The Mary Sue: History and Context

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-GIY9RTqU

I could talk about what does or doesn't make a Mary Sue, but this content creator did a much better job of it. I'd suggest watching her nine-minute video for everyone who uses the term or argues with people using it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Very interesting. Will watch. But as of yet, I still think it's silly that people go such lengths to discredit a story based on whether Luke or Rey fits the description pinned upon a fan fic anecdotal rendition of a Starfleet ensign.

[MixedDrops]

I'm glad she brought up the really obvious sexist implications of the term, but I don't understand the creator's subsequent suggestion to update the definition of the term. Aside from people constantly using it basically to mean "character I don't like (who is almost always female)", I see little point to the term if you're just going to change it so much that it's almost completely unrecognizable from its original form. By this creator's criteria, for example, she states a Mary Sue:

1. Is not an overpowered character

Okay, fine. A character can be powerful without being a Sue.

2. Is not a poorly written character

Very important point. A poorly written character and whatever the fuck a Sue is shouldn't be synonymous terms, otherwise the term is useless.

3. Is a character who has too much focus on them and draws attention away from others

My biggest problem here is that she does the usual thing people do with the term, and provide incredibly vague criteria and cites examples where you can argue for this line of thinking either way. Main characters by their nature get the most attention because that's how...stories are written. Obviously ensemble casts exist, but following that logic to its extreme means any story that's not an ensemble contains a Sue.

She used Goku in DBZ as an example of a powerful character who is not a Sue. Except Goku gets plenty of focus, he's a super-special Saiyan who was the only one who could go Super Saiyan (obviously later on this changed, but Goku is usually the one has powers other do not have). Mind you, I don't consider any of these as indications he's a Sue, but rather that these are just traits he has because that's the answer to the question, "Why are we following the story of Goku in this universe, rather than someone else?"

She uses the secondary cast as an argument against that, but I don't see how that's a useful argument at all. Why would the existence or quality of writing thereof have anything to do with Goku's quality as a character in isolation?

I dunno, if we're going to spend so much time sitting around arguing about what the term actually means, maybe stop using it if you want to have an actually productive critical discussion about a character. As it is, it's nothing but a worthless snarl word.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well it's like when the only working definition of Mary Sue is Mary Sue the character herself, then it becomes ridiculous as a concept.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

Before watching the video-

To me, the term was, at one time, decent enough shorthand to describe a certain type of fictional character. Now, there's so much debate and controversy over its meaning and how it should be employed that it's no longer useful terminology for fair-minded criticism. A loaded term that clouds the issue and leads down a bunch of rabbit trails not directly connected to the issue at hand is no longer useful shorthand. That's not to say that I think everyone who uses the term is a sexist or whatever- but for my money it's not worth trying to salvage it.

For example, the seemingly never-ending debate over whether Rey is a Mary Sue is pretty wrong-headed imo. It makes more sense to get right to the point and ask if she's a well-written, interesting character, and to examine directly if there's issues with her character arc and development. I think Rey does have some issues as a character, which makes it tempting for some to wield the term Mary Sue as a club... but I don't think it's helpful for irenic dialogue.

[clearspira]

Regardless of th original meaning of the term, it has become to mean a character that is too perfect to be believable. Everyone likes her except jealous bitches - even the villain, she does not have to work for her skills and status all that hard, she is beautiful yet humble about It etc. That does describe Rey.

And it isn't only women. There are many who call Eragon a Gary Stu. The difference is that men tend to be allowed flaws, whereas nowadays we are into the women need role models bs.

[Simplicius]

3. Is a character who has too much focus on them and draws attention away from others

My biggest problem here is that she does the usual thing people do with the term, and provide incredibly vague criteria and cites examples where you can argue for this line of thinking either way. Main characters by their nature get the most attention because that's how...stories are written. Obviously ensemble casts exist, but following that logic to its extreme means any story that's not an ensemble contains a Sue.

She used Goku in DBZ as an example of a powerful character who is not a Sue. Except Goku gets plenty of focus, he's a super-special Saiyan who was the only one who could go Super Saiyan (obviously later on this changed, but Goku is usually the one has powers other do not have). Mind you, I don't consider any of these as indications he's a Sue, but rather that these are just traits he has because that's the answer to the question, "Why are we following the story of Goku in this universe, rather than someone else?"

She uses the secondary cast as an argument against that, but I don't see how that's a useful argument at all. Why would the existence or quality of writing thereof have anything to do with Goku's quality as a character in isolation?

This is becomes it's a fan-fiction term. It's a character inserted into a story, implausibly drawing the focus of the main characters. That's why it has value as a term because it suits the audience for fan-fiction (who typically want to read about the characters from the source material rather than original characters - when an original character becomes the focus of the story, to an absurd extent, then it's pretty much garuanteed that a typical reader will reject the story).

The term only has much relevance outside of fanworks, then, when you're talking about Hollywood's obsession with the soft reboot (a reboot disguised as a continuation).

Rey's interactions with Han Solo and Leia in TFA are downright bizarre with the revelations about her parentage given in TLJ. It's those interactions with the originals (characters the audience is far more interested in) that peg her as a Sue.

However, because most of the people using the term got it from Max Landis (who is just flat out mistaken about what it means), they tend to focus on her over-powered nature. What they're actually describing is cipher (a flat character who exists primarily to advance the plot), without realising that that describes all of the new protagonists.

Spoilers for TLJ:

One thing that struck me with Rey was the throne room scene. She goes from being totally powerless against Snoke, who is rendered totally powerless by Ren, but then goes back to clearly being more than a match for Ren himself. The truth is her power level, or what ever, is entirely plot dependent, as is Snoke's, as is Ren's. Hilariously, Snoke actually gives an in-universe explanation for this (basically the Force is in complete control at all times and just hands buffs and debuffs whenever necessary to keep the conflict between force-users going in perpetuity - the characters literally don't matter in the slightest because victory is impossible).

In TFA, Finn goes from a PTSD-sufferer to a dude-bro to a thirsty buffoon, then goes through Han Solo's ANH arc at light speed. In TLJ he starts off with bizarre slapstick comedy, then reverts to his pre-arc TFA persona but evolves into a determined self-sacrificial hero. He's not a character, he has no consistent trait (sometimes cowardly, sometimes brave, sometimes funny, sometimes serious - that hardly describes a unique individual).

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Regardless of th original meaning of the term, it has become to mean a character that is too perfect to be believable. Everyone likes her except jealous bitches - even the villain, she does not have to work for her skills and status all that hard, she is beautiful yet humble about It etc. That does describe Rey.

And it isn't only women. There are many who call Eragon a Gary Stu. The difference is that men tend to be allowed flaws, whereas nowadays we are into the women need role models bs.

To make sure I don't duplicate points, did you watch the video?

[Darth Wedgius]

I think the video is a fair take on the phenomenon. I like some practically flawless characters (Superman is super-powerful and super-nice and super-noble, but then he's supposed to be inspiring) and some characters that the setting revolves around (the Doctor comes to mind), but they do leave room for other characters to have stories.

I don't know if I'd call this the best definition of a sue, but I do think it's as good as any I've heard.

[Yukaphile]

Here's an example of a Sue. A God Sue. Tobias from Pokemon. He is given no buildup, he literally just storms in, has two Legendary Pokemon somehow without explanation, and curbstomps Ash. Many people felt it was like a gamer playing on god mode cheats to deprive Ash of yet another win, and that's not far off.