Oh, Mary Sue
Oct. 23rd, 2008 05:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesA few days ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
matociquala said that she was "personally opposed to the ongoing overuse of the term to mean 'any female protagonist.'"
The term to which she is referring is "Mary Sue".
I've been contemplating the nature of the Mary Sue, and whether calling every female protagonist a Mary Sue is a good or bad thing and what it might mean.
I've tried a couple of times to write something about this, but it keeps turning into my thoughts on yaoi, which nobody wants. I think this is because I'm sort of split down the middle about the idea of using Mary Sue as a blanket term.
Half of me objects. I object because it's a fandom term, and fandom terms that try to crossover into the mainstream tend to make things less clear, not more. I refer you to all the angst over the word "slash" and whether "canon slash" exists and all the bitching related thereto. By the by, I do personally define slash as being any same-sex relationship, canon be damned - but I'm nto one of those folks who feels the need to go around correcting others, waggling my fingers, appalled that someone has the gall to define a word used to describe pretend people's relationships differently than I do.
But the point is that fandom terminology comes about out of specific circumstances and situations that don't exist anywhere else in the universe. The mainstream may crib a few of our words, but their context and evolution don't come along with it.
My other reservation stems from a perception of "Mary Sue" as a dire insult, at least in the way I was taught. And it's a rather gender biased insult that has a lot to do with not only the fact that your character is badly-written, but badly-written and female. It's as though there is a certain extra crime in not only being outrageous, but being outrageous with a vagina.
Not to mention that the implication that having a penis magically mitigates or even justifies one's shenanigans disturbs me greatly. Having seen and handled the Mighty Peen a few times in my life, I can tell you that it's not really magical, it's just an organ that's occasionally serviceable. And in truth, it's no more magical than the Mighty Gallbladder, only more visible.
And if we don't hand out special privileges to people who still have their gallbladders, I'm not sure why we decided to hand them out to those who have penises. You wouldn't think a few inches of tissue would cause such problems in life, but alas.
Actually, one suspects the problem is not with penises, but with some of their owners.
And yes, I know such creatures as "Gary Stu"/"Marty Stu" exist, but they are afterthoughts to Mary Sue, tacked on to give the appearance of propriety. Those terms are exceedingly less common and I submit they do not carry the same weight and insult as "Mary Sue".
Let's face it, there are instances where female protagonists aren't allowed to get away with some of the things that male protagonists have been getting away with for centuries. James Bond, for example, checks off a lot of the Mary Sue attributes - but I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone call him that.
Yet even to this day, I fear the accusation being leveled at me. I have lot more trepidation about how an audience will receive a female protagonist rather than a male one, because I know the spectre of Mary Sue is out there, waiting to eat my story alive if I cross the invisible boundaries of female acceptability.
I'll even confess I've called more than a few characters in others' novels the same, always with a critical tone. I don't think I've done so with a gender bias, because I'm equally as ready to label a male character a Mary Sue (and yes, I use the term Mary Sue for male and female characters) - but I still think there is a gender-based sting in the term.
But that's precisely why I wonder if using Mary Sue as an umbrella term, might not be doing a big favor to a lot of writers and readers. If all female protagonists - good, bad or ugly - are covered by the blanket term "Mary Sue", then it would neutralize the word's meaning. If all female protagonists, regardless of quality, fall under that blanket, focus is shifted.
If it's possible for a Mary Sue to be good, then people may be forced to focus on why it is that they dislike particular female protagonists. They may also be forced to examine if the reasons the character is unacceptable lie with the character or themselves.
I don't think there is, in reality, a list you can check off to determine whether a female protagonist is well written or poorly written without reading the entire damn novel carefully and making a determination from there. I don't think you can come up with a set of characteristics that prevents a reader from enjoying the character, either.
After all, a lot of the best heroines ever written - Buffy, for instance - would fail the checklist, but have been decidedly important to fans and pop culture alike, not to mention well written.
Still, I wouldn't want to invalidate what people have been responding to when they call a character a Mary Sue? Because some female protagonists are atrociously written, and I think people like to have a handy term to cover a lot of the reasons why they thought so. And some of the characteristics of a Mary Sue are the characteristics of badly written characters, particularly those relating to blatant favoritism by the author and author insertion.
It's not wrong to say that a female protagonist got on your nerves because she wasn't believable, because the author warped the plot around her, or because the character just came on too strong. Those are valid complaints, and complaints that should be voiced. Authors should know when they're doing it wrong.
But a term needs to be an accusation that's leveled because of the quality of writing, and it needs to be stripped of gender implications. If the world needs a term to describe a bad, over-the-top character, so be it - but it should be one that is equally applied to male characters of the same caliber.
So this is why I'm of two minds about the idea of calling all female protagonists Mary Sues. While it might net future positivity, it does sling a lot of uncomfortably biased accusations around in the meantime.
Of course, we could always just rid ourselves of any and all gender bias and become imminently thoughtful writers and readers. That might solve a bunch of our problems, too. Just sayin'.
matociquala said that she was "personally opposed to the ongoing overuse of the term to mean 'any female protagonist.'"The term to which she is referring is "Mary Sue".
I've been contemplating the nature of the Mary Sue, and whether calling every female protagonist a Mary Sue is a good or bad thing and what it might mean.
I've tried a couple of times to write something about this, but it keeps turning into my thoughts on yaoi, which nobody wants. I think this is because I'm sort of split down the middle about the idea of using Mary Sue as a blanket term.
Half of me objects. I object because it's a fandom term, and fandom terms that try to crossover into the mainstream tend to make things less clear, not more. I refer you to all the angst over the word "slash" and whether "canon slash" exists and all the bitching related thereto. By the by, I do personally define slash as being any same-sex relationship, canon be damned - but I'm nto one of those folks who feels the need to go around correcting others, waggling my fingers, appalled that someone has the gall to define a word used to describe pretend people's relationships differently than I do.
But the point is that fandom terminology comes about out of specific circumstances and situations that don't exist anywhere else in the universe. The mainstream may crib a few of our words, but their context and evolution don't come along with it.
My other reservation stems from a perception of "Mary Sue" as a dire insult, at least in the way I was taught. And it's a rather gender biased insult that has a lot to do with not only the fact that your character is badly-written, but badly-written and female. It's as though there is a certain extra crime in not only being outrageous, but being outrageous with a vagina.
Not to mention that the implication that having a penis magically mitigates or even justifies one's shenanigans disturbs me greatly. Having seen and handled the Mighty Peen a few times in my life, I can tell you that it's not really magical, it's just an organ that's occasionally serviceable. And in truth, it's no more magical than the Mighty Gallbladder, only more visible.
And if we don't hand out special privileges to people who still have their gallbladders, I'm not sure why we decided to hand them out to those who have penises. You wouldn't think a few inches of tissue would cause such problems in life, but alas.
Actually, one suspects the problem is not with penises, but with some of their owners.
And yes, I know such creatures as "Gary Stu"/"Marty Stu" exist, but they are afterthoughts to Mary Sue, tacked on to give the appearance of propriety. Those terms are exceedingly less common and I submit they do not carry the same weight and insult as "Mary Sue".
Let's face it, there are instances where female protagonists aren't allowed to get away with some of the things that male protagonists have been getting away with for centuries. James Bond, for example, checks off a lot of the Mary Sue attributes - but I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone call him that.
Yet even to this day, I fear the accusation being leveled at me. I have lot more trepidation about how an audience will receive a female protagonist rather than a male one, because I know the spectre of Mary Sue is out there, waiting to eat my story alive if I cross the invisible boundaries of female acceptability.
I'll even confess I've called more than a few characters in others' novels the same, always with a critical tone. I don't think I've done so with a gender bias, because I'm equally as ready to label a male character a Mary Sue (and yes, I use the term Mary Sue for male and female characters) - but I still think there is a gender-based sting in the term.
But that's precisely why I wonder if using Mary Sue as an umbrella term, might not be doing a big favor to a lot of writers and readers. If all female protagonists - good, bad or ugly - are covered by the blanket term "Mary Sue", then it would neutralize the word's meaning. If all female protagonists, regardless of quality, fall under that blanket, focus is shifted.
If it's possible for a Mary Sue to be good, then people may be forced to focus on why it is that they dislike particular female protagonists. They may also be forced to examine if the reasons the character is unacceptable lie with the character or themselves.
I don't think there is, in reality, a list you can check off to determine whether a female protagonist is well written or poorly written without reading the entire damn novel carefully and making a determination from there. I don't think you can come up with a set of characteristics that prevents a reader from enjoying the character, either.
After all, a lot of the best heroines ever written - Buffy, for instance - would fail the checklist, but have been decidedly important to fans and pop culture alike, not to mention well written.
Still, I wouldn't want to invalidate what people have been responding to when they call a character a Mary Sue? Because some female protagonists are atrociously written, and I think people like to have a handy term to cover a lot of the reasons why they thought so. And some of the characteristics of a Mary Sue are the characteristics of badly written characters, particularly those relating to blatant favoritism by the author and author insertion.
It's not wrong to say that a female protagonist got on your nerves because she wasn't believable, because the author warped the plot around her, or because the character just came on too strong. Those are valid complaints, and complaints that should be voiced. Authors should know when they're doing it wrong.
But a term needs to be an accusation that's leveled because of the quality of writing, and it needs to be stripped of gender implications. If the world needs a term to describe a bad, over-the-top character, so be it - but it should be one that is equally applied to male characters of the same caliber.
So this is why I'm of two minds about the idea of calling all female protagonists Mary Sues. While it might net future positivity, it does sling a lot of uncomfortably biased accusations around in the meantime.
Of course, we could always just rid ourselves of any and all gender bias and become imminently thoughtful writers and readers. That might solve a bunch of our problems, too. Just sayin'.
