"Yes indeed, being concise and to the point makes it easier for people to identify and point out the flaws in your arguments. Tragic, I know. And not as amusing as daydreaming what you would have done if you were transported back to 1980 with a smartphone, or trying to feed the other party some choice red herrings."
Beyond the unnecessary sarcasm and dismissiveness of the first and second sentence, let us attend the argument you have provided in your third sentence, which I have italicised. You say, again in that sarcastic tone that I did nothing to deserve up until my last comment, I admit, that the hypothetical I provided regarding travel to 1980 with a smartphone was somehow a red herring/false analogy. I believe I understand your point: that I am intentionally attempting to misdirect people with an irrelevant example. However, it is not. Consider the enormous advances that have taken place between 1980-2020 -- if a person were to go back to 1980 with a smartphone full of information about the events that would unfold for just the next 20 years, they would be in a position of knowing when and how the internet would be commercialised, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Invasion of Panama, the 1st Iraq War, the Clinton scandal, the Yugoslav Wars, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Rwanda genocide, and so much more. They would know that Google was first founded in 1998 and that the dotcom industry would suffer a horrendous bubble break in 2000. They would know that there would be an oil shock in 1990 and that the UK would go to war with Argentina in 1982. And that's not counting all the technological advancements achieved between 1980 and 2000. Heck, even the smartphone itself would be a shock to companies and crowds in 1983,
when the average mobile phone was one of those huge bricks with an antenna.
Basically, they would have a wealth of knowledge with which to radically enrich themselves and/or even influence the course of history, assuming they found a powerful enough patron. In short, not unlike Shizuko. Thus, there is no red herring as it is a fair comparison.
"I fully agree. However, Evidence != verbosity + red herrings + false analogies. Just because you mixed in "sound" arguments in with the rest doesn't change the fact that a large part of your reply had nothing to do with evidence. And just to persuade you that I am not arguing in bad faith, I will illustrate what I meant when I said that I could summarize your whole reply in 3 sentences:"
I fully acknowledge that I am often long-winded, though, unsurprisingly, I dispute the accusation of using false analogies and red herrings. If you'll excuse me, I will skip the parts where you summarise my post, as I've already explained my reasons for posting as I have, and where you reiterate your annoyance at my long-windedness.
"This sentence + your arguments just goes to show that you do not understand what a character being a Mary Sue entails."
On the contrary, I do. The problem is that it is a term that is vastly overused and whose definition has been subject to evolution and discussion over time. That is why, if you search for the term on Dictionary.com, the definition is given as: "Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws, originally written as an idealized version of an author in fanfiction." (
Source)
But if you check TVTropes.org, as you did in another section of your rebuttal, you get: "Mary Sue is a derogatory term primarily used in Fan Fic circles to describe a particular type of character. This much everyone can agree on.
What that character type is, exactly, differs wildly from circle to circle, and often from person to person." (
Source) [Bold mine]
Thus, such a label is basically subjective rather than objective, as you implied in your statement that I do not understand what a character being a Mary Sue entails.
"Irrelevant, but in fact works against your point. I do not think you realize it, but this is actually an argument in favour of her character being a Mary Sue. And since you seem to love red herrings and false analogies - here you go, this reminds me of your "argumentation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeSGexMeWy0"
And how, precisely, is it an argument in favour of her being a Mary Sue? It is difficult to rebut a statement if I don't know where you're coming from. Are you referring to the fake self-deprecating of the likes of the archetypal Mary Sue, Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way of
My Immortal infamy? If so, we're talking about two very different creatures here. Shizuko's self-deprecation comes as an acknowledgement of the limitations of her own skills and innovative skill -- she is literally copying the works of others and semi-passing them off as hers and she feels bad about that. Thus, Nouhime suggests she try making something that is uniquely her own; arguably, we don't know how that'll turn out, but Shizuko's expression of revelation does seem to indicate a willingness to grow.
The My Immortal-type Mary Sue, meanwhile, is insincere about their self-deprecation because while they claim things like "Its so unfair! [...] Why can't I just be ugly or plain like all da other girls and preps here?...Im good at too many things! WHY CAN'T I JUST BE NORMAL? IT'S A FUCKING CURSE!" they don't actually do anything to resolve this or grow from such introspection.
Assuming I have pinned down at least part of what you personally deem to be a Mary Sue, then, such a character would, among other things, have no room to grow because they have no need for it -- they are already perfect. That is not the case with Shizuko as a protagonist, however. I could elaborate further on this point, but you've made it clear you dislike it when I do.
"I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but you simply do not understand what a Mary Sue is, or you fail to realize she is a Mary Sue. You also failed to realize that: "MC is a genius, everybody else is stupid." was an obviously intentional hyperbole, emphasizing the ability of our MC to metaphorically distort space when in a conversation with another character (for reference: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackHoleSue)."
Unfortunately, this ties back to what I was saying in the previous section; the definition of a Mary Sue is presently very subjective, not objective, as people like to fling the term around quite liberally. Thus, I made my judgment of Shizuko's character vis-a-vis the Mary Sue label based on my own definition, which now appears to run contrary to yours. Thus, if we are to further discuss this point, we would both need to define the term to the extent that we can both agree on some common ground for future elaboration.
Regarding the sarcasm, I concede that I did not realise you were being hyperbolic.
Mea culpa; regrettably, picking up on sarcasm and hyperbole can sometimes be difficult for me, for which I apologise.
And lastly, I would point out that, from my perspective, you are misapplying the BlackHoleSue trope to Shizuko. Let us outline what it says:
"Her gravity is so great, she draws all the attention and causes other characters (and, often, reality itself) to bend and contort in order to accommodate her. Characters don't act naturally around her. They instead serve as plot enablers for her, with dialogue that only acts as set-ups for her response. She dominates every scene she is in, with most scenes without her serving only to give the characters a chance to "talk freely" about her. Most people don't oppose her and anybody who does will either realize their fault in doing so or just prove easy to overcome."
(
Source)
On the basis of this, I can see where you're coming from, as the interactions between Shizuko and Nobunaga in front of the other officers have generally been exclusionary to the officers. However, one must also take into consideration the unique circumstances of these interactions. To begin with, Shizuko is herself an anomaly by simple dint of being a highly educated woman by Sengoku standards and taller than the average person, thereby drawing attention and caution. Secondly, she has knowledge that Nobunaga wants and is therefore his favourite
du jour, logically drawing further attention. Third, Nobunaga is himself unconventional, meaning he is more likely to listen to her than the average Sengoku-era person of his status. Fourth, even though the manga is about Shizuko and her contributions, the most dominant figure in each of the major conversations hasn't been Shizuko, it's been
Nobunaga. Shizuko herself has no capacity to do
anything without Nobunaga's say-so, and only his backing gives her words any weight. This is why, in each situation where a major policy or dogmatic shift takes place, Nobunaga is there, at the very least at the decision stage, to place his seal of approval on it. Without it, she's just another girl in an era that was hostile to women like Shizuko.
Moreover, the story also progresses while Shizuko is visibly absent and cannot directly influence the outcome -- for example, the campaign in Mino and Nobunaga's manipulation of Ashikaga Yoshiaki. Indeed, rather than moving along the plot, it is Nobunaga and his goals that seem to move Shizuko along, as his growing expectations force her to reach new heights of productivity and innovation just to satisfy his demands. On these grounds, then, I contest the use of the Black Hole Sue and Mary Sue labels.
