fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3267 ]

[ SECRET POST #3267 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3267 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 050 secrets from Secret Submission Post #467.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - random advertisement for porcelain doves ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So a small writing circle I'm in (for fan and original stuff) had an interesting discussion about characters and development and I wanted to pose it here to see what people thought.

Which of these would you call a Mary Sue?

A.)Character with limited skillset and no 'special positions' (ala Avatar, Boy Who lived, Prophecy and the like) with plenty of people more skilled than them. But their enemies and problems always seem to play to their strengths in some way (or luck). Their enemies are usually possessing the same level and skills as them.

or

B.) Character with talents and a diverse skill set, maybe some special plot position. They're really talented at some things, and tend to do alright in others. However their enemies are very powerful and they always end up needing help from the team to defeat them.

Additionally would the genders of either character matter? Would it make a difference if A was a boy and B was a girl or vice versa?

Personally I believe A is the Mary Sue because regardless of how skilled they are compared to others, if the plot plays to their strengths than that's the problem. As for gender, I honestly think it shouldn't matter either way.

I wouldn't find either suish. Sues to me need the narrative to think they are perfect and never wrong even when they do something that i wrong and for everyone around them to like them and think they are amazing and special. Plot always playing to their strengths is not enough or me if the character is still shown to have weaknesses.

Neither.

An actual Mary Sue has the talents and skill set, the special plot position, and the plot bends around them to give them the victory every single time, whether through skill or luck or deus ex machina.

Neither situation depicted is a true Mary Sue, but both could be victims of some other unfortunate writing faults that make either the character unlikeable or the plot unbelievable.

Are we talking about plot-wise or audience reaction-wise?

Because in my experience, female characters are judged much more harshly. A male character can get away with both a and b and get minimal criticism for it, while a female character will be accused of being Suish if you go with a and of being passive and weak if you go with b.

Can't win.

Thinking audience reaction wise. Ideally I think it shouldn't matter either way.

I do feel like there are people who probably won't admit it but would consider their "threshhold" for Mary Sue to be lower when it's a girl.

This is not an either/or question. Sue-ness is not determined by a checklist.

That is a problem I find with litmus tests.

Especially when they talk about/advise against doing a thing and even if something only TECHNICALLY fits, even if it makes sense in context and they're like "doesn't matter, still bad"

Obviously a test can't account for every situation and some excuses people will make for doing a thing may not be good. But rigid absolutism isn't the answer.

The context and details of something actually matter a lot.

+1 YES. Thank you.

Correction- "if the plot plays to only their strengths than that's the problem" To some degree the plot SHOULD play to their strengths, but I guess I was trying to describe a situation where the plot plays specifically to their niche of particular strengths then it becomes a liiiiittle suspicious.

A, possibly.
B, no, because in needing other people's help assuming they have to ask for help and make an effort to change the world.

But then, my criteria for Mary Sue is whether or not the world automatically shapes itself around the character. A character could be the most amazing brilliant person, but if the world isn't automatically warping itself to make them win all the time and they have to actually put in all the effort to overcome, then that's not a Mary Sue, that's just a success story. Lots of brilliant people make huge efforts and succeed at unreasonable things all the time in real life.

SA

To add to that, a Mary Sue always outshines the world and story. The world becomes about the Sue and exists to support the character of the Sue by warping itself around them rather than the opposite, which would be a character moving around a world that would exist regardless of it and having a story that happens to take place in a larger setting

Those qualities have nothing to do with sue-ishness to me. Mary-Sues for me are defined by the way other characters treat them. Does everyone love them? Without any good reason? Is their backstory just the most tragic thing ever? Does the narrative contort around them to make them the center of the universe? Then they're a sue.

Neither is a Sue. They're just central protagonists. A Sue of either gender warps the narrative and the characters around them, so that even when their actions are dead wrong they are judged correct or forgiven, where a minor or subsidiary character would be castigated for the same acts.

A is leaning on Mary Sue but could be pulled off well.

Gender shouldn't matter ideally but sadly to some it still does.

Also am I the only one who always found the male varients of the name really cringy? Marty Stu, Marty Sam, Gary Stu....they just sound I dunno dumb. Also I don't think that using a female name somehow implies that it's something only female characters can be, the name is based of a well known satire of such characters that evolved over time.

I don't care if they're female, male, nonbinary, or agender. If they're a Mary Sue I'm just calling them a Mary Sue.

I think Sue-ness is determined not so much by their place in the story or what abilities they have but how the narrative itself treats them.

So to use your examples, Harry Potter isn't a Stu because while he ultimately succeeds he isn't exalted by the narrator. His failures aren't twisted so they can be glorified and his suffering isn't solely to make him seem more sympathetic to the audience. He's never presented as being perfect or better than other 'good' characters in the story.

I've tried to think of a character I think IS a Sue/Stu, but I'm kind of drawing ablank. The only one that's close that's coming to mind is Lori from the Walking Dead? She's really manipulative, has a scene where she's really sexist towards another woman on the show, and nearly every action she takes as a character is ultimately harmful to herself or the group. But the narrative seemed to constantly portray her as this wonderful angelic wife/mother who was just so perfect and amazing and you should definitely feel very sad that her life is so hard.

(IMO she doesn't really count as a Sue b/c I think this exaltation of her is due to Rick being the PoV char of the show, but I think it's up to personal interpretation.)

No Idea? how about Bella Swan? Sue If I've ever seen one. also masochistic stand-in for reader. Katpiss Evergreen seems not much different but I've neither read the books nor seen more that 2 movies so I can't really judge.

ayrt
Bella's probably a pretty good example, though tbh I've never watched/read Twilight so idk for sure. Maybe Edward would be more apt? (with the creepy shit he does being glorified?)

Katniss didn't seem like much of a Sue when I watched the first movie, though. I didn't feel that the movie was trying to make you feel like she was the best thing since sliced bread and that all her faults should be forgiven, which I think is really the key to Sue-ness. Not that they're overpowered or the plot revolves around them to an unnecessary extent, but that you as the consumer should feel that he/she's just So Cool And Amazing And Just The Greatest.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3267 ]

Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

AYRT

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

IA

Re: IA

SA

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion

Re: Interesting Writing Group discussion