Dropping in with a couple of links:

• I read this and thought "Susan W must see this!"
• apparently, that author's story of Patriot Act investigation may not have been true. Which makes me incredibly angry since (if it's so) the first person who really gets screwed over by the Act will be met with disbelief.

Dani, I've bookmarked that music link for future reference at some point when I'm not running out of town for a week--thanks!

Fiction of ideas without a plot can't win me over, but I do find that a fiction of plot without any ideas behind it is rarely substantial enough to be satisfying.

I'm with Nutty on this point, although I think the process by which a fiction incorporates ideas into its plot can vary widely. Despite my love of Buffy & its central metaphor, I find I tend to like it better when the theme gradually emerges along the story, instead of being broadcasted from chapter one à la Ayn Rand.

BTW, I actually dropped by to ask questions about the Vorkosigan saga, which I've just started to read a week ago. It's got its hooks on me but good. I've read "Shards of Honor" and "Barrayar", and I don't think I even *breathed* reading the last 50 pages of "Barrayar". Sweet mother of Moses, how I love Cordelia. (And "Warrior's Apprentice" just arrived in mail today! Eeeeee!)

Anyway, on to the questions;

1. Is Bujold's universe supposed to be compatible with our own timeline, i.e., not some fantastical AU, but a plausible future from the Earth now? It appears so, since there have been several mentions of ideas, personages and philosophy from the history as we know it. If so, how far along from now is it supposed to be?

2. Barrayar is clearly modelled on Imperial Russia, what with all the real and quasi-Russian names and all. Is its Russian heritage ever overtly acknowledged?

3. Whenever I fall for a fictional universe, I have this nasty habit of immediately starting to cast the movie adaptation in my head. Micole, while discussing this on Shaye's LJ, mentioned that Victor Garber must play Aral, which has struck me as so perfect that I've started to read the novels with VG in mind in the role already. But what about Cordelia? I've been going nuts, trying to think of someone kickass enough to play her on screen. (Someone mentioned Sigourney Weaver, but I think she may be too old now to play Cordelia in the first book.)

Phaedre has become my textbook example of a Mary Sue - no matter who else is involved in the conflict, or what their intelligences or expertises are, it's Phaedre who always comes up with the right answer.

What is it about the "Mary Sue" character that people find so disturbing? That a woman should be able to make out on her own, without the need to be rescued? Is there no male equivalent? Perhaps there is something like the "Macguyver," "Marlboro Man," or "Bond" syndrome? No one seems too bothered when a male character "always" comes up with the right answer, is independent, self sufficient, etc. That's the way men are expected to be. I'm not trying to point fingers, pick a fight, start a debate, or make anyone feel badly. I just find it interesting that there seems to be a double standard. If anyone was taking a class on gender or literature in general, this would be a very interesting topic for a paper.

p.s. Raquel I'm not trying to single you out. I quoted your post, because it got me onto this train of thought.

Vonnie, I've only recently found the Vorkosigans myself, and have no answers to your questions, but just wanted to say YAY. Love them.

No one seems too bothered when a male character "always" comes up with the right answer, is independent, self sufficient, etc.

Oh, yes they are, or at least, the same people who have their Mary Sue buttons pinged will tend to have their Marty Stu Buttons pinged, too. (See: many reactions to Dan Brown heros, Wesley Crusher, etc.) In general, I've found Marty Stu characters less common, but that's probably because I've read more books aimed at women than at men.

It's not simply a matter of always having the right answer, being independent, blah blah blah. It's unrealistic perfection or near perfection with a handful of "interesting" flaws. Your Mary Sue/Marty Stu is a flat character. There's no there there, and one of the most common problems with them above and beyond the inability to suspend disbelief when one appears is that the author violates show don't tell like a wild thing.

Bond has often been cited as a male Mary Sue.

I dunno -- take Modesty Blaise, for instance. She's independent, self-sufficient, WAY over-idealised. Yet she doesn't ring Mary Sue to me. Perhaps because I don't feel the text simpering at her feet.

I have heard lots of people talk about male MarySues, actually. They are often female, but not excusively so. I think what makes a character a MarySue is that it is so obviously a wish-fulfillment character for the writer, rather than a well-rounded human being. The character is not only gorgeous (but in an unusual way--violet eyes or something) and brilliant, they are also funny and warm. The writers can't let their creations have the flaws and layers of real people because they, maybe, inhabit them too much. Buffy is NOT a MarySue because she is strong and decisive and gorgeous, but she is also stubborn and bossy and awkward and all kinds of other interesting things. James Bond, I think, is.

Bond has often been cited as a male Mary Sue.

The books, or the movies? I've never read a Bond book, so I can't evaluate it, but in the movies, I always thought his omnicompetence was always a little tongue in cheek, like "yeah, we know he shouldn't be able to do all this so well, but isn't it fun?"

I think the Mary Sue concept is extended to men rather than limited to women. Spenser by Robert B. Parker. The movie Bond perhaps. (The orginal written Bond by wottisname was actually rather satisfyingly broken).

I think the objection in both cases is not extreme competence, but perfection. For example Batman is ultra-compentent, but no one could call him a Mary Sue. (For that matter you would have a hard time arguing he is sane. See Plei's old Batman posts for details.)

I think MarySueness is much more annoying in literature than it is in video / visual arts. For one thing you have the pretty in a movie or a TV show. For another, when you have bright colors and flashing lights it becomes easier to excuse poor characterization. The equivalent can be done in literature, but it is IMO much rarer. Gus described Manny in Moon Is a Harsh Mistress as a Manny Sue, and I think that fits. In short I think iMary Sueness is as common and as annoying with male characters.

The name arisng with regard to female charactes was possibly due to male prejudice. But the fact that it arose in the context of fan fiction, where a lot of the early authors were women, and the annnoyly perfect fantasy projections of the authors were in fact women also had something to do with it.