Opinion question: Is Mary Sue Sexist?

[111]

I can see what Verad is saying but I have to say I don't quite agree that you can apply the same things. Not all of us roleplay with a GM or an editor. But comics writers, they do.

 

While they have large control of the character(s) they get to play with at that moment in time, they still have control of more than just one.

 

In roleplay, we only have "one". We only have our own characters. I find it a very large exercise to have several people collaborate and work in harmony on a narrative. Being the writer and having an editor allows them to take freer control of more characters' stories and allows them to make the most with minimal need of collaborating with someone else "is it ok if I do this with this character?"

 

You should never have to ask someone if it's "Ok" to do something with your character, so long as it does not involved making decisions for some one else 'My character stabs yours".

 

Ergo, you're making them accept that they got stabbed.

 

Aside from that, you can go "Rawr I'm Ifrit" and you don't need to ask anyone. Not everyone might RP with you, but nothing wrong with it.

[Melkire]

You won't find this in most forms of writing. Novels, comic books, television, films: very rarely do you come across two intertwined narratives in which the authors have such vested personal interests that they at times find themselves cross-purposes. In contrast, you see this often in roleplay, on the tabletop, etc.

 

Forgive me for pulling a greentext, truly, but:

 

>Comics

>No authors at cross-purposes

 

I've read enough mainstream comics and heard more of the same from friends to know that's so, so untrue.

 

With regards to comics, I meant that authors are generally not at cross-purposes within a single run of issues.

 

Jeph Loeb didn't have to deal with Frank Miller at the time that Loeb was writing Batman Hush, for instance. Grant Morrison could do whatever the hell he wanted with Clark Kent during All-Star Superman because it was a self-contained piece that didn't come up against any other author's narrative.

 

This only becomes an issue with comics as a result of crossovers, whether those be large, company-wide events or a guest appearance of other characters from other comics (which then occasionally leads to some nasty retconning back and forth).

[Kage]

You should never have to ask someone if it's "Ok" to do something with your character, so long as  it does not involved making decisions for some one else 'My character stabs yours".

 

Ergo, you're making them accept that they got stabbed.

 

Aside from that, you can go "Rawr I'm Ifrit" and you don't need to ask anyone. Not everyone might RP with you, but nothing wrong with it.

You have completely misread my statement because I never said anything about what limits what you do with your own character.

[111]

You should never have to ask someone if it's "Ok" to do something with your character, so long as  it does not involved making decisions for some one else 'My character stabs yours".

 

Ergo, you're making them accept that they got stabbed.

 

Aside from that, you can go "Rawr I'm Ifrit" and you don't need to ask anyone. Not everyone might RP with you, but nothing wrong with it.

You have completely misread my statement because I never said anything about what limits what you do with your own character.

 

Ah, I don't understand then? What do you mean by asking another player "is it ok if I do this with this character?"

 

Do you mean their character?

[Warren Castille]

You should never have to ask someone if it's "Ok" to do something with your character, so long as  it does not involved making decisions for some one else 'My character stabs yours".

 

Ergo, you're making them accept that they got stabbed.

 

Aside from that, you can go "Rawr I'm Ifrit" and you don't need to ask anyone. Not everyone might RP with you, but nothing wrong with it.

You have completely misread my statement because I never said anything about what limits what you do with your own character.

 

Ah, I don't understand then? What do you mean by asking another player "is it ok if I do this with this character?"

 

Do you mean their character?

 

Hey Nat, is it okay if I have Eva come in shouting about democracy in my thread? I need an out to end a scene.

[Kage]

You should never have to ask someone if it's "Ok" to do something with your character, so long as  it does not involved making decisions for some one else 'My character stabs yours".

 

Ergo, you're making them accept that they got stabbed.

 

Aside from that, you can go "Rawr I'm Ifrit" and you don't need to ask anyone. Not everyone might RP with you, but nothing wrong with it.

You have completely misread my statement because I never said anything about what limits what you do with your own character.

 

Ah, I don't understand then? What do you mean by asking another player "is it ok if I do this with this character?"

 

Do you mean their character?

Yes. You don't exactly have to do that with a narrative in things like comics (to an extent) with every single character. Where you almost have to do that 100% in roleplay.

[111]

You should never have to ask someone if it's "Ok" to do something with your character, so long as  it does not involved making decisions for some one else 'My character stabs yours".

 

Ergo, you're making them accept that they got stabbed.

 

Aside from that, you can go "Rawr I'm Ifrit" and you don't need to ask anyone. Not everyone might RP with you, but nothing wrong with it.

You have completely misread my statement because I never said anything about what limits what you do with your own character.

 

Ah, I don't understand then? What do you mean by asking another player "is it ok if I do this with this character?"

 

Do you mean their character?

 

Hey Nat, is it okay if I have Eva come in shouting about democracy in my thread? I need an out to end a scene.

 

For you Warren, always.

[Melkire]

Ahem. Let's not derail the thread in a "yes" "no" "yes" "no" fashion. Moving on.

[Warren Castille]

The reason I'd asked was to demonstrate. I have no ownership over Nat's characters (her "brands" so to speak) but I've got free reign to ask to use them if needed. That still doesn't give me permission to do anything outlandish with them, the question isn't "Hey Nat, can I borrow Eva for a while?" I can't come back later and explain that the road was icy and Eva's in a snowbank somewhere.

 

Roleplayers shared the world we're all in on a direct level. In world RP, we don't even really have NPCs or anything. I think the fear of being a Sue or godmoding comes from wanting the relative power level to not lean too far in one writer's direction, outside of course of events where you effectively give consent to be there. If I sign up for a snowball fight, I should expect that other writers are going to enact snowballs on me.

 

Edit: I suppose I should have told her that.

[Verad]

The Socratic method never actually works, you know.

[111]

The Socratic method never actually works, you know.

 

It works at getting people mad at least. Maybe he was just trying to piss people off all along, and Plot misinterpreted it as a philosophical system.

 

Socrates, History's first recorded troll.

[111]

The reason I'd asked was to demonstrate. I have no ownership over Nat's characters (her "brands" so to speak) but I've got free reign to ask to use them if needed. That still doesn't give me permission to do anything outlandish with them, the question isn't "Hey Nat, can I borrow Eva for a while?" I can't come back later and explain that the road was icy and Eva's in a snowbank somewhere.

 

Roleplayers shared the world we're all in on a direct level. In world RP, we don't even really have NPCs or anything. I think the fear of being a Sue or godmoding comes from wanting the relative power level to not lean too far in one writer's direction, outside of course of events where you effectively give consent to be there. If I sign up for a snowball fight, I should expect that other writers are going to enact snowballs on me.

 

Edit: I suppose I should have told her that.

 

That is a good point Warren. I suppose then it relies on the tact of the person playing the 'mary sue'.

 

I sort of advise alts for that sort of high powered RP anyway. Being a dragon or a noble or something is cool, but it locks you out of all the day to day, teaparty and dagger RP.

[Warren Castille]

The reason I'd asked was to demonstrate. I have no ownership over Nat's characters (her "brands" so to speak) but I've got free reign to ask to use them if needed. That still doesn't give me permission to do anything outlandish with them, the question isn't "Hey Nat, can I borrow Eva for a while?" I can't come back later and explain that the road was icy and Eva's in a snowbank somewhere.

 

Roleplayers shared the world we're all in on a direct level. In world RP, we don't even really have NPCs or anything. I think the fear of being a Sue or godmoding comes from wanting the relative power level to not lean too far in one writer's direction, outside of course of events where you effectively give consent to be there. If I sign up for a snowball fight, I should expect that other writers are going to enact snowballs on me.

 

Edit: I suppose I should have told her that.

 

That is a good point Warren. I suppose then it relies on the tact of the person playing the 'mary sue'.

 

I sort of advise alts for that sort of high powered RP anyway. Being a dragon or a noble or something is cool, but it locks you out of all the day to day, teaparty and dagger RP.

 

Yeah, precisely. I'm fairly confident saying that the RPC doesn't really have many true "Sue" type characters. I think a large portion of it, actually, comes from just being naive enough to think that a character who is super good at everything, is friends with everyone, and has only convenient weaknesses is functionally a fun or good character for other people to play with. It's not fun to be telling a sleuthing story only for Superman to show up having already caught the thieves, or to be telling a combat story and have Supes throw everyone into the sun, or be telling a dramatic story and have Superman come up and immediately solve everything.

[Warren Castille]

[Kou]

Superman, as a character, makes me so mad.

 

I have nothing else to add to this conversation.

You're all beautiful people, stay classy.

[Kismet]

Superman, as a character, makes me so mad.

 

I have nothing else to add to this conversation.

You're all beautiful people, stay classy.

 

Blog post is related...

[Blackmanga]

A lot of sense, actually, until I decide to dig into it. So here's my two cents. 

 

The idea that Mary Sue insinuates some sort of hatred towards the female gender,

 

 

She said it was sexist, she didn't say it was misogynistic.

 

 

or that female characters alone can be terrifyingly bad, is just wrong.

 

 

An she didn't say that at all. Her point is that males are just as bad, but rarely get called out on it. (compared to females). 

 

 

Not long after Mary Sue was coined as a term to describe a specific character mold, and not just the name of a dumb protagonist of a poorly written fanfiction, we came up with a male analogue that meant the same. Whether you call it Gary or Marty Sue, or even John Doe, there exists a term whose mere existence completely contradicts the perceived bias towards women in the bad characters department.

 

You're not getting the concept pal. :cactuar:This is why it's a false equivalence:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue#Criticism

 

She quoted one as saying "Every time I've tried to put a woman in any story I've ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue." Smith also pointed out that "Participants in a panel discussion in January 1990 noted with growing dismay that any female character created within the community is damned with the term Mary Sue."

 

 

Smith quotes an issue of the Star Trek fanzine Archives^[9] as identifying "Mary Sue" paranoia as one of the sources for the lack of "believable, competent, and identifiable-with female characters."

Cantor interviews her sister Edith, also an amateur editor, who says she receives stories with cover letters apologizing for the tale as "a Mary Sue", even when the author admits she does not know what a "Mary Sue" is.

 

Gary Stu is not nearly as casually and readily applied. Not is it's effect on writers of male characters, ever been documented as inhibiting creativity. Nor has  there ever been a community where any male character created is called a Gary Stu. Nor does this happen with Gary Stu:  At Clippercon 1987 (a Star Trek fan convention held yearly in Baltimore, Maryland), Smith interviewed a panel of female authors who say they do not include female characters in their stories at all. She quoted one as saying "Every time I've tried to put a woman in any story I've ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue.

 

Female writers not incluing female characters in their stories at all is a highly unnatural and disturbing state of affairs, especially when done out of fear of a two word label. 

 

If you can get on a panel, you're not likely to be a bad writer, or writing "self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way" But they've been scarred regardless, such is the damaging potential of Mary Sue. Without that label, "critics" would have to admit that they don't want female characters getting involved. Or involved too much, and certainly not the star. 

Does all that apply to Gary Stu? No. So "Gary Stu" is not a valid rebuttal to the idea that Mary Sue is sexist as Mary Sue often masks sexism in a way Gary Stu does not.

 

Does all that apply to Gary Stu? No. So "Gary Stu" is not a valid rebuttal to the idea that Mary Sue is sexist. We know "Gary Stu" exists. That's not the point.

 

(Gary Stu has no business being used either)

 

 

These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female.

 

 

Yami Yugi (The Pharoah [Yugioh]) almost always wins (only ever lost twice and once was against the modern day version of himself). Tyson from Beyblade never lost clean in a singles battle in season 2 and 3. Kid Goku from Dragonball GT. All decent. 

 

If it were a female in Yugi's role though the accusations of Mary Sue woud pile up extremely fast. An ancient spirit titled the queen of games who wins any game she tries to play is admired by her friends and has two dudes one liking the younger and the other the older persona. She wins every tournament she enters and wields the three gods of Egypt.   

 

MAAAAARRRRY SSUUUUEEEEEE.

 

 

 

We're not implying bad characters are usually, or even have to be female.

 

 

No, but it's evident that the female ones are more readily called bad. And god help her if she tries to romance the fan favourite.

 

 

If I concede anything, Mary Sue did come first, but that's just because of timing, and not malicious intent. Mary Sue would still exist if Marty came first. because stupidity is not prejudiced.

 

 

"Marty" would never have come first. Understand that the amount of female power fantasy characters are VASTLY outnumbered by the male ones in published media. Thus females had a greater need to add women avatars to live the power fantasy with characters they could directly relate to, and express it through fanfics. The predictable backlash resulted in Mary Sue.

 

 

If I'm finding anything offensive, right now, I'd say it's the Tumblr post. The question it asks seems loaded, designed to generate as much controversy and hatred as possible, and when broken down, it's quite opinionated. What does this remind me of?

 

Ask yourself what is wrong with a young inexperienced writer publishing a story that makes her feel powerful. What does calling her character a non-character (Mary Sue) really accomplish beyond being upsetting? I'd say that's troll posting.

 

Oh right. Troll-posting.

 

Dehumanizing the writer has no place in even semi intellectual discourse.

[Verad]

I agree with what you're saying, strange black-cloaked figure engaging in dark and foul thread sorcery, but this is some serious necromancy right here.

[Dat Oni]

AAAAAAAAAH ZOMBIE

[Verranicus]

Fact: Tumblr thinks everything is sexist, racist, ableist, etc.

[Max]

Fact: Tumblr thinks everything is sexist, racist, ableist, etc.

literally triggered

[Flashhelix]

if there's one thread that didn't need a necro, it's this one

[allgivenover]

Disappointing that a white knight created an account JUST to defend this tumblr post none of us have thought of in months with a quote from a 1987 convention.

 

Certainly nothing has changed since then.

[Blackmanga]

So what, I'm supposed to start an entire new topic to reply to someone here? 

 

I won't be silenced by your "necro" crap.

[allgivenover]

So what, I'm supposed to start an entire new topic to reply to someone here? 

 

I won't be silenced by your "necro" crap.

 

Or you could have just let it lie because it hasn't been posted in for months and it was just one corner of the internet that's not all that important and didn't really need you to make an account solely for the purpose of reopening the discussion.