![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sit down, Wesley.
Sep. 10th, 2010 02:06 pm(ETA 2: Just to clarify - I don't think Wesley is a kitten-chasing jerk and I tend to see him the way Wheaton does - as a character who was heinously annoying to some because of bad writing, but who had potential to not be. These characters are never MEANT to be jerks or look bad, but because of reader perspective having the potential to differ VASTLY from writer intent, they do. Wesley in the show was a punk kid; Wesley-types IRL are quite another story.
What I am trying to say is: passive aggressive pot-shots at me implying that I'm some kind of bandwagon hater can go fall down a hole. XD I didn't even know there were entire fanboy hate parades; I was never active in or part of online TNG fandom. My perspective on the guy is informed by my experience as a minigeek on the sofa asking my dad what Warp 5 meant since I got into the show in medias res.)
Okay so - I've determined through my own meandering experience and the commentary and snark of friends that one of the hallmarks of a Sue/Stu/Wesley is the fact that they get to have their cake and eat it too.
It's like this: they are wish fulfillment and they often have everything the writer doesn't/didn't/wants. As such, they rarely have to follow the rules that govern other characters - there's a sliding moral scale and it usually tips in their favour. They do not have to face the consequences of their actions, and if they are punished we are 'asposedta' not like the disciplinarian. They rarely face criticism or critique and when they do we're supposed to believe that the critic is a baby-eater. Everyone else will rise against the critic and run them out of the room, at best. Usually this is the author's desire for vindication against their perceived opponents saying yo 'sup.
This is all well and good and awesome for Wesley and Wesley's author, but - it's not so much fun for the reader. It can feel voyeuristic, or exclusionary.
The bottom line is that Wesley writers don't seem to stop to think what life is like for the people who aren't Wesley.
( dah, dah, dah~ )
What I am trying to say is: passive aggressive pot-shots at me implying that I'm some kind of bandwagon hater can go fall down a hole. XD I didn't even know there were entire fanboy hate parades; I was never active in or part of online TNG fandom. My perspective on the guy is informed by my experience as a minigeek on the sofa asking my dad what Warp 5 meant since I got into the show in medias res.)
Okay so - I've determined through my own meandering experience and the commentary and snark of friends that one of the hallmarks of a Sue/Stu/Wesley is the fact that they get to have their cake and eat it too.
It's like this: they are wish fulfillment and they often have everything the writer doesn't/didn't/wants. As such, they rarely have to follow the rules that govern other characters - there's a sliding moral scale and it usually tips in their favour. They do not have to face the consequences of their actions, and if they are punished we are 'asposedta' not like the disciplinarian. They rarely face criticism or critique and when they do we're supposed to believe that the critic is a baby-eater. Everyone else will rise against the critic and run them out of the room, at best. Usually this is the author's desire for vindication against their perceived opponents saying yo 'sup.
This is all well and good and awesome for Wesley and Wesley's author, but - it's not so much fun for the reader. It can feel voyeuristic, or exclusionary.
The bottom line is that Wesley writers don't seem to stop to think what life is like for the people who aren't Wesley.
( dah, dah, dah~ )