Anyone who disagees with me is a ... a ... "scruffy looking nerf herder!"
Uhm ...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
LLAP
anyone else bored/frustrated by all the "Mary Sue" debates?
- Thread starter Phil123
- Start date
Anyone who disagees with me is a ... a ... "scruffy looking nerf herder!"
Uhm ...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
LLAP
M
marlboro
Guest
I'll stop being bored with such discussions when writers step up their game and stop falling back on these lazy cliches and pandering.
Female characters/protagonists are not a new thing, and this conversation never came up until recently when 'females' in fiction mean less actual characters and merely pandering (see: "representation") or pushing a very obvious agenda. And in these cases, it needs to be discussed and openly criticized.
Female characters/protagonists are not a new thing, and this conversation never came up until recently when 'females' in fiction mean less actual characters and merely pandering (see: "representation") or pushing a very obvious agenda. And in these cases, it needs to be discussed and openly criticized.
Sexism/misogyny need to be openly criticized too.
I'm not really sure what a Mary Sue or a Gary Stu are?
JB
JB
To be honest I'd say anyone calling Wesley Crusher a Mary/Gary/whatever is somewhat missing the point.
I know it's a common criticism of the character, but.....nope.
ok help me out here what is the SINISTER AGENDA
If Wesley Crusher isn't a Gary Stu, I don't know what the term even means, because I thought he was the quintessential example given to illustrate what one is.
It's a meaningless term because everyone has their own criteria for what it is but for me - really it needs to be a character inserted into the narrative later than the original existing characters. The oft-mentioned Commander Piper is a perfect example she's appears out of nowhere and is simply wonderful.
I know it's standard to use Wesley to illustrate the term but I don't believe it works, not once you start to break it down.
A Gary Stu represents wish fulfillment on the part of the creator and what that means in any given case will vary depending on the specifics.It makes no sense to refer to a character as such if we don't look at the wishes they are supposed to be fulfilling. My Gary Stu is likely quite different to yours. Yes both would be insanely competent and idealised versions of ourselves, but crucially they would be extremely competent and idealised versions of ourselves as we wish to see it.
If we had any sense of Gene Roddenberry having a yearning for technical genius or socially awkward prodicy I'd be inclined to agree but the truth is at the time of TNG he was in a totally different place mentally.
GR at that point saw himself as a humanist, an inspiration and a social visionary. That was how he had been lauded since the 70s and it had become his go to reference for his narcissism (and he was extremely narcissistic). Whether those terms could correctly be used to describe him is another matter, but they certainly don't apply to Wesley Crusher. If GR were to have taken his internalised self perception and put it on screen it would probably look something much more like Picard or the latter day Spock.
Going further back to TOS and we have a totally different person in many respects, one much younger and for whom "wish fulfillment" would look more like the ambitious, uber masculine, charismatic and promiscuous James T Kirk.
A much smaller part that springs to mind would be Gorkon if he'd been around to play a part in TUC.
That's the thing. The term is just nowadays being used to dismiss characters (often female) and shutting down actual debate by diverting attention to terminology debates - that and invoking the snowflake card, i.e. people getting shot down for mentioning the often-occurring sexist undertones. Rey is a good example. She does misjudge things, but also, she has much more reason to be good at survival than Luke - and yet, a certain type of people will jump through hoops to defend Luke's sueness and explain his abilities. Why doesn't Rey deserve the same treatment? If it's good for one, it's good for the other.
Criticising characters is valid. Crying "Mary Sue" every time a female protagonist (who isn't even more competent than her male counterparts) appears does not help anyone's case.
The very obvious agenda that "females" (always a good sign when females is in scare quotes for some reason) comprise over 50% of the population and serve in leadership and scientific and lifesaving roles, and that TV shows and movies should reflect that to have proper "representation" (scare quotes again to show that you don't consider it important).
Roddenberry admitted that Wesley was modeled after himself.
On the special The Star Trek Saga: From One Generation To The Next, in an interview with Gene Roddenberry, he says that Wesley was built a little bit after himself at the age of 14, although Roddenberry admits he was never the genius that Wesley was. (Gene's middle name was Wesley).
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Wesley_Crusher
The term was coined to refer to fan fiction characters where the writer put themselves into the story as the savior of the day. The term is supposed to refer to a character that unrealistically saves the day with god-like perfection. It is over used for any character that is young and too easily solves problems. Wesley Crusher is not one because his part was not written to be the author point of view, but to engage younger audience members. If he was he would not make nearly so many mistakes. The Mary Sue/Gary Stu term is being applied to any character with even a hint of having it too easy. It is supposed to be a deus ex machina type character that is way too obviously the wishes and desires of the writer. It does not apply to just a badly written character.
Traditionally, as noted elsewhere, it specifically referred to an idealized, thinly-disguised version of the author inserted into said narrative. It's not just that they came along later to upstage the leads; it's that they're also author surrogates. That was the defining characteristic of a "Mercy Sue" as I understood it.
But nowadays the term is sloppily thrown at any new character (usually female) who is judged too cool or competent by some, so it's become pretty much useless.
To put it another way, Batman is not a "Gary Stu." Me, writing a heroic pulp writer named "Craig Gox" into a Batman story, and having "Craig" save the day, would be creating a "Gary Stu."
Makes sense to me Greg!
Switching tack for a moment...
Just think if Star Wars was made today and Lucy Skywalker who is a space hillbilly who there is no evidence can read and enjoys killing small animals in her T-16 is suddenly called upon to save a princess.
To top it all with no training she gets asked to go on a military mission she then blows up the enemy base with an impossible shot after she turns off her guidance system.
To top it all it finishes with her getting a medal!
Switching tack for a moment...
Just think if Star Wars was made today and Lucy Skywalker who is a space hillbilly who there is no evidence can read and enjoys killing small animals in her T-16 is suddenly called upon to save a princess.
To top it all with no training she gets asked to go on a military mission she then blows up the enemy base with an impossible shot after she turns off her guidance system.
To top it all it finishes with her getting a medal!
