News Sonequa Martin-Green Knew All Along

[Agony_Boothb]

She's, at least, the 1st black Mary Sue of Star Trek. Maybe this season she could rival G.OA.T. Janeway in storylines.

Specifically, a Mary-Sue is an extension of the author into the body of work they are creating. As a result they are often lacking in flaws and weaknesses. Burnham is incredibly flawed and quite literally fails the first time we meet her because she allows her fear and trauma to override her judgement. That is not the behaviour of a Mary Sue. Nor is when she couldn't bring herself to kill Airiam, or when she disobeyed Saru's orders to rescue Book. You really need to understand what a Mary-Sue is if you're going to use that term.

 

[Yistaan]

Specifically, a Mary-Sue is an extension of the author into the body of work they are creating. As a result they are often lacking in flaws and weaknesses. Burnham is incredibly flawed and quite literally fails the first time we meet her because she allows her fear and trauma to override her judgement. That is not the behaviour of a Mary Sue. Nor is when she couldn't bring herself to kill Airiam, or when she disobeyed Saru's orders to rescue Book. You really need to understand what a Mary-Sue is if you're going to use that term.

I do agree the term is overused, but these type of characters aren't incapable of making mistakes in fiction. What happens is these mistakes are portrayed as "noble", or for the "greater good", so that the character can have technical mistakes made on paper to deflect criticism that they are perfect, and yet still have a halo of virtuousness and being irreproachable.

Take Grand Admiral Thrawn for example over at the Star Wars franchise. He's a willing participant in Emperor Palpatine's war crimes and atrocities, yet justifies it by saying he's doing it all for the good of his Chiss people and thus is noble and selfless, and a lot of readers and fans accept this and even propagate how Thrawn is a hero in online Star Wars groups.

 

[fireproof78]

Thrawn is closer to a Mary Sue that Burnham. Thrawn still sucks though.

 

[Jayson1]

For a character to be a Mary Sue she or he I think has to at least be the series or movie lead. I think one of the keys things that makes a Mary Sue comes from whether or not the characters flaws feel earned or realistic vs a character submerged in melodrama. I think Burnham fits the category. I think Kirk also fit the bill, at least until the movies happened. The difference is Shatner played into it making Kirk being bigger than life one of the things most interesting about him. Burnham though is treated in a very dry and earnest way and it just doesn't work. You can make a Mary Sue work like Kirk as long as you sort of embrace it. Also probably only in certain shows that aren't trying to be gritty.

 

[Yistaan]

If that's the standard, I think the Mandalorian in the show titled, well, Mandalorian, has way more issues and problems than Burnham/Discovery does. It's not even a contest in my opinion. Burnham is shown to be vulnerable and have emotions and issues, like a real person. The Mandalorian's almost a walking masculinity cliche. He got a little better with his green sidekick around, but not by much, and still has way more "superhero" cliches around him than Burnham does. I like the Mandalorian show, but I'm still going to call the paper thin characterization of the main character as I see it.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I do agree the term is overused, but these type of characters aren't incapable of making mistakes in fiction. What happens is these mistakes are portrayed as "noble", or for the "greater good", so that the character can have technical mistakes made on paper to deflect criticism that they are perfect, and yet still have a halo of virtuousness and being irreproachable.

Except none of Burnham's mistakes are ever portrayed as noble, she receives consequences for them either through punishment or being called out by another character and sometimes both.

 

[Yistaan]

Except none of Burnham's mistakes are ever portrayed as noble, she receives consequences for them either through punishment or being called out by another character and sometimes both.

I think you missed my point and my subsequent post, I don't agree that Burnham is a "Mary Sue" or whatever. I do think Grand Admiral Thrawn and the Mandalorian from Star Wars are, and was using them as counterexamples to show how Burnham isn't one.

 

[fireproof78]

If that's the standard, I think the Mandalorian in the show titled, well, Mandalorian, has way more issues and problems than Burnham/Discovery does. It's not even a contest in my opinion. Burnham is shown to be vulnerable and have emotions and issues, like a real person. The Mandalorian's almost a walking masculinity cliche. He got a little better with his green sidekick around, but not by much, and still has way more "superhero" cliches around him than Burnham does. I like the Mandalorian show, but I'm still going to call the paper thin characterization of the main character as I see it.

The Mandalorian is a better example, though I don't think it is quite to Sue levels either. Initially, I would say it was closer, but overall I would say the last season has tempered that a lot. But, your example stands as an example of what Burnham clearly isn't.

Yet, Mandalorian is praised by Discovery is maligned. Figure that one out.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

For a character to be a Mary Sue she or he I t
hink has to at least be the series or movie lead. I think one of the keys things that makes a Mary Sue comes from whether or not the characters flaws feel earned or realistic vs a character submerged in melodrama. I think Burnham fits the category. I think Kirk also fit the bill, at least until the movies happened. The difference is Shatner played into it making Kirk being bigger than life one of the things most interesting about him. Burnham though is treated in a very dry and earnest way and it just doesn't work. You can make a Mary Sue work like Kirk as long as you sort of embrace it. Also probably only in certain shows that aren't trying to be gritty.

Again, what you have described is not what a Mary Sue is. At it's most basic definition a Mary Sue is an author inserting themselves into the story. That is why a Mary Sue is almost always a previously unknown character in a franchise with existing main characters, created by an author who becomes integral to the success of whatever quest the existing main characters are on and they literally have no flaws and are perfect with everything to the point of making the main characters incompetent. That's precisely what the actual fan fiction Mary Sue character who originated the term was. If Burnham was suddenly inserted into the adventures of Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise in the 2260's, and was solving all their problems or whatever, the mary sure argument might have some basis.

Burnham has shown time and again how flawed she is. Every success Burnham has had has come because of the help of others. As example, Burnham couldn't have beaten Osyraa without the help of the bridge crew, She couldn't have survived in the 32nd century without Book, She couldn't have travelled to the 32nd century without the help of the crew and Burnham wasn't the one to figure out how to escape the mirror universe.

Kirk isn't a Mary Sue either, that guy was flawed as fuck. If you want to see what an actual flesh and blood Mary Sue is, try Captain Garth from Axanar.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I think you missed my point and my subsequent post, I don't agree that Burnham is a "Mary Sue" or whatever. I do think Grand Admiral Thrawn and the Mandalorian from Star Wars are, and was using them as counterexamples to show how Burnham isn't one.

Apologies, your post was quite literally one of the first things I read when I woke up and was still blurry-brained.

 

[Jayson1]

Again, what you have described is not what a Mary Sue is. At it's most basic definition a Mary Sue is an author inserting themselves into the story. That is why a Mary Sue is almost always a previously unknown character in a franchise with existing main characters, created by an author who becomes integral to the success of whatever quest the existing main characters are on and they literally have no flaws and are perfect with everything to the point of making the main characters incompetent. That's precisely what the actual fan fiction Mary Sue character who originated the term was. If Burnham was suddenly inserted into the adventures of Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise in the 2260's, and was solving all their problems or whatever, the mary sure argument might have some basis.

Burnham has shown time and again how flawed she is. Every success Burnham has had has come because of the help of others. As example, Burnham couldn't have beaten Osyraa without the help of the bridge crew, She couldn't have survived in the 32nd century without Book, She couldn't have travelled to the 32nd century without the help of the crew and Burnham wasn't the one to figure out how to escape the mirror universe.

Kirk isn't a Mary Sue either, that guy was flawed as fuck. If you want to see what an actual flesh and blood Mary Sue is, try Captain Garth from Axanar.

I think that was the old definition. It's basically been changed to have a somewhat different meaning. Actually it's kind of got two new meanings. I insult and then a different way of looking at usually female leads which is sexist but it's something you look at male leads as well.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I think that was the old definition. It's basically been changed to have a somewhat different meaning. Actually it's kind of got two new meanings. I insult and then a different way of looking at usually female leads which is sexist but it's something you look at male leads as well.

The meaning hasn't changed at all. People just use the term flippantly without understanding it. It's like when people describe the Federation depicted in Picard as 'dystopian' when it quite obviously isn't if you know what an actual dystopia is.

 

[fireproof78]

I think that was the old definition. It's basically been changed to have a somewhat different meaning. Actually it's kind of got two new meanings. I insult and then a different way of looking at usually female leads which is sexist but it's something you look at male leads as well.

There's no new definition. It largely is a short hand for "character I don't like. "

 

[XCV330]

Lead character vs one-off?

Seems like a pretty big distinction.

Capt. Freeman would like a word

 

[Turtletrekker]

Thrawn is closer to a Mary Sue that Burnham. Thrawn still sucks though.

So much this. However, I'm going to say this only applies to the literary version of the character. I enjoyed what they did with him on Rebels and look forward to see what they do with him what the Disney Plus shows.

 

[suarezguy]

Again, what you have described is not what a Mary Sue is. At it's most basic definition a Mary Sue is an author inserting themselves into the story. That is why a Mary Sue is almost always a previously unknown character in a franchise with existing main characters, created by an author who becomes integral to the success of whatever quest the existing main characters are on and they literally have no flaws and are perfect with everything to the point of making the main characters incompetent. That's precisely what the actual fan fiction Mary Sue character who originated the term was.

Yes, that's the original and/or most blatant version. But Burnham was added into the Spock family, seemingly as Sarek's preferred child who he supports rather than is alienated by being in Starfleet, and on the other hand it's also used for characters being overly-great and making others seem too incompetent even if they're there from the beginning notably Wesley (him at least sometimes making the adults seem incompetent as well as being a creator self-insertion or at least self-tribute), although on the third hand I'm not sure how often saving the day should have to happen to make making the other characters seem incompetent really be a trend.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Yes, that's the original and/or most blatant version. But Burnham was added into the Spock family, seemingly as Sarek's preferred child who he supports rather than is alienated by being in Starfleet, and on the other hand it's also used for characters being overly-great and making others seem too incompetent even if they're there from the beginning notably Wesley (him at least sometimes making the adults seem incompetent as well as being a creator self-insertion or at least self-tribute), although on the third hand I'm not sure how often saving the day should have to happen to make making the other characters seem incompetent really be a trend.

It's shown in the season 1 episode 'Lethe' that Burnham was not the favoured child. When Sarek was given the option of only having one of his children admitted to the Vulcan Expedtionary Group, he chooses Spock over Michael. Spock's choice to go against his fathers wishes and join Starfleet instead of the VEG is what causes the rift between them because Sarek wanted to make a point with his half vulcan son being admitted to an elite Vulcan organisation.

 

[Lord Garth]

Sybok was presumably banished from Vulcan by this time (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) and Spock and Sarek weren't on familial speaking terms over his decision to join Starfleet ("Journey to Babel"). So the groundwork for Burnham to be the only child of his that he could speak to was already put in place. Decades ago, before anyone even thought of Michael Burnham. The writers of DSC just made use of what was already there, when they were trying to figure out where Burnham would fit in.

And this is my opening to say...

I think that was the old definition. It's basically been changed to have a somewhat different meaning. Actually it's kind of got two new meanings. I insult and then a different way of looking at usually female leads which is sexist but it's something you look at male leads as well.

It's never a good look to say something Kane_Steel would've said.

 

[The Wormhole]

Spock's choice to go against his fathers wishes and join Starfleet instead of the VEG is what causes the rift between them because Sarek wanted to make a point with his half vulcan son being admitted to an elite Vulcan organisation.

I was actually under the impression that what caused the rift was guilt on Sarek's part. Guilt over the fact he ruined Michael's dream of joining the VEG unnecessarily, since Spock end up turning to Starfleet instead.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I was actually under the impression that what caused the rift was guilt on Sarek's part. Guilt over the fact he ruined Michael's dream of joining the VEG unnecessarily, since Spock end up turning to Starfleet instead.

Guilt definitely play a part, but Sarek also had something to prove by having his half-vulcan son compete successfully with pure-blooded Vulcans and obtain a position in the VEG.