Anti-Author Terminology

[Hodor's Dragon]

The following terms have very little meaning, no agreed meaning, and never occur in serious literary discussion:

• Plot gifts
  
• Plot armor
  
• Mary Sue
  
• Gary Stu
  

They are only used to criticize and intimidate authors, and have no proper function. Every discussion involving one of those terms almost inevitably devolves into combat, but worse than that, it's vague and meaningless combat, because these terms don't really mean anything at all.

I will fight these terms whenever I see them used by anybody, for any reason. If I have time. And feel like it. Unless you become the very first person to use them in a meaningful way, and for a positive purpose.

By the way:

• Google "plot gift" and the top result is from this forum.
  
• Google "plot armor" and the top two results are from dictionaries/term-explanation sites, and the first real result is from this forum.
  
• Google "Mary Sue" and you'll actually find that the term is used for other functions than to criticize an ASOIAF character you don't like,* but you'll also find out it has come under heavy criticism in the literary community for stifling authors wishing to create strong female characters. ("Gary Stu" is a derivative of this, less frequently used.)
  

*Nevertheless the google search "`Mary Sue' ASOIAF" returns 28,200 hits, about 5% of the total hits for "Mary Sue." Obviously, that doesn't count people who are discussing ASOIAF without using the word ASOIAF.

[Squab]

Plot armour exists. Thats why Jon cant die. I saw someone else write that and i agreed with them. Thats an agreed meaning. or will you need more than that?

I dont know what the other three things are but can imagine them turning up in serious literary discussion some way.

Who is this guy?

[Hodor's Dragon]

Plot armour exists. Thats why Jon cant die. I saw someone else write that and i agreed with them. Thats an agreed meaning. or will you need more than that?

I dont know what the other three things are but can imagine them turning up in serious literary discussion some way.

Who is this guy?

Just because you and Joe Blow agree that X is "plot armor" is not the same thing as saying that the term has a meaning. What's the test for determining whether something is "plot armor?" What's the difference between "plot armor" and "something I don't like?" Most importantly, can you answer those two preceding questions in a way that everybody agrees with?

There's that, but just for the sake of argument, let's leave that important idea behind and assume that the terms actually mean something. Next question, then: if it is "plot armor. . . ." Doesn't that essentially just mean that the author doesn't want this character to die yet? Is there supposed to be something wrong with letting the author decide which characters in a story live and which die? Isn't that what stories are and have always been about?

Yet the term is invariably used in a critical (or negative) fashion. It's not used neutrally as a descriptive fashion. It's only used to detract. I don't see any function in these particular terms other than to criticize writers' plot choices. Am I missing something? If I'm not, then my point-of-view is that I'm very pro-writer, so I don't like it if that's all it's about.

Now, "pro-writer" or not, I'm certainly not suggesting that writers are above criticism. Criticizing writing is part of the learning process that is sparked by any good writing. But it's not educational if the criticism is just some vague buzzword. If writers are going to be criticized for plot choices, let it be for some substantial reason than can be put into actual words and responded to.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Just because you and Joe Blow agree that X is "plot armor" is not the same thing as saying that the term has a meaning. What's the test for determining whether something is "plot armor?" What's the difference between "plot armor" and "something I don't like?"

Further, if it is "plot armor. . . ." Doesn't that essentially just mean that the author doesn't want this character to die yet? Is there supposed to be something wrong with letting the author decide which characters in a story live and which die? Isn't that what stories are and have always been about?

Yet the term is invariably used in a critical (or negative) fashion. It's not used neutrally as a descriptive fashion. It's only used to detract.

I'm not a fiction writer, but I studied fiction writing in grad school and have several good friends who write fiction (or poetry) for a living. Partially because of that, I'm very pro-writer. I don't see any function in these particular terms other than to criticize writers' plot choices. Am I missing something?

Now, "pro-writer" or not, I'm certainly not suggesting that writers are above criticism. Criticizing writing is part of the learning process that is sparked by any good writing. But it's not educational if the criticism is just some vague buzzword. If writers are going to be criticized for plot choices, let it be for some substantial reason than can be put into actual words and responded to.

Ok, how would you call the eventuality of a character that escapes from danger in a ludicrous and implausible manner in repeated circumstances, straining credibility and breaking the reader's inmersion in the narrative and any attempt of realism?

[Hodor's Dragon]

Ok, how would you call the eventuality of a character that escapes from danger in a ludicrous and implausible manner in repeated circumstances, straining credibility and breaking the reader's inmersion in the narrative and any attempt of realism?

The words you use sound quite descriptive. I think they would hold a great deal more value than any of the vague pejoratives that are the subject of this post.

[No Song so Sweet]

I don't think anyone here intimidates the author, we are not even speaking to the author and he isn't listening. This is a discussion amongst ourselves.

I think plot gift and plot armor have meaning. If i say "X character has plot armor" it means the character would normally be dead under the circumstances he was in but instead he is saved by the author because he wants to turn the plot a certain way. More or less that's how everyone uses it. So it is a judgement on the plot, which the commenter judges it as unrealistic in a specific way.

We can't restrict that kind of language since it is not offensive. We can't judge the plot?

I haven't heard the Mary Sue characterization anywhere I don't know what it means.

[Horny Joramun]

• Google "plot gift" and the top result is from this forum.

• Google "plot armor" and the top two results are from dictionaries/term-explanation sites, and the first real result is from this forum.

Google "Mary Sue" and you'll actually find that the term is used for other functions than to criticize an ASOIAF character you don't like,* but you'll also find out it has come under heavy criticism in the literary community for stifling authors wishing to create strong female characters. ("Gary Stu" is a derivative of this, less frequently used.)

Because google knows your preferences and habits

[Good Guy Garlan]

The words you use sound quite descriptive. I think they would hold a great deal more value than any of the vague pejoratives that are the subject of this post.

Yeah, but I won't write that whole sentence everytime I mean "plot armor". So let me get this straight: your issue is not with the concept itself but rather with the term?

[Red Wedding Cake]

I don't think these terms are anti-author anymore than red herring, climax, character arc, or foreshadowing. They're meta descriptions of the story.

[aryagonnakill#2]

Lets use the most obvious example, the eagles in LOTR. Can't everyone agree thats a plot gift? I define plot gift as the author wrote him or herself into a position they could not write themselves out of using the material that already existed in the book, and is not being used to set up a later, even bigger event.

Now to examine the eagles, they were not mentioned beforehand in any serious context that could not have simply been added in, I know that at some point Tolkien writes that Gandolf has healed the king eagle when he got shot with an arrow, but I am not sure where that happens. Either way the first real mention is them swooping in and saving the day in the Hobbit, then again they show up in the battle at the end to tip the side in the good guys favor. I believe its the same in the main series, pop in twice to save the day when nothing else that was written into the story could have been used.

This is the clearest example I can think of but there's no reason it couldn't apply to something in ASOIAF. I'm inclined to say that GRRM is a better writer and I don't think it has happened but words have meaning, just because its not a universally agreed upon meaning doesn't mean it has none. Beautiful for example is a very subjective word that not everyone would agree on, but I doubt you'd criticize the use of the word beautiful.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I don't think anyone here intimidates the author, we are not even speaking to the author and he isn't listening. This is a discussion amongst ourselves.

I think plot gift and plot armor have meaning. If i say "X character has plot armor" it means the character would normally be dead under the circumstances he was in but instead he is saved by the author because he wants to turn the plot a certain way. More or less that's how everyone uses it. So it is a judgement on the plot, which the commenter judges it as unrealistic in a specific way.

We can't restrict that kind of language since it is not offensive. We can't judge the plot?

I haven't heard the Mary Sue characterization anywhere I don't know what it means.

So . . . the author wants to turn the plot in a certain way. Isn't that OK? Because again, I'm not accustomed to seeing these terms in a neutral or descriptive light. They're always used critically, and I think the broad use of these terms has an ultimate effect of restricting authorial freedom of plot device.

It the "plot armor," or whatever the heck it is, is bad, then tell us why it's bad using the kind of language that Jon of the (E)D used above, language that actually means something and can rightfully be used in a critical sense. Of course you can judge the plot, just write about it in a meaningful way, not by jumping on some garbage truck of a fad phase that is, again, used more in this forum than anywhere else in the language.

I haven't heard the Mary Sue characterization anywhere I don't know what it means.

Oh good. That's not a situation that needs to be remedied. Or can be remedied. Nobody knows what it means, as should be readily apparent from some of the discussions about it in this forum.

[Cthulhu the Drowned God]

I have to say, considering how often I've seen plot armor argued about on the internet, this forum being the third result for it on Google is pretty impressive. I suppose congratulations are in order.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Yeah, but I won't write that whole sentence everytime I mean "plot armor". So let me get this straight: your issue is not with the concept itself but rather with the term?

Absolutely. I wouldn't rule out any concept. My whole point is that those terms mean nothing other than "I don't like this."

But if you want to start actually expressing ideas like "I don't want the writer to choose to let this person live," instead of just blurting out "plot armor," I think you might use the concept a whole lot less often. Because, in most circumstances, it's a silly concept. Authors make those sorts of decisions. That is the heart of story-telling.

[Squab]

I have to say, considering how often I've seen plot armor argued about on the internet, this forum being the third result for it on Google is pretty impressive. I suppose congratulations are in order.

Or its something that is noticed in GRRM's writing by many

[Hodor's Dragon]

Lets use the most obvious example, the eagles in LOTR. Can't everyone agree thats a plot gift? I define plot gift as the author wrote him or herself into a position they could not write themselves out of using the material that already existed in the book, and is not being used to set up a later, even bigger event.

Now to examine the eagles, they were not mentioned beforehand in any serious context that could not have simply been added in, I know that at some point Tolkien writes that Gandolf has healed the king eagle when he got shot with an arrow, but I am not sure where that happens. Either way the first real mention is them swooping in and saving the day in the Hobbit, then again they show up in the battle at the end to tip the side in the good guys favor. I believe its the same in the main series, pop in twice to save the day when nothing else that was written into the story could have been used.

This is the clearest example I can think of but there's no reason it couldn't apply to something in ASOIAF. I'm inclined to say that GRRM is a better writer and I don't think it has happened but words have meaning, just because its not a universally agreed upon meaning doesn't mean it has none. Beautiful for example is a very subjective word that not everyone would agree on, but I doubt you'd criticize the use of the word beautiful.

The bolded sentence is where you told me what you meant. It's quite specific and can lead to a very productive discussion. I, for one, have several ideas that spin off of your description, and I suspect you and I could have a very productive discussion about the LOTR eagles using that definition.

The term "plot gift" did not tell me what you meant. It could've meant any of a number of things, and all it really means is "I think the author did something silly here." I have zero ideas that spin off the use of that term, other than "bleccch."

[Squab]

Lets use the most obvious example, the eagles in LOTR. Can't everyone agree thats a plot gift? I define plot gift as the author wrote him or herself into a position they could not write themselves out of using the material that already existed in the book, and is not being used to set up a later, even bigger event.

Now to examine the eagles, they were not mentioned beforehand in any serious context that could not have simply been added in, I know that at some point Tolkien writes that Gandolf has healed the king eagle when he got shot with an arrow, but I am not sure where that happens. Either way the first real mention is them swooping in and saving the day in the Hobbit, then again they show up in the battle at the end to tip the side in the good guys favor. I believe its the same in the main series, pop in twice to save the day when nothing else that was written into the story could have been used.

This is the clearest example I can think of but there's no reason it couldn't apply to something in ASOIAF. I'm inclined to say that GRRM is a better writer and I don't think it has happened but words have meaning, just because its not a universally agreed upon meaning doesn't mean it has none. Beautiful for example is a very subjective word that not everyone would agree on, but I doubt you'd criticize the use of the word beautiful.

Thank you. I'm so using "plot gift" now

[Hodor's Dragon]

I don't think these terms are anti-author anymore than red herring, climax, character arc, or foreshadowing. They're meta descriptions of the story.

I'm pretty sure they are almost always used as criticism. That is not true for any of the other terms you've listed.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Thank you. I'm so using "plot gift" now.

Two questions:

(1) What will you mean when you use it?

(2) What makes you think others will take that same meaning when they read what you wrote?

[Civility Reigns]

I've been noticing the term "cartoonish" being thrown around a lot lately. I didn't think anything of it until I started seeing it on other (non-ASOIAF) forums and in poorly written Cracked articles. Now I'm starting to wonder how many people are using it in fairness, and how many use it as the new criticism buzzword.

[Fanless Mace]

I suspect the OP is a Mary Sue. His plot armor is thick.