Mary Sues.

[samatethecookie]

Why the Culture of Mary Sue Shaming is Bully Culture is an interesting meta about a problem I hadn't considered before.

Admittedly I poked fun at so-called Mary Sues in the past under my previous livejournal account--the most recent one is only a few years ago, and I might dig out that entry because I forget the year I posted that entry never mind, it was four years ago, I checked, so it wasn't that recent but it was still less than five years ago--but I never stopped to consider what it means to the authors of these stories, or how the term's adopted another set of problems that everyone tends to overlook. Or, call myself out on the hypocrisy since uhhh, I WROTE OFCs, TOO.

And since I'm sick of some of my favorite female characters being called Mary Sues to question their worth in canon--such as Tifa from Final Fantasy VII, Terra from Teen Titans, and Kairi from Kingdom Hearts--and I'm aware of how problematic this term is, I'd like to see it die, too. Or at least, see something change.

Here's a snippet from the meta. boosette didn't write this, it was only included within the text to further prove the points raised in this meta:

No, “Mary Sue” has to go. Not only is it being applied too broadly to exclude female characters in general, but it is being used to devalue the writings and fantasies of young women. (Tolkien fan Dawn, at The Midhavens, March 2009)

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/beyondheroism__/]

I skimmed that article before and I do agree with it in a lot of respects, but I also LIKE having the word Mary Sue or Canon Sue or just... some word to describe an original character who needs a lot of work and is currently overpowered/lacking in personality/etc. I don't even need it to be gender specific (and it probably shouldn't be).

That said, I rarely call out Sues in fanfic, because if I see a character - be it male or female - who seems to have hijacked the story I tend to bow out because it's just not my thing. And I try to be very careful about calling out actual fictional characters, though I have done it before (RE: Tori from Victorious who spends the first episode doing incredible things with no prior training).

So I don't know. I do see how it's problematic - I really do, but I am also lazy and like having a convenient word to use. Also, the trouble is that the word means something different than it used to I think and has grown a very negative connotation over time.

[samatethecookie.livejournal.com]

They are convenient words because, like you said, sometimes an author does go too far with their original characters. It's not so much the fact that they write an awesome character who influences the story and the cast of characters, but it's more to do with the fact that these characters randomly show up, with little to no sense of balance between their strengths and weaknesses, and hijack the story in a way that's completely unrealistic. (Example: how many modern Sues/Stus show up in the Harry Potter universe and they're able to tell off Professor Snape without punishment? THAT NEVER HAPPENS, AUTHORS.)

And we don't just have Mary Sue; we also have the term "Gary Stu," which admittedly doesn't occur as much as Mary Sues do, but it still happens.

I think the main problem, other than how the term's been used to put down female characters, is that I kind of hate how everyone bullies the authors of these fics when they find out about the communities that spork their characters instead of apologizing for taking it too far. Or, they insist that they have a right to make the author feel like shit over what they're writing. I used to do it, so I can't judge too harshly, but when you remember what it was like to be twelve/thirteen years old and write your very own Sue/Stu fics? Then it really doesn't seem to be that big of a deal anymore. Just ignore them. Most authors outgrow those stories, or they learn how to flesh out their characters. (I still use my first two Sues, except they've been fleshed out and they're even more awesome! True fact.)

Also, the trouble is that the word means something different than it used to I think and has grown a very negative connotation over time.

That's what the problem seems to be, and that's mostly the reason why I'd like to see something change. It's been used by fans who dislike a specific, female character within a canon instead of explaining why they don't like her. It's extremely immature.

[http://users.livejournal.com/beyondheroism__/]

Ah, I see what you're saying with regards to the bullying nature of things and I have actually had issues with that since forever, but just never really thought about why I made :\ faces when I saw sporking comms. Mostly I just sort of shrug my shoulders at would-be Sues/overpowered & unrealistic characters and then move on with my life. I don't think I'll ever feel the need to completely tear down someone's fic, because I think the fact that people are writing is a good thing and doesn't deserve to be shamed.

[samatethecookie.livejournal.com]

I think the last Sue I sporked was in 2006, and it was this sibling of Lightning and Thunder from Teen Titans, who tried to explain that they were brother and sister, but they were technically each other's parents and children and whatnot. It was...very confusing and silly. I remember that I poked fun at that more than the author's talent or lack thereof, but I'm a little hesitant to really read through the entry since I feel guilty about it. I've debated on deleting the entry in case the author ever finds it. (It's f-locked, but still, I FEEL BAD.)

I just think people who spork fics need to remember that most Sue/Stu authors are usually young kids who don't really know how to flesh out their original characters and stories yet. They need well-intended, constructive criticism, not getting bullied behind their backs.

[evilwildlex.livejournal.com]

I don't tend to go out of my way to spork Sues...I have posted a couple of really awful profiles with the player information omitted before, but this was usually involving bad behaviour on the player's part, too. (Such as me telling one girl "I'm sorry, but I don't think your writing is up to the standards of this community and another community might be a better fit for you. Best of luck in finding a game that's more suited to you and thanks for your interest" and her FLIPPING OUT on me and calling me ignorant, etc and saying that how was she supposed to know she'd be required to SPELL CHECK her typo-filled application? Yeah, she got BRPSed.)

Mostly I see them as a harmless pastime, but in light of this...I think I'm really going to curb my use of the term and restrict it only for the most cringe-worthy characters - particularly if they are being written by an adult instead of as a kid's wish-fulfillment fantasy. Even then, with most people, if it comes up in a game I moderate, I'm going to try to say "Your character is unrealistic and needs more flaws and things he/she isn't good at that are actually of some consequence".

[samatethecookie.livejournal.com]

In cases like RPGs, yeah, it's something that needs to be kept in check, because a lot of roleplayers will take advantage of the freedom to play an original character and refuse to stay within the limits of what constitutes as a fleshed out character that works with the cast. They'd rather attempt to take over an entire game or turn the focus onto their characters. (And I don't blame you for BRPSed some of those, because there's a lot of batshit roleplayers all over the Internet. I know you're fair with them to a point, so if you have to BRPSed them, it has to be extremely bad. D:)

That sounds fair. People shouldn't be afraid to give writers' recommendations to fix their characters or offer to help them flesh them out, but the term itself has such a negative connotation right now. It should be reserved for special cases, as you said.

[evilwildlex.livejournal.com]

I think the problem with things like the Mary Sue Litmus tests is that they're highly flawed systems of determining if a character is a valid character or not. I've tried them out and....you can still have a character appear in the Sueish range and have that character be enjoyable to interact with.

The author's attitude toward their character and toward constructive criticism that wasn't targeted at hurting the writer's feelings tends to be more telling than the amount of Super Special Awesome points the character has.

I tend to see a true Mary Sue and their writer as comparable to a really obnoxious little child that runs around the room screaming "LOOK AT MEEEE! LOOK AT MEEEE!" and the writer as the parent who encourages this behaviour instead of inhibiting it - including making sure to remind you at every opportunity of how very gifted and special their child is. I won't go out of my way to say and do hurtful things toward them, but they aren't welcome at my house (or RPG, as the analogy works).

[samatethecookie.livejournal.com]

Hah. I ran my original characters through those tests before, and a lot of them were either declared outright boring or OMG SUES/STUS YOU SHOULD STOP WRITING THEM NOW. XD I stopped using those litmus tests, because with a lot of those tests, either your character's too awesome or they're not awesome enough, and to be honest that gets a little frustrating to deal with. (A lot of litmus tests make me laugh, though, because they point out a lot of things that make no sense in fanfiction. "What do you mean Goku has a sister?!")

I tend to see a true Mary Sue and their writer as comparable to a really obnoxious little child that runs around the room screaming "LOOK AT MEEEE! LOOK AT MEEEE!" and the writer as the parent who encourages this behaviour instead of inhibiting it - including making sure to remind you at every opportunity of how very gifted and special their child is.

I don't think I'd have a problem with Sue/Stu characters who are extremely overconfident and basically act like -- excuse me for lack of a better word, but this was the first one to pop into my mid -- attention whores, is the fact that they never have their behavior punished in some way.

Example: Black Star from Soul Eater. If you've never watched it, he's basically the type of character who runs around, exclaiming that he's going to surpass God with his greatness, challenges people to fights just so he can show off, and he gets really frustrated when he can't win against somebody. But! Again, he suffers from the consequences of these actions. He's forced to learn from his mistakes. He can still be overconfident and succeed because of it, but when he fails, he fails hard and he has to sit in his failure for awhile.

Overconfident characters who want attention? They're fine, so long as the players are okay with letting their characters run into an obstacle at least once in awhile. It doesn't help if the player goes out of his or her way to make sure nothing bad ever happens to their characters, that their characters almost always have to win or have the final say-so in a conversation or fight.

[evilwildlex.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's fine if the character's overconfidence becomes a flaw. I'm talking about the characters who just.........never seem to fuck up. All bad things that happen to them are never their fault. And the writers don't accept constructive criticism of them.

...but your icon is hilariously appropriate for this discussion, I must say. :D

[samatethecookie.livejournal.com]

Oh, I hate that. For anyone who ever writes a characters. They're allowed to fail once in awhile!

Nobody's got a bigger ego than Gaston! 8D