Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Isn't it when a character is saved by a implausible plot device? Like the cavalry arriving just in time or something...

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.

Ah right...

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.

Kaldor wrote:

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, do you even know what cliche means?

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.

We already have a single phrase for self-inserts...

Self-inserts. So Mary Sue is more useful witha different definition

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.

Even heroes with massive flaws are still deemed to be "Mary Sues/Gary Stus" simply because an individual dislikes them.

Amaya wrote:Even heroes with massive flaws are still deemed to be "Mary Sues/Gary Stus" simply because an individual dislikes them.

By that definition of the term, then anyone you dislike is also a nazi.

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.

Lynata wrote:

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.

That is completely wrong. Have you even read it?

Amaya wrote:Even heroes with massive flaws are still deemed to be "Mary Sues/Gary Stus" simply because an individual dislikes them.

Some individuals are stupid and use words they don't understand. Like Masticate.

kronk wrote:

Some individuals are stupid and use words they don't understand. Like Masticate.

Take your dirty habits elsewhere!

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.

Well, maybe it shouldn't be.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

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:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

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.

Lynata wrote:

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.

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:Kaldor, do you even know what cliche means?

It's a trite or overused expression or idea

I'm glad you agree, then, that you misused the term.