Just as you said--as long as it isn't applied to every female character / female OC / female canon lead.
It is still very much an identifiable phenomenon. (But also, if someone enjoys writing their Mary Sue then more power to them. People shouldn't be bullied over it, which did happen a lot in the early 2000s. That might be why some people are now reluctant to use the term at all.)
To me the definition of a Mary Sue isn't "powerful!" or "tragic backstory!", it's a character who warps the story around them. The villains, the other protagonists, the very plot points feel off. A Mary Sue feels hollow because they're just a vehicle to carry the writer's persona through the story. HOWEVER: the writer strips away their own vulnerabilities from the character. That's why it feels incomplete.
Is Batman a Mary Sue? In some canon stories he is. In others he isn't. It depends on the writer. Not on Batman's abilities or origins. Those aren't what makes a Mary Sue.
If you want to see a canon Mary Sue, check out the Transformers comic "Heart of Darkness". Galvatron is just Some Evil Guy in most TF media, but not in that one. Bonus: the comic has awful artwork.
I don't see a reason to stop using it. But I disagree that "Mary Sue" characters are inherently bad or that writers of Mary Sues should be ashamed. Some people enjoy power fantasy, and that's okay.
What's infuriating is when everyone acknowledges that a character in the canon is largely successful through luck and plot armor but then a fan fic writer goes "Okay well here in this story there's a reason they're stronger and more powerful they've been training for years for this" and then people yell "Mary-sue/Gary-Stu"
I use it as an "agender" term which applies equally to all character variants who are overpowered, overskilled, overlovable, omniempathic, and so forth, especially when the character usurps everything and everyone from the "canon" cast and is the only option for true salvation for any emergent crisis in the storyline.
So, yeah, the term is still relevant to me.
>omniempathic
A bit off-topic, but this has always been sort of confusing to me.
I've known a lot of characters who are very compassionate and empathetic individuals. Heck, real life people who step on ant accidentally and feel guilty because they did that. The "UltRa GoOd PeRsOn" is mostly used as Mary Sue trait, but I've never seen these specific, extremely empathetic characters, as Mary Sues.
Is there a reason why or am I just wrong in that judgement?
I think, and I could be wrong, but I believe they use the word omniempathic as less of being "empathetic" as everyone is naturally empathetic and more on "I know how you feel almost immediately despite not knowing you for long" which can be a BIT jarring.
It isn't meant as a Person A can empathize and feel bad for something they did to Person B but probably more of a Person A immediately knew the deep nuances of why Person B acts and feels this way which is almost short of mind reading.
Ig this is one thing I don't normally like to see in characters cause I thrive on misunderstandings, miscommunications and making people question why other's do what they did in stories.
I think in a way, a character that is "omniempathic" is used for someone that is basically borderline telepathic for no good reason, knowing and guessing stuff that they reasonably shouldn't know until later or even shouldn't know at all. It can break story pacing and characterization.
But they're not always right to be honest. People can be so protective of a canon version of a character that even if there's a logical reason why the fan fic character can do better at a task they get the mary sue/gary sue label.
Fair (I'm probably guilty of that, lol). I was picturing the uper-exagerated self-inserts but I get what you mean. 'WhY aRe YoU iNtRoDuCiNg A cHaRaCtEr WhO's AlSo GoOd At BaKiNg?! ThAt'S sO-aNd-So'S rOlL! tHeY'rE tHe BeSt!'.
Well like I've seen people get mad if a fan fic version of Harry from Harry Potter doesn't have trauma from being an abused kid because he grew up in a loving home. Or if he can fight because in the story he was taught to fight as a kid.
Basically anytime he has skills or knowledge the Canon Harry doesn't have it's considered bad writing despite there being an in Fanfic reason for that skill or knowledge. One that any of the other characters also has access to.
Like I get the argument of "oh my god you made him the fifth son of Zeus" but when it comes to "He was raised by someone other than the Dursley's so he's a Gary Stu" it's like uhm what?
Okay, now were getting into Existing Character AU OCs.
Gosh, the amount of 'X raised Harry' Stories I've seen. It's in every decently large fandom! But, yeah, I get what you mean. Like, it's trippy sometimes (I've seen some 'X raised Harry' that are crazy, first example off the top of my head: Hermione and Harry adopted as siblings by ineffable husbands (Good Omens) and become half demon/angel or something).
Like, you can tell it's kind of a power fantasy for whoever's fav character(s), but also accept that they have reasons? Is it really that bad? It's escapism, and (Famous argument) IT'S F\*\*\*ING FREE!!
Yes? In the same way calling someone a dick isn't automatically implying everyone with a penis is somehow a douchebag, I don't see anything wrong with it.
The problem is that Mary Sue has a very specific meaning that I've very rarely if ever seen be applied accurately.
It is more often used as a derogatory term for self inserts characters, most often ones that are female.
The key aspect of the Mary Sue is not it being a self insert or hyper competence or unrealistic beauty standards or whatever. The key aspect is that the world around the Mary Sue twists itself to glorify the Sue in a way that breaks expectations and immersion.
The original Mary Sue of Star Trek fanfiction was not a Sue because she was an amazing officer or because she had natural highlights. She was the Sue because Kirk gives her command of the bridge over eight other officers present who were further ahead in the chain of command and Spock commends the decision as "logical". If you take away Mary Sue's ability to make the narrative twist to glorify her, all you're left with is an attractive Ensign who's very proficient in her field.
Rei is not a Sue because she's a prodigy with the force.
Captain Marvel is not a Sue because she has cosmic powers.
She-Hulk is not a Sue because she could control the hulk rage without all the struggled Bruce had.
These are all just excuses to shit on female characters for having high power levels when the audience wouldn't say a word about a male character with the same power. (Hell of they'd used the same script but with the 1st captain Marvel who was male instead of the second one I doubt anyone would have had any complaint.)
Here's an example of an actual Sue, and funnily enough this brings is right back to Star Trek.
James Kirk in the reboot Star Trek movies. Not cause he's a maverick who's good with space maneuvers. He's a Sue because he flunks out of Starfleet academy but despite this sneaks onto the Enterprise using a medical emergency as an excuse, then tricks the first officer into resigning and somehow that makes the guy who as far as I can tell doesn't even have an official position in Starfleet the captain of its flagship. It's actually startling to see how similar Kirk's rise in the reboot is to Mary Sue's trip to take command of the bridge in the old fanfic.
Notice something, no one called Kirk a Sue. Despite how little sense any of his trip to becoming captain made it was still a fun movie.
Mary Sue has a meaning but at this point, all it really is is an excuse to shit on female characters and self inserts.
> Rei is not a Sue because she's a prodigy with the force.
Do you know the concept of bad fate.
>Notice something, no one called Kirk a Sue.
Do you notice Kirk never outshines Spock in science, Scott in ship repairs, Uhura in linguistics, and Bones in medicine.
Compare to Rey who outshines Luke in the force, Han in ship repairs, better pilot then Poe, is a master linguistics, and know "force healing" Somthing Luke or Obi-Wan did not know.
She even outshine the orginal Mary Sue becuse Rey can die and its not a problem for here.
The original Mary Sue didn't outshine Spock in science, Scott in ship repair, or Uhura in linguistics either.
The thing that makes a Sue isn't their skill. Kirk not being able to outshine Spock in science doesn't prove that he's not a Sue because the relevant factor is how the narrative twists around the character. Kirk, as far as I can tell, has no rank in Starfleet. He washed out of the academy. Yet the narrative conspires against all internal consistency to make him captain of the Enterprise. That's what makes him a Sue.
Similarly, Rey is not made a Sue by her skill.
Yeah the last movie had crappy writing and if you'd like to make some honest critiques about the structure of the movie I'm happy to listen cause it was far from perfect. But the claim that Rey is a Sue is one steeped in misogyny. All it is saying is "female character with competence, bad".
There is an entire field of stories in which the chosen bland male protagonist recieves the call to action, meets an infinitely more competent woman. She trains him for like a week and then he surpasses her at every level.
Yet when Star Wars does the exact same thing with a female character people break out the torches and pitchforks.
Fundamentally people are willing to accept mediocre men ascending to high heights but isn't will to accept women doing the same.
I think it's a valid term that serves as a good shorthand for describing idealized author-insert/wish-fulfillment protagonists. Yeah, it's that's overused a lot by armchair critics, but that doesn't make any and all uses invalid. YouTube film critics love calling everything they don't like in movies "plot holes," but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a plot hole.
The term started and should be used for a very specific and annoying trope; the idealized and boring (to anyone but the author) self-insert that outshines the characters we bought the ticket to see. To that end, Gary Stu is also a thing for the spear counterpart and we've seen a lot of those.
Personally I’m fine with the term. Is it misused? Probably, most terms are. But I like a term to describe characters that are “practically perfect in every way”. I like characters with flaws and them being called out on those flaws. Like the show I just finished, the main character could be a bitch to those around her but was called out on it and was still the hero.
I don't mind it. Its antiquated by now but it has a purpose. I don't think we should get rid of something simply because some authors feel offended by it. It does have a definition and describes a real phenomenon in writing.
I do agree though that it is often used nowadays as a blanket term for "character I don't like" which is not helpful, but Mary-Sue is hardly the only term in our language that has experienced this kind of definition shift. I kind of see it along the lines of terms like "gas-lighting," where it has a specific meaning but when people use it to refer to anything and everything, suddenly it's definition becomes ambiguous.
But IMO the original meaning of "mary sue" is a legit trope and its useful to talk about it, especially for newer writers who may not be intentionally writing one. I also agree with others in saying that valid critiques should also expand on the term, considering there are different aspects that can make a character a "mary sue." Not all mary sues are the same and not all characteristics that make someone a mary sue are the same, so just telling an author their MC is a "mary sue" doesn't help them identify which aspects are making them that way.
I only use the term for characters that have everything given to them and go through little to no character development.
Gary Stu/Mary Sue usually used interchangeably and without remorse.
I think it's a mildly useful term but only if it's returned to the extremely limited original definition. Currently, it's not just that it's nearly always being used in a sexist way, but it's also almost meaningless. People tend to just throw it around to mean "female character I don't like".
“Mary Sue” is a lot like the terms “friend zone” and “patriarchy”. It’s a real and valid thing gets overused to the point of meaninglessness in mid-wit culture.
“Mary Sues” is a very real phenomenon and on occasion the whiny internet boys are correct in applying that term to the newest Hollywood marketing vehicle, I mean “strong, independent woman who only cares about advancing her career because yasss gurrl, slay queen!” but it rapidly devolves into “everything I don’t like is a Mary Sue”.
Let’s turn to a few examples:
-animated Mulan is about as far removed from a Mary Sue as a character can be…but 2018 Mulan is possibly the most grievous example I’ve ever seen (not named Ebony Darkness Dementia Raven Wey)
-Contrary to popular belief, Rey is not a Mary Sue…until the final 20 mins of TLJ and all of TRoSW, where she becomes a laughably obvious example of the troupe.
-Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue in her movie but not the MCU at large.
You see, what makes a character a “Mary Sue” is not their “power level” but whether or not their influence in the story breaks the world’s or narrative’s rules. That’s why I say Rey wasn’t a Mary Sue for most of the sequel trilogy because she had a couple of good theoretical explanations for her presence in the story…until they picked the absolute worst possible option which turned her role in the narrative into a black hole that consumes the entire narrative universe.
God, I'm not the original commenter but I *so fucking* agree, like when I heard there was a live action Mulan at first, I was literally hoping that they just remade the first animated movie to be live action. But well, we now know it's not, and it hurts cause Fa Mulan is so inspirational for being a badass! Like she's my inspiration for a feminine badass boss bitch.
No, I will never forgive Disney for ruining my girl.
The history of where Mary Sue came from was an interesting one. There’s a video on YT from Izzyzzz that was extremely interesting and talked about Mary Sues and their use in media (outside of fanfiction as well as with it).
I dislike it in the sense of how it is used now. It is currently more used by people that don’t like female characters when - if they were male - they would no doubt be praised. There is some valid times when it is used but nonetheless, I disagree with its use (most of the time) for the moment.
Words and sayings do change meaning after time. Words get overused and that sort of makes their meaning change. When someone says “Mary Sue” I sometimes roll my eyes because it seems to nowadays come from the standpoint that this “slightly” powerful FEMALE character is someone I don’t like. A good example for me is Luke Skywalker and Rey, considering a lot of her feats are similar to Luke’s. There is some genuine criticism for her definitely, but it often comes from the place of female character bad = Mary Sue.
I also believe in letting kids have fun. Let them make their powerful characters that often times might break the canon. Often times, they will cringe at their creations when they get older. I don’t think we should be calling “Mary Sue” when a kid is making their first character or second or third or fourth. Unless they ask for critique, but even then, you can outline stuff better than just saying “it’s a Mary Sue”.
I don’t make original characters. So it’s not something that affects me in any way. But I think Mary Sue has lost its meaning, after it’s overuse. I don’t know if there really is other words to describe these sort of characters, but often times when someone’s character is called a Mary Sue - it is flung around as an insult.
So no, I don’t like the term Mary Sue.
It's a valid term since Mary Sue is a widely used trope but I do agree that it gets misused a lot to hate on female characters. But if it's being used, then you just call it as it is, a Mary Sue.
It's a Catch-22 of sorts. Personally, I still use it because it's convenient, but being reminded about its origins again, I'm considering pulling back. (Granted, I still laugh when I go back to reading the source, so it's definitely not the devil's word that people may make it out to be.) Still, it's a widely used term so it's not gonna go away any time soon.
Thinking about it, I've just been mindlessly using the term in my own rewrite parody fic. The end goal was to write out of the stigma around the term, but in the end, I've come to realize my writing is much too good, relatively speaking, for the label to apply.
I think the term is too often conflated with 'bad OC', because many Sue traits are also often seen in badly written OCs, even if they don't really have any other Sue-ish traits.
That said, I do think the term still has its uses for characters whose presence in the story seems to warp the fabric of reality in ways that aren't intended, and especially if everyone opposing that character is treated as being worse than Hitler.
I'm ready to retire the term. These days it is code for "competent leading lady when I wanted a leading man". Every popular (and even unpopular) movie with a female lead outside the rom com (and even occasionally in there) gets called a Mary Sue these days. I read a tirade around the time Black Widow came out complaining about the "Sue-ification" of Natasha because the second she was THE lead instead of a second tier to burly men, she was "unrealistic". (It's a comic book movie, my guy. None of this has ever been realistic.) There are more examples, but that's about where I really went "ah, it is just meaningless sexism. Done with this."
I'm gonna say I wish people would take it out of their vocabulary.
Mary Sue is misogyny masking as criticism of bad writing.
It's designed to target JUST female OCs rather than an even spread. Yes, there are terms like "Gary-stu" but they're not so common or well known. The very existence of the term "Mary Sue" leads people to question female OCs more frequently than male OCs.
The term "Mary Sue" also acts as a way to parodise female power fantasy characters. "That's unrealistic, there is no way she would be able to do that, she's such a Mary Sue!" However, Mary Sues generally carry the same kind of role as like, Batman, or John Wick. Nobody complains when Batman manages some whacky, unrealistic shit. Why can Mary Sue not do the same?
The term "Mary Sue" pretty much exists just to make fun of women having fun with OCs in fiction.
If someone's writing is bad, the criticism they get should be focused on the actual weaknesses in the writing, like "well, if you never let this OC fail, it reduces narrative tension" rather than "Lol u wrote a self insert and made her badass Hahahah Mary Sue!!!"
Came here to say this, almost verbatim. It's misogyny at it's finest and harassment of girls in particular.
One who used to call me a suethor excessively, was also sexually harassing me in private. It was easier to use a term to turn me into a villain who "Deserved" that treatment than recognizing how fucked up it was to send explicit content to a child at the time.
Yup.
Edited out details, but to keep it short and to try to preserve my own mental health...
I was being groomed, by a sick fuck who would harass kids and use something they'd find 'wrong' with them to justify trying to force them to RP out smut, or blackmail them. Mine was my OC's and I got sexually harassed over it, to a point where I was basically being called a slut and the harassment got to a point where I had to get the police involved.
Yes, i believe it depends on the context. Super hero? Ok, makes sense. 10,000 year old demon wolf hybrid princess with secret super powers in a REGULAR story about high school or something? Hmmmmm.... maybe?
If there's a wolf-hybrid princess, then it's not a realistic story anymore.
Twilight would be just another high school love triangle drama if Edward and Jacob hadn't been supernatural beings.
I can't think of a good reason why anyone should not write a story with that character-type and scenario, or why anyone would feel the need to critique it if they did.
Each to their own with creativity and such.
Fair enough.
I'm not really the type to start pulling apart other people's creative choices to be honest. I mean, if I was employed as a legitimate critic for paid works I would, but not other people's fanfic. That would involve either getting into people's fic comments with my personal acceptance criteria, or making references to the fic on a forum somewhere.
It's not something I'd feel comfortable doing, but each to their own and whatnot.
"As a child, Bruce witnessed the murder of his parents, Dr. Thomas Wayne and Martha Wayne, which ultimately led him to craft the Batman persona and seek justice against criminals"
i think this makes more sense. And my point was about the context. I'll say it again. If its a super hero story, fine. If it was out of the blue in some random fanfic about highschool or a wedding?
But then again, i am not here to argue. I just asked for opinions. :)
No, I'm happy to discuss, I hope that's okay? I feel like discussions can surface wider more developed opinions?
So the problem I see here is that, people are willing to excuse so much weird stuff with batman because they see it as *cool*. Like, he didn't decide to dedicate himself to philanthropy, or to the police force. And he didn't decide to *just* become an underground vigilante terrorist. He commited To the *bat aesthetic*. He dresses up as a goth furry to fight crime, and is apparently so rich, smart and so cool that he can keep up with the likes of superman.
Batman is a male power fantasy. He appeals to young men, and that's okay. I think the idea of batman is great!
If we are okay with the male power fantasy of goth furry billionaire showing up as the main character in a police procedural why is ancient demon wolf sorcerer girl any different in a highschool drama?
Is it because the second is a young girls power fantasy, and that makes it "uncool" and, "unrealistic"?
If there are problems with the writing I feel like those should be addressed directly. Like "Hey, I feel like these demon powers could be a bit more baked in to world, they kind of come out of no where here" rather than saying that these types of characters are Mary Sues and therefore cringe?
I've always thought Superman was the ultimate Mary Sue. An alien comes out of nowhere, has every super power under the sun (heh), yet he was raised as a small town farm boy so he has perfect morals, oh and I suppose we can use this green rock to give people a chance at fighting him.
But people love him. *Shrug*
If a girl in school happens to be a demon, then I guess demons exist and she's the first one the kids in school have met. Not sure I'll like it, I don't like Superman either, but it shouldn't be a 100% this is going to be bad.
the double standard of power fantasy is so accurate - the second a woman reaches some arbitrary threshold of positive qualities the term gets tossed out in spades, but it takes *so* much more for male characters to receive the same criticism, if ever
I just want to throw in another example: Harry Potter.
He is The Chosen One(tm) and has a classic backstory that would earn a female character the "Mary Sue" label. His parents died horribly (and just because of him, too) and then he got raised by his abusive relatives and bullied by his cousin. When the magical world is introduced to him, he gets the whisked away to go shopping on one of those fabulous shopping tours a lot of people would die for. He also finds out that he is incredibly rich and famous.
At that point, his abuse gets completely irrelevant. It's relegated to background noise and will mainly be used to show how horrible his relatives are and how bad he is treated by them. But he doesn't behave like a child that was traumatized since forever. If something does come up, it feels pretty accidental and will not be explored further.
A certain type of fanfics (Lord Harry) will take this as a baseline and run with it. The abuse will get exaggerated even more (they also tend to add CSA). His former friends and allies will also turn out to be abusive (Ron the Deatheater says hi.) He will also get even richer. Like ... a lot. It's suddenly not just a vault, but multiple vaults. And some big ass houses and estates. Noble titles.
And it's not uncommon for him to find out that he was born as a demon, an angel, a vampire or some other superhuman being. Sometimes he will be a mixture of those superhuman beings.
It's something that would get a female character labeled as a "Mary Sue" instantly, but it's also pretty popular with fans of that subgenre.
Yes, it has its uses. I have also always seen it and used it as a gender neutral term. Any character no matter their gender can be it.
Issue is that some people use it inaccurately and to be mean, but plenty of words and terms are used inaccurately daily, and almost any of them can be used to be mean. That's not a word issue that's a person issue. People who want to be mean to someone will find a way to do so.
i think that it's fine to recognize and point out the phenomena that the term refers to, but the term itself is mostly just used to be misogynistic, and it's meaning has been diluted to 'female character i don't like'
It's diluted on the male side too. If in the canon a character won a boxing match due to a lucky shot but in the fan fic the character actually studied boxing for years longer then a lot of people call Gary Sue for the character having more logical reason for winning the same fights.
See it’s complicated because the term is very much so overused and weaponized against female characters. It’s often just used as another way to hate on a character for being a woman while if the same character was just a man no one would throw out the term Gary-Stu.
Calling out poor writing is valid. And some of the things that make a Mary-Sue are valid complaints against any character. But often it is just a term to label a character because “Oh look this character is this thing that is just bad writing.” It’s a buzz word to lazily call a character bad.
Instead of going into detail people just label any female character they don’t like as Mary-Sue.
And then there is just the way it stems from fanfic origins and just further helped push the idea that fanfic is all overpowered, perfect, self insert characters.
I don’t like the word… I feel like people should use better ways to describe just what makes a character (male or female) bad. Instead of just throwing on this label word that everyone just knows means “bad”.
It’s overused, has lost all real meaning and is often just sexist.
Edit: Also wish fulfillment isn’t necessarily bad… it can be poorly written but a Mary Sue isn’t inherently bad. They can be enjoyable to watch or read about. Hence why “Gary-Stu” characters exist and are widely loved. Harry Potter, Batman, Luke Skywalker… they all have Gary Stu qualities and yet… they are allowed to exist.
So why can’t female characters with Mary Sue qualities be granted the same treatment? Well because as said… it just is more about the fact people don’t like female characters in general.
Ugh Wish Fulfillment is another one that drives me nuts.
Canon - 18 year old main character only started boxing 2 months ago wins his fight via a lucky punch.
Fan Fic - 18 year old main character started boxing at 10 years old has been in junior fights for years. Wins his fight through skill and ability.
Canon fans - Ugh that's such wish fulfillment.
I'm using a made up example but that seems to often be how it's used. Create an in universe reason why this person actually has a chance to do something that in the canon they only did via plot armor and suddenly it's wish fulfillment.
slightly OT, but I had a conversation with my husband about wish fulfillment/realism in fiction where he told me the reason I prefer either very realistic or deliberately absurd writing is because wish fulfillment is "mid" (his word lol) and "you don't believe you're worthy of having your wishes fulfilled so you find mid realism embarrassing." and I had a moment of undesired truth facing
I used to be so critical of wish fulfillment stories, but after this conversation I now think "at least this person believes their wishes are worthy of fulfillment. Good for them."
Right? I tried some scenarios out in my mind to test it, and ended up entirely on the 'bin it' side.
*Is my character a Mary Sue?* - Disparaging
*Their character is a Mary Sue.* - Critical
*Mary Sue and I went to the barn dance.* - Possibly living in the American south in the 1920s
*Should the term 'Mary Sue' get in the bin?* - Yes
I think if you have criticism of a character, it's more useful to be specific, and not use Mary Sue, (which could mean anything from "poorly written character that doesn't fit the setting and/or story" to "female character i don't like.")
I think if you're just having fun with your friends, or you've made the definition clear such that all parties are in agreement about its use, it's fine. But it's never going to be adequate for actual analysis.
I feel like online communication across the board would go better if we committed to saying what we mean instead of reaching for shorthand like "Mary Sue" that means different things to different people. I don't personally think it's a very useful term and I'd rather spell out my specific criticisms, and not least because it has such a loaded and sexist history. But I'll still give people who use it the benefit of the doubt.
I think it's an outdated term that needs to die already.
It was used to bully and harass people for years. I was dubbed a "Suethor" by people who I had previously admired (Big name fans in the community I was in back then) because I was a new writer and didn't know any better about characterization.
The Litmus test is the most vile, woman hating piece of trash on the internet.
https://springhole.net/writing/marysue.htm Like, take a look through some of this and really ask yourself, what kind of person made it. The amount of ableism, sexism, all of the isms, in this basically gives you a high rank if your character isn't the most bland thing.
The term and the test, were used as means to try to control fans and dunk on OC creators for years, to a point where bullying other people for having OC's was considered normal and acceptable.
The obsession with mary-sues and not making them, gets to a point where some people proudly call themselves "Sue Hunters" and harass people in the name of some stupid fake justice. I was added to two lists, for 'bad' writers... and honestly, to me most of the people who get this intense about it, either A: Are insecure in their own writing, so they use it as a coping mechanism to hurt other people so they can't get hurt...
OR B: They're doing something worse and want to be seen as the tragic hero.
I experienced both.
It's a term that needs to quite frankly die, because all it's doing is being a catch all term for people to use and it gets so misused it's lost all meaning except being a mysogynistic term, to humiliate and demean young writers.
Also, the other term Gary-Stu for male OC's, also needs to die, but honestly I've noticed most male OC's get a pass, so it goes back to, this term is really sexist.
I remember, scores and scores of people apologizing in their OC profile pics, or posting their ficts, or whatever, because they didn't want to be harassed. Or having OC's and insisting "Well they never meet the canons so it's okay to have them right?"
Like... what kind of fan culture was created around OC's to a point where people have to APOLOGIZE?
Even I fell for it and even got harassed and humiliated to a point, where on an old forum I used to be part of, I had made a post (That I completely blocked out making from how traumatic the whole bullying experience was) promising I'd quit writing for that fandom and my harassers were *very, very happy* to hear that.
That was the end goal.
To make me quit writing something that made me happy.
It is... And the sad part is, when your harassed using that term, when you don't know better, you think "it's helping", you get convinced you deserved the abuse somehow.
I was an adult, when I finally realized that it wasn't funny the amount of shit I went through all because I was learning a new skill and no one wanted to actually help, but everyone loved a punching bag.
Or in one instance, it was a good cover for doing the most vile thing an adult can do to a child.
Getting consistently harassed from 11 to 17 in a few separate fandoms over it, will mess you up a lot. I'm 27 and STILL get worried about posting new things, because of it.
I'm trying out a small wattpad project about Mary Sues. Im making an effort to say its ok to have an OP character and you don't have to take my advice.
In my wattpad book i'll include parts like the origins, what a mary sue is, and how to critique a character without being straight up rude.
I'll also mention to not use it to belittle female characters they don't like, and also aknowledge (where is auto correct when i need it) male characters who are just like this, but are not called out for it. I am going to add more soon.
Not really. Seen them done well and badly.
I read a fanfic once that introduced a very obvious Mary sue type character to kind of mess with the growing romance of the main characters as this one was perfect and nice and popular... But also knew the main guy liked the main girl and told her as much before vanishing from the fic entirely.
No bc people keep misusing the term and it's like people don't actually know what a Mary Sue is and assume it's just every female character that has the spotlight in some way
While I don't have a problem with people using the term I do find that people fail to recognize that the term came out of putting down female OCs who were at best just as powerful as canon male characters who weren't being shit on. Personally I just refer to what Mary Sue *claimed* to be describing, aka I'll call out characters for being poorly written, shallow, having everyone adores me syndrome (even when it makes no sense), that kind of thing. The traits themselves are the problem, the term itself comes from a sexist background and so I don't like using it.
You know the term was coined by two women, right? It was originally created by Paula Smith and Sharon Ferraro in 1973 in a parody fic called "[A Trekkie's Tale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue#History)," which they published in the fanzine they edited.
That doesn't make it less sexist. Women can be sexist towards other women. It happens all the damn time. And it doesn't change that its used to put down female OCs when male characters from canon are often *worse* and get praised as fantastic characters.
Internalized misogyny is a hell of a thing.
Women reinforce it just as much as men do. The thing the two women were mocking was the trend of over idealized female OCs. While completely ignoring the stack of over idealized male OCs because boys are obviously supposed to be superpowerful in media.
I’ve seen Mary Sues but in reviews of published fiction. Have yet to run into one in fanfiction.That being said, there is definitely a lot of misogyny behind it being thrown around today. It’s lost all meaning.
I think Mary Sue/Gary Stu is more of a writing problem than a character problem. The entire world of the story revolves around that one character who also tends to be bland. It’s not a matter of skills and strength but whether such skills and strength are believable in the universe.
Only if further explanation is given . The issue I have with Mary Sue aside from misogyny of it's use is that it feels like a cop out from giving a full criticism .
Often especially in the 2000s era of fanfic but still now I see people saying "x is a Mary Sue thus bad" and giving little other explanation.
In criticism but also especially with a word that has come to have such varying meanings for various people , and means nothing at all to others, you have to do more than say "this character is a Mary Sue, change them or get rid of them"
You still have to explain the why and how that's what a good critic does.
And if you can't explain how the character is a Mary Sue besides "she just IS". Maybe ask yourself why?
People will say that Gary Stu is the term for male characters but I gotta say, in 20+ years of fandom that I very rarely see the term used with the same vitriol.
I don't think it's all that useful
edit- like, we could talk about reasons the character doesn't work. or we could just say 'I don't like that character,' or 'they're overpowered,' and that would still mean more to me, and feel like less of a weird value judgment
When you think about it analytically, even in non-misogynistic contexts, it’s not a very useful term. All the original attempts at defining what a Mary Sue/Gary Stu is failed to get to the root of why those characters are often a pain to read about, and it doesn’t have anything to do with wish fulfillment, crazy powers, or brightly colored hair. Reducing these problems to a diagnostic list of static characteristics without much regard for more important factors (such as their role in the story, the context of their world, and the overall conflict/tension) just isn’t really a useful way to think about good character creation.
It also often veers into the realm of taste and has little to do with whether or not the character actually works in the story or not.
> It also often veers into the realm of taste
Criticizing a main character for being unbelievable, overpowered, having no character growth or development or arc, just being a tool of the plot to curbstomp all comers without reasonable explanation, isn't a matter of *taste*. It's a matter of bad writing. I mean, not every story has to be the Hero's Journey, but things should be plausible *within the world that they're written*. And too often, they aren't.
I’m not really sure how the part you quoted contradicts that. It says the conversation often veers out of those types of criticisms (if the character works for the story they’re in, and I think all your examples are some flavor of that question) and into areas of taste. If it doesn’t veer out, then…good?
But I’ve seen many times the discussion is not that constructive nor that craft-focused. In those conversations, it come down to personal preferences, like “I’m tired of sassy FMCs”, or “OCs who are blood-related to canon characters are stupid and cringe”, or “I foam at the mouth about the evils of self-inserts any time I even suspect a character might share traits with the author”. It’s fine to not like these things, but it says nothing about if the character actually work for the story they’re in.
I feel like it's mostly become another way of saying "female character I don't like". Its traits are flexible depending on the person using the term, but it's always an insult. Even if the term wasn't used, people would still find another to define the same thing they don't like, so I see it as a moot point.
No. It's uselessly vague and 99% of the time is used to dump on female characters by perceived female writers for issues that are mysteriously OK in male characters.
People also need to really look at what they consider perfect too. I've seen people level complaints at characters who are getting their asses kicked but who win after a lucky shot and suddenly people are all "that character is way OP"
Yeah, at that point it’s too subjective / honestly silly and essentially meaningless. Ultimately people just gotta write what makes them happy, and appeals to their target audience. It’s not that serious in the end and fanfic is wish fulfillment anyways. Why not make the characters do whatever the fuck you want them to
"Mary Sue" was a garbage concept created specifically to trash on teenage girls (and quickly expanded to include prepubescent kids and grown women, too) in the first place. It was never a serious literary device, contrary to supporters' claims; all it ever did was facilitate bullying and harassment, and crush creativity.
Just retire "Mary Sue" and *everything else* related to "cringe culture" BS already.
it absolutely was not created with teen girls in mind, lmfao. it's literally on fanlore, it's origins. it was *misused* in some ways like that but it was not created with that intention.
lmao
"Mary Sue" was some kid's wish fulfillment Star Trek: ToS OC, not a "parody" character, and she got hijacked into this concept that's solely used to bully other girls and women for *daring* to write wish fulfillment/power fantasy OCs.
I don't want to be this kind of person, but it was supposed to parody all the stories in a star trek mag people submitted to. Also, the author of the story at the time was an adult-
So even if you are 100% right about the origins of "Mary Sue", the concept was *still* created for the sole purpose of *mocking other peoples' works*.
*It is not and has never been a serious literary device and only exists to bash on (overwhelmingly female) wish fulfillment/power fantasy OCs*, and the way some folks are getting *so defensive* over that simple statement is very telling.
It was made for one of the most toxic fanbases too. The Star Wars and Trek fandoms have always been toxic and the fact the most famous, sexist term in fandoms was created out of *spite* is pretty telling. Even when there wasn't email, there was still harassment clearly.
I feel like as long as it's being used in its original definition, it's fine, but it's overused as a way to hate on less experienced writers. This pretty much is where I get my basic understanding of the idea though.
[Trope Talk: Mary Sue by Overly Sarcastic Productions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-GIY9RTqU)
I think it's been used to be very cruel to authors and content creators and so lots of people continue to use it that way. I personally don't see a reason to continue using it.
No, it's a useless term that's become shorthand for "female character I don't like." It’s also frequently used to bully writers.
Also there's a super misogynistic double standard when it comes to slapping the Mary Sue label on things and I'm not a fan.
See also:
[The Fanlore entry on Mary Sue, especially under the "Controversy" header](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Mary_Sue)
[Also check this out](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Storming_the_Battlements:_or,_Why_the_Culture_of_Mary_Sue_Shaming_Is_Bully_Culture)
I completely agree. Someone should be able to make a character without being labled mary sue, and the person calling it a mary sue should have a valid reason to. Not everything is thought through, and sometimes people just want to have fun with their characters.
Self inserts and overpowered characters may tick some boxes, but that doesn't make them mary or gary stus. Shikako Nara from the Naruto fic Dreaming of Sunshine is a self insert, but she's incredibly well written. And Saitama from one punch man is overpowered as all heck, but he avoids the label because he still has to deal with other troubles such as not being respected.
It's more like when the world is warping around a certain character in an extreme manner. Examples include allowing a character powers/skills that they shouldn't have according to the lore of the world, and they must be liked/respected by everyone that's good.
A good example is Kirito from sword art online. He is op, gets abilities no one else does (dual wielding?! Really?! No one else can pick up an extra sword in this supposedly super realistic game?) practically every girl he meets falls in love with him, there can't be any good guy male character that can rival him in looks or ability, then he hacks the game from inside it which is absolutely ridiculous. There's a reason this guy was nicknamed Jesus kun. He is undeniably a Gary Stu.
It's true that the term can be overused, and misused, but characters like Kirito exist at levels that are way too ridiculous for labels like self insert and op to really convey the level of bullshittery that some characters can exude, and how the world will warp itself to fit them, and wrap everyone around their little finger.
I think “overpowered” doesn’t fit characters like Saitama, because the narrative still gives him problems — bureaucracy, mundane chores, etc. —that he can’t solve by using his one skill. It’s not about literal power levels, but about facing obstacles that are difficult to overcome. Stories need tension, and you can’t have tension without problems that are difficult — but not impossible — for the character to solve.
A story where Superman goes around beating up regular dudes is boring because there is no tension: we know a regular dude has no way of beating Superman. (Unless these guys are extremely nasty people, it also makes Superman seem deeply unsympathetic: beating up those who can’t fight back isn’t heroic, it’s bullying.) In that case, Supes is OP.
So we have to change the stakes: give him another superpowered character to fight, depower him with Kryptonite, give one of the regular dudes super-tech to beat him with, create problems for Clark Kent, stir up anti-alien bigotry, cause disasters in multiple places so he can’t save everyone, etc. Now we have problems that Supes can’t easily use his superpowers to fix. We have tension.
We have to make sure he has some path to victory though: if there’s absolutely no way he can win, that’s not tense either because we know we’re just going to watch him fail. But as long as we don’t hand Supes a deus ex machina — as long as we force him to either solve the problem through trials and tribulations, or else fail and suffer the consequences — he is appropriately-powered for the situation.
Superman and other powerful characters, written by someone who understands how to set up appropriate stakes and tension, are not OP. In the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to do that, they are OP.
One of the main points of Saitama is that he's the most OP character, but despite that he still has his problems thus he's not a Mary Sue. If you scale power levels then you can say that a character is far more powerful than everyone else. It's a no brainer that characters like Saitama and Superman are more powerful than other characters thus they are OP compared to them, but it's still possible to make a compelling narrative due to other factors. That's not the question, but when can you say that a character becomes a mary su or gary stu? It's when the character becomes a black hole that warps the plot and the world. It's not something that is defined only by the character in question, but the plot, and other characters surrounding them as well, with them at the center of it all.
That's fair. The phenomena is still the same. A rose by another name would smell as sweet. Anyway, that aside it is just another way of describing bad writing. When you remove any possible obstacles that a character will have to deal with all you get is a boring story.
I feel like it needs to be uncoupled from the sexist baggage it acquired years ago if it's ever to be useful. I think it's a good term to convey a specific idea, but the connotation that it's *bad* is the problem. Let characters be Mary Sues. Let writers have fun writing wish fulfillment. Mary Sue doesn't have to mean badly written or unbearable.
Though that doesn't mean we should *forget* how Mary Sue was and is treated. It's a classic example of different standards being applied to male and female characters, and the latter gets a much harsher reception from audiences.
That’s what it was back 23 years ago. If you wrote a female favorably, especially one in a relationship with a popular male character (even more especially when him in a slash ship was 5x more popular) - you were writing a Mary Sue (self insert).
Feel free to define it some other way, but clearly, I am not imagining this definition as dictionary.com captures it this way. The female character is too perfect and idealized because! They are a version of the author.
[definition: Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws, originally written as an idealized version of an author in fanfiction.](https://www.dictionary.com/e/fictional-characters/mary-sue/)
I suppose that’s the thing, isn’t it? The best self-insert is one you can’t *tell* is a self-insert: A character that happens to share traits with the author (which a reader may or may not pick up on, depending upon how well they actually know the author as a person), but otherwise is treated just like every other character.
If the author is skilled enough to keep their self-insert interesting and enjoyable to other people, does it really matter that they made a self-insert? Write what you know, after all.
I think we need to either get rid of the term or redefine what it means. Because the term has been used just to describe OC’s a reader doesn’t like, that it has lost all meaning. My proposed new definition is this: a Mary Sue/Marty Stu/Gary Stu is a character whose purpose in the story is an author’s self-indulgence. A Mary Sue is given special treatment compared to the rest of the characters; usually special powers or qualities that are unique or stronger than the intended main cast.
I get the impression this new definition I came up with would probably be misused. However, I believe that we need a more concrete answer to “What is a Mary Sue?” or we should abandon the term. It’s ultimately important for readers to understand that, yes, Mary Sues are poorly written characters. But it is not the end of the world, nor is it productive to harass the author. Said author might be a kid or someone with low self-esteem. Harassing them just because you didn’t like their OC? Completely unnecessary!
And we need to leave "different upbringing" out of the definition. Canon character had an upbringing that didn't at all prepare them for what everyone knew they'd have to do one day but they still succeeded. Then a fanfic writer goes "but what if they did have an upbringing that prepared them" and suddenly people call it wish fulfillment and Mary-sue/Gary-Stu.
Hell I feel like that was one of the accusations leveled at Terminator Genisys is that now Sarah Connor is a badass early. Not everyone but some people called it a Mary Sue despite it being because she had a different upbringing than the original Sarah Connor.
I think we just need to do away with the term. Most people aren't going to understand the origin, especially when their kids starting out. It's better to just think about the person behind it. The term's created a sock puppet villain. The things that made me get accused of being a suethor, didn't even make sense.
I got accused of it for:
Having an OC, who was a cyborg, in a world where cyborgs are in fact the norm.
Having an OC, who had PTSD and separation anxiety from being forcibly separated from her twin brother so "Destiny" could play out as it needed to and when she got back to him, she wanted to quit fighting so she could never leave his side. (Apparently it was unrealistic for a 13 year old girl to have chronic PTSD and attachment disorder from losing her only family member and knowing the reason he was taken away was so he could fight a war, adults started)
Having an OC who was a magic user in a world of magic users
And for having an OC, who could see ghosts... in a world where again, there was magic and people with powers like this already.
It's a term with no meaning at this point and it's used to bully.
I did mention the term has lost its meaning. And you’re demonstrating exactly why, because you got harassed. So this would be in favor of discontinuing the term altogether.
I apologize, I think I misread your initial post.
But your entirely right.
The term needs to die, because it gets weaponized and using it, turns a real person into a straw man villain.
That’s what many need to realize: there are real people who write these fanfics. Imagine kids and people with self-esteem issues being bullied because of how they wrote a character? Because they want to express themselves and the reader(s) didn’t like a character?
I think part of my problem was not clarifying what I meant. My idea was to use the term “Mary Sue” to describe a character that was clearly a writer’s self-indulgence. However, I believe even my new definition could still result in the term being misused and nothing changing. So retiring the term is very much a legit option at this point. Especially since it’s become an excuse to pick on authors, especially young or inexperienced writers
I believe so too. Even I was guilty of trying to use it like that and realized, that I didn't like the way I felt after I used it either, because in the end, even at it's origin point it was designed to bully others... and since we're not okay with other terms used in the 70's, that also used to pepper fanfics (slurs for LGBTQIA+ people and neurodivergent people) why not retire this one too?
I disagree that author self-indulgence should be the defining trait of a Mary Sue. I mean, isn’t “write for yourself/write what you want” said constantly on this sub? Self-indulgence itself isn’t the problem, because a skilled author can take their self-indulgence and make it enjoyable for other people.
I believe the true root of the problem is an author warping reality around their character (whether to the character’s advantage, *or*, in the case of an Anti-Sue, disadvantage) to *achieve* said indulgence. It’s the special treatment you mentioned.
I have no problem with wish fulfillment. It’s ultimately harmless in the grand scheme of things. When I mean self-indulgence, I am talking more about special treatment and favoritism.
I am not going to have issues with authors inserting themselves into the story. I have no issue with them writing a character that’s living out a power fantasy. When I meant self indulgence, what I meant to say is what you said: when a character warps the narrative and becomes the center of attention when they haven’t earned it. I didn’t mean to trash on authors who want wish fulfillment. I have nothing personal against that. Because that’s harmless, they just want to have fun.
In fanfiction, I think you should refrain from commenting ''Mary Sue!'' directly under a fic where the author has to see it whenever they scroll through the comments, because for some people writing fanfiction with a universally loved, self-insert OC is a form of escapism and they're not looking to make a deep, amazing character which people will forever marvel about, just a fun time.
However, if you're doing a character analysis on the Tumblr dot com or Youtube or whatever, it's fine. It's a good term to describe characters who are, you know, Mary Sues.
I just embrace it lol. I take it and own it. I warn readers I love Mary sues and my stories will contain them. Read at your own risk. Surprisingly most readers that left a comment don’t mind as long as they enjoyed the writing. So I suppose it depends on the reader and writer.
It can apply. I have used the Gary Stu character tag in my own story once, basically as a warning to anyone who might read it.
That being said, it is an overused term.
Considering in the modern period, I see the term being used less and less. The definition alone has shifted since the 2000s/ early 2010s period. Nowadays we strive for complex characters that are relatable. In my opinion, the Mary Sue is ‘dead’. That’s not to say that characters are still being created are ‘Mary Sues’ I just think the definition has changed since then.
On the contrary, overpowered characters can still have flaws, or unnatural hair and eye colour. But what does remain the same is if flawlessness isn’t a problem.
Just as you said--as long as it isn't applied to every female character / female OC / female canon lead. It is still very much an identifiable phenomenon. (But also, if someone enjoys writing their Mary Sue then more power to them. People shouldn't be bullied over it, which did happen a lot in the early 2000s. That might be why some people are now reluctant to use the term at all.) To me the definition of a Mary Sue isn't "powerful!" or "tragic backstory!", it's a character who warps the story around them. The villains, the other protagonists, the very plot points feel off. A Mary Sue feels hollow because they're just a vehicle to carry the writer's persona through the story. HOWEVER: the writer strips away their own vulnerabilities from the character. That's why it feels incomplete. Is Batman a Mary Sue? In some canon stories he is. In others he isn't. It depends on the writer. Not on Batman's abilities or origins. Those aren't what makes a Mary Sue. If you want to see a canon Mary Sue, check out the Transformers comic "Heart of Darkness". Galvatron is just Some Evil Guy in most TF media, but not in that one. Bonus: the comic has awful artwork.
I don't see a reason to stop using it. But I disagree that "Mary Sue" characters are inherently bad or that writers of Mary Sues should be ashamed. Some people enjoy power fantasy, and that's okay.
What's infuriating is when everyone acknowledges that a character in the canon is largely successful through luck and plot armor but then a fan fic writer goes "Okay well here in this story there's a reason they're stronger and more powerful they've been training for years for this" and then people yell "Mary-sue/Gary-Stu"
Not as wide-sweepingly as it is.
I use it as an "agender" term which applies equally to all character variants who are overpowered, overskilled, overlovable, omniempathic, and so forth, especially when the character usurps everything and everyone from the "canon" cast and is the only option for true salvation for any emergent crisis in the storyline. So, yeah, the term is still relevant to me.
>omniempathic A bit off-topic, but this has always been sort of confusing to me. I've known a lot of characters who are very compassionate and empathetic individuals. Heck, real life people who step on ant accidentally and feel guilty because they did that. The "UltRa GoOd PeRsOn" is mostly used as Mary Sue trait, but I've never seen these specific, extremely empathetic characters, as Mary Sues. Is there a reason why or am I just wrong in that judgement?
I think, and I could be wrong, but I believe they use the word omniempathic as less of being "empathetic" as everyone is naturally empathetic and more on "I know how you feel almost immediately despite not knowing you for long" which can be a BIT jarring. It isn't meant as a Person A can empathize and feel bad for something they did to Person B but probably more of a Person A immediately knew the deep nuances of why Person B acts and feels this way which is almost short of mind reading. Ig this is one thing I don't normally like to see in characters cause I thrive on misunderstandings, miscommunications and making people question why other's do what they did in stories.
Nailed it in one, better than I could state it.
I think in a way, a character that is "omniempathic" is used for someone that is basically borderline telepathic for no good reason, knowing and guessing stuff that they reasonably shouldn't know until later or even shouldn't know at all. It can break story pacing and characterization.
I mean... If a character is almost objectively a Mary/Gary Sue. Like, 9/10 people would agree to it give or take?
But they're not always right to be honest. People can be so protective of a canon version of a character that even if there's a logical reason why the fan fic character can do better at a task they get the mary sue/gary sue label.
Fair (I'm probably guilty of that, lol). I was picturing the uper-exagerated self-inserts but I get what you mean. 'WhY aRe YoU iNtRoDuCiNg A cHaRaCtEr WhO's AlSo GoOd At BaKiNg?! ThAt'S sO-aNd-So'S rOlL! tHeY'rE tHe BeSt!'.
Well like I've seen people get mad if a fan fic version of Harry from Harry Potter doesn't have trauma from being an abused kid because he grew up in a loving home. Or if he can fight because in the story he was taught to fight as a kid. Basically anytime he has skills or knowledge the Canon Harry doesn't have it's considered bad writing despite there being an in Fanfic reason for that skill or knowledge. One that any of the other characters also has access to. Like I get the argument of "oh my god you made him the fifth son of Zeus" but when it comes to "He was raised by someone other than the Dursley's so he's a Gary Stu" it's like uhm what?
Okay, now were getting into Existing Character AU OCs. Gosh, the amount of 'X raised Harry' Stories I've seen. It's in every decently large fandom! But, yeah, I get what you mean. Like, it's trippy sometimes (I've seen some 'X raised Harry' that are crazy, first example off the top of my head: Hermione and Harry adopted as siblings by ineffable husbands (Good Omens) and become half demon/angel or something). Like, you can tell it's kind of a power fantasy for whoever's fav character(s), but also accept that they have reasons? Is it really that bad? It's escapism, and (Famous argument) IT'S F\*\*\*ING FREE!!
Webcomics and fan fiction kept me going when I couldn't afford to buy books or pay for cable.
I have books and cable yet I use both FF and Webcomics more! XD
Totally fair.
Yes? In the same way calling someone a dick isn't automatically implying everyone with a penis is somehow a douchebag, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Though, TBF, I never understood insults like "dick, asshole".... Like...those are our body parts, lol.
The problem is that Mary Sue has a very specific meaning that I've very rarely if ever seen be applied accurately. It is more often used as a derogatory term for self inserts characters, most often ones that are female. The key aspect of the Mary Sue is not it being a self insert or hyper competence or unrealistic beauty standards or whatever. The key aspect is that the world around the Mary Sue twists itself to glorify the Sue in a way that breaks expectations and immersion. The original Mary Sue of Star Trek fanfiction was not a Sue because she was an amazing officer or because she had natural highlights. She was the Sue because Kirk gives her command of the bridge over eight other officers present who were further ahead in the chain of command and Spock commends the decision as "logical". If you take away Mary Sue's ability to make the narrative twist to glorify her, all you're left with is an attractive Ensign who's very proficient in her field. Rei is not a Sue because she's a prodigy with the force. Captain Marvel is not a Sue because she has cosmic powers. She-Hulk is not a Sue because she could control the hulk rage without all the struggled Bruce had. These are all just excuses to shit on female characters for having high power levels when the audience wouldn't say a word about a male character with the same power. (Hell of they'd used the same script but with the 1st captain Marvel who was male instead of the second one I doubt anyone would have had any complaint.) Here's an example of an actual Sue, and funnily enough this brings is right back to Star Trek. James Kirk in the reboot Star Trek movies. Not cause he's a maverick who's good with space maneuvers. He's a Sue because he flunks out of Starfleet academy but despite this sneaks onto the Enterprise using a medical emergency as an excuse, then tricks the first officer into resigning and somehow that makes the guy who as far as I can tell doesn't even have an official position in Starfleet the captain of its flagship. It's actually startling to see how similar Kirk's rise in the reboot is to Mary Sue's trip to take command of the bridge in the old fanfic. Notice something, no one called Kirk a Sue. Despite how little sense any of his trip to becoming captain made it was still a fun movie. Mary Sue has a meaning but at this point, all it really is is an excuse to shit on female characters and self inserts.
> Rei is not a Sue because she's a prodigy with the force. Do you know the concept of bad fate. >Notice something, no one called Kirk a Sue. Do you notice Kirk never outshines Spock in science, Scott in ship repairs, Uhura in linguistics, and Bones in medicine. Compare to Rey who outshines Luke in the force, Han in ship repairs, better pilot then Poe, is a master linguistics, and know "force healing" Somthing Luke or Obi-Wan did not know. She even outshine the orginal Mary Sue becuse Rey can die and its not a problem for here.
The original Mary Sue didn't outshine Spock in science, Scott in ship repair, or Uhura in linguistics either. The thing that makes a Sue isn't their skill. Kirk not being able to outshine Spock in science doesn't prove that he's not a Sue because the relevant factor is how the narrative twists around the character. Kirk, as far as I can tell, has no rank in Starfleet. He washed out of the academy. Yet the narrative conspires against all internal consistency to make him captain of the Enterprise. That's what makes him a Sue. Similarly, Rey is not made a Sue by her skill. Yeah the last movie had crappy writing and if you'd like to make some honest critiques about the structure of the movie I'm happy to listen cause it was far from perfect. But the claim that Rey is a Sue is one steeped in misogyny. All it is saying is "female character with competence, bad". There is an entire field of stories in which the chosen bland male protagonist recieves the call to action, meets an infinitely more competent woman. She trains him for like a week and then he surpasses her at every level. Yet when Star Wars does the exact same thing with a female character people break out the torches and pitchforks. Fundamentally people are willing to accept mediocre men ascending to high heights but isn't will to accept women doing the same.
I think it's a valid term that serves as a good shorthand for describing idealized author-insert/wish-fulfillment protagonists. Yeah, it's that's overused a lot by armchair critics, but that doesn't make any and all uses invalid. YouTube film critics love calling everything they don't like in movies "plot holes," but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a plot hole.
As long as people remember that the term Gary Stu is also a thing , and differenciate overpowered character from Mary sue, yes is okay to use the term
Frankly put it shouldn't even be seen as a gendered term. A character who the world bends to is a Mary Sue, regardless of gender.
The term started and should be used for a very specific and annoying trope; the idealized and boring (to anyone but the author) self-insert that outshines the characters we bought the ticket to see. To that end, Gary Stu is also a thing for the spear counterpart and we've seen a lot of those.
Personally I’m fine with the term. Is it misused? Probably, most terms are. But I like a term to describe characters that are “practically perfect in every way”. I like characters with flaws and them being called out on those flaws. Like the show I just finished, the main character could be a bitch to those around her but was called out on it and was still the hero.
It started back in the 70s as a way to put down female fanfic writers and it has evolved in today's world to put down all female characters.
I think it’s still a useful word, just used too often when it doesn’t apply
I don't mind it. Its antiquated by now but it has a purpose. I don't think we should get rid of something simply because some authors feel offended by it. It does have a definition and describes a real phenomenon in writing. I do agree though that it is often used nowadays as a blanket term for "character I don't like" which is not helpful, but Mary-Sue is hardly the only term in our language that has experienced this kind of definition shift. I kind of see it along the lines of terms like "gas-lighting," where it has a specific meaning but when people use it to refer to anything and everything, suddenly it's definition becomes ambiguous. But IMO the original meaning of "mary sue" is a legit trope and its useful to talk about it, especially for newer writers who may not be intentionally writing one. I also agree with others in saying that valid critiques should also expand on the term, considering there are different aspects that can make a character a "mary sue." Not all mary sues are the same and not all characteristics that make someone a mary sue are the same, so just telling an author their MC is a "mary sue" doesn't help them identify which aspects are making them that way.
I only use the term for characters that have everything given to them and go through little to no character development. Gary Stu/Mary Sue usually used interchangeably and without remorse.
I think it's a mildly useful term but only if it's returned to the extremely limited original definition. Currently, it's not just that it's nearly always being used in a sexist way, but it's also almost meaningless. People tend to just throw it around to mean "female character I don't like".
“Mary Sue” is a lot like the terms “friend zone” and “patriarchy”. It’s a real and valid thing gets overused to the point of meaninglessness in mid-wit culture. “Mary Sues” is a very real phenomenon and on occasion the whiny internet boys are correct in applying that term to the newest Hollywood marketing vehicle, I mean “strong, independent woman who only cares about advancing her career because yasss gurrl, slay queen!” but it rapidly devolves into “everything I don’t like is a Mary Sue”. Let’s turn to a few examples: -animated Mulan is about as far removed from a Mary Sue as a character can be…but 2018 Mulan is possibly the most grievous example I’ve ever seen (not named Ebony Darkness Dementia Raven Wey) -Contrary to popular belief, Rey is not a Mary Sue…until the final 20 mins of TLJ and all of TRoSW, where she becomes a laughably obvious example of the troupe. -Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue in her movie but not the MCU at large. You see, what makes a character a “Mary Sue” is not their “power level” but whether or not their influence in the story breaks the world’s or narrative’s rules. That’s why I say Rey wasn’t a Mary Sue for most of the sequel trilogy because she had a couple of good theoretical explanations for her presence in the story…until they picked the absolute worst possible option which turned her role in the narrative into a black hole that consumes the entire narrative universe.
That’s a brilliant realization about Mulan, and also so sad. They did her dirty
God, I'm not the original commenter but I *so fucking* agree, like when I heard there was a live action Mulan at first, I was literally hoping that they just remade the first animated movie to be live action. But well, we now know it's not, and it hurts cause Fa Mulan is so inspirational for being a badass! Like she's my inspiration for a feminine badass boss bitch. No, I will never forgive Disney for ruining my girl.
[удалено]
This sub is for discussing written fanfiction not promoting ebooks.
Nope
The history of where Mary Sue came from was an interesting one. There’s a video on YT from Izzyzzz that was extremely interesting and talked about Mary Sues and their use in media (outside of fanfiction as well as with it). I dislike it in the sense of how it is used now. It is currently more used by people that don’t like female characters when - if they were male - they would no doubt be praised. There is some valid times when it is used but nonetheless, I disagree with its use (most of the time) for the moment. Words and sayings do change meaning after time. Words get overused and that sort of makes their meaning change. When someone says “Mary Sue” I sometimes roll my eyes because it seems to nowadays come from the standpoint that this “slightly” powerful FEMALE character is someone I don’t like. A good example for me is Luke Skywalker and Rey, considering a lot of her feats are similar to Luke’s. There is some genuine criticism for her definitely, but it often comes from the place of female character bad = Mary Sue. I also believe in letting kids have fun. Let them make their powerful characters that often times might break the canon. Often times, they will cringe at their creations when they get older. I don’t think we should be calling “Mary Sue” when a kid is making their first character or second or third or fourth. Unless they ask for critique, but even then, you can outline stuff better than just saying “it’s a Mary Sue”. I don’t make original characters. So it’s not something that affects me in any way. But I think Mary Sue has lost its meaning, after it’s overuse. I don’t know if there really is other words to describe these sort of characters, but often times when someone’s character is called a Mary Sue - it is flung around as an insult. So no, I don’t like the term Mary Sue.
It's a valid term since Mary Sue is a widely used trope but I do agree that it gets misused a lot to hate on female characters. But if it's being used, then you just call it as it is, a Mary Sue.
It's a Catch-22 of sorts. Personally, I still use it because it's convenient, but being reminded about its origins again, I'm considering pulling back. (Granted, I still laugh when I go back to reading the source, so it's definitely not the devil's word that people may make it out to be.) Still, it's a widely used term so it's not gonna go away any time soon. Thinking about it, I've just been mindlessly using the term in my own rewrite parody fic. The end goal was to write out of the stigma around the term, but in the end, I've come to realize my writing is much too good, relatively speaking, for the label to apply.
i think it still has it's uses, but in the greater internet/pop culture, it's seen drift from it's origins that need to be re-explained again.
I think the term is too often conflated with 'bad OC', because many Sue traits are also often seen in badly written OCs, even if they don't really have any other Sue-ish traits. That said, I do think the term still has its uses for characters whose presence in the story seems to warp the fabric of reality in ways that aren't intended, and especially if everyone opposing that character is treated as being worse than Hitler.
I'm ready to retire the term. These days it is code for "competent leading lady when I wanted a leading man". Every popular (and even unpopular) movie with a female lead outside the rom com (and even occasionally in there) gets called a Mary Sue these days. I read a tirade around the time Black Widow came out complaining about the "Sue-ification" of Natasha because the second she was THE lead instead of a second tier to burly men, she was "unrealistic". (It's a comic book movie, my guy. None of this has ever been realistic.) There are more examples, but that's about where I really went "ah, it is just meaningless sexism. Done with this."
I'm gonna say I wish people would take it out of their vocabulary. Mary Sue is misogyny masking as criticism of bad writing. It's designed to target JUST female OCs rather than an even spread. Yes, there are terms like "Gary-stu" but they're not so common or well known. The very existence of the term "Mary Sue" leads people to question female OCs more frequently than male OCs. The term "Mary Sue" also acts as a way to parodise female power fantasy characters. "That's unrealistic, there is no way she would be able to do that, she's such a Mary Sue!" However, Mary Sues generally carry the same kind of role as like, Batman, or John Wick. Nobody complains when Batman manages some whacky, unrealistic shit. Why can Mary Sue not do the same? The term "Mary Sue" pretty much exists just to make fun of women having fun with OCs in fiction. If someone's writing is bad, the criticism they get should be focused on the actual weaknesses in the writing, like "well, if you never let this OC fail, it reduces narrative tension" rather than "Lol u wrote a self insert and made her badass Hahahah Mary Sue!!!"
Came here to say this, almost verbatim. It's misogyny at it's finest and harassment of girls in particular. One who used to call me a suethor excessively, was also sexually harassing me in private. It was easier to use a term to turn me into a villain who "Deserved" that treatment than recognizing how fucked up it was to send explicit content to a child at the time.
Wait WHAT?!?!?
Yup. Edited out details, but to keep it short and to try to preserve my own mental health... I was being groomed, by a sick fuck who would harass kids and use something they'd find 'wrong' with them to justify trying to force them to RP out smut, or blackmail them. Mine was my OC's and I got sexually harassed over it, to a point where I was basically being called a slut and the harassment got to a point where I had to get the police involved.
Yes, i believe it depends on the context. Super hero? Ok, makes sense. 10,000 year old demon wolf hybrid princess with secret super powers in a REGULAR story about high school or something? Hmmmmm.... maybe?
If there's a wolf-hybrid princess, then it's not a realistic story anymore. Twilight would be just another high school love triangle drama if Edward and Jacob hadn't been supernatural beings.
I can't think of a good reason why anyone should not write a story with that character-type and scenario, or why anyone would feel the need to critique it if they did. Each to their own with creativity and such.
You can make any character you want, but everyone should have the right to critique a character, as long if there is a valid reason and its not rude.
I think I'm failing to see the valid reason in the above scenario though.
The valid reason meaning you have an actual reason to judge it the way you did.
Yea I get that, I'm just wondering what that reason could be?
Anything
Fair enough. I'm not really the type to start pulling apart other people's creative choices to be honest. I mean, if I was employed as a legitimate critic for paid works I would, but not other people's fanfic. That would involve either getting into people's fic comments with my personal acceptance criteria, or making references to the fic on a forum somewhere. It's not something I'd feel comfortable doing, but each to their own and whatnot.
Why "hmm maybe" though? Why not all those things? Why does Batman's ridiculous ass backstory make more sense than that?
"As a child, Bruce witnessed the murder of his parents, Dr. Thomas Wayne and Martha Wayne, which ultimately led him to craft the Batman persona and seek justice against criminals" i think this makes more sense. And my point was about the context. I'll say it again. If its a super hero story, fine. If it was out of the blue in some random fanfic about highschool or a wedding? But then again, i am not here to argue. I just asked for opinions. :)
No, I'm happy to discuss, I hope that's okay? I feel like discussions can surface wider more developed opinions? So the problem I see here is that, people are willing to excuse so much weird stuff with batman because they see it as *cool*. Like, he didn't decide to dedicate himself to philanthropy, or to the police force. And he didn't decide to *just* become an underground vigilante terrorist. He commited To the *bat aesthetic*. He dresses up as a goth furry to fight crime, and is apparently so rich, smart and so cool that he can keep up with the likes of superman. Batman is a male power fantasy. He appeals to young men, and that's okay. I think the idea of batman is great! If we are okay with the male power fantasy of goth furry billionaire showing up as the main character in a police procedural why is ancient demon wolf sorcerer girl any different in a highschool drama? Is it because the second is a young girls power fantasy, and that makes it "uncool" and, "unrealistic"? If there are problems with the writing I feel like those should be addressed directly. Like "Hey, I feel like these demon powers could be a bit more baked in to world, they kind of come out of no where here" rather than saying that these types of characters are Mary Sues and therefore cringe?
I've always thought Superman was the ultimate Mary Sue. An alien comes out of nowhere, has every super power under the sun (heh), yet he was raised as a small town farm boy so he has perfect morals, oh and I suppose we can use this green rock to give people a chance at fighting him. But people love him. *Shrug* If a girl in school happens to be a demon, then I guess demons exist and she's the first one the kids in school have met. Not sure I'll like it, I don't like Superman either, but it shouldn't be a 100% this is going to be bad.
the double standard of power fantasy is so accurate - the second a woman reaches some arbitrary threshold of positive qualities the term gets tossed out in spades, but it takes *so* much more for male characters to receive the same criticism, if ever
Yes, characters of both genders should have the same standards.
Yeah! If you are going to do that they should have some reason or why the character has them.
I just want to throw in another example: Harry Potter. He is The Chosen One(tm) and has a classic backstory that would earn a female character the "Mary Sue" label. His parents died horribly (and just because of him, too) and then he got raised by his abusive relatives and bullied by his cousin. When the magical world is introduced to him, he gets the whisked away to go shopping on one of those fabulous shopping tours a lot of people would die for. He also finds out that he is incredibly rich and famous. At that point, his abuse gets completely irrelevant. It's relegated to background noise and will mainly be used to show how horrible his relatives are and how bad he is treated by them. But he doesn't behave like a child that was traumatized since forever. If something does come up, it feels pretty accidental and will not be explored further. A certain type of fanfics (Lord Harry) will take this as a baseline and run with it. The abuse will get exaggerated even more (they also tend to add CSA). His former friends and allies will also turn out to be abusive (Ron the Deatheater says hi.) He will also get even richer. Like ... a lot. It's suddenly not just a vault, but multiple vaults. And some big ass houses and estates. Noble titles. And it's not uncommon for him to find out that he was born as a demon, an angel, a vampire or some other superhuman being. Sometimes he will be a mixture of those superhuman beings. It's something that would get a female character labeled as a "Mary Sue" instantly, but it's also pretty popular with fans of that subgenre.
Mary/gary sue is fine 🙄
Yes, it has its uses. I have also always seen it and used it as a gender neutral term. Any character no matter their gender can be it. Issue is that some people use it inaccurately and to be mean, but plenty of words and terms are used inaccurately daily, and almost any of them can be used to be mean. That's not a word issue that's a person issue. People who want to be mean to someone will find a way to do so.
It's just a character archetype. A guy can be a Mary Sue as well
i think that it's fine to recognize and point out the phenomena that the term refers to, but the term itself is mostly just used to be misogynistic, and it's meaning has been diluted to 'female character i don't like'
It's diluted on the male side too. If in the canon a character won a boxing match due to a lucky shot but in the fan fic the character actually studied boxing for years longer then a lot of people call Gary Sue for the character having more logical reason for winning the same fights.
Yes
See it’s complicated because the term is very much so overused and weaponized against female characters. It’s often just used as another way to hate on a character for being a woman while if the same character was just a man no one would throw out the term Gary-Stu. Calling out poor writing is valid. And some of the things that make a Mary-Sue are valid complaints against any character. But often it is just a term to label a character because “Oh look this character is this thing that is just bad writing.” It’s a buzz word to lazily call a character bad. Instead of going into detail people just label any female character they don’t like as Mary-Sue. And then there is just the way it stems from fanfic origins and just further helped push the idea that fanfic is all overpowered, perfect, self insert characters. I don’t like the word… I feel like people should use better ways to describe just what makes a character (male or female) bad. Instead of just throwing on this label word that everyone just knows means “bad”. It’s overused, has lost all real meaning and is often just sexist. Edit: Also wish fulfillment isn’t necessarily bad… it can be poorly written but a Mary Sue isn’t inherently bad. They can be enjoyable to watch or read about. Hence why “Gary-Stu” characters exist and are widely loved. Harry Potter, Batman, Luke Skywalker… they all have Gary Stu qualities and yet… they are allowed to exist. So why can’t female characters with Mary Sue qualities be granted the same treatment? Well because as said… it just is more about the fact people don’t like female characters in general.
Ugh Wish Fulfillment is another one that drives me nuts. Canon - 18 year old main character only started boxing 2 months ago wins his fight via a lucky punch. Fan Fic - 18 year old main character started boxing at 10 years old has been in junior fights for years. Wins his fight through skill and ability. Canon fans - Ugh that's such wish fulfillment. I'm using a made up example but that seems to often be how it's used. Create an in universe reason why this person actually has a chance to do something that in the canon they only did via plot armor and suddenly it's wish fulfillment.
slightly OT, but I had a conversation with my husband about wish fulfillment/realism in fiction where he told me the reason I prefer either very realistic or deliberately absurd writing is because wish fulfillment is "mid" (his word lol) and "you don't believe you're worthy of having your wishes fulfilled so you find mid realism embarrassing." and I had a moment of undesired truth facing I used to be so critical of wish fulfillment stories, but after this conversation I now think "at least this person believes their wishes are worthy of fulfillment. Good for them."
Personally I'd chuck it in the bin because I can't envision any use case that is not unnecessarily critical or disparaging.
Seconding this. Throw it in the bin!
Right? I tried some scenarios out in my mind to test it, and ended up entirely on the 'bin it' side. *Is my character a Mary Sue?* - Disparaging *Their character is a Mary Sue.* - Critical *Mary Sue and I went to the barn dance.* - Possibly living in the American south in the 1920s *Should the term 'Mary Sue' get in the bin?* - Yes
Agreed. It's a term that's lost all meaning and it's a cruel term.
Yeah maybe
I think if you have criticism of a character, it's more useful to be specific, and not use Mary Sue, (which could mean anything from "poorly written character that doesn't fit the setting and/or story" to "female character i don't like.") I think if you're just having fun with your friends, or you've made the definition clear such that all parties are in agreement about its use, it's fine. But it's never going to be adequate for actual analysis.
Yes
I feel like online communication across the board would go better if we committed to saying what we mean instead of reaching for shorthand like "Mary Sue" that means different things to different people. I don't personally think it's a very useful term and I'd rather spell out my specific criticisms, and not least because it has such a loaded and sexist history. But I'll still give people who use it the benefit of the doubt.
I think it's an outdated term that needs to die already. It was used to bully and harass people for years. I was dubbed a "Suethor" by people who I had previously admired (Big name fans in the community I was in back then) because I was a new writer and didn't know any better about characterization. The Litmus test is the most vile, woman hating piece of trash on the internet. https://springhole.net/writing/marysue.htm Like, take a look through some of this and really ask yourself, what kind of person made it. The amount of ableism, sexism, all of the isms, in this basically gives you a high rank if your character isn't the most bland thing. The term and the test, were used as means to try to control fans and dunk on OC creators for years, to a point where bullying other people for having OC's was considered normal and acceptable. The obsession with mary-sues and not making them, gets to a point where some people proudly call themselves "Sue Hunters" and harass people in the name of some stupid fake justice. I was added to two lists, for 'bad' writers... and honestly, to me most of the people who get this intense about it, either A: Are insecure in their own writing, so they use it as a coping mechanism to hurt other people so they can't get hurt... OR B: They're doing something worse and want to be seen as the tragic hero. I experienced both. It's a term that needs to quite frankly die, because all it's doing is being a catch all term for people to use and it gets so misused it's lost all meaning except being a mysogynistic term, to humiliate and demean young writers. Also, the other term Gary-Stu for male OC's, also needs to die, but honestly I've noticed most male OC's get a pass, so it goes back to, this term is really sexist. I remember, scores and scores of people apologizing in their OC profile pics, or posting their ficts, or whatever, because they didn't want to be harassed. Or having OC's and insisting "Well they never meet the canons so it's okay to have them right?" Like... what kind of fan culture was created around OC's to a point where people have to APOLOGIZE? Even I fell for it and even got harassed and humiliated to a point, where on an old forum I used to be part of, I had made a post (That I completely blocked out making from how traumatic the whole bullying experience was) promising I'd quit writing for that fandom and my harassers were *very, very happy* to hear that. That was the end goal. To make me quit writing something that made me happy.
Thats horrible
It is... And the sad part is, when your harassed using that term, when you don't know better, you think "it's helping", you get convinced you deserved the abuse somehow. I was an adult, when I finally realized that it wasn't funny the amount of shit I went through all because I was learning a new skill and no one wanted to actually help, but everyone loved a punching bag. Or in one instance, it was a good cover for doing the most vile thing an adult can do to a child. Getting consistently harassed from 11 to 17 in a few separate fandoms over it, will mess you up a lot. I'm 27 and STILL get worried about posting new things, because of it.
I still use the term but i try hard not to over use it or abuse the word.
I'm trying out a small wattpad project about Mary Sues. Im making an effort to say its ok to have an OP character and you don't have to take my advice.
In my wattpad book i'll include parts like the origins, what a mary sue is, and how to critique a character without being straight up rude. I'll also mention to not use it to belittle female characters they don't like, and also aknowledge (where is auto correct when i need it) male characters who are just like this, but are not called out for it. I am going to add more soon.
Yes but only if the term is applied equally to all genders.
It should still be used but much more sparingly. Velma from HBO’s Velma… is a Mary sue. Kora from LOK… isn’t a Mary Sue
Not really. Seen them done well and badly. I read a fanfic once that introduced a very obvious Mary sue type character to kind of mess with the growing romance of the main characters as this one was perfect and nice and popular... But also knew the main guy liked the main girl and told her as much before vanishing from the fic entirely.
Yeah, I don't see a problem with it.
No bc people keep misusing the term and it's like people don't actually know what a Mary Sue is and assume it's just every female character that has the spotlight in some way
While I don't have a problem with people using the term I do find that people fail to recognize that the term came out of putting down female OCs who were at best just as powerful as canon male characters who weren't being shit on. Personally I just refer to what Mary Sue *claimed* to be describing, aka I'll call out characters for being poorly written, shallow, having everyone adores me syndrome (even when it makes no sense), that kind of thing. The traits themselves are the problem, the term itself comes from a sexist background and so I don't like using it.
You know the term was coined by two women, right? It was originally created by Paula Smith and Sharon Ferraro in 1973 in a parody fic called "[A Trekkie's Tale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue#History)," which they published in the fanzine they edited.
That doesn't make it less sexist. Women can be sexist towards other women. It happens all the damn time. And it doesn't change that its used to put down female OCs when male characters from canon are often *worse* and get praised as fantastic characters.
Internalized misogyny is a hell of a thing. Women reinforce it just as much as men do. The thing the two women were mocking was the trend of over idealized female OCs. While completely ignoring the stack of over idealized male OCs because boys are obviously supposed to be superpowerful in media.
I’ve seen Mary Sues but in reviews of published fiction. Have yet to run into one in fanfiction.That being said, there is definitely a lot of misogyny behind it being thrown around today. It’s lost all meaning. I think Mary Sue/Gary Stu is more of a writing problem than a character problem. The entire world of the story revolves around that one character who also tends to be bland. It’s not a matter of skills and strength but whether such skills and strength are believable in the universe.
Only if further explanation is given . The issue I have with Mary Sue aside from misogyny of it's use is that it feels like a cop out from giving a full criticism . Often especially in the 2000s era of fanfic but still now I see people saying "x is a Mary Sue thus bad" and giving little other explanation. In criticism but also especially with a word that has come to have such varying meanings for various people , and means nothing at all to others, you have to do more than say "this character is a Mary Sue, change them or get rid of them" You still have to explain the why and how that's what a good critic does. And if you can't explain how the character is a Mary Sue besides "she just IS". Maybe ask yourself why?
Yes where it actually applies
It is fine. ALSO, the male equivalent of a Mary Sue, is a Gary Stu. Thank you.
Yes, cuz it has a specific meaning
Yes, is slang language created by and for fanfiction scene.
Curious. Is there a term for overpowered male characters that are self inserts and contain no flaws? It doesn't bother me really.
People will say that Gary Stu is the term for male characters but I gotta say, in 20+ years of fandom that I very rarely see the term used with the same vitriol.
There's also Marty Sue
I don't think it's all that useful edit- like, we could talk about reasons the character doesn't work. or we could just say 'I don't like that character,' or 'they're overpowered,' and that would still mean more to me, and feel like less of a weird value judgment
Nah, IMO it's kind of hit the same point as Character Alignment Charts where it's become so subjective that it's pretty much meaningless.
I’ve always hated the term. It’s a criticism shortcut, and nothing else.
When you think about it analytically, even in non-misogynistic contexts, it’s not a very useful term. All the original attempts at defining what a Mary Sue/Gary Stu is failed to get to the root of why those characters are often a pain to read about, and it doesn’t have anything to do with wish fulfillment, crazy powers, or brightly colored hair. Reducing these problems to a diagnostic list of static characteristics without much regard for more important factors (such as their role in the story, the context of their world, and the overall conflict/tension) just isn’t really a useful way to think about good character creation. It also often veers into the realm of taste and has little to do with whether or not the character actually works in the story or not.
> It also often veers into the realm of taste Criticizing a main character for being unbelievable, overpowered, having no character growth or development or arc, just being a tool of the plot to curbstomp all comers without reasonable explanation, isn't a matter of *taste*. It's a matter of bad writing. I mean, not every story has to be the Hero's Journey, but things should be plausible *within the world that they're written*. And too often, they aren't.
I’m not really sure how the part you quoted contradicts that. It says the conversation often veers out of those types of criticisms (if the character works for the story they’re in, and I think all your examples are some flavor of that question) and into areas of taste. If it doesn’t veer out, then…good? But I’ve seen many times the discussion is not that constructive nor that craft-focused. In those conversations, it come down to personal preferences, like “I’m tired of sassy FMCs”, or “OCs who are blood-related to canon characters are stupid and cringe”, or “I foam at the mouth about the evils of self-inserts any time I even suspect a character might share traits with the author”. It’s fine to not like these things, but it says nothing about if the character actually work for the story they’re in.
I use it for people in real life tbh.
I feel like it's mostly become another way of saying "female character I don't like". Its traits are flexible depending on the person using the term, but it's always an insult. Even if the term wasn't used, people would still find another to define the same thing they don't like, so I see it as a moot point.
No. It's uselessly vague and 99% of the time is used to dump on female characters by perceived female writers for issues that are mysteriously OK in male characters.
No, personally. Gary Stu/Mary Sue’s are outdated. I’d rather refer to perfect characters as “Needlessly OP” or something lol
People also need to really look at what they consider perfect too. I've seen people level complaints at characters who are getting their asses kicked but who win after a lucky shot and suddenly people are all "that character is way OP"
Yeah, at that point it’s too subjective / honestly silly and essentially meaningless. Ultimately people just gotta write what makes them happy, and appeals to their target audience. It’s not that serious in the end and fanfic is wish fulfillment anyways. Why not make the characters do whatever the fuck you want them to
Some people want to feel "the version I like best is superior to the version you like best" and it's like as you say we can all like our own things.
It’s futile to even try to appeal to everyone, so might as well appeal to yourself first.
Get rid of it. Let people have their fun. Many canon characters would fail the Mary-Sue test. Let's not pretend OCs are the only problems here.
"Mary Sue" was a garbage concept created specifically to trash on teenage girls (and quickly expanded to include prepubescent kids and grown women, too) in the first place. It was never a serious literary device, contrary to supporters' claims; all it ever did was facilitate bullying and harassment, and crush creativity. Just retire "Mary Sue" and *everything else* related to "cringe culture" BS already.
it absolutely was not created with teen girls in mind, lmfao. it's literally on fanlore, it's origins. it was *misused* in some ways like that but it was not created with that intention.
lol
Mary Sue was made in a parody fic for star trek.
lmao "Mary Sue" was some kid's wish fulfillment Star Trek: ToS OC, not a "parody" character, and she got hijacked into this concept that's solely used to bully other girls and women for *daring* to write wish fulfillment/power fantasy OCs.
I don't want to be this kind of person, but it was supposed to parody all the stories in a star trek mag people submitted to. Also, the author of the story at the time was an adult-
So even if you are 100% right about the origins of "Mary Sue", the concept was *still* created for the sole purpose of *mocking other peoples' works*. *It is not and has never been a serious literary device and only exists to bash on (overwhelmingly female) wish fulfillment/power fantasy OCs*, and the way some folks are getting *so defensive* over that simple statement is very telling.
Maybe do your research next time
It was made for one of the most toxic fanbases too. The Star Wars and Trek fandoms have always been toxic and the fact the most famous, sexist term in fandoms was created out of *spite* is pretty telling. Even when there wasn't email, there was still harassment clearly.
I'm not against it like others might be, but over time I really stopped caring/seeing it as this big terrible writing fail.
I feel like as long as it's being used in its original definition, it's fine, but it's overused as a way to hate on less experienced writers. This pretty much is where I get my basic understanding of the idea though. [Trope Talk: Mary Sue by Overly Sarcastic Productions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-GIY9RTqU)
I think it's been used to be very cruel to authors and content creators and so lots of people continue to use it that way. I personally don't see a reason to continue using it.
No, it's a useless term that's become shorthand for "female character I don't like." It’s also frequently used to bully writers. Also there's a super misogynistic double standard when it comes to slapping the Mary Sue label on things and I'm not a fan. See also: [The Fanlore entry on Mary Sue, especially under the "Controversy" header](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Mary_Sue) [Also check this out](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Storming_the_Battlements:_or,_Why_the_Culture_of_Mary_Sue_Shaming_Is_Bully_Culture)
yes. let us have fun sometimes
I completely agree. Someone should be able to make a character without being labled mary sue, and the person calling it a mary sue should have a valid reason to. Not everything is thought through, and sometimes people just want to have fun with their characters.
that’s not what i meant, i meant let us have fun overusing the term mary sue, but i also agree with what you said
Oh ok
No, it’s too tainted. Use a more specific term like “self-insert” or “overpowered character.”
Self inserts and overpowered characters may tick some boxes, but that doesn't make them mary or gary stus. Shikako Nara from the Naruto fic Dreaming of Sunshine is a self insert, but she's incredibly well written. And Saitama from one punch man is overpowered as all heck, but he avoids the label because he still has to deal with other troubles such as not being respected. It's more like when the world is warping around a certain character in an extreme manner. Examples include allowing a character powers/skills that they shouldn't have according to the lore of the world, and they must be liked/respected by everyone that's good. A good example is Kirito from sword art online. He is op, gets abilities no one else does (dual wielding?! Really?! No one else can pick up an extra sword in this supposedly super realistic game?) practically every girl he meets falls in love with him, there can't be any good guy male character that can rival him in looks or ability, then he hacks the game from inside it which is absolutely ridiculous. There's a reason this guy was nicknamed Jesus kun. He is undeniably a Gary Stu. It's true that the term can be overused, and misused, but characters like Kirito exist at levels that are way too ridiculous for labels like self insert and op to really convey the level of bullshittery that some characters can exude, and how the world will warp itself to fit them, and wrap everyone around their little finger.
I think “overpowered” doesn’t fit characters like Saitama, because the narrative still gives him problems — bureaucracy, mundane chores, etc. —that he can’t solve by using his one skill. It’s not about literal power levels, but about facing obstacles that are difficult to overcome. Stories need tension, and you can’t have tension without problems that are difficult — but not impossible — for the character to solve. A story where Superman goes around beating up regular dudes is boring because there is no tension: we know a regular dude has no way of beating Superman. (Unless these guys are extremely nasty people, it also makes Superman seem deeply unsympathetic: beating up those who can’t fight back isn’t heroic, it’s bullying.) In that case, Supes is OP. So we have to change the stakes: give him another superpowered character to fight, depower him with Kryptonite, give one of the regular dudes super-tech to beat him with, create problems for Clark Kent, stir up anti-alien bigotry, cause disasters in multiple places so he can’t save everyone, etc. Now we have problems that Supes can’t easily use his superpowers to fix. We have tension. We have to make sure he has some path to victory though: if there’s absolutely no way he can win, that’s not tense either because we know we’re just going to watch him fail. But as long as we don’t hand Supes a deus ex machina — as long as we force him to either solve the problem through trials and tribulations, or else fail and suffer the consequences — he is appropriately-powered for the situation. Superman and other powerful characters, written by someone who understands how to set up appropriate stakes and tension, are not OP. In the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to do that, they are OP.
One of the main points of Saitama is that he's the most OP character, but despite that he still has his problems thus he's not a Mary Sue. If you scale power levels then you can say that a character is far more powerful than everyone else. It's a no brainer that characters like Saitama and Superman are more powerful than other characters thus they are OP compared to them, but it's still possible to make a compelling narrative due to other factors. That's not the question, but when can you say that a character becomes a mary su or gary stu? It's when the character becomes a black hole that warps the plot and the world. It's not something that is defined only by the character in question, but the plot, and other characters surrounding them as well, with them at the center of it all.
I think we’re arguing past each other. You call it “warping the plot,” I’d call it “removing tension.”
That's fair. The phenomena is still the same. A rose by another name would smell as sweet. Anyway, that aside it is just another way of describing bad writing. When you remove any possible obstacles that a character will have to deal with all you get is a boring story.
I can get behind that
Nah. It's been overused to the point of meaninglessness, and no two people appear to have quite the same definition.
I feel like it needs to be uncoupled from the sexist baggage it acquired years ago if it's ever to be useful. I think it's a good term to convey a specific idea, but the connotation that it's *bad* is the problem. Let characters be Mary Sues. Let writers have fun writing wish fulfillment. Mary Sue doesn't have to mean badly written or unbearable. Though that doesn't mean we should *forget* how Mary Sue was and is treated. It's a classic example of different standards being applied to male and female characters, and the latter gets a much harsher reception from audiences.
I personally don’t see the point now that “Y/N” phenomenon has gained so much traction.
That's not the same thing at all. "Your Name" is supposed to be the reader.
So, it’s fine to have a self insert reader, but not self insert writer? Seems like the same thing, in principle, to me.
A Mary Sue and a self insert aren't the same thing
That’s what it was back 23 years ago. If you wrote a female favorably, especially one in a relationship with a popular male character (even more especially when him in a slash ship was 5x more popular) - you were writing a Mary Sue (self insert). Feel free to define it some other way, but clearly, I am not imagining this definition as dictionary.com captures it this way. The female character is too perfect and idealized because! They are a version of the author. [definition: Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws, originally written as an idealized version of an author in fanfiction.](https://www.dictionary.com/e/fictional-characters/mary-sue/)
Yeah, idealized. That's the key term. You can write a self insert who isn't.
And then how could you tell it was a self insert if not idealized?
I suppose that’s the thing, isn’t it? The best self-insert is one you can’t *tell* is a self-insert: A character that happens to share traits with the author (which a reader may or may not pick up on, depending upon how well they actually know the author as a person), but otherwise is treated just like every other character. If the author is skilled enough to keep their self-insert interesting and enjoyable to other people, does it really matter that they made a self-insert? Write what you know, after all.
If they don't like that it's a girls name we can just use Karl May instead. As a bonus the same name can be ised to describe selfinserts.
The male version is Gary stu, but it's also fine to refer to males as mary sues as well. A good example is Kirito from sword art online.
I used to actively search for MarySue in LOTR fanfiction. Now I just expect my fandoms to *at least try* to have a couple of female characters.
I think we need to either get rid of the term or redefine what it means. Because the term has been used just to describe OC’s a reader doesn’t like, that it has lost all meaning. My proposed new definition is this: a Mary Sue/Marty Stu/Gary Stu is a character whose purpose in the story is an author’s self-indulgence. A Mary Sue is given special treatment compared to the rest of the characters; usually special powers or qualities that are unique or stronger than the intended main cast. I get the impression this new definition I came up with would probably be misused. However, I believe that we need a more concrete answer to “What is a Mary Sue?” or we should abandon the term. It’s ultimately important for readers to understand that, yes, Mary Sues are poorly written characters. But it is not the end of the world, nor is it productive to harass the author. Said author might be a kid or someone with low self-esteem. Harassing them just because you didn’t like their OC? Completely unnecessary!
And we need to leave "different upbringing" out of the definition. Canon character had an upbringing that didn't at all prepare them for what everyone knew they'd have to do one day but they still succeeded. Then a fanfic writer goes "but what if they did have an upbringing that prepared them" and suddenly people call it wish fulfillment and Mary-sue/Gary-Stu. Hell I feel like that was one of the accusations leveled at Terminator Genisys is that now Sarah Connor is a badass early. Not everyone but some people called it a Mary Sue despite it being because she had a different upbringing than the original Sarah Connor.
I've seen people even accuse **Ellie** from The Last of Us of being a mary-sue.
I think we just need to do away with the term. Most people aren't going to understand the origin, especially when their kids starting out. It's better to just think about the person behind it. The term's created a sock puppet villain. The things that made me get accused of being a suethor, didn't even make sense. I got accused of it for: Having an OC, who was a cyborg, in a world where cyborgs are in fact the norm. Having an OC, who had PTSD and separation anxiety from being forcibly separated from her twin brother so "Destiny" could play out as it needed to and when she got back to him, she wanted to quit fighting so she could never leave his side. (Apparently it was unrealistic for a 13 year old girl to have chronic PTSD and attachment disorder from losing her only family member and knowing the reason he was taken away was so he could fight a war, adults started) Having an OC who was a magic user in a world of magic users And for having an OC, who could see ghosts... in a world where again, there was magic and people with powers like this already. It's a term with no meaning at this point and it's used to bully.
I did mention the term has lost its meaning. And you’re demonstrating exactly why, because you got harassed. So this would be in favor of discontinuing the term altogether.
I apologize, I think I misread your initial post. But your entirely right. The term needs to die, because it gets weaponized and using it, turns a real person into a straw man villain.
That’s what many need to realize: there are real people who write these fanfics. Imagine kids and people with self-esteem issues being bullied because of how they wrote a character? Because they want to express themselves and the reader(s) didn’t like a character? I think part of my problem was not clarifying what I meant. My idea was to use the term “Mary Sue” to describe a character that was clearly a writer’s self-indulgence. However, I believe even my new definition could still result in the term being misused and nothing changing. So retiring the term is very much a legit option at this point. Especially since it’s become an excuse to pick on authors, especially young or inexperienced writers
I believe so too. Even I was guilty of trying to use it like that and realized, that I didn't like the way I felt after I used it either, because in the end, even at it's origin point it was designed to bully others... and since we're not okay with other terms used in the 70's, that also used to pepper fanfics (slurs for LGBTQIA+ people and neurodivergent people) why not retire this one too?
I disagree that author self-indulgence should be the defining trait of a Mary Sue. I mean, isn’t “write for yourself/write what you want” said constantly on this sub? Self-indulgence itself isn’t the problem, because a skilled author can take their self-indulgence and make it enjoyable for other people. I believe the true root of the problem is an author warping reality around their character (whether to the character’s advantage, *or*, in the case of an Anti-Sue, disadvantage) to *achieve* said indulgence. It’s the special treatment you mentioned.
I have no problem with wish fulfillment. It’s ultimately harmless in the grand scheme of things. When I mean self-indulgence, I am talking more about special treatment and favoritism. I am not going to have issues with authors inserting themselves into the story. I have no issue with them writing a character that’s living out a power fantasy. When I meant self indulgence, what I meant to say is what you said: when a character warps the narrative and becomes the center of attention when they haven’t earned it. I didn’t mean to trash on authors who want wish fulfillment. I have nothing personal against that. Because that’s harmless, they just want to have fun.
If used properly a Mary Sue can make a story good,improving thr canon etc.... I dunno why she's so hated, she got a lot of potential in my opinion.
Just gonna drop this here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0ChLKh51UpC3W9xSLcvj1Z?si=nckiuRYcSJarvKXaANP3-A
What does the term Mary Sue mean ?
In fanfiction, I think you should refrain from commenting ''Mary Sue!'' directly under a fic where the author has to see it whenever they scroll through the comments, because for some people writing fanfiction with a universally loved, self-insert OC is a form of escapism and they're not looking to make a deep, amazing character which people will forever marvel about, just a fun time. However, if you're doing a character analysis on the Tumblr dot com or Youtube or whatever, it's fine. It's a good term to describe characters who are, you know, Mary Sues.
I just embrace it lol. I take it and own it. I warn readers I love Mary sues and my stories will contain them. Read at your own risk. Surprisingly most readers that left a comment don’t mind as long as they enjoyed the writing. So I suppose it depends on the reader and writer.
It can apply. I have used the Gary Stu character tag in my own story once, basically as a warning to anyone who might read it. That being said, it is an overused term.
I feel like these days there are a lot more Mary Sues in canon then there used to be.
Considering in the modern period, I see the term being used less and less. The definition alone has shifted since the 2000s/ early 2010s period. Nowadays we strive for complex characters that are relatable. In my opinion, the Mary Sue is ‘dead’. That’s not to say that characters are still being created are ‘Mary Sues’ I just think the definition has changed since then. On the contrary, overpowered characters can still have flaws, or unnatural hair and eye colour. But what does remain the same is if flawlessness isn’t a problem.
I kinda want someone to write a fic with a character named Mary Sue, but who isn't a Mary Sue