Rewrite ill-defined description: Escapist Character

The trope is currently entirely defined in terms of not-Mary Sue-ness; Mary Sue already has it share of problems and controversies regarding its necessarily vague definition.

Well bringing over what little meat was salvageable from the old (sockpuppet theatre) thread:

A character that is designed to meet the desires for escapism and wish-fulfillment of the audience.

Contrast Mary Sue, where it's the author's desires that are being met.

Bump.

That seems like the perfect distinction.

But how do we know? Aren't all characters escapist to some degree or another? Fiction itself is escapist. I'd love to be Paul Atreides, Luke Skywalker, or any of a thousand other protagonists — well, maybe not so much as their lives have a tendency to suck very badly before getting better, but that's a digression. This feels very People Sit On Chairs-y to me.

You can have a character who's designed to be an Audience Surrogate. But we already have tropes for that.

edited 14th Jul '11 9:46:57 AM by Fighteer

Bump.

Bump. We need some feedback here, people.

I don't think there's a good way of distinguishing this from Mary Sue related tropes. You could make it about in universe only reactions, I suppose.

I think "audience wish fulfillment" vs "author wish fulfillment" is a good distinction between Escapist Character and Mary Sue, but it should probably be a subjective trope.

That's a good proposal, but there's the "Fiction itself is escapist" problem that Fighteer mentioned.

edited 15th Sep '11 3:13:03 AM by MarqFJA

That's why it should be YMMV.

So this trope is literally "all characters that people think are cool"?

More like 'This person would totally be a Mary Sue if I didn't like them.' Which is no better.

It's "characters people want to be". There's an important distinction there. You may think that, say, Cyclops is cool, but would you actually want to be a guy with Power Incontinence Eye Beams? Well, I wouldn't... but then again, you might. Thus, YMMV.

If you say "Damn, that guy's awesome", then that's not (necessarily) this trope. But if you say "damn, I wish I could be him", then that's this trope.

edited 15th Sep '11 6:52:09 PM by NativeJovian

bump, this page needs a YMMV banner.

Maybe this should be on Sugar Wiki? It's pretty gushing.

Yeah, this belongs on Sugar Wiki.

Though frankly, I wouldn't miss it if it vanished. Not to say that we should cut it; I just don't see why anyone felt like this page was a good idea.

Can we first see if the definition is fixable/salvageable or not first, please? Only one person since the previous thread bump had offered a way to address this particular issue.

This is a trope... well, sort of. It's an Audience Reaction that is even discussed in a few works, but it applies really to too many different kinds of characters.

I don't think this belongs on the Sugar Wiki, but the example section seems quite beyond repair.

edited 28th Oct '11 8:37:16 PM by Prfnoff

Escapist Character is a pre-existing term which merits inclusion on this wiki. The only reason the description makes so many references to Mary Sue type characters and tropes is that Mary Sue itself has so many wicks and referances on the wiki. Perhaps it would help to mention that it is a pre-existing term. It does need a reference to Ascended Fanboy, either with Showy Invincible Hero under compare or with the "I Just Want to" tropes under "see also".

That does not address the fact that this trope is currently very ill-defined.

Bump again. Is there enthusiasm enough to continue this thread?

Apparently not, so far. But before hollering for a lock, we could holler for mod feedback first.

'This person would totally be a Mary Sue if I didn't like them.' — exactly this. You can argue that it's supposed to be "if the audience in general didn't like them", but the only reference point people generally want or feel they need when adding an example is their own opinion. Also, if this trope is "Mary Sue But Done Well", it emphasises that Mary Sue is an inherently negative thing, which is something we shouldn't be doing.

It might be alright without an example list. There are some points worth making in the description section.

edited 28th Feb '12 7:46:21 AM by johnnye

I vote Keep. Not all Audience Surrogates are about audience Wish-Fulfillment; this is a character that is both of those things. But rewrite the description so that it doesn't lead with a comparison to Mary Sue, and cut the examples, since there is no way to keep them from dissolving into gushing.

edited 1st Mar '12 9:44:52 AM by lebrel