Needs clarity for canon examples: Relationship Sue

So a small edit war over a canon example drew my attention to an issue with this trope. Namely, that the description is rather specifically tailored to fanfiction. As it reads now, it describes characters in fanfiction that are simply perfect partners whom everyone thinks is awesome for the character in question and only villains hate. Yet it leaves no room in that description for an actual canon example of the trope.

I've been operating under the assumption that a canon character would be very similar - the character has no motivations or arcs of their own except sleeping with the main character. It would be quite silly to suggest that any character that is later introduced into the story and has a successful relationship with another character is automatically this trope. Yet the examples currently read like a laundry list of "This character is good at Y, and a good match for Bob. Therefore, Sue."

I think the definition of the trope needs a clear definition of when the line between "New character" ends and when "Sue" begins. It should also be careful to account for the usual problems shipping tropes have of people simply listing their personal Scrappies as Mary Sues ("OMG! Alice was TOTALLY lame and I wanted Bob and Leo to get together! Relationship Sue!"). This may also lead to examples getting pruned afterwards, but I think it would be better in the long run if there's something specific to point to just to stop every single character that ever batted their eyes at a popular lead from getting listed on this page.

We're thinking about axing ___ Sue examples period, because stuff like this keeps happening.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (at least if you read that thread): why does this need canon examples? Heck, why does it need any examples?

How in the hell can you have a Relationship Sue in a canon work? That doesn't even make sense. Freaking idiots...

The only one I can think of is Bella from Twilight.

The story is supposed to be about Bella doing those things. Anthropic Principle, folks.

I suppose it's not possible for a character to derail the plot if the plot never existed for any other purpose.

Bella is the main character of her own story.

(checks page)

Yup, there's an entry for Bella, Edward, AND their daughter.

edited 13th Aug '11 12:23:49 PM by Rebochan

Die horrible canon entries. Die die die!

Can we axe them? Can we? Please?

Doesn't our main Mary Sue page specifically mention that while there are arguments across the internet on whether a canon character can be a Sue, we treat it as a possibility? Or do we just throw them at Canon Sue and call it a day?

Canon Sue is not supposed to have examples. They are specifically shunted off to the subtropes; this is to keep people from declaring any old canon character a Sue without specifying what actually makes them one.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:04:23 PM by Fighteer

Unfortunately, the issue at hand here is that as the trope is currently used, pretty much ANY character in a relationship in a story is getting labeled as this. Sometimes with comments that might make them fall under other "sue" types, but this trope isn't "This character is Mary Sue with a boyfriend."

...and I am all about just nuking the canon examples if that is the best solution.

edited 13th Aug '11 6:10:59 PM by Rebochan

Oh, I completely agree but we need more than just a handful of us making the decision.

Sues can be in canon. It's just not always easy to get people to agree on what is something like that. But the main point of a Mary Sue is an author wish fulfillment character, no matter how the story has to warp itself around that character.

What's an author wish fulfillment character, and does that mean that any character that the author does not state is someone they despise is automatically a Sue?

And this conversation once again sums up why I desperately want to give all Sue pages (except Parody Sue and possibly Mary Sue Classic) an Example Sectionectomy.

No, there would have to be other clues. But again, we can't get everyone to agree on if the clues really fit. So I agree on a total example sectimony, just to avoid natter.

Would Her Code Name Was "Mary Sue" be included?

edited 13th Aug '11 8:18:55 PM by DragonQuestZ

No, as it's a parody trope.

Basically, I want to cut the examples on everything but parodies of the concept and possibly Mary Sue Classic - the reason being that that has a stringent enough definition that we can probably tell what is and isn't one. Not that I really want to keep either, but it doesn't have the same problem the other Sue tropes have.

Edit: Just noticed Mary Sue Classic doesn't have examples anyway.

edited 13th Aug '11 8:31:52 PM by nrjxll

Spoofing the concept of Mary Sue shouldn't count as a mary sue trope? That is not a valid point. It's just a form of Parody Sue.

Good point. Statement retracted.

Getting back to this one, should we at least nuke the canon examples? Or come up with a valid canon title?

I know this keeps falling off the wayside because the Sue tropes have been a vicious quagmire since I first started editing here back around '08ish.

Might be better to cut all examples, just to be sure.

Cut the canon examples has my vote.

Yes, having canon examples here doesn't make any sense. Cut.

edited 14th Aug '11 2:38:43 PM by Antheia