You keep using that word: on "Mary Sue"
Apr. 20th, 2010 03:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xparrot(Most of this post came up in a friends-locked comments dialogue with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
horridporrid, who very patiently explained her views until I finally got where she was coming from. I've been lax in keeping up with the rest of the debate, so it's likely this has already been stated elsewhere in this debate. But anyway.) Putting aside issues of writing standards and mocking other fen, it seems the big problem with the term "Mary Sue" is with its imprecision and its gendered nature. The basic concepts, I feel, are sound - but we need another word for it.
As I see it, there are 3 differing but related definitions for "Mary Sue":
1. The original definition, the one that most fans agree on (they may differ on whether it's positive or negative or whatever, but 99% of fans understand what is meant): an OC in fanfic that is a thinly veiled self-insert, wish fulfillment char with a tendency to dominate the story and warp the canon about her/himself; it's the written form of the self-insert daydreams that the majority of us indulged or still indulge in. This concept was originally identified as "Mary Sue" because the majority of such chars found in fanfic are female, as the majority of fanfic authors are female and gender their self-inserts to match. Female-written Mary Sues are often but not always paired with a favorite character from canon. Male fic authors do write them - the "Marty Stu" or "Gary Stu" can be found in anime and VG fic, often in the form of a super-powered OMC able to defeat the villain too strong for any of the heroes.
Such chars are more commonly written by younger authors with less than solid writing skills, which explains some of the antipathy with which they're looked upon. Such chars are also disliked because they run counter to many fans' reasons for reading fanfic -seekergeek describes the phenomenon as the "Stranger in the Living Room"; those of us who read fanfic to get more of specific (canon) characters and relationships are annoyed by the intrusion of chars who change the nature and focus of the canon.
This doesn't mean that such a concept isn't a valid fanfiction style; clearly many fans enjoy interacting with their fandoms in this way. But it's not what's expected in many fic communities, and because it's most commonly the province of younger fans, it's probably always going to be regarded with a certain amount of derision.
2. The secondary definition of "Mary Sue" evolved from the first, and was adopted by certain literary circles outside of fandom: it describes a main character (in original fiction) who is intended to be the stand-in for the audience as well as the author, and the entertainment in the story is derived from sympathizing with the character through their travails and sharing in their triumphs. In girl-aimed lit, such heroines are often put-upon and suffer beautifully before ultimately finding fortune and love (Sarah Crewe in A Little Princess is a classic example of a younger version; Twilight's Bella is a modern teen example); in boy-aimed lit they start out as wimpy weaklings but end up stronger than anyone (Peter Parker becoming Spiderman). Especially in kids-lit such chars can cross gender boundaries (I think Harry Potter was meant to work for boys & girls.) Really, most stories that center around a single protagonist (as opposed to an ensemble story, or a partner/love story focused on both parties) end up becoming a variation on this - Superman is maybe an archetypal variant. They all tend to have an element of wish-fulfillment fantasy - the reader is intended to dream about being the protagonist. Sometimes, if the char is too obviously the Author's stand-in, it can impede with the reader's identification.
The "Mary Sue" of fandom was adopted to refer to this trope because she is perhaps the most obvious example of it, being as it recasts other types of stories into this model, rewriting a canon to center it around the hero/heroine.
This trope, like the fanfic Mary Sue, is valid literary device - because of its nature it can easily be problematic (when it intersects with privilege especially -thedeadparrot's My Problem With Sues discusses the issue eloquently) but it's also a fun and potentially empowering fantasy. I think it's particularly popular in juvenile fiction because teens tend to feel put-upon and like imagining themselves (or heroes like them) as "special". (And I wonder if adults often are less taken by these tales because they can't identify as easily with such protagonists...or else we relate to them in different ways. We love our "Woobie"s, but we don't want to be them; we want to be the one comforting them.)
3. The tertiary definition of "Mary Sue" used by some fans developed from the second - as a criticism of canonical characters, usually female, who were perceived as having unfair advantage and a lack of flaws, and who are seen as warping the canon around them in the same way that Mary Sue chars do in fanfic (often, it is suspected, because the canon's writers are identifying with/crushing on/lusting after those chars and giving them breaks). From this it extended into being interpreted as an insult for any female char you don't like (though I think for most fans who use it, they mean it in the canon-warping sense, that the presence of the character changes the canon into something they don't like, in ways they find unconvincing.)
This last definition is the most subjective, and depends a lot on how a fan is viewing a work. If you like Harry Potter the character, then you're inclined to see the books as the second sort of trope, and Harry is naturally the center of the fictional universe; while as if Draco or Snape is your favorite, then you'd be more inclined to see Harry as a canon-warping character, and want the story to be about more than him.
The thing is, all three of these definitions are valid critical concepts - even the last, while quite subjective, can explain why a story may be unsuccessful for much of the audience. This is not to say that they're justifiable reasons to trash a young writer's confidence, but they are extant and common tropes in fiction (fan and otherwise), so it makes sense to have a label for them.
The problem with the current label is that while such chars can be male as easily as they can be female (Rodney McKay could certainly be considered one!) defining them with the gendered term "Mary Sue" means that female chars are much more likely to be described as such; it became an easy go-to criticism of female chars, while rarely applied to male chars, a very unfortunate double standard, especially if it means that writers become hesitant to write female chars (afraid that they'll be labeled "Mary Sue"s) while not giving the same consideration to male chars.
So it seems to me we need a new, gender-neutral term for this concept. Any thoughts?
ETA: Apparently ElfQuest had "Wottaguy/Wottagirl" for the original Mary Sue - much less gendered, maybe I'll start using that!
horridporrid, who very patiently explained her views until I finally got where she was coming from. I've been lax in keeping up with the rest of the debate, so it's likely this has already been stated elsewhere in this debate. But anyway.) Putting aside issues of writing standards and mocking other fen, it seems the big problem with the term "Mary Sue" is with its imprecision and its gendered nature. The basic concepts, I feel, are sound - but we need another word for it.As I see it, there are 3 differing but related definitions for "Mary Sue":
1. The original definition, the one that most fans agree on (they may differ on whether it's positive or negative or whatever, but 99% of fans understand what is meant): an OC in fanfic that is a thinly veiled self-insert, wish fulfillment char with a tendency to dominate the story and warp the canon about her/himself; it's the written form of the self-insert daydreams that the majority of us indulged or still indulge in. This concept was originally identified as "Mary Sue" because the majority of such chars found in fanfic are female, as the majority of fanfic authors are female and gender their self-inserts to match. Female-written Mary Sues are often but not always paired with a favorite character from canon. Male fic authors do write them - the "Marty Stu" or "Gary Stu" can be found in anime and VG fic, often in the form of a super-powered OMC able to defeat the villain too strong for any of the heroes.
Such chars are more commonly written by younger authors with less than solid writing skills, which explains some of the antipathy with which they're looked upon. Such chars are also disliked because they run counter to many fans' reasons for reading fanfic -
seekergeek describes the phenomenon as the "Stranger in the Living Room"; those of us who read fanfic to get more of specific (canon) characters and relationships are annoyed by the intrusion of chars who change the nature and focus of the canon. This doesn't mean that such a concept isn't a valid fanfiction style; clearly many fans enjoy interacting with their fandoms in this way. But it's not what's expected in many fic communities, and because it's most commonly the province of younger fans, it's probably always going to be regarded with a certain amount of derision.
2. The secondary definition of "Mary Sue" evolved from the first, and was adopted by certain literary circles outside of fandom: it describes a main character (in original fiction) who is intended to be the stand-in for the audience as well as the author, and the entertainment in the story is derived from sympathizing with the character through their travails and sharing in their triumphs. In girl-aimed lit, such heroines are often put-upon and suffer beautifully before ultimately finding fortune and love (Sarah Crewe in A Little Princess is a classic example of a younger version; Twilight's Bella is a modern teen example); in boy-aimed lit they start out as wimpy weaklings but end up stronger than anyone (Peter Parker becoming Spiderman). Especially in kids-lit such chars can cross gender boundaries (I think Harry Potter was meant to work for boys & girls.) Really, most stories that center around a single protagonist (as opposed to an ensemble story, or a partner/love story focused on both parties) end up becoming a variation on this - Superman is maybe an archetypal variant. They all tend to have an element of wish-fulfillment fantasy - the reader is intended to dream about being the protagonist. Sometimes, if the char is too obviously the Author's stand-in, it can impede with the reader's identification.
The "Mary Sue" of fandom was adopted to refer to this trope because she is perhaps the most obvious example of it, being as it recasts other types of stories into this model, rewriting a canon to center it around the hero/heroine.
This trope, like the fanfic Mary Sue, is valid literary device - because of its nature it can easily be problematic (when it intersects with privilege especially -
thedeadparrot's My Problem With Sues discusses the issue eloquently) but it's also a fun and potentially empowering fantasy. I think it's particularly popular in juvenile fiction because teens tend to feel put-upon and like imagining themselves (or heroes like them) as "special". (And I wonder if adults often are less taken by these tales because they can't identify as easily with such protagonists...or else we relate to them in different ways. We love our "Woobie"s, but we don't want to be them; we want to be the one comforting them.)3. The tertiary definition of "Mary Sue" used by some fans developed from the second - as a criticism of canonical characters, usually female, who were perceived as having unfair advantage and a lack of flaws, and who are seen as warping the canon around them in the same way that Mary Sue chars do in fanfic (often, it is suspected, because the canon's writers are identifying with/crushing on/lusting after those chars and giving them breaks). From this it extended into being interpreted as an insult for any female char you don't like (though I think for most fans who use it, they mean it in the canon-warping sense, that the presence of the character changes the canon into something they don't like, in ways they find unconvincing.)
This last definition is the most subjective, and depends a lot on how a fan is viewing a work. If you like Harry Potter the character, then you're inclined to see the books as the second sort of trope, and Harry is naturally the center of the fictional universe; while as if Draco or Snape is your favorite, then you'd be more inclined to see Harry as a canon-warping character, and want the story to be about more than him.
The thing is, all three of these definitions are valid critical concepts - even the last, while quite subjective, can explain why a story may be unsuccessful for much of the audience. This is not to say that they're justifiable reasons to trash a young writer's confidence, but they are extant and common tropes in fiction (fan and otherwise), so it makes sense to have a label for them.
The problem with the current label is that while such chars can be male as easily as they can be female (Rodney McKay could certainly be considered one!) defining them with the gendered term "Mary Sue" means that female chars are much more likely to be described as such; it became an easy go-to criticism of female chars, while rarely applied to male chars, a very unfortunate double standard, especially if it means that writers become hesitant to write female chars (afraid that they'll be labeled "Mary Sue"s) while not giving the same consideration to male chars.
So it seems to me we need a new, gender-neutral term for this concept. Any thoughts?
ETA: Apparently ElfQuest had "Wottaguy/Wottagirl" for the original Mary Sue - much less gendered, maybe I'll start using that!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 10:29 pm (UTC)I disagree in part, I've noticed in fandom that people will identify with a character AND want to comfort them. Possibly to the soundtrack of Whitney Houston's "Greatest Love of All", heh. I think the way that people interact with characters can become a sexy mess of messiness.
The author insert thing, absolutely. I think there becomes a difference though of aha, I can see what you're doing there but it's entertaining enough for me not to care or look too closely (edit: or I'm emotionally getting off on it as well), or I can see what you're doing and it feels like I walked in on you at an inopportune moment and I'll just be running away screaming now.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 10:52 pm (UTC)Oh, absolutely! that little aside was a massive condensing of a Grand Unifying Theory of Fandom (which of course is doomed to failure by its very nature; meta-fanning on fandom leads to a philosophical Heisenberg Principle I suspect...) But yeah, it's a total mess, and I think a lot of fans do a lot of contradictory fannish things simultaneously. We're special that way!
(I have the problem myself that I don't think I identify with the lot of my favorites, and the way I love them is more abstract than for some people, so then a lot of theories for Why Women Like Slash and such seem completely alien to me...)
And yes - there are some authors I love their stuff because they clearly share my exact fiction kinks, and then other ones who I like sometimes but then sometimes it becomes "...Maybe you should stop typing and get some therapy, mmm-kay?"
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 10:32 pm (UTC)You bring up an interesting point about the actual term "Mary Sue" gender marginalizing unfairly the potential OCs that'll get slapped with this label. Personally I think "Gary Stu" when I run into male characters that fit the 3rd description you give.
I suppose there is the option of creating a third term that's a combination of gender neutral names. But that might start getting silly after awhile.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 10:57 pm (UTC)Yeah, that was what
I sort of want a term that's not names at all but is more descriptive. Authorial Darling, maybe? Hmm...
(in unrelated news, do huntsman spiders really have lungs? whoa!)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 11:02 pm (UTC)According to QI they do. Although according to wikipedia, huntsman spiders are tarantulas and apparently all tarantulas have a type of lung system.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 10:35 pm (UTC)Years ago, a feminist critic of some note (and likely with a better memory than mine, since I can't remember who it was) bemoaned the lack of male-gender equivalents in the English language for the words "bitch" and "slut." I don't see "Sue" as part of that pantheon. Most of the time, for me anyway, there isn't even the need to change it to "Marty Stu" to make the point. The character (or lack of character) does it all by him OR herself.
Thoughtful question, though. Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 11:04 pm (UTC)So while I've used Sue as a mostly neutral term for a while, and you and other fans do to, it seems that maybe it would be better for fandom as a whole if we had a neutral term.
(because, y'know, it's so easy to get all of Fandom to adopt the same word for everything, just 'cuz I say so! :P)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 11:14 pm (UTC)Doesn't the Mary Sue name come specifically from the iconic Star Trek fic? Yes, the author (Paula Smith?) was playing on the existing female-OC tropes and so wrote a female character, but that's not the same thing to me. I don't play the "Gary Stu/Marty Stu" game; I could insist that doing so is marginalizing the creativity and historicity of Smith, but that'd be trolling, really.
I'm remarkably frustrated at the folk who are conflating "Mary Sue" = "any self-insert" OR "any powerful female char" = "you're bullying me". Yours isn't the first post I've seen calling for clarification of terms, and I really would like everyone to step back and do that first.
I like the way TVTropes divides Sues into categories, like "Canon Sue" for folk such as Rodney McKay (acknowledged self-insert, unrealistically talented), though I'd like to see even further refinement than their few options. (For example, McKay's a Sue of one type; there is another type, "showrunner adores this char and literally insists the audience will love her/him too, but the manipulative writing works at odds with that goal". I could name two different chars from two different fandoms I think meet that definition, but I'm trying to stay out of the wank. There are yet other Sues. I mean, Jonathan in Buffy -- that was very much on purpose, so "Winking Sue"? Hee.)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 11:25 pm (UTC)Hmm - I know that "Mary Sue" came from ST fic, but was the original a deliberate parody? Obviously I must brush up on my fannish history!
I don't play the "Gary Stu/Marty Stu" game; I could insist that doing so is marginalizing the creativity and historicity of Smith, but that'd be trolling, really.
But then isn't the term "Mary Sue" marginalizing all those poor fangirls named Mary or Sue? We're damned if you do/don't either way! ;)
Ahh, the categories of Sue, I hadn't considered those. "Canon Sue" does have such a nice ring to it. and "Winking Sue," hee! (There was a char in the second season of Invisible Man who was some specific bizarre breed of 'Sue in that she was classic super-beautiful super-competent secret agent - except that on rewatching the series she amused me, because rather than loving her the other chars all openly resented her for being more perfect than them (even though they were not above using her talents and connections.) An "Apprehended Sue"?)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 10:05 am (UTC)Indeed it was. (http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dark/1000/marysue.htm)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 03:03 am (UTC)And now I realize that I don't even know where to begin with all of the unquestioned assumptions - that "good writing" is every fan writer's top priority (not even close!), that everyone agrees on what "good writing" entails, that my personal definition of Mary Sue and the way it's often used in fandom are the same, that *I* even use it consistently myself ... omg.
The most critical issue, I think, is the double standard you're talking about, and the way that the term Mary Sue has come to be used in fandom; whatever the origins and original definition, the way that it's wandered and subsequently come to be used in fannish discourse is a problem, and the fact that fangirl after fangirl has spoken up to say that the anti-Mary Sue climate in fandom has had a chilling effect on her fic writing is a big problem, and one that I had no idea even existed! I was absolutely floored the first time I ever heard anyone say that - a month or so ago, a pretty well-known SG1 slash writer on my flist mentioned that she's reluctant to write any of the female canon characters because she's afraid they would be taken for Mary Sues. I was astonished. I had no idea that anyone felt that way. And now, seeing more and more people speak up to say that they used to write and then stopped, or wanted to write and never started, or changed what they wanted to write to fit with fandom's dominant paradigm ... omg omg omg, I had no idea.
And, kind of like I've started questioning my negative reaction to certain female characters like Gwen and Rose over the last couple of years (what am I reacting to? what about the character is making me dislike them? is it rational? is the level of my dislike out of proportion to the way I'd react to a similar male character?) I'm doing it now with my reaction to what I would have considered Mary Sues in the past. It's made me rethink some of the terms with which I critique, and my underlying emotional reactions.
It's also made me think about something I've said in the past about "Sand & Light", my long Trigun fic: that if I hadn't been a newbie and I'd known the "rules" when I wrote that story, I would never have tried to write it. It's kidfic, there's a ton of female OFCs ... I've never regretted writing the story, and in fact I had a rollicking good time with it, but I've always considered it sort of an obvious newbie writer story and something that I wouldn't try to write today, now that I've "learned" that kids and OFC main characters and so forth are cliches, and know better than to do that. I just thought of it as having become aware of more ways to make my writing better, and being aware of mistakes I used to make but don't plan to make anymore. But now I'm looking back on it going, "srsly, self, what? You wrote a story that broke all the so-called rules, and a lot of people liked it, and you're proud of it - and yet you consider it a mistake that you wouldn't make again? How is that a good thing?"
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 07:42 am (UTC)(There's the case, too, that for all this discussion has been focused on OFCs, I really don't find that OMCs are that much more common. At least not in the circles of fandom I've been in. As minor chars maybe, but not leads.)
And now, seeing more and more people speak up to say that they used to write and then stopped, or wanted to write and never started, or changed what they wanted to write to fit with fandom's dominant paradigm ..
But...isn't that how it always is? You have personal experience that trying to write an unpopular het pairing (or hell, an unpopular slash pairing, see the woes of Ronon/Rodney fans) often can leave you feeling oppressed and ostracized by Fandom. And then there's the trials and tribulations of being a gen writer in some circles (and of course smarm, which has nearly been stamped out of existence - "late and unlamented" I recently saw it called, based on the idea that it's fundamentally homophobic, which I obviously disagree with...)
I'm not saying that any of this is a good thing, it's more just how communities function. And yes, ideally I'd like "Fandom" to be a more accepting place of all genres. I just don't feel Mary Sue is a unique case.
--Which isn't to say that the people in support of Mary Sue now are trying to make it into a special case, but it ended up feeling that way to me, that there's so much work being put into defending Mary Sue as an empowering icon and such, rather than just saying, "Hey, some people like writing 'Sues, why don't we let them enjoy themselves?"
And, erm, all of this rambling isn't really intended as an argument to anything you said, because you were describing how it's affecting your personal views and obviously that's got nothing to do with me!
(You "learned" not to write kid-fic, though? Huh, I always thought of that as an accepted genre, with as many supporters as detractors. Isn't Iowa one of the most popular SGA fics? ...But then, from my perspective m-preg is an accepted genre, too, so maybe my problem is that I tend to interpret fandom as more open and accepting than most do, so end up confused about how anyone could feel oppressed by it...hmmm!)
(Or maybe my problem is that I tend to interpret "cliche" as "kink", so never make the connection that "cliche" could mean "bad writing", at least not when it comes to fanfic. I am the one who has unabashedly written an avalanche in 3 fandoms and counting - I like my cliches! Hmmm again...)
(Or maybe...I just need to shut up and stop rambling on! ^^;;;)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 07:42 pm (UTC)I think the Mary Sue posts are just trying to do that - consciousness-raising, basically: bringing up points that aren't made very often, providing meccas for fans who've been feeling marginalized by the fannish zeitgeist to run to going "omg, someone who feels like I do! omg! affirmation! yay!" Which is one of the things we're in fandom for, isn't it?
Speaking only for myself, reading those posts has certainly made me approach the issue in a different way; I think I'll be a lot less likely to reach for the term and even the concept of "Mary Sue" when I'm writing public posts or critiquing someone's writing from now on. My first reaction to having to abandon Mary Sue as a term of critique was "omg, how will I ever express myself???" but what I've realized is that the term (and concept) are a crutch; having to push myself that little bit harder to explain (even if just to myself) what it is about the character that's failing for me as a reader (is it how she's described? how the other characters react to her? because she wins too easily? because the story never explains how she would've had time to acquire all those skills? am I just bothered by the existence of an OC, period?) is actually going to make me a better, more aware writer in the long run. Plus, I won't be accidentally hurting or offending people, and I think that's a good outcome too.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 08:40 pm (UTC)Hmm. I see this, and I think it's true for the most part. I think what bothers me is that a lot of the recent run of fan debates seem to get this feeling of moral judgment - that it's not just about saying, "I like this concept, let me have my fun!" but about saying, "This concept is Good and Pro-Feminist and if you do not support it then you are a bad fan and a bad woman and a bad person."
Which isn't what most people posting are going for, I don't think, and yet the feeling is still there. I think it's because in the current lj environment it's easy for these debates to expand to include all of Fandom, so it becomes less about carving out a niche for your taste in your space, and more about making a point about what you perceive as General Fandom Practice (when of course there is no such thing!)
It's the difference between going, "I don't want char bashing on my journal," which I totally agree with and support; and going, "I don't want to see character bashing anywhere in fandom ever," which I disagree with (even though it seems to put me on the wrong side of the current zeitgeist!)
Incidentally - with lj working the way it does, I don't know how it's possible to avoid such discussions spiraling out to include all of fandom, and I certainly don't believe such discussions shouldn't happen! Especially since I obviously like joining in them, too. I...don't know what I'm saying here, really, except expressing how I end up feeling, personally, and why I end up flailing at a lot of these things even when I largely agree with them...(sometimes with both sides. Makes things difficult ^^;)
My first reaction to having to abandon Mary Sue as a term of critique was "omg, how will I ever express myself???" but what I've realized is that the term (and concept) are a crutch; having to push myself that little bit harder to explain (even if just to myself) what it is about the character that's failing for me as a reader
*laughs* Ahh, and this might be part of my problem, too, because it would never occur to me to just say "This char is a Mary Sue"; I'd always explain why I thought that, what wasn't working and why I thought it was a problem...
...Really, I think I am coming at all this from a strange place, because it occurs to me that as recently as last year I wrote a MUNCLE fic that started with describing the beauty of an OFC and ended with her having a very good night with Napoleon, and it never once occurred to me to worry that she might be assumed to be a Mary Sue. (Admittedly the fic was subtextual Napoleon/Illya, but I was much more concerned about presenting the OFC fairly and not making her out to be just a misogynist prop than I was about getting accused of Mary Sueing....!)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 10:43 pm (UTC)I think what bothers me is that a lot of the recent run of fan debates seem to get this feeling of moral judgment - that it's not just about saying, "I like this concept, let me have my fun!" but about saying, "This concept is Good and Pro-Feminist and if you do not support it then you are a bad fan and a bad woman and a bad person."
mmm ... well, I think there are moral issues in some of it, is the problem. You can't separate morality from fandom; you can't separate your own individual moral choices from your fannish choices. Fandom's a microcosm of the real world, not separate from it. ... and I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but it's awfully close to it.
I see a lot of artists and authors who seem to feel that being an ~*ARTIST*~ and making their ~*ART*~ is entirely separate from being a human being, and, um, no, it's not. ("You can't pass judgment on me for what I just said, because I am a ~*PLUMBER*~!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, I guess ...) Fandom is the same way - we're fans second, human beings first, with all our human emotional baggage, and prejudices and triggers and such.
As a general rule, I think that fandom needs to chill (and practice a bit of Golden Rule, too) when it comes to character preference, shipping preferences, favorite and least favorite tropes, and so forth. But in a lot of areas these things intersect our real-life experiences, making it hard to respond to them with pure logic. And the way that other people react to us in fandom because of those choices (and because of what we let spill over of our RL lives) influences our social experience in fandom too, and that spills back into our lives - it's not as simple as "hey, you go spork newbie writers over there; I'll have my slash-bashing comm over here; you have your x/y pairing comm over there; we'll all be happy!" (And it's also not so simple that someone who does one of those things can be dismissed as a bad person or being out to hurt people, of course.)
The overall culture of fandom, I think, tends to privilege self-expression over kindness - the freedom to be ourselves over trying to minimize our harm on other people. There are a lot of positive aspects to that; I know way more people in fandom than in RL who are "out" in various ways - gay, bisexual, poly, kinky, trans; lots of people who talk openly about having mental illness or food intolerances or practicing a non-mainstream religion or what have you. There's a huge "be you, be proud!" vibe to fandom that I think is really awesome. But the negative flip side is the reluctance of people in fandom to speak up when someone else is engaging in behavior that's hurtful or harmful or even poisonous to the fabric of the fandom as a whole. And I don't know what the answer is, because I hate the idea of fans going around "policing" fandom for inappropriate behavior (and doubt if it would result in a kinder fandom anyway), but the opposite extreme would be no one every critizing anyone else's behavior ever, and there are instances of fannish misbehavior that totally earn every bit of condemnation that's thrown at them.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-22 02:39 am (UTC)You can't separate morality from fandom; you can't separate your own individual moral choices from your fannish choices. Fandom's a microcosm of the real world, not separate from it. ... and I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but it's awfully close to it.
This, yes - I don't think fandom is exempt from morality! But yeah, I've been sounding that way. My bad, definitely not my intent!
On further pondering, what bothers me about the moral arguments is not that they're being made - because hells yeah, fandom has got its Issues, and it'd be immoral for us to ignore them for the sake of entertainment! But at the same time...when Fandom gets into these social responsibility arguments, especially when judging the morality of an aspect of fandom, there's a privileging of the intellectual and the educated over those who don't have the education or the experience to debate fine moral points (or who just don't like getting into debates, or who have more trouble debating online in text vs verbally in real life, etc.) The fangirl who bashes Char X might have valid reasons for feeling how she does, but not the tools to express those reasons to the fangirl who judges her bashing is misogynist and she should cut it out. (Which is again different from the fangirl who says, "I love Char X, and wish she wasn't treated so badly.")
(This is one reason why RaceFail didn't rub me the way a lot of the current meta debates do, because the majority of it was pros on pros, and if you're a professionally published author I expect you to have a certain facility with written self-expression/explanation. Ditto to why I'm okay with intense and even vicious criticism of any pro-published work, because if you put yourself out there like that, you should be ready to stand up for what you print (or else cop to your mistakes.) But fandom doesn't have this barrier, shouldn't have this barrier...)
This, too:
I see a lot of artists and authors who seem to feel that being an ~*ARTIST*~ and making their ~*ART*~ is entirely separate from being a human being, and, um, no, it's not. ("You can't pass judgment on me for what I just said, because I am a ~*PLUMBER*~!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, I guess ...) Fandom is the same way - we're fans second, human beings first, with all our human emotional baggage, and prejudices and triggers and such.
Yes, definitely! And yes, putting the artist above the audience I tend to feel is Wrong (*judge judge judge*).
(Oh, those judgmental Plumbers! "Copper pipes are superior, any fool knows!")
It feels like there's a spectrum - say, at one end, there's me with my crazy OTPs, and you know how I can completely lose my shit when they get messed with. That's totally my problem and not anyone else's, my responsibility to deal it it. And then near the other end of the spectrum there's the woman with triggers such that she can get flashbacks from reading a graphic rape scene, who'd really like her fellow fangirls to warn for such, and that's more fandom's responsibility (IMO anyway). And somewhere in between the two there's a line, between what's personal responsibility and what's fandom's, and I don't know where it is (though I think a lot of this Mary Sue debate is falling in the middle of it...)
Which leads us to this:
I hate the idea of fans going around "policing" fandom for inappropriate behavior (...), but the opposite extreme would be no one every critizing anyone else's behavior ever, and there are instances of fannish misbehavior that totally earn every bit of condemnation that's thrown at them.
Yes, exactly! This is where I keep ending up - wringing my hands going "Can't we all just get along?" and having no idea how to manage that without oppressing* somebody. *joins you in confusion*
* "Oppressing" is not the word I want, as it sounds more facetious than I mean, but I can't figure out the right one! *whacks brain, hoping more vocab falls out*
no subject
Date: 2010-05-21 11:40 pm (UTC)It's not.
People can be so ridiculous sometimes. No one is forced to read anything they don't want to. WHY get one's panties in a twist because someone has written a Mary Sue into THEIR story. Uhm...maybe they are just interesting enough to insert something of themselves in an obvious way and come up with a - *gasp* entertaining story!
It's not my cup of tea, but I certainly don't think anyone who writes a Mary Sue has automatically written a poor, not entertaining story. Thank God whatever it is that you wrote, you did so before you had the stone tablets of "THOU SHALT NOT" were beat over your head!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-22 04:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-22 03:01 pm (UTC)That's right. We ALL take stories personally, but we need not take ALL stories personally. The stories that touch us, set our imagination on fire, stir up memories, make us better, or just plain entertain us when we desperately need it, etc...are stories that we internalize and make personal.
Those in fandom who are the loudest and say the most derisive comments about the Mary Sue type-character, take it as a personal affront that the author wrote the story as though the author wrote it specically to piss them off. That's what I think is silly.
It's a cold, hard fact that while many don't care for it, there are some who do.
Based on my own eperience in fandom, I can tell you this: if one of the really brilliant writers I know in fandom wrote a fic with a Mary Sue it it, there is a good chance that I would actually like it.
I think we can't not. The whole reason why we're in fandom is because we're heavily invested readers. But that means we just have to work extra hard at letting go of trying to micro-manage what other people write, I guess...
True. And don't forget...fandom FIRST is about the right to freedom of self-expression. That someone cares to share their fic only means that those who care to, can enjoy the product too. It is a mistake to think that being in fandom means FIRST writing to please the unknown masses, who believe you me, are more than happy to read your writings and not even acknowledge it in any way, shape, or form.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 05:00 am (UTC)On the other hand though, I know that in some of my initial writings (which will NEVER see the light of day) I had a character that sort of functioned very much like the definition of the Mary Sue. This character though, would pop up in many different fandoms. Eventually, the character bloomed into something entirely different and one that I would say can not be linked to any fandom I follow now.
You mentioned that LouLou's (I like that term, I'm going to keep it I think) seem to appear more with immature writers, and I agree with that observation. I just wonder if it isn't something that we all do initially, until we get better set at creating a universe within the fandom as our own; or maybe that those characters function as the first step to something else.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 07:48 am (UTC)ou mentioned that LouLou's (I like that term, I'm going to keep it I think) seem to appear more with immature writers, and I agree with that observation. I just wonder if it isn't something that we all do initially, until we get better set at creating a universe within the fandom as our own; or maybe that those characters function as the first step to something else.
I think it is - well, not everyone, I know of people who didn't do the self-insert thing. But most folks, yeah, it seems to be a phase. And I think the writers who keep doing it, who don't change focus to other characters, end up developing their avatar/icon into a real character. So the really blatant LouLous are always done by more immature writers, because experienced writers have moved on, in one way or another.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 05:44 am (UTC)See, (keeping in mind I have only gotten into season 2? of SGA) I wouldn't consider Rodney a Marty Stu (you know, Wesley Crusher) because he has the traditional trappings of the go-to-geek (Sherlock Holmes, lots of show leads for 6 episode 'tests') who can save the day but that just about explains why he's not found dead somewhere.
The Peter Parkers etc, that's the Hero trope (ala Campbell) and identification with the hero is a 'standard' model for how boys/men watch/read. There are way more Hero stories than Heroine stories (see Little Man Tate), and there _is_ a problem that female lead characters often are tarred Mary Sue, when they are running right in the footsteps of male protagonists. (Mary Russell for the Laurie King reader.) Now, the Hero trope written poorly can result in a Mary Sue, but everything can be poorly written. Doesn't mean all literature is poor writing.
What is also troubling is how OFCs, and even Canon Female Characters (Sam Carter, anyone?) are 'easily' dismissed as Mary Sue, regardless of how they are handled.
Now, there is an early Star Trek novel, The Enterprise, which is so clearly published fanfic, that there is a flying horse. Seriously. That flying horse however is woven through the various strands of the story that it wouldn't work right without said horse. Is a flying horse wrong in science fiction, when the beast can't soar in 1G? Is it a valid metaphor for science _doing_ before asking whether it _should_ do? (Arch meta intentional.)
Rules get you only so far, after that you have to decide when to break them, which generally requires knowing them well, though naive pluck can work too. (Academy painting vs Impressionism and Cubism come to mind.)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 07:59 am (UTC)The thing that's off about calling a lot of canon FCs Mary Sues is that they're not inserts because they're being written by men (who maybe do want to be inside them, but, uh, not in the same way...!) Though I think the principle stands because there's a perception with some of these characters that they're not being treated as real people, so much as the beloveds of the writers, given all the breaks and Can Do No Wrong. (I honestly adore Sam Carter but at the same time I understand why she gets the 'Sue label, and would have a hard time arguing it's undeserved. Doesn't stop me from loving her, though; one person's Sue is another one's heroine...)
--Which maybe it where we'd want fandom to move to? "Yes, I agree she's a Sue - so what?"
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 08:54 am (UTC)However, I also fully understand if you'd prefer not to - just figured it might not hurt to ask.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 08:59 am (UTC)(also odds are good that I'll come back 'round to OP sooner or later - I still think Odacchi's a genius storyteller of the first caliber, it's just that I've been out of manga for a while and right now am waiting for things to settle a bit to dive back in...)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 10:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 02:52 pm (UTC)and self-doubtingto even have retained the ability to imagine themselves into the setting as the beautiful violet-eyed plot-warping woobie heroine. Instead they imagine themselves in as a secondary character who is clearly stated to be Not Beautiful, but is obviously Very Intelligent, allowed to wander around in the background doing as she pleases, and (key!) is friends with the main characters but Definitely Not Crushing on anyone, and in fact Completely Unimpressed And Resistant To Their Charisma, Really.no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 08:50 pm (UTC)Instead they imagine themselves in as a secondary character who is clearly stated to be Not Beautiful, but is obviously Very Intelligent, allowed to wander around in the background doing as she pleases, and (key!) is friends with the main characters but Definitely Not Crushing on anyone, and in fact Completely Unimpressed And Resistant To Their Charisma, Really.
And they offer advice to the main chars and comfort them through key moments? Hmm, I haven't encountered one of these in fic for a while - they used to be common in some of my older fandoms, though. The "Yenta Sue" who turns up to get characters together sometimes can be in this model. I tend to just ignore them...their main sin is that they're kind of boring (but that's a most heinous crime in entertainment!)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 02:55 pm (UTC)I write MarySues frequently, well, as frequently as I write fanfiction . . . SLOWLY. (though the "OC"s couldn't be more blaintent, I often use my own name) But I use them as a tool to better my writing. I've found that when I move on to write fanfiction without me in them I get the canon character's less OOC than I would without the first "practice-run" I guess I would call it.
Though I suppose I should add that most of these beginning fics are terrible and rarely see the light of day.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 08:54 pm (UTC)And practice-run fics, heh, yeah, I get that totally - it's rare for me to ever post the first thing I write in a fandom, always takes me a bit to settle into new chars.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 03:15 pm (UTC)And with another show I watch (Doctor Who) the male writer has widely been accused of making the female character of Rose Tyler a Mary Sue stand-in for him, so I definely think there are some double standards going in in fandom. Gwen from Torchwood was also accused of being the male writers Mary-Sue. It feels like it's almost a bad thing to have an heroic female character because that's just not realistic and getting into Sue territory, even when you see the male equivalent all the time. And very often the accusations of Mary Sue perfection don't even make much sense because characters like Rose, Gwen, and Chloe from SV (another one who gets called a Mary Sue) very clearly do have flaws. I often see fandom ripping the characters apart for those flaws, at the same time as complaining that they are Mary Sue's and can do no wrong in the eyes of their creators
Honestly I do think that Lana is an example of a canon Mary Sue because the show didn't seem to think she had even done anything wrong in the first place (i.e considering cheating on Whitney in season 1 episodes Cool and Shimmer as her right because Whitney was emotionally distant, considering running off with Clark in Promise because she knew the secret then). If things like that don't even come up as flaws to examine, but as behavior to be hand-waved away because the character is always justified, then fine you've got a Mary Sue there.
But I think the term is far more widely used than it deserves to be, and it almost seems to be a reaction against female characters being the lead characters and getting that focus. I see the attitude with Chloe of how it was fine when she was Clark Kent's sidekick, but now she's got her own thing with watchtower and is telling Clark what to do/failing to always agree with him, there's the grumble of are we watching Clark's show or Chloe's. There does seem to be a real reaction against heroic female characters in the way that there isn't when DW introduces male characters like Captain Jack (can just imagine the outcry if that were a female character) or SV introduces a character like Ollie who became a hero in his own right even without any powers, and has the tragic past with his parents. Fair enough that he's not all that popular with fandom at the moment, but I do suspect he would come in for a lot more hate and name-calling if the GA was a female character who disagreed with Clark and constantly clashed with him
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 09:17 pm (UTC)There does seem to be a real reaction against heroic female characters in the way that there isn't when DW introduces male characters like Captain Jack (can just imagine the outcry if that were a female character) or SV introduces a character like Ollie who became a hero in his own right even without any powers, and has the tragic past with his parents.
This is true, though at the same time I wonder if it's caused at least partly by a change of expectations. If you're watching a show for one hero, you're annoyed when another displaces them. (Case in point, as far as I know the fans who most hated Oliver Queen were Lex fans - myself among them, I admit! - who felt like he was supplanting Lex. But then right now some Lex fans passionately detest Clark, which is counter to nearly any standard fannish behavior...) Heroic female chars do seem to be interpreted as rivals in a way heroic males don't, at least in some shows...in SPN, heroic females chars seem to be perceived as changing the nature of the show in a way heroic males don't.
...Actually that's an interesting thought exercise - if Captain Jack had been female, a wild flirtatious openly bisexual time-traveler, would fandom have loved or reviled her? (admittedly a bisexual woman and a bisexual man come across quite differently in the current social environment. Still, I wonder. I kind of suspect fandom would be deeply divided on the topic...)
The reason I think there's somewhat more going on than just fans hating heroic women is that there are some shows with major female heroes that have strong fan followings. And I've never gotten the impression that Xena fans wished Hercules was the real hero of the show, or that Buffy fans roundly dislike Buffy? And while I haven't more than peeked into Bones fandom, Brennan doesn't seem despised, either. So yeah, it seems like it's not a reaction to heroic females in general, but to specific female chars, and then I gotta wonder what's up with those chars...
no subject
Date: 2010-04-22 12:39 am (UTC)A *lot* of Buffy fandom did hate the Buffy from seasons 6 and 7, and that seemed to mainly be related to her treatment of Spike. But I don't think that was a Mary Sue issue no, so much as fandom objecting to the writers making her character too dark. I've seen Mary Sue accusations more aimed at Willow in that fandom, although they're still pretty rare. (And Xander is Joss's acknowledged self-insert for that show). And I've never followed Xena closely but, from what I understand, Xena was always popular but Gabrielle came in for a lot of hate during the first few seasons. So in the cases of characters of Gabrielle, Willow, and Chloe maybe it's more of the dorky sidekick thing that people are reacting against as an obvious self-insert for the fans?
And with DW I've always thought that a character that could be seen as closer to a Mary Sue (although I don't think she is) is Martha. She was intelligent and well-educated, helped to save the world at the end of season 3, was the companion with the strength to walk away from the Doctor and start a fabulous career. I can name the flaws of Rose or Donna far quicker than I could Martha's, and yet Martha has avoided the Mary Sue hate. Ditto Gwen who has a lot more obvioulous flaws than Tosh, yet it's Gwen that's called the Mary Sue. So yeah the definition of Mary Sue does seem to vary widely as it's not always attached to successful and flawless characters by any means. I suppose a lot of it is about how other characters react to them
no subject
Date: 2010-04-22 03:03 am (UTC)I suppose a lot of it is about how other characters react to them
This is a really good point, one that I probably should've emphasized more. I know for me, this tends to be what I mean when I call a char a Sue, more than any other quality - those chars who are liked/loved who I don't feel deserve it. Obviously this is rather subjective, because chars who I like who get love don't bother me - I liked Rose, so the Doctor loving her didn't annoy me. And then on the other side, while I didn't love TW's Gwen, I never hated her, either, and part of it was because she didn't particularly feel like she was treated that specially to me (even though a lot of TW fans seem to feel otherwise.)
And then there was Dawn in Buffy, who I couldn't stand, and a lot of it was because she was loved and I simply didn't feel she was worth it - but she's a very strange case because that was the whole conflict of her character, that everyone had literally been brainwashed into, not adoring her, but caring about her...didn't make me like her any better, though :P
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 05:59 pm (UTC)First: this is a really cool discussion! The Mary Sue term does get thrown around an awful lot, agreed. And sometimes I feel people may forget that wish-fulfillment may not necessarily always be so bad - and in fact, there's probably a bit of wishfulfillment in the depiction of their favourite characters, too.
Mary Sue, use #1: My introduction to the world of fanfiction was the Ranma 1/2 internet fandom as it was in the late 90s and early 00s (I started to read/lurk in 2000, but got back into archives for canon discussions, fic discussions etc as well as for fanfics). In those days, a lot of Ranma writers were guys (or claimed to be ;p): looking back, it's my impression that at least half of the BNFs were men, and they certainly tended to argue the most. Possibly relatedly, I also remember that yaoi (it was never called "slash") was rather rare and usually warned for, while yuri was relatively common and didn't seem to require a warning. Funnily enough, many oh-so-amazing OCs were also male characters. ;)
Instead of "Mary Sue", a term more in use back there for the same deal was "ANC", which had nothing to do with Nelson Mandela but stood for "Annoying New Character". I think that term had maybe a slightly lower flavour of accusing the writer of making an idealised wish-fulfilling self-insert, but instead said "Hey, this person's stealing all of the spotlight and is kind of annoying, we'd rather read more about the canon cast, kthnx?" On the downside (besides being geopolitically dubious), the term might have led people to be a bit too suspicious of new characters, even non-annoying ones.
(Incidentally, years later I was one of the betas for an epic fanfic written by two veterans of this fandom, which set out to deconstruct both the self-insert and the multicrossover genres, but at the same time prove you could make something interesting and challenging with self-inserts. I'm biased, but I think they succeeded. However, now that that story is written, I find it hard to think of what another good self-insert might be like...)
Mary Sue, use #2: I never liked the use of Sue for canon stories, especially not for works with a single creator. Even if you want to discuss overly perfect and/or overly accommodated characters that seem way too similar to the author, I think they should be called something different. I used to see the term "Author Avatar", but TV Tropes has a quite different denotation for that term, which frankly seems to make more sense. "Authorial Darlings" seems good - but I feel main and supporting characters should still be distinguished. I feel it makes a difference if the world is supposed to bend around your character in the first place, if they're the hero.
Take Book-Mary Poppins, for instance. In her canon, it would be OOC for her to lose and fail. She's the sun's god-daughter. She alone remembers the secret of being born and how to speak with the animals that all other humans forget as babies. The sun and the planets bow down to her! Not only is she never in any real danger, but there's no question that she will prevail in any situation - the question is just how. Nobody has a hope in hell of getting the better of her.
But then again, she's not supposed to be a complex, psychologically convincing person; and certainly not someone you can identify with. She's meant to be a creature of mythology - the formidable, prim & proper, invincible Nanny-Goddess, who stirs up wonders and protects the children. Who is also ridiculously vain and can be downright unpleasant to her charges at times, undermining their self-esteem and sense of truth. Readers may or may not care for that kind of character, but just calling her a Canon Sue as some might feels wildly irrelevant to me. (But maybe this is a dumb example - I've never seen the term used wrt Mary Poppins, after all.)
additional comment (confession time much?)
Date: 2010-04-21 06:27 pm (UTC)...hmm, come to think of it, when I first started writing stuff that could be called approaching fanfiction, they featured my very ideosyncratic version of a post-death Judas Iscariot conversing with various characters from the Sandman and Hellblazer comic books. So, uh, I dunno. Make of that what you will. ^_^ I was an adult, and there was philosophy and stuff - and I probably would still defend those attempts as reasonably respectful and even-handed - but I can't say the character didn't warp stuff around him, or had no (admittedly weird) wish-fulfillment qualities.
Re: additional comment (confession time much?)
Date: 2010-04-21 09:30 pm (UTC)And oh man, I never knew the Mary Poppins mythology - I think I read one book of it but my library didn't have more? Or something...that's kind of awesome.
And when I was a kid, long before I was online or even knew what fandom or fanfic was, I had a huge bunch of "Mary Sue" type chars - original chars in my original imagination game stuff (I had a couple massive and complex imaginary realms, and I was the queen/literal second coming in my major one. I did not dream small ^^;) and also chars in fandom - my Star Trek avatar, for instance, was of a felinoid species and was close friends with Spock & Kirk, and yeah, I planned to write a Star Trek novel with her. And of course I had my own Pernese dragon.
But by the time I got online and started writing fic, I had already outgrown these ideas - I don't recall being told not to write Mary Sues, I just never did, because it wasn't what I wanted to write anymore. I do think that if I'd been online when I was younger, that I would've written them - and maybe read them, too, and liked them! - but I don't know that that would really have changed much of my fan trajectory, except that I'd have even more fics out there to be vaguely proud/embarrassed of ^^;
but I can't say the character didn't warp stuff around him, or had no (admittedly weird) wish-fulfillment qualities.
Most fanfic warps stuff in some ways, and is wish-fulfilling, that's why we do it! The trick to a successful fanfic is warping stuff in directions that a significant percentage of other fans want to see it warped (e.g. making a seemingly straight char gay & in love with his best friend.) Mary Sues get rejected because a lot of fans don't want to see canon warped about a char who they don't identify with/just don't like...
Re: additional comment (confession time much?)
Date: 2010-04-24 07:29 pm (UTC)(I had a couple massive and complex imaginary realms, and I was the queen/literal second coming in my major one. I did not dream small ^^;)
Oh, I most definitely had such daydreams, too! But for those I mostly made up my own fantasy world, though it was very derivative of what I'd read. I had a pretty flying horse, was very agile and overall athletic, could fence well, and was even actually a princess with royal parents (not that I disliked my real parents, but they didn't fit into the imaginary realm); cool friends who all had their own horses, etc etc. And I wasn't the real me but had a different name and looked much cooler and more adventurous. So yeah. ;)
I think I'd outgrown the most blatant of these when I came into my teens, but I'm not positive about it. Anyway, the Internet wasn't really around back then (that I knew of), and I had no idea the phenomenon of fanfiction even existed. Which I'm glad about now.
Or else I might actually have written/drawn that weird-ass "The Peanuts Characters Are All Grown Up And Lead Very Dark & Dramatic Lives" I was daydreaming of... oy veh.You know, I followed that link about "Wottaguy" in Elfquest, and the more I think about it, the more I like the term and how it's defined in that post. Of course, it's gendered too...
Re: additional comment (confession time much?)
Date: 2010-04-24 09:48 pm (UTC)I was actually an animal (anthropomorphic, usually) in pretty much all my fantasies until I was ten or so, which means I get lots of flack from my siblings now about being a furry ^^;;
You know, I followed that link about "Wottaguy" in Elfquest, and the more I think about it, the more I like the term and how it's defined in that post. Of course, it's gendered too...
I like Wottaguy myself! And it's not nearly as gendered as Mary Sue, since it has "Wottagirl" as a feminine form (while as with Sues, there isn't even an agreed upon masculine form, I've seen "Marty Stu" and "Gary Sue/Stu" about equally...)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 07:53 pm (UTC)As for types two and three... Honestly, I think they can be combined. Because "Mary Sue" is a negative. We're not just talking about an "everyman" or a "hero" (as #2 describes) but a hero or everyman who fails. And the reason for that failure could be because of #3 (as the author's darling they warp the world, for example) or for something else, but the important point is, they've failed to come across as their creator meant them to.
Of course, that sort of failure isn't limited to the types of characters in #2. They can be a sidekick or special guest star or what have you. I think the important bit is in the fact they've failed and also in how badly they've failed. Quoting from my last reply to you in our discussion: "It's a character that sets the audience's teeth on edge, right? Not just a character that doesn't quite work, but one that crosses over into "flames! flames on the sides of my face! breathing heaving breaths!" type of does-not-work."
I have no idea what sort of name to give that type of character-fail. I do think it needs to be descriptive, like SitLR, so that the issue is right there in the name. I strongly believe it needs to be genderless. And it'd be nice if it showed that there was some personal opinion going on there (one person's character-fail is another person's darling, after all). So maybe something that suggests the emotional aspect of the failure? What I'll probably end up doing (because I've decided to not use "Mary Sue" anymore... we'll see if I can stick to it *g*) is use various terms and phrases until one sticks with me. Or until someone else comes up with something brilliant like seekergeek with SitLR. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 09:33 pm (UTC)Total agreement here - especially on the personal opinion factor. Really I wish fans were better about saying, "I think that char is a Mary Sue" or "That char comes across like a Mary Sue to me" anyway - because heck, any opinion about a fandom is just that, an opinion, and I wish fans in general were more respectful of opposing opinions - but if that was implicit in the phrase, so much the better!
(If you come up with anything, let me know - I'm serious, I want a replacement word!)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-25 02:58 pm (UTC)I don't have anything eloquent to say or add to the discussion yet. This is really just me thanking you for giving me more info and food for thought and a bit of incoherent babbling about my thoughts.
I pretty much fall under the category of, I read it for the canon characters. I don't mind original characters because they can sometimes allow me to see interactions that just won't happen with other canon characters for some reason or another.
As far as turning canon characters into Mary Sues, I'm reminded of a review of a fanfiction in which the reviewer was generally positive about the writing, but made a comment about not liking the concept of one of the characters was given a new type of magic that hadn't existed - went from a water mage to also a storm mage essentially. It struck me as odd because in the source material, a stone mage also became a metal mage, when there was no such thing beforehand.
I'm not sure where I'm going with that, but it's also sitting in there as my opinions are percolating.
I'm very undecided. I think people can be way too vicious about other people's ideas. You won't see me sharing my self insert or fulfillment fantasies, not because I'm prudent or anything, but because I'm a coward. I have a lot of respect for the girl that puts her Mary Sue story out there, even if I don't really want to read it. At the same time, I hate it when someone writing a 'Mary Sue' story acts like they've achieved the pinnacle of literary genius.
One fandom that has really made me think lately is Dragon Age: Origins fanfiction. Because the main character's appearance, gender and abilities are fluid, (and there's several back histories to choose from) there's a lot of almost entirely original characters. A lot. Thing is, some of them are good - characters developed using the world and history provided. Some of them are shameless self inserts that make me hit the back button like mad. And I can't tell which are which before I read the story. In other fandoms, it's pretty obvious just from the summary if there's an OC prominently featured, so I can avoid it.
The fact that I used the word shameless self insert is probably significant. I don't really want the person to be ashamed of their writing. I guess I just want an awareness that the story is a personal fantasy and self fulfillment, and while some people may want to share that fantasy, others won't want to, so they shouldn't try to pass it off as a normal fanfic or justify it.
Oooh! Canon Mary Sues - Anything written by Laurell K. Hamilton. Her main characters all physically resemble her, develop insane world breaking powers and get laid by multiple attractive men. She also writes in the first person.
I don't like her Anita Blake series - because Anita started off a relatively normal powered human with definite leanings towards monogamy who hunted monsters, but over the course of the books became a hyper-sexed, what the heck is monogamy, oh its got fur or fangs so I'll bang it character with near godlike powers. Not my cup of tea.
Conversely, I do like her Merry Gentry series, in which the main character has godlike powers and a harem of sexy males. Why? Because that's how it started out, and it made no bones about it.
/end stream of consciousness
In summary, I want the people writing Mary Sues to be upfront and unapologetic about the fact that they're writing a Mary Sue, and not have it passed off as something else. I don't want them to try to justify it - because they shouldn't have to do so. They are perfectly within their rights to write and post it. Just as I'm perfectly within my rights to read it or not.
And uh, I don't think you know me. Sorry for just poking my head in. Err, hi? I'm a chronic random fandom lurker who is now randomly lurking around your journal.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-25 06:56 pm (UTC)Mmm, yes, this is true for me as well. Most of the time when I invent OCs it's to provide a new perspective on a canon char. To be honest I tend to avoid developing my OCs that much because if I'm going to be developing original chars, I'd prefer they were in my own original fic. But I don't think there's anything wrong with creating OCs for whatever reasons; it's a different way to engage with a fandom's canon than what I do, but that doesn't make it wrong...
I don't really want the person to be ashamed of their writing. I guess I just want an awareness that the story is a personal fantasy and self fulfillment, and while some people may want to share that fantasy, others won't want to, so they shouldn't try to pass it off as a normal fanfic or justify it.
Well, see, with this, I'd want to say that self-inserts are "normal fanfic" - considering how many fans write them, they're not abnormal! But they are a particular genre that many fans aren't interested in reading. Which is why I think it's reasonable that we have a label for them - same as we have "gen" and "slash" and "het" and "death-fic" and "aliens made them do it" - it's not that any of these are shameful, but it's useful to be able to mark them...
In summary, I want the people writing Mary Sues to be upfront and unapologetic about the fact that they're writing a Mary Sue, and not have it passed off as something else. I don't want them to try to justify it - because they shouldn't have to do so. They are perfectly within their rights to write and post it. Just as I'm perfectly within my rights to read it or not.
Yes, this! The trouble, however, is that distinguishing a "Mary Sue" (or whichever label) from a "regular" OC is difficult and somewhat subjective (especially in a case like Dragon Age) and younger, newer fans aren't going to be as familiar with the terms anyway...and right now, with the bias against Mary Sue, older fans are less likely to cop to doing it anyway.
So I don't want to lose the label (even if I think it would be better if it were gender-neutral) but I wish it would lose some of its more negative, shameful interpretations...now we just gotta figure out *how* to do this!
(and welcome to my lj - babbling and thoughts-sorting is always welcome! I rarely know exactly where I stand on any fannish issue myself, so like to hear plenty of opinions as I'm working out my own thoughts...)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 06:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 09:53 am (UTC)