![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Mary Sue?
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
manticoran just posted about someone getting irked over the overuse of the Mary Sue term, and I realized I'd typed up a tl;dr "Mary Sue" rant back when I'd seen it thrown around one too many times in the Doctor Who fandom. Since I've, you know, seen this aaaall before in the SG-1 fandom.And since the brain has broken today, I'm gonna post it now. MWAH.
Oh, Mary Sue.
The problem is, is that just about every fictional TV character will have elements and degrees of Mary Sue. But if a character has some so-called Sue-ish qualities, are they automatically a Mary Sue? Most times TV/movie/comic writing gives us caricatures of real life. We're shown the extraordinary so as to make it entertaining. Characters will be completely awesome or be the bestest at what they do, or will be loved by all, or will sometimes be able to get away with things with no consequences. Some shows are starting to buck that trend - a good example is BSG. But even BSG still gives us larger-than-life characters with Sue-ish tendencies. However, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. We want to see extraordinary characters in extraordinary circumstances. If people wanted to watch someone knitting a scarf, there'd be a scarf knitting channel.
Now, I have seen "Mary Sue" thrown around as a sort of fannish trump card plenty of times. It starts out with a person or a group of people disliking a character for whatever reason - rubs the wrong way, takes away screen time from their own favorite character, gets in the way of a OTP, or any number of other reasons. And so there's this character hate. But when this person sees other people actually liking this character or extolling his/her virtues, that grates.
So it's so easy to take these larger-than-life characteristics and spin them negatively by calling "Mary Sue" on that character. The kicker is, the pro-character people can't really debate the Mary Sue claim without attacking the things that made them like the character in the first place. So then the people who didn't like the character are perfectly content, since "Mary Sue" has been called and therefore the character, and anyone who likes that character, can be written off.
For years there's been this Saint!Daniel or Saint!Sam going around SG-1 fandom. People have called Mary Sue on both Sam and Daniel so many times, you couldn't even count. Have they both Sue-ish qualities? Absolutely. Daniel can instantly translate no less than 5,000 languages, has the uncanny ability to pick up alien tail, and doesn't die no matter what pile of radioactive rocks you throw at him. Sam can field-strip a MALP and turn it into a toaster in 5 seconds, while getting a promotion every other season, as well as having her own little collection of aliens that have fallen madly in love with her. Plus each of them have often become the protagonist of episodes when everyone knows it should be Jack, dammit!
But are they then Mary Sues? They have unnatural abilities, yes. And they're Sue-ish, yes. They're also given completely unrealistic scenarios that can only happen in fiction. But I'm not ready to call them Mary Sues.
One character that has a ton of Sue-ish qualities is the Doctor from Doctor Who. He is supposedly awesome beyond all awesomeness, has magical powers that seem to suddenly appear whenever the story calls for it, immortal, knows everything, practically never has to deal with fallout from his actions but yet we must love him, is often very quickly given control of the situation by perfect strangers with only a simple, "hello," and I could go on. Now, of course, the Doctor is not a Mary Sue. Just as neither Sam nor Daniel are Mary Sues. At least in my mind. They're simply extraordinary characters. And we might not like all the characteristics they've been given, just because they *are* a bit too unrealistic or too much of a stereotype, but simply slapping a "Mary Sue" label on for that is a bit...lazy.
"Mary Sue" is a very easy blanket term to write off a character, and too often I think it's being used as that, instead of there being an actual Mary Sue. Not to say that canon Mary Sues don't exist. They do. But I watch a lot of TV and I think the only canon character I'd truly describe as a full-on "Mary Sue" is Wesley from ST:TNG. A 16-year-old who was a super genius. He was always right and was loved for it. Even when he'd go against his mother or Picard or anyone else, he was still right. And loved for it. The boy had pretty much no flaws - others were flawed if they didn't immediately get his awesomeness. You thought any minute Picard would adopt him, and he walked around with a golden glow emanating from his unitard.
And so while people will cry "Mary Sue!!" about various canon characters, I'll smile, pat them on the head and think, "dear God, I'm pretty sure Wesley achieved a higher plane of existence."
no subject
So I'm inclined to call her MS.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Sam Carter is not perfect. Even when it seems like she can't make any big mistakes, she still makes the small ones. Especially with Jack. She had a thing for someone she shouldn't have and it screwed with her head. She sometimes insulted him -- one time that sticks in my head is from season 4, when she starts explaining to him what heavy water is, and he snaps at her that he knows what it is, thank you very much. Whoops? Plus, I think a Mary Sue would have known exactly what to say in that scene at his house in Lost City.
And Daniel -- I might not like him sometimes, but I think that's what makes him not a Sue. He's arrogant and thinks he knows everything. I think of Sues being just modest enough that they don't come across so holier-than-thou.
And the Doctor's just awesome. And flawed, at least in New Who.
Sues = bad, but I agree with you -- a character can be awesome and powerful without being a Sue.
Sometimes I'm glad I stay out of fandom at large!
no subject
Yes, exactly.
He's arrogant and thinks he knows everything.
Yeah, I'd put that in the flaw category.
a character can be awesome and powerful without being a Sue.
Very much so.
Sometimes I'm glad I stay out of fandom at large!
Yeah, it does save you a lot of headaches. :D
no subject
Being in some way awesome or being in some way attractive to a lot of characters isn't enough to make someone a Mary Sue. I find the term so over used that it doesn't actually mean anything anymore. It's just short hand for "I don't like this character."
(Of course, Mary Sue in fanfiction is a whole different thing all together.
no subject
Mwah. I thought that's what happened.
I've also heard tell that he was sort of Gene Rodenberry's "pet character"/stand-in. And author stand-in is the ultimate stamp of Mary Sue.) and I'd probably consider Anita Blake another, if I'd read more than two of those books.
Not really familiar with Anita Blake.
Being in some way awesome or being in some way attractive to a lot of characters isn't enough to make someone a Mary Sue. I find the term so over used that it doesn't actually mean anything anymore. It's just short hand for "I don't like this character."
Yup, exactly. It's an easy write-off and *completely* overused.
(Of course, Mary Sue in fanfiction is a whole different thing all together.
Oh, hell yeah.
no subject
I know her first love interest was named after her husband, and once she got divorced the character became an asshole. And one of Anita's new love interests was subsequently named after the author's new boyfriend. That...sort of hits enough of that "author stand in" thing for me to think of her as a Sue. (Plus she's the bestest of the best and Leader of every supernatural organization to ever be mentioned in the book series. So there's that.)
no subject
no subject
I have nothing else to say at the moment.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I *definitely* think the area where you're MOST likely to see a Mary Sue is the "insert yourself here" fanfiction syndrome. Or even Sueing characters in fanfiction who weren't Sues in canon.
But otherwise, there's a LOT of what you said - it's used as a fandom trump card. And that is... stupid. (Have people *really* accused the Doctor of being a Sue? I mean... he's just so screwed up!) I thought Martha had a lot of Sueish qualities back in S&J, but they've toned that down a lot since then.
Muha. Wesley Crusher. He does get picked on all the time, doesn't he? Just once I'd like to see someone defend him. :D
When I think about canon Sues, the first thing that always pops into my head is Ginny Weasley from Harry Potter. Which I'd say there's a fairly widespread consensus on. But I won't talk about it too loudly because Harry Potter fandom is THE scariest place on the Internet. *hides behind you*
no subject
Yes, good point. Often canon characters get Sue-ized. You're looking at the words and thinking, "who *is* this person?"
But otherwise, there's a LOT of what you said - it's used as a fandom trump card. And that is... stupid.
It's just really, REALLY hard to give any merit to it, because I think about 95% of the time I've seen it, it's simply because the person has character hate.
(Have people *really* accused the Doctor of being a Sue? I mean... he's just so screwed up!) I thought Martha had a lot of Sueish qualities back in S&J, but they've toned that down a lot since then.
Actually, Rose gets the "Sue" more often than not. And yeah, I saw a lot of perfection going on with Martha in that first episode. Hasn't lasted, thank goodness.
Muha. Wesley Crusher. He does get picked on all the time, doesn't he? Just once I'd like to see someone defend him. :D
The funniest thing is to see Will Wheaton pick on his character. :D
When I think about canon Sues, the first thing that always pops into my head is Ginny Weasley from Harry Potter. Which I'd say there's a fairly widespread consensus on. But I won't talk about it too loudly because Harry Potter fandom is THE scariest place on the Internet. *hides behind you*
HA!!! I've not ever read any of those books, so haven't got a clue. But it is a very scary fandom. SCARY!
no subject
Yep. It's fine to identify with a character, but fanfiction has definitely been used to hijack a character and insert oneself instead.
Actually, Rose gets the "Sue" more often than not.
Ha! It's true, isn't it? But I think it's hilarious. Especially because it's usually followed by a long list of flaws that Clearly Make Her Not Good Enough For The Doctor. Like how selfish she is. And how horrible it was that she picked the Doctor over her family. AND OH MY GOD WHAT SHE DID TO MICKEY. She should probably burn in hell for that!!!
HA!!! I've not ever read any of those books, so haven't got a clue. But it is a very scary fandom. SCARY!
Sometimes I think I deserve some sort of a medal or an award for lasting in Harry Potter fandom for as long as I did. Clearly, I have a strong constitution. :D
no subject
The worst - Mary Sues and sex. Just...ew.
Ha! It's true, isn't it? But I think it's hilarious. Especially because it's usually followed by a long list of flaws that Clearly Make Her Not Good Enough For The Doctor. Like how selfish she is. And how horrible it was that she picked the Doctor over her family. AND OH MY GOD WHAT SHE DID TO MICKEY. She should probably burn in hell for that!!!
What, you want fandom to make *sense*? ;)
Sometimes I think I deserve some sort of a medal or an award for lasting in Harry Potter fandom for as long as I did. Clearly, I have a strong constitution. :D
You must. It sounds completely bonkers.