All shall love me and despair...

[rj_anderson]

This is an interesting review of my HP fic(s). lizbee has already made a couple of comments on one remark she felt was misleading; but it was another part of the review that particularly baffled me.

Here's the remark in question:

I was really hoping that Maud would redeem her MS qualities or something... but no-- she's the tortured girl that everyone can't help but love.

This is the second negative LJ review to make this accusation, and I am sincerely perplexed by it. "Everyone" loves Maud? I stated quite plainly in the story that she had few friends at Durmstrang and even fewer at Hogwarts, and the only students who even attempt to befriend her are the Weasley twins. Her roommate Muriel beats her up and her other roommates spread malicious gossip about her. Draco regards her with supercilious contempt. Even in the later fics, Maud's dealings with other students are merely civil at best (as when she meets Hermione in the library in PR), and at worst downright adversarial. She doesn't acquire a single friend apart from George Weasley until she leaves Hogwarts. So who is this mysterious "everyone"?

Maybe the reviewer really means that all the adults in the fic love Maud. Well, there are only four of those in TPMA. Mad-Eye raised Maud and she's his niece, so I guess he has to like her. (I should mention, for those thinking of writing fic, that heaven forbid your OC should be related to any canon character, even a lesser canon character; that automatically makes her Special, and therefore a Mary Sue. And here I just thought it would be a good excuse for having lots of Mad-Eye Moody in the story.)

Moody's got a reasonable excuse, that leaves Snape, Dumbledore and McGonagall. I think my logic behind having Snape treat Maud with considerably more decency and respect than he does Harry & co. is explained in the fic. Obviously the reviewer doesn't agree that Snape could or would treat anyone with civility or respect, much less love or be loved by anyone, so that aspect of the trilogy doesn't work for her. Fine, I can live with that. Personally I don't think even JKR takes that extreme a view of Snape's character, for all that she enjoys playing up his negative qualities through Harry's eyes. But I guess only time and canon will tell.

So back to the supposed Maud Moody love-in. McGonagall, for her part, does nothing but politely guide Maud to a meeting with the Headmaster. Unless that counts as "love" in some strange subtextual way, we're left with only Dumbledore. Who, as we know from canon, is kind and generous and benignly meddling with all his students, so... where is this "loved by all" stuff coming from again?

I don't mind having my work reviewed critically. Some of my favorite reviewers have been quite direct in pointing out flaws, as well as being honest about things they personally don't like to see in stories (Oi! for instance, never gave a fig for Snape and didn't particularly warm to Maud either, and I still loved her reviews). I can even think of some pretty severe criticisms myself (for the record, those include wobbly characterization of Maud in the first story; a number of embarrassing continuity gaffes involving numbers, dates, and architectural layouts; a really cringe-worthy bit of dialogue in the first chapter of IWS; and too much schmoop in Snape's letters, among others).

But I do object to the reviewer misrepresenting the content of my fics and disparaging faults of which they are not in fact guilty. As lizbee pointed out, that's not a valid form of criticism.

Comments

it's me, same as before

[(Anonymous)]

Well, that is indeed interesting! It reassured me to know that you intended it to be that way, and it wasn't just an unobserved shift.

It's interesting, because, it seems like, to you(with a handy little segue back on topic), Maud was more MarySueish when she was being the action heroine, whereas I was bothered by the self-effacing Maud. I felt that as she became more 'normal', she became an easier vessel for reader self-insertion. (Because we readers, of course, love Snape, despite him being useless and sour and not holding up his half of the relationship) ;D . Of course, just my opinion.

Believe it or not, I do know what you mean about the characters telling you things. It's a great feeling, when you know that you've given your characters enough life that they start wanting to do things on their own, and don't care what you have to say about it. ;D

Since I'm here, I'll take the moment to ask if you'd mind if I did a more comprehensive review - I thought I'd ask first, because maybe you don't want such a thing at this point in your life, a long ramble about an oldish story you're happy to let be. :)

And, to scuttle radically out of relevance, I am reminded for no reason of the Snape/Lily argument that was going on a few posts back. Somethings, I think, you can just predict from canon. Before I was halfway through PS/SS I announced to myself that Ron and Hermione would get together in some way eventually - by the Law of Sidekicks. ;) Snape, in canon, has a role - 'annoying and irrational teacher who foils and irritates students whilst being essential on the side of good'. He's the embodiment of the unfair and unlikeable teacher. Such a character does not have previous romantic relationships with the hero's mother. They just...don't. This is the slightly sketchy logic I use to reassure myself...and, now, others! :)

Right, I'll stop filling up your LJ space, and even put a name on my post this time.

~Chresimos

Re: it's me, same as before

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the further thoughts, Chresimos! I'm really enjoying this conversation.

...it seems like, to you... Maud was more MarySueish when she was being the action heroine, whereas I was bothered by the self-effacing Maud. I felt that as she became more 'normal', she became an easier vessel for reader self-insertion.

Well, I think this brings us back to the lack of general agreement on what constitutes a Mary Sue, and thus the critical uselessness of the term. My personal understanding of an MS (and I think you'll find this aspect fairly widely agreed upon) is not that she's too much like Everywoman and that readers can too readily imagine themselves in her place, as you suggested: rather, it's that she's not normal or ordinary enough. In fact, she's so "special" that the reader can't identify or sympathize with her, and only ends up resenting all the attention this flat and ridiculous character seems to get.

As I understand it, there are two main types of Mary Sues. Author Sue (as I'll call her) is a self-insertion in the classic sense: she looks, acts, talks, and thinks just like her author. Perfect Sue, the other type, is a fantastically glamourized creation who represents everything the author isn't, but wishes she could be.

Nevertheless, whether it's Author Sue or Perfect Sue we're looking at, in a true Mary Sue story we can be sure of one thing: everything is about her. Not just that she narrates the story or that we're limited to her POV, but that she's always at the centre of attention. None of the canonical characters in the story are allowed to be indifferent to her or remain in ignorance of her existence; everybody wants a piece of her, and everybody has an opinion about her. The Trio turn to her for advice on their love lives. Snape's exceptional viciousness to her is only a mask for his burning passion. All unbeknownst to her, she is the fullfillment of an ancient prophecy, and without her help Harry cannot hope to defeat Voldemort, etc., etc.

The reader can't identify with Mary Sue because she's so unlike themselves, or anyone they know. Her virtues are angelic, her faults negligible (or even endearing), her tragedies epic in scope. But even more unforgivably, she's flat. Mary Sue never becomes a fully developed character because the author is so busy telling us (and having everybody else tell us) how remarkable she is that we're never given a chance, much less a reason, to reach a similar conclusion for ourselves.

So getting back to Maud, yes, I do think she was more like the classic or garden variety Mary Sue back when she wanted to be an Auror, could hold her own against people like Muriel Groggins, and struggled heroically against the limitations of her blindness. I don't think she was a Mary Sue even then, but I can more easily see how people inclined to seeing Mary Sues everywhere might fix on Maud as a target.

Since I'm here, I'll take the moment to ask if you'd mind if I did a more comprehensive review -

I don't mind at all. Yes, it's an old story and yes, it would be somewhat different if I were writing it now. But I don't think that should make it immune to critique -- after all, people are still reading it, and it's new to them. Besides, I really am interested in what people have to say about my writing, for good or ill, and I do find something helpful or thought-provoking in nearly every review. So sure, go ahead! I look forward to your comments.