Ooooookay. Why is the term "Mary Sue" being thrown around like paint?

[Thaluikhain]

A Mary Sue is an unbelievable perfect and successful (in universe) female character. This has been extended to any female character that's not utterly useless by certain types who have an odd idea on how successful women can/should be.

It's never been just female, Mary Sue is a unisex title for any character who is basically perfect. Try thinking before you comment.

Excepting, of course, that there exists seperate terms such as Gary Stu or Marty Stu for male versions.

Hell, TVtropes even had a long argument over whether it was even possible for a male character to be like that a few years back.

 

[Asita]

A Mary Sue is an unbelievable perfect and successful (in universe) female character. This has been extended to any female character that's not utterly useless by certain types who have an odd idea on how successful women can/should be.

It's never been just female, Mary Sue is a unisex title for any character who is basically perfect. Try thinking before you comment.

Excepting, of course, that there exists seperate terms such as Gary Stu or Marty Stu for male versions.

Hell, TVtropes even had a long argument over whether it was even possible for a male character to be like that a few years back.

There are, but Gary and Marty never really caught on to the extent that Mary did, and the distinction between Mary and Marty/Gary is a purely artificial divide between male and female examples of the exact same phenomena. Consequentially Mary Sue tends to be employed as a catch-all term for both sexes.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I think Mary/Gary has almost evolved to mean a character with no interesting flaws. They author might put something in like "they're clumsy" or some meaningless shit like that, but really, they're just the perfect snowflake. I almost never see people using the term as it was originally intended.

Hell, some people just use it against characters they didn't like as some weird justification for them to take the intellectual high ground when they, in reality, have no clue what they're talking about. You see the same thing when people regularly say a story was poorly written when they really just didn't like it. It's just another vague detractor people can throw around to make their opinions sound like they deserve more weight.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Oh come on, you've never seen "The Room"? Or "Grown Ups"? Or "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry?"

Oh, I definitely think that there are plenty of male Mary-Sues, but what I was commenting on was how I've never seen one that was widely considered one.

...And neither of you mention Wesley Crusher? He is one of the less ambiguous canonical examples in fiction, due in no small part from Eugene Wesley Roddenberry himself openly admitting that Wesley was an idealized version of his younger self.

I recently watched TNG, and I cannot agree with this more. That character might not be as bad as someone like Anastasia Steel, but he's pretty damn bad. Still haven't heard general complaint about him being a Mary Sue, but I might just be too young to have seen it.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I recently watched TNG, and I cannot agree with this more. That character might not be as bad as someone like Anastasia Steel, but he's pretty damn bad. Still haven't heard general complaint about him being a Mary Sue, but I might just be too young to have seen it.

He's usually considered more of a Creator's Pet. Creator's Pet trumps Mary Sue, when it comes to things that are terrible about characters, so why bother bitching about the little stuff?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So what? So what if they're crying Mary Sue because it suits their narrative? They would shout that women are inherently evil if they thought it would fly. What you're doing here is just like saying "people are accusing Bill Cosby of being a rapist but some of those people are nasty and stupid tumblrinas so it must be bullshit."

So what? Well the what is that they're devaluing a term used for critique for their sectarian political agendas, causing it to loose it's value as a valid criticism of a fictional character.

The only person I've seen calling Rey a Mary Sue is Max Landis (a writer) on his youtube channel, and considering that youtube channel has a series called "Girl Stories" that focus' entirely on the experiences of women I'm fairly confident he's not an MRA or whatever.

Great, that's beside the point I've been making, which is that "Mary Sue" is being used as a buzzword for "character I hate for political reasons solely". Also I've already said numerous times, if someone believes a character is a Mary Sue as a critique of the character because they see the character presented as too perfect, or such, that's a valid use of the term. I didn't say "everyone using the term Mary Sue is an evil MRA!" I just pointed out that the ones I see misusing the term egregiously are parties who have issue with competent women. That doesn't make the actual term by the definition of what a Mary Sue character is an invalid critique and I never tried to frame it that way.

You need to let go of your tribalism, you'll see the world in a much more nuanced way if you do.

I've seen a lot of what you've posted in the past, plus you just finished putting a whole bunch of words in my mouth that are not mine, while at the same time attributing attitudes to me that also are not mine. So why don't you go ahead and take your own advice and avoid misrepresenting others.

I've already learned the hard way that some of the people that preach acceptance the most on this forum are some of the most pig headed and close minded. "If you aren't 100% with us, you are 100% against us."

Simply for not accepting that some things, even some terms, are not always always garbage, is enough to insult them. Don't waste your time telling them that there is grey. The world is black and white. Those they disagree with are evil. Those that they agree with, but make them look bad, are fiction or parody. As you said, it's tribalism at it's worst.

I'm not sure that applies to Kyuubi, out of hand, but I can't say I've seen too many interactions with him/her. Really just venting after a particularly bad and pissy interaction I had a while back.

As for Rey being a Mary Sue, I can kinda see it, but don't think she is. As I already said, the term is largely meaningless.

I get the tribalism thing, which is why I personally try to keep an open mind on the concept of gray areas in concepts. Still being trans I find a lot of situations where people say something is a gray area, but they're objectively wrong about what they're saying. Still that's neither here nor there. Although I will say some people who talk about tribalism, are very guilty of it themselves, like calling someone out for an observation about a group.

Have you even seen any of these movies? Or read the news? And then actually thought about them critically? I feel like you need to rethink a lot of what you're saying, not that some of your previous points don't have merit.

Well I've looked a lot in to Furiosa and similar characters, in Furiosa's case in particular, I'm just not a Mad Max fan so I dove head long into the spoilers. I read lots of news on a lot of characters who get accused of being Mary Sue characters, which I don't generally buy on word of mouth alone, unless there is a lot of really good supporting evidence for the claim. So I try to think critically about characters, especially ones that get called "Mary Sue", but two caveats there: The first is that I try to enjoy a character as they're portrayed before examining them deeply. The second is I can enjoy a Mary Sue character, provided that the character isn't an asshat that's treated perfect, like say Riddick in The Chronicles of Riddick. As for Rey and The Force Awakens in general, I can't say much, as a Star Wars fan who hasn't seen the movie yet, I'm avoiding news and discussion on the movie because I want to avoid the spoilers. I like to stay open minded and decide for my self in the long run when it comes to characters, especially when a character is getting a lot of hate from various "sides" sociological and political debates. Hope that clears things up.

 

[JimB]

You did read what he said yes?

Yes, and perhaps just as importantly, I didn't read what he didn't say.

Unless the person flat out says something that is undeniably "ist," indicating that because they feel a character needs toning down, implying they they have "odd ideas on how successful women can/should be" isn't fair.

For thaluikain to be implying such a thing, you need to demonstrate that he is applying that judgment unfairly to someone. So who specifically is he saying is motivated by sexism to criticize female characters but who is criticizing her for different reason, elvor0?

 

[SecondPrize]

It's because if one were to write a truly flawed female character or have terrible things happen to one then one takes the risk that a bunch of virtuous people will very nicely not at all attempt to ruin them.

 

[Creator002]

Damn weather. Throat is so sore, it fucking hurts and I can't swallow. My sexual ability has now decreased.
...
Buzzwords. Because, SJW, feminist, sexist, racist, phobic, liberal, socialist, nazi, communist, cis, something something dark side, dey tok r jerrrrrrrrrrbs, kitten are needed to make some rage happen.

Are you so sick you're delirious?

Wait, delirious about what?

It just looked like the scrawlings of a mad man at first glance. That's all. The only parts I was talking about are the parts in the quote I made.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Why are so many people acting like "Mary Sue" exclusively applies to females? It's widely used as a gender neutral term, even in this thread people have given a substantial number of male Mary Sues.

I actually can't think of a single character who got widespread accusations of being a mary sue who wasn't female. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are House and Batman, and those have only come up in "Look at these male Mary-Sue characters that don't get called out for it" discussions

Wesley Cru-

...And neither of you mention Wesley Crusher? He is one of the less ambiguous canonical examples in fiction, due in no small part from Eugene Wesley Roddenberry himself openly admitting that Wesley was an idealized version of his younger self.

Darn it!

And apparently no one finds it weird when we see Luke Skywalker intuiting and learning to do completely new force tricks on the fly (knowing exactly when to make a million to one shot, pulling a lightsaber across a cave, Leia being able to feel her stuck, wounded brother etc). The fact that characters can do magic as long as they plug in to the space mana is well a established yet deliberately vague concept, repeated across the movies. Why are people finding that odd now?

Using the force to sense your surroundings is the most basic force ability there is. It is lesson 1 of the force and Luke spends the whole movie learning it. As for pulling the lightsaber

Spoiler: Minor Force Awakens spoilers

Rey does the same thing except, where Luke really struggled to simply do it, Rey out forces someone who previously stopped a blaster bolt in mid-air for like 2 minutes without damaging the integrity or momentum of the bolt.

The problem with the mind trick, as I see it, is as follows:

Spoiler: Gonna quote myself from a different thread

My main problem with Rey easily gaining force powers is that it just isn't entertaining to watch. It's not interesting to me if someone can just pull the power they need out of the plot and just overcome whatever difficulties are in their way without a struggle. If someone is going to so outrageously better than the average person, I want to know that they worked really hard and made sacrifices for that power.

The force used to seem like something that you needed to work at and understand for many years before becoming proficient at. Like if you were force sensitive that just meant you had an extra sense just on the edge of perception that you weren't automatically aware of. You needed a teacher, because these are skills that Jedi have been learning about and practicing for thousands of years, and without the collective knowledge you would have to start at square one and figure every little thing out for yourself. To use advanced force powers without this teaching would be like inventing some modern day marvel with no education of the principles and skills that your invention was built on. This would be impossible since every invention is built on the experience and discoveries of those that came before.

Rey's use of the mind trick was particularly vexing to me, since the ability really should be very complicated. To mind trick you would need a good understanding of how the force relates to you and how to manipulate it in very subtle ways, you would also need to have a good understanding of how the force relates to the mind of the recipient of the trick and in what ways you need to manipulate their mind to convince them of your suggestion. The awareness of the recipient should also have a large impact on the difficulty of the ability. If they aren't really paying attention or very certain and if what you are suggesting would be something that they wouldn't think too much about doing, then it should be relatively easy to perform the mind trick.
However, Rey's mind trick was against an alert guard who was actively thinking about how he was not going to release her. She made him release her binding, open the door, leave his gun, and exit the room. These are all things that the guard would know to have severe consequences and would be extremely opposed to doing. This goes outside the realm of a "mind trick" in my opinion and is more like complete domination of mind and will. This should have been impossible for anybody who didn't have an acute understanding and control of the force and exactly how it relates to a person's mind, otherwise a person's will is completely trivial.

Actually you know Katniss from hunger games is a much better example. I can't think of a single fault she had. Infact it really took me out of the books and films how obnoxiously perfect she was, a robot really,

Katniss had faults. I never saw the movies, and haven't read the third book, but as of the first 2 Katniss had quite a few meaningful faults that got her into pretty big trouble.

Spoiler

She has unreasonably good survival skills, yes, but her social skills and maturity in general were lacking. She is selfish, pig headed, rash, prone to violence, and always thinks the worst of people. This makes her very difficult for the other characters to deal with, so much so that she almost ruined everything in the second book by nearly killing off her allies. Her first act after being saved by Haymitch and the group is to try and kill herself before learning what's going on, then when she learns Peeta has been captured by the capitol, she throws a hissy fit and attacks Haymitch. It was made pretty clear that she relied on Peeta's winning personality to keep up their ruse of being in love too, and it's because of her that it ultimately didn't work, putting herself and everybody she loves in peril.

I'm sure there's more examples, but I think I've made my point. I'm actually not sure how you could think of her as a flawless character.

 

[elvor0]

You did read what he said yes?

Yes, and perhaps just as importantly, I didn't read what he didn't say.

Unless the person flat out says something that is undeniably "ist," indicating that because they feel a character needs toning down, implying they they have "odd ideas on how successful women can/should be" isn't fair.

For thaluikain to be implying such a thing, you need to demonstrate that he is applying that judgment unfairly to someone. So who specifically is he saying is motivated by sexism to criticize female characters but who is criticizing her for different reason, elvor0?

You're just being obtuse here for the sake of it. I'm not saying he's applying it to everyone who criticizes Rey. But I've seen thaluikain's line utilized maaaaaaany times before utilized by people who don't want discussion but to set themselves up to stonewall anyone who they don't agree with by tarring them rather than engaging in discussion. If he were to give examples, that would be fine, but his statement /isn't/ specific. It's precisely because it's not referring to anyone in particular that makes it dodgy.

We're talking about Rey specifically in this thread, he doesn't offer anything to support his stance or any counter argument, but instead goes straight to nebulously referring to "some types" having "odd ideas about how useless a woman should be". It's a classic setup. You're right that it doesn't target anyone specific, which is what caught my attention in the first place, it's not specific, but its the implication that you might be one of those "some types" by providing the setup to muddy anyone's dislikes with the character with sexism, making them back off, because the poster dislikes their opinions on the character, sexist or not.

 

[Frankster]

Mary Sue has its origins from author self insert character that is super amazing and exceptional in any way, I believe the fanfic in question was a Star Trek one.

Over time it has become a general term for a character that is so super perfect that it borders on the fanfic, now mileage might vary according to person to person but for me these are signs of a mary sue as opposed to a power fantasy:

-the gary stu/mary sue is borderline perfect and is able to master complex skills with ease because s/he is so amazingly amazing and regardless of any prior indicated personality traits and knowledge (ex: since we are talking about Star Wars, Poe is a power fantasy because he is said to be the resistances best pilot and all his feats come from that. Outside it he is nothing special and even breaks under torture, given more scenes he might well be a Gary Stu though if he starts being awesome at everything but being super awesome at the one thing he is said to be super awesome at means he avoids the Gary Stu accusations from me, for now at least)
-the gary stu/mary sue hardly ever suffers negative consequences and anything that bad that happens to them is pretty much nullified or of 0 consequence.
-the gary stu/mary is rarely or lightly made fun or proven wrong big in any significant way.
Going back to Star Wars, Finn is definitly NOT a gary stu because he is too much of a butt monkey to be one. It would be like calling Krillin from dbz a Gary Stu.
-the gary stu/mary sue breaks the logic of the setting that might have been previously established: like being super amazing at mastering the force even compared to previously established prodigies... Which brings me to Rey from Star Wars since really this topic is about her.

Yup count me in the camp that thinks of her as a Mary Sue. By the time she was captured yet ended up breaking her torturer and sending Ren running away with his tail between his legs then casually escaping (after a whupping 3 tries at one of the hardest jedi tricks around no less) and running through the enemy's fortress of doom like it's nothing, I was pretty much firmly convinced of it.

 

[maninahat]

The thing that confused/annoyed me about the Force persuasion scene was the fact she knew how to do it to begin with. Just because you know how to hit keys on a piano doesn't mean you spontaneously play Mozart.

Because literally in the scene before Ren pushes at her mind to try to get her to tell him what she saw. she experiences it, then tries it and fails the first two times.

And apparently no one finds it weird when we see Luke Skywalker intuiting and learning to do completely new force tricks on the fly (knowing exactly when to make a million to one shot, pulling a lightsaber across a cave, Leia being able to feel her stuck, wounded brother etc). The fact that characters can do magic as long as they plug in to the space mana is well a established yet deliberately vague concept, repeated across the movies. Why are people finding that odd now?

Luke makes a shot all of the other pilots were expected to be able to make and struggled to Force Pull his lightsaber when it was literally an arm's length away (in his second movie). All this after being jumped by a sandperson and shoved to the ground/bullied at Mos Eisley among other gaffes and talked down to by Han.

They weren't expected to make the shot. Han calls it a suicide mission, one of the pilots claims the shot is "impossible", we saw another pilot screw it up, and then there is that small fact of the matter that Luke has never ever either flown the vehicle before, nor used the force to make a precision bombing run. All of this is a simple dramatic ratcheting up of the tension, followed by a chekhov's gun in the force finally becomes useful to Luke.

Rey Force pulls Luke's lightsaber from like 20 feet away while it's being Force pulled by an at least semi-trained Sith apprentice after using the Mind Trick Luke wouldn't use until his third film, resisting Force mind rape, and bo-staffing the fuck out of three sandpeople and piloting the fuck out of the Millennium Falcon and earning Han Solo's admiration from jump.

Firstly, she pilots the thing like dog shit for the first ten minutes, constantly crashing it in to stuff and only just managing to pull off some good moves towards the end of the chase and Han is established to be a way better pilot. The mechanics of pulling a light sabre or using a mind trick have never been properly explained, only that some characters can do it when they really need to do it, and that some characters are immune to mind trickery. Being able to hit (2) measly looking scavengers with a stick isn't a special, impossible talent, and she probably has to do that sort of thing all the time (she does, after all, carry a big stick everywhere).

The important point in all these movies is that the character needs to be shown as only just competent to get by - that they are underdogs placed against terrible odds, and only just make it through by the skin of their teeth. That's what creates tension. Rey was already shown as being unable to take on a hale and hearty Kylo, slap dash in her piloting skills, prone to fucking up (the doors in the monster chase/mind control attempts), down on her luck (her poverty and lack of prospects), and emotionally unstable (her response to seeing force visions). Everything she does is by the skin of her teeth, often after a struggle.

 

[JimB]

You're just being obtuse here for the sake of it. I'm not saying he's applying it to everyone who criticizes Rey. But I've seen thaluikain's line utilized maaaaaaany times before utilized by people who don't want discussion but to set themselves up to stonewall anyone who they don't agree with by tarring them rather than engaging in discussion.

And I think you're being hypocritical here. You're accusing him of making a generalization while generalizing about what he's doing. I think it is unfair to expect him to show more discernment than you are willing to put forth.

 

[Karathos]

Because it's only 2016 and we're still not used to competent female characters.

I was waiting for the inevitable "HEY GUYS IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR OKAY. THE -CURRENT YEAR-" as if that means something in a world where people are still being crucified and sold as slaves.

are we really going to use the "theres starving people in africa so eat your veggies" defense? bet that one was dusty on the back of the shelf

But you heard it here folks, we can't have skilled female characters till we solve world-wide slavery first. get to work

That's not even remotely what I said, please don't put words in my mouth. You can't just state "it's the current year" as some kind of magical win-all. It's not the "eat your veggies" defence, it's the "Things aren't magically okay because it's a certain year" statement. Things don't suddenly change because time goes on.

The thing that confused/annoyed me about the Force persuasion scene was the fact she knew how to do it to begin with. Just because you know how to hit keys on a piano doesn't mean you spontaneously play Mozart.

Because literally in the scene before Ren pushes at her mind to try to get her to tell him what she saw. she experiences it, then tries it and fails the first two times.

True, it's possible she somehow copied it off of Ren when he was trying to mind-wrestle information out of her. It's an incredibly cheap overly convenient way of doing it though. I have my suspicions that the next movie(s) will reveal more about her and probably answer some questions regarding just why she's so gifted. But right now, with the information we have, I still feel we're dangerously close to the first steps of Mary Sue territory.

 

[Karathos]

The thing that confused/annoyed me about the Force persuasion scene was the fact she knew how to do it to begin with. Just because you know how to hit keys on a piano doesn't mean you spontaneously play Mozart.

Because literally in the scene before Ren pushes at her mind to try to get her to tell him what she saw. she experiences it, then tries it and fails the first two times.

And apparently no one finds it weird when we see Luke Skywalker intuiting and learning to do completely new force tricks on the fly (knowing exactly when to make a million to one shot, pulling a lightsaber across a cave, Leia being able to feel her stuck, wounded brother etc). The fact that characters can do magic as long as they plug in to the space mana is well a established yet deliberately vague concept, repeated across the movies. Why are people finding that odd now?

It's like adrenaline in a stressful situation. You become a better shot, you manage to levitate an object, you have this vague sense of someone else's condition (something some twins are said to have IRL). They pull off stuff that's mainly natural reactions juiced up by the Force. If you only have one shot at hitting a target, or if you desperately need to get your weapon or get eaten by a monster, etc. When Luke is training with Yoda, he only barely levitates some boxes after who knows how much training (training montage required )

What would've made sense was that Rey managed to unlock her restraints by using the Force. That would have been a natural reaction suddenly enhanced by her (unintended) awakened Force sensitivity. Won't speak for anyone else, but that's the part that bugs me. The very specific nature of her going "The Force can manipulate other people's minds" instead of going "Oh shit I have to get out somehow, what do I do" and suddenly her restrains bending open.

Get what I mean?

 

[Fappy]

I wouldn't mind it being used so much if people actually used it right. Judging by this thread, only a few people around here actually know what it means. Pretty annoying. We have google, people. The definition's not hard to look up.

 

[TwistednMean]

Mary Sue is first and foremost a personalization of the author in the book
It is not enough for the character to be overpowered, he must also breeze through social life, be liked by others for no particular reason and be able to solve millenia-old troubles and grievances in a blink of an eye and without breaking too much sweat. He also has no meaningful problems or even negative character traits. Think the protagonists of Twilight for instance or main character from anything penned by L. K. Hamilton. I am sure you've seen those elsewhere too.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

MARY SUE (AND IT'S COUNTERPART MARTY STU) HAS BECOME A WORTHLESS AMBIGUATION

Doubt me? You've got a three page thread here with about a hundred definitions in it. Several people have posted the original definition and been summarily ignored. Others have posted their pet definition, either from a source they favor or simply what colloquial meaning they've chosen to assign to it. There isn't even consensus on whether it's simple acknowledgement of a character archetype or an automatic sneer term. Once you get into this kind of vagary in language any hope of clear communication is gone.

USE OF THE TERM SAYS MORE ABOUT THE USER THAN THE TARGET

By paying attention to how they use it and who they apply it to, you can get an idea of what THEY consider a "Mary Sue". That's about it. It's instructive as to that person's tastes. It tells you absolutely nothing about the character itself or how it was written.

WE CAN THANK MAX LANDIS FOR THIS RECENT STAR WARS RELATED EXPLOSION

People would have been using it anyway because it's a nebulous zero-meaning term that can be applied to almost anything at this point, but Landis used it publicly, so Argument from Authority set it. Putting aside that Landis himself is a questionable authority whose only post-Chronicle contribution to the medium was the woeful American Ultra, having someone established in film make the accusation likely strengthened a lot of confirmation biases. You'll know which ones when "I think Rey is Mary Sue" becomes "Rey is a Mary Sue, IT'S AN UNDENIABLE FACT!".

PEOPLE HAVE A REALLY POOR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW POWER WORKS IN STAR WARS

When you're getting out your measurement tape to check how long a force pull was or head canoning how many off-screen hours Luke spent doing Mind Trick reps to get into shape for Return of the Jedi, you've completely lost the plot. You're married to an argument and you're willing to pull out all the stops to see it through. The Force functions as the invisible hand of authorial fiat. Throughout the running length of the franchise, its only real limitation has been the imagination and will of the author and the needs of the plot. It's functionally "space magic". If someone wants to point out that this means The Force is therefore essentially deus ex machina or a plot contrivance, congratulations...you're absolutely 100% correct. Next year Star Wars will be 40 years old, you cracked the mystery just in time.

THE SEXISM ANGLE IS A NON STARTER BUT LET'S BE REALISTIC

And by the way, yes Furiosa absolutely DID get accusations of being a Mary Sue and/or "feminist insert" who ruined the movie/stole it from Max, and Jessica Jones was attacked on this very forum as "Extremist Feminism and Blaxploitation". Although in that latter cases, I still suspect it might have been for lulz. Cinema has a looooong history of protagonists who are unusually competent, unusually affable, unusually awesome at everything. Most particularly in fantasy/escapist films...the more pure the escapism, the more likely you're going to have an over the top protagonist. It cannot have escaped anyone's attention that the bulk of the screaming and complaining gets directed at young female protagonists. That doesn't mean everyone who criticizes the character is sexist, and we must be free to criticize characters in media without wild accusations getting thrown in our faces. That goes without saying. But don't fool yourself if you're patting your own back about all the loud voices shouting censure at some of these characters alongside you. There are some distasteful elements in the mob.

PEOPLE ARE REALLY, REALLY BAD AT WATCHING MOVIES

As in, some of the basic exposition people have requested to "clear up" character elements was already in the fucking movie. I appreciate that not everyone in a film audience is going to be a Mensa candidate, but this wasn't Primer. Some of this stuff is not hard to figure out. And it's particularly galling when folks "remember" stuff happening that never happened, or blithely gloss over stuff that did happen but does not fit their narrative. If one's media comprehension level is not at "Star Wars" one should probably consider a return to middle school.

 

[wizzy555]

I think a lot of that goes for pretty much every trope. You know you could just stop half these arguments by going "hmmm maybe you're right, but I still liked it". Being a Mary Sue doesn't really invalidate anything - tropes are not bad.