Is the concept of Mary Sue Sexist?

Before, I would like to ask people to refrain from negative behaviour that could get the thread locked.

Second, yeah, even I thought this way of thinking was stupid. Male characters CAN be badly written Creator's Pets.

And even a troper tried to say this, and didnt have much success convincing me.

That is until I saw this.

• 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. 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.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.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.What’s really wrong with a thirteen year old girl having a power fantasy, even if it’s badly written? Who is it hurting? 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. Mary Sue is considered the worst insult to throw at a character as it renders them worthless. But since when are idealized characters automatically worthless? Aren’t all heroes idealized in some way? Don’t all heroes represent the author in some way? Aren’t these characters supposed to be people we look up to, people who represent human potential, the goodness that we strive for? Fantasy by nature is idealized, even the tragic ones.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. 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. 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. 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.The idea that woman has to “earn” any power, praise, love, or plot prominence is central to Mary Sue. Men do not have to do this, they are naturally assumed to be powerful, central and loveable. 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.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. I don’t mind that she gets what she wants and everyone loves her, that she’s Meyer’s 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.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.

What do you guys think? I think they might have a point.

edited 8th Jan '15 6:13:22 AM by AegisP

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

I'm convinced that the concept of the Mary Sue is not inherently sexist, but the execution can be. And sexism in our society makes us more likely to call a female character a Sue than a male.

A big part of it is a lack of well-written females in the original canon. Mary Sues are essentially wish-fulfillment for the authors, bungled in execution. If an author wants to live vicariously through some male character, there are plenty to choose from in canon. And readers are less likely to call you out for giving canon characters a comptence boost. But someone who wants to live vicariously through a female character, and doesn’t care much for the one love interest in canon, has to make their own character and insert them into the story.

I didn't write any of that.

The thing I think here is the essay muddles the idea of Fan fic, canon characters and self insert characters.

Self inserts that skew towards wish fulfilment are Mary Sues, regardless of gender (I would argue), especially if they overshadow the original main character. An example I posit, is when someone wrote a Mass Effect fanfic with an OC who had done ALL OF THE THINGS SHEPARD DID. But had done them a week before, meaning Shepard was playing catch up to this "junior member", who also happened to be not-a-spectre-but-just-as-powerful.

Now, the character was female, which I think is important to mention in the interest of disclosure, as that COULD influence how we see them. However, if it had been a male character, with the same standard of writing and implementation I think I would have hated them just as much.

The example the essay cites, describing Batman, muddles the issue. If they had done that, then inserted that character into batman fiction and had then had that character essentially REPLACE Batman in all but name... yeah. Mary Sue.

It also depends on media - in comics, the characters tend towards male fantasy wish fulfilment (The males being power fantasies, the women being sexual). This isn't a hard and fast rule, so please don't think I'm tarring it al lwith the same brush, but as it used to be I think this is how things are portrayed.

In fanfiction, Mary Sues will tend towards self-inserts that are so ridiculously overpowered in the setting, regardless of gender. Now, if there are more female examples of this, is this down to purely the amount of people writing them AS women, the amount produced? Because if there are just fewer male characters it doesn't necessarily follow that all of them are "well written" male self inserts; it could just be that the sheer number of female characters being written skews the data.

If the fanfic takes the main character of a story and then inflates their power and influence, that'd be interesting; how much of those are people increasing male power, or female power - which way are they writing them? Are they making the men more angsty and brooding? Are they turning the women into gaspy objects who need a secondary power to rescue them (Arguably the self insert)

Are they addressing a disparity in how the woman has been portrayed in their original story? Does the story bring the woman to an equitable level or is she an infallible godlike being?

It's an argument, but personally I'd have to see the proportions (Which is a cop out, I know!). I have read several fanfics with women leads and they are brilliantly done, with balance showing them as competent, balanced poeple. I've seen wish fulfilment male fantasies and they are... god awful to read. This is just me - seeing a male "power fantasy" doesn't justify a story for me, it makes for a dull character. Same goes for a woman who is hyper competent bordering on the insane and world bending.

Mary Sue uses a gendered title, which I think is where this comes from. I use it to apply to ANY character who is, ostensibly, GOD in a setting whichshouldn't allow them to be. It;s the equivalent of someone saying "I shot you!" and the character going "Nu uh, i have a forcefield of invincibility AND I knew you were going to and replaced you gun with a toy ten years ago and because I'm amazing you didn't notice and we haven't mentioned it until now".

I think we have to be careful with confusing the Mary Sue (Who makes use of Deus Ex Machina and liberal New Power as The Plot Demands) and gender bias against competently written female characters. Because they are not one and the same.

The concept itself isn't sexist. It's not just wish fulfillment - it's a specific type of wish fulfillment that comes at the expense of the story. It's got more to do with how the character is presented than it does with who they are.

However, the way people use the term can definitely be sexist, especially when it comes to slinging around Canon Sue accusations.

EDIT:

Exactly.

edited 8th Jan '15 11:08:35 AM by SapphireBlue

Some writers(e.g. Frank Miller) write Batman as a Marty Stu, so I guess bad writing can turn a wish fufillment character into a Mary Sue. Maybe it's OC's that are viewed with suspicion because they aren't always done well.

Sues and Stus raise eyebrows because they break the established rules of a setting, make others act OOC, or otherwise bend reality just to show off their own awesomeness.

Reality-warping is harder to recognize in a completely original story. It’s hard to say any rules are being broken in the story that defines the rules in the first place; it's hard to call anyone "out of character" in the story that defines their character.

I didn't write any of that.

That comic was just poorly written in general as it derailed both Batman and Superman characters respectively. Batman was basically omniscient in the book as it he seemed to have planned everything from the beginning even before the villains plan was executed. Plus, the artstyle kind of sucked.

edited 8th Jan '15 1:23:32 PM by GAP

"Analay, an original fan character from a 2006 non canon comic. Do not steal!"

What if the rules are rather vaguely defined, or certain periods in the setting's history haven't really been covered. Surely that allows more room to do what you want?

Which one - All Star Batman and Robin or The Dark Knight Returns?

edited 8th Jan '15 1:23:12 PM by KarkatTheDalek

Oh God! Natural light!

The one with Crazy Steve of course.

Ah, of course.

Oh God! Natural light!

The latter but I haven't read the former yet.

Still, the Mary Sue is kind of annoying and sexist but I wonder why is it limited to only female characters as opposed to various male characters?

"Analay, an original fan character from a 2006 non canon comic. Do not steal!"

I think male characters are sometimes accused of it. Batman as written by Frank Miller is one that I often mention (or just when he's written badly in general, like in the above mentioned Act of God).

The problem seems to be that female characters are accused of it far more often, even if said Sueness is just them being competent, and as a result this causes many people to have a flawed definition of the term.

edited 8th Jan '15 1:30:49 PM by KarkatTheDalek

Oh God! Natural light!

We do have the term Gary Stu for a reason. But my opinion is that "Mary Sue" often gets thrown around as a description for a character somebody doesn't like or a just a poorly written character, that's why the definition is kinda skewered.

edited 8th Jan '15 1:34:13 PM by PrincessGwen

"Thanks for the lesson. But I don't need you to tell me who I am."

Then you can get away with more, of course. But considering your setting like that is more than most Mary Sue authors do. And if you are really thinking about what exploits are reasonable for your OC, given the setting, then you're probably not writing a Mary Sue.

I didn't write any of that.

This is topic always baffles me, because so many infamous Mary Sues are male. Like Richard from Sword of Truth, Eragon from the Inheritance Cycle, Dominic Deegan, Ronin, Krasus and Me'dan from from Warcraft, Wesley Crusher from Star Trek, the list goes on.

Pretty much every description in the story of fiction has been skewered at some point or another.

OP: Does it matter when there is the "Marty Stu" term?

Akira Toriyama (April 5 1955 - March 1, 2024).

We've kind of had this discussion before in a thread in OTC. Specifically, it was mentioned that there probably are more Mary Sue OCs because there are so damn few female characters in many fandoms, that the only way to do a female power fantasy is to write in a new one - male power fantasies abound without number in every genre and style. The term itself started in Star Trek fanzines in the 70s, bashing poor writing from female authors doing horrible self-inserts, but male authors just used the whole rest of the cast to do their horrible Possession Sue writing.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

There are double standards.

Batman is a mary sue => Batman is perfect and awesome. That why a lot of people love him.

Lightning (ff13) is a mary sue => Lighting is boring and badly written. That's why a lot people hate her.

It's kinda sexist but not surprising since the term was created to offend female OCs anyway. Nowadays people overuse it so much with any female character they don't like it loses effect.

Yet no one talks about the guys. Harry Potter learns how to fly in one minute, becomes a seeker easily, discovers his father was the greatest of Hogwarts, wins the cup in his first year, and gets the ultimate Nimbus 2000. Sounds like every boy's dream, winning in sports and be popular right? You gotta admit, if the books came this year and Harry was a girl everyone would call him a Mary Sue.

edited 8th Jan '15 9:17:14 PM by kt-low

"Era essa a peça que você queria?"- Pai de família

The problem is that many people don't understand what the term actually means. They dislike a character and then use the word Mary Sue because said character has a tragic past, or special abilities or looks beautiful - whatever. But that's not really what a Mary Sue is. A Mary Sue (or Gary Stu) is a character who is so perfect that the universe bends the rule to accomandate him or her. Character who shouldn't immediatly like him or her, Characters who don't are automatically evil, and whatever happens in the end the character will get what he or she wants. In fanfiction they ususally replace the actual main characters to a degree that said main characters become incompetent.

Exactly, or the main characters end up wanting to be their "best friend".

Not to be generalise, but this seems to trend in universe that have more of a "social" element, rather than action ones, which is perhaps why it's more noticeable - dialogue heavy, forced conversations. Action and "comic book" style, even video game action, you can mask it.

I definitely think the term was derogatory towards female characters initially and may have been used to lambast not JUST the self inserts, but also stronger female characters. However, I think that it has now transcended the gender divide and is used as a catch all for any self-insert.

Also, I totally see Harry Potter as a complete contradiction. He is middling at best, knows, what, two spells and relies entirely on Hermionies knowledge to bail him out.

He's VERY lucky and it turns out most of his "natural" gift isn't due to him at all.

I feel Hermionie is closer to the real hero, seeing as she is competent. Really, though, the fact is the three of them form the "main character" and that negates the "sue" elements somewhat.

Twilight on the other hand... BOTH of them are Sue's.

The term Marty Stu or Gary Stu I think was invented as it was seen as necessary to have a term with a male gendered focus, when the term mary sue could arguably apply anyway.

Well, Mary Sue is an actual character from a series of Star Trek: Next Gen Fanfictions which bascially made her the expert in everything, making the rest of the crew pretty much obsolete. The story was written as a parody of certain Star Trek stories.

The thing is, there have been Mary Sues and Gary Stus outside of fanfiction, too. Bella Swan and Tarzan must be the most succesful ones.

It's easier to get away with an power trip escapist character in original fiction. It’s less obvious that you’re warping reality for the benefit of Gary Stu if there’s no other standard to compare your setting and other characters against.

I didn't write any of that.

TOS, actually. Mary Sue is old, yo.

No, the concept's not sexist. Even if you were for some unfathomable reason to apply it only to female characters that doesn't make it sexist in and of itself. Describing a particular Bad Writing Failure Mode can't be sexist, though it could be applied in sexist ways.

As for the way it's applied in the real world, I very much doubt it is. People are overlooking a critical factor: Most Fanfic Writers Are Girls has currency because there's truth to it in a lot of fandoms. The accusation of a preponderance of poorly written female wish fulfillment could be because there are far more female writers active or they are far more prolific than their male counterparts.

Nothing is sexist in isolation. Environment has to be considered. And even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.

edited 9th Jan '15 11:37:36 AM by Night

Nous restons ici.

Actually she isnt even an "actual" character. She is from a Fan Fic, the very one that created the term.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.