Then why use the words "wrong" and "right"? You make it seem like, if you didn't feel the same way as him after reading the source material, then he was wrong, and if you did feel the same way, then he would be right. I was merely pointing out that there is no objective right and wrong when it comes to personal interpretation of such concepts as "what defines contrived?" and "what defines a sue?" I.e. if you didn't feel the same way as him after reading the source, he wouldn't be "wrong" per se, you would just have conflicting opinions, he can still perceive the character as contrived, even if you do not feel that way at all. Also, in the end, you might be as prone to selective bias as him.Originally Posted by Smuglord
I see what you're intending to say though, I'm just not quite sure I agree ;)
That's a very lofty interpretation, I did not mean such a thing at all.Originally Posted by Smuglord
And that sentence you suggested doesn't imply the exact same thing the way I read it. I originally worded it like I did merely to make a point out of the fact that a character can in fact be a Sue even if there are only one or a few traits, to contrast with the previous sentence where I said that one or a few traits does not automatically make a sue. I.e. it was meant as a clarification to avoid a potential misunderstanding of that sentence along the lines of "I don't think a few traits make a sue at all". naturally I didn't say it, but it can be misunderstood that way, hence my clarification.
But now we're really straying off-topic. I'm always open to continue this via PM if you have any further objections to what I'm saying ;)