Critical Analysis of Twilight
jawab soalan ini
Critical Analysis of Twilight Soalan
Why is Mary-Sue a bad thing? Please and thank you!
Whenever I thought of Mary-Sue, I always imagined it to mean a boring character. And in my mind, boring is equivalent to having no sense of humour ^_^ So I considered characters that aren't amusing to be Mary Sues.
However, the definition of Mary Sue on Wikpedia is quite different! It refers to "a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment Fantasi for the penulis atau reader."
I don't understand what's wrong with this at all! Why is it considered a bad thing? D:
"Overly idealised mannerisms" - doesn't that just mean that they're brave/kind/selfless/etc. to an unlikely degree? What's wrong with that? D: Does anyone have an example?
"Lacking noteworthy flaws" - Again, I don't understand why that's bad D: Could someone give an example?
"Primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment Fantasi for the penulis atau reader" - This one I understand least of all. Why does it matter? D: Imagine Tolkien used LOTR as a self-insertion, and based Legolas on himself. That wouldn't make the LOTR world any less amazing, atau the story less interesting, atau Legolas less of an amusing character ^_^ Why does it matter?
Please, and thank anda very much :D
However, the definition of Mary Sue on Wikpedia is quite different! It refers to "a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment Fantasi for the penulis atau reader."
I don't understand what's wrong with this at all! Why is it considered a bad thing? D:
"Overly idealised mannerisms" - doesn't that just mean that they're brave/kind/selfless/etc. to an unlikely degree? What's wrong with that? D: Does anyone have an example?
"Lacking noteworthy flaws" - Again, I don't understand why that's bad D: Could someone give an example?
"Primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment Fantasi for the penulis atau reader" - This one I understand least of all. Why does it matter? D: Imagine Tolkien used LOTR as a self-insertion, and based Legolas on himself. That wouldn't make the LOTR world any less amazing, atau the story less interesting, atau Legolas less of an amusing character ^_^ Why does it matter?
Please, and thank anda very much :D
|
next question » | ||
|