Focused on Mary Sues

Why is every half-baked reader so focused on pointing out every example of a Mary Sue that they could possibly ever find? What bothers me is that I have noticed that Mary Sues have lost their impact, especially when every main character in any work of fiction has the dreaded "M word" thrown at them. It's gotten so bad that budding authors are going out of their way to avoid Mary Sues. Normally, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but because every other character is accused of being some perfect, wonderful person, modern heroes are becoming more and more like Anti Sues. Obviously, the main character has to be important in some way, but in avoiding the "M word," we end up with characters that are supposed to fail at everything, but simply don't. Take, for instance, the protagonist of Graceling, Katsa. She is a genuinely a well-written character. Her Grace forces her to survive what would ordinarily kill most people. I've heard several people claim that she's a Sue because she has this power. This astounds me, because she works her butt off to earn her happy ending. He Grace does not allow her to simply save the day, and it takes her until adulthood to escape the grasp of her manipulative uncle. Katsa is by no means perfect, and there are good characters who don't want to have much involvement with her. So, why do people focus so intently on Mary Sues? A power or ability doesn't classify them as such. Personality flaws or natural charisma are the same way. Mary Sues are the Hipsters of literature. Everyone throws the term around, but very few of the accused actually fall into the category.

edited 6th Oct '11 8:47:43 AM by odairfinnick

I think you answered your own question.

I'd advise you paragraph that to cut down on the Wall of Text.

Graceling? Isn't that the story where the author uses Katsa as her own personal author tract against teh preggers?

That doesn't automatically make her a sue.

I'll admit, this isn't one I've read, so I can only give a general answer. In the Writer's Block forum they are trying to make a better Mary sue test. The exercise has shown that any character in a fantansy type setting, automatically scores higher.

Now that everybody knows about Mary Sues they try to look for them everywhere. It's pretty harmful, if you ask me.

TED: True, but self inserts are a warning sign.

At the very least, it might be better to use an actual GOOD series as an example.

Not all bad characters are Sues. Am I getting this right?

And not all Sues are good characters, either.

Indiana Jones would be an example of a good Mary Sue. My Immortal's ...whatever her name is, a bad one.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:25:58 PM by Maridee

Debatable. By definition, a Mary Sue is bad writing. The only "good" mary sues are from a time when the archetype was accepted.

It depends on how well you can sell it.

Bad writing doesn't function on the grandfather clause. If something would be bad now, the fact that it was written earlier doesn't make it good. And if something was good when it was written, it can't become bad now. So, either a Mary Sue is not by definition Bad Writing, a Mary Sue is narrower than some people claim, or the old works people are discussing were badly written.

Mr. AHR, why can't good sues be from genres were archotypes are accepeted? Take the High Fantasy genre, I expect a hero who is larger then life, has some special powers/titles. and always puts to greater good before him/herself.

By your definition. A Mary Sue could just as easily be an incredibly cliched character, or a ridiculously overpowered character, or an infalliable character. The general definition's just too mutable.

But it's different when at the time, it wouldn't be considered as bad writing. It's not like there's one big standard for writing across centuries. I've heard characters like Lucie from A Taleof Two Cities and Cosette from Les Miserables described as Mary Sues. Which probably more stems from their blandness, us being told how wonderful they are without actually being able to find out for ourselves, and then them getting their happy endings while our favorite characters get offed. Although that's really more an issue of female agency in stories from a century ago and I'm rambling.

edited 6th Oct '11 6:49:58 PM by Maridee

TED: A mary sue is not defined by their powers. They are defined in other ways. Mostly by their COMPARISON to other characters. Which happens to include abilities.

edited 6th Oct '11 7:05:58 PM by MrAHR

That didn't really answer my question...

I think a Sue is best defined by their effect on the world around them. It is when the rules set down by the story fail to apply to the Sue. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is Eragon. Where the supposed hero does the exact same thing that makes the Big Bad evil, yet is praised for it.

Why not put together a list of characters we all can firmly decide are Sues, and then try to pull a definition from there?

Eragorn. Bella Swan. The...thing from My Immortal.

And also maybe try to answer what makes Mary Sues different from your average wish fulfillment character.

People are going to see Sues differently.

For example, a lot of people see overpowered as the same thing as Mary Sue. This is not always the case by definition.

Does this prohibit stories where the protagonist is the only [insert whatever superhero or mutant or Cosmic Horror or whatever here] in the world, and that's the premise of the story?

The thing that bothers me most is that people seem a lot quicker to call female characters Mary Sue than male ones (yeah, but you know what I mean). It's not like male characters are less likely to be over-idealised in order to provide author wish-fulfilment than female ones.

To take an example outside of literature, I've seen one reader call Haley in Order Of The Stick a Mary-Sue, apparently because she's good at what she does and pretty. They didn't call Roy or Elan a Marty Stu, despite the fact that they've had a lot more plot focus than Haley. (No, I don't think they are, either.) It's almost getting to the point of Unfortunate Implications.

Unfortunately, it is a double standard that holds over in real life. Women are supposed to be smart or pretty, but are not allowed the be both.

Half-baked reader? I don't think you can tell people how they should enjoy novels or what to enjoy about them.

Pointing out Tropes like Mary Sue? That's what we do.

I'd also like to point out that context of a story is very important. So yes, the value of works can change as values in the world change.

In story context is also important for determining how a trope is being used.

I know it's another example of an overused trope, but I been considering the possibility that a Mary Sue could make for an interesting Deconstruction. After all, The Messiah isn't really a Mary Sue, and if you throw in some self-awareness the story doesn't bend around the character, and flows unimpeded. The only thing left is to make it an interesting story.

Well, that also fits my definition, dunnit? He's doing the same thing in comparison to the evil character, but gets praised for it.

Ultimately Subjective: I was ambiguous with my first sentence. A person who finds examples of Mary Sues isn't automatically a half-baked reader, but it seems like a lot of half-baked readers try to find examples of Mary Sues. You're just making waves here.

At any rate, classification of a Sue is very hard to nail down, and like many of you all have pointed out, their abilities in comparison to everyone else's should definitely be taken into account. I think the trend that I'm spotting with the "Sue-Spotters" is that they nitpick about things that they don't understand. I've noticed that a lot of people see writing as a clear cut science with no exceptions. Honestly, there are people who are absolutely amazing at just about everything they try. If a character like this exists, they're a Mary Sue, UNLESS they aren't the main character. I didn't intend for this to become any sort of argument, but I'm just stating my observations.

edited 7th Oct '11 8:45:40 AM by odairfinnick

Mary Sue is a fanfic trope. Specifically a Star Trek fic trope. Fan fic writers and readers assume fan fics are more influential than actuality so they start applying its tropes to other works which clearly are not fan fiction without considering the implications. This is why I have some resentment of TV trope's abduction of several professional wrestling tropes. Rudo and Heel are as different from the traditional villain as Arch-Nemesis is to Sitcom Arch-Nemesis.

Overlap is possible, Transformers Drift does check off numerous fan fiction trope boxes, the Twilight Saga does not. No, Twilight is just generic bad writing, not your fan fiction. Resident Evil Movies, sure, WCW, not so much.