What the Heck is a Marry Sue?

[Saint of M]

Now that we have a click baity title, lets get on with the show.

ANd here is a youtube link to Overly Sarcastic Production's Trope Talk with Fire on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-GIY9RTqU

And a Wikipedia artical on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue



In short, its a charecter that where their very presense kinda derails the story and the setting with their overpowering presence of unadulterated awsome. Because the story revolves around just how awesome or amazing they are and not how they got there, and that overpowering awsomeness has a contant spotlight over it.

The danger here is two folds. One, that you can make a charecter an "empty bundle of osative charecter traits with nothing behind the eyes" and is a shallow, empty charecter for it.

Seond issiue is the story is now more boring as as its too focuesed on their amazingness and less why I should think they are amazing. If its a self insert charecter you can put yourself in that charecter, or anyone that has done any form of fiction writing probably has put a selfinsert charecter just better looking (I know mine have been at least a hundred and fifty pounds less flab) but not everyone wants a Belle Swan or a Kirito, and unless you want to put yourself into that, no. Remember we are making the the center of the univers in this charecter, the sun revolves around them, the story flows around instead of the charecter being in service of the story.


The name comes from a Fan Magazine on Startreck in the 70;s and they were having a little poke at the standard fan fic chatterer. Upon seeing this, many said fan fic characters decided to address the problems of a character being too good, too perfect, too flawless, and for steeling the spotlight from better characters by not addressing it at all.

You get the Jerk Sue (see, he can't be perfect he's as big a Jerk as Nixon), A Villain Sue (same problems as a Marry Sue, but since Villains tend to be more inherently fun they get a pass, such as Red Hulk or most iterations of Sepheroth), or they take an existing character) or they take an exhisting charecter, scrub away what made them interesting and made them into something...not what the charecter is at all like in the source.

Or since many a fanfic writer are female (or at least the most of the ones honest about it) and so these charectes tended to be female, you make it a dude and all things fixed [I know sarcasm is hard to read on the interweb, but there is no otherway I can think of the male vertion of this being this way and not keeping the the mary sue title).

Again the Jerksue dosn't fix it because the world still puts up with them and caters to them out of love and respect instead of fear. The VIllainSue, again, villains are fun. ANd the Copy Pasted Coppywrited one just rearanges the exhisting charecters to fit their own views instead what defines that charecter in the first place (again see everyone's favorite one winged angel), Or the Gary stue (becasue changing the gender of the Sue does not mean you changed your problems or new ones arrose)


Case in point that overts this, and stealing from Fire in the Youtube video:

Starwars has several charecters that are interesting and several that make the story work.

Luke maybe the chosen one hero, but Han Has to come out of Nowhere and save the day, and tends to be fun in and of himself, Leiha is sacrificing it all to get the deathstar plans to the rebbles, and in case Rouge One and Rebles were not a recent reminder enough, Vader is equally a facinating, if not more so, a charececter in that film.

However being overpowered is not enough to be a marry sue. THe poor writing is there, but the supporting cast might as well be props.

Jesus by definition has to be a Mary Sue, because you know only perfect human being and all, but he still has 12+ fun to be around disciples, and several antagoniststs that are also fun to try to get into the heads of.

Superman is not one if done right as Lois Lane, Jimmy, Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Dark Side, and a number of other charecters surounding him help keep him grounded and are usualy fun to be around. This is also why Batman, despite being a unparalelled genious, inventor, ninja, detective, and in general the maximum peek for a human being, is not because of his supporting charecters. There have been a half dozzen or so Robins, one of the most reconized Rouges Gallery out there, ALfred, the other members of the Bat Family, Commisioner Gordon and Ace the Bat Hound to fill in the gaps.

Yet there is a reason Digi Bro spent 12 Episodes giving the reviewer equivolent to a blood eagle to Asterisk War, or why him and Jeff Thue rutinly flog the Sword Art Online horse.

Or one of the many reasons Belle Swan is such a despised charecter.

So, what charecters do you think derail the story to showcase the shock and aw they don't deserve?

 

[Agema]

snip

Mostly what I think is that overapplication and increasingly loose definition of terminology is that it dulls ability to critically analyse.

A "Mary Sue" originated as a specific satire of certain types of fan fiction. Now, 30-40 years later, it seems to have become a flabby, almost useless term to represent what in the old days we'd just call "the hero / heroine".

There is no meaningful comparison between, for instance, Rey from Star Wars and the original concept of a Mary Sue. We only got there because in the innumerable discussions of whether X or Y was a Mary Sue, the boundaries started to shift to encompass more and more. If we want to call Rey a Mary Sue, then so many other media characters are that the term loses any useful meaning. It becomes a lazy way to stop oneself from seriously thinking about characters and plot, and is frequently little more than a rhetorical tool to dismiss a disliked character.

 

[Something Amyss]

Depends.

In techn ical parlance, a Mary Sue is a self-insert character that is unusually skilled to the point of perfection, or whose only sin is that she is too perfect for this crapshack world. It's harder to talk about Mary Sues in official fiction, because it generally requires that characters start behaving differently than they normally would, and official media sets that tone. It's easier in fanfic.

If you want examples from fiction, both Barkley and the EMH create holodeck fictions in which they are the central character.

In common parlance., it's a character the person using the term doesn't like. Usually because she's a girl who has as much skill or power as the guys.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A female character who is too perfect. Which can mean "female character who is good at something" if you don't like that character.

A more useful definition is a character who is perfect and the universe revolves around her, and there's all sorts of discussion about that that entails. But nobody much uses that definition.

 

[JoJo]

Yeah, the modern-day usage is all over the place. Try googling some "Mary Sue tests" to put a character through, and even within a single test you'll generally find a mixture of the traditional self-insert and lack of flaws definition, over-the-top "specialness", and just plain cliches. Like for example, I can see why a character using a katana outside a Japanese setting would raise eyebrows, but I don't think it's necessarily a Sue trait.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, the modern-day usage is all over the place. Try googling some "Mary Sue tests" to put a character through, and even within a single test you'll generally find a mixture of the traditional self-insert and lack of flaws definition, over-the-top "specialness", and just plain cliches. Like for example, I can see why a character using a katana outside a Japanese setting would raise eyebrows, but I don't think it's necessarily a Sue trait.

Especially since it's so common to the point of cliche now.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

This is probably where people are gonna yell at me for not having read the books but:

Ciri in Witcher 3 really comes off as one and I consider her the one weak part of the games writing. I mean, she's the only woman who ever had Witcher training. And she's the chosen one in a prophecy. And she has magical powers noone else has. And she's a brilliant swordfighter. And she's great at riding horse. And she's Geralt and Yennefer's daughter figure that they'd do everything to protect. And she's a literal princess. And ohmygosh, look at how pretty she she is. And I found it very hard not to roll my eyes at her, especially seeing how... well, I'm not gonna say she didn't have a personality, but she seemed a lot less three dimensional than some of the other women in the game. She just sorta rubbed me the wrong way.

But as I said, I haven't read the books and if you tell me that these actually maker her a believable and relatable character... I'll just have to take your word for it.

 

[Asita]

It's a...varied term to say the least and subject to no small amount of misuse. I've seen it used, for example, explicitly because the speaker was upset that a character wasn't narratively punished for being an asshole.

The tricky part about it is really that there's no one thing that defines a Mary Sue or Marty Sue. It's an accumulation of various details that has hit a point where they draw people out of the story and start viewing the character itself as contrived. This is most easily recognized in fanfiction both because of the often inexperienced writers and because the pileup can get...absolutely ridiculous.

Imagine for instance the following presentation of an OC: "This is my character. they were one of the only ones in the village to treat Naruto well growing up and thus is one of his best (and only) friends. They're a secret Hyuuga/Uchiha love child who has the Sharingan and Byakugan and has mastered that 64 strike technique. and they have a mutual crush, but both are too flustered to act on it. Also they're a tailed beast host..." It quickly becomes evident that this is less a well written character than it is a wish list compiling things that the writer thought were cool.

For illustrative purposes, you might remember an animated series called Xiaolin Showdown (2003-2006). Short version is that four kids were chosen to become Xiaolin Warriors (called Dragons) and battle the forces of evil. Each "Dragon" had its own elemental affinity: Water, Earth, Fire, Wind, and that's the complete set.

Using this as the basis, the bad fanfic OC ends up being a fifth warrior, with a nonstandard element (such as "Life") which allows them to not only close the gap between them and the vastly more experienced main cast almost instantly, but may also allow them to use any of their new cohorts' elemental affinities. Regardless, whether due to innate talent, that special elemental affinity, or because they were being trained in secret (because reasons), they are already equal or better to the [other] protagonists, despite the latter now having several seasons worth of experience under their belt.

The main cast may be skeptical of this new member, but they are treated as wrong to do so, as this new character is a missing part of their team[footnote]As an aside, this is what I mean about it being about compounding issues rather than any singular issue. Being distrustful of a new character is situationally justifiable, and being overly distrustful of the new character is not intrinsically indicative of bad writing. In the context of everything else, however, it's another warning flag.[/footnote]. The distrust is resolved relatively quickly and they become fast friends (and often closer to or romantically involved with a favorite character).

Alternatively, if you read Darths and Droids, you might remember an instance where Ben (R2-D2) got to GM in the Attack of the Clones arc, and he turned himself into a GMPC. A similar principle applies.

As I said, however, it's an accumulation of issues rather than any particular smoking gun and comes down as much down to handling as anything else. Again, for illustrative purposes, the writing behind Superman can be the determinant factor of whether or not he comes off as a Mary Sue/Marty Stu. When the plot goes down to "how will he get out of this" and is answered by "he's ridiculously powerful" (Looking at you, Silver Age), he comes off as Sue-ish. When the plot is "Superman knows best" (looking at you, Superman vs. the Elite) he can come off as Sue-ish. When, however, we see hints that for all of his immense power he wants nothing more than to live a simple life of relative obscurity (For The Man Who Has Everything), he comes off not only as not-Sue-ish, but as a good character.

That's the bizarre thing, really. We don't really get a linear progression from Mary Sue/Marty Stu to mediocre character, to decent character, to good character. Sometimes simply tweaking a Mary Sue/Marty Stu (removing a problematic element or two, or changing the framing with which a scene is viewed) can catapult a character from one end of the spectrum to the other. Hell, simply getting rid of some of the "Wesley saves the day" plotlines (particularly the ones which suggested that he had super special powers) could probably have saved Wesley Crusher from being one of the more famous examples of the phenomena.

In some ways, I think the more useful question to ask isn't "why do you think this character is a Mary Sue", and is instead "What do you think is the minimum change the character needs to not be a Mary Sue".

 

[EvilRoy]

Its kind of a blanket term for "shitty character" now, but my rule of thumb is if the character is immediately forgiven for a mistake they made, basically we have one. It serves a dual purpose because if we ask "have they been immediately forgiven for a mistake" and the answer is "they haven't made any mistakes to be forgiven for" then we have another solid indication of a problem.

 

[Saint of M]

I don't mind that definitions change over time, its how language evolves. Piss wasn't always a bad word, hence finding it ten times in the King James Bible.

Deus Ex Machina origionaly mean the practice of lowering a statue of a god into the play via a lever (Hence God From the Machine) because the Greeks apparently loved their plays to get so comveluted that they needed literal divine intervention to fix issues. Story telling has come a long way.

However while originally just referring to a self insert character, that doesn't necessarily mean its a bad character.

Lisa Simpson of the Simpsons, Stan Lee modled Spiderman's way of talking off his own and said J. Jonah Jameson was a grouchier version of him, Dilbert in Dilbert works this way, Jon Arbukle in Garfeild (holy crap, give the man a hug), Charly Brown (scratch that, give HIM a hug and tell him that it will be ok, everything is going to be fine), any given Timm Burton charecter played by Johny Depp, Hermonie Granger in Harry Potter, The Grinch and the Lorax were ths to Dr. Suess, Xander from Buffy, and M'aiq the Lier inn the last few Elder Scrolls games have all been this.


Hell, even being a mary sue like charecter isn't so bad if done right. Anyone ever heard of the anime Excel Saga? The guy with the afro is the director of the show.

 

[Agema]

Deus Ex Machina origionaly mean the practice of lowering a statue of a god into the play via a lever (Hence God From the Machine) because the Greeks apparently loved their plays to get so comveluted that they needed literal divine intervention to fix issues.

Well, technically the plays are adaptations of much older myths, which assume as that the gods involve themselves in the affairs of men. Frequently many myths end in justice (positive or negative) delivered by the divine where the human world fails to deliver, especially where the gods have kicked the clusterfuck off in the first place and the play must come full circle when the gods clear it up. There's also the matter of moral message (signified by the divine) which would have been impotrant at the time.

In this sense, despite the potential for misuse by the lazy, the ancient deus ex machina often carried out an internally or artistically appropriate function.

 

[Something Amyss]

isa Simpson of the Simpsons, Stan Lee modled Spiderman's way of talking off his own and said J. Jonah Jameson was a grouchier version of him, Dilbert in Dilbert works this way, Jon Arbukle in Garfeild (holy crap, give the man a hug), Charly Brown (scratch that, give HIM a hug and tell him that it will be ok, everything is going to be fine), any given Timm Burton charecter played by Johny Depp, Hermonie Granger in Harry Potter, The Grinch and the Lorax were ths to Dr. Suess, Xander from Buffy, and M'aiq the Lier inn the last few Elder Scrolls games have all been this.

These have a different term: author avatar.

Lisa is a crushed soul and someone who is routinely ignored. At worst, you could argue there's a smugness to the creative team using her to say "see?" I told you so!" But it's hardly what most people would consider a Mary Sue.

A Mary Sue would be closer to me writing a fanfic, where my new character, coincidentally named Amy, moved to Springfield. In the course of the episode, she taught Bartt to behave, solved Nelson's bullying issues, helped Marge become independent, and did it while proving to be better than everyone at their own thing. At this point, the fact that it's self-insert is actually the least offensive and absurd part. She has taught Spcok to love, she has beat the Borg, she has out-thought Data, she is a better duelist than Mace Windu and teaches Yoda the true meaning of the Force. Mary Sue bends the story and fundamentally alters characters, sometimes beyond recognition. She is a black hole, distorting everything in her radius.

This is where the problem of the term comes in, because it's still used while appealing to this definition, arguing a character is "too OP" or "too perfect," whether or not she (because it usually is a she, even though Marty Stus exist), when what theyreally mean is "she's a girl" or "Idon't like her."

The problem isn't that definitions change, it's when certain words become snarl words that are virtually devoid of meaning. People say "Mary Sue" with the same lack of irony they say "SJW" or "feminist" when the thing in question doesn't match the definition they will invariably appeal to. There's a duality to the meanings of these terms which is what makes them so problematic. A Mary Sue is simultaneously a well-defined term and an empty one that can mean anything. When you dig down into what the claimant means by "Mary Sue," they will appeal to a more structured definition, but their reasons usually fall flat. The Rey argument in the other thread is a pretty decent one: people have appealed to the definition as most people understand it, but their examples are basically that she's a fantastic character among a list of fantastic characters nobody raises an eyebrow over. She's not special and she's not perfect, though the claims will insist she is, and it boils down to "I don't like her" for whatever reason. It doesn't have to be because she's a girl, but the problem remains that they're not making a case for what they're appealing to.

Author avatars are normally nuanced characters, though some (Brian from Family Guy) are just jerks. Hermione is maybe the closest to a Sue in any sense, and I don't think she's all that close. Sues don't tend to have unruly hair or buck teeth and they don't end up with a secondary character in most cases. Especially not one as useless as Won-Won. Harry is closer to a Sue, but that's still not a good case for him actually being one.

 

[Xprimentyl]

So, a Mary Sue is an unintended and/or poorly written Mary Poppins?

 

[Agema]

So, a Mary Sue is an unintended and/or poorly written Mary Poppins?

Not quite.

I think key to the concept of the original Mary Sue is that it's a piece of author wish fulfillment. Basically, the author loves Star Trek and the characters, and imagines the main character to be her(him-)self, who everyone loves and admires and is beautiful and super-talented et cetera.

The idea that a Mary Sue is simply a super-talented woman is not a very interesting concept, because we suddenly have to consider vast swathes of normal larger-than-life movie, TV and literature heroes and superheroes as Mary Sues.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, a Mary Sue is an unintended and/or poorly written Mary Poppins?

Mary Poppins is a Time Lord. She's no more spectacular than a man who can save the universe with a cricket bat.

The idea that a Mary Sue is simply a super-talented woman is not a very interesting concept, because we suddenly have to consider vast swathes of normal larger-than-life movie, TV and literature heroes and superheroes as Mary Sues.

It may not be interesting, but neither is it novel, since this is where most of the cries of "Mary Sue" come from.

 

[Saint of M]

So, a Mary Sue is an unintended and/or poorly written Mary Poppins?

Mary Poppins is a Time Lord. She's no more spectacular than a man who can save the universe with a cricket bat.

The idea that a Mary Sue is simply a super-talented woman is not a very interesting concept, because we suddenly have to consider vast swathes of normal larger-than-life movie, TV and literature heroes and superheroes as Mary Sues.

It may not be interesting, but neither is it novel, since this is where most of the cries of "Mary Sue" come from.

I think its more than just super talented. We see these all the time in fiction. Cover Girl from Gen 1 G.I.JOE: Former Super Model, tank driver and mechanic (seriously, if they try to do those as films again we need to get Gal Godot for the Role). Fem Shepherd is a soldier in the standard background, the first human to make it to Specter, apparently the hottest woman around (30 odd mating requests for Grunt and 1 for a Shep of either gender) and Still can't dance. Wonder Woman, Um, the lasso is ok, no need for the sword...yes I am staring in your eyes! What do you mean they're not blue?


Its when they detract from the story, over take it, that it becomes a problem.

 

[Agema]

It may not be interesting, but neither is it novel, since this is where most of the cries of "Mary Sue" come from.

Give people a term, and they'll misuse it.

See also "fascist", "communist", "SJW", etc. What everyone gets about these things are their pejorative nature. It's a lot easier to sling a casual label to put down what is not liked than try to analyse in any detail. In the end, the description is stretched out of shape so much it becomes effectively meaningless except to say "I don't like it".