That One Mary Sue Essay We Just Talked About
Hi, everyone! I know everyone already said what they wanted to say, but hell, this deserves a spork, and I want to celebrate the end of my latest college semester! Not to mention, this is a bit too long to just add as a single comment on the original post. Just some time ago, dualtriene posted about an essay by an adventuresofcomicbookgirl. To be fair, it does try to address a good point, but the catch is that it fails on its delivery.
Don’t forget to take a look at dualtriene’s post for the shameless plug and to view each member’s opinion!
Looks like this essay was needed, so I went ahead and did it. Not sure I said everything I wanted to say, but I tried.
So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly. They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.
God, what a Mary Sue.
I just described Batman.
Oh snap! She just dissed the goddamn Batman! How DARE she!
The essay writer just contradicted her own name. Many comic book heroes like Batman have multiple writers and some writers aren’t as experienced or talented as other writers that took on Batman. Potentially, Batman can be a Mary Sue, but under a poor writer. Also, some of these points are just wrong with several incidents to point to. For one, concerning everyone loving him even when he's a dick to them, there’s the infamous book from the Justice League series where Batman proved to be a manipulative bastard and got his superhero allies to confess their weaknesses to Batman all so he could file those weaknesses away and plan for the day his allies might turn against him.
No one liked him after he got caught.
Then every girl Batman encountered was head-over-heels in love with him? I knew there’s the occasional romance with Talia al Ghul and Batman/Catwoman is pretty popular, but I never knew that Poison Ivy had a thing for Batman, too. I just thought that seduction was just kind of her thing.
Wish fulfillment characters have been around since the beginning of time. The good guys tend to win, get the girl and have everything fall into place for them. It’s only when women started doing it that it became a problem.
TV Tropes on the origin of Mary Sue:
The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment.
Notice the strange emphasis on female here. TV Tropes goes on to say that is took a long time for the male counterpart “Marty Stu” to be used. “Most fanfic writers are girls” is given as the reason. So when women dominate a genre, that means people are on close watch, ready to scorn any wish fulfillment they may engage in. This term could only originate if the default was female.
Once upon a time, there was a Star Trek fanfic with a Mary Sue named Mary Sue. She was the youngest ensign on the ship and was absolutely perfect in every way, but at heart, she was a Parody Sue meant to make fun of every over-the-top fan character made by bad fanfic writers. Thus, the term “Mary Sue” was created.
In fact, one of the CONTROVERSIES listed on the TV Tropes page is if a male sue is even possible. That’s right, it’s impossible to have an idealizied male character. Men are already the ideal.
Not really. The existence of a male, over-idealized, badly written character isn’t in question. The controversy is more of what term we use for the male counterpart of Mary Sue than the existence of an over-idealized, badly written male character.
In our culture, male tends to be the default. Women take on the distaff parts. “Him” and “mankind” are what humanity are, “her” and “womankind” are secondary. Yet this isn’t true for Mary Sue as a term. That name was created first. It was a Star Trek fic that coined it and the female desigination was likely a big reason it caught on. This female is name the default to use when describing idealized characters. Marty Stu and Gary Stu are only to be used if you’re discussing men specifically. Heck, there isn’t even an agreed upon term for them. So the only time female can be default is when discussing a badly written character, someone who is more powerful or important or liked than they should be allowed to be, someone the plot focuses on more than you would like, someone you don’t want to read about. Hmmm.
First, that little "Hmmm" isn't cute or clever. Secondly, it’s spelled “designation.” Thirdly, the over-idealized female character came first and the Mary Sue term came after that infamous Star Trek parody fic. Fourthly, the reason why there’s not an agreed upon term on the male over-idealized character is because their terms are based on “Mary Sue,” not because female over-idealized characters are “default.”
What’s really wrong with a thirteen year old girl having a power fantasy, even if it’s badly written?
Note that readers protest against the “badly written” part. Lots of fanfics feature female original characters or self-inserts who go through a story and are strong female characters. If you pay attention, it’s the badly written ones that get called “Mary Sue” on in the fanfic community.
Who is it hurting?
The readers.
Men have baldly admitted to writing power fantasies and self inserts since the beginning of time. How many nerdy, schlubby guys suddenly become badasses and have hot girls chasing after them in fiction? See: Spiderman- blatant everyman who happens to stumble across amazing powers and catch the eye of a supermodel.
Your generalization of Spiderman is worse than Batman and should be shot at-and I’m not even a Spiderman fan!
Mary Sue is considered the worst insult to throw at a character as it renders them worthless.
Correction: it deems a character as “badly written.” How come you don’t understand that part?
But since when are idealized characters automatically worthless?
See Bella Swan.
Aren’t all heroes idealized in some way?
All of them are idealized because that is the nature of heroes. It’s the over-idealized and badly written “heroes” we don’t like.
Don’t all heroes represent the author in some way?
Not all the time. Some heroes get passed down from one writer to the next, like Batman and Spiderman, so they don’t always represent the writer.
Aren’t these characters supposed to be people we look up to, people who represent human potential, the goodness that we strive for?
Heroes, yes, but because of the nature of heroes. They are the protagonists that do good for the sake of others and can be excellent role models. A Mary Sue, however, can be more than just a hero. A Mary Sue can be the love interest, a villain, an antagonist, a side-kick, or anything. If you looked up the difference between a “hero” and a “protagonist,” you’d know that you’re using a narrow term for something that covers a broader range of poorly written characters.
Fantasy by nature is idealized, even the tragic ones.
Tragedies aren’t normally idealized. Tragedies come from characters who fall because of their own choices rather than external factors. Take a look at Hamlet. A lot of what happens in that play ends up like it did because of the choices the characters made and the effects they had on each other. That is a tragedy. None of them are idealized.
If you look at the TV Tropes page for Mary Sue, it’s ridiculous. You can be a sue for having too many flaws, or not enough, for fixing things or messing things up, for being a hero or a villain.
The thing about writing a character is balance. You can’t have too many flaws or too little flaws in order to get a well-written character. People aren't like that in real life. No one is perfect and no one has so many flaws that they're barely even human. Often times, these changes do absolutely nothing to help the character because they mistaken the symptoms for the disease and don’t fix the problem about characterizing their character poorly, hence the multiple types.
And of course, this is specifically pointed out as a trope related to the Princess and Magical Girl genres- genres aimed towards women are naturally full of Mary Sues.
No genre is naturally full of “Mary Sues.” Mary Sues are badly written characters. That is not natural in writing.
Magical girls are powerful and heroic and actually flaunt femininity as a good thing. They are a power fantasy designed for girls. So of course, a girl using traditionally feminine traits to dominate and triumph means she’s a sickeningly pure Mary Sue who makes everything go their way.
Note: the sickeningly pure Mary Sues are called Purity Sues and are different from the over-the-top feminist Mary Sues. If you actually read that TV Tropes page, you would know this.
Feminine traits are disdained and look down on, so when the positive feminine traits are prominent, the reader has an aversive reaction. How can a character be so feminine and triumph? She must be unrealistic, she must be badly written, because everyone knows it is impossible to be feminine and powerful.
Let’s look at what kinds of Mary Sues people will point to. People will claim a female character is a Mary Sue if she is a love interest. Put a female character within a foot of a male character, and people will scream “Mary Sue!” Why does someone falling in love with her make her a Mary Sue? Well, she hasn’t “earned” this awesome dude character’s love. What has she done to show she’s worthy of him? Fans miss the irony that this line of logic makes the male character seem more like the Sue in Question, as he’s apparently so perfect one has work for his coveted love and praise.
So we’re not supposed to earn love or trust? Isn’t it that way in real life? I call Mary Sue when the love isn’t earned and just happens for no reason. Love develops over time and grows through being together with that person. Forgive us if we want to see two characters go through that instead of going through the clichéd and boring “love at first sight.”
The idea that woman has to “earn” any power, praise, love, or plot prominence is central to Mary Sue.
Again, no it’s not. The central part to any Mary Sue is that the character is badly written. EVERY character, no matter their gender, has to earn the power, praise, love, and plot prominence they get in the story. It's part of basic characterization.
Men do not have to do this, they are naturally assumed to be powerful, central and loveable.
No they are not. Read Twilight or Eragon and you will know differently.
That’s why it’s the first thing thrown at a female character- what has she done to be given the same consideration as a male character? Why is she suddenly usurping a male role? “Mary Sue” is the easiest way to dismiss a character. It sounds bad to say “I don’t like this female character. I don’t like that this woman is powerful. I don’t like it when the plot focuses on her. I don’t like that a character I like has affections for her.” But “Mary Sue” is a way to say these things without really saying them. It gives you legitimacy.
There you make an excellent point, but your execution and logical jumps butcher your point. All I think of is how much you misunderstand and how little research you’ve done on the topic. Your poor execution killed your essay.
Even still, just calling “Mary Sue” out on someone doesn’t give your criticism legitimacy. You must explain your reasons why the character is BADLY WRITTEN. THEN will you calling out “Mary Sue” be legit.
If a character is badly written, there’s generally something much more problematic than idealization going on. The plot will be dull and the character will perpetuate harmful stereotypes while other characters act oddly. For instance, Bella Swan is one of the only characters I’d even begin to classify as a Mary Sue, yet it’s not really her supposed Mary Sue traits that bother me.
FINALLY! YOU GET WHAT A MARY SUE IS!
I don’t mind that she gets what she wants and everyone loves her, that she’s Meyer’s power fantasy.
It’s Meyer’s fanfic wet dream. Why Bella is a Mary Sue is because she hasn’t EARNED any of the things she gets. They're just handed to her. That’s not a “power fantasy.”
What I actually mind is that Stephenie Meyer has her perpetuate harmful anti-woman stereotypes- women need to be protected, women are shallow, women’s worth rests in desirability. That’s what’s actually harmful about her and worth discussing. I would criticize that rather than even get to the fact Bella got to be “too perfect and powerful”- that’s just a tiny, insignificant thing not worth mentioning in a huge pile of problems.
No, you still don’t get it. I don’t like Meyer’s horrible anti-feminist propaganda either, but don’t dismiss another horrible part of Meyer’s writing just because it doesn’t seem significant to you. If Meyer had GOOD characterization, maybe reading Twilight would’ve been more bearable and had fewer horrible anti-feminist stereotypes, especially considering that all those stereotypes were accidental on her part.
And that’s why I don’t call characters Mary Sue anymore. There’s really nothing bad about a power fantasy or wish fulfillment. It’s what’s fiction’s about. If one of my characters is called a Sue, I’ll proudly say “yep”, because that must mean that she broke out of that box a female character is supposed to be in. So I’ll go and say it: I love me some Mary Sues.
Ugh . . . I’ve said it a thousand times . . . Mary Sue is not a compliment because that’s a slang term for “badly written characters.” It has almost nothing to do with gender preferences or creating a strong female character and getting dissed by sexist assholes. The blatant and absurd misunderstanding here is astonishing. You came so close to actually reading about what each Sue is and why her characterization is bad, and then you just ignore the listed reasons why each Sue is bad and just go with your own conclusions instead of learning about others’ opinions.
Overall, you try to make a point, but your execution was horrible. You jump to so many conclusions and you don't even try to understand the position of those who say that Mary Sues are wrong. While I don't like how the term "Mary Sue" is thrown about, it's hard to actually side with you because of all the problems in your essay. I get the feeling that, should I ever talk to you in person, trying to get you to understand what a Mary Sue is would be just as futile as trying to convince the Zelda fanbase that Sheik's physical gender doesn't mean anything to the overall story line of Ocarina of Time.
Enough of repeating myself, though. I'm leaving this as it is.
Don’t forget to take a look at dualtriene’s post for the shameless plug and to view each member’s opinion!
Looks like this essay was needed, so I went ahead and did it. Not sure I said everything I wanted to say, but I tried.
So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly. They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.
God, what a Mary Sue.
I just described Batman.
Oh snap! She just dissed the goddamn Batman! How DARE she!
The essay writer just contradicted her own name. Many comic book heroes like Batman have multiple writers and some writers aren’t as experienced or talented as other writers that took on Batman. Potentially, Batman can be a Mary Sue, but under a poor writer. Also, some of these points are just wrong with several incidents to point to. For one, concerning everyone loving him even when he's a dick to them, there’s the infamous book from the Justice League series where Batman proved to be a manipulative bastard and got his superhero allies to confess their weaknesses to Batman all so he could file those weaknesses away and plan for the day his allies might turn against him.
No one liked him after he got caught.
Then every girl Batman encountered was head-over-heels in love with him? I knew there’s the occasional romance with Talia al Ghul and Batman/Catwoman is pretty popular, but I never knew that Poison Ivy had a thing for Batman, too. I just thought that seduction was just kind of her thing.
Wish fulfillment characters have been around since the beginning of time. The good guys tend to win, get the girl and have everything fall into place for them. It’s only when women started doing it that it became a problem.
TV Tropes on the origin of Mary Sue:
The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment.
Notice the strange emphasis on female here. TV Tropes goes on to say that is took a long time for the male counterpart “Marty Stu” to be used. “Most fanfic writers are girls” is given as the reason. So when women dominate a genre, that means people are on close watch, ready to scorn any wish fulfillment they may engage in. This term could only originate if the default was female.
Once upon a time, there was a Star Trek fanfic with a Mary Sue named Mary Sue. She was the youngest ensign on the ship and was absolutely perfect in every way, but at heart, she was a Parody Sue meant to make fun of every over-the-top fan character made by bad fanfic writers. Thus, the term “Mary Sue” was created.
In fact, one of the CONTROVERSIES listed on the TV Tropes page is if a male sue is even possible. That’s right, it’s impossible to have an idealizied male character. Men are already the ideal.
Not really. The existence of a male, over-idealized, badly written character isn’t in question. The controversy is more of what term we use for the male counterpart of Mary Sue than the existence of an over-idealized, badly written male character.
In our culture, male tends to be the default. Women take on the distaff parts. “Him” and “mankind” are what humanity are, “her” and “womankind” are secondary. Yet this isn’t true for Mary Sue as a term. That name was created first. It was a Star Trek fic that coined it and the female desigination was likely a big reason it caught on. This female is name the default to use when describing idealized characters. Marty Stu and Gary Stu are only to be used if you’re discussing men specifically. Heck, there isn’t even an agreed upon term for them. So the only time female can be default is when discussing a badly written character, someone who is more powerful or important or liked than they should be allowed to be, someone the plot focuses on more than you would like, someone you don’t want to read about. Hmmm.
First, that little "Hmmm" isn't cute or clever. Secondly, it’s spelled “designation.” Thirdly, the over-idealized female character came first and the Mary Sue term came after that infamous Star Trek parody fic. Fourthly, the reason why there’s not an agreed upon term on the male over-idealized character is because their terms are based on “Mary Sue,” not because female over-idealized characters are “default.”
What’s really wrong with a thirteen year old girl having a power fantasy, even if it’s badly written?
Note that readers protest against the “badly written” part. Lots of fanfics feature female original characters or self-inserts who go through a story and are strong female characters. If you pay attention, it’s the badly written ones that get called “Mary Sue” on in the fanfic community.
Who is it hurting?
The readers.
Men have baldly admitted to writing power fantasies and self inserts since the beginning of time. How many nerdy, schlubby guys suddenly become badasses and have hot girls chasing after them in fiction? See: Spiderman- blatant everyman who happens to stumble across amazing powers and catch the eye of a supermodel.
Your generalization of Spiderman is worse than Batman and should be shot at-and I’m not even a Spiderman fan!
Mary Sue is considered the worst insult to throw at a character as it renders them worthless.
Correction: it deems a character as “badly written.” How come you don’t understand that part?
But since when are idealized characters automatically worthless?
See Bella Swan.
Aren’t all heroes idealized in some way?
All of them are idealized because that is the nature of heroes. It’s the over-idealized and badly written “heroes” we don’t like.
Don’t all heroes represent the author in some way?
Not all the time. Some heroes get passed down from one writer to the next, like Batman and Spiderman, so they don’t always represent the writer.
Aren’t these characters supposed to be people we look up to, people who represent human potential, the goodness that we strive for?
Heroes, yes, but because of the nature of heroes. They are the protagonists that do good for the sake of others and can be excellent role models. A Mary Sue, however, can be more than just a hero. A Mary Sue can be the love interest, a villain, an antagonist, a side-kick, or anything. If you looked up the difference between a “hero” and a “protagonist,” you’d know that you’re using a narrow term for something that covers a broader range of poorly written characters.
Fantasy by nature is idealized, even the tragic ones.
Tragedies aren’t normally idealized. Tragedies come from characters who fall because of their own choices rather than external factors. Take a look at Hamlet. A lot of what happens in that play ends up like it did because of the choices the characters made and the effects they had on each other. That is a tragedy. None of them are idealized.
If you look at the TV Tropes page for Mary Sue, it’s ridiculous. You can be a sue for having too many flaws, or not enough, for fixing things or messing things up, for being a hero or a villain.
The thing about writing a character is balance. You can’t have too many flaws or too little flaws in order to get a well-written character. People aren't like that in real life. No one is perfect and no one has so many flaws that they're barely even human. Often times, these changes do absolutely nothing to help the character because they mistaken the symptoms for the disease and don’t fix the problem about characterizing their character poorly, hence the multiple types.
And of course, this is specifically pointed out as a trope related to the Princess and Magical Girl genres- genres aimed towards women are naturally full of Mary Sues.
No genre is naturally full of “Mary Sues.” Mary Sues are badly written characters. That is not natural in writing.
Magical girls are powerful and heroic and actually flaunt femininity as a good thing. They are a power fantasy designed for girls. So of course, a girl using traditionally feminine traits to dominate and triumph means she’s a sickeningly pure Mary Sue who makes everything go their way.
Note: the sickeningly pure Mary Sues are called Purity Sues and are different from the over-the-top feminist Mary Sues. If you actually read that TV Tropes page, you would know this.
Feminine traits are disdained and look down on, so when the positive feminine traits are prominent, the reader has an aversive reaction. How can a character be so feminine and triumph? She must be unrealistic, she must be badly written, because everyone knows it is impossible to be feminine and powerful.
Let’s look at what kinds of Mary Sues people will point to. People will claim a female character is a Mary Sue if she is a love interest. Put a female character within a foot of a male character, and people will scream “Mary Sue!” Why does someone falling in love with her make her a Mary Sue? Well, she hasn’t “earned” this awesome dude character’s love. What has she done to show she’s worthy of him? Fans miss the irony that this line of logic makes the male character seem more like the Sue in Question, as he’s apparently so perfect one has work for his coveted love and praise.
So we’re not supposed to earn love or trust? Isn’t it that way in real life? I call Mary Sue when the love isn’t earned and just happens for no reason. Love develops over time and grows through being together with that person. Forgive us if we want to see two characters go through that instead of going through the clichéd and boring “love at first sight.”
The idea that woman has to “earn” any power, praise, love, or plot prominence is central to Mary Sue.
Again, no it’s not. The central part to any Mary Sue is that the character is badly written. EVERY character, no matter their gender, has to earn the power, praise, love, and plot prominence they get in the story. It's part of basic characterization.
Men do not have to do this, they are naturally assumed to be powerful, central and loveable.
No they are not. Read Twilight or Eragon and you will know differently.
That’s why it’s the first thing thrown at a female character- what has she done to be given the same consideration as a male character? Why is she suddenly usurping a male role? “Mary Sue” is the easiest way to dismiss a character. It sounds bad to say “I don’t like this female character. I don’t like that this woman is powerful. I don’t like it when the plot focuses on her. I don’t like that a character I like has affections for her.” But “Mary Sue” is a way to say these things without really saying them. It gives you legitimacy.
There you make an excellent point, but your execution and logical jumps butcher your point. All I think of is how much you misunderstand and how little research you’ve done on the topic. Your poor execution killed your essay.
Even still, just calling “Mary Sue” out on someone doesn’t give your criticism legitimacy. You must explain your reasons why the character is BADLY WRITTEN. THEN will you calling out “Mary Sue” be legit.
If a character is badly written, there’s generally something much more problematic than idealization going on. The plot will be dull and the character will perpetuate harmful stereotypes while other characters act oddly. For instance, Bella Swan is one of the only characters I’d even begin to classify as a Mary Sue, yet it’s not really her supposed Mary Sue traits that bother me.
FINALLY! YOU GET WHAT A MARY SUE IS!
I don’t mind that she gets what she wants and everyone loves her, that she’s Meyer’s power fantasy.
It’s Meyer’s fanfic wet dream. Why Bella is a Mary Sue is because she hasn’t EARNED any of the things she gets. They're just handed to her. That’s not a “power fantasy.”
What I actually mind is that Stephenie Meyer has her perpetuate harmful anti-woman stereotypes- women need to be protected, women are shallow, women’s worth rests in desirability. That’s what’s actually harmful about her and worth discussing. I would criticize that rather than even get to the fact Bella got to be “too perfect and powerful”- that’s just a tiny, insignificant thing not worth mentioning in a huge pile of problems.
No, you still don’t get it. I don’t like Meyer’s horrible anti-feminist propaganda either, but don’t dismiss another horrible part of Meyer’s writing just because it doesn’t seem significant to you. If Meyer had GOOD characterization, maybe reading Twilight would’ve been more bearable and had fewer horrible anti-feminist stereotypes, especially considering that all those stereotypes were accidental on her part.
And that’s why I don’t call characters Mary Sue anymore. There’s really nothing bad about a power fantasy or wish fulfillment. It’s what’s fiction’s about. If one of my characters is called a Sue, I’ll proudly say “yep”, because that must mean that she broke out of that box a female character is supposed to be in. So I’ll go and say it: I love me some Mary Sues.
Ugh . . . I’ve said it a thousand times . . . Mary Sue is not a compliment because that’s a slang term for “badly written characters.” It has almost nothing to do with gender preferences or creating a strong female character and getting dissed by sexist assholes. The blatant and absurd misunderstanding here is astonishing. You came so close to actually reading about what each Sue is and why her characterization is bad, and then you just ignore the listed reasons why each Sue is bad and just go with your own conclusions instead of learning about others’ opinions.
Overall, you try to make a point, but your execution was horrible. You jump to so many conclusions and you don't even try to understand the position of those who say that Mary Sues are wrong. While I don't like how the term "Mary Sue" is thrown about, it's hard to actually side with you because of all the problems in your essay. I get the feeling that, should I ever talk to you in person, trying to get you to understand what a Mary Sue is would be just as futile as trying to convince the Zelda fanbase that Sheik's physical gender doesn't mean anything to the overall story line of Ocarina of Time.
Enough of repeating myself, though. I'm leaving this as it is.