The Scientific Nature of the Mary Sue and Other Elusive Things

[megwrites]

So I reviewed Laura Anne Gilman's Staying Dead a few days ago and in my review, made a comment that the main character's habit of addressing herself by her last name struck me as, well, unrealistic and smacking of Mary Suedom.

A few people commented immediately that they refer to themselves by their last names when self-addressing.

Which got me asking a lot of questions, questions that I'm still asking. One of those questions is why did that (and several other traits) of the main character strike me as being so utterly and obviously Mary Sue when those are attributes that many people have, in actuality.

Then fairmer replied in the comments of the review with this: "It's not the most Mary Sue thing on earth. Probably. But what do I know? I have pretentiously spelled first name and green eyes. I'm practically a walking Mary Sue! :) :) :)"

And I started really trying to examine why I didn't consider it pretentious or annoying of her to have any and all of the qualities that would just put me right off of a main character in a novel. Not to mention that there are many characters who are definitely not Mary Sues who also have the same qualities and they didn't annoy me.

The fact is, I still haven't figured that out. I think it might have something to do with the difference between doing something because it sounds like it would be good and doing something because it actually is good.

When somebody pens a character with traits that I think are deliberately designed to make me think something rather than letting their actions/words create the same impression, then it bothers me.

It's like this dating service commercial I once saw and it has a man and a woman on a date, and the woman with a really clumsy, overly loud, quite dorky gusto tells the man that she's, "Single, sassy, and spicy! Caliente!"

And of course, she came across as the exact opposite. She came across as awkward, unsexy, and frankly, a n00b. With the capital zeros and everything.

I think that's the way it is with a Mary Sue. Mary Sues are the characters that are trying so hard to show you that they're cool or cynical or tough or quirky that they end up showing the opposite.

It's more complicated than that, and Mary Sues are a bit like the famous quote about pornography. I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. That, however, doesn't stop me from wanting to find a definition.

Comments

[merriehaskell.livejournal.com]

Devil's Advocate question:

Do you find yourself annoyed by Mary Sue-ish qualities when the rest of the work has been done on character development?

In other words, is a Mary Sue a Mary Sue because of the green eyes or because *all she has to recommend her* is green eyes?

(I think these things are shortcuts to characterization.)

Would the last name thing have bothered you less if there'd been an allusion to why the character does it?

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

Do you find yourself annoyed by Mary Sue-ish qualities when the rest of the work has been done on character development?

Well, that's the thing. Mary Suedom is the lack of actually doing the work on developing the character. That's another thing. It's when all those characteristics are meant to hide that the character isn't really all that interesting, unique, or otherwise sympathetic.

One of the things that bothered me about the character in the review I mentioned was that when you got past all the artificial trappings - the quirks and the superpowers - there wasn't much to found. Strip away the details, and what's left is a character that really doesn't leave an impression.

Would the last name thing have bothered you less if there'd been an allusion to why the character does it?

Maybe, maybe not. I think it would've bothered me way less if it hadn't been surrounded by so many other annoying things. It is a bit of a peeve of mine in any circumstance - not that people in real life doing it annoys me - but it comes across rather pretentious on the page. It's an idiosyncrasy of mine I think, because it seems as though other people aren't bothered by it at all.

[merriehaskell.livejournal.com]

*nodsnods* *to all of it*


I think we're on the same page. :)

[kara-gnome.livejournal.com]

Years ago, before I even knew people wrote in other peoples universes and had never heard of fandom, I critiqued a wonderful Star Trek manuscript written by a lady in my writing group. The main character could out-Spock, out-doctor Doctor McCoy, and definitely out-captain Captain Kirk. I'd never heard of a Mary Sue.

I told her over and over, repeatedly, how wonderful this story was (it was), but that she (the Mary Sue character) never suffered, she never struggled or had to work at anything. Women wanted to be like her and men loved her, and she was just so perfect--could she maybe not be so perfect?

I'd given her a Dick Frances book, and the following week, she came back to writing group, walked up to me, and hit me with this book. She said that this main character, written by Mr. Frances, was perfect, too, but that I'd liked him!

I told her that he sweated. He suffered. Terrible things happened to him, and that he made bad decisions, too. He got dirty, for crying out loud.

She stopped, and with the oddest look, said, "I had to make her like this. She's me, but I had to make her completely opposite or everyone would know."

And, of course, the woman died about six months later of Leukemia, and I'm like, crap, crap, crap, why couldn't I have just kept my big mouth shut?!, but the point of this story is that, to me, a Mary Jane is someone without flaws.

People argue with you about your reviews, really?! Tell them to go write their own reviews :-)

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

And, of course, the woman died about six months later of Leukemia, and I'm like, crap, crap, crap, why couldn't I have just kept my big mouth shut?!, but the point of this story is that, to me, a Mary Jane is someone without flaws.

Well, don't feel guilty. You gave her your honest opinion and you were trying to help her. It's always the hardest damn thing to give someone back a negative review of their fiction, especially when you see that they're so invested in it and that they've poured so much time and energy and love into it.

It's better that you treated her the same as everyone else and gave her your true opinion. The fact that she died later on of leukemia is tragic, for her and those who loved her, but you didn't know. She obviously went to that writer's group hoping to improve her writing.

It isn't just about having no flaws though. I think that a Mary Sue is deeper than that. I think that sometimes authors will design artificial flaws to give the character a depth they don't possess, and readers are smart cookies. They sniff that out without fail by the end of the first chapter.


People argue with you about your reviews, really?! Tell them to go write their own reviews :-)

They didn't argue with the reviews, just a statement (to fair, it was in question form) that I'd made. And I definitely invite people to debate and discuss and even disagree with any and all of what I post on my LJ. I like when people bring new views to the table, and I like having to chew on something for a while to see what I can spit out (which is kind of a gross metaphor if taken literally).

So far, nobody has disagreed with me about the quality of the book - I'm sure there were people who liked it infinitely better than I did, but none have chimed in thus far.