Victor Steiner Davion

[Skoll-]

I don't seem to get this "Hay, look, the author is trying to write a good guy.... I must immediately despise him! Hey look that character is a scheming, totally honor-less jerk, that's who I'm going to like!' mentality that seems to be common these days. Just don't get it.

Someone basically has to be an ass-hat just to be likable.

I don't find Victor that bad, I kinda like Kai - especially his death story. I like Teddy, I mean pointing to the rat on the Legion of Vega flag and calling it "Takashi" - priceless.

Sun-Tsu I hate. If every there was a Mary Sue, that's him. Every scheming shenanigan he pulled worked 'cause everyone else was stupid or incompetent. If you take a look at what he pulled in just a few years... But he's an ass-hat so people seem to forgive the Mary Sue-ness of him.

I personally have more trouble with how Max Liao was written. To me he should have been a lot smarter - crazy, yes, but genius level smart. Ironically, more like Sun Tzu, actually.

Just my opinions.

- Shane

You basically just described how the Federated Suns works. "Every scheming shenanigan Hanse pulled worked because everyone else was stupid or incompetent.". Sun-Tsu was just the grass is always greener version of that, and that's why a lot of people hate Federats.

 

[BloodKite]

I think the issue isn't that they're good/bad. It's that.... especially in the case of VSD and KAL... is that of their abilities and driving forces. There's very little in those characters that are relatable. Compare the characters from the Warrior Trilogy to that of the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy and certain characters acted WAYYYYYYY above what should be normal of their abilities and training consistently and without flaw. Even KAL's self-depreciation often came off as just a self-absorbed rich kid. Both are some of the only people to beat the unbeatable La Mancha simulator, and consider KAL's fight on Outreach as being.... improbably at best.

Also, the level of the enemy they faced compared to their parents during the 4th Succession. Both KAL and VSD were just out of the Academy and still managed to consistently hand the Clans defeat without any 'personal' consequence. This may change in later books and the characters evolve, but the BoK Trilogy sours the characters a little for anything else. They feel written like 'wish fulfilment' characters compared to their parent's ordeals.

Having said that, I don't hate the characters and still enjoy all the novels

 

[Ac0lyte]

You basically just described how the Federated Suns works. "Every scheming shenanigan Hanse pulled worked because everyone else was stupid or incompetent.". Sun-Tsu was just the grass is always greener version of that, and that's why a lot of people hate Federats.

Well, Hanse used the most powerful militarily in the Inner Sphere at the time to smash the weakest military at the time, combined with surprise and the hobbling of the intelligence service of that state. This is fairly believable. Keeping in mind that Justin was going to be feeding misleading information all along, it just got ruined when the ambush happened. As to incompetence - I did say something about old Max. He should have been smarter than portrayed. Still, I don't see Liao coming out of things very well with the forces arrayed against them, even with good leadership. As to underhanded shenanigans there weren't that many. It was mostly a very strong military vs a weak one.

Hanse got nothin' on what Sonny boy did.

Even on the Kuritian front - if that duel with Wolf Dragoons hadn't happened, Takashi would probably have sent more help to the Steiner front, not Davion. Steiner was where the danger was, for them.

Something else - why do people view the FedSuns as the good guys? They are the protagonists of some novels, but good guys? Take a closer look at their actions.

- Shane

 

[Ac0lyte]

I think the issue isn't that they're good/bad. It's that.... especially in the case of VSD and KAL... is that of their abilities and driving forces. There's very little in those characters that are relatable. Compare the characters from the Warrior Trilogy to that of the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy and certain characters acted WAYYYYYYY above what should be normal of their abilities and training consistently and without flaw. Even KAL's self-depreciation often came off as just a self-absorbed rich kid. Both are some of the only people to beat the unbeatable La Mancha simulator, and consider KAL's fight on Outreach as being.... improbably at best.

Also, the level of the enemy they faced compared to their parents during the 4th Succession. Both KAL and VSD were just out of the Academy and still managed to consistently hand the Clans defeat without any 'personal' consequence. This may change in later books and the characters evolve, but the BoK Trilogy sours the characters a little for anything else. They feel written like 'wish fulfilment' characters compared to their parent's ordeals.

Having said that, I don't hate the characters and still enjoy all the novels

Ahh... so it's not the "Mary Sue" it's the "Superman" syndrome? Makes a little more sense, although Victor lost quite a bit early on.

- Shane

 

[Prussian Havoc]

:bow:

As the BattleTech franchise grew, endured and began to touch on more and more points along its timeline, it attained an ebb and flow that was somewhat more balanced. Rather than the starkly distinct White Hats and Black Hats of the mid to late 1980's, when it came to a Faction, a House and it's Peoples, Shades of Grey arose with no one House as nearly pristine White or Black as they were at and just after the birth of the franchise.

I like the feel of that manner of Faction/House/Peoples portrayal. Neither is inherently "better" than the other. Instead it comes down to individuals, their actions and intents. THAT is compelling franchise evolution to me and I am glad it occured here. : )

 

[BloodKite]

Ahh... so it's not the "Mary Sue" it's the "Superman" syndrome? Makes a little more sense, although Victor lost quite a bit early on.

- Shane

A good way of putting it, yes, Superman syndrome would be more appropriate.

And did Victor ever really 'lose' early on? He always seemed to be getting into messes, only to have someone miraculously save him and he'd come out unscathed. Especially in the case of Trell I - I was more interested, and would have preferred a whole chapter, just dedicated to Hawksworth and the 12th fighting the Falcons rather than the focus on VSD being knocked out and sent off the planet just in the nick of time. I agree it should have happened, I was just more interested in the impact on the people left behind than on the Prince.

 

[Ac0lyte]

He got his butt kick pretty hard on Alynia (is that how you spell it?) and had to pull rank for arty support just to get out - and Kai still had to play the hero just for Victor to retreat off planet. Earlier than that, Twycross was a loss, too.

One thing that does bug me is everyone and their dog beating an elemental in hand to hand. People have a fair point there. OK, Victor used a sword on an injured one, so that's fair but the others..... Artistic license?

Overall, though, whoever is the protagonist seems to be the Mary Sue of that novel - although as Prussian Havok pointed out, the novels get a lot better latter and the short stories are worlds better than even them. IMO, of course.

Point I'm making - people seem to crap all over the same characters and those characters are deemed the "good guys" as far as Battletech has them, but ignore the very same things when it's the "Bad Boys" of the inner sphere.

You want real Mary Sue - look at Cassie Suthorn. Taking an Atlas out with a Knife. Really.

- Shane

 

[Packrat]

You want real Mary Sue - look at Cassie Suthorn. Taking an Atlas out with a Knife. Really.

TACs are nasty buggers.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

...You want real Mary Sue - look at Cassie Suthorn. Taking an Atlas out with a Knife. Really.

- Shane

She got to use a knife!?!

#GotNuttinOnTalon

 

[Ac0lyte]

Apparently it's a simple matter to climb onto a 'Mech, open the hatch and kill the pilot. At least for her. Every book with her in it has her killing at least one 'Mech while being a solo, unarmored scout.

Funny thing is, no one else seems to have the same plot armor - lot's of the 'MechWarriors in her unit die.

Anyway, no one complains about her.

- Shane

 

[Skoll-]

You want real Mary Sue - look at Cassie Suthorn. Taking an Atlas out with a Knife. Really.

I feel bad agreeing you considering Victor Milan just died, but god I hated that character. In a universe full of Mary Sues, she was the Sueiest.

 

[Packrat]

Alright, I'll just say it: The term "Mary Sue" is grossly overused to simply mean "character I dislike". You can't have a universe full of Mary Sues, because the very essense of a Mary Sue is that the universe revolves around that character.

Is the issue that characters achieve an implausible level of success? I don't know how to break it to y'all, but achieving the implausible is what makes protagonists' stories worth following in the first place, because achieving a plausible level of success is frequently boring precisely because so many people do it -- it's unremarkable, and most stories are about remarkable people because that's what people find interesting.

The fundamental problem with trying to discuss stories with people is that most people don't know what goes into making a story; they only know what they like and dislike, and lack the means to convey those ideas to others, so we get fundamentally meaningless complaints like "that character's a Mary Sue".

If you're able to communicate clearly and specifically what you dislike about some aspect of the story, it's far better to do so than fall back on buzzwords.

 

[Ac0lyte]

I feel bad agreeing you considering Victor Milan just died, but god I hated that character. In a universe full of Mary Sues, she was the Sueiest.

Huh? How did I miss that? damn..... Funny thing is, I did like the books, mainly because everyone else seemed expendable, even characters I liked.....

Well sad news indeed.

- Shane

 

[BloodKite]

Alright, I'll just say it: The term "Mary Sue" is grossly overused to simply mean "character I dislike". You can't have a universe full of Mary Sues, because the very essense of a Mary Sue is that the universe revolves around that character.

Is the issue that characters achieve an implausible level of success? I don't know how to break it to y'all, but achieving the implausible is what makes protagonists' stories worth following in the first place, because achieving a plausible level of success is frequently boring precisely because so many people do it -- it's unremarkable, and most stories are about remarkable people because that's what people find interesting.

The fundamental problem with trying to discuss stories with people is that most people don't know what goes into making a story; they only know what they like and dislike, and lack the means to convey those ideas to others, so we get fundamentally meaningless complaints like "that character's a Mary Sue".

If you're able to communicate clearly and specifically what you dislike about some aspect of the story, it's far better to do so than fall back on buzzwords.

Well said and agreed (though I know I can be guilty of the said crime as well). Personally, I have no problems with implausible levels of success. You're right, that's what makes a story worth following - either from a protagonist or antagonist point of view. Where my personal issues come in with certain characters being protected from consequences frequently because to do otherwise would force the story in a direction they don't want to take. Or having characters act in a way that's counter to their character because that's how the story has to go. At its core - do you let the characters drive the story, or the story drive the characters?

 

[Packrat]

Where my personal issues come in with certain characters being protected from consequences frequently because to do otherwise would force the story in a direction they don't want to take. Or having characters act in a way that's counter to their character because that's how the story has to go.

Indeed, and those are perfectly reasonable complaints to have, exactly the sort of specifics I mentioned earlier. A protagonist needs to face struggles or their achievements feel hollow, and characters need to behave in a way that makes them feel like real people instead of the writer's pawns, despite the latter being what they really are (which is why writing a compelling character is so difficult).

 

[Skoll-]

Alright, I'll just say it: The term "Mary Sue" is grossly overused to simply mean "character I dislike". You can't have a universe full of Mary Sues, because the very essense of a Mary Sue is that the universe revolves around that character.

Is the issue that characters achieve an implausible level of success? I don't know how to break it to y'all, but achieving the implausible is what makes protagonists' stories worth following in the first place, because achieving a plausible level of success is frequently boring precisely because so many people do it -- it's unremarkable, and most stories are about remarkable people because that's what people find interesting.

The fundamental problem with trying to discuss stories with people is that most people don't know what goes into making a story; they only know what they like and dislike, and lack the means to convey those ideas to others, so we get fundamentally meaningless complaints like "that character's a Mary Sue".

If you're able to communicate clearly and specifically what you dislike about some aspect of the story, it's far better to do so than fall back on buzzwords.

Language changes and evolves over time, buddy. Mary Sue has pretty much been adapted to mean "character with invincible plot armor", which is almost every major character of Battletech that the FedCom Civil War or the Jihad didn't kill off in one way or another.

 

[Packrat]

Language changes and evolves over time, buddy. Mary Sue has pretty much been adapted to mean "character with invincible plot armor", which is almost every major character of Battletech that the FedCom Civil War or the Jihad didn't kill off in one way or another.

That's the first time I've heard that definition of the term in my many years of discussing stories, which shows why it's a meaningless term: everyone thinks it means something different, and a word without an agreed-upon meaning has no communication value.

 

[BloodKite]

Just for the sake of clarity, this is the Wikipedia entry - which is what's I've based my understanding of the term on:

'The term "Mary Sue" comes from the name of a character created by Paula Smith in 1973 for her parody story "A Trekkie's Tale"[5]:15 published in her fanzine Menagerie #2.[6] The story starred Lieutenant Mary Sue ("the youngest Lieutenant in the fleet — only fifteen and a half years old"), and satirized unrealistic characters in Star Trek fan fiction.[7] Such characters were generally female adolescents who had romantic liaisons with established canonical adult characters, or in some cases were the younger relatives or protégées of those characters.[citation needed] By 1976 Menagerie's editors stated that they disliked such characters, saying:

Mary Sue stories—the adventures of the youngest and smartest ever person to graduate from the academy and ever get a commission at such a tender age. Usually characterized by unprecedented skill in everything from art to zoology, including karate and arm-wrestling. This character can also be found burrowing her way into the good graces/heart/mind of one of the Big Three [Kirk, Spock, and McCoy], if not all three at once. She saves the day by her wit and ability, and, if we are lucky, has the good grace to die at the end, being grieved by the entire ship.[8]

"Mary Sue" today has changed from its original meaning and now carries a generalized, although not universal, connotation of wish-fulfillment and is commonly associated with self-insertion. True self-insertion is a literal and generally undisguised representation of the author; most characters described as "Mary Sues" are not, though they are often called "proxies"[9] for the author. The negative connotation comes from this "wish-fulfillment" implication: the "Mary Sue" is judged as a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting.[10]'

 

[DeadDuck1015]

As the BattleTech franchise grew, endured and began to touch on more and more points along its timeline, it attained an ebb and flow that was somewhat more balanced. Rather than the starkly distinct White Hats and Black Hats of the mid to late 1980's, when it came to a Faction, a House and it's Peoples, Shades of Grey arose with no one House as nearly pristine White or Black as they were at and just after the birth of the franchise.

I like the feel of that manner of Faction/House/Peoples portrayal. Neither is inherently "better" than the other. Instead it comes down to individuals, their actions and intents. THAT is compelling franchise evolution to me and I am glad it occured here. : )

I'd just like to add on a point to this. Aside from just being better writing, I think this kind of depth to the factions is extra important in a setting like this, particularly one who's primary representation is a tabletop wargame. When you spend so much time assembling and painting models to a certain faction's colors, you grow a sense of loyalty to that faction. This sense of loyalty and engagement with the setting is a lot easier to cultivate when the factions aren't one-dimensional caricatures. For instance, I'm a Steiner fan, myself. Now, I love me some "Steiner scout lance" memes, but It's a LOT easier to like house Steiner when there's more to them than incompetent social generals and Atlases as far as the eye can see.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

I'd just like to add on a point to this. Aside from just being better writing, I think this kind of depth to the factions is extra important in a setting like this, particularly one who's primary representation is a tabletop wargame. When you spend so much time assembling and painting models to a certain faction's colors, you grow a sense of loyalty to that faction. This sense of loyalty and engagement with the setting is a lot easier to cultivate when the factions aren't one-dimensional caricatures. For instance, I'm a Steiner fan, myself. Now, I love me some "Steiner scout lance" memes, but It's a LOT easier to like house Steiner when there's more to them than incompetent social generals and Atlases as far as the eye can see.

Agreed.

While Jordan and FASA breathed life into our franchise, it was from a rather singular perspective ~ Davion Good, all else are foils of one manner (Dread Enemy) or another (Allies in need of saving from themselves.) To get BATTLETECH's Big Stompy heart beating, such a focus was in my opinion necessary.

But most fortunately over the years, as more BattleTech games, miniatures, stories, novels, even fluff and fanfiction was generated, the Peoples of the BattleTech Universe came to gain in depth, texture, nuance and immersive value.

And it is from this perspective, that no one People of the BattleTech universe is intrinsically Good or intrinsically Evil, that we can now enjoy the BattleTech franchise. The Rise and Fall of Heroes and Villains alike has occured for each of the Peoples of the BattleTech Universe.

Fans of each Faction, each People, now have a firm foundation from which to both celebrate... and lament the very real humanity of their favorite BattleTech People...

...and that is Good.