RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Caspar · **03-19-2015, 05:00 AM**

Forgive me if someone has mentioned this already, but isn't the term derived from a very specific Star Trek fanfiction character? It's meant to liken a character to the original Mary Sue's qualities. Confusing that muddles the term and makes it nonsensical, eliminating its original descriptive purpose. Mary Sue means that the character's writer is making the same mistakes or writing in a way that evokes the original Mary Sue; I always found this very easy to understand.

Mary Sue is often used to describe "character I don't like," but strictly speaking, unless the character possess the same self-insert qualities of the original Mary Sue, it's not one. It's why I try not to use the term. Self-insert is more broadly applicable and not immediately negative; only commonly associated with negative qualities. Mary Sue may imply things that aren't accurate about the creator's writing style or intent. But yeah, I don't use Gary Stu since that was not the character's name.

That being said, I hear that Mary Sue was used a lot on female characters in Star Trek fiction, so the uneven application of the term could definitely be construed as sexist. The term itself is faultless I think; rather, it's the mishandling of it that is to blame. People either not knowing what it actually means, or using it as a bludgeon to express sexist dislike of female fanmade characters.

Cato · **03-19-2015, 05:32 AM**

Since 'Mary Sue' refers to 'self insert' qualities in a negative manner I find that it can quite easily be applied to some of the more...controversial characters that exist within this community as well.

You know the type - the sort of character that pretty much requires the lore to be ignored or changed significantly to justify their existence. So stuff like a character being one of Minfilia's close friends, a secret major Ascian working alongside Lahabrea or a relative to a major existing lore character.

...and yes, quite a few role-players do go down that sort of route and worse yet quite a few people choose to acknowledge them. That in turn causes a chain reaction where people with no interest in that sort of thing feel obliged to distance themselves from those who choose to include them in their own role-play.

Edvyn · **03-19-2015, 07:04 AM**

(03-19-2015, 05:32 AM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote: Since 'Mary Sue' refers to 'self insert' qualities in a negative manner I find that it can quite easily be applied to some of the more...controversial characters that exist within this community as well.

You know the type - the sort of character that pretty much requires the lore to be ignored or changed significantly to justify their existence. So stuff like a character being one of Minfilia's close friends, a secret major Ascian working alongside Lahabrea or a relative to a major existing lore character.

...and yes, quite a few role-players do go down that sort of route and worse yet quite a few people choose to acknowledge them. That in turn causes a chain reaction where people with no interest in that sort of thing feel obliged to distance themselves from those who choose to include them in their own role-play.

i once knew a guy (in another game) who thought it was a good idea to affectionately call his own character a mary sue, believing it could somehow be a good thing

oh how horribly wrong he was

ArmachiA · **03-19-2015, 07:32 AM**

In this context, Mary Sue isn't sexist, because it came from a Star Trek fanfiction where the main characters name... was Mary Sue.

How is that sexist exactly? Do we need to change the name to male to fight the patriarchy? It came from a specific place and a specific character.

It's like saying "Saying 'My Immortal is terrible' is sexist!" because the main character is a girl. No, it's really just because it is infamous and terrible.

Context matters!

Warren Castille · **03-19-2015, 07:39 AM**

I find it interesting we keep hitting on the "but language can change over time" barrier lately. The original intent of the term was to reference, as stated earlier, a specific everyone-loves-her-and-she's-the-best character. Wikipedia tells me the original character was made as a parody of the all-too common sub-tropes that make up the mega-trope. So perhaps the original Mary Sue as we know her was a sexist commentary on oftentimes-female authors writing self-inserts into their fantasy?

Well, maybe. Does it change anything if the original author was also a woman? You can read a lot of her own thoughts on the matter right here and she does a good job of trying to define the difference between a Mary Sue and a well-written OC.

Quote:[2.16] Q: So people began to pick up the term?

[2.17] PS: Sharon and I were driving it, of course, by saying this is a Mary Sue story, this is not a Mary Sue story. We did panels at some of the first media conventions, and there would be lively discussion: what does this mean? The concept spread and was taken up by other people. It wasn't always used as a derogatory term. The Mary Sue seemed to almost be a necessary stage for a writer.

Bolded by me for emphasis. I still (fondly, though perhaps due to distance) recall my first attempts at writing fiction and how completely and utterly atrocious it is. I hit a lot, if not all, of the same sub-tropes, and I expect many, many of us here did the same. Hell, some of us are still learning that today anyway. It's my thought that when writing for fun, at first we're only in it for our own fun. We all want to be the hero, or most important person in the room, and writing around being awesome is satisfying to us as consumers of our own media. Share it with anyone else, though, and they'll likely see it for what it is: Outlandish and ridiculous attempts at being the star.

That's not to say it can't be done well, or accurately.

Quote:[2.11] For example, by 1976, we were seeing Paula Block's Sadie Faulwell in the "Landing Party" series in the Warped Space zine. It was a very loose roman Ã clef about Paula Block and her friends. They were really self-portrait characters, but for whatever reason, they had more of a sense of proportion about them. She had McCoy fall in love with Sadie, but it did not necessarily change McCoy's characterization, and it didn't change anyone's characterization, and the stories were intriguing on their own. Was this a Mary Sue or not a Mary Sue?

[2.12] Q: It helped that Paula Block was a good writer.

[2.13] PS: Yes. As a writer, she gave a lot more than she demanded from the reader. She gave us a character that we could recognize to a certain degree, but did not demand that we fall in love with the character. We could like Sadie or not on our own terms. You and I discussed once how the Mary Sue takes up too much room.

[2.14] Q: There's only so much room inside a character, and hopefully, you leave enough for the reader to climb in, too.

[2.15] PS: A story demands headspace, and the Mary Sue wants to come and occupy your whole head, so the writer gets the enjoyment and not the reader. It's a little too much like being used. I suspect that's why an awful lot of people agreed with our assessment.

As consumers of fiction we want to be along for the ride. We want emotional investment, and we want to do more than just watch someone be awesome all of the time. Sue writers, as per the stereotype, don't bother getting you hooked - the writer is already fully invested in their own product - so there's no reason to breathe life into something. You're expected to just take at face value how Admiral Stewpot saves the day and everyone loves and respects him.

Finally, with a wink and a nod, I submit this reason why Tumblr, of all places, might feel under fire by the trope.

Quote:Everybody else in the universe bowed down in front of her. Also, she usually had some unique physical identifierâ€”odd-colored eyes or hairâ€”or else she was half-Vulcan.

Doesn't sound like any user over there, does it?

Technically flamebaiting, but done with tongue in cheek.

Kellach Woods · **03-19-2015, 07:46 AM**

Caspar pretty much brought up the point I'd be making.

Funnily enough, the use of Mary Sue surviving to this day is also a relic of, y'know, women being involved in fan spaces since the '70s and helping mold them. Same with slash.

I need to read me some more Henry Jenkins - only thing I read was a book distilling his three previous works and some odds-and-ends writing.

Besides, it would be very weird if the term itself was sexist that it would be used as the very title of The Mary Sue.

It's been USED in sexist ways - I (not-so) fondly remember my days in fan spaces where people would just toss mad amounts of gendered hate onto anyone who'd dare post a mary sue fic. Then again I'm not expecting anything more than basic "i like this / i hate this" with, if you're lucky, actual telling you of what they hated and liked, out of tweens/teenagers in fan spaces.

The term itself being sexist? I'm a dude who's never really thought about it, so I dunno.

Aaron · **03-19-2015, 08:37 AM**

God, what a Mary Sue.

I just described Batman.

^ what this woman doesn't know is BATMAN CAN DO TGIS BECAUSE HE'S BATMAN.

HER ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

Time you put Batman in a post, he automatically win.

Warren Castille · **03-19-2015, 08:57 AM**

(03-19-2015, 08:37 AM)Aaron Wrote: God, what a Mary Sue.

I just described Batman.

^ what this woman doesn't know is BATMAN CAN DO TGIS BECAUSE HE'S BATMAN.

HER ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

Time you put Batman in a post, he automatically win.

Aaron go home you're drunk.

As someone else mentioned, though, Batman is referred to as a "canon sue." Mary Sues are supposed to be, by original intent, self-inserted characters that are universally respected, adored, skilled and clever. The Batman is the main character in his own fiction, and by that process cannot be a Mary Sue. If I were to write a Batman story featuring my OC (Do not steal) Batdude, who is revealed to be the original Bruce Wayne and the "real" Bruce Wayne is just an inferior clone of my awesome character, then I'd be writing a Mary Sue character type.

Boring, Invincible Hero has its own problems in a narrative, but they're not the self-insert-always-capable kind.

Seriphyn · **03-19-2015, 09:38 AM**

Decided to actually read the article.

Gawd, SJWs will make anything about them, won't they? Thought police, the lot of them.

Warren Castille · **03-19-2015, 09:42 AM**

(03-19-2015, 09:38 AM)Seriphyn Wrote: Decided to actually read the article.

Gawd, SJWs will make anything about them, won't they? Thought police, the lot of them.

This isn't the thread for "us" versus "them." If you want to discuss how some writers reject criticism for fear of feeling inferior, or how people on the internet have decided that "feelings" are the most important merit something can have, feel free to do so. Just throwing tumblr-tier buzzwords around and nudging everyone with "Those guys, am I right fellas?" doesn't contribute very much.

Marisa · **03-19-2015, 10:09 AM**

(03-18-2015, 08:41 PM)Bryn Wrote: Vaguely, yes. The term does describe a real phenomenon; we've all seen Mary Sues (possibly RP'd one in our younger years. Cough.), and as already pointed out, there is a male equivalent: Marty or Gary Stu. They are awful.

But as the Tumblr post states, that's Batman. And no-one bats an eyelid pun intended. In fact, he's a hugely beloved cultural icon. So I do think that accusations of Sue-ism are levelled at female characters more often, because female creations and interests are more frequently derided, attacked and seen as lesser.

For example, look at the vitriol levelled at the recent woman-centric media of Twilight and 50 Shades. It's not enough for these things to just simply be shit (they are), but hating on them becomes a kind of public performance. It's a bit like that.

Counterexample: Rhonin and Thrall from Warcraft are almost universally hated for being Mary Sues. Rhonin is a near-omnipotent time wizard and ladies man, and Thrall is Orc-Jesus, and nobody likes either of them. Meanwhile, the only genuinely overpowered female character, Jaina, mostly flies under the radar. People just dislike her because she tries to be so god damn edgy...

Warren Castille · **03-19-2015, 10:19 AM**

(03-19-2015, 10:09 AM)Ryoko Wrote:
(03-18-2015, 08:41 PM)Bryn Wrote: Vaguely, yes. The term does describe a real phenomenon; we've all seen Mary Sues (possibly RP'd one in our younger years. Cough.), and as already pointed out, there is a male equivalent: Marty or Gary Stu. They are awful.

But as the Tumblr post states, that's Batman. And no-one bats an eyelid pun intended. In fact, he's a hugely beloved cultural icon. So I do think that accusations of Sue-ism are levelled at female characters more often, because female creations and interests are more frequently derided, attacked and seen as lesser.

For example, look at the vitriol levelled at the recent woman-centric media of Twilight and 50 Shades. It's not enough for these things to just simply be shit (they are), but hating on them becomes a kind of public performance. It's a bit like that.
Counterexample: Rhonin and Thrall from Warcraft are almost universally hated for being Mary Sues. Rhonin is a near-omnipotent time wizard and ladies man, and Thrall is Orc-Jesus, and nobody likes either of them. Meanwhile, the only genuinely overpowered female character, Jaina, mostly flies under the radar. People just dislike her because she tries to be so god damn edgy...

This, I think, spins off of the perceived journey more than anything. If fans don't feel a character has "earned" their spot (due to whatever nebulous requirements any given fan feels is the minimum) they will grouse about it. It happens in fiction all the time. Hell, I can reference it happening in Pro Wrestling, too. Last year fan-favorite Daniel Bryan was nearly overlooked for the main title picture when the writers instead decided that returning part-timer Batista should be the new champ. Fans revolted, going so far as to completely derail live television events rather than accept the "canon."

It's happening again this year, too, with pushed-upon wrestler Roman Reigns (muh boiyee) being forced down everyone's throats. Reigns was a fan favorite right up until about December, when the writing changes tracks to hint what was in store. Since then WWE has been selling Reigns so hard that the audience is just completely rejecting it.

Thrall is the most shamany shaman to ever exist. An entire patch was dedicated to helping him regain his power because only HE had the strength to save the entire planet. A patch later had him stepping down from that pedestal because his wife (ALSO a Mary Sue self-insert that nobody liked) suddenly had orc babies.

If an audience doesn't "believe" that a character meets the standards of the narrative, we reject it. Batman and Superman and Spider-Man all have appropriately-tragic enough backstories (also a trope) but I think moreover, they already have an established cultural identity. We accept Batman because Batman has always been accepted. We allow ourselves to "allow" their stories to be believable in their mediums because on some level, we've told ourselves it makes sense.

If the original Star Trek had cast Kirk as a fourteen year old girl who was the most brilliant mind to ever enter into Starfleet, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Zyrusticae · **03-19-2015, 11:02 AM**

(03-19-2015, 10:19 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: If the original Star Trek had cast Kirk as a fourteen year old girl who was the most brilliant mind to ever enter into Starfleet, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

... You know, I would actually want to see this version. Just to see if they could pull it off.

The world of Star Trek is, after all, supposed to be a world that's evolved beyond sexism, ageism, racism, and any of those negative -isms that are so common today. You could do a lot with subverting audience expectations with such characters.

Yes, this is off-topic again. I'm sorry. I am terrible at staying on-track.

Warren Castille · **03-19-2015, 11:06 AM**

(03-19-2015, 11:02 AM)Zyrusticae Wrote:
(03-19-2015, 10:19 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: If the original Star Trek had cast Kirk as a fourteen year old girl who was the most brilliant mind to ever enter into Starfleet, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
... You know, I would actually want to see this version. Just to see if they could pull it off.

The world of Star Trek is, after all, supposed to be a world that's evolved beyond sexism, ageism, racism, and any of those negative -isms that are so common today. You could do a lot with subverting audience expectations with such characters.

Yes, this is off-topic again. I'm sorry. I am terrible at staying on-track.

Space Cases. Google it.

Dogberry · **03-19-2015, 11:08 AM**

Universally hated teenage genius on Star Trek?

He hosts a show about board games on Youtube now.

Poll: Is the term "Mary Sue" sexist? You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes, it is.	3.48%	4	3.48%
No, it isn't.	84.35%	97	84.35%
I'm a bit mixed.	9.57%	11	9.57%
Other, see response below,	2.61%	3	2.61%
Total		115 vote(s)	100%

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (11): « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Next » Jump to page:

Opinion question: Is Mary Sue Sexist?

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes