seanan_mcguire: (princess)
seanan_mcguire ([personal profile] seanan_mcguire) wrote2011-10-11 12:42 pm

I know a little girl and her name is Mary Mac: The Misuse of Mary Sue.

Let's talk about Mary Sue.

We've all met her. She's the violet-eyed, crimson-haired, secret daughter of Amadala and Obi Wan, sent to be raised on the hidden planet where the last Jedi ran to escape the war, and she has just emerged back into the universe with her spinning light saber batons to save her half-brother Luke from falling to the Dark Side. She's the missing Winchester sister with the two magic guns, one for shooting angels, one for shooting demons, who just fought her way out of Purgatory to rejoin her family. She's smarter than you, she's prettier than you, she's more competent than you, her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, and the odds are good that she doesn't even notice, because she's just existing in her happy little cloud cuckoo land of sunshine and zombie puppies. Mary Sue, like mistletoe, is a parasitic growth, only she grows on stories, and not on trees.

Mary Sue is misunderstood. She's a cuckoo egg left in a starling's nest, hatching into something big and bright and demanding that doesn't belong where it is. In her own story, she would be something else altogether: she would be a protagonist, she would be the biggest, brightest thing in the room because that's what a protagonist is. But because she's trying to be a starling instead of a cuckoo, she's out of place. She doesn't work. That doesn't make her welcome where she is...but it does mean that maybe all Mary really needs to do is fly away home.

Meeting Mary Sue.

In fanfiction, Mary Sue was used specifically for an original character, often closely resembling an idealized version of the writer, who was inserted into a world and caused the world turn upside down and reconfigure itself around her center...The problem with using this term outside of fanfiction is simple: the world of a novel has always configured around main characters. They are at its center and, often, they are the best at stuff.

—Holly Black, Ladies Ladies Ladies.

Mary Sue, like mistletoe, like cuckoos, has a natural habitat, and that habitat is fan fiction. She is the character who steps in and warps the story beyond all recognition.

Can she exist in original fiction? Yes, but it's harder. Usually, she'll be the minor character who somehow winds up rising from spear-carrier to scene-stealer to magical-perfect-solution-to-everything. Can a central character be unlikeably perfect, never challenged by anything, and all too ready to solve every situation with a wave of her perfect hand and a flick of her perfect hair? Yes, but that isn't the same thing as being a Mary Sue.

Not all Mary Sues are author self-insert, although the majority will have some aspects of self-insertion. Really, what makes Mary Sue Mary Sue is this:

Mary Sue breaks the story.

Mary Sue arrives on the scene and everyone loves her, instantly and without question. Mary Sue is adorably insecure, but only so she can be even more perfect. Mary Sue has a unicorn in a science fiction universe, and a robot butler in a fantasy universe. Mary Sue either gets the hero, or heroically arranges for him to be with the heroine, because she's too good and nice and wonderful to stand in the way of destiny. Mary Sue changes the game...and she is able to do so because the game isn't hers. If Mary Sue owns the game, then her name changes, and she gets to be something other than a concept.

She gets to be a person.

Eves and Apples.

When I read reviews, I see the term Mary-Sue used to mean:

1) A female character who is too perfect
2) A female character who kicks too much butt
3) A female character who gets her way too easily
4) A female character who is too powerful
5) A female character who has too many flaws
6) A female character who has the wrong flaws
7) A female character who has no flaws
8) A female character who is annoying or obnoxious
9) A female character who is one dimensional or badly written
10) A female character who is too passive or boring


—Zoë Marriott, You Can Stuff Your Mary Sue Where the Sun Don't Shine.

The definitions of Mary Sue are often contradictory, as are the definitions of her male counterpart, Gary Stu. That being said, I have seen many, many female protagonists accused of Mary Sue-ism, but have very rarely seen the opposite accusation leveled at male protagonists, even when the weight of the definition seems to point much more firmly at the males in the situation. Harry Potter is the son of two incredibly beloved, talented, respected wizards; he's never been exposed to the wizard world before the start of the series, yet is instantly one of the most skilled Seekers the Quiddich Team has ever seen; all his flaws turn out to be advantages; everyone loves him, or is instantly branded a villain for ever and ever and ever. Hermione Granger has worked hard for everything she has. She's the smartest girl in Gryffindor, but that's about it; she isn't naturally incredibly magically talented, or handed all her advantages for nothing. Yet I see her accused of Mary Sue-ism way more often than I see him accused of Gary Stu-ism.

Half the time, "Mary Sue" seems to mean "female character." And that doesn't work for me, for a lot of reasons, including "I write female characters who aren't Mary Sues," and also, "if all women are Mary Sues, why does my hair get frizzy when it rains?" (I would totally be willing to be a Mary Sue if it meant my hair was always perfect and I could go to sleep wearing eyeliner without waking up the next morning looking like a raccoon.) Male characters get to be competent or obnoxious, skilled or clumsy, intelligent or ignorant, without being accused of being Mary Sues. Shouldn't female characters have the same luxury?

An example:

I love Kelley Armstrong's Women of the Otherworld books. In the very first volume, Bitten, we meet Elena, the world's only female werewolf, and Jeremy, the current leader of the North American Pack. Both Elena and Jeremy are physically stronger than humans, with super-fast healing, severely slowed aging, and supernaturally good looks. Both of them turn into giant wolves who can eat your face. Elena, despite being the only female werewolf, is a pretty standard werewolf. Jeremy is the only non-bruiser Pack leader ever; is psychic; is rich and artistically talented and smart and his mother wasn't a werewolf at all, but a super-secret special non-werewolf supernatural and also the hottest necromancer ever loves him and and and...

Now, I think both these characters are well-written, well-rounded, and equally plausible within the setting, even if Jeremy is a bit more over-the-top than Elena is. But I've only heard the term "Mary Sue" applied to one of them. And it wasn't Jeremy. His spectacular special snowflake awesomeness is viewed as only right and fair, while her only unusual attribute—"female werewolf"—makes her, not the protagonist, but the obnoxious self-insert parasite who won't go away.

There's a problem here.

Playing Like A Girl.

Nobody has to like a girl, fictional or otherwise. But words like "annoying" or "Mary Sue" are both used as shorthand for "girl I want to dismiss." We've all read about characters who seemed overly perfect, or who had flaws the narrative wouldn't admit were flaws, and those characters are irritating. But I've seen just as many fictional boys like that as fictional girls (with the caveat that boys tend to get more pagetime, so they get more explored) and those boys don't get seen in the same way. As I was saying on twitter a couple days ago, I want characters to be flawed and awesome: I want them to be flawesome.

—Sarah Rees Brennan, Ladies, Don't Let Anyone Tell You You're Not Awesome.

So here's the thing.

When a female character is awesome, when she's the star, when she's the one the story is about, she runs the risk of being called a Mary Sue. I've had people call several of my characters Mary Sues, sometimes following it up with the all-condemning statement that clearly, these characters represent my ideal self. So you know? Toby is not my ideal self. Neither is George, or Velma, or Rose (or Sally, who you'll meet soon). Even the romantic comedy I wrote based entirely around a real trip I took to real England doesn't have a self-insert version of me as the main character; instead, it has a neurotic tech writer named Margary who likes far more adventurous food (and far more adventurous shoes). If any of my characters represents my "ideal self," it's probably Angela Baker in InCryptid, who is one of the only characters who never stars in her own book. Instead, she stays home, watches a lot of television, and does math. Heaven.

Mary Sue is a problem in a piece of fanfic. But if she's in her own story, if she's on her own stage, she can still be implausible, overly perfect, annoying, and unlikeable. What she isn't is an actual Mary Sue; what she isn't doing is warping the story to suit herself. She is the story, and that changes everything.

If you think a character in a work of original fiction is overly-perfect, say so. If you think they're overly-lucky, or overly-loved, or overly-cutesy, say so. But don't call that character a Mary Sue, or a Gary Stu, unless he or she is coming into someone else's story and warping it all out of shape (and even then, look at the context; Elphaba would be a Mary Sue in a piece of Wizard of Oz fiction, but wow is she a protagonist given her own stage in Wicked). Saying "This character is just a Mary Sue" is a way of dismissing them that isn't fair to reader, writer, or character. We can do better. We can write better. We just need to know how.

And give Mary Sue a break. I think the girl's earned it.

[identity profile] dharma-slut.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 06:48 am (UTC)(link)
I love you so much...

[identity profile] sinick.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Wesley was absolutely an author self-insert, by Mr. Eugene Wesley Roddenberry.

[identity profile] biomekanic.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 04:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I lived in Eugene 8 years and it confused me. I've had 3 so far in Portland and it only got worse.

Denver spoiled me; you always know which way is west, and the city is basically a grid, not a cats cradle of one way streets that dead end.

[identity profile] legendary-zelda.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 02:40 am (UTC)(link)
I often wondered this exact same thing.

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 03:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you!

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 03:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Exactly.

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 03:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Aw, thank you.

And yeah. Men get to be awesome and unique and ass-kicking and cool, and that's fine. Women do it, and they're Sues. And it's not fair.

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 03:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Word.

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 03:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Very welcome!

[identity profile] serge-lj.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)
I wouldn't be unduly surprised.

[identity profile] serge-lj.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 04:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Would you mind if I posted a link to your post in either of my blogs, or on places like FB and G+?
demimonde: (Default)

[personal profile] demimonde 2011-10-14 05:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I was pointed to this post after I wrote one of my own about Mary Sues, and what was said to me when I was linked was that it was frustrating we still have to have this conversation. But if we do have to keep having the conversation (APPARENTLY WE DO...?) then at least we're having it really awesomely, thank you for writing this post.

[identity profile] woodburner.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 10:44 pm (UTC)(link)
best response

[identity profile] thedragonweaver.livejournal.com 2011-10-15 04:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, except for the 45º angles in downtown. Good idea for sunlight; too bad the rest of the city planners stuck with the traditional grid.

I miss Denver. Seasons were nice but the friends were the best.

[identity profile] kazaera.livejournal.com 2011-10-15 08:06 pm (UTC)(link)
And I hate the niggling little voice which doesn't say 'is this a good character, does this character serve the story', but 'is this character a Mary Sue'. Not helpful, that little voice.

So agreed. I'm writing an OC-centric fanfic right now and it is so annoying. Especially when I'm very confident they're *not* Sues, given that I can sort of tell which of my characters are Sues and which aren't by the way they "feel" to me. Especially when the fandom is one where the whole concept of "canon character vs OC" is kind of blurry anyway. Especially when I have a character who I'm having trouble writing and where I know I need to get a better handle on her personality and motivations, but all the character analysis stuff I know is geared at the Sue question!

[identity profile] kazaera.livejournal.com 2011-10-15 08:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I'd like to add a Sophie Germain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Germain) to the Ada Lovelace love, seeing as I'm a mathematician and she is a hero of mine.

Also, I think you may have your link wrong? It goes to an NYT story about stuttering (which I am actually very happy to be linked to since I'm a person who stutters myself!), nothing about Ada Lovelace.

[identity profile] kazaera.livejournal.com 2011-10-15 08:22 pm (UTC)(link)
One of the interesting things about Mary Sue is that we all say "we know her, no need to explain her!" but at the same time everyone seems to have a different definition! My personal one has been along the lines of authorial avatar, but a bit more technically - that the character's viewpoint is equivalent to the author's. I'm... not entirely sure how I can describe what I mean, but when I mentally line up the various OCs I've come up with over the years I can feel that some of the early ones lack a certain independence from me-the-author, that they're not quite characters in their own right because they also sort of serve as my lens into the world. And those are my Sues.

However, I do also very much like and agree with your point that using Mary Sues for protagonists is pretty... inappropriate and what's probably contributed to the word just being used to mean "female character I don't like". That it goes from "this character is so awesome they're warping the canonical world around them, and this is bad writing" to "this character is awesome, this is bad writing".

And just - seriously, I love your post. :)

[identity profile] ellestra.livejournal.com 2011-10-16 11:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Great post.

The term is over used as a shorthand for 'female character I don't like' that I completely ignore any opinion that includes it. Actually, from my experience, I will love that character and think she is awesome. In a way I started to expect my favourite characters to be called that.

It doesn't mean there is no bad and annoying characters in fiction (including female ones) but I need some actual reasons for the dislike instead of a term that, by now, lost all meaning.

[identity profile] esorlehcar.livejournal.com 2011-10-17 01:12 am (UTC)(link)
Absolutely. There's a reason Castiel is adored while Bela, and every other recurring female addition to the show, was/is hated with the power of 10,000 suns.

[identity profile] booksforfood.livejournal.com 2011-10-17 07:48 pm (UTC)(link)
She invents the bra, and the toothbrush!

[identity profile] zoë marriott (from livejournal.com) 2011-10-17 07:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow, I'm really slow - I've only just come across this. Bravo! I wish I'd been able to be this coherant (but the rage! The RAGE! It burned us, my precious!).

I love the way you've teased out the real issue here, which is that many, many female protagonists are being treated like cuckoos in the nest by reviewers - treated as if they don't belong, don't deserve their own stories, as if they must necessarily be idealised author inserts because no female character would get her own story otherwise. It's really sad, and what's most sad is that it's often courageous, honest, self-proclaimed Feminist reviewers who fall prey to this.

It's as if they've trained themselves to be cynical about female characters so well that they can't actually comprehend complex, fully realised, awesome characters if they happen to be female. The programming rebels, it does not compute. We live in a sexist world - therefore there can be no such thing as an awesome female character. Therefore this female character cannot be awesome. She must be a Mary-Sue! The author is a traitor to Feminism! And the irony of the fact that they're spending all their time ripping down female characters and (mainly) female authors is lost on them.
archangelbeth: ASCII eyes going all boggly. (Boggled Eyecon (Thanks to EDG-iconizer!))

[personal profile] archangelbeth 2011-10-18 07:56 pm (UTC)(link)
...seriously? o_o

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-19 05:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed, on all counts.

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-20 03:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Not at all.

[identity profile] seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com 2011-10-21 01:10 am (UTC)(link)
Very welcome.

And hell, maybe if we have this conversation enough, it will finally die.

Page 8 of 10