Does anyone else feel like this term is thrown around excessively? As soon as any powerful character shows up in any form of fiction, haters immediately start bashing it by calling him/her a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. This especially notable in 40k where every codex, especially Marine ones, has a character or two that gets deemed a Mary Sue.
Why is there all this hate for heroes, especially in OOT/Fantasy universes?
Because people like throwing around clever or pithy terms when they're trying to criticize something. The meaning has been so watered down from it's original definition, 'a character who is obviously a self insertion of the author inserted within a fan fic, who abilities and presence completely overshadow the original characters with the purpose of the story often to highlight how awesome they are,' that if you see someone use the term, it's because they're hoping it's a cruise control for cool.
Aside from the silliness of seeing it used on characters in original fiction (Harry Dresden seems to catch this a lot), it keeps getting misused in cases where a character makes the mistake of being awesome, or capable at something. Apparently, it's a bad things these days to actually be a bad ass.
Because Mary Sues are extremely easy to write and very hard to justify.
For example Paul from Dune fits the Mary Sue definition to the letter, but the story is written around the fact that he is supposed to be that way. It takes what the made paul into account and makes sure to keep paul well rounded with flaws and challenges making the most of paul being a special flow rather than letting it take over the book. Even at the end when Paul has come into his own he still can't do everything. His mother and sister still are very relevant as are his aliles, the story doesn't devolve into just one whole scenario to showing Paul doing BA things for the sake of reminding us how BA Paul is.
Most of the time however, exceptional characters are not as well written and the fluff around why they are so special and how it causes them to interact with the world is often exceptionally poor using their ultra powers and super special Mary Sue as a crutch to move the plot along.
While term Mary Sue is absolutely over used, having a character be BA just to be BA is poor writing and rightly tagged as a Mary Sue. We like heroes but having the hero be a the number one bad ass in the universe requires more talent then a lot of writers have to pull off unless they are going for a campy B movie sort of style.
Look at Roland from the Dark Tower for example. While the guy is fast, he is far from the best gun slighter and he lacks any special powers in a universe filled with magic and scifi. What makes him the last man standing is just the fact that he obsessed and does whatever it takes to reach his goals. The fact that he defeats his foes without powers is what makes him interesting and well written. All the situations he over comes become much less interesting if you suddenly also make him the most powerful telepath on the planet.
Kris Knives wrote:For example Paul from Dune fits the Mary Sue definition to the letter
Except that he doesn't. As Portugal Jones pointed out, a Mary Sue is a romanticized self insert, which Paul is not. At the very least the character has to function as some sort of wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author, which again, Paul does not.
Kris Knives wrote:Because Mary Sues are extremely easy to write and very hard to justify.
For example Paul from Dune fits the Mary Sue definition to the letter, but the story is written around the fact that he is supposed to be that way. It takes what the made paul into account and makes sure to keep paul well rounded with flaws and challenges making the most of paul being a special flow rather than letting it take over the book. Even at the end when Paul has come into his own he still can't do everything. His mother and sister still are very relevant as are his aliles, the story doesn't devolve into just one whole scenario to showing Paul doing BA things for the sake of reminding us how BA Paul is.
Most of the time however, exceptional characters are not as well written and the fluff around why they are so special and how it causes them to interact with the world is often exceptionally poor using their ultra powers and super special Mary Sue as a crutch to move the plot along.
While term Mary Sue is absolutely over used, having a character be BA just to be BA is poor writing and rightly tagged as a Mary Sue. We like heroes but having the hero be a the number one bad ass in the universe requires more talent then a lot of writers have to pull off unless they are going for a campy B movie sort of style.
Look at Roland from the Dark Tower for example. While the guy is fast, he is far from the best gun slighter and he lacks any special powers in a universe filled with magic and scifi. What makes him the last man standing is just the fact that he obsessed and does whatever it takes to reach his goals. The fact that he defeats his foes without powers is what makes him interesting and well written. All the situations he over comes become much less interesting if you suddenly also make him the most powerful telepath on the planet.
I was typeing a wall of text. This sums it up a lot better. This is why Gaunts Ghosts (Witha bit of mary Sue) is better then Matt Ward's GK Codex Fluff
Making both you, and Kris, prime examples of people using the term without actually understanding what it's means.
There isn't a WTF emoticon in the world big enough to respond to something as dumb as, 'using Dune as an example of Mary Sues...' Saying that he 'fits the definition to the letter' is a prime example - aside from the critical failure of Dune not being a fan fic, there is absolutely no resemblance between Paul and Frank Herbert. So yeah, he doesn't fit the definition of all. Combine it with the failure to be able to actually list anything Mary Suish about him... The point you seem to be missing the most is context. A character with super natural powers and a major power player in the events of the known universe is not out of place is a story where the focus is on the machinations of galactic leaders with super natural powers. Move that to a Battlestar Galatica setting, where everyone else is human normal, and then you've got issues, because you've got one super awesome special snowflake character that overshadows everyone else.
A Mary Sue is not required to be self-insertion character, that is simply the most common form. You assumption that it is explains your frustration with the term. A mary sue is simply a character who's positive or "special" traits overwhelm all other aspects of the character. Normally this is only found in self-insert fan fiction because when money is on the line editors don't typcially let this stuff into print.
Kris Knives wrote:A Mary Sue is not required to be self-insertion character
Only due to misuse of the term due to people appropriating it because they want to whine about something and lack actual reasoning for it, as the original coining arose from a godawful Star Trek self-insert character named 'Mary Sue.' It's use outside of fanfiction is a recent development, and often hilariously incorrect, as your reference to Dune displayed.
Because I've been editing long enough that I don't need wikipedia to tell me the definition of a term I've heard bandied about for the past twenty years?
Kris Knives wrote:A Mary Sue is not required to be self-insertion character
Only due to misuse of the term due to people appropriating it because they want to whine about something and lack actual reasoning for it, as the original coining arose from a godawful Star Trek self-insert character named 'Mary Sue.' It's use outside of fanfiction is a recent development, and often hilariously incorrect, as your reference to Dune displayed.
You are aware the language evolves over time right and that it is evolving faster then ever before in human history thanks to mass communication? What a word meant 20 years ago doesn't necessarily reflect what it means today. Mary Sue, like many words before it, has grown since its inception and it is not misuse to apply the current application of a word in language. You are of course free to insist the term means whatever you want, but as a share understanding of terms is basis communication it rends it impossible to discuss the matter with you. Not that I would want to discuss anything with you further as, right or wrong on this, your attitude towards a friendly conversation in the forum sucks.
Portugal Jones wrote:Aside from the silliness of seeing it used on characters in original fiction (Harry Dresden seems to catch this a lot), it keeps getting misused in cases where a character makes the mistake of being awesome, or capable at something. Apparently, it's a bad things these days to actually be a bad ass.
Harry D'Amour & Clive Barker think that Jim Butcher is a bad fanfiction writer that somehow gets published.
pretre wrote:Same as Troll. Some terms have lost their punch over time due to over use.
Or misuse. Just look at pretty much any British newspaper with any story regarding something on the Internet. They really do not know what "Trolling" is.
I went on a bit of a rant about this a while ago but yes Mary Sue is completely overused now. It's devolved (there's no evolution of language here) from "unintentional authorial insert character" to "thing that sucks". It needs it's own Godwin's law now it's so prevalent.
"Mary Sue" has a specific meaning that seems to have been forgotten, now it is just used for any super-cool character that people dislike, rather than the crass self-insertion of the author into the story. Similarly people don't seem to understand how to use the term 'deus ex machina', thinking that it can be applied to any slightly illogical story ending they don't like.
Mary Sue originates from a Star Trek fan fic character (of the same name). Ironically, the character is itself not a Mary Sue, as the character and the story itself were purposely written to poke fun at the concept.
A Mary Sue is a character who is basically the author, in an idealized form. They lack real character flaws (Mary's only downside was that she was clumsy *that is not a character flaw), seem to be able to do things the moment the plot demands it (suddenly Mary knows how to hack computers so she can get into the secret basement), and are just plain annoying to read about cause no matter what things work out for them (even when they die!).
Text book examples include: Bella Swan and Will Crusher (though he stopped being one eventually).
Not all author insertions are Mary Sue's mind you. Eragon is admitted by Paloni to be himself, but Eragon has numerous character flaws in the books (as does the witing har har!).
Ahtman wrote:As Portugal Jones pointed out, a Mary Sue is a romanticized self insert
THat is one definition, but not the only one. Most uses of the term tend to have it be ANY overly idealized character-- ones which are perfect and without flaw, especially.
I think you have to go as far as a character like John Constantine before people don't label them a Mary Sue. Yes it's overused and used wrongly. But saying that, I think a lot of 40k characters are guilty of being Mary Sue in it's original sense.
Glorioski wrote:But saying that, I think a lot of 40k characters are guilty of being Mary Sue in it's original sense.
I wouldn't say that. Most 40k characters are classical epic heroes (in space). Though epic heroes tend to have a defining flaw, the narrative of 40k isn't really deep enough to present characters in a dynamic light (I'm talking about Codex stuff here, not BL).
Nazi is another overused term. The other day I was called a Nazi for skipping ahead in a Supermarket queue. If they had called me a f$$%%%G you know what, I could have understood that, but Nazi
Anyway, back OT, is Mary Sue not a term from the Turkey Lexicon if memory serves??
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Nazi is another overused term. The other day I was called a Nazi for skipping ahead in a Supermarket queue. If they had called me a f$$%%%G you know what, I could have understood that, but Nazi
Anyway, back OT, is Mary Sue not a term from the Turkey Lexicon if memory serves??
Why do you think the Nazi's were so keen on invading Britain? So the could get to the front of that line, obviously.
generalgrog wrote:Never heard the term....until reading this thread.
GG
Really? People like to throw it around on here quite a lot. What I have learned is that if you don't like a particular author, book, or character, but don't have any real reasons, you can accuse them of being/creating a Mary Sue and still retain your bubble of intellectual superiority.
Or, you can take it one step further and create a thread about it!
Irony is a word which I fully consider the meaning to have changed. I almost never hear it used for it's original intent, so as far as I am concerned anymore the word means amusing coincidence.
Also, all this talk of Mary Sue and not one mention of Gary Stu? A coined male version of Mary Sue.
The term Mary Sue is commonly used (these days anyway) regardless of the gender of the character.
The problem with defining irony to be the same thing as coincidence is that the word becomes pointless. We already have a word for coincidence. We don't need two, and if the rule of definitions becomes the usages of the plebian masses who never know what the word means and just like to throw it around, language is going to start collapsing into a mass of identical words.
Irony to me isnt exactly the same as coincidence. It's more a particularly amusing or type of of coincidence. Irony is a square, coincidence is a rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares kind of thing.
AduroT wrote:Irony to me isnt exactly the same as coincidence. It's more a particularly amusing or type of of coincidence. Irony is a square, coincidence is a rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares kind of thing.
This is so incorrect that we are all the poorer for having read it.
Grey Templar wrote:yeah, its more like coincidence accompanied by a cruel sense of timing.
I'm afraid this is also incorrect.
Irony is two people trying to define irony for the benefit of others without themselves actually understanding what irony means.
Irony is defined as an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected, or the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
You wouldn't expect someone with no understanding of a term to try and explain that term to others. Hence, irony.
LordofHats wrote:The term Mary Sue is commonly used (these days anyway) regardless of the gender of the character.
And thus it should be.
Some people are deluded enough to think that only female fanfiction characters can qualify, but that's silly at best. and frankly they should be ashamed of themselves for making such a nonsensical assertion to begin with.
LordofHats wrote:The term Mary Sue is commonly used (these days anyway) regardless of the gender of the character.
The problem with defining irony to be the same thing as coincidence is that the word becomes pointless. We already have a word for coincidence. We don't need two, and if the rule of definitions becomes the usages of the plebian masses who never know what the word means and just like to throw it around, language is going to start collapsing into a mass of identical words.
LordofHats wrote:The term Mary Sue is commonly used (these days anyway) regardless of the gender of the character.
And thus it should be.
Some people are deluded enough to think that only female fanfiction characters can qualify, but that's silly at best. and frankly they should be ashamed of themselves for making such a nonsensical assertion to begin with.
Well there's a reason. The original 'Mary Sue' character was directed at a trend of female fan fiction characters. The problem is that oddly the term was not originally taken as bad writing (and thus lacked a negative connotation), but became such over time. Gary Sue/Stew if one wants to use those distinctions is perfectly valid if one wants, but I normally just see people use Mary Sue regardless because its the more recognized term.
LordofHats wrote:Well there's a reason. The original 'Mary Sue' character was directed at a trend of female fan fiction characters.
And the original "Mary Sue" was not an actual "Mary Sue" as you and most others are thinking of it, so this is an irrelevant and pointless distinction.
LordofHats wrote:Well there's a reason. The original 'Mary Sue' character was directed at a trend of female fan fiction characters.
And the original "Mary Sue" was not an actual "Mary Sue" as you and most others are thinking of it, so this is an irrelevant and pointless distinction.
This is a good example of irony.
Anyway, "Mary Sue" is another one of those things that is used as shorthand for "I am smarter and more discerning in my choice of entertainment than the rest of you sheeple." Here's hoping that it will soon pass, and the haters will move on to their next abomination.
LordofHats wrote:Well there's a reason. The original 'Mary Sue' character was directed at a trend of female fan fiction characters.
And the original "Mary Sue" was not an actual "Mary Sue" as you and most others are thinking of it, so this is an irrelevant and pointless distinction.
This is a good example of irony.
Anyway, "Mary Sue" is another one of those things that is used as shorthand for "I am smarter and more discerning in my choice of entertainment than the rest of you sheeple." Here's hoping that it will soon pass, and the haters will move on to their next abomination.
I agree 100%. People use it far to frequently to bash anything they don't like.
Descriptors are used all the time, often for a good reason, often out of a simple overreaction. In this, the term "Mary Sue" is no different than words such as "overhyped", "OP", "troll" or even just "bland" and "boring". If people think that "Mary Sue" gets used too often, then the same can be said about any other word used to apply criticism or praise. Obviously, whether the application is justified will often depend on how you think about the item in question.
This specific term basically has evolved to become a "package" containing a number of negative attributes that the user believes apply to whatever is the object of his or her scorn. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can debate whether X is a Mary Sue or not, but an attempt to "ban" the word altogether is about as ridiculous as banning the other examples mentioned above.
Breotan wrote:Why are you guys arguing about the definition of a Mary Sue? There's an entire wiki article on the subject. Go look it up.
Because one guy gave the word in proper meaning, and then called some other guy's who didn't do that. Those people are now trying to keep their pride intact while trying as hard as they can to avoid learning anything about what a word actually means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kris Knives wrote:You are aware the language evolves over time right and that it is evolving faster then ever before in human history thanks to mass communication?
And you ought to be aware much of that evolution results in words losing their original, specific and useful meaning, and instead just becoming a less exacting word for a general concept which already has dozens of words to describe it. We can use 'overpowered', 'one dimensional' or 'implausible', or even all three to describe a character . Whereas the particular phenomenom of writing fan material to include an idealised version of the author who can show the original characters how totally awesome he is has just the one term to describe it.
When words enter common usage and lose their original meaning, then our ability to describe things has been reduced, and it is only sensible to try and prevent that happening. Language matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:
AduroT wrote:Irony to me isnt exactly the same as coincidence. It's more a particularly amusing or type of of coincidence. Irony is a square, coincidence is a rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares kind of thing.
This is so incorrect that we are all the poorer for having read it.
Grey Templar wrote:yeah, its more like coincidence accompanied by a cruel sense of timing.
I'm afraid this is also incorrect.
Irony is two people trying to define irony for the benefit of others without themselves actually understanding what irony means.
Irony is defined as an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected, or the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
You wouldn't expect someone with no understanding of a term to try and explain that term to others. Hence, irony.
Everyone should know irony is ten thousand spoons when all you need is knife.
The best definition of mary sue is will wheaton as he is written on big bang theory.
Will wheaton can and does do everything the other characters can't (parties, girls, get into movies) and let's face it, who doesn't want to be will wheaton.
sebster wrote:And you ought to be aware much of that evolution results in words losing their original, specific and useful meaning, and instead just becoming a less exacting word for a general concept which already has dozens of words to describe it. We can use 'overpowered', 'one dimensional' or 'implausible', or even all three to describe a character . Whereas the particular phenomenom of writing fan material to include an idealised version of the author who can show the original characters how totally awesome he is has just the one term to describe it.
What's the reason behind that development, though? Isn't it true that the original meaning had a very, very limited range of application? I for one am not surprised it has changed to allow wider usage, especially since it still makes sense. Why use half a dozen other words if your low opinion of some character can be neatly wrapped up in a simply "Mary Sue"? It's a manner of efficiency, plus I think that the term "Mary Sue" carries a more negative connotation than the sum of its parts, thus being even better suited for "extreme" criticism.
sebster wrote:When words enter common usage and lose their original meaning, then our ability to describe things has been reduced, and it is only sensible to try and prevent that happening. Language matters.
Not sure I can agree to that. If we were to follow this, we'd prolly still be stuck communicating with a series of growls.
Language evolves - together with its culture. It's just a fact of civilization. In just about every generation there are people trying to stem further development, even though every single word they use already is a corrupted version of something else. *shrugs* Why stop now?
There's a difference between general language and technical terms.
What meaning does Deus Ex Machina really carry once expanded beyond the specifics it is originally intended to refer to?
While Mary Sue in its very first form is indeed a somewhat limited identifier, there becomes a point where its overly broad usage makes it useless as a term.
Lynata wrote:
Language evolves - together with its culture. It's just a fact of civilization.
a good case in point is the (d)evolution on the spelling of the word civilisation, to now being spelt civilization. I'll still spell it civilisation myself, but i guarantee most people spell it cililization now and moreso in the future.
LordofHats wrote:There's a difference between general language and technical terms.
What meaning does Deus Ex Machina really carry once expanded beyond the specifics it is originally intended to refer to?
While Mary Sue in its very first form is indeed a somewhat limited identifier, there becomes a point where its overly broad usage makes it useless as a term.
You've got a point, but I would at least say it still depends on the case. Perhaps there will come a day when Deus Ex Machine will come to mean something else, and people will be fine with it because it is far more relevant at their day and age than the current meaning? Especially once we get closer to developing AIs.
Bullockist wrote:a good case in point is the (d)evolution on the spelling of the word civilisation, to now being spelt civilization. I'll still spell it civilisation myself, but i guarantee most people spell it cililization now and moreso in the future.
I *try* to stick to British English on this forum because it's 40k, and 40k will forever be a British thing to me ... but I slip up time and time again. US variants of these words are just so much more common these days, plus I always use US English in my job. Jumping back and forth really messes with my consistency, it seems!
And then there's that computer game ... just one more turn before bed ...
AduroT wrote:What IS the actual definition of Duex Ex Machina?
Wikipedia's opening is accurate:
a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.
The problem is that its a very nuanced term, and things like 'contrived' and 'unexpected' are kind of ambiguous in a certain sense, so a lot of people apply Deus Ex Machina more broadly than is actually applicable. Often times its just used in place of the phrase "suck ending" cause people would rather sound fancy.
Isn't it when a character is saved by a implausible plot device? Like the cavalry arriving just in time or something...
No, and that's the problem. The cavalry arrives is rarely a Deus Ex Machina.
There was a thread months back where someone argued the ending of Saving Private Ryan was a Deus Ex Machina, which is absurd. It's a war film. The Cavalry Arrives is not contrived as a possible ending.
LordofHats wrote:The problem is that its a very nuanced term, and things like 'contrived' and 'unexpected' are kind of ambiguous in a certain sense, so a lot of people apply Deus Ex Machina more broadly than is actually applicable. Often times its just used in place of the phrase "suck ending" cause people would rather sound fancy.
Somebody should make a thread about how the term Deus Ex Machina is thrown around excessively, then.
purplefood wrote:Isn't it when a character is saved by a implausible plot device? Like the cavalry arriving just in time or something...
Not exactly, I think there has to be an air of implausibility to it, people holding out on a siege and then having the cavalry turn up at the end to save them probably wouldn't count. Deus ex Machina can be avoided with use of Chekhov's gun, where you slip in a clue or device to be used later. Things like the Harry Potter books are chock full of this sort of think, as you spot them all upon a second reading.
Kris Knives wrote:A mary sue is simply a character who's positive or "special" traits overwhelm all other aspects of the character.
No, that's just a cliched character.
Or... just a character who isn't in a negative / cynical story.
Or... a character who is meant to stand out, like many protagonists are.
Or... any number of other character concepts.
"Mary Sue" is probably best defined as a character who is overly idealized and perfected, with no realistic or story-relevant character flaws, or flaws that are meant to be endearing rather than actual flaws. Aside from that, usually they will be exceptionally talented at whatever they do no matter how implausible, and usually they end up romantically involved with a "perfect pairing" of some sort regardless of any potential personality clashes with said perfect pairing. But that's just an associated part of the concept, they aren't necessarily defining-- some Mary Sue characters don't end up really doing anything (or, in the case of romance, any one).
Melissia wrote:"Mary Sue" is probably best defined as a character who is overly idealized and perfected, with no realistic or story-relevant character flaws, or flaws that are meant to be endearing rather than actual flaws.
No.
Once again, that's just a cliched character.
A Mary Sue character is wish-fulfillment. It's a 'perfect' version of the author.
Lynata wrote:Somebody should make a thread about how the term Deus Ex Machina is thrown around excessively, then.
I actually don't think its used quite as excessively as Mary Sue to be honest
The problem is that a lot of people think Deus Ex Machina means a resolution where the characters growth or actions were not relevant, which is slightly of target. That's one reason why DEM is considered bad writing but it doesn't appropriately define what it is, and many endings actually do that on purpose because its part of the theme or some element of the piece and isn't contrived or implausible within the logic of the work.
To use a cliche', god intervening to save the main characters is not an implausible ending, even though had God done so a week ago they'd have avoiding all the heart ache to begin with, if the entire point of the story is somehow related to that outcome, or if the outcome is foreshadowed in some way. Most people however would still label it DEM, completely missing the point of the story and what DEM is.
Kaldor wrote:No.
Once again, that's just a cliched character.
A Mary Sue character is wish-fulfillment. It's a 'perfect' version of the author.
Apart from the origin of the term, I have never again seen it applied in this way. Melissia's description is much, much closer to its actual usage (and thus meaning) in modern language.
Amaya wrote:Does anyone else feel like this term is thrown around excessively? As soon as any powerful character shows up in any form of fiction, haters immediately start bashing it by calling him/her a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. This especially notable in 40k where every codex, especially Marine ones, has a character or two that gets deemed a Mary Sue.
Why is there all this hate for heroes, especially in OOT/Fantasy universes?
Yes
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Portugal Jones wrote:Because people like throwing around clever or pithy terms when they're trying to criticize something. The meaning has been so watered down from it's original definition, 'a character who is obviously a self insertion of the author inserted within a fan fic, who abilities and presence completely overshadow the original characters with the purpose of the story often to highlight how awesome they are,' that if you see someone use the term, it's because they're hoping it's a cruise control for cool.
Aside from the silliness of seeing it used on characters in original fiction (Harry Dresden seems to catch this a lot), it keeps getting misused in cases where a character makes the mistake of being awesome, or capable at something. Apparently, it's a bad things these days to actually be a bad ass.
Dondrekhan is also an idiot and says any self insertion of the author inserted within any story.
So according to him, the character Liz Lemon is a mary sue.
To get back to the OPs question, I do not believe there is "hate for heroes".
Just that there's two ways to write them, a good and a bad one. Mary Sues are one of the latter.
To me, a hero needs to have actual flaws. This makes them realistic, grounds them in the setting, perhaps even makes it easier to relate to them as actual living beings rather than a stylized ideal - if not to identify with them. A Mr. (or Mrs.) Perfect who succeeds at everything and faces no repercussions from any mistakes, or does not make any mistakes in the first place, just makes for a boring character. Unfortunately those seem to be the majority, much to the detriment of the story, and at times even the larger setting.
Amaya wrote:Even heroes with massive flaws are still deemed to be "Mary Sues/Gary Stus" simply because an individual dislikes them.
Sure, by someone.
Inaccurate application doesn't invalidate the term per se, as Melissia's example sort-of shows. Any descriptive term is bound to be misused - or may appear to be misused to you. It simply depends on an individual's own preferences. The original Mary Sue had at least one person who thought it was a cool character. Her author.
Amaya wrote:Even heroes with massive flaws are still deemed to be "Mary Sues/Gary Stus" simply because an individual dislikes them.
Sure, by someone.
Inaccurate application doesn't invalidate the term per se, as Melissia's example sort-of shows. Any descriptive term is bound to be misused - or may appear to be misused to you. It simply depends on an individual's own preferences. The original Mary Sue had at least one person who thought it was a cool character. Her author.
The original Mary Sue had at least one person who thought it was a cool character. Her author.
Doubt it. The story is fairly short, sparsely written, and clearly satirical in nature.
EDIT: For those who have not partaken:
A Trekkie's Tale by Paula Smith
"Gee, golly, gosh, gloriosky," thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. "Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the fleet - only fifteen and a half years old." Captain Kirk came up to her.
"Oh, Lieutenant, I love you madly. Will you come to bed with me?"
"Captain! I am not that kind of girl!"
"You're right, and I respect you for it. Here, take over the ship for a minute while I go get some coffee for us."
Mr. Spock came onto the bridge. "What are you doing in the command seat, Lieutenant?"
"The Captain told me to."
"Flawlessly logical. I admire your mind."
Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Scott beamed down with Lt. Mary Sue to Rigel XXXVII. They were attacked by green androids and thrown into prison. In a moment of weakness Lt. Mary Sue revealed to Mr. Spock that she too was half Vulcan. Recovering quickly, she sprung the lock with her hairpin and they all got away back to the ship.
But back on board, Dr. McCoy and Lt. Mary Sue found out that the men who had beamed down were seriously stricken by the jumping cold robbies , Mary Sue less so. While the four officers languished in Sick Bay, Lt. Mary Sue ran the ship, and ran it so well she received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Vulcan Order of Gallantry and the Tralfamadorian Order of Good Guyhood.
However the disease finally got to her and she fell fatally ill. In the Sick Bay as she breathed her last, she was surrounded by Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, and Mr. Scott, all weeping unashamedly at the loss of her beautiful youth and youthful beauty, intelligence, capability and all around niceness. Even to this day her birthday is a national holiday of the Enterprise.
Thanks, I had indeed not read it yet. That said, even though I will admit that it could be interpreted as a satire, I would by no means be surprised if it weren't. Fans doubling as amateur authors, especially young ones with a romantic interest in a character (or actor behind said character), sometimes write the craziest stuff. If you don't believe me check out some of the weird stories posted on fanfiction.net.
But suppose you are right, would this not make the definition of "Mary Sue" as a self-insert invalid, and bring the origin much, much closer to how this term is applied nowadays?
If "Mary Sue" is only used for characters that are authorial self-insertions then it should be a term that is almost never used. I mean, how do you prove something like that without being personally familiar with the author? To show that a character is just the author's wish-fulfillment presumes knowledge of what the author's wishes are. So if we insist on using this very technical definition, the term will be of extremely limited use, like having a word for winning the lottery on the third Wednesday of April during a thunderstorm. Along with others ITT, I think "Mary Sue" is more helpful if it is used to refer to a character that has no story-relevant flaws. Then again, I think the best thing is to say "that character has no story-relevant flaws" rather than saying "that character is a Mary Sue."
Lynata wrote:Thanks, I had indeed not read it yet. That said, even though I will admit that it could be interpreted as a satire, I would by no means be surprised if it weren't.
It was. It was here way of mocking a style of fan fiction that she thought was too prevalent at the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:If "Mary Sue" is only used for characters that are authorial self-insertions then it should be a term that is almost never used.
Manchu wrote:If "Mary Sue" is only used for characters that are authorial self-insertions then it should be a term that is almost never used.
Well, maybe it shouldn't be.
Sure -- but like I said, the better option is to skip the labels and get right to the issue. Don't say "Captain XYZ is a Mary Sue;" say "Captain XYZ has no plot-relevant flaws."
Manchu wrote:If "Mary Sue" is only used for characters that are authorial self-insertions then it should be a term that is almost never used.
Well, maybe it shouldn't be.
Sure -- but like I said, the better option is to skip the labels and get right to the issue. Don't say "Captain XYZ is a Mary Sue;" say "Captain XYZ has no plot-relevant flaws."
But if I do that then I won't seem as smart for using what I thought was an obscure term. Also, I may have to respond to counter points on my criticism.
Melissia wrote:Kaldor, do you even know what cliche means?
It's a trite or overused expression or idea. Much like the use of Mary Sue, actually.
Super good characters who are good at everything aren't Mary Sue. People who use Mary Sue to describe characters like that are getting it wrong. Like people who say "I could care less".
We don't need two terms to describe trite, over-used character tropes like the invicible hero or flawless character.
Mary Sue isn't just about self-insertion of the author. It's about the author creating a character that they would like to be. A perfect person that they think they could be, in a perfect world.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:But if I do that then I won't seem as smart for using what I thought was an obscure term. Also, I may have to respond to counter points on my criticism.
I don't think anyone participating in such a discussion considers "Mary Sue" an "obscure term". We all know what it is meant to express - and as such it also offers valid hooks for counter-points. If you would say "X is a Mary-Sue", for example, then I would know that you consider X a character seriously lacking in flaws, and potentially possessing other qualities that make him or her "less enriching" for the reader, so if I would not agree with this assessment, my first step would obviously be to present what I deem as flaws, and then wait for your reaction. Not that hard.
Also, though this is just my personal modus operandi, I tend to use this term not only as a package, but also as an escalation of my negative feelings towards a particular character. When a character does not just has "no plot-relevant flaws" but is so obnoxiously perfect or otherwise "special" that he or she starts to make the entire story feel cheesy or even attack core tenets of the entire setting. It's kind of like calling a character names, if that makes any sense. When you really dislike a person, you might call him or her an idiot or an arse (at least in your mind). When I really dislike a character, I call him or her a Mary Sue. Obviously, this means that all of this depends largely on personal interpretation and opinion, but since the same already goes for what you might consider a flaw, or boring, or epic, nothing actually changes. It's just a way of expressing a heightened level of dislike - a level that can only originate in feeling that a certain character really does not belong, that his or her very presence is stretching the fabric of whatever it is you're reading so much that you can't help but to take notice.
Does that automatically mean the statement is accurate? 'course not. But it might be. Just like that other person might really be an idiot or an arse.
One reader's Mary Sue is another's badass hero. This is nothing new.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:But if I do that then I won't seem as smart for using what I thought was an obscure term. Also, I may have to respond to counter points on my criticism.
I don't think anyone participating in such a discussion considers "Mary Sue" an "obscure term". We all know what it is meant to express - and as such it also offers valid hooks for counter-points. If you would say "X is a Mary-Sue", for example, then I would know that you consider X a character seriously lacking in flaws, and potentially possessing other qualities that make him or her "less enriching" for the reader, so if I would not agree with this assessment, my first step would obviously be to present what I deem as flaws, and then wait for your reaction. Not that hard.
Also, though this is just my personal modus operandi, I tend to use this term not only as a package, but also as an escalation of my negative feelings towards a particular character. When a character does not just has "no plot-relevant flaws" but is so obnoxiously perfect or otherwise "special" that he or she starts to make the entire story feel cheesy or even attack core tenets of the entire setting. It's kind of like calling a character names, if that makes any sense. When you really dislike a person, you might call him or her an idiot or an arse (at least in your mind). When I really dislike a character, I call him or her a Mary Sue. Obviously, this means that all of this depends largely on personal interpretation and opinion, but since the same already goes for what you might consider a flaw, or boring, or epic, nothing actually changes. It's just a way of expressing a heightened level of dislike - a level that can only originate in feeling that a certain character really does not belong, that his or her very presence is stretching the fabric of whatever it is you're reading so much that you can't help but to take notice.
Does that automatically mean the statement is accurate? 'course not. But it might be. Just like that other person might really be an idiot or an arse.
One reader's Mary Sue is another's badass hero. This is nothing new.
Well Lynata, I think if you called some character a Mary Sue and I asked you why you would give me a well thought out answer. So since you are already good at expressing yourself you should just do so rather than throwing down the Sue term. Especially since it seems we don't even agree on the definition of the term in the first place. Could just lead to some side arguement about what is and what isn't a Sue - distracting us from whatever the heck we were talking about in the first place.
Manchu wrote:If "Mary Sue" is only used for characters that are authorial self-insertions then it should be a term that is almost never used. I mean, how do you prove something like that without being personally familiar with the author? To show that a character is just the author's wish-fulfillment presumes knowledge of what the author's wishes are.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to spot. That said, not all author-inserts are Mary/Gary Sues.
Like any criticism, there's no real burden of proof on the critic to prove the character is a insert. Once a character matches the criteria (and as discussed in this thread even when the chracater doesn't) the criticism gets leveled. Most of the time though authors will admit when asked if the character is an insert. The only one who comes to mind who doesn't is Stephanie Meyer, and frankly she lives in denial if she thinks Bella isn't a Sue (and oddly people have suggested Edward is a Gary for her husband).
Melissia wrote:Yes you did. Nothing I described is necessarily cliche.
Nor is cliche necessarily anything I described.
Or perhaps you are under the delusion that cliche is the same thing as bad writing?
All cliche is bad writing.
Not all bad writing is cliche.
A character with only good traits, as I initially responded to, is something trite and overused. Cliched. Trying to excuse it by saying 'it's meant to stand out' or 'it's not a negative story' changes nothing.
Melissia wrote:Yes you did. Nothing I described is necessarily cliche.
Nor is cliche necessarily anything I described.
Or perhaps you are under the delusion that cliche is the same thing as bad writing?
You're confusing tropes and cliches.
Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not clichés. The word clichéd means "stereotyped and trite." In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them.
The line between not cliche and cliche is a very blurry line. Lots of the Tropes listed by TV Tropes are in fact cliche's. That's partially because the folk at TV Tropes have chosen to simply list everything they can rather than quibble over what is and isn't cliche.
This is of course that TV Tropes actually does not use the word trope correctly (they're definition, funny enough, is a definition for cliche, but cliche is taken as being more negative than it used to be). A trope is an actual figure of speech. It defines similes, metaphors, analogies, etc. Ideas/concepts are better defined as motifs if they want to avoid calling themselves TV cliche's, but TV Tropes is a catchier title
Lynata wrote:What's the reason behind that development, though? Isn't it true that the original meaning had a very, very limited range of application?
The original term did have a very limited application, but that's okay. Lots of words are highly specific. Defenestrate, for instance.
The problem is that there was already all kinds of words to describe one dimensional, over powered, power fantasy characters, there was no need to change the meaning of Mary Sue. People only started doing that because dressing up reviews or commentary with jargon makes it sound more authoritive, even when the jargon is being used incorrectly.
Not sure I can agree to that. If we were to follow this, we'd prolly still be stuck communicating with a series of growls.
Language evolves - together with its culture. It's just a fact of civilization. In just about every generation there are people trying to stem further development, even though every single word they use already is a corrupted version of something else. *shrugs* Why stop now?
You've ignored what I actually said though. I didn't say 'words should never change meaning', I said that when some words lose their original meaning, in order to be used to describe something that already has words describing it, then our ability to describe that thing has been diminished. That is, we should endeavour to maintain the original meaning where losing it would result in a less nuanced language, and therefore one less capable of communicating ideas.
So, for instance, once irony loses its original meaning there is no way of describing irony anymore. Instead we just get another synonym for coincidence, and the actual concept of irony is basically lost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:If "Mary Sue" is only used for characters that are authorial self-insertions then it should be a term that is almost never used. I mean, how do you prove something like that without being personally familiar with the author? To show that a character is just the author's wish-fulfillment presumes knowledge of what the author's wishes are. So if we insist on using this very technical definition, the term will be of extremely limited use, like having a word for winning the lottery on the third Wednesday of April during a thunderstorm.
Lots of technical jargon has very limited use outside of its field. I think that's okay.
Along with others ITT, I think "Mary Sue" is more helpful if it is used to refer to a character that has no story-relevant flaws. Then again, I think the best thing is to say "that character has no story-relevant flaws" rather than saying "that character is a Mary Sue."
That's the thing. There's already plenty of ways to describe other kinds of over the top characters, and in almost all cases actually specifying what it is about those characters. A lot of people don't do this though, in part because they don't take the time to really think through what they're actually thinking, and in part because they haven't thought about it too much beyond 'I don't like that character, and want some jargon to make my opinion sound more considered than it really is'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Mary Sue being 15 and a half is a bit creepy.
The point is that the author is a 15 year old girl. 15 year old girls having fantasies about being sexually attractive aren't creepy.
So a well written fantasy take X to Y to save the day with nuance and plot and character development is in your opinion bad writing?
Excess of anything is bad, given you do not comprehend the risks involved in the excess. Because excess, not properly monitored promotes innacuracy and further excess.
That said, knowing that something is in excess (cliches, a 'flawless' character, a 'Mary Sue' (both versions)) can be mitigated by controlled usage of the rest of the experiment/literary techniques/film techniques. It requires Skill, practice and experience and monitoring the potential side effects down the line, with a likely leeching stage if or when the usage becomes no longer useful to the system.
Manchu wrote:If "Mary Sue" is only used for characters that are authorial self-insertions then it should be a term that is almost never used. I mean, how do you prove something like that without being personally familiar with the author? To show that a character is just the author's wish-fulfillment presumes knowledge of what the author's wishes are. So if we insist on using this very technical definition, the term will be of extremely limited use, like having a word for winning the lottery on the third Wednesday of April during a thunderstorm. Along with others ITT, I think "Mary Sue" is more helpful if it is used to refer to a character that has no story-relevant flaws. Then again, I think the best thing is to say "that character has no story-relevant flaws" rather than saying "that character is a Mary Sue."
Actually, some authorial self-insertions are fairly obvious. Generally, authorial self-insertion characters resemble normal people who have somehow come across vast amounts of power. They sometimes have story-relevant flaws, but usually just ones that people find endearing.
