Mary Sues and prejudice against female protagonists
- Thread starter EmperorSubcutaneous
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Though, as another poster asked, I would say that Sherlock Holmes is a Marty-Stu. Renegade detective, solves everything simply by looking at it and his only character flaws are more endearing than problematic. That said, he's a likeable character, if not a very interesting one.godfist88 said:
Hmm, someone said my one fanfic had a character close to one. I almost pretended to give a fuck and almost finished the story. I've still got writers block for the ending months later
The trouble with using Batman vs. Bella is that Batman is written by dozens of different authors. Some focus on him as a character and deal with his conflicts. Others touch on his feelings, what makes him up, and attempt to show who he is behind the mask. And then there are the ones for whom he is the perfectly unstoppable Goddamn Batman.
So, yeah. Sometimes Batman is a Mary Sue. That happens when all the focus is on how awesome he is with just a pinch of angst. It's when the facade is treated as the whole character. When Batman is portrayed as simply having all his neat stuff, his fortune, his mansion, his bat-cave, and all the miscellaneous bat-equipment without having visibly earned it or suffered for it, that's where the accusations come in. It's the lazy, incompetent writing that turns Bats into a Sue, not the concept itself.
I personally think that the bar has been lowered way too far for Mary Sues. My criteria centers around what they gain vs. what they lose. When a character is simply given everything without struggle or sacrifice and then treated as though they earned it, that's when the Sueism hits.
So, yeah. Sometimes Batman is a Mary Sue. That happens when all the focus is on how awesome he is with just a pinch of angst. It's when the facade is treated as the whole character. When Batman is portrayed as simply having all his neat stuff, his fortune, his mansion, his bat-cave, and all the miscellaneous bat-equipment without having visibly earned it or suffered for it, that's where the accusations come in. It's the lazy, incompetent writing that turns Bats into a Sue, not the concept itself.
I personally think that the bar has been lowered way too far for Mary Sues. My criteria centers around what they gain vs. what they lose. When a character is simply given everything without struggle or sacrifice and then treated as though they earned it, that's when the Sueism hits.
Mary Sue was originally used to describe an author-insert character, esp. noncanon.
It is not a term meant to replace "one-dimensional." Hence characters like Batman, while one-dimensional to some degree, are not Mary Sues as such. They fit in their context perfectly. Superman, however, is rather Sue-ish in the Batman world, despite them technically being part of the same canon. Thus I declare that a Mary Sue is a character that is too good, too perfect to fit the setting - a character that breaks immersion.
That said, there's a bit of "supreme court description of pornography" classification around the term - I know one when I see one, even if they're hard to define as a category. Daenerys was Sue-ish during the first book or so of Game of Thrones, and retains some such characteristics through the most recent book.
Another interesting note: Saturation (and perpetually winning) can turn an ordinary character into a perceptual Mary Sue with ease. Take Rand from Wheel of Time. At first, he was a relatively believable character, with problems and abilities. Over time, however, he (and the rest of the main cast) have turned into God Mode Sues, with only their own foolishness able to temporarily inconvenience them, and entire armies and ancient demigods falling before them on a regular basis.
To wit: Winning once is great. Winning a few times is wonderful. Winning every time breaks immersion completely.
It is not a term meant to replace "one-dimensional." Hence characters like Batman, while one-dimensional to some degree, are not Mary Sues as such. They fit in their context perfectly. Superman, however, is rather Sue-ish in the Batman world, despite them technically being part of the same canon. Thus I declare that a Mary Sue is a character that is too good, too perfect to fit the setting - a character that breaks immersion.
That said, there's a bit of "supreme court description of pornography" classification around the term - I know one when I see one, even if they're hard to define as a category. Daenerys was Sue-ish during the first book or so of Game of Thrones, and retains some such characteristics through the most recent book.
Another interesting note: Saturation (and perpetually winning) can turn an ordinary character into a perceptual Mary Sue with ease. Take Rand from Wheel of Time. At first, he was a relatively believable character, with problems and abilities. Over time, however, he (and the rest of the main cast) have turned into God Mode Sues, with only their own foolishness able to temporarily inconvenience them, and entire armies and ancient demigods falling before them on a regular basis.
To wit: Winning once is great. Winning a few times is wonderful. Winning every time breaks immersion completely.
I think the best example of a perfect character that works is Conan. Conan is stronger than every other man he meets(in Robin E Howards stories anyway, havent paid much attention to the rest except the movies) Hes also very smart and the women always want him. He has no flaws(unlike the recent movie where hes shown as reckless, hes not) Hes willing to die fighting without a second thought and the only thing that scares him is those evil demons he comes into contact with. Even then the fear doesnt stop him.Justanewguy said:
Theres one scene where he stays perfectly still with a giant snake towering over him so it doesnt eat him. The snakes fangs drip acid on him and he still doesnt move, Hes that pefect a warrior.
edit: I think mary sues just a label that only really applies to characters that are made perfect by the author just pulling something out of their ass and pretending it was the sues plan all along because they are so smart.
I really think that the entire comment about Batman is horribly misplaced. Firstly, comic book heroes like Batman are written by numerous different people and given many, many different traits depending on who is writing the story.
What really distinguishes Mary Sue characters, from what I've seen, is that they exist for the purpose of wish-fulfillment on the author's part. They are an idealized, perfected, flawless version of what *the author* wants to be. They battle the author's personal pet peeves and dispense with them effortlessly.
Does every character, male or female, need to be realistically "flawed", or fail? No. But good characters are broader than the particular fantasies of one person. A good character embodies ideas in a complex integration between motivation and action. They have certain motivations that cause them to act in certain ways. A Mary Sue doesn't do that--characters of this kind are fundamentally disintegrated because the motivation for how they act comes not from within the characterization but from the desires of the author. Very often they have no coherent motivation of any kind, they're just a wandering dispenser of fix everything.
Oh, and if you want to see a real male Mary Sue character, read Terry Goodkind. I got to book, what, four or five in the Sword of Truth series and I just couldn't take it any more. It's *sickening* how much of a Mary Sue Richard is.
I think the best counterexample for how to create a heroic, idealized yet non-Mary-Sue character would be John Galt from Atlas Shrugged. John Galt is NOT my favorite character in the book, far from it. (My favorite would be Francisco D'Anconia, I think.) John Galt does a lot of things that, in other circumstances, would be Mary-Sue-like traits. He's always one step ahead of everyone else, arriving at the conclusions before they do. He doesn't seem to have any real flaws. So why isn't he a Mary Sue? Because he doesn't show up, lay on hands, and fix everything.
A true Mary Sue is like a living Deus Ex Machina.
What really distinguishes Mary Sue characters, from what I've seen, is that they exist for the purpose of wish-fulfillment on the author's part. They are an idealized, perfected, flawless version of what *the author* wants to be. They battle the author's personal pet peeves and dispense with them effortlessly.
Does every character, male or female, need to be realistically "flawed", or fail? No. But good characters are broader than the particular fantasies of one person. A good character embodies ideas in a complex integration between motivation and action. They have certain motivations that cause them to act in certain ways. A Mary Sue doesn't do that--characters of this kind are fundamentally disintegrated because the motivation for how they act comes not from within the characterization but from the desires of the author. Very often they have no coherent motivation of any kind, they're just a wandering dispenser of fix everything.
Oh, and if you want to see a real male Mary Sue character, read Terry Goodkind. I got to book, what, four or five in the Sword of Truth series and I just couldn't take it any more. It's *sickening* how much of a Mary Sue Richard is.
I think the best counterexample for how to create a heroic, idealized yet non-Mary-Sue character would be John Galt from Atlas Shrugged. John Galt is NOT my favorite character in the book, far from it. (My favorite would be Francisco D'Anconia, I think.) John Galt does a lot of things that, in other circumstances, would be Mary-Sue-like traits. He's always one step ahead of everyone else, arriving at the conclusions before they do. He doesn't seem to have any real flaws. So why isn't he a Mary Sue? Because he doesn't show up, lay on hands, and fix everything.
A true Mary Sue is like a living Deus Ex Machina.
Actually, it's pretty common for Mary Sues to be "misunderstood" and undergo some kind of "suffering", such as having their family killed in front of them or being tortured or whatever. And boy do they ever dwell on it.Veylon said:
Not necessarily--a story (or series) is not a statistical analysis. What's more significant is how the winning comes about and what the results are. Granted, everybody will have a different threshold for credulity-breaking stupefaction.omicron1 said:
I think Batman gets a pass because we're willing to suspend our disbelief for him. We know that when Batman comes on the screen (or page. Shut up) we're not in for a complex story, so we relax into a state of simplified media consumption.
But anyway, it's a cliche. Cliches are useful writing tools, because when an author refers to one, the audience instantly knows what to expect from it. That is a powerful position to be in as a writer, and not fundamentally damnable.
(Hurrah for long words)
But anyway, it's a cliche. Cliches are useful writing tools, because when an author refers to one, the audience instantly knows what to expect from it. That is a powerful position to be in as a writer, and not fundamentally damnable.
(Hurrah for long words)
Mary Sues are a rather fluid concept, there's no real definition. Batman may have many of those traits, but he creates and/or popularised a lot of them, so he's "allowed". Plus you can write a character as skilled as Bats, so long as you show this skill is justified & not contrived. To me a Sue is a character who is loved by the characters & author way more than they deserve, to the point they steal the spotlight (i.e. Wesley Crusher).
I'm noticing the quotation marks there. Suffering != sacrifice, or, for that matter, struggle. The suffering of Mary Sues is that something is taken from them and they never move on to add any meaning to that loss. Sacrifice is a deliberate choice to give something up, often something very precious, for gain or because it's necessary. Like struggle, sacrifice implies agency, that the character make decisions and live with the consequences. Batman's sacrifice wasn't his parents - he didn't choose for them to die - but the normal life he has deliberately abandoned in order to pursue crimefighting.JMeganSnow said:
Mary Sues with tragic pasts have their psychological scars healed without their own involvement; the right person comes along and fixes any thing. The story cushions them, allowing them to dwell in self-pity, and then sweeps it away with an unearned romance, all without forcing them to take the risky step of actually making a decision.
Perhaps my "Gain/Loss" should've been "Gain/Sacrifice".
This discussion does raise some interesting questions about characters, and of course the idea of the Mary Sue being predominantly an idea applied to female characters does seem to be somewhat true.
Although... There is one notable exception, who is famous enough to have his own entry on TV-tropes that defines a character archetype as well. (Though to be fair, the show he originates from has led to the naming of many tropes, including several related to other prominent characters.)
Yes... I am of course, talking about the Wesley. (Whose character in pre-production kept switching genders. They only settled upon Wesley a few weeks before shooting began... Given the amount of hatred directed his way for being 'too perfect', I can't even imagine the accusations that would've resulted if the character had been a girl...)
So, uh, anyway... Wesley being the 14 year old child genius that he is, knows exactly how to operate a starship even though that's supposed to take years of training...
Solves complicated problems, and rescues the ship more times than you'd think possible, and then goes on to do some even more bizarrely improbable stuff out of the league of most of the regular cast...
But then, Wesley seems to be an exception even as a character.
How many other male Mary Sues are there in such a prominent series, who are so obviously over-talented and lacking in flaws. (and, it has been rumoured something of an author self-insert of sorts too).
That's not supposed to happen in professionally produced works... I guess.
But, despite being a prominent counter-example, I guess it still doesn't do much to explain why even creating a half-way competent female character can already get you accused of creating a Mary Sue.
Is the general public opinion of the female sex really so low that being moderately good at anything other than stereotypically female tasks makes you an 'unbelievable character'?
That's really rather depressing to think about...
Although... There is one notable exception, who is famous enough to have his own entry on TV-tropes that defines a character archetype as well. (Though to be fair, the show he originates from has led to the naming of many tropes, including several related to other prominent characters.)
Yes... I am of course, talking about the Wesley. (Whose character in pre-production kept switching genders. They only settled upon Wesley a few weeks before shooting began... Given the amount of hatred directed his way for being 'too perfect', I can't even imagine the accusations that would've resulted if the character had been a girl...)
So, uh, anyway... Wesley being the 14 year old child genius that he is, knows exactly how to operate a starship even though that's supposed to take years of training...
Solves complicated problems, and rescues the ship more times than you'd think possible, and then goes on to do some even more bizarrely improbable stuff out of the league of most of the regular cast...
But then, Wesley seems to be an exception even as a character.
How many other male Mary Sues are there in such a prominent series, who are so obviously over-talented and lacking in flaws. (and, it has been rumoured something of an author self-insert of sorts too).
That's not supposed to happen in professionally produced works... I guess.
But, despite being a prominent counter-example, I guess it still doesn't do much to explain why even creating a half-way competent female character can already get you accused of creating a Mary Sue.
Is the general public opinion of the female sex really so low that being moderately good at anything other than stereotypically female tasks makes you an 'unbelievable character'?
That's really rather depressing to think about...
If you're old enough, add a touch of Bailey's Irish Creme. Trust me on this.EmperorSubcutaneous said:
On-topic:
Now there is an unsettling image...Ordinaryundone said:
I concur with this fine gentleman/lady.Ordinaryundone said:
Hmm... I had more to say, but it suddenly left me. :/
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is this:
What a lot of people call 'Mary Sue' is dependent on how the author portrays the character- and more importantly, what the author uses as comparisons to show the character's 'superiority'.
Honestly, what pisses *me* off (and usually brings out the Mary Sue Label.tm) is when the only way for the author to make their female character seem 'superior' is by comparison to a Man.
Not even a specific 'man', in most cases there's just this generalized assumption that the reader feels Males are superior to Females, and therefore the Author must make statements based on this to get their point across.
I kinda thought the point was to promote Equality? Frankly, I have more respect for an author who avoids being sexist (and, honestly, being condescending) when their obvious intent is to attack sexism.
"She could do her job as well as any man!" - Assumes that the reader thinks a 'man' would do the job better. That's an assumption *I* don't fit, and I find it irritating.
What a lot of people call 'Mary Sue' is dependent on how the author portrays the character- and more importantly, what the author uses as comparisons to show the character's 'superiority'.
Honestly, what pisses *me* off (and usually brings out the Mary Sue Label.tm) is when the only way for the author to make their female character seem 'superior' is by comparison to a Man.
Not even a specific 'man', in most cases there's just this generalized assumption that the reader feels Males are superior to Females, and therefore the Author must make statements based on this to get their point across.
I kinda thought the point was to promote Equality? Frankly, I have more respect for an author who avoids being sexist (and, honestly, being condescending) when their obvious intent is to attack sexism.
"She could do her job as well as any man!" - Assumes that the reader thinks a 'man' would do the job better. That's an assumption *I* don't fit, and I find it irritating.
Sorry I am going to have to disagree with that (I think...). I've seen far too many people claim that their character should be better than everyone else simply because they are the main character. While it's true the main character usually wins in the end, the thing is they need to have challenges to overcome to make them interesting. A character who simply wins with no effort simply because the script says they must is not an interesting character. It's about watching a character grow and develop into the person who can overcome a difficult opponent and save the day. Watch the Phantom Meance review on RedLetterMedia (if you haven't already) when he talks about protagonists because he says it a lot better than I ever could.Ordinaryundone said:
Let's look at Goku, from Dragon Ball Z. Sure, he is very powerful; almost always the most powerful of the Good Guys. However, he is also always starting out weaker than the opponents he is facting. Even as far back at the original Dragon Ball, Roshi and Tien both proved themselves stronger than Goku when they first fought, and Piccolo proved himself to be an even match (Goku only winning the tournament by pure luck, if I recall). Then in Dragon Ball Z he could never just defeat the bad guy straight away... he always needed special training to get stronger to become a match for them.
What you seem to be describing is a character who faces no challenge and have the skills to overcome any challenges from the get go. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Why can't we just say "it's the Goddamn Batman" and make him exempt from the normal rules of writing? He's just a human version of Superman, but with more badassery and hardassery, appealing to people that want to see some good ol' asskicking.
This can work with a female character, as well. See: Kill Bill. Hard-as-tits character, kicks tons of ass, etc etc. Has emotions, can be portrayed well, but mostly just seen for the asskicking.
You can even have good writing with these hardcore characters. The directing and visuals in Kill Bill were incredible. Same with Dark Knight (haven't seen Batman Begins or older Batman movies, but loved Dark Knight).
The thing that makes the Dark Knight less like a Mary Sue (from what I've gathered, I haven't actually read the TvTropes definition) is that a crapton of people during the movie want The Batman arrested or for him to turn himself in. He isn't given heaps of praise at all times. Kill Bill just avoids the issue by not having non-enemy people around to criticize her.
Edit: I'm not saying that all or most characters should be like these two, only that these two examples can work very well if done correctly
This can work with a female character, as well. See: Kill Bill. Hard-as-tits character, kicks tons of ass, etc etc. Has emotions, can be portrayed well, but mostly just seen for the asskicking.
You can even have good writing with these hardcore characters. The directing and visuals in Kill Bill were incredible. Same with Dark Knight (haven't seen Batman Begins or older Batman movies, but loved Dark Knight).
The thing that makes the Dark Knight less like a Mary Sue (from what I've gathered, I haven't actually read the TvTropes definition) is that a crapton of people during the movie want The Batman arrested or for him to turn himself in. He isn't given heaps of praise at all times. Kill Bill just avoids the issue by not having non-enemy people around to criticize her.
Edit: I'm not saying that all or most characters should be like these two, only that these two examples can work very well if done correctly
I cannot possibly agree with you more. My brother and friend still read those books for some reason I can't fathom. When they ask me why I don't, I give them a non-answer because if they haven't seen it yet, there's no point in ruining their fun just so I can see the life die in their eyes.JMeganSnow said:
On Topic:
Mary Sues are one of the main reasons I've largely given up writing. I don't know how to make believable characters, though I think I have some pretty good ideas for settings.
Personally, I've always seen Mary Sues as unrelatably perfect. They always know the right answer to a question(almost as if the scene was created just so they could say the right thing, which it likely was), anytime they make a "mistake" you find out that it pretty much had to be made anyway, or everyone always loves them forever and ever because of how awesome and forgiving, but also hard and uncompromising when it suits them.
Look, I'm not perfect. I'm lazy, selfish, and sometimes a bit arrogant. I can't relate to a person who always knows exactly the right thing to say at exactly the right time. I don't understand a person who has limitless ambition and drive. I can marvel at someone with the dedication to study something for 24 hours a day for fifteen years, but I can't look them in the eye. I fail people and sometimes it's good to see that in a person I'm rooting for. It makes them real and tangible.
When people write about a perfect character that has no real flaw, it destroys the story.
Perhaps I'm wrong on that, though.
You misunderstand. In a way, Goku makes my point. He is exceptional in that he has boundless potential for growth. Think of Krillen and the rest of the gang, who train just as much as Goku but never, ever catch up to him? They are "average". Goku is exceptional. His ability to quickly train and grow stronger allows him to defeat enemies who may be initially out of his league. It's his "main character power", so to speak.MasochisticAvenger said:
Likewise with Batman. If he wasn't a billionaire and kung-fu master, then the stories would actually strain the suspension of disbelief more than they already do. What is more wish-fulfillment, a guy whose spent his entire life and personal fortune to fight crime, or a guy who can do the same thing despite being "average" and having neither money nor experience? One says "You can do this, so long as you have the means". The other just says "Even you could do this!".
My point is, the hero (or one of the heroes) needs to be "super" in some way. Whether they are really strong, smart, wealthy, or just lucky, if there isn't SOMETHING that gives them an advantage then any victory they achieve almost feels forced. Like you were handicapping the bad guys so your lame heroes could keep up. A super character can still face challenges, and said challenges in my mind become more poignant when a character's power won't serve them in that instance.