Thread Closed
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.
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.
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.
Doesn't sound like any user over there, does it?
Technically flamebaiting, but done with tongue in cheek.
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 à 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 identifier—odd-colored eyes or hair—or else she was half-Vulcan.
Doesn't sound like any user over there, does it?
Technically flamebaiting, but done with tongue in cheek.
![[Image: yEROfKO.png]](http://i.imgur.com/yEROfKO.png)