![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recently, a friend posted a link to this article:
Mary Sue what are you? Or why the concept of Sue is sexist.
I disagree.
The post starts by describing a female Batman and claiming that such a character would be a Mary Sue. There's some truth to that. You could do the same with Superman. Or Rainbow Brite. Or Jem. Or pretty much any main character whose original target audience was prepubescent kids. Such characters tend to be simple, clear-cut power fantasies with few or no flaws. All the good people love them and immediately recognize their innate goodness. And so on. Because they're aimed at kids.
Alternatively, you could say the same of James Bond. But no one ever claimed James Bond was anything other than a turn-your-brain-off-and-grab-the-popcorn fantasy. James Bond is very much a Mary Sue, in fact. Created by a spy who wanted to glamorize and romanticize his profession. Try to emulate Bond or think you're Bond, and you immediately become laughable.
The thing is that there are different kinds of Mary Sues. The first article I ever read about Mary Sue made a point to explain that being a Mary Sue isn't inherently a bad thing. There are good Mary Sues out there.
Contrast Superman with a character from a fanfic written about the Lois and Clark TV show. The fic's author was an amateur potter. Her character was a clay sculptor. A world-famous sculptor whose renown outshone Cristo or Caulder or any other modern sculptor you could name. Of course, she has a dreadful disability; she's blind. Which only serves to make her all the more impressive. She meets Clark and Superman and, being a blind sculptor, learns their looks by feeling their faces (a cliche/trope which many actual blind people find stupid and offensive, and which is Not Done in the real world). Instantly, she sees what literally everyone else in the world has missed: that Clark Kent is Superman. This is early season L&C, when Clark was desperately paranoid about anyone getting even close to his secret and the walls Lois Lane put up around herself had walls around them with spikes and barbed wire and a moat filled with crocodiles. But our brave sculptor instantly becomes best friend and trusted confidante to both Lois and Clark, sees that they're perfect for each other, and sets up a little trap which successfully circumvents two years' worth of angst and missteps to bring them together as a happy and loving couple. All this while an international criminal organization is targeting all its resources on hunting down poor Mary Sue.
(The best part about all of this is that the author, in the midst of writing another sequel about the same Mary Sue, came into a comment thread about Mary Sue to explain exactly what Mary Sue was and why she was so horrible... somehow never seeing that her extensive checklist described her own character to a tee.)
The Clark Kent of the show... well, he was a good guy. Handsome, powerful, idealistic. But flawed. With much to learn. He had some trouble finding his place in the world, and he made some pretty big mistakes along the way. Mary Sue the sculptor, on the other hand, warps the entire established universe around herself. Everything is about her, and the people around her will act wildly out of character to make it so.
But what about male Mary Sues? The bad kind? If anyone doubts Gary Stu (as I've generally seen Mary Sue's brother called) exists, you can tell them that Gene Wesley Roddenberry had one. And if you doubt that he was as reviled as his female counterparts, you can ask Wil Wheaton about the bags of hate mail he received every week.
Wesley Crusher is a boy genius who, despite still being in the equivalent of high school, knows everything about everything. The captain, who is very uncomfortable around children and is very strict about not letting people on the bridge without serious legitimate reason, comes in the span of a single episode to invite Wes not just onto the bridge but to actually sit in the captain's chair (something he never invited anyone else to do and actively frowned upon when anyone tried to do it without permission). Wesley knows the ship's systems better than the chief engineer. Whenever he's around, he is automatically the center of attention. He can solve any problem. Which is good because the adults, who seem quite capable at any other time, become stupid and helpless whenever Wes is involved. Later, Wes meets The Traveler, an alien who recognizes Wes as special, with a mind that outstrips any other human (or Vulcan, Romulan, or other similar species) in its potential and its grasp of the true fundamental nature of the universe. He's everything that people hate about Mary Sue, and they hated him just as much even though he was male.
But what happens when we take the same show and put it deep underwater? SeaQuest: DSV introduced us to a boy named Lucas. Lucas is a boy genius who is better with computers than just about anyone on the planet. Despite sneaking onboard for the launch of the titular submarine, the captain quickly comes to accept him and depend on him. In that sense, he is very much Wesley's counterpart. But Lucas makes mistakes. Sometimes he trips over his own ego. He knows computers better than anyone on the ship, but he doesn't have advanced knowledge of anyone else's job. There's an episode in which Lucas builds a prototype submarine to compete for a military contract. it's one of the episodes which spotlights him and his abilities. But Lucas doesn't do it alone. He works with another member of the crew. And, in the end, he fails because of a critical and basic design flaw. Lucas flounders, trying to figure out what went wrong, and the captain points out what should have been a glaring error. When Lucas angrily confronts him for not having helped, the captain explains that he'd have been happy to, if he'd been asked. But Lucas was so cocksure that, even knowing his friend the captain was a renowned expert in submarine design, he never asked for help or even considered that his genius might have missed something. It's more than that, though. Lucas is a part of the crew. He gets the spotlight now and then, but not always. Sometimes, he's just in the background. A supporting character.
The problem with Mary Sue is not one of gender but one of quality and maturity of writing. There can be good Mary Sues. There can be male Mary Sues (or Gary Stu or Marty Stu or whatever you want to call him).
Even transparent Mary Sues can have their place, depending on the audience. Kids love Jar Jar Binks and Scrappy Doo and all sorts of cheesy kid sidekicks, the "relatable" characters who get to run around with the grown-up heroes. (Not Mary Sues for the authors, but projected Mary Sues for the younger members of the audience.) But adults hate those characters. Because it's immature writing. Want to sell a Mary Sue to an adult? Write well, acknowledge the fantasy, and be prepared to give the character some depth and flaws. That's when you get Batman (at least, some versions of him).
Now, why is it that Wonder Woman, symbol of female independence and empowerment, has frequently been shown being tied up and subdued by men? Why is it that just about any other female character you can name is called "girl" and is a knock-off of a better-known male character? Why is it that Womanthology needed to be crowdfunded... or that it needed to exist at all? Why is it that Barbie having a prestigious and intellectual career like astronaut invites laughter and derision? Why is it that Wonder Woman and Superman, who both have idealized bodies, both have bodies which suit the male ideal (as explained in this comic)? Why is it that James Bond gets movies by the dozen while female counterparts (Halle Berry's Jinx or Cate Dermody's female spy novels) get little attention?
All that comes down to sexism, plain and simple, and no shortage of it. But that's not what (the bad kind of) Mary Sue is about. Mary Sue is about sloppy, lazy, and most of all immature writing. (All of which, it should be noted, are subjective calls. And, again, very much context-sensitive.)
The original poster says that there's nothing wrong with a power fantasy, but that girls are discouraged from having them. That's another matter, I think. That's not why people talk about Mary Sue. Mary Sue is about poor writing. She's about a very specific and recurrent type of poor writing with recognizable symptoms. You're entitled to your fantasies. Everyone has them. But when you write them up and release them to the public as literature, you open yourself up to public criticism. And it doesn't help the author any to say that the story is in some way poorly written rather than to say that it's a Mary Sue story. It just makes the criticism more vague and confusing.
How do we make things better, more even for girls? We encourage things like Womanthology. Show them that women can write well, show them that women can be powerful, show them that women can be important, show them that women have a better place in fiction and fantasy. If you call them out for writing a Mary Sue, don't just tell them they're wrong for indulging their fantasies. Give them constructive criticism so that they can see how to improve their writing. But sweeping Mary Sue under the rug isn't going to help.
Mary Sue what are you? Or why the concept of Sue is sexist.
I disagree.
The post starts by describing a female Batman and claiming that such a character would be a Mary Sue. There's some truth to that. You could do the same with Superman. Or Rainbow Brite. Or Jem. Or pretty much any main character whose original target audience was prepubescent kids. Such characters tend to be simple, clear-cut power fantasies with few or no flaws. All the good people love them and immediately recognize their innate goodness. And so on. Because they're aimed at kids.
Alternatively, you could say the same of James Bond. But no one ever claimed James Bond was anything other than a turn-your-brain-off-and-grab-the-popcorn fantasy. James Bond is very much a Mary Sue, in fact. Created by a spy who wanted to glamorize and romanticize his profession. Try to emulate Bond or think you're Bond, and you immediately become laughable.
The thing is that there are different kinds of Mary Sues. The first article I ever read about Mary Sue made a point to explain that being a Mary Sue isn't inherently a bad thing. There are good Mary Sues out there.
Contrast Superman with a character from a fanfic written about the Lois and Clark TV show. The fic's author was an amateur potter. Her character was a clay sculptor. A world-famous sculptor whose renown outshone Cristo or Caulder or any other modern sculptor you could name. Of course, she has a dreadful disability; she's blind. Which only serves to make her all the more impressive. She meets Clark and Superman and, being a blind sculptor, learns their looks by feeling their faces (a cliche/trope which many actual blind people find stupid and offensive, and which is Not Done in the real world). Instantly, she sees what literally everyone else in the world has missed: that Clark Kent is Superman. This is early season L&C, when Clark was desperately paranoid about anyone getting even close to his secret and the walls Lois Lane put up around herself had walls around them with spikes and barbed wire and a moat filled with crocodiles. But our brave sculptor instantly becomes best friend and trusted confidante to both Lois and Clark, sees that they're perfect for each other, and sets up a little trap which successfully circumvents two years' worth of angst and missteps to bring them together as a happy and loving couple. All this while an international criminal organization is targeting all its resources on hunting down poor Mary Sue.
(The best part about all of this is that the author, in the midst of writing another sequel about the same Mary Sue, came into a comment thread about Mary Sue to explain exactly what Mary Sue was and why she was so horrible... somehow never seeing that her extensive checklist described her own character to a tee.)
The Clark Kent of the show... well, he was a good guy. Handsome, powerful, idealistic. But flawed. With much to learn. He had some trouble finding his place in the world, and he made some pretty big mistakes along the way. Mary Sue the sculptor, on the other hand, warps the entire established universe around herself. Everything is about her, and the people around her will act wildly out of character to make it so.
But what about male Mary Sues? The bad kind? If anyone doubts Gary Stu (as I've generally seen Mary Sue's brother called) exists, you can tell them that Gene Wesley Roddenberry had one. And if you doubt that he was as reviled as his female counterparts, you can ask Wil Wheaton about the bags of hate mail he received every week.
Wesley Crusher is a boy genius who, despite still being in the equivalent of high school, knows everything about everything. The captain, who is very uncomfortable around children and is very strict about not letting people on the bridge without serious legitimate reason, comes in the span of a single episode to invite Wes not just onto the bridge but to actually sit in the captain's chair (something he never invited anyone else to do and actively frowned upon when anyone tried to do it without permission). Wesley knows the ship's systems better than the chief engineer. Whenever he's around, he is automatically the center of attention. He can solve any problem. Which is good because the adults, who seem quite capable at any other time, become stupid and helpless whenever Wes is involved. Later, Wes meets The Traveler, an alien who recognizes Wes as special, with a mind that outstrips any other human (or Vulcan, Romulan, or other similar species) in its potential and its grasp of the true fundamental nature of the universe. He's everything that people hate about Mary Sue, and they hated him just as much even though he was male.
But what happens when we take the same show and put it deep underwater? SeaQuest: DSV introduced us to a boy named Lucas. Lucas is a boy genius who is better with computers than just about anyone on the planet. Despite sneaking onboard for the launch of the titular submarine, the captain quickly comes to accept him and depend on him. In that sense, he is very much Wesley's counterpart. But Lucas makes mistakes. Sometimes he trips over his own ego. He knows computers better than anyone on the ship, but he doesn't have advanced knowledge of anyone else's job. There's an episode in which Lucas builds a prototype submarine to compete for a military contract. it's one of the episodes which spotlights him and his abilities. But Lucas doesn't do it alone. He works with another member of the crew. And, in the end, he fails because of a critical and basic design flaw. Lucas flounders, trying to figure out what went wrong, and the captain points out what should have been a glaring error. When Lucas angrily confronts him for not having helped, the captain explains that he'd have been happy to, if he'd been asked. But Lucas was so cocksure that, even knowing his friend the captain was a renowned expert in submarine design, he never asked for help or even considered that his genius might have missed something. It's more than that, though. Lucas is a part of the crew. He gets the spotlight now and then, but not always. Sometimes, he's just in the background. A supporting character.
The problem with Mary Sue is not one of gender but one of quality and maturity of writing. There can be good Mary Sues. There can be male Mary Sues (or Gary Stu or Marty Stu or whatever you want to call him).
Even transparent Mary Sues can have their place, depending on the audience. Kids love Jar Jar Binks and Scrappy Doo and all sorts of cheesy kid sidekicks, the "relatable" characters who get to run around with the grown-up heroes. (Not Mary Sues for the authors, but projected Mary Sues for the younger members of the audience.) But adults hate those characters. Because it's immature writing. Want to sell a Mary Sue to an adult? Write well, acknowledge the fantasy, and be prepared to give the character some depth and flaws. That's when you get Batman (at least, some versions of him).
Now, why is it that Wonder Woman, symbol of female independence and empowerment, has frequently been shown being tied up and subdued by men? Why is it that just about any other female character you can name is called "girl" and is a knock-off of a better-known male character? Why is it that Womanthology needed to be crowdfunded... or that it needed to exist at all? Why is it that Barbie having a prestigious and intellectual career like astronaut invites laughter and derision? Why is it that Wonder Woman and Superman, who both have idealized bodies, both have bodies which suit the male ideal (as explained in this comic)? Why is it that James Bond gets movies by the dozen while female counterparts (Halle Berry's Jinx or Cate Dermody's female spy novels) get little attention?
All that comes down to sexism, plain and simple, and no shortage of it. But that's not what (the bad kind of) Mary Sue is about. Mary Sue is about sloppy, lazy, and most of all immature writing. (All of which, it should be noted, are subjective calls. And, again, very much context-sensitive.)
The original poster says that there's nothing wrong with a power fantasy, but that girls are discouraged from having them. That's another matter, I think. That's not why people talk about Mary Sue. Mary Sue is about poor writing. She's about a very specific and recurrent type of poor writing with recognizable symptoms. You're entitled to your fantasies. Everyone has them. But when you write them up and release them to the public as literature, you open yourself up to public criticism. And it doesn't help the author any to say that the story is in some way poorly written rather than to say that it's a Mary Sue story. It just makes the criticism more vague and confusing.
How do we make things better, more even for girls? We encourage things like Womanthology. Show them that women can write well, show them that women can be powerful, show them that women can be important, show them that women have a better place in fiction and fantasy. If you call them out for writing a Mary Sue, don't just tell them they're wrong for indulging their fantasies. Give them constructive criticism so that they can see how to improve their writing. But sweeping Mary Sue under the rug isn't going to help.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I think that it all boils down to the last few paragraphs you wrote. Essentially, the problem she describes does exist; it just doesn't negate what is actually wrong with Mary Sue.