Is "Mary Sue" a label we are more inclined to slap on female characters?

[Vault101]

[sub/][sub/] is this a gender thread? [/sub][/sub]

Today I was looking at a thread discussing books elsewhere on the internet

[sub/][sub/]vault what u doin?[/sub][/sub]

and discussion of a book series I'm really liking right now came up where the protagonist (female) was said to be a mary sue, people agreed and I've heard that particular criticism leveled at that book series a few times (Honor Harrington)

[sub/][sub/]vault stahp![/sub][/sub]

aside from having my jimmies thoroughly rustled It made me wonder...

A mary sue is basically an Idolised character often a thinly veiled author stand in.The term is often synonymous with Fan Fiction, a major trait of the Mary Sue is all the other characters constantly talk about how awesome they without any self awareness or Irony, the character themselves may not always demonstrate this aparent awesomeness. It has some to basically mean a character who is "super duper perfect"....I feel this label gets put on female characters more than male characters...perhaps because it original stems from Fanfic written by and for females

obviously it is a very grey area as often characters in most popular fiction tend to be exemplary in many ways. Weather or not a character is a Mary Sue is subjective. I will admit it is definitely a thing, anyone who has read the "Clan of the Cavebear" books knows its a thing (a very annoying thing) but at the same time while I can see Mary sue traits in other characters like Honor Harrington they do not bother me

[b/]my question is not weather or not any given character is a mary sue, but are we more accepting of male characters and male power fantasies than female characters? does Batman Marcus Phoenix, Superman, Ender and the like get a free pass while Katniss Everdeen, Bella Swan, lara croft or whoever get the label of Mary sue?[/b]

does it come from our reflex response to dismiss and demean the things meant to appeal to *blegh* "teenage girls" while at the same time holding close the equally immature things meant for teenage boys? (or things that were ORIGINALLY for young boys)

 

[shrekfan246]

Well, it depends on if you consider the "Marty Stu" label to be one-and-the-same or not...

Seriously though, I don't think so, I think it just depends on where you look. A lot of people around here hate characters like Batman, Superman, et al. because they never seem to actually lose. I mean, even when they do lose, it's just so they can pull an Obi-Wan and become even more powerful than the enemies could ever imagine.

On the other hand, the label might not get applied to said characters because, with the most likely exception of Superman, barely any of them are actually portrayed as "perfect". Which isn't to say that lady characters are portrayed in that way more often, but people might be less willing to look past any misguided initial impressions they have because reasons and laziness and to exemplify my point I'm too lazy to come up with a better explanation.

And honestly, anyone who seriously believes characters like Katniss or Lara Croft are Mary Sues can probably be safely ignored anyway, unless they do believe that all male characters everywhere in fiction are the same. In which case, eh, whatever, I'm not going to argue with them.

 

[Vault101]

Well, it depends on if you consider the "Marty Stu" label to be one-and-the-same or not...

I think thats the Idea but it didn't take off quite as much

[quote/]Seriously though, I don't think so, I think it just depends on where you look. A lot of people around here hate characters like Batman, Superman, et al. because they never seem to actually lose. I mean, even when they do lose, it's just so they can pull an Obi-Wan and become even more powerful than the enemies could ever imagine.
.[/quote]

ah so losing is also a "non-mary sue" trait? that applies to the HH charachter I mentioned, she obviously "wins" but just in the second book [spoiler/]she gets half her face blown off and has to undergo painful reconstruction with artificial components because she's unlucky enough to not be able to "regen"[/spoiler] and I vaguely know theres more to some after tat

 

[shrekfan246]

Well, it depends on if you consider the "Marty Stu" label to be one-and-the-same or not...

I think thats the Idea but it didn't take off quite as much

[quote/]Seriously though, I don't think so, I think it just depends on where you look. A lot of people around here hate characters like Batman, Superman, et al. because they never seem to actually lose. I mean, even when they do lose, it's just so they can pull an Obi-Wan and become even more powerful than the enemies could ever imagine.
.

ah so losing is also a "non-mary sue" trait? that applies to the HH charachter I mentioned, she obviously "wins" but just in the second book [spoiler/]she gets half her face blown off and has to undergo painful reconstruction with artificial components because she's unlucky enough to not be able to "regen"[/spoiler] and I vaguely know theres more to some after tat[/quote]

Well, in my personal acknowledgment of the label at least, yeah.

I take "Mary Sue" to mean a perfect character which can never do any wrong, in the face of whom adversity often quickly crumbles.

If a character is acknowledged to have massive flaws and said flaws lead to their downfall or failure, then I don't see how the label could be applied to them. Granted, it's not enough just to make the character flawed and then point to the reader/viewer/player and say "See? This character is flawed!" There needs to be some payoff as well, which is something I'd say your example provides, though I don't know anything about the series you're talking about in particular.

Honestly, it's more about building a realistic character than anything else. Having a protagonist who can never fail is boring, because we know from the outset that everything is going to go their way. While most stories tend to end that way anyway, it's the journey along the way that keeps the viewer going. A protagonist who can fail is one the audience can get behind, because seeing their inevitable revenge/retribution on the antagonist or redemption is an incentive to continue with the story. But going too far in the other direction and having a protagonist who always fails burns the audience out on believing they can accomplish their goal in the first place.

I think the problem with some of these labels is that many people, especially on the internet, like to apply them to "things I didn't like" in lieu of more well-thought arguments.

 

[Erttheking]

I don't really. The thing is, sometimes there are Mary Sues in fiction that, well, aren't that bad. A lot of people argue that Naoto from Persona 4 is a bit of a Mary Sue. Genius level IQ, got a lot of friends despite initially being anti-social, figured things out faster than the other characters, was a detective at 15, so yeah in a way, she's a bit of a Mary Sue. But the overall fan reaction to her is very positive, because she's an overall well rounded character with a likable personality once you get to know her.

Granted there might be some people who are douchebags and are harder on women than men, wouldn't surprise me.

Sorry if my post is a little insubstantial right now, can't focus too well at the moment.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This is because Mary Sues are a staple of fanfics, and most fanfic writers are girls. The term comes from Paula Smith's Star Trek fanfic "A Trekkie's Tale", starring Lt. Mary Sue - which, ironically, was itself a parody of fanfics.

 

[the December King]

I finished reading "Something Red" by Douglas Nicholas - a pseudo-fantasy based murder-whodunit. Beautiful writing, captivating descriptions, very immersive. I loved the flow of the piece. But...

[Spoiler/]
In it, the matriarchal character in the protagonist's life can do no wrong. It is quite grating, ultimately, and to me fits the 'Mary Sue' definition- she knew everything, was a potion-brewer, a healer, a better fighter than all of her companions, an infallible archer, and a greater magician than everyone else they met. The author also saw fit to make the protagonist a realistic male-child, who understandably had flaws- but not only does this major character have no faults, none of the female characters are really flawed.

If you would like something like this, by all means read "Something Red" - as I said, the writing is impeccable. But frankly, I find it insulting that one character can out-do everyone else at all things, and it does grate on me when those things can include feats that require years of dedication that other characters have clearly put into their lives, even based their lives around- and yes, in this case I am referring to knights templars and swordsmen, who all happen to be men, as the setting for the piece seems to be based on Medieval England in the 1300s.

Now, is this something I find particularly bothering because the Mary Sue in question IS a woman? Yes, yes I think so, but I am trying to work that out on my own, so I'd prefer not to be called any names or receive harsh judgements about it.

[/Spoiler]

However, a suitable frustration for me stems from similar characters, or at the very least similar end results, in alot of Mike Mignola's works. The artwork is so captivating and stylized, the designs are awesome, the references iconic... and I feel nothing whatsoever for the narratives. There is no personal risk for any of the main characters, ever- they will solve the case, punch the monster to death, break the world shattering McGuffin, and save each other. They might lose an ally, but that's okay, usually the character was introduced in that story, and it won't have any lasting impact on the main characters at large.

Not that I want Hellboy to die, mind you. But it'd be cool to see something have any ammount of impact, physical or mental, on these guys... but I know that's not likely, nor even desired by most.

I'd like to stress that I enjoy Hellboy, Joe Golem and most of Mike Mignola's work, I just realize that there won't be a 'Red Wedding' anytime soon, so to speak, to make me really concerned for any of the roster.

 

[Phasmal]

I don't really know what to say other than `yes`.

Maybe it's because we have so many male main characters in popular culture that we don't really stop to examine them as much, and when we have a female one, it seems strange, these things stand out.
But either way, yeah, female characters get called Mary Sues a lot.

I'm liable to criticise female characters myself, especially in games, because I have an interest in it. So I tend to keep that in mind.
I think a lot of female characters get dismissed too easily without really thinking about it. I always find it useful to ask `Why` when someone starts going off on this female character they `hate`.

 

[Zhukov]

Are female characters more likely to get slapped with the specific term 'Mary Sue'?

Sure. It's a female gendered term after all. It's a woman's name and is often thought of as referring to female characters in particular, if not exclusively.

Are female characters more likely to get slapped with a term of that general meaning?

Not so much. Male characters just get different terms. 'Author insert' is the one I hear most often.

Are people more likely to dismiss powerful females than powerful males?

Actually, yeah, I'd say so, at least a bit. Depends somewhat on the kind of power is involved. If they're powerful because they're smart or cunning, then everything is hunky dory. If it's because they hold a powerful position (queen, empress etc) then that's generally accepted, there's real world historic precedence for it after all. However, if it's power through physical or combative prowess then eyebrows may well begin migrating northward. I've known people to cry foul at fictional females slaying dragons or winning 5v1 fights or whatever but being totally fine with a dude doing the same thing, even though the addition of an extra 30kg of muscle and some testosterone wouldn't make those situations any more plausible.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

my question is not weather or not any given character is a mary sue, but are we more accepting of male characters and male power fantasies than female characters? does Batman Marcus Phoenix, Superman, Ender and the like get a free pass while Katniss Everdeen, Bella Swan, lara croft or whoever get the label of Mary sue?

does it come from our reflex response to dismiss and demean the things meant to appeal to *blegh* "teenage girls" while at the same time holding close the equally immature things meant for teenage boys? (or things that were ORIGINALLY for young boys)

I've always applied it gender-neutral before, as having to add in "Marty Sue" seems rather pointless and redundant.

As for your examples...my understanding of Bella Swan is that she's just badly written/poorly filled in. Did she actually exhibit "Mary Sue" qualities?

Katniss Everdeen strikes me as a deliberate subversion of the Mary Sue, and that's part of the reason I enjoyed the books. While her hunting/archery proficiency is a bit over the top, she's written as extremely physically vulnerable...she spends the entire first volume at death's door, alternately poisoned/dehydrated/concussed, and her personality is...well..."abrasive", to say the least. She's selfish and myopic and brooding, and frequently makes poor or rash decisions. I've always felt people slapping the "Mary Sue" label on the character or series had a poor understanding of it. Not that it's great literature or anything, it's flaws just lie in areas other than an over-idealized protagonist.

Of the good books I've read in recent years, the closest things I've seen to genuine Mary Sue's are Kvothe in Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles and Lisbeth Salander in the Millenium trilogy. The former is somewhat forgivable because the writing is so strong, the latter started out fine (even laudable) and became full out cartoonish by the end of the 2nd volume.

 

[Someone Depressing]

The whole "Mary Sue" character can actually work well; particularly if it's a deconstruction (ie, Black Hole Sue) or if she or he just fits into the exaggarated and silly world. But yeah, I guess we are more inclined to use it on female characters. But really, the meaning of the word has slowly been drifint away from its original meaning; now it's pretty much used to talk about any female protagonist we don't like.

I thikn a Mary Sue that does work is Mary Sue from The Magical Diary. Being a huge, long deconstruction of many Fanfic tropes, pastiches of crappy writing, and Harry Potter wannabes, a parody is pretty much necessary. And, yes, the rules of the world do often bend to her will. I mean, it IS just a game-length fanfic pastiche parody thingy, so it's to be expected yet also not.

...Hm... Well, it ultimately depends on what you think a Marty Stue is. Either a male Mary Sue, or someone so incredibly manly and womanising that they can't possibly be improved.

 

[Nex Vesica]

Marty Stu is still a pretty popular thing too, it even has a tvtropes page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu) I've also heard it get thrown around somewhat often for male characters, with the most notable example being Harry Potter. I do believe that Mary Sue gets thrown around more though, but part of that reason is people will use it without regards for gender because Marty Stu just doesn't seem to be as well known. It probably just boils down to the fact that Mary Sue was coined first, so its the one people are more familiar with even if the character is male. IIRC, there were also a few other Stu names that were floating around before Marty became the number one choice.

The term does get thrown around a little more freely lately it seems. Part of it I think comes from Twilight, where Bella was commonly referred to as being a Mary Sue. I'm certainly not trying to dispute that, but I think that was the first time a lot of people heard the term and since then they've started to use it in more of a generalized sense, again for both genders, but they don't really understand the specifics of what does or doesn't make a Mary Sue.

I'd also say it isn't always necessarily a negative thing. In a lot of cases, yes, it is a mark of bad writing, but books/shows/whatever other medium can have Mary Sue characters and still be enjoyable, especially if that character is just a Sue in one particular area. Someone mentioned Batman before as a perfect example, arguably the Joker could fall into that category as well, since even when he is defeated he's usually portrayed as winning, or that it all ended up somehow being part of his master plan.

 

[Saetha]

Hmm. I've heard this notion come up before, that Mary Sue is just a new way to dismiss and demean characters because they're female and obviously not good enough, but I can't say I really agree with it. Mostly because I see it most often leveled at characters in fanfic where... you know, the criticism's probably valid? I mean, fanfic writers, for the most part, are amateurs who don't know what they're doing. And having gone on a fanfic binge a year or two ago, yes, I can confirm that a mind-bogglingly majority of fanfic writers are so hilariously bad what they do, make such nonsensical mistakes, that "Mary Sue" is not only a very valid criticism, it's one of very, very many.

As for professional fiction, stuff we read in actual books or up on the TV screen? I can't name many Mary Sues there. They probably exist, because even professional writers can fall prey to amatuer mistakes, but they're nowhere near as abundant. Really, Bella Swan is perhaps the only example I can think of (And with the mess of other issues wrong with Twilight, it might as well be fanfiction) I do find an awful lot of female characters annoying, but that's quite a big difference from bad. They're characters that simply don't appeal to me. I really do hate the "You just think she's a Mary Sue because you hate women!" argument, though. It shuts down any and all discussion over whether or not a character is ACTUALLY a mary-sue, and is more of that jumping-at-shadows mentality I hate so much.

Also, uh... isn't Superman, like, the ultimate definition of Mary Stu? He's the first example of such a character that pops into my head. And everyone goes on about how he's boring because he's basically unbeatable. Pointing at Superman as an example of a character who we all give a free pass to is... kinda completely wrong. At least in my experience.

 

[lacktheknack]

I think that Mary Sue is a more popular term than Gary/Marty Stu, yes. People have no problem labeling Mary Sues, even some women that don't deserve it (I read a completely bonkers article on how Maria from Silent Hill 2 was a Mary Sue). Meanwhile, Batman has a horde of fans desperately arguing that his parents dying TOTALLY precludes him from being a Gary Stu (for srs, guise!). He's a somewhat interesting Gary Stu, but a Gary Stu nonetheless.

Of course, this could be because Batman has been around for a while and acquired a fanbase before "Mary Sue" became a thing, but a spade is a spade.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

*snippers*

I personally think the line is more towards Race than Gender.

And more over, I think the power fantasy for males and females are different. Following the strict definition of what a Mary Sue is (The Author writing the idealized version of themselves in the universe and being the main focus), both genders do it with equal amounts of regularity. But in just different styles.

Why most females are brought up in a more social dynamic; where the ideas, desires, and opinions of other people matter simply more than they should for males (Stoic males being something of a desire enigma and allowing for men to 'find their own way'). Most of the Female Author self inserts (a term I like more than Mary Sue) tend to have more social pull than powers. Bella has the personality of a prolonged doldrum. She has the social graces of a door stop. But everyone tends to to like her regardless and where ever she walks, the entire focus of everyone in a ten mile radius is on her.

And you have cases like Divergent, where the female main character only wants to do what she wants to do, and soon there is a revolution that's either based on or goes along with her ideals.

Or Clary Fray from City of Bones where a woman discovers that she's more special and powerful due to her bloodline and everyone's been waiting for her to right the wrongs.

Katniss, Lena Duchannes, Rose Hathaway... All on the same lines. The crux of their characters are they are special in some way, whether it be in how they view life and how society should be (well, that seems to be the predominant fixture in female written female protagonist), by blood line, or people just key into her. These things seem to make up the common female power fantasy, if you focus on these popular examples of female characters written by female writers to date.

It seems that men just want the power. With exception (I'm talking to you batman fans), men just want the powers their hero has. Yeah, yeah, Master Chief is cool, but I want the Mjolnir so I can whip some ass. Superman is a putz, but I'll be damned if I ever turned down the chance to have his powers. Spiderman whines so much, but I'd love to swing around with my spider sense.

Like a poster said, a lot of us can't stand the male driven power fantasy heroes et al. However, we love their powers so that's really what a lot of us focus on.

 

[Saetha]

I don't really. The thing is, sometimes there are Mary Sues in fiction that, well, aren't that bad. A lot of people argue that Naoto from Persona 4 is a bit of a Mary Sue. Genius level IQ, got a lot of friends despite initially being anti-social, figured things out faster than the other characters, was a detective at 15, so yeah in a way, she's a bit of a Mary Sue. But the overall fan reaction to her is very positive, because she's an overall well rounded character with a likable personality once you get to know her.

Granted there might be some people who are douchebags and are harder on women than men, wouldn't surprise me.

Sorry if my post is a little insubstantial right now, can't focus too well at the moment.

This too. It is possible to make a "perfect" character and still have a lot of people love them. The trick's to give them personality. Even if they haven't exactly got flaws, if they do what they do with style, people will love them. Problem is, a lot of people don't seem to understand how to write female characters with personality - not even, in my experience, actual women. I swear to God there's a "Fanfic heroine," as easily recognizable as "Video Game Protagonist Guy." They tend to be stubborn and head-strong and everyone loves them for it (Seriously, "stubborn" should be taken off the list of viable character traits. People use it too often as a substitute for some actual character. Not that it shouldn't be used, just don't... don't act like it makes your character special in anyway, alright?) They'll be stoic about their emotions, but have a soft squishy heart that they'll reveal, probably to the love interest, when the moment's right. They'll take on duty without a word and calmly accept self-sacrifice, only to have a good cry later about how it's crushing them. They'll always be kind-hearted but prickly. And they get bonus points if they ever make a point of the fact that they're female. And in matters of love, even if they start the argument, they're always the right one in it, and the man's always "acting like an idiot."

I don't know about other fandoms, but that archetype pops up all the time in Dragon Age fandom. Sometimes I feel like everyone found the same mad-lib sheet and just put in different names for it. It does make the protagonists with actual personality stand out all the more, though.

But, uh... the point of this somewhat uncalled for rant is that, well, the trick to avoiding Mary Sues isn't so much in giving them flaws - it's in giving them character. For one, flaws should branch out naturally from that, and for two, flaws don't save a character from being boring. That's the trick - don't focus on making them "imperfect" or flawed. Focus on making them memorable.

Or at least, don't pour them all into the same mould and call it "empowering."

Katniss, Lena Duchannes, Rose Hathaway... All on the same lines. The crux of their characters are they are special in some way, whether it be in how they view life and how society should be (well, that seems to be the predominant fixture in female written female protagonist), by blood line, or people just key into her. These things seem to make up the common female power fantasy, if you focus on these popular examples of female characters written by female writers to date.

While I agree with you that female power fantasies are different and more socially-oriented than male power fantasies, I'm not sure I'd call any of those three Mary Sues. I've never read Divergent, so no comment there, and thinking back on it, yeah, I'd have to agree that Clary "Look at me and my super special magic and my super special boyfriend and my archetype that will be repeated in EVERY CASSANDRA CLAIRE NOVEL AFTER THIS" Fray probably is a mary sue. But Katniss goes through some shit, and isn't exactly making strides in the social department. Lena Duchannes (Despite being the star of a thoroughly mediocre novel) is also pretty powerless as far as her situation goes, despite technically having tons of power. And Rose... I'll admit to being biased for Rose, VA being a guilty pleasure of mine, but I think she's one of those examples of "Mary Sue done right." Yeah, the world starts to revolve a little too much around her as the series progresses, but she's just... such a snarky bad ass, it's kinda hard to get upset about that. She's one of those Mary Sues who manages to have some personality.

She's like FemShep that way. Also, her boyfriend's hot.

 

[Frankster]

I use Mary Sue as a term for both male and female characters ><
Gary or Marty Stu just doesn't roll of the tongue as well.

To answer the question..I personally don't feel male characters are immune to mary sue accusations or less likely to be called out on it, but this might reflect me spending way too much time on the internet so being used to seeing everything criticized.

I mean heck of those you listed:
Batman Marcus Phoenix, Superman, Ender, Katniss Everdeen, Bella Swan, lara croft

Batman and Superman are male Mary Sues as much as I love Batman. Dunno who Ender is.
I've seen Batman and especially Superman called out on being mary sues enough to have the opinion that they don't get special treatment in this regard.

Bella Swan is a mary sue, but don't consider Lara Croft to be one. Have no interest in hunger games so cant comment about Katniss.
On the net I've of course seen Bella Swan totally demolished as a character for all sorts of reasons beyond mary sueness, but haven't really seen Lara Croft accused of being one.

As for more easily accepting a male power fantasy over a female one, will agree with that sentiment. Female characters doing action hero stuff just stands out more for whatever reason. For example I remember back when tomb raider (the recent one) got released was quite a few posters that felt it weird Lara was single handedly fighting her way through legions of guys. But this is something else entirely, mary sue has little correlation with ass kicking (see Bella Swan) which is why I said earlier Lara Croft isn't a mary sue.

 

[Kinitawowi]

At this point, the term "Mary Sue" is applied to any female character under seventy who can make it home without drowning.

Played out, bored now, get a new phrase.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

To me, the 'Mary Sue' can really be applied to both genders, and I'm not sure which one is worse.

Anyways, I just consider it to be lazy and poor writing. I think it has a lot to do with writers wanting to create a compelling and interesting character that the audience will want to like, but there is just so much going on with the character and it being completely ham-fisted that it just ruins the character. I think it's just more noticeable with female characters just because it's the most obvious, in my opinion.

Creating a great female character is kinda hard, in general, because there a shit load of cliches and tropes that are attached to them that it's a miracle when one does come around. Not that tropes and cliches are a bad thing, but I just think that some writers rely too heavily on them than just letting the character interact with the other characters and leaving some things to the audience.