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: 2010-04-22 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