We could've had the First Asian Female Captain, but no....

[Mudd]

Burnham who was arrested for mutiny and stripped of her rank? She just gets everything right, doesn't she?

But we know that she was right, right?

I mean, being unappreciated and misunderstood by those around you can be a facet of MarySuedom, as can be dealing with the jealouses and unfair treatment at the hands of other characters.

In the end, though, Mary Sue is rewarded with public applause and appreciation by those authority figures and peers who misjudged and underestimated her in the beginning.

Okay, I really totally agree that Burnham is not a Mary Sue. But it is difficult to reason one's way out of that bag when, as you noted, the character is the heroic center of a fantasy story like this. What DC superhero couldn't be branded a "Mary Sue," after all?

 

[cultcross]

In which case the term has lost any meaning it once had and any lead character is a Mary Sue by default. The definition seems to have widened to include almost any protagonist, so is barely a useful label at this point.

 

[Refuge]

I can think of lead characters that are not Mary Sues. Perhaps Lorca was not a lead, certainly not THE lead but he featured strongly whilst he was on Discovery. He wasn't a Mary Sue.

 

[Mudd]

In which case the term has lost any meaning it once had...

Uh, yeah...

Of course you just described 97.6 percent of the content of a site called TVTropes.

 

[Ceridwen]

You'd think at least Star Trek fans would use "Mary Sue" correctly, since it was this fandom that invented the term, but apparently not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Okay, I really totally agree that Burnham is not a Mary Sue. But it is difficult to reason one's way out of that bag when, as you noted, the character is the heroic center of a fantasy story like this. What DC superhero couldn't be branded a "Mary Sue," after all?

That's just it, a Mary Sue character is a one-dimensional wish fulfillment self-insertion into a story who is hyper competent and super lucky for no reason at all. It's a very specific problem with characterization, not just a general "She's too perfect!" or "She's too talented!" or something.

Being talented doesn't make a character a Mary Sue. The label sticks when the character's strengths are not balanced out by equivalent weaknesses; when her success comes relatively easily and is not earned by overcoming adversity and/or failure. Without those elements, even KIRK would have been a Gary Stu.

Burnham is depicted from the beginning as a very talented officer with some inner demons she hasn't completely faced which may or may not be to blame for how she gets stripped of rank and imprisoned in the first place. By the time the series REALLY starts going, she's pretty much shackled to a bench waiting to die. We later found out the only reason she was let out of jail in the first place is because her new boss is an evil manipulative psychopath who REALLY wants to get into her pants, and later finds out her boyfriend is a Klingon sleeper agent who was directly involved in the murder of her captain and mentor. All around, that's about as far from a "Mary Sue" as you're likely to get on Star Trek.

 

[XCV330]

Burnham is depicted from the beginning as a very talented officer with some inner demons she hasn't completely faced

Burnham is a good case-for requiring that all command officers attend Starfleet Academy and not just their local university plus time under a captain's tutelage vs a long OCS program. She was too attached to her captain to the point she lost focus and was unable to follow orders in a misguided attempt to save her. Or maybe it's just a Sarek's Damned Kids thing

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I can think of lead characters that are not Mary Sues.

Why don't you try thinking of one that IS? Because I'm 99% sure you are using the term to refer to things that do not even slightly fit that definition.

Let's be clear. To a certain degree, ALL characters in fiction are slightly unrealistic. They're always slightly better, slightly smarter, slightly faster, slightly more durable -- and when it comes to science fiction/fantasy ALOT more courageous -- than anyone we know. These distortions are necessary for any story that requires the hero to actually be heroic rather than your standard "Arthur Dent" type character who has no idea what the fuck is going on and sort of tumbles kicking and screaming through the story, surviving by a combination of luck and the sheer incompetence of his enemies. Heroism itself is a distortion of realism; Mary Sue is just what happens when those distortions are cranked up to 11.

 

[Mudd]

As a bit of in-group slang, "Mary Sue" is even more prone to drift in usage and meaning over time than most other English vocabulary.

 

[Longinus]

War criminal?

See my post on page 11. Or ask Illyrians.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Burnham is a good case-for requiring that all command officers attend Starfleet Academy and not just their local university plus time under a captain's tutelage vs a long OCS program. She was too attached to her captain to the point she lost focus and was unable to follow orders in a misguided attempt to save her. Or maybe it's just a Sarek's Damned Kids thing

Didn't Spock attend StarFleet properly, from the beginning?

 

[XCV330]

Didn't Spock attend StarFleet properly, from the beginning?

oh yeah. forgot about that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Didn't Spock attend StarFleet properly, from the beginning?

Yes, but it might not have been a requirement at the time.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

One intrinsic characteristic of the original Mary Sue is that she was a guest character who upstaged the regulars. Regulars, by the implied definition extrapolated from that prototype, cannot be Mary Sues.

 

[Ceridwen]

Not to mention the self-insert nature of the character.

Stamets, on the other hand, is an admitted self-insert character, but he never gets this term thrown at him.

 

[Refuge]

Why don't you try thinking of one that IS? Because I'm 99% sure you are using the term to refer to things that do not even slightly fit that definition.

Let's be clear. To a certain degree, ALL characters in fiction are slightly unrealistic. They're always slightly better, slightly smarter, slightly faster, slightly more durable -- and when it comes to science fiction/fantasy ALOT more courageous -- than anyone we know. These distortions are necessary for any story that requires the hero to actually be heroic rather than your standard "Arthur Dent" type character who has no idea what the fuck is going on and sort of tumbles kicking and screaming through the story, surviving by a combination of luck and the sheer incompetence of his enemies. Heroism itself is a distortion of realism; Mary Sue is just what happens when those distortions are cranked up to 11.

Rey, from Star Wars.

 

[Tuskin38]

Rey, from Star Wars.

Luke, from Star Wars.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Rey, from Star Wars.

Invalid; the only "up to eleven" characteristic she has is her connection to the Force, which is not a character trait so much as it is an integral plot point to not one but TWO films now. "Quizatz Haderach" isn't the same thing as Mary Sue.

 

[gblews]

Perhaps Lorca was not a lead, certainly not THE lead but he featured strongly whilst he was on Discovery. He wasn't a Mary Sue.

And why do you feel he wasn't a Mary Sue?

 

[Refuge]

Invalid; the only "up to eleven" characteristic she has is her connection to the Force, which is not a character trait so much as it is an integral plot point to not one but TWO films now. "Quizatz Haderach" isn't the same thing as Mary Sue.

Obviously, I disagree otherwise I wouldn't have presented her as an example. As far as I'm concerned Rey and Burnham have been designed to possess whatever traits required to satisfy both in story presence and wishful expectations of society in general. Is it bad to have these characters guaranteed a rite of passage whereby they upstage everyone else? I suppose not, but it doesn't go unnoticed.