mckay and carter as mary sues
This started life as a comment but it got too long.
So these two characters, Samantha Carter and Rodney McKay. Are they Mary Sues?
Yes, I think both of them are. But in my opinion Samantha is more of a Sue than Rodney, and the reason for this is sexism on the part of the writers.
Sexist writers create female characters who are fantasies, not people. It's just as sexist to make a female character who is perfect and never wrong as it is to make a female character who's a negative stereotype (like, say, duplicitous cat thief/sex kitten Vala.)
When female heroes are perfect and male heroes are imperfect, that shows a standard for female heroes that's higher than the standard for male heroes. That's sexist.
Sam Carter and Rodney McKay are both Mary Sues sometimes. But how often does Samantha get to be wrong? And how often do the writers show her realizing she was wrong and growing as a result?
Rodney McKay is allowed to make mistakes, lots of them, huge ones, which he is called to account for-- and he's still depicted as a hero worthy of love and narrative attention. The narrative acknowledges his mistakes and flaws, and he's shown admitting to his issues and growing. (Inconsistently, and he goes backwards repeatedly depending on who's writing him; he's probably at his Marty Stu worst in season 5. But in the whole series, he grows at least somewhat.)
And that's sexist! Rodney can be petty and arrogant, give away secret plans under torture, fail to solve a simple math puzzle due to nerves, blow up Doranda, reprogram Replicators in such a way that they kill people on several planets, drop Teyla's baby... and he's still treated as a hero.
Did Sam ever screw up on the scale of accidentally blowing up a solar system? Did she realize she screwed up? Did other characters call her to account for her mistake? Did she apologize and learn and grow? I haven't seen much of SG-1 but from what I've gathered, the answer's no.
Maybe the writers were afraid if they showed Sam having flaws or making mistakes, women in the audience would object to the 'weakening' of a female hero. Maybe the writers wanted her to be a role model and believed that meant she had to be perfect. Or maybe the writers didn't want to give their fantasy dream girl any flaws. (Or all of the above!)
I think on some level the SG writers believe that men can achieve great things despite their foibles, while a woman who achieves the same greatness would have to be flawless-- would have to be a fantasy. Since no one is flawless, that amounts to believing that it's impossible for women to achieve the same greatness as men.
Those writers did the same thing to Teyla and Elizabeth as well. It's perhaps less obvious because they got less screentime. Did they ever show Teyla or Elizabeth make a mistake and learn from it?
Seeing characters solve problems and make mistakes and learn and grow is how we relate to them. The Stargate shows depicted both Rodney and Samantha solving a lot of problems, but since the shows were largely terrible, most of those solutions amounted to waving a science-flavored magic wand. It was through their mistakes that we related to them.
I think the SG writers didn't show Samantha, Teyla and Elizabeth learning from mistakes because they didn't really relate to these characters and didn't care to try. The only problems they can imagine a woman having are with her relationships with men.
Mary Sue qualities don't just happen because of the writer's over-investment in the Sue character. They also happen because of just plain bad writing. Rodney was sometimes a Mary Sue because the writers over-invested in him as their avatar. Samantha was often a Mary Sue because they didn't write her well.
http://cesare.dreamwidth.org/60869.html |
comments | Comment at Dreamwidth
So these two characters, Samantha Carter and Rodney McKay. Are they Mary Sues?
Yes, I think both of them are. But in my opinion Samantha is more of a Sue than Rodney, and the reason for this is sexism on the part of the writers.
Sexist writers create female characters who are fantasies, not people. It's just as sexist to make a female character who is perfect and never wrong as it is to make a female character who's a negative stereotype (like, say, duplicitous cat thief/sex kitten Vala.)
When female heroes are perfect and male heroes are imperfect, that shows a standard for female heroes that's higher than the standard for male heroes. That's sexist.
Sam Carter and Rodney McKay are both Mary Sues sometimes. But how often does Samantha get to be wrong? And how often do the writers show her realizing she was wrong and growing as a result?
Rodney McKay is allowed to make mistakes, lots of them, huge ones, which he is called to account for-- and he's still depicted as a hero worthy of love and narrative attention. The narrative acknowledges his mistakes and flaws, and he's shown admitting to his issues and growing. (Inconsistently, and he goes backwards repeatedly depending on who's writing him; he's probably at his Marty Stu worst in season 5. But in the whole series, he grows at least somewhat.)
And that's sexist! Rodney can be petty and arrogant, give away secret plans under torture, fail to solve a simple math puzzle due to nerves, blow up Doranda, reprogram Replicators in such a way that they kill people on several planets, drop Teyla's baby... and he's still treated as a hero.
Did Sam ever screw up on the scale of accidentally blowing up a solar system? Did she realize she screwed up? Did other characters call her to account for her mistake? Did she apologize and learn and grow? I haven't seen much of SG-1 but from what I've gathered, the answer's no.
Maybe the writers were afraid if they showed Sam having flaws or making mistakes, women in the audience would object to the 'weakening' of a female hero. Maybe the writers wanted her to be a role model and believed that meant she had to be perfect. Or maybe the writers didn't want to give their fantasy dream girl any flaws. (Or all of the above!)
I think on some level the SG writers believe that men can achieve great things despite their foibles, while a woman who achieves the same greatness would have to be flawless-- would have to be a fantasy. Since no one is flawless, that amounts to believing that it's impossible for women to achieve the same greatness as men.
Those writers did the same thing to Teyla and Elizabeth as well. It's perhaps less obvious because they got less screentime. Did they ever show Teyla or Elizabeth make a mistake and learn from it?
Seeing characters solve problems and make mistakes and learn and grow is how we relate to them. The Stargate shows depicted both Rodney and Samantha solving a lot of problems, but since the shows were largely terrible, most of those solutions amounted to waving a science-flavored magic wand. It was through their mistakes that we related to them.
I think the SG writers didn't show Samantha, Teyla and Elizabeth learning from mistakes because they didn't really relate to these characters and didn't care to try. The only problems they can imagine a woman having are with her relationships with men.
Mary Sue qualities don't just happen because of the writer's over-investment in the Sue character. They also happen because of just plain bad writing. Rodney was sometimes a Mary Sue because the writers over-invested in him as their avatar. Samantha was often a Mary Sue because they didn't write her well.
http://cesare.dreamwidth.org/60869.html |
comments | Comment at Dreamwidth