Ladies Ladies Ladies

I have not had the health/energy to get into this (excellent) discussion, but replying to say YES, I agree and it's been bugging me too. Somuch.

I think "Mary Sue" started off as a useful shorthand (especially in fanfic) for "unrealistically overpowered and beloved character", but the term has become overused, mis-used, and misogynistically used.

If a character's overpowered and faces no real challenges and it seems ludicrous that someone would be a nuclear physicist *and* a supermodel *and* the lost heir of Gondor, by all means...say that.

If the character is too dumb to live, or made of irritating, or a total load, or you can't understand why anyone else in the story puts up with them for three seconds, say that.

If the author seems to be blatantly using the character as a way to live out vicarious fantasies and yell at anyone who criticized their previous work/disagreed with their politics/didn't ask them to the prom, say that too.

I used to use "Mary Sue" in criticism. But I feel it's...become the critique equivalent of "radical" or "synergy", at this point. Only more sexist.

Just delurking to say I absolutely agree. I get tired of people bandying the term 'Mary Sue' just because they don't like the fiction they're reading - it's just lazyness half the time.

totally with you. (sidebar: does anyone remember Pottersues? That was fun). Mary Sue is a specific thing, though we do probably need to adjust the definition to take it out of the fanfic realm where the creator has (for better or worse) much more baring on the reader's perspective.

Aside from my (quite natural, I feel) fangirly squeefit at being linked here, I also want to say: YES. Your point about the narrative *needing* to centre on the protagonist, and this being entirely natural and not about being a Mary-Sue or an author-insert, is brilliant. I wish I had been able to articulate that. Thank you for wading into this - hopefully the discussion will go somewhere helpful.

I can only think of a few characters I'd call Mary Sues, and most of them are male. But no, I won't name them, because I respect their creators for taking the trouble to invent something at all, when there are plenty of jobs out there in telemarketing and used car sales.

I think all in all people need to lighten up on their criticism of published works. It's much easier to notice a missed spot of dirt on a floor than it is to clean said floor while riding a unicycle and balancing a bucket of fish on your head (approximately my experience of what it feels like to write a novel).

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to make some jello surprise.

Thank you for bringing this up. My co-author and I have been struggling with making our characters, especially the main character who is both female and young, well-rounded and not necessarily reflections of ourselves. Reading this had caused me to re-evaluate where we may be shorting her for fear of how she'll be seen by critics....instead of letting her have the things she should as a protagonist.

I do tend to prefer flawed characters, regardless of their gender, but even if they are close to perfect, I never assume the protagonist is a Mary Sue or whatever the male equivalent is. Naturally, there is some part of the author in all of the characters, because it's their story.

I don't hear the same criticisms aimed at the male protagonists of thrillers or crime novels. Much like the dismissal of romance novels simply because they are targeted at, and mostly written by, women, cheap assumptions about women writing and featured in genre fiction are critic short-hand for Hawthorne's "damned mob of scribbling women."

I love this post. You've effectively summed up the problem of "Mary Sue" and how misogynist the term has become/always has been (?).

Also! My best friend and I are totally going to drive up to Michigan to see you! We're really excited 8)

I think the same thing has happened with the whole Manic Pixie Dream Girl criticism (which was invented by a guy) and, sadly, that one has spilled over into real life to provide yet more policing of women who enjoy themselves.

I totally agree about Mary Sues. Especially your point that protagonists are, of course, the heroes of their own stories.

But I think that speculating about an author's intentions can be interesting, and is extremely hard to avoid if you're trying to discuss something in-depth at all. In fact, you do it yourself: whether or not an author has succeeded created a sympathetic, well-rounded female character, I think it's fair to assume that it was his or her intention to do so.

It's obnoxious to say stuff like, "J. Author clearly intended his protagonist as a wish-fulfillment version of himself." But I think it's overly restrictive to suggest that people not discuss intentions at all.

Then you can't write things like, "It's ironic that while J. Author's diaries suggest that she wrote her romances as potboilers to pay the rent and considered her mysteries to be her serious works of art, the romances are now considered classics while nobody reads the mysteries any more."

Nor can you write things like, "It seemed like we were supposed to consider R. Character's habit of mouthing off to the drill sergeant a mark of his courage and individuality, but it made me think he was an idiot." Or, "F. Character's death was clearly supposed to be deeply moving, but when you kill someone by literally dropping a truck on them, it's hard not to laugh."

Delurking to say thank you for writing this. It's been bugging me for a while and I haven't known quite how to articulate it. The term has come to mean so many different things to different people that it almost doesn't mean anything anymore. I love my characters to be flawed, but at the same time I'm not interested in reading about 'normal people doing normal things' which is part of why I read Sf/F in the first place.

Jello is its own surprise.

It's true--people have used Mary Sue/Marty Stu to mean just about anything until it has lost all precision. I think there is a place for the term when characters are obviously a wish-fulfillment fantasy on the part of the author. But otherwise, let's not use the term to mean everything and anything.

I honestly don't think the term Mary-Sue should be used outside of fanfiction. It's an FF term for a very specific thing, and it's not really applicable to original fiction. I think using it to critique original fiction is a cop-out, like the critics can't even be bothered to formulate a coherent explanation of what they think about a book or character, so they throw the term "Mary-Sue" in there.

Also, I really, really hate Jello.

User ellen_kushner referenced to your post from When is a Mary Sue not...? saying: [...] ist. It is good and right that she be at the center of the story." My love for Holly Black [...]

*Ladies' sewing circle and terrorist society fist bump!*

Another lurker, here from Twitter. I agree that the term has become very diluted, and is often applied unfairly. However, I disagree that a lot of the quintessential criticisms applied to classic fanfic "Sues" are not applicable to protagonists because of their protagonist status.

If you consider the world in which the story takes place to be a realistic world with realistic people, it can still be pretty jarring if the protagonist continually out-does everyone around him/her at their chosen speciality, if they haven't been shown to have acquired those skills in a satisfying and realistic way.

Don't get me wrong, I love stories in which an apparent underdog wipes the floor with the apparent experts in a dramatic showdown. But I like it when that happens because the underdog actually has awesome skills which they worked hard to acquire and which come with an interesting backstory -- not because they're The Protagonist and are therefore instantly awesome at everything they try.

I have a similar problem with everyone having strong positive feelings towards the protagonist just *because*, when it looks like the protagonist hasn't been very nice to them or done anything to earn such intense respect and loyalty. It's another way the reader is *told* that the protagonist is totally awesome without actually being *shown* behaviour that would support that.

Ironically, only this week a female reviewer was chewed out (by another woman, no less) for saying that she found a particular book misogynistic. The reviewer was careful to say that she couldn't tell if it was the author's intention or not, but apparently that doesn't matter any more. We're not allowed to find books misogynistic because some other people don't. WTF??

Back to Mary-Sue, I totally agree. It seems to me that there are at least as many male protagonists written by men who are Gary Stus as there are Mary Sues written by women. For every Bella Swann, there is a Kvothe. Let's either ditch it, or apply it even-handedly.

My own female protagonist, who is physically strong and capable but insecure, has good reasons for all those characteristics, but I don't suppose that will stop some idiots complaining when the book eventually comes out...

This is a very good topic indeed. I have been wondering about it a lot lately. Even if I dislike using the term Mary Sue all in all, at times I end up feeling negative about the main female character (sometimes main male character too) because s/he is too perfect or gains too much attention when I don't really understand why. It is a question of reflecting different things about myself to these characters and whether I like or dislike what I see.

I'm not sure if I am very good at explaining what I mean (and I know I've been sometimes even criticized about being prejudiced or negative about female characters in general which I have really taken as a much needed possibility for introspection considering the subject)... however I try to explain a few points I've found out about myself as a reader. Maybe it gives some perspective to the Mary Sue question as well. :)

The first thing is that for me it is very important to be able to relate to the character, especially the main character or at least one of the main characters. Too often I feel that I can't relate to the main female characters because they are so much cooler than I am or get the attention of all those gorgeous guys who all want her. Alas, it is not my reality as a woman. My reality as a woman is often more like that all the cool, gorgeous guys are interested in someone else, someone who is cooler than me (someone like that main character). ;) So reading about women who are perfect in all sorts of things and just need to make their mind which one of these super cool guys (who all want her) she eventually chooses, is not really encouraging. More like it makes me feel inferior somehow and thus makes me dislike her and criticize her more than I guess is needed just because I can't relate to her and she reminds me of the things I do not see in myself.

Of course I am an adult now and my views are not this black and white but I guess there's still this old hurt as a woman in this world, about the need to compete with other women and with such characters, as silly as it sounds, it is easier to feel the characters do not really help you to accept yourself and overcome your insecurities but actually just add to them. ;)

I also often feel bad when the worth of the character (or person in real life) is measured by her/his looks/sexual attractiveness or skills or something s/he can do well. It is the kind of world view I find to be rather painful. My favourite stories are about growth and people finding their own strength, their calling or that special something that gives them depth. I prefer characters who have weaknesses and some rough edges but they learn to accept themselves after they face some obstacles. Of course it is wonderful to read romances too but I really think the love of the cool guy should not really be the first prize and the goal of the story. I find it much more convincing and awesome when the point actually is that the character overcomes her/his limitations. If s/he's quite perfect from the beginning, what's the challenge? :)

Anyway, after saying all this I really think that it is wonderful there are different kinds of characters and all kinds of stories because there are different kinds of people as well and you can't please everyone. All these different characters can teach us something about who we are and how we see the world, how we see ourselves and other women. Yet my personal preference is to read about people I can relate to (be it women, men or something else); people who may be weak and insecure and possibly not so pretty and admired but who eventually overcome their own obstacles and become something beautiful and wonderful by finding their true essence.

Oddly enough, I just posted something about "Mary Sues" and self-inserts yesterday.

I kinda feel like I may be trying to reclaim the term. Personally, I've told folks that there are aspects of the Mary Sue (or Gary Stu, her male counterpart) in almost every protagonist because... that's what it means to be the damn protagonist.

What's more - and now I'm speaking blasphemy, I suppose, but...

If it's well-written? And/or engaging? Who cares if a character is a self-insert or a Mary Sue? I will personally take a well-written self-insert over a poorly written character any day of the week.

The truth is, a lot of protagonists are, in fact, Mary Sues/self-inserts. Cases in point? Anita Blake and Merry Gentry in Laurell K. Hamilton's books. Both of those characters are blatant Mary Sues - and they sell millions of copies. Harry Dresden is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue. Both Harry and Hermione in the Potterverse are Mary Sues/self-inserts/authorial characters, each in their own way - the problem, in my opinion, is not that a particular character is a Mary Sue, it's that the character isn't three-dimensional, which means they don't feel real, which means it's like a big neon arrow above the character's head blinking that says "AUTHORIAL CHARACTER HERE!!!!"

The only way we write with any kind of truth about life is by connecting with the characters we are writing - and it's only natural for one or more of those characters to particularly resonate with us, to the point that we see something of ourselves in them, or they become explorations of other aspects of ourselves. Great authors just write so well, there's no big sign and so the character never gets the "Mary Sue" moniker attached.

But that's just me. YMMV. :)

I'm reading this and I agree and it's been bugging me too, so I will tell you, but I'm afraid I don't have much of anything brilliant to say beyond that. It's been bugging me for YEARS, ever since I first started spending time on the Internet and in fandoms-- I was never much into fanfiction, but I kept hearing the term "Mary Sue" used, and it made SENSE in the original fanfiction sense, but as it kept being thrown around for real characters-- and characters I could barely see as deserving it-- it really kind of OFFENDED me. I didn't realize it was a particularly feminist issue at the time, it just seemed to treat both characters and their creators with so little respect that it hurt me. I wrote a post about it way back when, but I can't find it, so never mind.

I always feel really self-conscious if my characters share any similarities with me. I've tried making opposites, but it's really hard to get into their heads. :p