-Sue. When Book 3 started and she started showing her feelings for Kai, I could barely contain the vomit in my throat. Seriously? Of all the Mary-Sue type characteristics she shows, this one is the biggest. It's the classic "good-girl-falls-for-bad-boy" story that makes me want to rip out my eyeballs and throw them at the creators. Now I'm not saying that the creators are bad, in fact I really appreciated the cultural, racial, and sexual orientation representation they gave to the show (I'm the biggest Korrasami fan). But I can't fathom why they would give Jinora all of this power! It doesn't make any sense to me. I hate Jinora and I will never stop hating Jinora.

        Loading editor
    • Making refernces doesn't make what you're saying less hateful. Okay she isn't the best charchter but she does have a lot of spiritual power and I think that asking why she has this much power is kind of ridiculous because other people also have different powers. Its like asking why did Toph discover metal bending? Why does she have so much power? Im guessing she has a strong connection because she was born with it (kinda goes without saying) so yeah she isn't great but I don't understand why you are getting so wound up about 

        Loading editor
    • There is no logical reasoning for why she has such a huge connection to the spirit world!

      Funny, I've yet to see the logical reason for all of this hate. There are a lot of inborn talents in this universe. There's bending in general, & then there are specifics, like combustionbending or being born the Avatar. I fail to see how this is okay for some characters, but not others.

      At the end of Book 2, she's the one who comes and helps Korra, but where did all of this power suddenly come from? I smell a big Mary-Sue. When Book 3 started and she started showing her feelings for Kai, I could barely contain the vomit in my throat. Seriously? Of all the Mary-Sue type characteristics she shows, this one is the biggest. It's the classic "good-girl-falls-for-bad-boy" story that makes me want to rip out my eyeballs and throw them at the creators.

      Okay, I don't think you know what the phrase "Mary Sue" means. I don't like Kai or the random stuff in the Book 2 finale either, but neither of those things establish her as an idealized character.

      How many of these traits does she actually possess? Obviously an individual character wouldn't have all, or even most of them, but she fails even the basic definition of being the center of attention. The other characters aren't on pins & needles waiting for whatever brilliant thing she's about to say, the heroes don't all like her & the villains don't all fear her, & while she's played a major role a few times now, they tend to be related to her very specific spiritual skills.

      I can think of so many characters who had more of these traits. Mako has more of these traits (everyone seems to think he's awesome, his bad choices don't alienate anyone, he's mastered more subskills than any known firebender, was the Avatar's boyfriend, has been a star athlete AND a detective). Most of the Avatars have had more of these traits (story revolves around them, the Chosen One, has more powers than anyone else, things usually seem to work out for them). Kai has more of these traits (easily trusted & accepted, gets sympathy for his troubled past rather than facing consequences, instantly skilled at airbending, rescues others with more experience on multiple occasions). Azula has more of these traits (only character known to have blue fire, generally has few weaknesses, has unique talents like the ability to discern someone's motive or fool Toph's lie detector, everyone fears her). Toph has more of these traits (handicap becomes a superpower, invents metalbending, duels King Bumi to a standstill, only loses a fight to Aang who has abilities that specifically counter her advantages). Katara has more of these traits (single-handedly convinced Pakku to dispense with the Northern Water Tribe's sexist waterbending system, mastered more subskills than anyone, almost always portrayed as right, last waterbender in the south)

      Now I'm not saying that the creators are bad, in fact I really appreciated the cultural, racial, and sexual orientation representation they gave to the show (I'm the biggest Korrasami fan).

      Well, we can agree on that, at least.

      But I can't fathom why they would give Jinora all of this power! It doesn't make any sense to me. I hate Jinora and I will never stop hating Jinora.

      So yeah, this goes back to what I initially said, the case for hating Jinora seems to boil down to 2 steps:

      1. Hate Jinora.

      2. Take disparate scenes out of context to justify it after the fact.

        Loading editor
    • Look, I know you mean well and you're trying to justify your beliefs on why Jinora isn't a "Mary-Sue" type character, but believe me, I know what I'm talking about when I say that I believe she is. And anyway I'm not looking to argue or have a convincing discussion with anyone. All I wanted to say is that I hate Jinora. If you like her, that's fine with me. I'm not judging or saying that you suck for liking her. But in the same way that I'm respecting your opinion, I would like mine to be respected to. I've always hated Jinora, and that isn't going to change. My reasons for hating her seem valid to me, and even if they're not valid to anyone else, I'm fine with that. So please stop trying to convince me that Jinora is a good character, and just leave my opinion as it is.

        Loading editor
    • I love Jinora as a character, but I hate how her powers fluctuate and appear out of nowhere depending on what's convenient to the plot (she's a lot like Korra in this respect). Just try to keep count on how many times she turns from mostly useless into the Deus Ex Machina of the moment:

      1. Tenzin can't get into the spirit world, previously useless Jinora suddenly reveals she's a spiritual progidy and helps Korra to meditate into the spirit world!
      2. Then she's used as a hostage by Unalaq and ends up in the Fog of Lost Souls, only to be saved just in time to save Korra and help her destroy UnaVaatu!
      3. Jinora and the group travel to Lake Laogai and come up empty-handed, but then it turns out the whole travel was pointless, as Jinora could've used her psychic connection to Kai to project herself to wherever he was from the getgo!
      4. After getting captured by bison poachers and later by the Red Lotus without much of a fight, she then leads the Airbenders into procuring a giant tornado, saving Korra and helping her defeat the antagonist once more!
      5. After being anointed as airbending master and proclaimed a new leader for the Airbending Nation, we first see Jinora again sitting at home, seemingly not partaking in the Airbending Nation's peacekeeping attempts (though the same can be said of Tenzin). When tasked with finding Korra, her spiritual powers don't kick in until the very last minute, once again suddenly proving essential after quite some time of being troublingly inessential. This time she continues her streak, soon after saving Korra (sound familiar?) with help from Opal.
      6. A bit later, Jinora then gets captured by spirit vines, needing to be freed by Korra. She later puts up a decent show in the fight against Kuvira's colossus, eventually helping to save Korra when Kuvira had her spirit cannon pointed at Korra (though in the process also endangering herself, requiring to be rescued by, in quick succession, her father and then her brother).
        Loading editor
    • Awesomebubble wrote: Look, I know you mean well and you're trying to justify your beliefs on why Jinora isn't a "Mary-Sue" type character, but believe me, I know what I'm talking about when I say that I believe she is. And anyway I'm not looking to argue or have a convincing discussion with anyone. All I wanted to say is that I hate Jinora. If you like her, that's fine with me. I'm not judging or saying that you suck for liking her. But in the same way that I'm respecting your opinion, I would like mine to be respected to. I've always hated Jinora, and that isn't going to change. My reasons for hating her seem valid to me, and even if they're not valid to anyone else, I'm fine with that. So please stop trying to convince me that Jinora is a good character, and just leave my opinion as it is.

      If you don't want to talk about it, you are free to not respond, but there are 2 things I want to make clear:

      1. There is nothing respectable about "I hate this character so much that I don't care whether or not it makes sense."

      2. I am not "trying to justify my beliefs," you are failing to justify yours. I would only have to prove that she's "not a Mary Sue" if you had 1st established that anything you said actually demonstrates Sue Status. I gave more explanation than was necessary purely to stimulate the thoughts of myself & others. And actually, I don't feel like Sues are automatically bad characters. I think Batman often meets the definition, but they still manage to make him interesting, so it usually doesn't bother me.

      I love Jinora as a character, but I hate how her powers fluctuate and appear out of nowhere depending on what's convenient to the plot (she's a lot like Korra in this respect). Just try to keep count on how many times she turns from mostly useless into the Deus Ex Machina of the moment:

      Part of this I think is explained by the fact that her primary abilities are spiritual in nature, not combat-related, but it doesn't explain everything.

      The poachers are the most egregious example. Supposedly, she could not meditate because it was "too cramped & noisy." It really wasn't that bad. What would have made more sense is if she tried to meditate, but the bison kept interrupting.

        Loading editor
    • She's kind of parallels Korra in some ways in that she is a point that is between the old school and the new school. She, like Korra, embodies a significant change, in her case, change in direction for her culture and airbending.

      Jinora, I like what I take away from her when she does good stuff, and she doesn't really bother me much when she doesn't. I guess if we're to talk about what we don't like of her, I'd say more how she was handled in book 4. She didn't seem to carry herself in a manner, that I'd consider, befitting of a master, a leader of her culture and order. Much to the contrary, and I do understand she's a teenager, but how she dealt with her siblings in their search in the Earth Nation, was just not what I'd expect of someone with such progression in the series.

      There is also her season 2 "queen of the fairies" thing, which I would say could be a little tough to swallow, just a "oh come on" sort of thing, but, I feel it worked in the way that, even though I criticize book 2 alot, I still felt the ending was powerful even if absurd and illogical in some regards, I still thought it compelling, and Jinora was part of that in a way that just worked for me.

        Loading editor
    • By definition, Canon Characters canNOT be "Mary Sues/Gary Stus". That status applies *solely* to fan-created characters in fanfics. When you make an original character for a fan-made story you are writing, you *might* end up with a Mary Sue. But if you are writing an *Original Story* dreamed up entirely by you, then *none* of your characters can be Mary Sues.

      As for "where did Jinora's ______ come from", the answer is simple: it came from Bryke and the Avatar creative team. What? Do you think *any* character is spelled out whole cloth at the beginning? No. Everything we learn about them is learned as stories unfold. At least in any *good* story and plotline. The same is true of *every* character. We learned about them and their skills as the series progressed.

      Now, considering that Jinora was constantly studying and with her nose in books, why *shouldn't* she be spiritual? Or Whatever?

        Loading editor
    • I've heard "Mary Sue" used more broadly to mean "creators' pet."  But more often than not, it seems to mean "character, usually female, whom I don't like."

        Loading editor
    • The original Mary Sue, was a fan-made original character from a Star Trek fanfic. No matter how some *wrongly* use the term today, a Mary Sue is a fan-originate character, often an author self-insert, for a fan-written story.

      Otherwise Superman and Batman would be "Mary Sues".

        Loading editor
    • She's kind of parallels Korra in some ways in that she is a point that is[snip]

      I think this is all pretty fair.

      I've heard "Mary Sue" used more broadly to mean "creators' pet." But more often than not, it seems to mean "character, usually female, whom I don't like."

      There are definitely several different definitions. For my own part, I judge definitions based on whether or not they provide useful information.

      If Person X calls Character Y a Mary Sue because X doesn't like Y, that's totally pointless, Y doesn't have to be a Mary Sue to be disliked. X may want to justify or explain X's feelings about Y, but trying to force a criticism to fit isn't really doing either of those things. It's fine to not like a character, but lack a logical explanation for it.

      As far as the definition that it has to be from fan fiction...why? As much as I rag on it, the only meaningful distinction between fan fiction & non fan fiction is that the latter is published. You might also include that fan fiction is based on something else, but movie adaptations of books aren't considered fan fiction, nor are spinoffs by another writer. So it doesn't follow that, if I wrote a character with all of these traits that we call "Mary Sue," it would suddenly stop fitting the definition just if I happen to get published.

      There is also the definition that a Mary Sue is a stand-in for the author, but I think that unnecessarily conflates these negative characteristics with a character that's merely based on the author. You can have 1, but not the other.

      Considering it to be synonymous with Creator's Pet might work, depending on how you define Creator's Pet.

        Loading editor
    • why fan fiction? because the original Mary Sue was from a Star Trek Fan fic. That is where the trope began and defined it.

        Loading editor
    • By that logic, "Mary Sue" should only apply to the Star Trek universe.

        Loading editor
    • Love Robin wrote: why fan fiction? because the original Mary Sue was from a Star Trek Fan fic. That is where the trope began and defined it.

      So? The term can't evolve? It always has to refer to Mary Sue from that particular Star Trek fan fiction?

      Otherwise Superman and Batman would be "Mary Sues"

      Exactly, canon characters can EASILY full under the definition, UNLESS you stipulate the ARBITRARY condition that only fan fictions "count." This is just a special pleading fallacy.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      Awesomebubble wrote: Look, I know you mean well and you're trying to justify your beliefs on why Jinora isn't a "Mary-Sue" type character, but believe me, I know what I'm talking about when I say that I believe she is. And anyway I'm not looking to argue or have a convincing discussion with anyone. All I wanted to say is that I hate Jinora. If you like her, that's fine with me. I'm not judging or saying that you suck for liking her. But in the same way that I'm respecting your opinion, I would like mine to be respected to. I've always hated Jinora, and that isn't going to change. My reasons for hating her seem valid to me, and even if they're not valid to anyone else, I'm fine with that. So please stop trying to convince me that Jinora is a good character, and just leave my opinion as it is.

      If you don't want to talk about it, you are free to not respond, but there are 2 things I want to make clear:

      1. There is nothing respectable about "I hate this character so much that I don't care whether or not it makes sense."

      2. I am not "trying to justify my beliefs," you are failing to justify yours. I would only have to prove that she's "not a Mary Sue" if you had 1st established that anything you said actually demonstrates Sue Status. I gave more explanation than was necessary purely to stimulate the thoughts of myself & others. And actually, I don't feel like Sues are automatically bad characters. I think Batman often meets the definition, but they still manage to make him interesting, so it usually doesn't bother me.

      1. Why isn't my opinion respectable? Is it because I don't like a character that you do? Or is it because I'm voicing an unpopular opinion? Either way, I don't think it's appropriate to say my opinion isn't respectable just because I don't like Jinora. I think everyone's opinions are valid, as long as they're bashing other people for what they think. I actually think that's what you're doing. You're saying that my opinion isn't valid when I believe it to be.

      2. I believe that Jinora is a Mary-Sue for a lot of reasons, and I also think that the term "Mary-Sue" applies to canon characters as well as fanfiction characters. I can name a list of Mary-Sue characters that are completely canon. Sometimes I like them, and sometimes I don't. Jinora happens to be one of characters I don't like. Like you said, Sues aren't automatically bad characters. And I don't have to justify my beliefs if I don't want to, especially if, when I voice my beliefs, you're going to say they aren't respectable.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • 1. Then you don't know what "valid" means. Your opinion is uninformed, 1 reason to not respect it. That you straw man questioning your logic as "bashing you for not liking the character" is another reason. There are others. Believing something doesn't mean it's automatically valuable information.

      2. I say your opinion is not respectable BECAUSE you won't justify it logically. Of course you can choose not to do that, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize you for it. That's completely unfair, you're asking me to give you equal consideration to someone who actually puts in the work to prove their point. And all of this time you spend complaining about not being taken seriously, you COULD be showing that I'm wrong. If indeed I am. Not to mention, nobody ever explains why, according to the inane argument that "every opinion is equal," having the opinion that this statement is wrong is the exception.

        Loading editor
    • Love Robin wrote: wikipedia:Mary_Sue

      If you read beyond the 1st sentence, the article makes several references to critics who consider canon characters to be Mary Sues. So there are 2 ways to interpret this information:

      1. "In fan fiction" does not necessarily imply that the term cannot be used outside of fan fiction.

      2. The article's definition contradicts what the article itself says about the usage of the term.

      Either interpretation fails to support the assertion that using the term in this way is somehow "wrong." I think I'll also point these problems out on the article's talk page.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      1. Then you don't know what "valid" means. Your opinion is uninformed, 1 reason to not respect it. That you straw man questioning your logic as "bashing you for not liking the character" is another reason. There are others. Believing something doesn't mean it's automatically valuable information.

      2. I say your opinion is not respectable BECAUSE you won't justify it logically. Of course you can choose not to do that, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize you for it. That's completely unfair, you're asking me to give you equal consideration to someone who actually puts in the work to prove their point. And all of this time you spend complaining about not being taken seriously, you COULD be showing that I'm wrong. If indeed I am. Not to mention, nobody ever explains why, according to the inane argument that "every opinion is equal," having the opinion that this statement is wrong is the exception.

      1. Oh yes, trust Wikipedia to give you the perfect picture of what a Mary-Sue character is like. You do know that definitions change as time goes on, right? Just because this one person made the Mary-Sue term a long time ago doesn't mean that it can't change to fit modern times. And just because you think my opinion is uninformed, it doesn't mean you can't respect it. Whatever happened to "letting people believe what they believe"? I have all of the evidence I need to make a judgement on Jinora's character, and I've decided that I don't like her. Why can't you just let me have my opinion and leave me alone? I'm not making a judgement on you, or the writers of the show. I'm making a judgement based on Jinora herself. And while you could argue that me judging Jinora does pertain to the judgement of the writers, I am in no way saying that they suck for making her. I'm saying that I don't like Jinora as a person. Let's say you don't like someone in your class at school. Would you blame their parents for raising them to be someone you dislike? No. You would take a look at them and say "I don't like you because you're you." And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as you can stay in your lane. It does become a problem, however, when you let your dislike of that person grow so big that you take it out on them. That's when it becomes unacceptable. And I don't consider my hatred of Jinora valuable information. You're right when you say that believing something doesn't automatically consider it valuable. But just because it isn't valuable, doesn't mean it can't be respected. And when I say "respected" I mean, "letting me believe what I want to believe without trying to convince me or put me down"

      2. Just because I choose not to justify my answer doesn't make it not respectable. If I said something like "do you like apples?" and you said "no", am I going to pester you with questions to justify why you don't like apples? No. It'd be one thing if you were allergic to them, but in this case the reason why you said "no" was because you just don't like the flavour. And so I'm not going to argue with you about apples, I'm going to say, "Okay. That's your opinion and I respect it." That's all I'm asking for here. To begin with, I never asked for any comment on my original post about how much I hated Jinora. My opinion is still valid, even if I choose not to justify it. I have my reasons, and even if you don't see them, that's alright. I don't like Jinora because she's Jinora. She, as a person, rubs me the wrong way. And I can come up with a list if that will satisfy you. But all I'm asking for is a simple, "I respect that that is your opinion, and I will leave you to it. My opinion is different than yours, but that's okay because not everyone has to agree with me." The types of people I've run into that try to convince me to change my beliefs or opinions are the type of people who want control. 

      3. And to explain to you why the term "everyone's opinion is equal" is a valid statement, refer to my apple example above. The only case in which opinions aren't equal is when someone's opinion infringes on harming other people or themselves. For instance, the opinions of which fruits are the best are all equal, because the "best fruit" is different to each person, and we should respect that their taste buds like different flavours of fruit. But opinions such as "women are less than men" or "black people are disgusting" or "gay people are wrong" are not equal, because they harm other people and infringe on the basic rights of humans. 

      4. For the love of all that is holy could you just accept that I have a different opinion than yours? You don't have to like it, and you don't have to encourage it, but the least you could do is accept it and move on. It's a very easy thing to do actually. If you really want a list of why I find Jinora unappealing, I'll give it to you. I'm just concerned that for each reason I give as to why I don't like her, you're going to give a counterargument, which is not what I'm looking for. I just came here because I was glad to finally find someone else who didn't like Jinora (the OP). 

        Loading editor
    • Awesomebubble, I think you're wrong about Jinora being a Mary Sue. As I pointed out, she often ends up being effectively useless to the group, and needs to be saved lotsa times, actually. But since she also very often makes a 180 degree turn into being a Deus Ex Machina and then effortlessly resolves whatever issue was keeping the plot from progressing, I see how you could've gotten that idea.

        Loading editor
    • Supermensch wrote:
      Awesomebubble, I think you're wrong about Jinora being a Mary Sue. As I pointed out, she often ends up being effectively useless to the group, and needs to be saved lotsa times, actually. But since she also very often makes a 180 degree turn into being a Deus Ex Machina and then effortlessly resolves whatever issue was keeping the plot from progressing, I see how you could've gotten that idea.

      I see. Thank you for explaining that :) However even though she's not a Mary-Sue I still don't like her ^^

        Loading editor
    • I see. Thank you for explaining that :) However even though she's not a Mary-Sue I still don't like her ^^

      I tried to explain this to you earlier, maybe you might've noticed it if you weren't so busy complaining.

      1. Oh yes, trust Wikipedia to give you the perfect picture of what a Mary-Sue character is like. You do know that definitions change as time goes on, right? Just because this one person made the Mary-Sue term a long time ago doesn't mean that it can't change to fit modern times.

      I didn't make any of these arguments, & if you're responding to Love Robin, why are you quoting me? Are you drunk right now?

      Whatever happened to "letting people believe what they believe"? I have all of the evidence I need to make a judgement on Jinora's character, and I've decided that I don't like her. Why can't you just let me have my opinion and leave me alone?

      I don't know, why do people who play the Opinion Card always frame me as the bad guy for not "leaving them alone," but keep on spammin' that reply button themselves? And why is it that they never seem to have the time to defend their actual positions, but can take all of the time in the world to defend not defending things?

      I'm not making a judgement on you, or the writers of the show.

      I'll grant this for the sake of argument, but I don't really care, if you said everything I said was stupid, but actually explained how it was wrong, that would be LIGHT YEARS better than whinging about how you "don't have to explain anything," but also don't want to be criticized for it.

      And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as you can stay in your lane. It does become a problem, however, when you let your dislike of that person grow so big that you take it out on them.

      This totally contradicts later, when you say that the mere act of hating someone is harmful.

      And I don't consider my hatred of Jinora valuable information.

      See, that's really telling, because if it had some logical basis, it could potentially redefine the way that people on this thread think about literature. While that wouldn't cure cancer or end world hunger, it would be immensely valuable to amateur writers. And if you include informative writing, that is literally all of us.

      But just because it isn't valuable, doesn't mean it can't be respected.

      Yes, I can theoretically reward you for no reason, but...why? And is that fair to everyone who actually works for it?

      And when I say "respected" I mean, "letting me believe what I want to believe without trying to convince me or put me down"

      Okay, first of all, saying that I'm "trying to convince you" is giving yourself way too much credit. You haven't even presented a case that can be argued for or against, merely shat out a claim. You are not EVEN wrong.

      Secondly, you're trying to group together a bunch of unrelated things. To respect a position is to admire it, criticism or efforts to convince don't imply either respect or disrespect, & they're not "put downs," but on that note if you use a bunch of logical fallacies, yeah, I'm gonna say you're irrational &/or dishonest.

      If I said something like "do you like apples?" and you said "no", am I going to pester you with questions to justify why you don't like apples? No.

      Except that's not what's going on. You're trying to argue that something which appears to be an orange is actually an apple, refusing to explain why, & then whining when I go "you're just spouting bullshit, aren't you?"

      To begin with, I never asked for any comment on my original post about how much I hated Jinora.

      It's a public forum, the standing implication is that anyone can respond, because you posted it in friggin' public.

      I don't like Jinora because she's Jinora.

      And that's another thing, you have repeatedly admitted that my characterization of your argument is right, but even though this is totally circular reasoning, you still want me to call it "valid" so I don't hurt your felines.

      Well, too bad, circular reasoning is invalid by definition.

      But opinions such as "women are less than men" or "black people are disgusting" or "gay people are wrong" are not equal, because they harm other people and infringe on the basic rights of humans.

      In addition to the aforementioned contradiction with a previous passage, no they don't, institutional policies BASED ON these opinions are harmful. The opinions themselves are just words.

      And if we're going to play this slippery slope game, your opinion asks me to withhold my critical thinking from a conversation if it upsets a person & their opinion has yet to be identified as harmful. This is detrimental to society if applied to other walks of life, which you indicate that it should be.

      I'm just concerned that for each reason I give as to why I don't like her, you're going to give a counterargument, which is not what I'm looking for.

      So you're only interested in providing explanations if I agree, before I even hear them, not to question them.

      So you are dishonest.

      I just came here because I was glad to finally find someone else who didn't like Jinora (the OP).

      Well, I came here to see what the OP had to say, because I don't run on confirmation bias.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      Love Robin wrote: wikipedia:Mary_Sue

      If you read beyond the 1st sentence, the article makes several references to critics who consider canon characters to be Mary Sues. So there are 2 ways to interpret this information:

      1. "In fan fiction" does not necessarily imply that the term cannot be used outside of fan fiction.

      2. The article's definition contradicts what the article itself says about the usage of the term.

      Either interpretation fails to support the assertion that using the term in this way is somehow "wrong." I think I'll also point these problems out on the article's talk page.

      It does *not* discuss that the realm of Mary-Sues are no longer Canon, only that *some* make statements regarding unpopular characters in their canons (ex. Wesley Crusher).

      I will agree that *some* canon characters exhibit *traits* of a Mary Sue. However that does *not* make them "Canon Mary Sues" any more than a person trying to act/talk/walk/exhibit traits like a certain ethnicity which is not their own will *make* them that ethnicity.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      I see. Thank you for explaining that :) However even though she's not a Mary-Sue I still don't like her ^^

      I tried to explain this to you earlier, maybe you might've noticed it if you weren't so busy complaining.


      1. Oh yes, trust Wikipedia to give you the perfect picture of what a Mary-Sue character is like. You do know that definitions change as time goes on, right? Just because this one person made the Mary-Sue term a long time ago doesn't mean that it can't change to fit modern times.

      I didn't make any of these arguments, & if you're responding to Love Robin, why are you quoting me? Are you drunk right now?


      Whatever happened to "letting people believe what they believe"? I have all of the evidence I need to make a judgement on Jinora's character, and I've decided that I don't like her. Why can't you just let me have my opinion and leave me alone?

      I don't know, why do people who play the Opinion Card always frame me as the bad guy for not "leaving them alone," but keep on spammin' that reply button themselves? And why is it that they never seem to have the time to defend their actual positions, but can take all of the time in the world to defend not defending things?


      I'm not making a judgement on you, or the writers of the show.

      I'll grant this for the sake of argument, but I don't really care, if you said everything I said was stupid, but actually explained how it was wrong, that would be LIGHT YEARS better than whinging about how you "don't have to explain anything," but also don't want to be criticized for it.


      And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as you can stay in your lane. It does become a problem, however, when you let your dislike of that person grow so big that you take it out on them.

      This totally contradicts later, when you say that the mere act of hating someone is harmful.


      And I don't consider my hatred of Jinora valuable information.

      See, that's really telling, because if it had some logical basis, it could potentially redefine the way that people on this thread think about literature. While that wouldn't cure cancer or end world hunger, it would be immensely valuable to amateur writers. And if you include informative writing, that is literally all of us.


      But just because it isn't valuable, doesn't mean it can't be respected.

      Yes, I can theoretically reward you for no reason, but...why? And is that fair to everyone who actually works for it?


      And when I say "respected" I mean, "letting me believe what I want to believe without trying to convince me or put me down"

      Okay, first of all, saying that I'm "trying to convince you" is giving yourself way too much credit. You haven't even presented a case that can be argued for or against, merely shat out a claim. You are not EVEN wrong.

      Secondly, you're trying to group together a bunch of unrelated things. To respect a position is to admire it, criticism or efforts to convince don't imply either respect or disrespect, & they're not "put downs," but on that note if you use a bunch of logical fallacies, yeah, I'm gonna say you're irrational &/or dishonest.


      If I said something like "do you like apples?" and you said "no", am I going to pester you with questions to justify why you don't like apples? No.

      Except that's not what's going on. You're trying to argue that something which appears to be an orange is actually an apple, refusing to explain why, & then whining when I go "you're just spouting bullshit, aren't you?"


      To begin with, I never asked for any comment on my original post about how much I hated Jinora.

      It's a public forum, the standing implication is that anyone can respond, because you posted it in friggin' public.


      I don't like Jinora because she's Jinora.

      And that's another thing, you have repeatedly admitted that my characterization of your argument is right, but even though this is totally circular reasoning, you still want me to call it "valid" so I don't hurt your felines.

      Well, too bad, circular reasoning is invalid by definition.


      But opinions such as "women are less than men" or "black people are disgusting" or "gay people are wrong" are not equal, because they harm other people and infringe on the basic rights of humans.

      In addition to the aforementioned contradiction with a previous passage, no they don't, institutional policies BASED ON these opinions are harmful. The opinions themselves are just words.

      And if we're going to play this slippery slope game, your opinion asks me to withhold my critical thinking from a conversation if it upsets a person & their opinion has yet to be identified as harmful. This is detrimental to society if applied to other walks of life, which you indicate that it should be.


      I'm just concerned that for each reason I give as to why I don't like her, you're going to give a counterargument, which is not what I'm looking for.

      So you're only interested in providing explanations if I agree, before I even hear them, not to question them.

      So you are dishonest.


      I just came here because I was glad to finally find someone else who didn't like Jinora (the OP).

      Well, I came here to see what the OP had to say, because I don't run on confirmation bias.

      Wow. You know I actually feel sorry for you. I feel sorry that you've completely misunderstood my intentions from the beginning of this post. You keep stressing about how I'm trying to "argue a point" but that's not it. I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just saying that I don't like Jinora. Like I have said many times before, my reasons are valid to me, and if they're not valid to you I don't care. I'm not looking for an arguement, a discussion, or confirmation. So all I will say is that pity the fact that you felt the need to make this about yourself and how I'm attacking you. Good luck with your life. :)

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      Love Robin wrote: why fan fiction? because the original Mary Sue was from a Star Trek Fan fic. That is where the trope began and defined it.

      So? The term can't evolve? It always has to refer to Mary Sue from that particular Star Trek fan fiction?


      Otherwise Superman and Batman would be "Mary Sues"

      Exactly, canon characters can EASILY full under the definition, UNLESS you stipulate the ARBITRARY condition that only fan fictions "count." This is just a special pleading fallacy.

      Additionally?  The original "Mary Sue" was a parody character.  It would make just as much sense to say that the term is being "used wrongly" if it's applied to any character presented unironically.  (Which, considering how heavily it's been abused, really might not be a bad call to make.)

      That said: is it just me, or has no one in this thread actually stated that there's anything wrong with merely not liking a character (which, quite frankly, is unusual for this fandom)?

        Loading editor
    • DEIST ZEALOT

      Additionally? The original "Mary Sue" was a parody character. It would make just as much sense to say that the term is being "used wrongly" if it's applied to any character presented unironically. (Which, considering how heavily it's been abused, really might not be a bad call to make.)

      From what I heard, it was a serious character, but not really as bad as the modern usage of the term implies--that aside from being young for her post & Kirk's love interest, she was a pretty average character.

      No idea if any of that is accurate, of course.

      That said: is it just me, or has no one in this thread actually stated that there's anything wrong with merely not liking a character (which, quite frankly, is unusual for this fandom)?

      No, but "I think a claim you made doesn't actually hold up" is way less easy to complain about than "You don't like this character, you suck."

      I know a lot of people get mad when a character is disliked. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't really be bothered by it. Even all of the Korra hate, I just found kind of annoying.

      AWESOMEBUBBLE

      You keep stressing about how I'm trying to "argue a point" but that's not it. I'm not trying to argue anything.

      If you make a claim, that is an argument. It doesn't cease to be an argument just because you have weird hang-ups about actually explaining it. And that's completely leaving aside that you've posted countless paragraphs complaining about something I said & insisting I take it back. Shit, what went wrong in your development that you'll actually argue about whether or not you're arguing rather than address a simple bloody question?

      So all I will say is that pity the fact that you felt the need to make this about yourself and how I'm attacking you. Good luck with your life. :)

      Nobody buys this stupid speech, we all know it's something kids say when they've made fools of themselves, but are so entitled that they think that it's a form of abuse to be told they're wrong.

      LOVE ROBIN

      It does *not* discuss that the realm of Mary-Sues are no longer Canon, only that *some* make statements regarding unpopular characters in their canons (ex. Wesley Crusher).

      What the Hell are you even saying? You know what, don't answer that, it doesn't matter. It doesn't actually matter whether the Wikipedia information supports you or I.

      All that matters is that, unless you can come up with a valid reason why canon characters can't count, I reject your definition. Appeal to authority is not valid. Special pleading is not valid. The genetic fallacy is not valid.

      I will agree that *some* canon characters exhibit *traits* of a Mary Sue. However that does *not* make them "Canon Mary Sues" any more than a person trying to act/talk/walk/exhibit traits like a certain ethnicity which is not their own will *make* them that ethnicity.

      Can you justify this analogy by explaining what Mary Sues & ethnic groups have in common other than, supposedly, the very thing you're trying to prove? Because if not, this is a false analogy based on circular reasoning.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      I will agree that *some* canon characters exhibit *traits* of a Mary Sue. However that does *not* make them "Canon Mary Sues" any more than a person trying to act/talk/walk/exhibit traits like a certain ethnicity which is not their own will *make* them that ethnicity.

      Can you justify this analogy by explaining what Mary Sues & ethnic groups have in common other than, supposedly, the very thing you're trying to prove? Because if not, this is a false analogy based on circular reasoning.

      "Walks like a Duck" or Horses vs Zebras. Saying that something has the *traits* of something else does NOT make it that other thing. A goose "walks like a duck" while patently remaining NOT a duck. Painting a horse with zebra stripes will never make it a zebra.

      So just as a person can talk and act like, say, a black person, will never make them black (ignoring the rare cases of Albinism). Just like saying a Canon Character exhibits the traits of a Mary Sue does NOT make them a Mary Sue.

      So not a fallacious analogy.

        Loading editor
    • Yes a fallacious analogy. Words do change with use, they are not like racial or species categories.

      Look, we could just as easily make the comparison to religious or political labels, which you can change. You just picked an analogy that assumed what you were trying to prove was true. That's circular reasoning, don't do that.

      Also, while the individual cannot change their genes, given sufficient time, the population's race or species will change due to gene flow. And "Mary Sue" denotes a category, not an individual, so your analogy breaks down anyway.

      This is stupid, I've shown your every argument to be a logical fallacy. No matter how much you keep stubbornly repeating yourself, 0 valid arguments x infinity is still 0.

      I will no longer be responding to this nonsense.

        Loading editor
    • Respond or not, this reply is for the benefit of others reading…

      My analogy was not meant to be a "proof", but to *illustrate* the point.

      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.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • Not 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. 

      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. 

        Loading editor
    • McJediProbie wrote: Not 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. 

      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. 

      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?

      Okay, I'll "get off my fucking high horse" if you can prove any of this. Otherwise, I'm just considering this ad hominem.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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".

      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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 exactly what I said before. It's really not that hard. 

      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. 

        Loading editor
    • 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".

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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 where I admin. You can find a list of my wikias on my Central profile.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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?

      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?

      As for the analogy, Rachel Dolezal immediately comes to mind. Thoughts?

      Now, more generally at the topic, not particularly a direct response to McJediProbie:

      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, compelling reasons that she is?

        Loading editor
    • 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). 

      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 *extreme* outlier to what we know about Object Y, Robin's right.  

      Do I think Jinora is a Mary/Canon Sue? No, not really. I think there are other characters that better fit that mold. 

        Loading editor
    • Love Robin wrote:

      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.

      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.

      THAT is what *I* find offensive.

      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.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Supermensch wrote: 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.

      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.

      While true that racists tend to do that, it does not invalidate the reality that certain groups *do* express different mannerisms and traits. Hell, it's true of *individuals*, which is something the best impressionists capitalize upon.

      I don't know your background and ethnicity, but as a light-skinned black woman who grew up in a Bronx neighborhood filled with Blacks, Italians, Jews, and Hispanics, *each* have and express traits specific to their ethnic cultures. In fact many will exaggerate their local ethnic argot and jargon just to be accepted by their local ethnic community. This is a reality. As I mentioned before, try using your White father's speech mannerisms instead of your black mother's, and see what problems you'll face from your black community. And vice versa. As a writer I can *easily* convey the ethnicity of (most) characters simply by their speech, unless they are the type of character to rise above it.

      At a time when a vocal minority of Mexican Americans were working to get the Frito Bandito removed from the airwaves, the Hispanic Community in my neighborhood were proudly singing it, proud to have hispanic representation on the TV. In fact were highly upset iut was removed, (wrongly) blaming it on "Da Man keeping us down, mang!". So even the same ethnic group were at odds.

      Anyway, if you ever find the statement that ethnics do not have specific trait expressions, try walking in an area not or your own ethnicity at night and see if you don't get accosted by someone claiming "ju lost, Holmes? Mus' be, ju obviously don' belong in dis neighborhood." Or the opposite if you try to talk and act without using your local street speech patterns.

      I *lived* these situations. Grew up with them.

        Loading editor
    • It's certainly true that some ethnic identities are closely tied to a culture exclusive to that ethnicity, but that doesn't make that culture inherent to a person of that ethnicity in the same way one's genome and genealogy is inherent to a person. That doesn't mean people won't still expect you to behave in certain ways depending on your ethnicity, of course, but it's an important distinction to make. Further, it's not like black culture is as uniform/unified/universal as the phrase "talk and act like a black person" would seem to suggest. How often do you see gangsta rap, reggae and black gospel/church culture intersect?

        Loading editor
    • So it's wrong to dismiss someone's argument as invalid, fallacious, or stupid?

      Oh wait, I see what has you 2 so mad, someone did it to you. You're just venting your personal frustrations with me.

      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!"

        Loading editor
    • 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.

      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 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.)

      Interestingly enough, it seems that the character—albeit on a technicality—is actually considered canon.  (And Memory Gamma decided to run with that.)

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      So it's wrong to dismiss someone's argument as invalid, fallacious, or stupid?

      Oh wait, I see what has you 2 so mad, someone did it to you. You're just venting your personal frustrations with me.

      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!"

      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 that is invalid, fallacious, and stupid.

        Loading editor
    • McJediProbie wrote:
      Not a fallacious analogy. Just because definitions can change, doesn't mean this particular definition has.

      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.

      So, how do you know what the majority of people think?

      Also, if i'm not wrong, Love Robin is a bissexual middleaged woman maried with children and a therapist.

        Loading editor
    • 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 this much 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.

        Loading editor
    • A sex therapist. Who dismisses all available research on inbreeding depression as "scare tactics." Right, & I'm the Queen of England.

      (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.)

      Yeah, now that I look again, it says that right on the page.

        Loading editor
    • God save the queen!

      Soooo, yeah, Jinora. Maybe Pema was Mr. Spock's daughter.

        Loading editor
    • Weltall8000 wrote: God save the queen!

      Soooo, yeah, Jinora. Maybe Pema was Mr. Spock's daughter.

      And she dodecawields lightsabers.

        Loading editor
    • I sense some projected jealousy/insecurity/hate toward a fictional character that's not entirely healthy... :P

      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.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

      Also, she has poor taste in men.

      However, I wouldn't go so far as to say she sucks. Even a superfluous character can be charming at times.

        Loading editor
    • "Mysterious." Mercury has a very distinct appearance.

        Loading editor
    • She did also find the kidnapped airbenders which really kickstarted the new Air Nation... I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all her contributions as "superfluous". But I can understand how people might take issue with how the creators sometimes used her as deus ex Jinora. xD

        Loading editor
    • I tend to not even notice Jinora until someone complains about her.

        Loading editor
    • Jinora is my Nr 1 Fave character in LoK. My only complaints are her not helping New Team Avatar via book smarts in Book 1, us not seeing Book 2 from Jinora's POV aside from the Wa Shi Tong part, an' the way she was instantly crushing on & later dating Kai; woulda preferred it if he'd been left out in early Book 3 & she'd instead played his role as it wouldn't require much tweaking to work (Kai could still be her friend, but I'd have liked it if their frindship started out a bit differently). Instead of Kai, a Jinora dressed in Earth Kingdom clothes coulda been caught & she'd have 1st tried to gather information about the secret airbender army before letting Korra know a few hours later via Astral Projection when in her cell. When I was watching that Episode, (despite my love of Kai's amusing personality & impressive skills) I couldn't help seeing this scenario play out instead.

      There's also the way Jinora STAYED ON AIR TEMPLE ISLAND INSTEAD OF TRAVELLING THE WORLD HELPING PEOPLE WITH KAI & OPAL, which pisses me off big time coz she's supposed to be the semi-leader of her new people but doesn't DO anything for 3 years. That coulda been easily prevented by e.g. carrying on from her mild confrontation & heart-to-heart with Tenzin in Book 3; she'd argue with him again, this time about needing to be as example to their people due to her position as the semi-leader while he's (completely correctly) worried about her safety after that fiasco with Zaheer, an' then either convince him to let her go or runs away Toph-style coz she's feeling very guilty for having been useless (aside from finding the kidnapped airbenders & that tornado thing; those were awesome) in Book 3. Voila, character development! An' it'd sorta parallel Korra's like how Zuko's more or less parallelled Aang's in 'Avatar: The Last Airbender'.

      What cha think?

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message