POPULAR: Cliches in Pokémon Fanfiction

[BackSet]

I fully admit to doing that in a current story I'm writing. But in my defense, the main character traveled back in time from the end of her game so she logically got to keep the endgame badass skills (but not the sword or the god powers. It's mental time travel. She's gonna have to get both of those all over again).

 

[RK9]

I see a lot of stories where the protagonist only always catches exactly 6 Pokémon. I get why they do it but I don't really agree with it cause as a trainer, even in the games, you always get more than 6 Pokémon, regardless.

Guess people don't want their characters to be a Paul or something.

One big cliche I've seen in fanfics n' stuff is the main character getting something that basically makes them unbeatable, E.G: In a Fantasy-Rooted story, where the hero literally gets the Slayer of Gods as a sword near the start of their journey or something.
Translate basically that into Pokemon and you literally have some random 10 year old befriending god. Sure, you can catch legendaries in the main games, I totally get it, but it's kinda a trope that's very common throughout the writing community.

Preach. As soon as I see someone handing out Legendaries to everyone (In particular midway or something) I dip. It's a bit jarring to see really.

 

[Poke Dragon]

I will admit that in my story, the main character already got a legendary Pokemon, but in my defense, he only sent out the legendary Pokemon for battle twice and at the second one, he had trouble winning anyways because his rival also had a really powerful Pokemon. Really though, the legendary Pokemon is more like a mentor who gives tasks for him to do rather than a full-on battle partner.

 

[KrspaceT]

I see a lot of stories where the protagonist only always catches exactly 6 Pokémon. I get why they do it but I don't really agree with it cause as a trainer, even in the games, you always get more than 6 Pokémon, regardless.

Guess people don't want their characters to be a Paul or something.



Preach. As soon as I see someone handing out Legendaries to everyone (In particular midway or something) I dip. It's a bit jarring to see really.

I'd be fine if one explored the costs/benefits of having more than six Pokemon. It is something I do by looking at why having a place like Oak's to have your Pokemon stay at when not using it is a MAJOR benefit that many do not have.

Then again I've long headcannoned that Jupiter's seeming lack of such a thing is part of the reason the BW team isn't the strongest, so I might be overthinking.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

The problem with protagonists obtaining powerful resources is the context, not the concept. Basically, if the powerful resource is a means for them to avoid difficulty or growth, then it's gonna spoil the narrative. Victory becomes a foregone conclusion. But it doesn't have to be that way! Hell, obtaining a powerful resource can even be a difficulty or opportunity for growth. What if it comes with considerable obligations and stresses (like most superhero narratives) or attracts the attention of similarly-powerful antagonists (shounen in general) or puts you in an unfamiliar circumstance you're unfamiliar with (any story with a secret world)?

 

[Nitro Indigo]

I've said this before, but I've seen multiple people say that if the protagonist of your Pokémon fanfic catches a legendary, they're a Mary Sue. I don't think that's the case - wouldn't such a capture take place at the climax?

 

[Greninjaman]

I see a lot of stories where the protagonist only always catches exactly 6 Pokémon. I get why they do it but I don't really agree with it cause as a trainer, even in the games, you always get more than 6 Pokémon, regardless.

Guess people don't want their characters to be a Paul or something.

But, by limiting the number to six, you can really develop the Pokemon far more easily than if you are rotating a team of 8 or nine.

 

[RK9]

But, by limiting the number to six, you can really develop the Pokemon far more easily than if you are rotating a team of 8 or nine.

I know that that's why they're doing it, I just find it a rather unrealistic thing. Even Ash has had more than 6 Pokémon on a team for various seasons, and so does everyone playing the games. And there is nothing bad about a trainer having more than 6 as long as you explore that and possible negative/positive impacts it has other than that they are just a collection piece to catch just because.

 

[TwinklingCupcake]

I've said this before, but I've seen multiple people say that if the protagonist of your Pokémon fanfic catches a legendary, they're a Mary Sue. I don't think that's the case - wouldn't such a capture take place at the climax?

This is where I feel like my own opinion varies from most others I've talked to about this, haha.

Considering that in the game, you can capture Legendaries, I don't think it's a bad idea in and of itself. But I think it also depends on how you're going about it - for example, if you're taking cues from the anime and saying that the Legendaries have an important job to do and must be free to do it, and if capturing them is a horrible idea (such as the second movie), then having your protagonist catch one miiiight not be the best. On the other hand, having your protagonist be friends with a Legendary could work, or it could pose its own set of problems.
As far as Legendaries go, I'd say it's wholly about the execution, rather than the idea itself. I know an adorable comic that features a trainer who befriended and technically captured Mewtwo, for instance, and it's a nice slide-of-life about an abused Pokemon learning to trust again and being awed by humans.

Also since it's been mentioned, I really don't like the term "Mary-Sue." Honestly, it feels like today it's incredibly outdated, and OCs get the title "Mary-Sue" thrown at them for any given thing, from knowing or being friends with a canon character to making friends with a notoriously-scary Pokemon. Sometimes it even feels like a "dam*ed if you do, dam*ned if you don't" thing.
Again, I personally think it's all in execution.

 

[RK9]

With OCs in general you can't win, tbh. People will always find something about an OC to rant over. (Despite the fact aht some indeed, can be very well written).

Guess people really don't like non-canon characters.

Also regarding the Legendaries, basically waht Cupcake said. Mostly depends on which legendary, for what reason and everything around it. It's also a case of how many Legendaries you handing out. If you're handing out every legendary under the sun in general it's just... yeah.

 

[Greninjaman]

With OCs in general you can't win, tbh. People will always find something about an OC to rant over. (Despite the fact aht some indeed, can be very well written).

Guess people really don't like non-canon characters.

Also regarding the Legendaries, basically waht Cupcake said. Mostly depends on which legendary, for what reason and everything around it. It's also a case of how many Legendaries you handing out. If you're handing out every legendary under the sun in general it's just... yeah.

I do agree. It wouldn't make sense if the protag encounters 10 legendary Pokemon in the span of a week when most people only ever encounter one in their lifetime.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

All character's are someone's OC, even canon ones. What makes characters from season five more legitimate and worthwhile than the protagonists of the best fanfiction? Nothing. Loyalty to canonicity makes no sense to me whatsoever.

As for Mary Sues... I've probably gone on about that term enough to last a lifetime by now. Suffice to say, while the term used to have a specific and valid meaning as a criticism of certain poor narrative choices, it's turned into a meaningless pejorative to hurl at characters people don't like for petty reasons. I don't care for its use, and expect people to be more specific about their criticisms.

 

[KrspaceT]

All character's are someone's OC, even canon ones. What makes characters from season five more legitimate and worthwhile than the protagonists of the best fanfiction? Nothing. Loyalty to canonicity makes no sense to me whatsoever.

As for Mary Sues... I've probably gone on about that term enough to last a lifetime by now. Suffice to say, while the term used to have a specific and valid meaning as a criticism of certain poor narrative choices, it's turned into a meaningless pejorative to hurl at characters people don't like for petty reasons. I don't care for its use, and expect people to be more specific about their criticisms.

Given I've been getting Star Wars content in my youtube feed recently, I can certainly agree. Honestly a legendary is not an auto-label for Mary Sue. That comes with other things, like context.

I mean if that was the case we'd be calling Ash a Mary Sue, and I do believe doing so would cause the internet as a whole to go '404'

 

[BackSet]

To quote a commenter on youtube (shocking, I know)

"Protagonist: Center of the story
Mary sue: center of the universe"

 

[Greninjaman]

All character's are someone's OC, even canon ones. What makes characters from season five more legitimate and worthwhile than the protagonists of the best fanfiction? Nothing. Loyalty to canonicity makes no sense to me whatsoever.

As for Mary Sues... I've probably gone on about that term enough to last a lifetime by now. Suffice to say, while the term used to have a specific and valid meaning as a criticism of certain poor narrative choices, it's turned into a meaningless pejorative to hurl at characters people don't like for petty reasons. I don't care for its use, and expect people to be more specific about their criticisms.

I can see how this makes sense. I mean, does one HAVE to adhere completely to the canon of the thing they are writing a fanfic about to the letter?

 

[Nitro Indigo]

Even the owner of Springhole has moved on from using the term "Mary Sue".

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

One of my earliest encounters with the term "Mary Sue" was on a pokémon fanfic forum. One user was talking about a character in her original fiction who was essentially the goddess of the setting, and whose dreams formed the world the protagonists lived in.

Some tosser decided that this character must be a Mary Sue bc she was too powerful.

13-year-old me chimed in helpfully to ask if that meant the cast of Dragonball Z (this guy's fave show) were Mary Sues? Since they were so powerful?

No, says this wanker. Of course not. They're men, and they earned their power.

Okay.

I think that about sums up the relationship internet fanboys have with the phrase.

I would love if Mary Sue still meant "narrative singularity that contrives for a character to be The Best Person in any scenario" but it doesn't anymore. These days it means "female character I don't like". Terrible as it may be, it's time to drop the term and make specific criticisms of badly written characters. If you mean that a character isn't subject to the established rules of the setting, say that. If you mean that a character doesn't have any substantial flaws or failings, say that. If you mean that a character's moral takes are always supported by the narrative, say that. It's not so hard.

 

[BackSet]

It's not so hard.

That's a lot to type, though.

 

[KrspaceT]

One of my earliest encounters with the term "Mary Sue" was on a pokémon fanfic forum. One user was talking about a character in her original fiction who was essentially the goddess of the setting, and whose dreams formed the world the protagonists lived in.

Some tosser decided that this character must be a Mary Sue bc she was too powerful.

13-year-old me chimed in helpfully to ask if that meant the cast of Dragonball Z (this guy's fave show) were Mary Sues? Since they were so powerful?

No, says this wanker. Of course not. They're men, and they earned their power.

Okay.

I think that about sums up the relationship internet fanboys have with the phrase.

I would love if Mary Sue still meant "narrative singularity that contrives for a character to be The Best Person in any scenario" but it doesn't anymore. These days it means "female character I don't like". Terrible as it may be, it's time to drop the term and make specific criticisms of badly written characters. If you mean that a character isn't subject to the established rules of the setting, say that. If you mean that a character doesn't have any substantial flaws or failings, say that. If you mean that a character's moral takes are always supported by the narrative, say that. It's not so hard.

Hey, at least those people are honest. Horrible but honest

 

[Daren]

I mean if that was the case we'd be calling Ash a Mary Sue, and I do believe doing so would cause the internet as a whole to go '404'

I've actually seen him called that more than you'd expect. Most recent I recall was someone angry about him losing the Kalos League.

13-year-old me chimed in helpfully to ask if that meant the cast of Dragonball Z (this guy's fave show) were Mary Sues? Since they were so powerful?

No, says this wanker. Of course not. They're men, and they earned their power.

The funniest part of this is that at the time Goku fought Freeza literally 97% of his power came from the "almost dying makes Saiyans stronger" genetic trait rather than hard work or earning anything (official power levels; 90,000 before almost dying, 3,000,000 after).
Dragon Ball stopped caring about people earning their power shortly after Raditz showed up and it became a question of "how much special DNA do you have?"