[ SECRET POST #4862 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4862 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #696.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. https://i.imgur.com/gf6wseh.png

[mishey22]

...trend from the 2010s? Oh, OP.

[(Anonymous)]

No, I feel like they're fairly correct. Late 00s and onward was where I really saw the term "Mary Sue" get thoroughly appropriated by the mainstream. It was used a lot before then, but mostly by fandom.

Early 2010s seemed to be the period where every jackass with fragile masculinity issues came out of the woodwork to shit on OFCs because "Ugh, she's better at things than men are! That's so unrealistic! What a Mary Sue!"

[(Anonymous)]

OP here. Yeah, exactly this. I didn't mean to imply that Mary Sue hasn't been used before then, because obviously it came from fanzine Star Trek fic. What I meant was the practice of dudebros appropriating a term they know zero history of. That happened mainly in the 2010s.

[(Anonymous)]

From the 2010s? Huh. I'd say the 2010s are when the trend did markedly die down compared to before.

[(Anonymous)]

In fanfiction circles, yes, the 00s had a boom with this term because of all the livejournal sporking communities. But that was mainly women deeply into fandom discussing transformative works. The mainstream picked it up years later and started slapping the term on original media characters without understanding its fandom history. See: all those annoying male "theory youtubers" who post 2 hour long videos on why Anakin's ridiculous powers make sense but Rey's don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Lovely bluebells!

[(Anonymous)]

God, I HATED all the Star Wars fanbois that kept whining about Rey being a mary sue. Especially given that Luke goes from farm boy to LITERALLY single-handedly destroying a Death Star in one movie. I feel like 'Mary Sue' is just a convenient screen for misogyny too often.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like 'Mary Sue' is just a convenient screen for misogyny too often.

I think this is true, but I also think a lot of guys truly do not realize their feelings about the character are motivated at least partially by sexism.

They don't realize that what they totally eat up as being awesome and badass for male characters, is the same stuff they reject as being unrealistic and "Mary Sueish" for female characters. And when you point it out to them, they always have some (weak) reason why it's different when it's [that male character]. It makes sense for him to be an exceptional badass who's better than everyone because [blah, blah, blah]. And it's like, you could literally make that same argument for all the female characters you think are Mary Sues...but you don't. I wonder why.

[silverr]

This is one of the best summaries of this I've read. Brav*, nonny!

[(Anonymous)]

That's a phenomenon that happens all over the ding dong place, whether it's sexism, racism, or whatever. Hell, for as much crap as it got (some of which was deserved), Big Bang Theory pointed this out when some character was talking about racial insensitivity in media and someone brought up Apu on The Simpsons and they were like, no that's different. I like Apu.

[(Anonymous)]

"they always have some (weak) good reason"

WRITERS ARE SEXIST AND FEMALE CHARACTERS SUBJECT TO WORSE WRITING. WHY IS THIS THE VIEWER'S FAULT.

[(Anonymous)]

This is EXACTLY how I feel. You ask a dudebro what he feels makes Rey a Mary Sue - then you list everything that ANAKIN every did that was 10x more overpowered. They will insist Anakin's skill makes sense, whereas Rey's is "bad writing". They will never gain any self awareness.

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty much. It's the reason I am pretty much done with the term "Mary Sue." Once upon a time, it might have served a purpose, but now it's pretty much become shorthand for "There's a girl lead and she's actually competent!" from entirely too many people.

It also has come to bug me, because basically guys have been given male power fantasy after male power fantasy, yet these characters are hardly ever labeled "Mary Sues." Even if they are acknowledged as power fantasies, it's not given the pejorative sense that a female character is. Batman has practically ascended to Bat-God, but that's cool because He's Batman!

But if a female lead displays any competence, people go over her every action/scene with a fine-toothed comb, and the fans and writers are constantly expected to do a thesis-level defense as to why she's not a Mary Sue. Because men can be up to their necks in power fantasies, but god forbid, you let women enjoy seeing themselves kicking ass and taking names.

[(Anonymous)]

My favourite go-to example for this is John Wick. Universally beloved. When was the last time you heard him get called a Mary Sue, or a Gary Stu, or whatever? It wouldn't even occur to 99.9% of male fans. But the first time I watched it, I couldn't get over what blatant egregious eish fulfilment power fantasy Mary Sue this character was. I was shocked to discover no one agreed with me... and then I remembered sexism. RIP me.

[(Anonymous)]

I would argue that OP's example in the secret could still be more of a self-insert than a Mary Sue. A self-insert can still be really self-indulgent in certain ways, while still having the freedom to eat shit in the narrative on occasion. I think a Mary Sue implies that everything they do is actually good, and it's never their fault when things go bad.

+ a kagillion

[(Anonymous)]

That's my definition of a Mary Sue.

The story has to fold itself around said character in such an insidious way. Everything that Mary Sue does is so -influential- and -predestined- and vital to the plot.

What they usually are is a living breathing Deus Ex Machina. Very hard to pull off without resorting to perfectly hideous writing.

I feel like the definition did get awfully broad.

[(Anonymous)]

I always thought of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu as an original character who was introduced that was so awesome/badass/genius/whatever that the story and canon characters got warped around them - they can do no wrong narratively and if any of the canon characters don't like them, well those canon characters are wrong and possibly bad.

A Canon Sue/Stu comes in a few different variations - a new character that is brought in and is as above; the main character that is not just amazingly awesome/badass/genius/whatever and can do no wrong, but has "flaws" that turn out to actually be virtues and the story and other characters just twist around this; or a main character that becomes amazingly awesome/badass/genius/whatever, can do no wrong, and has "flaws" that turn out to actually be virtues, plus anything they do wrong is not only not called out as wrong, but narratively supported as right because this character did it (this sometimes comes about in reaction to some of the audience not liking the character or their actions and the creators/writers doubling down).

A character can be awesome/badass/genius/whatever or a self-insert and still not be a Sue/Stu. But if the story and other characters contort themselves just to show how obviously right and good they are all the time, well.

Re: I feel like the definition did get awfully broad.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the key here is wish fulfillment, which typically stalks 99.9% of self-insert characters. You simply can't have a character that warps the world around them WITHOUT that element of wish fulfillment, because it's a direct result of the author considering their character one of the most important things in this fictional world. I really don't think you can separate one from the other. Some media is more subtle than others in doing this, but VERY VERY rarely do I see a self-insert that doesn't have some element of wish fulfillment to it.

So yes, I think you're right in that part of the definition is exactly what you describe in your second paragraph. But I think it's inescapable that those character traits stem from wish-fulfilment, and that the author desires some of those traits in real life, even if the character doesn't superficially resemble the author themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

OP here! Comment secret maker, I don't know how you know me, but that gorgeous bluebell wood looks exactly like the beechwood a couple of miles from my house and it made me way too emotional for reasons unrelated to the secret. Thank you for your curiously apt image choice! <3