How do you define a Mary Sue?
The term originated in fan fiction, and referred to lead females who represented an idealized version of the female author. They lacked flaws, depth and humanity – they were just perfect all the time. Over time, the term leaked into online discussions of professional novels, films and TV shows. But the definition is murky and subjective, so let’s talk about what it means to each of us.
To me, it’s a gender-loaded term I have some trouble with. On the one hand, I think it’s meant to describe characters who are acknowledged by the rest of the characters as having a monopoly on being right, competent, admirable and amazing. On the other hand… well, look at the genres where this is allowed. James Bond is a perfect little Mary Sue. So are the Avengers, in all their incarnations. So in spy romps that are over-the-top in every sense, it’s okay to have this sort of over-the-top Best at Everything! character. Also in romance novels: it’s okay if the lead female is so amazing it’ll be a miracle if we can find a man good enough for her. Like spy romps, it’s just for fun and fantasy.
But somehow, it’s all different when you put a woman in a role where she has the opportunity to be truly heroic. Suddenly, the critics who gave a pass to James Bond come out of the woodwork waving the “underdeveloped character” flag, and I can’t help but think: it would be okay if she were a romantic heroine, or she had a penis. But a female James Bond? A woman who can take out bad guys while mixing a martini? Oh, noes! It was trendy for a bit in England in the 60′s with the female Avengers, but no more!
But on the other other hand (yes, I’ll need to borrow one), the female Mary Sue is often the male writer’s shortcut to writing women characters. He thinks if he makes her really, really awesome, those impossible-to-please feminists won’t complain that he’s sidelined her, reduced her to one of the usual female stereotypes, etc. This is obviously the approach George Lucas applies nowadays to cover his expressed insecurity about writing women. The Stargate team, heavily influenced by Lucas via Robert C. Cooper’s emulations, actually had a character describe Carter with the following: “even her mistakes are perfect”. And he meant it. Regardless of whether Carter strikes you as a Mary Sue, she’s obviously that in the minds of the writing team: a woman who is perfect for no well-explored reasons.
So after this long-winded three-handed discourse, the bottom line is: when I use “Mary Sue”, I’m usually referring to lazy writers (usually male) thinking perfection is a shortcut to character development, but it makes me kind of nervous because I have seen a lot of people only use it to refer to female writers.
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
True, Patrick. A checklist can only be a general guide for those who have no idea how to identify one.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
There are multiple definitions of a “Mary Sue.” It just depends on who you’re talking to. Coming out of the fanfiction circles this term originated in, I’ve seen it branch out in different ways. For me, a Mary Sue has always been the perfect female character who sticks to the traditional gender role. She may have flaws, and a tragic past of some kind is usually standard. She gets the male character everyone adores and who normally would never look at a female because he simply isn’t the type for a relationship. She is, in some circles, an idealized version of the writer. However, this only works for females. There is actually a male version of the Mary Sue, but I forget what he’s called.
I know someone who wrote an essay on the evils of the Mary Sue. I wish I could find it right now. She had a wonderful checklist of what is a Mary Sue and what isn’t.
Danica Bryant(Quote) (Reply)
Here’s a topic I’m passionate about. Short version: Mary Sue is a loaded term that turns conversations sour, derails the topic away from the craft of writing into nasty flame wars over the language (similar to calling somebody a slur), and should be avoided in any kind of professional discourse. Long version:
1) A character in the 1973 Star Trek parody fanfic A Trekkie’s Tale. She is introduced as the youngest ensign in Starfleet history, browbeats Captain Kirk for his womanizing, impresses Spock with her logic, reveals herself to be half-Vulcan, leads the Enterprise to great success and fortune when everybody else in the line of command gets sick, and dies a beautiful death that leaves everybody mourning. This is the only proper usage of those two words.
2) The story above was a parody of the “my self-insert becomes a main character” genre of fanfiction at the time, so this name entered the fan lexicon for this stock character (similar to Ophelia, Pollyanna, Uncle Tom, and Goody Two-Shoes. all archetypes referring to actual characters). Note that the term wasn’t inherently gendered but by the incidental fact that most prolific fan writers were (and still are) female (although internalized misogyny is very much a problem in fandom), but the terms “Marty Stu” and “Gary Stu” were coined later for male characters. It wasn’t inherently negative but by association with a genre favored by bad writers, but over the decades, it broadened to include nearly every negative trait under the sun until it became nothing more than…
3) A hostile buzzword used mostly for bullying, shaming, and trolling of less experienced, less sociable writers, typically used by canon purists. A million contradicting justifications for why such and such character is a Mary Sue exist, but the intent in most usages is to force the writer to cease writing in that style without offering much concrete advice on how to improve. This gets into a destructive feedback loop where the writer isn’t learning how to paint realistic, relatable characters, but instead learning that such and such trait is forbidden and must be avoided at all costs. As such, a character that started out as some beautiful, wind-in-her-literal-wings sorceress becomes an incompetent, mopey leper without ever seeming like a real person in the process. This continues until the writer gives up out of frustration.
Another way to look at it: “Your character is a Mary Sue” is worthless non-advice that implies something deeply wrong with the writer, does not leave itself open to a very useful conversation, and makes the writer feel unwelcome. “Your character is too young to hold that military rank, would not be able to physically perform those feats, and does not act the way everybody describes her” is a concrete description of glaring flaws in the characterization that does not assume incompetence, allows a conversation for how to improve the character, and allows the writer to make friends and integrate into the community.
4) According to “litmus tests” thrown around by above-mentioned fiction purists, some arbitrary list of tropes, cliches, and plot frameworks that reveal a lot more about the creator of the list than any character ever run through it. Most of these tests are so ridiculously inclusive and context-insensitive, only flat, boring characters could ever register in the negative.
5) The most common thread in somewhat-reasonable Mary Sue “definitions” is a violation of show, don’t tell and the typical center of plot and characterization inconsistencies. She brings in elements in total defiance of canon (e.g. AK-47s to Middle Earth, the Necronomicon to the 00 branch of MI5, etc.), causes characters to defy their personality to fit some contrived plot (often for the purpose of characters shagging), and warps the story into something completely unlike what it used to be. Such characters are often described with glowing traits they fail to exhibit from the narrative voice and other characters. These characters take readers/viewers out of the story because most people start to see it not as a possible sequence of events given a number of conceits, but as a reflection of the personality and desires of the person writing it.
(Incidentally, this is a similar effect to the “boardroom of producers” moments that crop up in movies and television shows. For example, in Star Trek 2009, every named character has some blunt, out of place dialogue establishing them as heterosexual. Red Letter Media called this “a case of the Not-Gays”, a term that fandom at large has adopted.)
Alex(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments