Please use edit reasons when deleting quotes.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
So... The examples are gone. The last time they were removed, someone reverted the change, and being that nothing in the discussion thread mentioned their removal, I'm thinking that should happen again. It's not that I don't see the danger of calling anyone's favorite military strategist a Mary Tzu, but I do think this page really could benefit from SOME further explanation of what kind of characters qualify.
Hide / Show Replies
All Sue tropes have had their example sections removed as per moderator action.
I doubt they will be coming back.
What's precedent ever done for us?
EDIT: Redacted. "As above, so below" is all we're really going to get. Forget I said anything.
Edited by Trismegustis
It annoys me to no end, Examples are the main reason I come to this website, the Trope descriptions themselves are informative but usually not as witty as they think they are.
That One Guy...
One shouldn't have to ask, but aren't most Fire Emblem players this if you look at it? I mean, we're not only winning wars with a Ragtag Crew of Nobodies mixed in with a few Royals Who Actually Do Something, we're doing so perfectly- hell we have a 0% casualty rate (cause god knows, we're all on a hair trigger to restart the freaking chapter the moment something goes wrong).
NEXTs, BETA, You... Project Ignition
In regards to the entry on Laurana, her victories weren't because the Dragonarmy generals were incompetent. Rather their problem was that at the start of the Vingaard Campaign, their forces were scattered all across Solamnia (which at the time was a logical deployment since they knew Laurana did not have access to dragons, without which she could not hope to face them in an open battle.) Laurana got a lucky break when her brother brought the good dragons back and was then smart and gutsy enough to take advantage of the Dragonarmy forces being so spread out to defeat them in detail before they could mass against her. She was an excellent commander, who intuitively understood the importance of speed in warfare, and developed a number of innovative techniques for using dragons beyond just close air support, but that doesn't make her tactical abilities unrealistic. Good generals are supposed to be audacious and creative.
Edited by bguy
Someone removed the Thrawn example on the following grounds:
- And? Thrawn also loses. Multiple times.
Personally, I'm not so certain. I can see how Thrawn might be able to gain insight into an enemy's psychology by studying their art, personally, so it doesn't break SOD for me. And SOD is a fairly subjective concept. The majority of his victories didn't come from art study, but rather manipulation and trickery, i.e. targeting worlds to force large numbers of ships to go the Sluis Van, seeing through multiple layers of deception to defend his shipyards fromt he new Republic assault, etc. that was simply him puzzling through things with an exceptionally analytical mind. Plus, he's still lost multiple times. yes, one of thos elosses wa sbecause he was killed mid-battle, but by his own bodyguard. If he was a Mary Sue he wouldn't have suffered that - he would have seen it coming and already anticipated it.
I also take issue with the way the entry was worded. It sounded excessively condescending to me, particularly the "Seriously?" at the end.
I've read the changes you've made, and I see where you're coming from, and I have no problem leaving it the way it is now.
Mind changing 'Some fans find his tendencies to analyze his enemies and predict their responses to be difficult to swallow' to 'Some fans find the precision with which he analyses his enemies and predicts their responses to be difficult to swallow'?
Analysing the enemy and predicting their responses is part of a strategist's job description - it's just that Thrawn can be argued to be implausibly good at it.
I'd have edited it myself, but regrettably, my computer's still playing silly buggers.
What's precedent ever done for us?
I've edited the description of the trope to remove the line saying that Ender Wiggin wouldn't count, and put him in as an example, because I think he's a textbook case. His allegedly brilliant military innovations are actually things that would be obvious to any child of even more modest intellectual gifts. They certainly don't seem believable as something only the greatest genius in a school full of military geniuses could come up with. Even though I love the book and the character, Ender is a Mary Tzu.
These examples need to be expanded upon. Just saying "Character X is a Mary Tzu" isn't very helpful at all.
Why is Benedict listed? Why is Lelouch listed? etcetcetc
This is still a signature. Hide / Show Replies
There are four examples,which probably means it did not go though YKTTW properly.
New theme music also a box
It did:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=x3zcsv0tlfpyrrgq5lvvdqz4&trope=MaryTzu
Most of the entries agree on the name itself however. That said, there may be a place for this trope, but, at the same time, I can't help but feel this overlaps with something else. I'm on the fence with this one.
Edited by RedViking
I think it can catch on. There is clearly a character of the type and no handy term to label them with. Until now. That's exactly what we do.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
But there is a handy term! Xanatos Roulette.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
Xantos Roulette is what they do. Mary Tzu is the character themself. And Mary Tzus aren't the only characters who can do a Xanatos Roulette.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
This a definite trope, as I added two more to literature with Matt Cauthon and Thrawn.. Basically this is the character who takes beiong The Strategist to mean that his so much smarter than everyone that he could crush his enemy with only a thought.
So...The Strategist But More?
Thought we were trying to avoid those. I am personally still waiting for every single character trait to eventually get its own Sue trope, though. The concept is so thoroughly meaningless now.
Edited by Rebochan
I think this trope is more about the military planning than about the Mary Sue. That it fits into a nice little pun is great, but most of the works aren't really Mary Sue-like at all.
Okay, Honor Harrington. Yes or no?
Supporting Mary Tzu status: between On Basilisk Station and War of Honor, she loses exactly one battle, and only if you call a successful Heroic Sacrifice a loss.
Hide / Show Replies
It's clearly demonstrated every time exactly how she pulls an unforeseen win out of the situation. Apparently the trope actually prefers that Mary Tzu is an Informed Ability, which doesn't make sense to me.
Personally, I think that no character can be a Sue for their smarts if the writer does the legwork on those smarts, but that's just one more personal-definition niggling bit that really irks me about the whole concept of Mary Sue.
Hail Martin Septim!
Does that demonstration require her opponents to carry the Idiot Ball, though?
Mary Tzu, as far as I can tell, involves not only an impossible understanding of the battlefield situation (for instance, Lelouch and Xingke's near-telepathy), but winning by making your opponents behave really stupidly. In many ways, battles involving Tzus are the military equivalent of a strawman argument.
What's precedent ever done for us?
The fifth book had a pretty shameful lack of spider-sense on one of the two enemy captains' parts, and the second book had events transpire so that the people in charge of the enemy vessels were not too familiar with the equipment, but in the other eight books I've read thus far, it's a fair enough match. (And that also counts the dirtside conflicts, which mitigate both the fifth and second books' defangings.)
Edited by DomaDoma Hail Martin Septim!
I would agree that Weber is good at showing a chain of reason behind Honor's tactics, although I think that he ability to almost invariably choose the best possible chain of reasoning make her a borderline case. She doesn't pull off impossible victories, but her tactical genius is positively Alexandrian which, coupled with her other Mary Sue traits, makes it a tad hard to swallow.
My reasons for removing Ziva David from the trope page have been questioned. The offending entry:
- ziva David from NCIS don't get me wrong I love her but her fightign skills are a bit over done everytime she gets in fight she beats them quicky and with breaking a nail again.
I spot at least seven things wrong with this entry, but the most glaring is the fact that the given reasons for calling Ziva David a Mary Tzu have nothing to do with the actual trope. Fancy that.
This is still a signature.
Alright, Aizen is rather unbelievable, but he's likely being set up for a fall, making him probably NOT a Villain Sue. He's a Magnificent Bastard at the moment, though YMMV
Hide / Show Replies
Aizen's backup plan for if Ichigo stopped the execution was "Kick the crap out of everyone and take the damn Hogyoku."
In what universe does this make him an unrealisticly good strategist?
Lest we forget, the only reason Aizen is on the winning side of this war is because he's stronger than everyone else, not because he's a good strategist(and the fact that he's lost all but two of his subordinates rather contradicts that particular idea anyway).
Edited by Anaheyla This is still a signature.
Could we please, please, please do away with the Clara Oswald- bashing page quote? In fact, I'll do it myself and just leave this here as explanation.
I know this is an opinion trope, but can we get some cautious editing judgement in here? Going for an accusation of canon sue from a (still very sucessfull) show with a notoriously Unpleasable Fanbase that currently considers hating on anything the current writers put out very trendy instead of, say, a general elaboration on the concept or a notorious piece o fanfic doesn't strike me as wise, especially in contrast with the "no examples" below.
I could go on to write a longer essay on the overlooked genius of Clara Oswald and how much our society needs heroines wo don't downplay their archeivement and actually relish authority positions without being one-dimensional "bitch" stereotypes, or elaborate on how her dominant streak is a very consistent part of her characterization that is implemented by her actress in a way that brilliantly differentiates her from her predecessors, and, most importantly, how she doesn't do anything all that over-the-top in that episode, but I think that alone should illustrate that this article would be helped by an example that is less pointlessly divisive/provocative, especially since the world of bad fanfic is full of 'unrealistic military geniuses' (usually of the Improbable Age/ Informed Ability variety) of boring omniscient villains whose sue credentials aren't anything but subtle.
Hide / Show Replies