Most Anoying Star Trek Character ever

[Farscape One]

All protagonists from all shows save the day on the regular.

But at least with the other shows, saving the day is rotated amongst the rest of the cast. Deanna Troi saved the day several times. Even Harry Kim got to save the day multiple times. Hell, Mayweather got to save the day a couple times.

With Burnham, it seems like it is mostly her. I get that she's the captain and the buck ultimately stops with her, but spread the wealth a little bit. When Harry Kim saves the day more than all the regulars on your show put together, that's a monopoly on day saving. So yes, in that way, I think she can be called a Mary Sue.

 

[fireproof78]

Who is she the author insert for?

 

[PCz911]

Commodore decker….
Ugh! I can’t watch that episode because of him.

(Turns and now runs from the mob)

 

[Orphalesion]

Who is she the author insert for?

First of all I do NOT think Michael is a "Mary-Sue"

But a Mary-Sue doesn't have to be an author insert. As I said earlier these days "Mary-Sue" has become useless as a concept because people started throwing it at any character they don't like. But even in serious discussion that concept is hard to define (let alone that it is problematic in so far that it is intrinsically gendered, when male characters can be Sues too)
But personally I subscribe to the definition that a Mary-Sue is a character for whom the author literally bends the laws of the universe, causality and logic to always put them at the centre of the narrative, especially at the expense of more established characters, but even that definition has its flaws.

Though really when it comes down to it, it hard to really define what causes a Mary-Sue other than "bad writing".

 

[fireproof78]

First of all I do NOT think Michael is a "Mary-Sue"

But a Mary-Sue doesn't have to be an author insert. As I said earlier these days "Mary-Sue" has become useless as a concept because people started throwing it at any character they don't like. But even in serious discussion that concept is hard to define (let alone that it is problematic in so far that it is intrinsically gendered, when male characters can be Sues too)
But personally I subscribe to the definition that a Mary-Sue is a character for whom the author literally bends the laws of the universe, causality and logic to always put them at the centre of the narrative, especially at the expense of more established characters.

Though really when it comes down to it, it hard to really define what causes a Mary-Sue other than "bad writing".

I would agree that it sounds like "bad writing" but even that I struggle with greatly because when you look at a story it happens because of the hero, most of the time. Like, to me, TOS is all about a Mary Sue style character because the crew of the Enterprise is always getting in to first time events, encounters, or highly improbable adventures. The line is hard to draw because a basic conceit of fiction is a little bit of coincidence.

I agree that it should just be called "bad writing" because Mary Sue is completely meaningless and sounds, to me at least, as a code word for "Character I don't like but cannot phrase it any other way."

 

[CoveTom]

I actually like Janeway and I love Kate Mulgrew, though I agree that the character was, er, inconsistently written which led to some issues.

With Vic Fontaine, I like his music and loved his duet with Sisko, but some of his plotlines were downright stupid and painful to watch.

So, I'm apparently in the minority.

For most annoying? Maybe season 1 Troi? I'd probably agree with Ishka as well.

 

[Orphalesion]

I would agree that it sounds like "bad writing" but even that I struggle with greatly because when you look at a story it happens because of the hero, most of the time. Like, to me, TOS is all about a Mary Sue style character because the crew of the Enterprise is always getting in to first time events, encounters, or highly improbable adventures. The line is hard to draw because a basic conceit of fiction is a little bit of coincidence.

I agree that it should just be called "bad writing" because Mary Sue is completely meaningless and sounds, to me at least, as a code word for "Character I don't like but cannot phrase it any other way."

See here I would offer the alternate interpretation that most, if not all, traits that are normally ascribed to a Mary-Sue character can work with decent writing and then don't make the characters Mary-Sues.
Hence why I'd say the only characteristic that a Mary-Sue is left with these days is "a badly written character". Of course whatever makes a character badly written is subjective to some extend.

 

[fireproof78]

See here I would offer the alternate interpretation that most, if not all, traits that are normally ascribed to a Mary-Sue character can work with decent writing and then don't make the characters Mary-Sues.
Hence why I'd say the only characteristic that a Mary-Sue is left with these days is "a badly written character". Of course whatever makes a character badly written is subjective to some extend.

Yeah, that's why I find it a difficult term to parse, and usually leads a discussion astray because what makes a Mary Sue to me, probably doesn't to you. It's an interesting word puzzle.

 

[Oddish]

When I was part of the Potter fandom, we dealt with the term a lot. Basically a Mary Sue is a character who has no definable weaknesses. They are popular, they are smart, they are capable, they are desirable, and they're never conceited about it. Typically a Mary Sue will show up in the fandom's setting (Hogwarts, Starship Enterprise, whatever) and win the heart of the character the author thinks is hot. And if course, Gary Stu is the male equivalent.

A Mary Sue is basically an avatar of sorts for an immature or inexperienced author, a way for them to write themselves into a fandom and live the life they fantasize about. Problem is, no one else really finds the character that interesting.

 

[Orphalesion]

When I was part of the Potter fandom, we dealt with the term a lot. Basically a Mary Sue is a character who has no definable weaknesses.They are popular, they are smart, they are capable, they are desirable, and they're never conceited about it.

Counter argument: Luthien Tuniviel from Tolkien's Middle Earth Mythos. Canonically the most beautiful woman to have ever existed or will ever exist, so beautiful that everybody, even Morgoth (basically Middle Earth's Satan) wanted her. So good and pure that her mere presence causes flowers to bloom. Gains magical, "midnight black" hair during the course of the story that is described in a (for Tolkien) flowery language. Gorgeous singing voice and dancing skill. So powerful in magic that she can beat Sauron almost single-handedly and cast spells on Morgoth (who is also the single most powerful being in Arda). Loved and admired by everyone she meets. The super-special, one of a kind daughter of one of the mightiest Elven Kings and his literally angelic wife (making her 1/2 Elf and 1/2 divine being). Bends and breaks the laws of the universe to get her boyfriend back from the dead. Technically performs a self-sacrifice for her boyfriend. Not a conceited bone in her body. Eventually dies because she's too good and beautiful for this sinful Earth and his mourned for thousands and thousands of years after her death All that and she has a pet dog who can talk.
(Plus she is also the girlfriend of the author's low-key self insert and patterned after his future wife)
And yet she's not a Mary Sue, because Tolkien had the skill to pull the character off (though it also helps that she at least had to face consequences at least at some point).

Typically a Mary Sue will show up in the fandom's setting (Hogwarts, Starship Enterprise, whatever) and win the heart of the character the author thinks is hot. And if course, Gary Stu is the male equivalent.
A Mary Sue is basically an avatar of sorts for an immature or inexperienced author, a way for them to write themselves into a fandom and live the life they fantasize about.

And those are just specific types of Sues. Not every Sue exists to bone a character the writer finds hot and not every Sue is a self-insert.
And both of those things can exist without a character becoming a Mary-Sue.

Problem is, no one else really finds the character that interesting.

And that is the only actual trait that makes a character a Sue. They are not interesting/badly written.

 

[Oddish]

And those are just specific types of Sues. Not every Sue exists to bone a character the writer finds hot and not every Sue is a self-insert.

That may be true in other fandoms. Truth be told, I only wrote extensive amounts of fanfiction in Pokémon and Harry Potter. The latter fandom had enough of the characters I describe (new witch at Hogwarts, good at everything, super duelist, Harry [or Draco Malfoy due to bad boy influence and Tom Felton being hot] falls hard for her) that "Mary Sue" sort of became synonymous with that.

 

[fireproof78]

All this word wrangling just reminds of the simple fact that, much like this thread, it is so incredibly subjective. Badly written is something that I struggle with because to me, badly written characters are a hallmark of Trek. They just mix in with the good often enough that it all balances out, like the world's worst algebra problem.

 

[Arpy]

That she’s become a “Mary Sue” on her own show is the point.

 

[fireproof78]

I thought the point was she is an annoying character?

 

[Arpy]

I thought the point was she is an annoying character?

Mary Sues are annoying.

 

[fireproof78]

Mary Sues are annoying.

......

It depends.

 

[Arpy]

......

It depends.

……

Everything “depends.”

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I’d love to see the case made for how Burnham is a character without flaws. She got her captain killed and ship destroyed while sparking an intergalactic war and that’s just her first few episodes. She is the most flawed lead Trek has ever had, something that was still being lampshaded as far as the beginning of Season 4.

I find her annoying at times, but she’s not a Mary Sue. Not by the Google definition of the word anyway.

If X person doesn’t like her, more power to them. She’s not always a likeable character and she’s certainly annoying at times. As far as saving the day though, she does that with the same regularity as any other Star Trek lead. I’d say for example that the majority of TOS episodes are won by Kirk, with Spock coming second and everyone else making up the minority. Star Trek leads are by nature heroic and in Star Trek it tends to be heroic characters who win. Burnham is no different in this regard.

If you’re looking for an annoying captain who’s always framed as being right, presented as near flawless and manages to save the day 9 times out of 10, Janeway is much closer to the mark.

 

[Oddish]

If you’re looking for an annoying captain who’s always framed as being right, presented as near flawless and manages to save the day 9 times out of 10, Janeway is much closer to the mark.

While I'm waiting on watching Discovery until I can watch it on a big screen, Janeway has some Mary Sue tendencies: smart as Einstein, driven as Ahab, tough as Rambo, and charismatic as Martin Luther King. But, in general, a Mary Sue is pretty much infallible. You need only google "worst things janeway has done" to known that Janeway is not. Many of her decisions have been severely criticized.

 

[fireproof78]

I’d love to see the case made for how Burnham is a character without flaws. She got her captain killed and ship destroyed while sparking an intergalactic war and that’s just her first few episodes. She is the most flawed lead Trek has ever had, something that was still being lampshaded as far as the beginning of Season 4.

I find her annoying at times, but she’s not a Mary Sue. Not by the Google definition of the word anyway.

If X person doesn’t like her, more power to them. She’s not always a likeable character and she’s certainly annoying at times. As far as saving the day though, she does that with the same regularity as any other Star Trek lead. I’d say for example that the majority of TOS episodes are won by Kirk, with Spock coming second and everyone else making up the minority. Star Trek leads are by nature heroic and in Star Trek it tends to be heroic characters who win. Burnham is no different in this regard.

If you’re looking for an annoying captain who’s always framed as being right, presented as near flawless and manages to save the day 9 times out of 10, Janeway is much closer to the mark.

This is closer to my feelings on the matter. Burnham can be annoying (a lot too). But she never comes across as flawless, to me. She struggles similarly to many captains, especially like Pike or Kirk, with more the existential style questions. While not always the best captain I do find her engaging enough to get by the annoying parts.