Seriously - The Term Mary Sue Isn't Misogynist, So Stop Pretending to Be a Victim
I’ve never been fond of The Mary Sue, having found most of the articles spout of fake feminist garbage I don’t agree with, thought sometimes, on a rare occasion there is something I do find myself agreeing with. The site is supposedly called The Mary Sue because they want to - well, let’s quote their article, “Why ‘The Mary Sue?’” on this one, “A Mary Sue is relevant to everybody, because if you haven’t created one for yourself, our culture certainly has.”
Which, the first part is awesome. No, seriously, we’ve all created our own Mary Sue, or in the case of guys, a Gary Stu.
The argument falls flat when they brought in a real-life person, which shows a major misunderstanding of the actual term on the part of the person who came to this decision. In fact, I’d argue this is the least common misconception I’ve seen regarding the term - that it somehow applies to real life people. Yes, Susana Polo, the writer of the article was well intended, but definitely misplaced.
I mean, I can’t get behind the fact it “feels familiar” argument. It’s not because I can’t get behind the fact we should dust off our Mary Sue stories and enjoy them. It’s simply not the term I think of when I think of geek culture as a geek girl. I think of words like, “gamer chick”, not the term Mary Sue. In fact, I’d argue not all geek girls are into fanfic, though most likely are. It also continued the continued process of leaving out the guy - who is rare in fandom, just like a lot of this pseudo feminism leaves men out of the discussion - because - well, all men are evil.
That said, I can definitely get behind the last reason - what the guys want for a geek girl is a Mary Sue, yet this ignores the fact the fictionalized version of us they want isn’t to play into the wish fulfillment of a female, but a male.
Of course, as another person pointed out, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz series isn’t a Mary Sue. In fact, despite not having seen the movie “There’s Something About Mary”, I don’t think Mary in that series is actually a Mary Sue, but if you look it up - well, most of the articles you find are using the movie as a pun. Yes, a lot of guys fall in love with her, yet as The Ultimate Mary Sue Test says, “please, please, please remember that just because something is on a test does not mean that it’s supposed to be inherently bad and avoided at all costs.”
That said, I am rather bummed to discover that the writer of the test now believes the rhetoric that its become “a term that’s more often than not just used to tear down female characters simply for having a prominent, active role in a story.” I won’t deny this doesn’t happen at times but avoiding the term - that actually makes the problem worse because by insisting it not be used properly you open it up to becoming a subjective term.
Seriously, right before people started saying we shouldn’t use this term, we started people starting to discuss Gary Stus because males, who are the minority in fandom were becoming aware of it. Using other words to discuss the issue means nobody discusses the issue, because truth - there is no other term to describe the issue, yet it also has given more power to those who misuse the term, not less.
That said, I do not use the term Mary Sue in my reviews - or Gary Stu - unless it’s bad, preferring the writer come to their own conclusion regarding the fact I’m calling their character our for being a Mary Sue or Gary Stu. This is one of the topics I discuss with young writers, about how the Mary Sue phase is a super important phase in their writing that they should embrace, not to mention it’s okay to make mistakes in their writing. This promotes critical thinking on the part of the writer, but I don't see calling the writer out for writing a MS/GS when they do an insult, and don't condemn those who do choose to use the terms.
(Actually, another reason I avoid the term is because I've had writers try arguing their character isn't a Mary Sue or accuse me of misogany - doesn't help I'm a gender noncomforming female who is definitely percieved as male online.)
Which - by telling us we can’t use the term Mary Sue, we outright ignore the importance of the Mary Sue phase for the young writer but do nothing to remove the stigma of writing a Mary Sue. Seriously, there is nothing wrong with writing such a character.
So, yeah, pissed.
That’s not what I want to talk about. It’s actually another article called “It’s A Me, Mary Sue: Why She’s An Important Figure For Fanfic And Fangirls” ….
…. which, by the way - I just realized the article is a plug for the article writer’s own book. I mean, there is a review on Amazon which is titled “Patronizing, poorly focused, and superficial”, touching upon the fact the experience described isn’t all of our experienced, yet I also see a minority group in fandom pushing for “no critique, it’s just for fun”.
Someone finally commented on the article saying some of the things I wanted someone to say, though some have been there for a while. I hit the back button a lot when I come across this article.
“ofc, like the author, anyone who merely dislikes Mary Sues and Gary Stus ON STORY GROUNDS, is somehow misogynist and bigoted, because you literally give no other argument”.
However, it was the one from six days ago who majorly called the writer out. I’m hoping that it doesn’t get “censored”, but makes the following points.
Which, the first part is awesome. No, seriously, we’ve all created our own Mary Sue, or in the case of guys, a Gary Stu.
The argument falls flat when they brought in a real-life person, which shows a major misunderstanding of the actual term on the part of the person who came to this decision. In fact, I’d argue this is the least common misconception I’ve seen regarding the term - that it somehow applies to real life people. Yes, Susana Polo, the writer of the article was well intended, but definitely misplaced.
I mean, I can’t get behind the fact it “feels familiar” argument. It’s not because I can’t get behind the fact we should dust off our Mary Sue stories and enjoy them. It’s simply not the term I think of when I think of geek culture as a geek girl. I think of words like, “gamer chick”, not the term Mary Sue. In fact, I’d argue not all geek girls are into fanfic, though most likely are. It also continued the continued process of leaving out the guy - who is rare in fandom, just like a lot of this pseudo feminism leaves men out of the discussion - because - well, all men are evil.
That said, I can definitely get behind the last reason - what the guys want for a geek girl is a Mary Sue, yet this ignores the fact the fictionalized version of us they want isn’t to play into the wish fulfillment of a female, but a male.
Of course, as another person pointed out, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz series isn’t a Mary Sue. In fact, despite not having seen the movie “There’s Something About Mary”, I don’t think Mary in that series is actually a Mary Sue, but if you look it up - well, most of the articles you find are using the movie as a pun. Yes, a lot of guys fall in love with her, yet as The Ultimate Mary Sue Test says, “please, please, please remember that just because something is on a test does not mean that it’s supposed to be inherently bad and avoided at all costs.”
That said, I am rather bummed to discover that the writer of the test now believes the rhetoric that its become “a term that’s more often than not just used to tear down female characters simply for having a prominent, active role in a story.” I won’t deny this doesn’t happen at times but avoiding the term - that actually makes the problem worse because by insisting it not be used properly you open it up to becoming a subjective term.
Seriously, right before people started saying we shouldn’t use this term, we started people starting to discuss Gary Stus because males, who are the minority in fandom were becoming aware of it. Using other words to discuss the issue means nobody discusses the issue, because truth - there is no other term to describe the issue, yet it also has given more power to those who misuse the term, not less.
That said, I do not use the term Mary Sue in my reviews - or Gary Stu - unless it’s bad, preferring the writer come to their own conclusion regarding the fact I’m calling their character our for being a Mary Sue or Gary Stu. This is one of the topics I discuss with young writers, about how the Mary Sue phase is a super important phase in their writing that they should embrace, not to mention it’s okay to make mistakes in their writing. This promotes critical thinking on the part of the writer, but I don't see calling the writer out for writing a MS/GS when they do an insult, and don't condemn those who do choose to use the terms.
(Actually, another reason I avoid the term is because I've had writers try arguing their character isn't a Mary Sue or accuse me of misogany - doesn't help I'm a gender noncomforming female who is definitely percieved as male online.)
Which - by telling us we can’t use the term Mary Sue, we outright ignore the importance of the Mary Sue phase for the young writer but do nothing to remove the stigma of writing a Mary Sue. Seriously, there is nothing wrong with writing such a character.
So, yeah, pissed.
That’s not what I want to talk about. It’s actually another article called “It’s A Me, Mary Sue: Why She’s An Important Figure For Fanfic And Fangirls” ….
…. which, by the way - I just realized the article is a plug for the article writer’s own book. I mean, there is a review on Amazon which is titled “Patronizing, poorly focused, and superficial”, touching upon the fact the experience described isn’t all of our experienced, yet I also see a minority group in fandom pushing for “no critique, it’s just for fun”.
Someone finally commented on the article saying some of the things I wanted someone to say, though some have been there for a while. I hit the back button a lot when I come across this article.
“ofc, like the author, anyone who merely dislikes Mary Sues and Gary Stus ON STORY GROUNDS, is somehow misogynist and bigoted, because you literally give no other argument”.
However, it was the one from six days ago who majorly called the writer out. I’m hoping that it doesn’t get “censored”, but makes the following points.
- They’re allowed to have an opinion which contradicts the writer’s.
- The question of “why isn’t it okay to hate on Mary Sues” is a rather pointless question as the writer is focusing on the idea that everyone who hates Mary Sues is a misoganyst. Which, I actually like Mary Sues, yet get why others don’t. The bad writing, but if someone doesn’t understand that is why it is okay to hate on Mary Sues, or Gary Stus - it’s bad writing, but it is okay to hate bad writing.
- Batman and James Bond aren’t Gary Stus, but the writer ignores the fact there is a term for Gary Stu. Which, if the writer of The Ultimate Mary Sue test wants to actually make a difference, they should rename the test to be The Ultimate Gary Stu/Mary Sue Litmus Test instead of ignoring the problem.
- Its about the “shitty writing”, not the gender of the character or the author, but that those who write Mary Sues need to stop making excuses for themselves if they want to be taken seriously as a writer.
- The writer is a hypocrite for marketing their writing to adults while complaining about how the term reminds them of what they wrote as teenagers, the point being that if they’re the ones to blame if their writing as an adult is still labeled as a Mary Sue and it’s because the character is one. Seriously, you choose to grow as a writer, or you do not.