Mary Sue Must Die: a call to arms

The JO Witchblade review in question. It's not wish fullfillment that makes a Mary Sue, it's when her or his character traits are turned up to eleven and derail the plot. No consequences of What the Hell, Hero? etc.

Marko Ramius almost gets his crew killed. He gets called on it by a crew member. His plans are called crazy by his loyal officers. However his loyal first officer is a flat character. Not even the movie can save him. He's just badly done, but he isn't the focus of the story. He's just there to eat KGB bullets in the book and the film.

Poor Harry Kim. The USS Minnow er, Voyager has a mad woman at the helm*

. Janeway does get crew members killed. Yet we hear how awesome she is. She defies the plot, the rules and logic. When she leaves the ship we hear how awesome she is. And the ship just can't run without her (as opposed to the deaths when she's in charge). Harry? Demoted, the Butt-Monkey etc. Made of durable cardboard because Garrett Wang was named one of People Magazine's sexist men alive.

edited 20th Sep '12 4:47:07 AM by TairaMai

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

That's debatable too. If the problem is in the plot and how it htreats the character then I would argue that it's not a problem inherent to the character but inherent to the writing it self.

One popular but vague definition of Mary Sue, which seems to be the one you are using is "a character that the universe revolves around". But It's something I believe is completely useless as I will explain to you.

"having a character's abilities up to eleven" is not the problem because it implies that after a certain "power level" a character is a Sue.

Any character in the wrong context would be a "sue". Superman would be completely "overkill" in a batman story for example this (it's a parody but you will get the point).

Even if the character is in the "right context" you could still have a "underdog" character that succeeds to the point of being "unrealistic".

If the problem is that the character is not being challenged enough on the plot. Then it is a problem with the plot, not with the character. good writers have found the way to challenge god like (superman, goku etc )and even omnipotent characters (ex Thanos).

Again in this case "Mary Sue" only shifts the focus on the real problem, a person that only receives a "Mary Sue" criticism may change the character but not the plot (where the problem relies).

edited 20th Sep '12 8:11:01 AM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

@Post 96: What I meant was that the term "Mary Sue" has become so degraded over the years that it no longer has any meaning other than a pejorative label for Escapist Characters that the term's user doesn't care for.

As said by the OP, it's basically a shorthand cookie cutter criticism of a character with about as much depth as the term's user's view of the character accused of being a Mary Sue.

edited 20th Sep '12 10:50:30 AM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Taira's description of the term as a thought-terminating cliché was perfect. Nothing more needs to be said.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

@Taira

I am sorry for being so stubborn and not very nice with you

. I guess this kind of topic bring the worst our of me and I wasn't in the best of moods.

My apologies.You made very good points and I respect that.

edited 20th Sep '12 2:56:12 PM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

@Fallen Legend, Noaqiyeum, if I could hug you over the internet I would, been busy lately now I'm back at the keyboard.

I have yet to perfect my Cookies over IP protocol

I have two books in my room next to my computer. One is "Anime Explosion", a book on anime written in 2000. The other is "The Complete Book of Scriptwriting" by JMS of Babylon Five fame. I admit to having low tastes in lit, movies and music.

The Anime book is forgettable, between wikipeida and this site I get all my anime infos. JMS's book was written circa 1993 and had a quick addition in the mid-90's for the internet. It is the BIBLE of script writing.

Why is this post veering from topic to topic like a drunken soldier on payday after too much soju?

Even JMS makes mistakes. Plotholes, a scrappy, villain and god mode sues. Even the greats make mistakes. Mary Sue isn't a label, it's a trap that every author can fall into. Sometimes it works and you just don't care. Other times the Sue makes you want to toss the book or DVD across the room.

It's still good to talk about it. Sometimes you have to get meta to be a better writer.

edited 22nd Sep '12 8:07:57 AM by TairaMai

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

Um, guys? You might be talking about Mary Sues, but this is a derail from the original topic and the OP is not happy about it.

Maybe you can move this to another thread if you guys still have stuff to say?

Agreed.

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

To be honest, I don't really care anymore. It's already clear that posting this was pretty much pointless.

I don't think having a Mary Sue is a problem as much as it is a symptom of a problem. It's not something that you work to avoid but something you grow out of as you become a better writer.

This is why Mary Sue is nigh useless as a criticism. It gets everyone focused on dealing with a symptom instead improving the bad writing that caused it. The worse part is that some of these people may be actually decent writers who have characters that are fine, but they make their characters worse to appease the Mary Sue Police; which is futile because the Mary Sue Police is corrupt as all get out and beat you down for just looking at them funny.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

Someone starts a thread claiming that the term Mary Sue is meaningless, and then gets annoyed when people disagree with that and debate in the thread?

How could the thread have been moved in any other way?

Read my stories!

The fact that the thread got over-taken by an argument about what Mary Sue means is kind of a point for the OP's favor.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

...no. It's really not. Do you really think this is the only term to be debated? People are debating it because some people agree it's meaningless, and others don't think so.

You do that with any term that's not standardized, and you'll get the same debate. You can't claim that just because people have different opinions and disagree that you're assessment is automatically right, unless your assessment was "people will disagree with me on this, and have different opinions" which it clearly was not.

Heck, I just had this same semantics argument with the term "pansexual" because the standardized definition is rather...fuzzy.

And now, you're talking about fiction. Something that is EXTREMELY subjective.

edited 24th Sep '12 7:34:25 AM by MrAHR

Read my stories!

The thing is that, these kind of semantic arguments always seem to follow when Mary Sue is used.

Mary Sue is useless if you don't describe what you mean by it, and it's not any more useful if you do.

You would be better off if you just described the beefs you had with a character without using the term.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

that's the case with any word, really. For instance, "shallow" character, "lazy" writing, "pretentious" message. Most things should be elaborated, otherwise it's not a very good way to explain why you think something is X.

Read my stories!

You may have to explain what you mean when you say a character is 'shallow', but you don't need to define the word 'shallow' itself, because everybody has already agreed upon a set definition for the term.

Moving away from it's meaning.. what purpose would using the term have?

It doesn't help someone improve their writing to just call the main character a Mary Sue. It's better to actually point out the flaws, rather than just spewing the term and expecting them to divine the meaning behind it.

I agree, there is a difference between 'bad' writing and a character that hurts to look at.

Take Mari Illustrious Makinami from Evangelion. Mary Sue? Sure:

• Overly long name
• Powers that the other characters don't have
• Steals Unit 02
• No angst at all, in a setting that's loaded with it

However, this video link puts forth that she's a parody sue because she gets her ass kicked by the big bad and the main characters still do what they do. She's a new character in the way that Poochie from the Simpsons was a new character to the Show Within a Show Itchy and Scratchy. The Mary Sue is over the top, Mari gets a beatdown despite being so special. She even watches as the hero succeeds.

Bella Swan from Twilight is a Mary Sue Classic:

• In a high school setting, she's that one girl that every guy wants to date
• She might come across as prudish at first as she resists the charms of the hero (or, perhaps, the Ensemble Darkhorse), but she'll succumb in the end.
• Once they're together, everybody else who was competing for her (perfect) charms will accept it because they want her to be happy.
• Her (perfect) goodness is so powerful that her very (perfect) presence changes the world for the better. With a brief (perfect) plea, she can make the villain give up his evil plans and settle down to a life in service of the better good.

Of course the above is taken from the page but that's Bella to a T.

The difference between the two? It isn't writing, Hideaki Anno got death threats over the ending to the first Eva. SMyer was told she can't write worth anything by Stephen King. So what is the difference?

Intent. Mary Sue is a terrible character that's just wish fulfillment and so boring that the story just yanks out your willing disbelief. Done poorly, a character with no angst, special powers who just waltzes in and kicks the villain in the ass is boring. Like a whinny brat who's sole purpose in life is to make boys fight over her, cry and turn into a sparkly statute. Bella's flaws aren't flaws at all. Characters like Mari and Poocihe is a parody sue put into to have fun with the audience and (by being over the top) ground the characters.

Mary Sue exists. Yes she/he can come with bad writing. Top Gun has poor writing (and really who wouldn't want to be a fighter pilot?) but it's so bad it's good when it's bad. And the hero does make you want to root for him. Star Wars was hated by Harlan Ellison and given a big "meh" by other sci-fi greats. But who wouldn't want to be Luke Skywalker?

Bella Swan, Ebony Raven or other Sues? The traits vary, but the common fact is that they are all sizzle, no steak. Mary Sue is a treatable disease and not a label to hang on a character. Even the best authors make a Sue/Stu.

edited 24th Sep '12 8:17:09 PM by TairaMai

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll drink from the OP's Punchbowl just the same.

The term doesn't mean anything anymore...except when it means "character I personally don't like", and any language of man has plenty of extant terms for such a creature. I will banish the term from my lexicon...no big loss, I always thought it was a silly phrase anyway.

And yes...the fact that people are using a thread about how the term Mary Sue must die to argue about what "mary sue" actually means is a very good reason why the term ought to be tossed into the dustbin.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

But what should take it's place? There are characters who are just so awful that What the Hell, Hero? doesn't even begin to cover them.

If Mary Sue has been diluted, what should we call a character that's like this?

edited 25th Sep '12 1:50:29 AM by TairaMai

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

That comic is a parody that is deliberately trying to hit the concept of the Mary Sue on the head. Characters that are serious attempts at characters who exhibit enough symptoms to set off Sue-alarms generally cannot be expected to hit all Sue traits, again, unless they're deliberately trying for it or using a checklist.

edited 24th Sep '12 8:26:10 PM by CrystalGlacia

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."

So you say "Jesus Christ/fucking hell/shit-oh-dear/exclamation of your choice! That character is..." and note all the things you think are wrong.

Suspends Willing Suspension of Disbelief, warps the universe, is pure wish fullfilment, has an improbably sparkly nature, too perfect (or too flawed), flaws too trivial or merely Informed Attributes etc etc etc whatever is relevant to the character in question.

@TM: Call it bad fucking writing. 'Tis that simple. Or if you want to be more complex (and productive) about it, point to specific flaws in that specific piece...don't resort to buzzwords that have lost all real meaning.

"Mary Sue" may have started out as a legitimate term, but it has degenerated into a perjorative...something we throw at writing we don't like. Which means its time for that term to take a hike off a cliff.

edited 24th Sep '12 9:09:06 PM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

If Mary Sue has basically become nothing more than "Bad Character", then the only reason I can see the name is worth keeping around is because it's one less syllable to say.