Talk:Mary Sue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stephen Colbert Sues=

Umm, why is that website down there? And what does Stephen Colbert have anything to do with this article (Unless he is a Suethor, which I doubt since the whole Tek Jansen thing was supposed to be a joke)?

I think that doesn't seem to fit, either. Also, as noted in the article, it's a subjective term, so you can't say it is an example of Mary Sues, because again, it's subjective. I'll probably remove it on my next edit. 63.21.76.177 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to worry. I deleted it in the process of reorganizing the External Links section. 63.21.76.177 22:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Split

Would it be possible or a good idea to split the article? One article, the main one, talking about the popular culture definition of Mary Sue and one talking about the fan fiction Mary Sue? The two really are seperate and distinct. In fan fiction, Harry Potter, Aragon and canon characters are NOT Mary Sues. The term is used exclusively to refer to fan fiction author created characters or characters where the author has written the canon characters totally out of character to act as a vehicle for their own desires. The merging of the two ideas is just confusing. --PurplePopple 04:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not entirely true. The term is a literary term in general, it just originated in fan fiction. In fact, in fan fiction, even canon characters can be labeled "canon!Sues" or "canon!Stus". In other words, the general, basic meaning is the same. The "merging of the two ideas" is not confusing; the execution might be, but the idea of combining them makes perfect sense, as they are essentially the same thing. As with any word, it simply changes exact meaning depending on how a person is using it. But the basic meaning = the same. - R 63.21.2.196 02:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As you are no doubt aware, Mary Sue (popular culture) has been suggested to be merged back here. There is already a subsection in this article on Mary Sues in popular culture, so I can't help but agree with the idea of a merge... 63.21.76.177 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Eytmology and Communities

Perhaps a section on the etymology of the word is necessary as well as specifying where some of those terms in the types of Sues section are used is necessary. Many communities do not use the broader definition and many other communities do not have names in their communities for those Mary Sues. If the community is not large in terms of size fan fiction wise, then they should be exclded in order to make the article cleaner and more accurate. --PurplePopple 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I say an etymology is absolutely necessary to give this term any legitimacy. A history or even a citation would help. Guernseykid 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

An "etymology" is "absolutely necessary" to give it WHAT, now? If you'd looked at some of the summaries on fanfiction.net (the largest fan fiction website online right now), you'd see plenty of claims of "She is NOT a Mary Sue!" Googling "Mary Sue" will get God only KNOWS how many entries (the number given by Google in my search was 43,900,000) which refer exlusively to this very concept, of a less-than-sympathetic, usually over-idealized character. The first handful all refer to it, including of versions of the famous Mary Sue Litmus Test, several pages from the Mary Sue Society's website (which believes Mary Sues are just harmless fantasy, and claims to offer an outlet for it), and, skipping ONE entry about a folk singer with the name "Mary Sue", even a joke "Mary Sue Generator" game. The first page during my search only includes ONE instance, note, where it is not being used in the context of the concept described (albeit badly and incompletely, which I'm working on) here. This term has "legitimacy" - it's being used consistently throughout every fandom, and by some original fiction authors as well (though how many professionally-published authors use it, I can't be sure). It's gotten to the point where I've seen people be completely shocked when someone who is writing a fan fiction does not know what the term means, and to where many people from fandom have begun using it to refer to original fiction characters as well (somewhere on Mugglenet, I believe, there was a reference to Harry Potter being "everyone's favorite Mary Sue", for instance). Now, unless you think exceptionally widely-used slang terms do not qualify as "legitimate", it clearly is. Note: I do know what you're saying though about there needing to be an etymology. The problem is that it's in such wide use among people who adopted the term without knowing the origins of it, that almost nobody, including the people use it the most regularly, even remembers where it's alleged to come from. Some claim it's an acronym, "Meets And Romances You, Saves Universe, Expires", but that's completely unproven, and evidence suggests that the term was around well before the acronym was circulated on the 'net. 63.21.2.196 03:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

River Tam

River Tam, off of Firefly/Serenity, does have superior powers and a troubled past, as well, as being much younger than the rest of the cast. Could an argument be made for her being a Mary Sue? Salmon 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure; you have a point there, but she's also very much insane.

While "Mary Sue" is at its heart a somewhat subjective term, general consensus among people who have seen either the feature film Serenity or the Firefly TV series, or both, is that she is not one. While she certainly is a young girl with a troubled past and "superior powers" (fighting and, primarily, psychic abilities), as well as being a very precocious genius, she is also psychotic - and in fact, the very methods which gave her the fighting and psychic abilities (the former can be argued to be an extension of the psychic abilities, as well, since she has been shown to not even need to look at a man in order to hit him with either her body or a weapon) caused the psychosis, which is NOT romanticized. Her mental illness is a severely debilitating and factor - she speaks nonsense, she has a dangerously severe disconnect with the world around her (including revealing secrets in the Firefly episode "Safe" using her psychic abilities despite the fact that the town they were in would assume she was a witch for knowing them, and indeed, even attempted to burn her at the stake), and has hallucinations and violent outbursts that harm those around her. She also spends much of the Firefly series being just generally terrified of the world around her. In order for her to qualify as a "Mary Sue", most would argue that her mental illness would have to be romanticized (which it isn't), and her own superior abilities not prove a frequent source of danger for herself and those around her (which they are); she needs, in short, to be hugely idealized (which she is not) and not have any factor of her personality that actually has a lasting negative impact on anything important, or anyONE important, in the story (also not really true of Firefly). Additionally, she's been shown to be a bit childish at times (telling her brother he's "such a boob" when he screws up while trying to impress Kaylee, or telling Jayne Cobb that "Jayne is a girl's name".). Really, even the aspects of a character or story that normally lead to characters being called Sues can be handled in a way such that they aren't usually called a Sue. Heck, the creator (Joss Whedon) even had something that had to do with her mental state be a primary source of conflict in the feature film, and this still didn't really make her seem Sueish to most people I've talked to. It typically takes a fairly skilled, careful writer willing to do a lot of research to pull it off, mind, but it's possible. I've said this before on writing-related boards, but I'm more than happy to say it again: the primary factor in a character being or not being a Mary Sue is not so much the character, but the how they are handled by the writer. Any character with superpowers MUST have serious weaknesses; mental illnesses MUST be researched and portrayed with as much accuracy as possible; and above all, you can't always have the character be loveable. Whedon, thankfully, knows this, and applied it to River Tam's characterizations. Someone who scares her own friends and family with her literal insanity and is a danger to herself and others CAN be a Sue if badly-handled, but if well-handled, she won't be. However, all the words in the world won't give a better argument for this than the R. Tam sessions would. If you can, try to download the complete Quicktime file of the R. Tam Sessions (a link is available through the Wikipedia page for them, which I just linked), which portray her development from a shy but precocious genius into a dangerous psychotic. In short though: if you were considering adding River Tam to the article as part of the definition of a Mary Sue, I would advise against it. There are much more blatant, better examples out there. - R 63.21.2.196 04:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: Sorry for the multiple edits here, I neglected to use the preview feature, and needed to fix the link to the R. Tam sessions. It turns out I just needed to un-capitilize the word "sessions". - R 63.21.2.196 04:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Joey Potter a Mary Sue?????

What source they have to claim that Joey Potter is thought as a Mary Sue by fans of Dawson's Creek? I mean, I'm no fan of the series and actually hate them for it's repugnant protagonist who is both repugnant AND THE SERIES' MARY SUE... Joey Potter comes as the only believable and apreciable character in the series... So... Unless a source can be shown... That information SHALL change... Don't anyone thinks so?

I agree why is Joey a Mary Sue.. Remove her.

I'm pretty sure I've seen some Internet discussion about her being a Sue. I'll have to try and dig it up. I haven't watched enough of the series to pass judgement, but OFF THE BAT however she does seem to have one or two Sueish qualities - the two main male characters of the series fight for her affections and she seems to be able to turn her hand to any talent or skill. That said, loads of canon characters from all fandoms have some Sue in them. It just depends on whether the Sueishness outweighs everything else.

Something

Someone beat me to it. Same reason, I assume. -- Oh James 06:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The newly-added section, 'Cannon Sues/Stues' contains a good deal of nonstandard formatting (bolding/capsing/italicizing for emphasis) and spelling/grammatical errors, but more importantly does not attempt to add to the page from an NPOV and cannot be edited to do so. Reverting to the last version. -- Oh James 06:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

So what exactly is the dispute? There's a tag on the article, but I don't see any complaints here... 134.173.94.191 03:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

how did the name 'mary sue' originate? -- Tarquin 19:39 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

It was the name of Paula Smith's character in the satirical "A Trekker's Tale" which appeared in Menagerie #2 in 1973. Read more here at the Fanfic Symposium. This info is in the main article now. --Bluejay Young 06:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed: "Luthien [sic] was Tolkien's Mary Sue character, in The Silmarillion". Lúthien was modelled to an extent on Tolkien's wife, which is hardly Mary Sueism. It could be considered a form of tuckerization, which is a very different process. Salsa Shark 12:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

However, by modern (2005) standards, Luthien is a Mary Sue because she is part elf and part Maia, she is beautiful, dances well (attracting the love of mortal Beren), people like her, and she sets out to accomplish a nearly-impossible task against a terrible, demonic foe. I confess myself a little impatient with the whole phenomenon of labeling characters as Mary Sues, even though I can understand that real Mary Sues must exist.

I don't read much fanfiction anymore. I did read fan fiction -- mostly Star Trek and Mission Impossible stories -- from the mid-60s to mid-70s, including most of the classic Trekzines, and have never seen any Mary Sues of the type that Paula Smith described. It almost seemed as if by describing such a character in her satire, she brought them into being. In those days, the figure of a competent but realistic young woman who has a relationship with one of the main characters was a familiar one, but they were hardly Mary Sues by today's standards. Some effort was made to illustrate why Spock, Kirk etc. would be interested in such a person.

The wholesale broadening of the definition seems to rule out the "larger than life", mythic qualities appropriate for characters in fantasy. --Bluejay Young 11:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to split this article into two? One for actual discussion of Mary Sue as fan fiction function and one for Mary Sue as a literature archetype? The merging of the two only took place in the last five years or two and the split definitions are not universally acknowledged. Splitting them into two pages would be more accurate and more helpful. --PurplePopple 6 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

Could anyone explain what a Litmus Test is? --Allycat

Wikipedia can! See Litmus test. — mendel ☎ 20:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Allycat was referring to the Mary Sue Litmus Test. ^_^ The Mary Sue Litmus Test (of which there are MANY variations) is a checklist of traits and factors to test for a character's rough, raw statistical potential for being a Mary Sue. It's a handy tool to see if maybe your character is a bit cliche or slightly overpowered or unrealistic, but in the end even the makers of the original MSLT and other spinoffs admit that you can't trust it 100%, because (as I stated above in the River Tam bit) the main factor for most people as to whether or not a character is a Sue is how the character is handled in the actual piece. They list a character from Sandman as a good example of a character that as far as the test is concerned, is a Mary Sue, but whom they do not consider a Sue. I still find it to be a decent writing tool though, especially for inexperienced writers. It certainly gives you hints on what you may need to work on to make the character believable and well-developed. A link to an original fiction variation of the test, to give you an example of what I mean: [1] . That one's a new variation with little checkboxes on a form; most other MSLTs are merely checklists with numerical values (+/-) for each factor or trait, which you pretty much need a pen and paper to do, and to be frank, are much easier to cheat on (ie you could say "Well, this SORT OF applies, but not as much as the test implies, so maybe I'll just knock one point off..."). ;) - R 63.21.2.196 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Male Mary-Sues

There seems to be disagreement between the top paragraph about male Mary Sue equivalents and the section Gary Stus. If someone is aware of what male Mary Sues tend to be called could they make those agree with each other? — mendel ☎ 20:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I never heard it called Gary Stu in my life until I started editing this article. My wife calls them Marty Stu. --Bluejay Young 06:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've always called them Gary Stu. Maybe it's a difference in what fandom background you're coming from...

Isn't this a bit strong definition? I'm writing a fanfic with Boba Fett, Kir Kanos, and an OC. According to at least some of this article, all of my characters are Mary-Sues.

That's part of what I was trying to do with the article -- illustrate that there is controversy about what is and isn't a Mary Sue. See my comments below. --Bluejay Young 07:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no one, single masculine term for a Mary Sue; there are a few that are more common, but there is no consensus at ALL on what term to use. Most of the communities I've been on looking at stuff relating to fanfic have called it either Marty Stu(e) or Gary Stu(e) (with a SLIGHT preference for "Gary Stu(e)" on most snark sites like Godwaful Fanfiction, and Marty Stu(e) on certain Harry Potter fansites), or simply Stu(e). But even there, I kept running into one person who referred to them as "Sams", and even a person who jokingly wrote something like Merry Sioux (I never saw that used by anyone else, though, so I think it was a one-person, one-time joke). Again - while there's a couple that are more popular than others, there's never been any kind of consensus on it. Most do seem to rhyme with "Mary Sue" (Gary Stu, for instance) or else use as many as the same letters as possible (such as Marty Stue), but that's just a general theme usually followed. - R 63.21.2.196 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely the most famous name, drawn from reality, is "Wesley Stu", after the revolting twerp in ST:TNG, a self-insertion by Gene "Who Must Never Be Criticised -- In Any Way, Ever" Roddenbury -- OMGponiez 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sue Parodies

There are a number of notable parodies of the classical Sue on fanfiction.net. Do these deserve any metnion here? Examples I'd include would be "The Mary-Sue Invasion" by Tuulikii (sp?) and "Clara" by Tamara Raymond, but there are so many more!

If there's a lot, better not or we'll have more references than we have article. That is what happened on Autism, which I've been working on for over a year. When the article was reviewed for featured status, we had to zilch most of the reference section! --Bluejay Young 06:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but we can mention them, at least, as a by-product. Have you read any? --Chercher E. 19:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, I've never seen any on fanfiction.net specifically -- I don't go there that much. I have seen a couple parodies of the "Mary Sue" idea, elsewhere online -- one was a short Potter comic strip -- and I'll look'em up and post the links here so that people can screen them for appropriateness to be included in the article. --Bluejay Young 07:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have an ongoing series of Anti-Sue fics at FF.n, but they're really mediocre. I'd add them to the page, but that'd be rather egotistical of me. --EggRoll

A chapter of the Buffy parody series "Buffy the Cliche Slayer" at Fanfiction.net is a parody of Mary-Sue fics, introducing a character named 'Mary Sue' who is an amalgamation of all of the abilities of the canon characters with none of the drawbacks. http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1651316/3/ --MythicFox 05:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a really excellent Sue-parody on FF.net called "Gimli and Boromir Strike Back" that is first of all hilarious, and second it showcases just how Suethors mangle characters like Boromir and Gimli because they don't understand them/don't like them/etcetera, plus it has all of the long descriptions of both Sues' beauty and unusual traits and posessions. http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1663509/1/ Eowynjedi 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Disjointed

This article is, uhm... really disjointed. It goes from saying that published characters are Mary Sues, and then starts talking about how traits of a Mary Sue are defined by thier relations to "canon characters", which ONLY applies to Fan-Fic. The concept of the Mary Sue, or "Wish Fufillment" character is interesting, and it is notable enough to report on, but we also need to be careful of original research. Can we have less discussion on what a Mary Sue is, and more on what people say a Mary Sue is, and quote those saying it by name and reference, and then perhaps organize those views, so that we can seperate Fan Fic definitions from literature definitions? This article needs some work... Fieari 04:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to fix that, at least on the top of the page. I've made the language a bit more... passive-y? I guess? Also, I corrected the "fact" that it was always a self-insert, which is not really true - sometimes Mary Sue characters are just general idealized characters (ie the kind of character the author LIKES, might want to fall for, thinks we should all aspire to be, etc.). Saying the character is "idealized" works much better, I think. "pejorative term for a fictional character who is perceived as being unsympathetic due to being idealized and generally, lacking in any truly noteworthy flaws (or having her flaws romanticized, as is sometimes the case with stories about characters with eating disorders, depression, or other psychological conditions)." Is correct, and mentions that it's a PERCEIVED thing, because one person's Mary Sue is another's "decent but underdeveloped" character. I'm not even touching Etymology. I have a feeling it's got some huge errors, but I don't have the appropriate enough knowledge to correct it. :\ -R 63.21.2.196 07:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice an NPOV dispute has been put on this article as a result of my changes being deemed vandalism, and I was referred to as "an angry Suethor defending his/her bad characters." I'm sorry if I offended anyone; I really was just trying to expand the article. I'm not a Suethor; I don't write fiction, fan or otherwise. My interest in the whole Mary Sue debacle has much more to do with my interest in reading fan fiction in general, starting in the mid-60s. At any rate, this is Wikipedia, so anything I said can be changed or deleted to make the article more appropriate. --Bluejay Young 10:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You have to admit that--

"It is possible that behind the preoccupation with the Mary Sue concept lies the simple bitterness of low self-esteem" sounds like an ad hominem attack, a more literate version, as it were, of "OMG u r just JEALOUS of my charries!11!" squeals emitted by angry Suethors. And "one wonders just how far the Mary Sue concept is intended to go; are writers never to create such characters on pains of being considered unrealistic and egotistical?" -- "one wonders"? In a Wikipedia article? It's not a place to express your opinion, your wonderment or lack thereof, you know. --129.234.4.10 18:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I observed what looked like a pattern of low self-esteem in reading the various litmus tests. Some of them appeared to be calling for the elimination of any sort of unusual characteristic in either fanfiction or original characters (the concept of a "canon Sue" particularly surprised me). I thought this was a bit strange for genres such as fantasy fiction, anime, manga, science fiction, "Buffy" type genre, and so on, where over-the-top powers and heroics are normal even for the most unlikely characters such as twelve-year-old schoolgirls. I'm a lifelong fan of these genres and I just noticed I was starting to see a kind of preoccupation among online fanfictioneers with avoiding MS-ism and perhaps overhasty accusations of MS anytime someone writes in an original female character, particularly if she is attractive or excels in some way. I do understand about keeping continuity and not creating characters who are completely out of line with canon, but the preoccupation itself seems to have gotten out of proportion. It almost seems like they spend more time worrying about MS than they do about writing a good story that holds the reader's attention. I agree some of the other things I said were editorial comments and shouldn't be there. --Bluejay Young 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Bluejay... here's a really good Mary Sue Litmus Test (I mentioned it in another discussion on the Talk page here, above, but I'll list it again anyway) for Original Fiction, which I've tested with several fantasy characters (some with Buffyverse-esque backstories or abilities) and had give perfectly reasonable-sounding results (it also is for the most part a lot nicer): [2] The only quibble I have with it is that like any MSLT I've seen online, if you test it, you'll see that the question about if the character "shares a name with you" gives you a whopping twenty points. That's enough to, at minimum, take you from a perfect "Anti-Sue" score (0) to the very tippy-top of "Non-Sue". And if you've got so much as a single point racked up, it automatically makes your character a Sue. I've always found that part of the scoring to be unrealistic, since testing the same character WITHOUT that checked, and of course without the name being special enough to warrant checking off any of the other Name options, gives a "Non-Sue" or "Anti-Sue" score. What's in a shared name, really? A rose by any other name would smell just as musty if it dried out. :P But other than that, it's a good test. None of the characters I've tested for either SF or fantasy (some of my own, some that weren't my own) have not scored much higher, if not actually slightly lower, than you'd expect, and the test encourages you to improve your character, and says you're OK and just need to work on it a little for the "Mary Sue" and "Borderline Sue" scores. -R 63.21.2.196 07:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, Bluejay: I can both agree and disagree with the points you've made. On the one hand, it IS getting ridiculous how a perfectly decent, well-developed OC can be accused of being a Mary Sue apparently just from being an OC and female; I've seen it happen a couple of times when the person hadn't even read the story itself, just the summary for it. On the other hand, writers in general would be wise to avoid writing genuine Mary Sues as best they can, because stories DO tend to be more interesting without idealized and over-powerful-seeming characters seeping in. But, I still have to reiterate, I feel, that it's largely the execution of the character in the piece that determines whether the character can be easily labeled a "Mary Sue" or not. Somebody brought up River Tam, for instance, who is a genius with psychic abilities and even near-superhuman fighting abilities thanks to a government experiment... but the effect was to turn her into a completely unstable psychotic, who usually isn't helped but rather somehow hampered by her abilities, so it manages to balance out. If she were an OC in a fanfic, there'd be hordes of people lining up to cry "Sue!", though, and if Joss had been a beginning writer with low self-esteem instead of a veteran, third-generation writer, who knows, he could have abandoned a perfectly good story and character. I try to avoid Mary Sueism when I write, but I also try to be really nice and gentle if I run across a story that has a Sue in it. Generally, I try to be polite and give helpful advice for fleshing out the character - because really, fleshing them out well enough and removing a bit of cliche here and there is usually enough to fix most "Mary Sue" characters, at least if the writer actually cares about telling a good story about an interesting character, which many of them do, if you give them the chance. :) But yeah, that has no place in a Wikipedia article on it; only a description of the concept, the term's history and etymology and usage, etc., should be here. -R 63.21.2.196 07:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

why does Mary Sue redirect here instead of viceversa?

It is pretty well established that Mary Sue and her male counterparts are well represented in original fiction. Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation is very widely thought of as a Sue. From the Crusher article itself:

Many viewers found the character intensely irritating, claiming he was a Mary Sue ('Wesley' being Gene Roddenberry's middle name). There was at one point a Usenet newsgroup named "alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die."

I propose moving this article to Mary Sue and redirecting from here to there. Dalf | Talk 05:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Broadness

I appreciate how different perspecteves have to be included in this article, but it ends up being very broad. For those of you who read Star Wars-Shatterpoint by Matthew Stover, check Kar Vastor against Gary Stu. Nobody would ever argue that he, specifically, is, but the criteria seem to fit him--Erl137

I doubt that Kar could be called a Sue.

1. Powers or abilities closely paralleling those of a major canon character.

Not exactly. Kar and the Akk Dogs were created to be the opposite of the Jedi, their Analog, a twisted mirror image. Hence the powers.

1. Well-liked by all the canonical protagonists.

Mace hates Kar.

1. Deliberately exotic name.

Yes, because he is exotic. Haruun Kal is based very loosely on Africa.

1. Invokes powers impossible (or at least unheard-of) in the canon.

True, but he's still a force user. He just learned to use his powers differently from the Jedi or Sith.

1. Dark, brooding, quiet, mysterious, tormented, or otherwise enigmatic, with a dark or tormented past — often showing none of the psychological damage that such a past should inflict; sometimes being almost comic relief silly .

Kar is dark and brooding, as the character was made to be.

1. Penchant for violence or skill in battle (sometimes to the point of seeming sociopathic)

Kar is a borderline sociopath. He uses his anger to fuel his battle skills.

Am I missing something?--EggRoll

Mary Sues as author substitutes

Since when are all self-insertions, or (by extension) characters based on the author, Mary Sues? Although I, personally, have never actually encountered one, because I don't read a lot of fanfic, is it really possible that every single character based on their author is a Mary Sue? I find that somewhat hard to believe...

So do I. I've had to be very careful how I word it in this article. Most of what I've read has been late 60s, early 70s Star Trek fan fiction. Back then, authors created many apparently self-inserted and/or original characters, who would be Mary Sues by today's standards, but who were neither immature wish-fantasies nor annoyingly super-powered; in fact, they were realistic and enjoyable. Today, there seems to be a general assumption that all original characters, particularly if they are unusual in any way (see the list in the main article, also the Mary Sue litmus test) are a type of self-insertion, or at least self-indulgence.

Over time, the original Mary Sue premise seems to have evolved into the current monstrosity which does not allow for original characters (particularly if they are in any way unusual) or, indeed, much in the way of development of established characters. It's possible that this has to do with the enclosed, limited atmospheres of the online fanfiction groups; the views of those who run the groups, or of the majority, tend to hold sway. I have also heard the observation that the Mary Sue idea owes its prevalence to the enormous output of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings fanfiction, and groups such as Livejournal's fandom_wank, members of which devote vast amounts of energy to strenuous criticism of any writing which seems to them to be overly self-indulgent.

I'd never even heard of Mary Sue, except as part of a brief joke in an adzine, before references to her began popping up on line a few years ago. What I'm concerned about, and can't say in the article, is the number of young writers, eager for acceptance by their peers, self-censoring out of fear of ridicule for a "Mary Sue" and thus not gaining the full benefits of this type of practice writing. Fan fiction is for many a kind of training wheels on the way to original authorship, and original and self-inserted characters can be part of the learning process for creating one's own original work. Take that away, make the "rules" for fan fiction too restrictive, and what have you got? What's happened to freedom of experimentation and exploration in personal or practice writing? --Bluejay Young 10:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I had never seen the usage actually extend to "all author-based characters" or "all original characters", even though most people I know who're into fanfiction acknowledge that most Mary Sues are OCs and that most self-inserts are Mary Sues, they still know it's not the same thing! I think that was an inaccuracy that seeped in, frankly. Somebody confused the terms OC, Self-insert and Mary Sue. I can sort of see the argument for self-insert, since it's exceptionally rare to find one that isn't in fact a Mary Sue, but not all Sues are self-inserts - some are, in fact, characters the author thinks OTHERS should aspire to be, or that they themselves would be attracted to, the latter of which is in no possible way self-insertion. I recently edited the top of the page to reflect the fact that it's specifically a pejorative for an "idealized" character that is "perceived as unsympathetic" due to a lack of "truly noteworthy" flaws that aren't romanticized, which is the most accurate definition for the usage I see cross-fandom, cross-genre, and cross-subculture. I have yet to see a person say it meant "all" OCs, save for a couple of people on fanfiction.net who had never previously heard the term and misunderstood a criticism somebody had left on their stories and assumed they were talking about creating an OC for the story, and not the characterization and description of said OC. - R 63.21.2.196 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Too broad

I think the net is cast a little to wide here. The definition is too broad. Characters often have elements of their creator in them or elements of people the creator knows. Superman, for example, is a reporter for the Daily Star because when Joe Shuster was a young boy in Toronto, he dreamed of working for the Toronto Star. Does this make Superman a Mary Sue? Not really.

A true Mary Sue is almost always a supporting character who seems to garner more attention than they should because they are such a great person or because they have great talents. They are people who always save the day or die heroically.

Wesley Crusher is a clear case of a Mary Sue. He's the son of a main character and he has no reason to be on the bridge or piloting a star ship. He saves the crew because he's so smart and does things experience officers cannot.

A very recent Mary Sue is Tarantula from the DC Comics series Nightwing. Devin Grayson (which is not her real name. She had it legally changed to Devin Grayson) is the writer of the book staring Dick Grayson, the original Robin who is now Nightwing. Tarantula is a dark haired female character who begins as a supporting character and becomes the central focus of Nightwing's life. All other characters fall to the side and this new character, who is smart and a great fighter, but also flawed and in need of saving (another Mary Sue trait) basically takes over the book, guiding Nightwing on a life changing course.

I removed a lot of Mary Sues from the one list that weren't Mary Sues. The list seems to be any female character who is the center of the show as a Mary Sue. And insertions or dedications are not Mary Sues. --PurplePopple 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The list smacks of original research and personal opinion — I think it should be removed entirely. Feezo (Talk) 12:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that people are randomly adding powerful female characters to the list, but I think we should still keep the list, just make sure that there is some reference that a number of people believe that a character is a Mary Sue, and not just online discuccion forums. Nekura 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What sort of reference would this be? Could you give an example? Feezo (Talk) 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say published articles or reviews about a work that discuss the topic, or articles about Mary Sueism that make reference to a character as an example, that sort of thing, rather then people just adding any character they feel is a Mary Sue. Standard Wikipedia reference requirements. I can't think of a specific example right now. Nekura 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That being the case, I'm still inclined to delete current speculative list, and recreate it as suitable references are found. Feezo (Talk) 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be a comment in that section instructing editors that they have to supply a reference for any name that they add to the list, or it will be removed. Nekura 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

{{spoiler}}

• >A very recent Mary Sue is Tarantula from the DC Comics series Nightwing.<

You do realize you're talking about a woman who raped him, right? --Jonn {{endspoiler}}

You've obviously not been into fanfiction long, if you think that forcing him into sex was a trait that automatically excluded her from being a Mary Sue. In fact, the very fact that she gets away with that and becomes a dominant (and apparently, positive) force in his life makes her even more Mary Sue-ish, because another trait commonly said to belong to a Sue is that she can do horrible things or say bad things or what have you, and never get in any real, genuine trouble for it; all is forgiven. -R 63.21.2.196 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, can we take Tifa, Aerith, and Rinoa off of that list? I mean, yes, the are all a) beautiful, b) talented fighters and c) protagonists, but... they're video game characters. Of course they're going to be beautiful, action-oriented people. By that definition, every FF heroine from Maria to Yuna is a Mary Sue. Eowynjedi 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to be a resource without original reasearch, and to be as accurate as possible. If this section is to be included at all, then it must be limited to clear examples of Sues and to uses of the term in popular media. Not "some people in my chat room think it", not even "a google search finds this character mentioned with the term Mary Sue a hundred times". There has to be no debate. The character Johnathan from Buffy was a clear Mary Sue for a whole episode - that was the point of the episode. Tarantula from Nightwing is not a clear Mary Sue. Her actions were condemened (all was not forgiven, her butt ended up in the slammer for what she did, and she was never considered nor meant to be a positive force in Nightwing's life), she only slept with someone by raping him, her relationship ended disasterously. Maybe some people use the term so flexibly that she fits it, but if there is going to be a list at all (and I do not believe it is in the best interest of this article's accuracy that there is one) it has to be just of characters that nobody will argue about. On the other hand, pieces of information like the Roz Kaveney quote about Doctor Who is a use of the term. You may not agree with Roz Kaveney, but it's an example of the term being used in popular culture. D1Puck1T 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aslan as a Mary Sue? He symbolizes Jesus Christ not C.S. Lewis! Nik42 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "fact" that Mary Sues are self-inserts is incorrect. Jesus is supposed to be perfection, essentially; a pure being that is the Son of God, right? That would qualify... assuming the writer isn't skilled enough or dedicated enough to make the character work despite it. I've heard C.S. Lewis is talented, so I have to assume for the moment that Aslan is not a "Mary Sue" character -R 63.21.2.196 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI Aslan is a *lion* -- OMGponiez 13:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I knew that (and by the way, use the whole freaking phrase, for goodness sake. It's not like "For your information" is really all that long, and Wikipedia isn't a chat room where you only have seconds to reply!). His species, however, still has no effect on whether or not he's considered a Mary Sue type character; elves aren't human, extraterrestial aliens aren't (usually) human, fairies aren't human, and werewolves are only part-humam, yet all are popular choices for creating characters that end up frequently thought of as Mary Sues. Only his portrayal and how it's received by readers can have any real effect on whether or not people perceive him to be a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. To argue otherwise is to redefine the term in a way that no one else uses it- R

Needs Dividing

It needs to be divided up into sections to be more easily accessible for those who want to just read certain sections.

Why was this article split without any consensus?

What the hell?? This used to be a decent article. Now it's been split into a mess spread over two separate and unnecessary articles that waffle on about a single concept and include enormous lists of questionable "examples". This is a severe downgrading of readability and informativeness. I suggest this whole article split be reverted back to how the article was prior to the split and any suggested changes be worked through from there. The main point is that having two articles for what is a single concept makes it difficult to figure out what is going on. It's more useful to discuss differences in definitions of what is a Mary Sue within one article. -dmmaus 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I recently redirected Mary Sue (popular culture) to Mary Sue. It made sense, since almost all of the information was redundant, it really had almost nothing to do with "popular culture" any more than the preexisting Mary Sue article did, and even the information that was no longer redundant was almost entirely wrong; plus, it kept all the worst facets of the older versions of Mary Sue, including the POVish list of "Mary Sues". The original Mary Sue page ended up being expanded to be able to explain both fan fiction and original fiction variations on the concept anyway. There was no real benefit to keeping it up as a seperate page, especially since the concept is easily (and apparently much better) covered in one. Runa27 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) -dmmaus 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Runa27 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anime Genre not Mary Sue

A number of the Anime examples cited are clearly examples of the Magical girl genre, rather then any type of Mary Sue writing. Such features are the hallmark of the genre, so of course the lead female character is going to have those characteristics. It would be like saying that all superheros (Superman, Batman, Spiderman, etc.man) are Mary Sues for the same reason. The main ones I saw were:

• Fushigi Yūgi
• Ceres, Celestial Legend
• Vision of Escaflowne
• Cardcaptor Sakura
• Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind
• Inuyasha
• and Fruits Basket

And those are just the ones I'm familiar with. Most of the inclusions on the list seem a bit excessive to me. Nekura 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this statement. Besides, a lot of these fail as a supposed "auther stand-in" and are simply powerful(and sometimes not so much comparitvely) characters. That doesn't necessarily mean one is a "Mary Sue". I'd recommend removing a lot of the list. --Kayin 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Traumatized/Mentally ill people are all Gary/Mary Sues?

Note: This section specifically discusses the 'trauma' (both definitions apply, although this rant specifically points out Psychological trauma) and 'mentally ill'(mental illness) traits in a character, poking on the present too-broad generalization therefore will have a hint of satire.

I've noticed a number of people labeled as a Mary Sue have traumatic experiences. Apperently thanks to fanfiction (or rather the general assumption that fanfiction is the root of everything bad, amateurish and horrible) trauma is now the citeria for a Mary/Gary. In most cases, Gary. Now the problem is when...

1. Definition 1: A girl is a Mary Sue because she has come out of her trauma, partially or fully.
2. Definition 2: A guy is a Gary Stu because he couldn't come out of the trauma, partially or fully.

In other words the guy is supposed to be strong while the girl is supposed to remain entrapped. Which runs into another set of problems namely

1. Stereotype in a stereotype; men=strong women=weak
2. Rise of the feminists, because such stereotyping downplays a woman.
3. We'll be seeing the same thing and the same kind of core character and...basically things will get boring.

A perfect example of "Damn if you do, damn if you don't".

Of course, without doubt there are cheap characters out there who DO fit in the annoying category. Usually it's from a small trauma turn into a molehill, however real traumas (big or small) are not as easy to get over as TV make them appear to be. It can take days, weeks, years, or even decades.

How people deal with the trauma? Most do it either by brooding, or avoiding the subject, or using drugs, or alcahol, or try to chuck them at the side and hope that dust will cover them, or ideally learn from it and become stronger. Unfortunately even in this short list out of 6 options there are 5 negative reactions and 1 positive reaction. And basically the first and last must be singled out because they're deemed Sueish, even when it happens in real life, which leaves with 4 negative options with no positive options. In the end, it all goes back to Definition 2 namely the Garys.

Is it just because they potentially share the same trauma as us but the way they cope differently will make them liable as a Sue?

Enough of trauma, we now move on to mental illness. Trauma and mental illness are related as very often mental illness stem from trauma. Unfortunately, the list for mental illness is longer than physical illness when it comes to illness-per-organ raito with a lot of branches that will render most people mind-boggled (as it did to mine). Usually when we say "mental illness" it would either be depression, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder because they are the most well-known disorders. Mental illness is more common than we expect, how common please check out this website: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/numbers.cfm

So should we say that these people are Sues simply because they're sick and their sickness affect their life and behaviour?

Just a comment here: the validity of most of the 'mental illnesses' listed in handbooks such as the DSM-IV is extremely controversial (many psychiatrists, among others, dispute them). As are the stats showing a high incidence. I don't know what your particular problem is, but please don't use this page to grandstand.Dawnfire 08:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My first stance will be "No" unless they're done cheaply because it'll be an insult to those who are truly sick out there. therefore, these two citerias need to be re-examined and redefined. Added: 08:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, I've found that those who aren't already the type to label EVERY female OC a Mary Sue tend to find it a Sueish trait to be traumatized... basically, just when it's badly-written. :P Also, some people seem to think that giving an angsty, tragic backstory to their character makes the character "deep" and "not perfect", whereas unless they know enough to do their research AND work so that it's well-written enough not to be annoying and melodramatic and add absolutely nothing to the story, it's still not going to help. Angst has been "in" for years; it's not really a preqrequisite to be a Mary Sue, but it's really common, because really, characters are called Sues most often when the writer isn't skilled enough (or cares enough) to make the character more interesting or better-developed, and those writers are exactly the ones most likely to attempt to create pathos and fail spectacularly (in fact, proper development of pathos is one of the things I tend to have to work on most with the kind of young and inexperienced writers who typically write Mary Sue stories). In fact...

"unless they're done cheaply because it'll be an insult to those who are truly sick out there. "

That's actually usually the real complaint with Mary Sues with mental illnesses and traumatic experiences. Depression seems to be the biggest hitter, with cutting being supposedly all poetic and romantic, and of course, nobody ever notices all the scars, and no one ever accidentally kills themself, and my God... suicide is really badly-treated in fanfiction. Characters who are stable (and well-developed) in canon frequently become Angst!Sues in fanfiction and kill themselves for things as small as a friend forgetting to meet them on their way down to Hogsmeade (that little gem also had the character in question writing her rather lengthy suicide note in blood from her finger on the bathroom mirror. Apparently, the author forgot about a little thing called clotting). Suicide is nearly always romanticized in Mary Sue stories that feature it, as well; nobody ever feels the real symptoms of grief, mourning, depression in reaction to it, either they all just feel sorry that Mary Sue is gone, and even if they do feel the appropriate symptoms, it's generally portrayed as a bit melodramatic, and they often kill themselves too, just to be with them again - within, I swear, such a small amount of time that it's exceptionally unlikely. Rape... rape is even worse. Rape is NOTHING to a lot of Mary Sue writers and a lot of fanfiction writers (note: a lot of, not NEARLY all of them). They'll have a character being raped, and suddenly realize she enjoys it; or she'll be raped, and then immediately run into the arms of another man and end up in bed with him. And she's always happy afterwards (one of the snark communities I looked at recently liked to call this phenomenon "Healing Sex" or "Comfort Sex") - Comfort Sex never backfires, and she never not wants it. Apparently, having a penis inside her is going to fix the mental scars having one shoved up her ten minutes before hand. Ugh. So yeah, mental illness and traumatic experiences are generally not treated with a very good dose of reality, research or genuine pathos in fan fiction as a whole (though there ARE some good works out there, they're just a bit hard to find), and Mary Sue stories are one of the primary culprits, since of course, you'd want to give your character some "pathos", wouldn't you... -R 63.21.2.196 08:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sense when are Fictional messiahs Mary Sues?

If Aslan can't be a Mary Sue because he symbolizes Jesus Christ, then why is Usagi Tsukino on the list? If you list her as one you may as well list all fictional messiahs as Mary Sues. Characters in the fictional messiah category should be exempt from being categorized as Mary Sues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Apelinq (talk • contribs)

The list was deleted as original research. See the conversation above. Feezo (Talk) 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Insert = Sue?

Since when did self-insertion lead to automatically being labeled a Mary Sue? That's exactly what the article implies...there's a lot more to Sueage than just being a self-insert.--Claude 03:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does not imply that self-insertion "automatically" means it being a "Mary Sue." The problem here is that for many people, only self-insert characters can be "Mary Sues", with some people going so far as to declare that even non-idealized self-inserts are Mary Sues (not very many people use the term like this, though, and article should and does seem to reflect that).

However, that's covered in the article. If you read the introduction and all of the main sections thoroughly, you'll see that it covers all three definitions, with as a matter of fact, an emphasis on the more widely-used "idealized/romanticized character" definition.

Perhaps you meant to comment more on the fact that because of the wish-fulfillment aspect, many people claim all Sues are a form ofhttp://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Sue&action=edit&section=19 self-insert? Or the fact that self-inserts are somewhat more likely to be labeled "Mary Sues"? I hate to say this, but, that is quite common, not least because a lot (though probably not the majority) of characters usually seen as Sues are self-inserts as well. This is covered in the article, actually - complete with a criticism of that very same view (that all self-inserts or idealized characters are Mary Sues, with Mary Sue being a pejoritive term, e.g. the view that all self-inserts or idealized characters should be viewed with disdain), which notes two seperate published authors, one of whom has written self-insert works before, and both of which are cited as examples of things that defy all or part of the Mary Sue concept.

In short - I fail to see how it doesn't imply, nay, actively state, that "there's a lot more to Sueage than just being a self-insert." Indeed, note that much of the article stays completely away from the self-insert factor entirely, and focuses more on the most-widely-accepted portion of the definition of the term, e.g., of an idealized or romanticized character.

So, lease point out exactly which portions of the article you're speaking of. I can't see how it implies that, but could be missing something, and if something needs clarifying, I'd like to know. :) Runa27 08:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

though some author surrogates have been thought to "work" in fiction previously, self-inserts in general are frequently seen as the most blatant form of Mary Sue - That's what stuck out to me the most. It's actually the first time I've heard of self-inserts being written off as "the most blantant form of Mary Sue." Maybe I'm a little surprised because the first piece of fanfiction I read was a self-insert, and she was far from a Sue.--Claude 22:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are actually relatively few self-inserts outside of fan fiction, and in fan fiction, most actual self-inserts, e.g. stories where the author has stated that the character is a themself in a different form (as opposed to merely being based upon themselves), they tend to be frequently seen as, indeed, a blatant Mary Sue. Why? Because one of the defining factors of the concept of "Mary Sue" is the idea that it's a form of wish fulfillment, and you really can't get more wish fullfillment-y than "I'm going to go in and save the life of my favorite character and then sleep with them", which is the most common sort of self-insert in fan fiction, where the majority of self-insertion stories are written. Keep in mind, too, that even characters created as delibrate Mary Sues for the sake of parody are usually still referred to as a Mary Sue, so parodical self-insert Mary Sues are still a Mary Sue by many if not most people's usage of the term.

HOWEVER, after thinking about it, the phrase "in general", while technically accurate (in that you could say that in general something is such-and-such, but sometimes it's not), isn't quite NPOV-sounding enough (in that you could say "in general, it doesn't rain frogs or fish", which would also be true in that it's a rare occurence but does happen, but which almost has this implication of "it never or almost never happens". Also, the position in the sentence almost seems to make it sound, indeed, like "despite this all self-inserts are seen as blatant Mary Sues", which isn't really entirely true... in general. *ba-dum-ching!*).

Therefore, I am planning to change the wording in the article. Would you prefer "as a rule", which semantically leaves it MUCH more open to there being exceptions to the "rule", as it were? :) I'll do that (since at the very least, it will be better than it is now, yes?), and you can comment here on whether you think the changes work well. Runa27 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Projection

The difficulty with finding objective sources for this kind of thing is that, precisely because the concept is an author and maybe reader projection, both author and reader are often sensitive about any such suggestion. For example, the entire concept of ego projection directly counters objectivism. This pretty much limits any research into these areas to those journals or other publishing portals that already preach to the choir. For Wikipedia purposes, it might be simplest to wait until the first wave of popularity blows over -- it always does -- at which point the question can be approached without quite so much emotional investment. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.43 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "sub-concepts"

From what I can see, that part of the article seems to be lifted out of tvtropes.org, I'm just sayin'..... 202.8.230.82 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think actually tvtropes may have gotten it from this entry. The subconcepts part has been around for several years. Only way to be sure is to check the dates each was added to its respective wiki, I guess. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

General Usage?

This article seems to only draw references to Star Trek. Is this term in general usage or is it only known to Star Trek fans? If so, then shouldn't it be described as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The term DID come from the Trek fandom, but it's not exclusive to it.--raganbaby_6 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raganbaby 6 (talk • contribs)

Bella Swan in the See Also section

Bella Swan is listed in the see also section but is not refrenced at all anywhere else. I agree with whoever listed it though, Bella is the greatest example of a canon Sue I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.106.82 (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact, I once added a section on Bella Swan, since she is, after all, the most prototypical "Mary Sue" in the history of professional literature. However, the segment kept getting deleted by rabid "Twilight" fans, so I eventually gave up on it. It's too bad though, because having an article on the "Mary Sue" phenomena without referencing Bella Swan is like writing a history of World War II without ever mentioning Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not just rabid Twilight fans. This article should stay away from listing specific examples unless they are referenced elsewhere. You need to cite a published book or a magazine article that specifically uses the words Mary Sue to describe Bella (and I'm sure there must be at least one). The difference between Bella and Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany's involvement in WWII is an undeniable fact; Bella being a Mary Sue is a matter of subjective judgment. --Bluejay Young (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed tag

I took off the 2008 tag because the article has improved a great deal since then. --Bluejay Young (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaand somebody has put it right back again. Oh well. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

"Litmus tests have also been criticised for increasing a character's rating for trivial attributes, such as having the same gender as the author (there are only two genders to choose from), being a teenager (even if the character would be LESS believable had they been older) or for the author pretending they are the character (which is in fact useful for better characterisation)."

Shouldn't this page note that almsot all mary sue tests are intended to be taken as asking questions against established canon? Words like "unusual" in these tests mean unusual in context. The example about sci-fi and fantasy settings making high mary sue scores is incorrect because it assumes that a test-taker took the test incorrectly - you're supposed to mark things that stand out in the canon: having magical powers, for example, doesn't stand out in a fantasy setting where most characters have magical powers, so a test taker should not mark it even though it's technically correct.

As for real poeple such as Bono being mary sues according to tests; it should also be noted that a fictional character in a fanfiction-type setting with the same attributes is usually poorly recieved regardless of whether or not such people actually exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.250.139 (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But there are MS tests which actually want you to count any original character with magical powers, even in a setting where magical powers are normal. More to the point, in actual practice the Mary Sue police often pounce on any original female character as a Mary Sue. And yes, any fictional character in a fan fiction setting with let's say Bono type attributes is "usually poorly received", but especially if they are female. And the real question is why? Why are such characters downgraded? Why are they assumed to originate only in immature fantasy -- especially if both the character and the author are female? --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because people automatically assume that its author insertion without taking the time to look into things. There is no deeper meaning here, its all assumptions and most of the time its just people following the bandwagon of what happens to be the current target of the Mary Sue callers at the time. Actual Mary Sue or not never really mattered much, it is usually more 'I dislike your character so I am just going to call them Mary Sue and then try and then try and justify it with some meaningless subcategory' etc etc. You're giving most to much credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.106.234 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So very true. I've seen people viciously attack young authors who clearly aren't skilled yet, and now the term Mary Sue has enabled a bullying culture, with so many people mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon. I've seen so many young authors stop writing altogether because the "mary sue police" were so NASTY to them, and so the writers never even get a chance to improve. Pretty hilarious when some of the most popular characters today, like Batman, James Bond, Goku, Riku and Cloud Strife more then fit the criteria and yet these mental midgets are pleasantly oblivious to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.251.57 (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the articles I've cited at the bottom of this page then. Another thing that happens to young writers is they start thinking they are only supposed to create characters who are dull and unattractive. When these types of characters meet with approval from the Sue Police, that creates and reinforces a whole new set of stereotypes. I'm not a fiction writer, just an editor, but I can see how fan fiction has changed from the 60s to today. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Tall Poppy Syndrome

What's the connection with Tall Poppy Syndrome?Autarch (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's like the "nail that sticks up will be hammered down" saying. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the connection with the subject of the article? Autarch (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mary Sue = Portrayals of people with outstanding qualities are discouraged in fan fiction. Tall poppy syndrome = In real life, some cultures discourage people from displaying outstanding traits -- gifts or talents that set them apart from their peers. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed bias

I changed up a bit of wording just slightly to remove some bias from the article. Mary Sue is not completely synonymous with author insertion and the article needs to reflect that the two being linked was a later -and not at all universal- development which had nothing to do with Paula Smith or the original usage of the term. I also added a reference which features an interview with Paula Smith. Novadestin (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rational for removing the "criticism" section.

Wikipedia shouldn't set the precedent of publishing pages-long long feminist critiques of literary tropes. every literary trope has a pages-long feminist critique, and those belong in the feminism portal. If we're allowing this criticism of the idea, why not allow the defense? And why not allow the counter to that defense? This kind of thing is unbecoming an encyclopedia. It belongs in an academic paper or the feminist literary criticism portal (which is vast. We should not open up the can of worms that is integrating that section into the pages of the concepts they criticize.) The idea that the shape of rocket ships is inherently patriarchal because they look like penises is not on the Saturn V page, so why is this here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.240.47 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

→ link to the text we're discussing

Reasonably-sourced critiques of how this term is applied or even abused in the real world should be included here. Your cartoonish rockets are patriarchal because they look like penises example is a bit of a straw man (or straw feminist I guess) argument because the criticisms included here are not about abstract and subjective literary concepts, but in real-world concerns about how the term is applied in what may be a stereotype-based bias against female characters or women authors, which (by the evidence given here) seems to affect how writers actually write. Would you feel better if we removed the term feminist from that section and just went with

The "Mary Sue" concept has drawn criticism from both amateur and professional authors.

? I'd be fine with that. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, no matter how you introduce it, the section as currently written isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. The *idea* that the Mary Sue concept can frighten authors into submission is important, but with the section as it is including it ruins the article's neutrality. It's a quick definition of Mary Sue and then many many paragraphs condemning the very concept. Wikipedia can't get stuck in the "teach the controversy" quagmire, or every article will be 1/10th about the thing itself, and then 90 percent post-modern criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.240.47 (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there's nothing wrong with "a quick definition" followed by relevant, non-defining information. Literary concepts should be subject to criticism, especially when there seem to be real-world effects. And "neutrality" does not demand that no criticism or effects can be described simply because people might debate that something is "bad" or "good". One can reasonably say that Mary Sue characters are an annoying cliche in fanfic without contradicting the concern that the term applied broadly (or misapplied, whether with good intentions or otherwise) can have unfortunate consequences in the acceptance of writing that may be valuable.

The term Teach the controversy has come to mean ideological bullshit being given weight equal to the opposing consensus of thoughtful people well-educated in the subject matter. I don't believe the Criticism section suffered from this problem. I will agree that similarly sourced criticism about the problems with Mary Sue characters (either the fanfic cliches or the issue of author insertion) were under-represented, and the article would benefit from a bit more of that. And I don't see how that becomes a "quagmire".

I don't believe the criticism section at it was entered was necessarily in final form, but I believe such a section improves this article, and that it was off to a good start. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Restored. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to Selective Service

This quote by Edith Cantor ("in terms of their impact on those whom they affect, those words [Mary Sue] have got to rank right up there with the Selective Service Act.") is really over the top and sexist. Can this be removed, or is there another quote that would serve the same purpose without being offensive? 209.253.226.1 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)