Is calling a character a "Mary Sue" a legitimate criticism?

[Snaploud]

Is the idea of a Mary Sue vague and just used to criticize characters we just don't like, or is it a valid criticism?

I'm posting this in the SF&F forum because Mary Sue comments only seems to be used for SF&F (the phrase originating with Trek). I also got called out for calling Amy (on Doctor Who) a bit of a Mary Sue.

 

[Greg Cox]

Actually, salon.com did an article on "Mary Sues" a few weeks back, extending the concept beyond fantasy and science fiction, while acknowledging that the term derives from fanfic.

It's a valid criticism, but that doesn't mean it can't be misapplied sometimes. Or overused without precision.

Unlike, say, "jumping the shark" which is used so sloppily these days that all it means is "a show didn't something I didn't like"

 

[Base_Delta_Zero]

It's a legitimate criticism, but it can be used carelessly to dump on characters you don't like. Can you back up the crit with concrete examples of Mary Sue-ism?

EDIT:

Day late, dollar short.

 

[Myasishchev]

Well, like the Bible says, tropes aren't bad. But mary-suism is likelier than not to be so, and I think a negative reaction to an identified case is ordinarily justified.

It is a term that is tailor-made for abuse, however, and can be and has been misapplied wantonly to describe, as you say, characters you simply don't like.

 

[opali]

Is the idea of a Mary Sue vague and just used to criticize characters we just don't like, or is it a valid criticism?

I'm posting this in the SF&F forum because Mary Sue comments only seems to be used for SF&F (the phrase originating with Trek). I also got called out for calling Amy (on Doctor Who) a bit of a Mary Sue.

I don't know how things went down in the Doctor Who thread, but I think it would be better received to write specifically what seemed unrealistic or pretentious about Amy rather than bring in a largely used literary term. And, sometimes people call you out simply because they are feeling grumpy.

Personally I'm not all that impressed with the usage of the term, and I would hesitate incorporating it in a critical response. It would be valid if based in the study of a character and her motivations, weaknesses, flaws and such. I've no idea if it is used this way often enough for it to be useful. It seems more a quick blanket term that can quickly write off a character rather than take the time to study what role she plays in a story.

 

[Snaploud]

My intent wasn't to get into a specific discussion of Doctor Who or that thread in particular. I was just curious how people perceive the idea of Mary Sue criticisms. My comment regarding the other thread was merely to bring up that the idea came from elsewhere and not to prejudice the discussion in any way. It would be better to leave the merits of Amy as a Mary Sue in the Doctor Who forum.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I think I know the other thread you're talking about and yeah, it seemed like some people's definition was too broad.
It seemed like any character that was a 'cool' hero type was labelled Mary Sue.

 

[Myasishchev]

It occurs to me that to highlight how it can be a legitimate criticism, it might be best to use an example:

I think charges of mary-suism is a perfectly valid criticism of Bella from the Twilight films (I've been told that the book version is better, but I'm very dubious about this, and it was not an unqualified endorsement). One of the key indicia of a mary sue is being unquestionably adored by other characters, and in the Twilight films (and likely the books) we have an objectively rather bland woman who is nonetheless the focus of the unreflected obsession of men and their indefatigable abdominal muscles.*

It weakens and cheapens the films, because it flattens not only the mary-sue character but her love interests as well, and, most fatally, the lack of any discernible basis for the bizarre adulation makes it extremely uninteresting to watch.

(In fairness to the writer's, Stewart's agonizing performance through most of the two movies does not help. Not one bit. Neither sexy, nor cute, nor... damn, anything, most of the time. Also, I can't say that the use of the trope was entirely unsuccessful, since it is clear their goal was to make as blank an audience-identification character as possible. In that respect, Bella is sort of the mary-sue for every fourteen year old girl watching.)

On the other hand, I bet if I wracked my brain, I could come up with an example where the mary-sue trope was to the benefit of the work. It would almost have to be a comedy, I suspect--although, the lack of reflection on the mary-sue's actions that ordinarily accompanies the use of the character type would seem to preclude particularly sharp comedy, so I'd reckon it would have to be some broad, slapsticky stuff.

*One of Twilight: New Moon's few redeeming features, perhaps? The oohs and ahs from women at the torsos at play are excellent work-out motivation. Then again, so are the male figures in actual, good porn.

 

[Hermiod]

Is the idea of a Mary Sue vague and just used to criticize characters we just don't like, or is it a valid criticism?

I'm posting this in the SF&F forum because Mary Sue comments only seems to be used for SF&F (the phrase originating with Trek). I also got called out for calling Amy (on Doctor Who) a bit of a Mary Sue.

Nobody speaks ill of a gorgeous redhead!!!!



Seriously, though, yes there is such a thing as a Mary Sue. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, the one, the only, the most disgustingly "perfect" character in the history of television, Ms. Lang Lang.

She is...

- Beautiful and perfect enough that a billionaire and Superman fight over her.

- So perfect that Clark completely ignores his cute, funny, pretty, intelligent and fun (who has nice boobs) best friend who is in love with him to chase after her.

- So pefect that Clark then completely drops all interest in his gorgeous, sexy, funny, smart, fun (oh, and she also has nice boobs too) friend Lois in favour of her.

- She's tough enough to beat the Green frakking Arrow in a fight and then she gets super powers close to Clark's!

That, and a billion other things that make her ridiculously infallible.

If the term Mary Sue isn't a legitimate criticism here then I don't know what is. The only other term I can think of is Poochie...

Uh, hi, Mr. Meyers. I've been doing some thinking, and I've got some ideas to improve the show. I got it right here. One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine. Two, whenever Poochie's not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking "Where's Poochie"? Three--

 

[Christopher]

I was just curious how people perceive the idea of Mary Sue criticisms.

I think most of the cases where I come across that word in online discussions, it's misapplied in one way or another. There are several parameters that have to be met for a character to be legitimately called a Mary Sue. Not all of them have to be met, but at least some of them should be. By the strict definition, a Mary Sue is:

• A guest star or new arrival in an existing franchise, particularly in a work of fanfiction or tie-in fiction; i.e. something added to the series rather than an integral part of it.
• A wish-fulfillment surrogate for the author.
• A character who outperforms and overshadows the established leads.
• A character who is universally adored by the other characters despite having no evident qualities worthy of adoration.

As I said, there are exceptions to the individual parameters. For instance, Wesley Crusher wasn't a guest star added to an existing ensemble, but he met most of the other parameters, notably the author-surrogate one. So it's arguably valid to call him a Mary Sue of Gene Roddenberry.

I'd say the most important parameters are the wish-fulfillment aspect and the lack of actual worth to match the alleged worth. What makes a Mary Sue bad is not that she (or he) is gifted or prominent or adored, but that the character's very existence is a self-indulgent exercise by the author rather than something that works on the page or on the screen. If the author is satisfying him- or herself and not satisfying the audience, that's a bad thing.

So if a new character is added to a show and she actually deserves respect and admiration, if she really is written in an impressive and appealing way rather than just being alleged to be impressive without evidence, I wouldn't call that a Mary Sue. I can see why Amy Pond might appear Mary Sue-ish to some, because she has overshadowed the Doctor a bit so far, but I think that's more because the new Doctor is a bit underwhelming than anything else. And Amy's impressive qualities are shown rather than merely alleged without proof, so in that sense she doesn't meet the definition.

If anything, one could almost say the Doctor is the Mary Sue this time out, because he's not coming off nearly as impressively as he should, but he's still being treated (especially in his own constant boasts) as if he's just as awesome as ever.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I was just curious how people perceive the idea of Mary Sue criticisms.

I think most of the cases where I come across that word in online discussions, it's misapplied in one way or another. There are several parameters that have to be met for a character to be legitimately called a Mary Sue. Not all of them have to be met, but at least some of them should be. By the strict definition, a Mary Sue is:

• A guest star or new arrival in an existing franchise, particularly in a work of fanfiction or tie-in fiction; i.e. something added to the series rather than an integral part of it.
• A wish-fulfillment surrogate for the author.
• A character who outperforms and overshadows the established leads.
• A character who is universally adored by the other characters despite having no evident qualities worthy of adoration.

As I said, there are exceptions to the individual parameters. For instance, Wesley Crusher wasn't a guest star added to an existing ensemble, but he met most of the other parameters, notably the author-surrogate one. So it's arguably valid to call him a Mary Sue of Gene Roddenberry.

TV Tropes dubs Wesley his own category, which is a character the writers love and the audience hates. The Wesley is the creator's pet, who tends to get more and more screentime, and develop more and more fabulous talents as time goes on, despite the fact that the audience despises the character and bemoans their believeability. I think Lana Lang (mentioned upthread) actually qualifies as a The Wesley more than as a Mary Sue.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, I'll never understand the hatred some people have for Smallville's Lana Lang. I liked her just fine. Though I admit it could be because Kristin Kreuk is so superhumanly gorgeous that my critical faculties are suspended when I watch her.

But I'm not sure it's fair to say Lana was a "creator's pet." After all, Lana Lang has been a part of the Superboy/Smallville mythos since 1950. Since these producers were making a show about Clark Kent's adolescence in Smallville, it was therefore necessary that Lana Lang be his love interest. Which requires a lot of screen time. And in that case, it's good if she acquires the talents and skills to make her worthy of the hero's admiration rather than just being a passive object of desire. So given the mythos the producers were obligated to build on, I don't see that they were wrong to portray her the way they did. Maybe the execution wasn't as successful as it could've been, and they couldn't have predicted that Chloe would turn out to be more popular, but I don't think a Wesley Crusher comparison is valid, because they couldn't really have approached the character in too different a way, given the parameters of the pre-established Smallville mythos.

 

[Myasishchev]

^Well, I'll never understand the hatred some people have for Smallville's Lana Lang. I liked her just fine. Though I admit it could be because Kristin Kreuk is so superhumanly gorgeous that my critical faculties are suspended when I watch her.

Test yourself and watch Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I've always thought Okona from TNG's "Outrageous Okona" was the epitome of a Mary Sue. He comes aboard the Enterprise, all the chicks go wild for him, he gets to sleep with Teri Hatcher, all the men are happy to talk about how much they admire him, and that's pretty much all that happens in the story. Either he's a Mary Sue, or I've read way too much fanfic with the same exact plot.

 

[DevilEyes]

Is the idea of a Mary Sue vague and just used to criticize characters we just don't like, or is it a valid criticism?
.

It is definitely used too often and in a way that has nothing to do with the real meaning. One of the more absurd examples was when some people over at the Skiffy board called BSG's Kara "Starbuck" Thrace a "Mary Sue", which makes no sense if you know what the term is supposed to mean. What they really meant was that a) she was portrayed as having many skills, that b) she had too many storylines, and c) they didn't like her.

 

[payndz201]

I think most of the cases where I come across that word in online discussions, it's misapplied in one way or another. There are several parameters that have to be met for a character to be legitimately called a Mary Sue. Not all of them have to be met, but at least some of them should be. By the strict definition, a Mary Sue is:

• A guest star or new arrival in an existing franchise, particularly in a work of fanfiction or tie-in fiction; i.e. something added to the series rather than an integral part of it.
• A wish-fulfillment surrogate for the author.
• A character who outperforms and overshadows the established leads.
• A character who is universally adored by the other characters despite having no evident qualities worthy of adoration.

Step forth, Billie Jenkins from the final season of Charmed! Added to the series out of nowhere (because the network wanted a new and younger character who could star in a spin-off), and outperforms and overshadows the most powerful witches on the planet despite having no training or experience. That's two of the four criteria, and it would have been three if Piper hadn't had an air of barely disguised loathing for the entire season, despite what the scripts would have her say in praise of the new kid on the block.

And for all we know, the writers may have had fantasies of being smug, entitled teenage bimbos, so that would complete the set.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, I didn't get to know the Billie character at all well, because I simply couldn't stand the actress. I skipped most of that season of the show. It was pretty much skippable anyway, from what I saw.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

And for all we know, the writers may have had fantasies of being smug, entitled teenage bimbos...

Who doesn't?

 

[The Badger]

...A wish-fulfillment surrogate for the author.

And for all we know, the writers may have had fantasies of being smug, entitled teenage bimbos, so that would complete the set.

There is, I believe, a variation to the 'wish fulfilment surrogate', the 'author appeal' type of Mary Sue. Instead of being who the author wishes to be, this type represents who the author wants to be with. It could be argued that Mara Jade in the Star Wars EU novels fits this criteria.

Professor Polly Partridge in my fanfic certainly does!

 

[Hermiod]

^Well, I'll never understand the hatred some people have for Smallville's Lana Lang. I liked her just fine. Though I admit it could be because Kristin Kreuk is so superhumanly gorgeous that my critical faculties are suspended when I watch her.

The hate can be summed up by her return last season. She disappears, Clark moves on, almost gets things going with Lois, she comes back and Clark drops Lois like a stone!

This wasn't some random girlfriend inserted in to the plot as "competition", it was Lois Lane!

Besides, a big chunk of the male audience prefers Chloe (because she's awesome) and hates Clark for choosing the cheerleader over her.