Mary Sues and prejudice against female protagonists

[Scorekeeper]

One example of a Mary Sue is Honor Harrington. I say this not because she succeeds at everything she attempts (which she does) but because everyone praises her nonstop, anyone who disagrees with her is wrong and will suffer some horrible fate, and everything always goes her way. I'm OK with exceptionally competent characters but not with those who always the sole subject of praise.

So yeah, it's more the effect on the world rather than the appearance or competence.

 

[Axolotl]

The OP somewhat confuses me because for it to have any meaning at all only makes sense if Batman, James Bond and such weren't criticised for being shallow wish fulfillment, which is odd because they're accused of that all the fucking time. Of copurse Batman at his basics is a mary sue, this isn't really surpriseing, it's also why all the one Batman stories that get praised are the ones that give him flaws, like The Dark Knight Returns making him an aging barbarian alienated from society or Arkham Asylum potraying him as a psychological mess being abused and hunted by an unstable group of supervillans. For James Bond, the reason Craig is more praised than Moore is because he's a more flawed, human character.

The sort of pulp fiction has spawned these characters has been consitently criticised for being shallow wish fulfillment since they started. It thrives for the same reason Twilight thrives, people like wish fulfillment.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I agree, except for James Bond. He's much more human in the books.

Ah okay. I've only seen the movies unfortunately. I'll take your word for it though since that happens a lot in film adaptations.

A Mary Sue in the hands of a good writer is not a bad thing, those type of characters are instead awesome.

But one thing that does tend to seperate a Sue from a Sue-a-like is how the writer treats the character, a real Sue faces next to no real conflict, a Sue-a-like (e.g. Batman) gets the shit kicked out of them on the way to the resolution, where yes it will be revealed they were right all along and an utter badass to boot.

Yes, but getting the shit kicked out of him has no purpose other than to make him look badass for perservering despite the pain and hardship. He just bounces back from the beatings and everything is fine and consequence-free. No permanent head trauma, facial disfiguration, loss of mobility or vomitting all over himself. You know, none of the damage that getting the shit beaten out of you actually inflicts.

 

[Togs]

Yes, but getting the shit kicked out of him has no purpose other than to make him look badass for perservering despite the pain and hardship. He just bounces back from the beatings and everything is fine and consequence-free. No permanent head trauma, facial disfiguration, loss of mobility or vomitting all over himself. You know, none of the damage that getting the shit beaten out of you actually inflicts.

Yes as that fiction phenomena is completely unique to Batman.

 

[seraphy]

Yes as that fiction phenomena is completely unique to Batman.

He is not alone in being invulnerable jackass! That isn't very good argument.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Yes as that fiction phenomena is completely unique to Batman.

I'm not saying it's unique to Batman. I'm saying it's a sign of shit writing focussing around male wish fulfillment. It's not "real conflict" when there's nothing actually at stake. He just TAKES IT LIKE A MAN and then recovers perfectly. I'm saying that this Mary Sue characteristic exists in crappy fiction that includes, but is by no means limited to, Batman.

 

[Togs]

Yes as that fiction phenomena is completely unique to Batman.

He is not alone in being invulnerable jackass! That isn't very good argument.

errr.... isnt that what I just said?

Or have you just quoted the wrong person?

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

The OP somewhat confuses me because for it to have any meaning at all only makes sense if Batman, James Bond and such weren't criticised for being shallow wish fulfillment, which is odd because they're accused of that all the fucking time.

It happens, but nowhere near as often as it does with female characters (at least the ones written by women). The general response to Batman is still more "he's a badass" than "he's a Gary Stu."

Increasingly over the past 30-40 years, people have been wanting more from their speculative fiction than pure wish fulfillment. And it's true that a character like pre-grey-area Batman would probably not have been created today, unless it was to be ironic and self-aware (but still loved for being a badass).

But the fact remains that a male writer who creates a fairly awesome male character is more or less given a pass, while a female writer who creates a fairly awesome female character is quite often accused of being a Suethor. (It's harder to tell with male writers who create female characters and female writers who create male characters, but people generally seem to be pretty lenient in those cases.)

 

[Togs]

Yes as that fiction phenomena is completely unique to Batman.

I'm not saying it's unique to Batman. I'm saying it's a sign of shit writing focussing around male wish fulfillment. It's not "real conflict" when there's nothing actually at stake. He just TAKES IT LIKE A MAN and then recovers perfectly. I'm saying that this Mary Sue characteristic exists in crappy fiction that includes, but is by no means limited to, Batman.

No gotta say I disagree- all entertainment (e.g. batman comics) is a form of escapism, which tends to work better if there is some degree identification with the hero, through him doing the things we want to (i.e. wish fulfilment).
The sign of a good writer is one who can balance wish fulfilment with the willing suspension of disbelief.
Something that is going to vary wildly from person to person, you find Batman dull and unbelievable I find it riveting.

 

[seraphy]

Yes as that fiction phenomena is completely unique to Batman.

He is not alone in being invulnerable jackass! That isn't very good argument.

errr.... isnt that what I just said?

Or have you just quoted the wrong person?

Yes but you seemed to defend Batman as a character with that argument, that he is not alone. I just can't see that as a serious argument in his defense.

Or did I read you wrong? Seems to happen today.

 

[Kahunaburger]

But the fact remains that a male writer who creates a fairly awesome male character is more or less given a pass, while a female writer who creates a fairly awesome female character is quite often accused of being a Suethor.

I think as people above mentioned, the whole "Mary Sue" think is less about a main character being awesome and more about the world revolving around that character. For instance, Diomedes from the Iliad is an unstoppable badass [http://www.badassoftheweek.com/diomedes.html] with considerably fewer character flaws than your average Homeric hero (arguably his biggest flaw is suicidal bravery.) But although he does awesome things for pretty much the whole epic, the story doesn't revolve around him, characters don't drop whatever they're doing to obsess over him, so on and so forth. Therefore, a badass, but not a Gary Stu.

...but yeah, I do notice that female characters that should be categorized as badasses end up being categorized as Mary Sues. Our culture hasn't yet completely wrapped its head around the "revolutionary notion" that it's okay for chicks to be good at stuff.

 

[seraphy]

I think as people above mentioned, the whole "Mary Sue" think is less about a main character being awesome and more about the world revolving around that character. For instance, Diomedes from the Iliad is an unstoppable badass [http://www.badassoftheweek.com/diomedes.html] with considerably fewer character flaws than your average Homeric hero (arguably his biggest flaw is suicidal bravery.) But although he does awesome things for pretty much the whole epic, the story doesn't revolve around him, characters don't drop whatever they're doing to obsess over him, so on and so forth. Therefore, a badass, but not a Gary Stu.

...but yeah, I do notice that female characters that should be categorized as badasses end up being categorized as Mary Sues. Our culture hasn't yet completely wrapped its head around the "revolutionary notion" that it's okay for chicks to be good at stuff.

But people are getting better I think. People usually dislike these days when womans are portrayed as damsel in distress for example. People do expect womem to be useful and not just useless weight. Personally I think it is huge improvement.

 

[Zydrate]

So, there's this girl. She's tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly. They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she's generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.

God, what a Mary Sue.

I just described Batman.

Like anything else, it depends on how it's written. I see Mary Sue as the kind of character that is perfect without purpose. With no flaws, everyone wants them (Including those of the same gender), etc. That's what sets off my Mary Sue red flags.
But toss in some conflict and a flaw and you've avoided that trap, depending on how you go about it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Like anything else, it depends on how it's written. I see Mary Sue as the kind of character that is perfect without purpose. With no flaws, everyone wants them (Including those of the same gender), etc. That's what sets off my Mary Sue red flags.
But toss in some conflict and a flaw and you've avoided that trap, depending on how you go about it.

I don't agree - there's a perception that fully rounded characters need flaws (TM), but see the above example of Diomedes. Flawed characters *can* be interesting, but I don't buy that characters need to have significant flaws to work as characters, or to avoid suedom.

 

[Justanewguy]

Like anything else, it depends on how it's written. I see Mary Sue as the kind of character that is perfect without purpose. With no flaws, everyone wants them (Including those of the same gender), etc. That's what sets off my Mary Sue red flags.
But toss in some conflict and a flaw and you've avoided that trap, depending on how you go about it.

I don't agree - there's a perception that fully rounded characters need flaws (TM), but see the above example of Diomedes. Flawed characters *can* be interesting, but I don't buy that characters need to have significant flaws to work as characters, or to avoid suedom.

Let me say that I agree with the former and only partially with the latter. While I disagree that fully rounded characters don't need flaws, I will agree that a flawless character can be a lot of fun, if the point is for them to be flawless. Captain America (from the movie, I'm not going into the Comic books at all) is a great example. Flawless character from start to finish, with no real reason to have any problems.

That being said, Captain America, while a great character in and of himself, is not a fully rounded character. He's one dimensional. He is good. He will always be good. While it's easy to root for him, there's no question as to his motives or his choices. Fully rounded characters require layers and flaws. They must have depths to their personality which can be probed during the story. That's what makes the story interesting.

My advice is to flesh out the character fully before writing. Don't write a character as they're introduced, completely flesh that character out beforehand. If that character has had a traumatic experience, without ever needing to mention it or delve into the event, you can use that for characterization, and that's the key. Too many characters don't have that added layer of characterization to probe, and that's why many characters fall into the Mary Sue area. That being said, a woman as a character can be strong and talented without being a Mary Sue, all you have to do is make that character real, by giving them the backgrounds that allow for a true look at the human spirit.

 

[Vault101]

I dont think a mary sue has all that much to do with female protagonists or "predjudice"..mabye

 

[SilentlyHilly]

I'd heard of Mary Sues before but never really had a grasp on what they were. So it isn't really just a badass character, but more a character who the world revolves around. I'm curious if someone like Sherlock Holmes (from the books, though I guess from the movies too) would be considered a Mary Sue? He's not really the type of character that fails very often I guess is why I'm asking.

 

[Vault101]

Does anyone have an amazing hot chocolate recipe?

* 3 Tbsp sugar
* 3 Tbsp high-quality unsweetened cocoa
* small pinch of salt
* small quantity of boiling water
* 2 c milk
* scant 1/2 tsp vanilla

Combine sugar, cocoa, salt, and enough water to make a paste. Add milk and heat in the microwave until temperature is just right. Mix thoroughly, then add vanilla. Makes 2 servings.

Oh, so that's how it's done. I had no idea you needed so many ingredients. Instead of adding a pinch of salt will it work if I just cry into my mug?

I do think that female characters get scrutinised far too much. Unfortunately I catch even myself doing it on occasion. I don't even know what the fuck a female character is supposed to be like anymore. You can't make her too weak because that's sexist, you can't make her too strong because that makes her a Mary Sue. If she acts "feminine" you're stereotyping but if she doesn't have "feminine" interests you're just "writing a male character in a female skin". If she's sexual you're objectifying her or playing into male fantasies, but if she's not interested you're denying women's sexuality. Except if they use their sexuality to manipulate men that's good (or something?). What the fuck. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a believable female character or if my entire personality could be shoehorned into some archetype. So much for removing gender roles.

I agree...the whole issue gets complicated...just like the thread talking about womens outfits and such

I think the best female charachters are the ones where their gender is "kind of" second to their role in the story

is that essentially "writing a male charachter in a female skin"? probably, but at least she seems actually real and belivable (depending on what you have her doing of coarse)

in the end I prefer to look at the induivdual peice of fiction....or I think people should think about it less

 

[Vault101]

I think as people above mentioned, the whole "Mary Sue" think is less about a main character being awesome and more about the world revolving around that character. For instance, Diomedes from the Iliad is an unstoppable badass [http://www.badassoftheweek.com/diomedes.html] with considerably fewer character flaws than your average Homeric hero (arguably his biggest flaw is suicidal bravery.) But although he does awesome things for pretty much the whole epic, the story doesn't revolve around him, characters don't drop whatever they're doing to obsess over him, so on and so forth. Therefore, a badass, but not a Gary Stu.

...but yeah, I do notice that female characters that should be categorized as badasses end up being categorized as Mary Sues. Our culture hasn't yet completely wrapped its head around the "revolutionary notion" that it's okay for chicks to be good at stuff.

But people are getting better I think. People usually dislike these days when womans are portrayed as damsel in distress for example. People do expect womem to be useful and not just useless weight. Personally I think it is huge improvement.

true..but you still get..hmmm say some skinny hot chick who does some fancy martial arts to take out the thungs (waif fu I think tv tropes called it) and of coarse youll never see her break a sweat or get punched in the face...dammit why cant I have some with fufilment of beautiful women getting punched in the face?!

ummm

but I will say that too is not that common nowdays...kind of, or at least only in cheesy action films

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'd heard of Mary Sues before but never really had a grasp on what they were. So it isn't really just a badass character, but more a character who the world revolves around. I'm curious if someone like Sherlock Holmes (from the books, though I guess from the movies too) would be considered a Mary Sue? He's not really the type of character that fails very often I guess is why I'm asking.

I'd say no - you don't get the impression that the world revolves around him. He's just an insanely smart detective, and tends to succeed because of said intelligence.