Good grief. I've seen that with almost every main character I have watched over the years, including Star Trek. This is neither new nor noteworthy,
Poll Is Michael Burnham a "Mary Sue"?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
- Status
Yes, and she gets called out on that by someone she loves. If she were a Sue, all of the "important" characters would treat her like she was the most important person ever. Sues don't get criticised. They get defended and lauded and waited upon. That's what I mean when I keep saying that words have meanings.
You're completely right with your assessment, of course. The above was me complaining about people insisting on using faulty terminology to disparage a character they dislike.
That's also why I wanted to start a thread called "Why are so many commanders top heavy?" to consolidate some other redundant threads.
I get that. Just don't think it will be enough to have a full thread. We'll see.
Hello everyone. I created this poll for a simple reason: every time in a thread someone says Michael is a "Mary Sue", that thread is deranged for pages and pages. So please, discuss here the topic to your heart content and leave the other threads alone.
I'll go first: obviously Michael ISN'T a Mary Sue. I mean, read every description of it out here. People are just using this term to describe a female character they don't like.
Prove me wrong
Firstly, I am not looking to prove you or anyone else wrong.
The definition of a "Mary Sue" character is simply "a female character who is written without flaws and who is viewed as too perfect."
I agree that this slang term is just slung about haphazardly (like "snowflake"). It's a troll term to instigate conflict not further discussions.
To me, I don't believe Michael Burnham is, by definition, a "Mary Sue," however, regardless whether she is or not I simply don't care as I like her. She's a hero young women can look up to and be inspired by - we men have never had a short supply of similar heroes to look to so why begrudge or try and fault the relatively few female heroic leads on TV? Let us not delude ourselves that TV and Film is somehow a meritocracy. It's not.
I grew up with a love of pulp magazine storytelling (Doc Savage, The Shadow, The Spider, etc.), and they were definitely the male equivalent of a "Mary Sue." Captain Kirk, Picard and Janeway could be said to be "Mary Sue"s. So if Michael Burnham is a "Mary Sue" then she is in damn fine company!
Others here are more qualified to speak to this, but it strikes me this is a consequence of plot driven versus character driven. Burnham is who the plot needs her to be and she is bent to that will (again, just as many heroic male lead characters are).
Yeah. No.
I just have to say, this, having read numerous Spider stories, The Spider is by no means a male equivalent of a Mary Sue. I also highly recommend reading the stories written by Novell page, starting with #3. They are quite insane at times and reading one has very much a similar effect as watching a Batman movie.
Last edited:
If Burnham was a Mary Sue she would have been an admiral pushing Pike out of his chair and giving him a temporary grade reduction to commander. Then she would proceed to do everything exactly right and Pike would just throw himself into a black hole as he realizes Michael wants the Enterprise more than he does. Michael orders to just list him as a resident on Talos IV and then the episode ends with another infinite amount of time gazing at the Enterprise before gazing even more at a star field it left behind as if the episode will never end.
THE FEMINIST ADVENTURE IS JUST THE BEGINNING
THE FEMINIST ADVENTURE IS JUST THE BEGINNING
I think you mean "derailed", but come to think of it, "deranged" is pretty accurate too.
As for the question, "Mary Sue" is one of those buzzwords that's quickly becoming meaningless, like "SJW" or "virtual signaling", because the meaning changes depending on who's using it and whatever axe they have to grind. Plus the whole reason the term came about is to describe and warn against a pretty common mistake made by beginning writers. So outside of fanfiction, I don't really see the point of even using the term "Mary Sue" because it adds nothing to the discussion.
A fair point. Just stating that there are better complaints against Michael than being a Mary Sue (even if it is nothing new) .
Indeed there are. And I would love to see those better complaints in general. It is fatiguing to hear surface level critique, like the Mary Sue one, given any sort of serious consideration. If individuals do not like a show it's helpful to know the Why's rather than simple buzzwords.
Certainly. One could complain that instead of her being motivated far more by her past (real or imagined) failures than repeated successes and reinforcement of the ideals that support those successes. This can produce a kind of cognitive dissonance for many a Star Trek fan, because Trek has repeated used such characterizations for antagonists and villains in the franchise, and only main characters very briefly, such as Kirk in Obsession, and Sisko being stuck in that moment when his wife died. Of course, insead of a one and done approach, this is what the whole series revolves around.
And while I agree that often has and will make her an uncomfortable character to watch as the face of the series (and for people not good at identifying these feelings, a big problem), it is something that many of us can identify with, and not find her boring in the least.
And additional complaint that is valid for those who don't drill down to far are her voice overs which some deride as 'sermons'. But given her motivations, they are far more interesting than such similar sermons given by Kirk, Picard, Janeway et al., because there is some impression that she is trying to convince herself of their truth, and isn't instead commited to them beyond the shadow of a doubt.
To me, this suggests that more so than our other Captains, she has a greater potential of falling like Tracey, Decker and other captains who eventually lost it. Honestly, I think she could end up going either way. Again, par for the course in Star Trek, and again, not boring, if uncomfortable for those who's greatest need from Star Trek is for the comfort they want to be provided.
Last edited:
Hell no. For reasons others have already articulated. The main one being that she's the star of the show. She's meant to have focus and qualities which some might find exceptional. But the DSC writers have also given her some pretty obvious flaws and had characters close to her call her out on them.
I do want to elaborate on one thing, however, and that is I find the writing in that scene between Spock and Michael really outstanding in terms of highlighting the issues they have with each other. But I people who are inclined to'crackerize' (see the eating crackers meme) Michael seem to view it as a great chance to "take her down a peg", give her a "verbal smackdown", "put her in her place" and other such sentiments. These commenters might even call her "uppity". You can see where I am going with this. But it does the scene a disservice because Spock is correctly pointing out that she's taking all the guilt and blame upon herself. Self flagellating. Yes, it's a form of self-importance which can be irritating, but it's reflected inwards, focused on her past failures. She thinks she has to shoulder the burdens alone, and to fix things by herself, because she thinks SHE made the mistakes which led to those bad situations in the first place. Therefore she is constantly seeking atonement, rushing to solve every problem alone in order to avoid facing her grief, her loss and the fact that sometimes events will be out of her control. This is the opposite of an arrogant, narcissistic person (which many like to claim she is).
I wonder if those same people who dislike Michael so intensely also hate Sisko's entire character arc, which is about letting go of the past and accepting his role as Emissary. The Chosen One. Space Jesus.
I do want to elaborate on one thing, however, and that is I find the writing in that scene between Spock and Michael really outstanding in terms of highlighting the issues they have with each other. But I people who are inclined to'crackerize' (see the eating crackers meme) Michael seem to view it as a great chance to "take her down a peg", give her a "verbal smackdown", "put her in her place" and other such sentiments. These commenters might even call her "uppity". You can see where I am going with this. But it does the scene a disservice because Spock is correctly pointing out that she's taking all the guilt and blame upon herself. Self flagellating. Yes, it's a form of self-importance which can be irritating, but it's reflected inwards, focused on her past failures. She thinks she has to shoulder the burdens alone, and to fix things by herself, because she thinks SHE made the mistakes which led to those bad situations in the first place. Therefore she is constantly seeking atonement, rushing to solve every problem alone in order to avoid facing her grief, her loss and the fact that sometimes events will be out of her control. This is the opposite of an arrogant, narcissistic person (which many like to claim she is).
I wonder if those same people who dislike Michael so intensely also hate Sisko's entire character arc, which is about letting go of the past and accepting his role as Emissary. The Chosen One. Space Jesus.
That's the one thing we can't change, I presume so you couldn't do a "which sexual fantasies do you enjoy" anonymous poll and then have the moderator switch it to public.
Or another less weird example.
I don't see her as a Mary Sue
I loved what Agents of SHIELD did when people were accusing Skye of being a Mary Sue. They had the orphanage she grew up at give her the name "Mary Sue Poots".
Last edited:
- Status
