Need to stop defending against accusations of mary/gary stu

[Gengisgame]

A bunch of people have started labeling popular characters Mary or Gary stu's, it seem a lot of people then rush in to defend these characters with they have X flaws or lost X fights.

Now if you are just pointing this out to correct someone then that's all well and good but I know how the fans mind works, gary/mary stu is a negative so in many cases I'm guessing the fan is being defensive and just trying to say otherwise, you shouldn't be doing that and here's the reason why.

Being really good at everything they do is not always a bad thing, in many cases it's a good, in short they call the character a gary/mary stu, you call them a bad ass, neither person is wrong but in there case they simply don't like the character or they are just trying to make a flawed point. Take Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock for instance, I doubt many of you would have thought of him as a Gary Stu, of course not, you liked the character.

 

[sageoftruth]

Most of the time, I see it as a case of them being terminology police. I'm guilty as charged there. I'll look for any excuse to have a good old fashioned argument/discussion online.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Jack Donaghy is kind of a poor example. He's more like a parody of a Mary Sue, being great at everything he does but not really being happy (until the end). Most bad examples of Mary Sues don't come from comedies.

You're right though, Mary sues aren't inherently bad. Part of it is gender bias, I think. Some people see a female character succeed and they think "mary sue" because they believe the writers are too PC to show a female be weak. Sometimes that may even be true, but it's still an inflammatory line of thought that only gets people upset.

Also, people only really "defend" against claims of a Mary Sue character when the person who said so IS using it as a criticism. I've never seen someone say "this character is an example of a good mary sue" and someone else say "YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT!"

 

[Squanchy]

Who cares? It's just blogging, social media shit. There is nothing about this kind of e-criticism that is lasting, memorable, or consequential. The last thing you should feel as a result of people making noise on the internet, is angst.

 

[Gengisgame]

Jack Donaghy is kind of a poor example. He's more like a parody of a Mary Sue, being great at everything he does but not really being happy (until the end). Most bad examples of Mary Sues don't come from comedies.

You're right though, Mary sues aren't inherently bad. Part of it is gender bias, I think. Some people see a female character succeed and they think "mary sue" because they believe the writers are too PC to show a female be weak. Sometimes that may even be true, but it's still an inflammatory line of thought that only gets people upset.

Also, people only really "defend" against claims of a Mary Sue character when the person who said so IS using it as a criticism. I've never seen someone say "this character is an example of a good mary sue" and someone else say "YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT!"

Mary Sue is a criticism, that was sort of my point, you use other ways of describing the character such as badass and if someone dislikes them they apply terms like Mary Sue

Confidence/over-confidence and arrogance can be used to describe the exact same person with the main difference in almost every case being a like or dislike of the character.

That's why you shouldn't really defend, may as well try and convince someone a character isn't boring.

 

[Gengisgame]

Who cares? It's just blogging, social media shit. There is nothing about this kind of e-criticism that is lasting, memorable, or consequential. The last thing you should feel as a result of people making noise on the internet, is angst.

Where all just wasting time, this is far from the first thread I've one on a forum to discourage responding to inflammatory or trolling.

It's sad to see how many people end up replying to "this thing is rubbish, sh*t, boring threads"

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

This is what people do on online forums. There is no should or shouldn't. Everything is up for debate.

 

[RJ 17]

This is what people do on online forums. There is no should or shouldn't. Everything is up for debate.

No, apparently - judging by the trend here in the Off-Topic section recently - it's far more fashionable to simply discuss the concept of a Mary Sue rather than discuss whether or not a character is a Mary Sue. What is this...the 3rd Mary Sue Concept topic in just as many days?

 

[DrownedAmmet]

This is what people do on online forums. There is no should or shouldn't. Everything is up for debate.

I wholeheartedly disagree

 

[DefunctTheory]

This is what people do on online forums. There is no should or shouldn't. Everything is up for debate.

No, apparently - judging by the trend here in the Off-Topic section recently - it's far more fashionable to simply discuss the concept of a Mary Sue rather than discuss whether or not a character is a Mary Sue. What is this...the 3rd Mary Sue Concept topic in just as many days?

Three sounds about right.

Want to take bets on how long this one takes until it devolves into another 'Gerolt/Rey are Mary Sues' thread, like the rest of them seem to have?

 

[RJ 17]

This is what people do on online forums. There is no should or shouldn't. Everything is up for debate.

No, apparently - judging by the trend here in the Off-Topic section recently - it's far more fashionable to simply discuss the concept of a Mary Sue rather than discuss whether or not a character is a Mary Sue. What is this...the 3rd Mary Sue Concept topic in just as many days?

Three sounds about right.

Want to take bets on how long this one takes until it devolves into another 'Gerolt/Rey are Mary Sues' thread, like the rest of them seem to have?

Part of me wants to go into those topics and say "This topic is a Mary Sue as the author just wants to bask in the power fantasy of having a topic with 10 pages of comments." The other part of me just wants to sigh and move on.

...the final part of me wants to go make some pizza rolls. :3

 

[Flathole]

Take Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock for instance,

Who? From what?

Anyway, a character without real flaws is a caricature. My example is Captain Falcon: beyond badass, never in real danger, can somehow kill God by beating it in a race. A fun guy in small, 90-second cutscenes, but you know that CAAAPTAIN FALCON WILL ALWAYS BE FOUND, HOT ON THE TRAIL, TRACKING YOU DOWN!

Point is, tension can't exist with a flawless character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRTUSV3DiO8

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I'm telling you all for the last time.

A Mary Sue is any fictional character (typically embodied by the protagonist) that regularly surpasses other friendly characters they encounter in their own field of expertise. By simply being better at it than the supporting character, or by implementing a solution to plot contrivance by bypassing the need for that particular ability, skill or supernatural power altogether.

The focus of a regular protagonist is defeating their enemies.
The focus of a Mary Sue is being superior to both their allies and their enemies.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

If it weren't squarely aimed at women more than anyone else, and/or if the accusations didn't overlook details in a fit of complete bias I doubt people would be so vehement in defending a character. But people do do that. These accusations are rarely leveled without bias.

Hell, even if accusations could be made without bias, and with solid reasoning, then telling people not to defend will just make people want to. Rebels, and stuff.
I mean, who are you to demand anything from us? What makes your opinion so good that it can't be argued? Why should we shut up instead of debate?

/ramble

 

[Something Amyss]

Take Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock for instance, I doubt many of you would have thought of him as a Gary Stu, of course not, you liked the character.

You're right. I've never thought of him as a Gary Stu.

Mary Sue is a ridiculously overused term that gets thrown around in the opposite sense to what you mean. Someone is often a Mary Sue simply for someone not liking them. "Mary Sue" is supposed to be a fairly specific type of (often self-insert) character who is hypercompetent at pretty much everything and more or less the center of the known universe. The issue becomes that they overshadow everyone and everything, primarily in someone else's established works.

The idea of a canon Sue is still a fairly dubious one and needs to take into account things like genre. But the fact that it's bandied about the way some people use commas is kind of annoying. Hell, the way some people use commas is kind of annoying.

There's probably a case in that last but, that it's pointless to argue, but so what? Not like this is time I was going to spend curing cancer.

...of course, I've never watched the show and don't know who he is, but you're absolutely right that I have never associated "Gary Stu" with Jack...whateverhisnameis.

This is what people do on online forums. There is no should or shouldn't. Everything is up for debate.

I wholeheartedly disagree

Well, you're wrong. As this is the internet, I won't explain how, but rest assured that in stating it, I have absolute high ground on the issue.

I mean, who are you to demand anything from us? What makes your opinion so good that it can't be argued? Why should we shut up instead of debate?

/ramble

I don't know, he's kind of got a point. All this arguing. I think it's best we just shut the internet down now.

...wait, is this a Gary Stu trap?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I mean, who are you to demand anything from us? What makes your opinion so good that it can't be argued? Why should we shut up instead of debate?

/ramble

I don't know, he's kind of got a point. All this arguing. I think it's best we just shut the internet down now.

...wait, is this a Gary Stu trap?

I dunno, maybe? Someone that can't be argued with because they're right always is something along those lines? Seems like something a Stu would say.
He's not one of those Stus sent here to spy on us is he?

 

[Something Amyss]

I dunno, maybe? Someone that can't be argued with because they're right always is something along those lines? Seems like something a Stu would say.
He's not one of those Stus sent here to spy on us is he?

This seems like the exact sort of thing to set up infighting! I say no more! Down with the stus!

 

[Zen Bard]

[https://imgflip.com/i/xhmgj] [https://imgflip.com/memegenerator]

This, however, is exactly what it means:

"Mary Sue" is supposed to be a fairly specific type of (often self-insert) character who is hypercompetent at pretty much everything and more or less the center of the known universe. The issue becomes that they overshadow everyone and everything, primarily in someone else's established works.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

But, if we don't get to argue about stuff, what else do we do on the internet?

I can only watch so much porn and cat videos.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I think the term is very much overused. It isn't supposed to be merely a "perfect" character who is good at everything, but also connoted author self insertion. When a term becomes overused it tends to lose its meaning and thus derail discussions about characters or source material rather than deepen or broaden them.

It is something I just avoid all together.