meta: a tentative meta on mary sue and the inimical effects of misunderstanding feminism
Well, as everyone who follows metafandom or fanficrants is no doubt aware, the current meta trend of the moment is Mary Sue, and feminism, and female characters, and all three put together. And always, the same questions are asked: what is Mary Sue? How is she defined? Is she nothing more than a product of Bad Writing (she of the tiny waist, awesome skills and endless middle names) or is she What Every Female Character Is, except that we only take offense when she's written badly? (Come now, almost everyone rants about Ginny Weasley being a barely fleshed out, inexplicably gorgeous love interest for Harry Potter, the Sue Who Lived, but surely Hermione Granger, who is surprisingly beautiful when she tries, can master almost every single spell instantly, and is a wizard genius despite being from a family of dentists, could also fit into that category?)
And is there an answer? What strikes me most about the Mary Sue debate is the fact that, from what I gather, the expectations of fandom seem to demand that any female protagonist should be a Mary Sue -- if only a well-written one. And we express this not only through what we believe a female character can be (gorgeous, talented, with supreme potential), but also what she can't.
A woman can't be weak, or have a low-paying, unglamorous job, or be unemployed, or a stay-at-home housewife, because that's not ~*empowering*~. But she can't be too strong or she's a ~*sassy bitch*~ who is secretly sexually frustrated and needs a man to calm her down. (Neytiri in Avatar, the female lead in any romcom ever.) EDIT: And, as minusforever points out, when she does have a meteoric rise to riches and fame, "she'll "rise above" to get to a higher economical standing through her own power, only to discover at the end that being "put back in her place" is what truly fulfills her. MORAL LEARNED!!!111" (The Devil Wears Prada, obviously.)
A woman can't be too beautiful, because that's just Sueish, and real women aren't like that. But nobody wants to read about an ugly or fat heroine, because the plot will inevitably become centred around her ugliness or fatness, or draw attention to it in a way that an average-looking female's looks wouldn't. (To use the same example: how many times in the first few books is Hermoine specifically referred to as frizzy-haired, overeager, geeky or with huge front teeth? And doesn't everyone make a huge deal at the Yule Ball of, OMG, U GUISE: SHE ACTUALLY LOOKS ~*PRETTY*~? And isn't it then, and only then, that people truly start to view her as attractive? Because, as we all know, intelligence just isn't attractive. Not unless it's coupled with stunning tits.)
A woman can't be single, because single women can't not want a man, and she can't want a man because that implies that she needs a man to fulfil her, and all feminists are "supposed" to shun the belief that long-term relationships are fulfilling and vital to human development, romantic or not. But as we all know, loving, stable relationships don't exist outside of real life. (I defy anyone to find me a happily single woman in fiction who isn't, at some point, designated as a love interest, the object of someone's affection due to her ~*unattainability*~ or secretly torn up about dying alone. And, as we all know, a woman who is in a happy relationship with a man is somehow subjugated if she isn't earning more, making him do all the work, and constantly reminding the reader of just how powerful she is -- but, going by the fact that many men I know would resent such treatment, and that treating a man like that is cruel and unfair in itself, isn't that Sueish?)
A woman can't be too intelligent, because autistic savants are rare, and nobody has a mental disability in fanfiction anyway. (Shock, horror, that means they're not ~*perfect*~.) But unless she's a dumb blonde, making her stupid is just not feminist. (And isn't being a "dumb blonde" nothing more than a stupid stereotype in itself? My best friend's blond, and he's a lot smarter than a lot of people I know.)
A woman can't just stay at home and raise a family, because that's "anti-feminist". But if a woman's childless, it has to be because of her stressful, glamorous, high-paying job -- because no woman can ever not want children -- and she has to secretly love the little darlings and long for some of her own. (Lisa Cuddy, Lisa Cuddy.)
A woman can't Not Get The Guy, because that means she's undesirable. But a woman can't have men falling over her, because that makes her either unrealistic, or a whore. (I refer you to every romcom, ever written, in every language, ever.)
And, most importantly of all, a woman can't be a Mary Sue -- but, wait, we've already covered this. If you pander to what most of fandom seems to want, she'll end up being one.
The fact of the matter is, we seem to have reached a stage where there are so many dichotomies in the female characters that the average fan seeks -- too many things that the female protagonist Can't Be -- that creating anything short of being a Sue to some extent is simply impossible. If she's weak, they'll label you anti-feminist or a bad writer -- that most horrible of insults -- but if you overdo the plaudits, you're making it too unreal. You just can't win. Because, deep down, I believe that most people want to read a character that is, to a large extent, Mary Sue -- if only if her Sueish tendencies are carefully disguised, or hidden with a single, token flaw. Look at Lisa Cuddy. She has a high-paid job, outranks all the men in her life, is happily single -- but, because she constantly is defeated by House, or lets House defeat her, or is played realistically by a brilliant actress, we'd never consider her to be Mary Sue. (And, of course, she's deeply unhappy with the way that her personal life has turned out. But hey, she's ~*empowered*~, so we're not going to consider that.)
It seems to me that most of our perceptions of what a female character should and shouldn't be is derived from an increasingly skewed view of what feminism is. Feminism isn't hating men and seeking to overrule them, nor is it the desire for a woman to be practically perfect in every way, and to have it all. Feminism is about gender equality, and nothing more. A female character earning less than a male character? Not anti-feminist. A female character earning less than a male character who does the same job, in the same rank, because of her sex? Anti-feminist. Very much so.
And so, we seem to want to read characters that are "feminists" -- but feminists as we define feminism to be. As women who are faced daily with being a woman in society -- fandom is, after all, largely female-dominated -- we don't want to read about women with visible flaws. We don't want to read about, or watch, Padmé being consumed by her love for Anakin, because that makes her, ultimately, a weak character, and the powerful, feminist women that we envision ourselves being are never weak. We don't want to read about Tiana Jalalah Marianna Tishuana Jamina Leia Skywalker being the Third Skywalker Child and the Chosen One, because that's impossible, and we want our dreams to seem like realities. Because reading, and writing, fiction is about pandering to your dreams, about reading them and realising them, however vicariously. We reject Mary Sue, thus, if she's badly written. We thrive on Mary Sue if she's disguised enough to seem plausible.
So, does this mean that we can never write a female character, or be free of Mary Sue? No. The thing we have to understand is that, sometimes, character development is taken too far. There is no such thing as a "token flaw" that a character can exhibit -- outside of Aristotelian tragedy, that is. Well-rounded female characters, who are not Mary Sues, don't always succeed. They are wrong. They make mistakes. They are real.
And yet, we wouldn't want to read about those. Would we?
And is there an answer? What strikes me most about the Mary Sue debate is the fact that, from what I gather, the expectations of fandom seem to demand that any female protagonist should be a Mary Sue -- if only a well-written one. And we express this not only through what we believe a female character can be (gorgeous, talented, with supreme potential), but also what she can't.
A woman can't be weak, or have a low-paying, unglamorous job, or be unemployed, or a stay-at-home housewife, because that's not ~*empowering*~. But she can't be too strong or she's a ~*sassy bitch*~ who is secretly sexually frustrated and needs a man to calm her down. (Neytiri in Avatar, the female lead in any romcom ever.) EDIT: And, as minusforever points out, when she does have a meteoric rise to riches and fame, "she'll "rise above" to get to a higher economical standing through her own power, only to discover at the end that being "put back in her place" is what truly fulfills her. MORAL LEARNED!!!111" (The Devil Wears Prada, obviously.)
A woman can't be too beautiful, because that's just Sueish, and real women aren't like that. But nobody wants to read about an ugly or fat heroine, because the plot will inevitably become centred around her ugliness or fatness, or draw attention to it in a way that an average-looking female's looks wouldn't. (To use the same example: how many times in the first few books is Hermoine specifically referred to as frizzy-haired, overeager, geeky or with huge front teeth? And doesn't everyone make a huge deal at the Yule Ball of, OMG, U GUISE: SHE ACTUALLY LOOKS ~*PRETTY*~? And isn't it then, and only then, that people truly start to view her as attractive? Because, as we all know, intelligence just isn't attractive. Not unless it's coupled with stunning tits.)
A woman can't be single, because single women can't not want a man, and she can't want a man because that implies that she needs a man to fulfil her, and all feminists are "supposed" to shun the belief that long-term relationships are fulfilling and vital to human development, romantic or not. But as we all know, loving, stable relationships don't exist outside of real life. (I defy anyone to find me a happily single woman in fiction who isn't, at some point, designated as a love interest, the object of someone's affection due to her ~*unattainability*~ or secretly torn up about dying alone. And, as we all know, a woman who is in a happy relationship with a man is somehow subjugated if she isn't earning more, making him do all the work, and constantly reminding the reader of just how powerful she is -- but, going by the fact that many men I know would resent such treatment, and that treating a man like that is cruel and unfair in itself, isn't that Sueish?)
A woman can't be too intelligent, because autistic savants are rare, and nobody has a mental disability in fanfiction anyway. (Shock, horror, that means they're not ~*perfect*~.) But unless she's a dumb blonde, making her stupid is just not feminist. (And isn't being a "dumb blonde" nothing more than a stupid stereotype in itself? My best friend's blond, and he's a lot smarter than a lot of people I know.)
A woman can't just stay at home and raise a family, because that's "anti-feminist". But if a woman's childless, it has to be because of her stressful, glamorous, high-paying job -- because no woman can ever not want children -- and she has to secretly love the little darlings and long for some of her own. (Lisa Cuddy, Lisa Cuddy.)
A woman can't Not Get The Guy, because that means she's undesirable. But a woman can't have men falling over her, because that makes her either unrealistic, or a whore. (I refer you to every romcom, ever written, in every language, ever.)
And, most importantly of all, a woman can't be a Mary Sue -- but, wait, we've already covered this. If you pander to what most of fandom seems to want, she'll end up being one.
The fact of the matter is, we seem to have reached a stage where there are so many dichotomies in the female characters that the average fan seeks -- too many things that the female protagonist Can't Be -- that creating anything short of being a Sue to some extent is simply impossible. If she's weak, they'll label you anti-feminist or a bad writer -- that most horrible of insults -- but if you overdo the plaudits, you're making it too unreal. You just can't win. Because, deep down, I believe that most people want to read a character that is, to a large extent, Mary Sue -- if only if her Sueish tendencies are carefully disguised, or hidden with a single, token flaw. Look at Lisa Cuddy. She has a high-paid job, outranks all the men in her life, is happily single -- but, because she constantly is defeated by House, or lets House defeat her, or is played realistically by a brilliant actress, we'd never consider her to be Mary Sue. (And, of course, she's deeply unhappy with the way that her personal life has turned out. But hey, she's ~*empowered*~, so we're not going to consider that.)
It seems to me that most of our perceptions of what a female character should and shouldn't be is derived from an increasingly skewed view of what feminism is. Feminism isn't hating men and seeking to overrule them, nor is it the desire for a woman to be practically perfect in every way, and to have it all. Feminism is about gender equality, and nothing more. A female character earning less than a male character? Not anti-feminist. A female character earning less than a male character who does the same job, in the same rank, because of her sex? Anti-feminist. Very much so.
And so, we seem to want to read characters that are "feminists" -- but feminists as we define feminism to be. As women who are faced daily with being a woman in society -- fandom is, after all, largely female-dominated -- we don't want to read about women with visible flaws. We don't want to read about, or watch, Padmé being consumed by her love for Anakin, because that makes her, ultimately, a weak character, and the powerful, feminist women that we envision ourselves being are never weak. We don't want to read about Tiana Jalalah Marianna Tishuana Jamina Leia Skywalker being the Third Skywalker Child and the Chosen One, because that's impossible, and we want our dreams to seem like realities. Because reading, and writing, fiction is about pandering to your dreams, about reading them and realising them, however vicariously. We reject Mary Sue, thus, if she's badly written. We thrive on Mary Sue if she's disguised enough to seem plausible.
So, does this mean that we can never write a female character, or be free of Mary Sue? No. The thing we have to understand is that, sometimes, character development is taken too far. There is no such thing as a "token flaw" that a character can exhibit -- outside of Aristotelian tragedy, that is. Well-rounded female characters, who are not Mary Sues, don't always succeed. They are wrong. They make mistakes. They are real.
And yet, we wouldn't want to read about those. Would we?