Is superman really a Mary Sue?

[Heronblade]

Not really no

First of all, he is not a fan fiction insert, so if he did apply, it would be under the label "canon sue". Not nearly as catchy, I know, but still.

Secondly, both Mary Sues and Canon Sues are mainly characterized by an unreasonable level of competence at everything they put their hand to, and being the center of the spotlight for everything they're involved in. Superman may seem to fit this at first, but him being extremely competent at what he does makes sense within the lore of the fiction he is in. Thanks to what he is, the term omnipotence is not all that inappropriate. He is also not always in the spotlight. Now, the lore giving him these abilities happens to be utter bunk, but that is a different gripe.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Just watch this shit. It specifically uses superman as an example.


Basically, a character is only a mary sue if the world around them doesn't challenge them in any way. Superman's idealism is constantly being challenged by, well, reality.

Doesn't mean we can't call him overpowered as hell though.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd say he is, yes, and I say that as a Superman fan.

He's been put to very interesting use, though, and that's much more important. He's been used to tell some very interesting stories, and ones that are nothing to do with his Mary Sueishness.

 

[Torkuda]

Superman isn't a Mary Sue, but he is (originally) an idealization. He was something for young, jewish boys to aspire to. Be as good you can, and show America how much we have to offer, and help to bring us to a better tomorrow!

That's why it's always bugged me when they jam Christ imagery into the films (It was almost painful in Man of Steel). He's not meant to be Jesus; he's meant to be Moses.

If you're joking on that, it's kinda flat. If your serious... I kinda want to know more.

 

[Torkuda]

Great article. I never thought about all that.

It does cause me to wonder about the truly under represented minorities in comics. You know, like, Arabs, Albinos, Jews or even how many super hero creators dare to let their gods among men have the horror of mismatched arrangements of or an over powering number of freckles?

 

[Someone Depressing]

It's an over-used term. It seems like any female character who can at least wipe her own ass is being called a Mary-Sue.

Is she a genius at biochemistry even though she studied it for +8 years? If so, Mary Sue.

Is he a superhero whose powers are mind control, telepathy and psychokinesis? If so, Marty Sue.

I'd ignore any calls of a "Mary-Sue" until people actually learn what it means.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

(Also, Mary Sue...that's a term that's getting over-used, to mean anyone unusually competent, though moreso with female characters)

It's an over-used term. It seems like any female character who can at least wipe her own ass is being called a Mary-Sue.

Is she a genius at biochemistry even though she studied it for +8 years? If so, Mary Sue.

Is he a superhero whose powers are mind control, telepathy and psychokinesis? If so, Marty Sue.

I'd ignore any calls of a "Mary-Sue" until people actually learn what it means.

It's not about competence, it's about flawlessness and author's wish-fulfilment. It's also about poor writing.

 

[Entitled]

A Mary Sue isn't just a "perfect character", or "a character without flaws" but a specific form of bad writing that is common in fanfiction and other unprofessional writing, where a writer lets her own shallow wish fulfillments show through the protagonist as a barely disguised self-insert.

The source name for the trope came from a Star Trek parody-fanfiction, which demonstrated how ridiculously boring most fanfic characterizations are, with the exeggareted example of a pretty Starfleet officer with a pretty name like Mary Sue being added to the cast, and demonstrating how she is more logical than Spock, holds her liquor better than Scotty, is better in bed than Kirk, and who can fight off a dozen Klingons with bare hands, and figure out instantly where any episode's plot will go without any clue.

In contrast, Superman's role in his stories is EXPLICITLY to represent incorruptible heroic virtue. That's his purpose in the plot, and the conflict comes from other sources instead of Superman being flawed. He is not a story-breaking case of bad writing, or a writer wish-fulfillment, but an in-universe paragorn and an audience wish-fulfillment.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Well the term 'Mary Sue' is pretty nebulous, but as most people take/understand the term, sure he could be considered one. Batman as well.
But consider this: A lot of characters from both modern and classic stories could be considered 'Mary Sues' and no-one considers the stories to be bad or ruined because of it.
For example:
Bilbo Baggins!
Tolkien not an extreme enough example? Try Shakespeare. Hamlet, Portia, the Duke from Measure for Measure they could all be considered 'Mary Sues',(I'm sure there would be many more examples if we bothered to look) and I don't think you're gonna find too many people claiming that Hamlet Prince of Denmark is trashy writing.
So I think that the real question is "Does the inclusion of a character who could be considered a Mary Sue ruin or spoil a work of fiction for you?"

 

[wolfyrik]

It seems like every time a female character is cool, competent and confident, she's called a Mary Sue.

Actually, every time a female character exists there's going to be smartass to call her "Mary Sue".

But the thing is, "Mary Sue" allegedly means a character without flaws (or at least without relevant flaws), yes? I mean, Jesus was one of the earliest Mary Sues and all.

Hm... I'm not sure. I'd say that in my mind, a character isn't really a Mary Sue unless she fullfills these requirements:

1. The creator regards her as having no relevant flaws.

2. She's created to be a wishfullfillment fantasy for the creator, and not the readers.

3. Her competence doesn't make any sense. (Say,mastering swordfighting in five minutes just because she's so frickin' awesome.)

I'd add

4. Loved by absolutely everyone of the main characters. If there's anyone who doesn't like her, it's because they're vile, hateful bitches......usually someone the author doesn't like.

Actually, isn't that basically god and jesus?

I'm not convinced that superman counts as a Mary Sue, though he does have two of the main qualities. I can't stand superman as a character and I hate the characters that infest his universe. I'm bored to tears by his implausability and invicibility, I find the implausabile lengths that have to be created for anything at all to be a threat to superman, thus increasing to ludicrous degrees his alreday implausible strengths to beat that ludicrous threat. Superman has to be the first real sufferer of powercreep.
I can't stand Clark Kent. Whearas most superheroes have things to contend with, real life issues that are forced upon them by circumstance, superman creates all of his through the portayal of Clark Kent. He could easily solve most of them by not playing such a prat.
Finally I hate everyone around him. these are people who spend all day with Clark, spend their lives following and drooling over superman and yet not one ofthem can work out who he is. Because he wears glasses. I mean come on. Really?

So i'd love to say 'yes, superman is the ultimate Mary Sue'. It would give me great pleasure.

Unfortunately I just don't think it's true. I just think he was made as an inpsiration. Someone to be put on a pedestal. Someone who is just good and proper to the very end. The ultimate boy scout. The american dream.


A total bore.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I don't think he is. He has such a long history by so many different creators that it's practically impossible to determine. He might have started out as such, but nowadays it's completely pointless to think about it.

If the character truly was intended to be a Mary Sue, he's become the Mary Sue to end them all: practically omnipotent, the symbol of hope, love, beauty and everything that's good in the world.

 

[briankoontz]

If you're joking on that, it's kinda flat. If your serious... I kinda want to know more.

Superman isn't a Mary Sue, but he is (originally) an idealization. He was something for young, jewish boys to aspire to. Be as good you can, and show America how much we have to offer, and help to bring us to a better tomorrow!

That's why it's always bugged me when they jam Christ imagery into the films (It was almost painful in Man of Steel). He's not meant to be Jesus; he's meant to be Moses.

If you're joking on that, it's kind of a flat joke. If you're serious, I have to admit I want to know more.

As it just so happens, I found an article that covers the subject quite well!

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/tye-is-superman-jewish-1.6407831

You can also see the Moses bits a little in the original Superman film as well as Man of Steel. Both Jor-Els refer to him as someone who will show humanity the way, and lead them, reflecting how Moses lead the people to the Promised Land.

Spoiler: Man of Steel line

You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

Spoiler: Superman (1978) line

Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. Always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.

Now, admittedly, the 1978 one is somewhat more Jesusy than Man of Steel's, but both refer to him as someone who is more of an example of something greater, rather than someone to be sacrificed for the good of the world.

There isn't much of a difference. Jesus is a model for Christians (leading them to the spiritual and potentially political promised land) while Moses sacrificed himself through 40 years of wandering in the desert (which Jesus also did for far less time).

What makes Superman not very accurate as either a Jesus or Moses metaphor is that he's virtually immortal and he has ridiculous power. He's similar to any powerful god throughout history, let's say Zeus, except with the morals of Jesus.

It's the mortality of Jesus and Moses that gave their sacrifice meaning. Since Superman is a fictional character and not a real one, he *can't* die because that would reduce the profits of corporations, so there's no real ability for him to greatly sacrifice himself, only the small day-to-day sacrifices of the manner in which he spends his time.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't think so. As others have said over the 50+ years since his inception he's gone through many incarnations and ranging in power from the one step above Pop-Eye to the destroying entire galaxies with a sneeze. So to really settle this you'd have to decide which incarnation of Superman we're talking about. Besides regardless of which incarnation we're talking about Superman still has his flaws and his struggles, mostly summed up by this clip here:

Spoiler: World of Cardboard

 

[Aesir23]

Personally, I do consider him as a Mary Sue since, the last time I checked, his only weakness was Kryptonite and he had a buttload of superpowers.

It probably doesn't help that I prefer my superheroes to have more than one weakness, to have limitations and a sense of mortality since it makes their deeds seem all the more heroic and a bit more thrilling. With Superman it felt more like "all in a day's work".

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Nah.

Mary-Sue's are author self-inserts, while Superman is very blatantly an escapist character who's meant to be self-insert for the reader (from what I understand he started as one, but he certainly doesn't hold the position now).

That being said, I subscribe to the "Superheroes are the new Greek myths" philosophy where the character's personalities are entirely dependent on the author and are subject to change. In which case there is probably a case somewhere where an author wrote Superman as a Mary-Sue.

 

[EternallyBored]

Personally, I do consider him as a Mary Sue since, the last time I checked, his only weakness was Kryptonite and he had a buttload of superpowers.

It probably doesn't help that I prefer my superheroes to have more than one weakness, to have limitations and a sense of mortality since it makes their deeds seem all the more heroic and a bit more thrilling. With Superman it felt more like "all in a day's work".

He's also really weak to basically any form of magic as well as cosmic powers, and really any incarnation since the 90's can be stopped with a good old fashioned punch from any big hitter (Ever since Doomsday killed him in the 90's he's been vulnerable to getting a good old fashioned ass whooping). Since the new 52 reboot over a year ago he lost everything beyond his basic powerset, and can't even fly anymore. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, he got stopped cold by a Wonder Woman B string villain named Cheetah, who used a magic curse in her bite (so yeah, apparently sharp teeth can bite through his skin now too).

Still, even before the reboot, kryptonite kind of got tossed by the wayside in favor of magic and other weaknesses. Most of his ridiculous powers from the golden age were removed back in the 80's. Since then, his powers have always pretty much been: flight, super strength, super speed, durability, and his super breath and eye powers, with some variation depending on the writer.

He gets beat down pretty regularly actually, especially in titles that focus on other characters, beating the crap out of Superman is practically every major villain's introduction at this point.