tielan: dissection of Mary Sue and our issues with her

tielan (

tielan) wrote,
@ 2010-04-13 09:51 am UTC

Entry tags:

dissection of Mary Sue and our issues with her

More thoughts on the Mary Sue discussion.

There would appear to be three basic characteristics of a Mary Sue:
- female character with many skills, gifts, abilities (ie. "awesome female character")
- self-insert character
- badly written (includes reality-warping, canon-character warping, gaining everything without effort, etc.)

There are probably others, but these are the ones I've seen brought up in the discussion so far.

Different meta will focus on different aspects dependent on the concerns of the individual.

Some people aren't comfortable with female characters having so many skills.

miss_haitch's post here argues against this mindset, but in a post that derides the culture of Mary Sue shaming, notes that Mary Sue shaming communities rarely focus on the "how to write well" and more on the implausibility of female characters having so many gifts and abilities.

(Note on the plausibility of female characters having so many gifts:

miss_haitch's post takes three canonical male characters from three different fandoms and describes them using a female pronoun. The results have unmistakeable flavours of Sue-ishness, yet no-one has ever levelled such an accusation at these characters. Implausibility, it seems, is only relevant when dealing with female characters.)

Others are arguing against bad writing, where an original female character comes into a universe and begins warping it around her. They're displeased with the depiction of characters who suddenly become not only accepting of but eager to have someone completely new and unknown telling them how to better do their job, manage their relationships, or save the world.

Then there are people who have issues with the obvious self-insert character. Of course, this aspect is complicated by the fact that the self-insert not only has its 'famous' examples - Gene Roddenberry and Wesley (Eugene) Crusher, and Stephenie Meyer and Bella Swan, Mercedes Lackey and Miste the Herald-Chronicler of Valdemar - but also can come into play where a fan identifies with a canon character that they feel 'resembles' them (mentally, intellectually, physically, psychologically) and then uses that canon character as their 'self-insert' in that universe. Bad writing often follows self-insertion, simply because the writer, having placed themselves in that universe, is unable to keep from involving the character in the thick of the action, and canon-warping tends to follow hard on ze's heels.

My own biases against Mary Sueishness lie primarily with bad writing (specifically canon warping). Someone else's may lie with female characters being 'too gifted to be realistic'. Still other people are wary of the self-insert character and the canon warping that tends to follow.

I suspect, when people say "celebrate Mary Sue", they're mostly not advocating bad writing so much as encouraging the development of fabulous female characters. And when people say "down with Mary Sue", they're mostly not decrying fabulous female characters so much as being wary of bad writing that doesn't just start off bad but continues to be bad over the course of years.

Mostly, anyway.

And that's something to keep in mind as we go into the next round of posts about Mary Sues, most likely themed "why I hate Mary Sue".

(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

no subject

rudeandveryginger
2010-04-13 02:08 pm UTC (link)

I'm of mixed emotion on this. Most of my issues with Mary Sues are like yours, focussing on the poor grammar and diction you so often find in self-insertion fics. If we look at the age and/or writing skill of many of these authors, one can somewhat understand. I say somewhat because I have my own (high) expectations for fic unleashed on the public. Those expectations include knowing what paragraphs are, appropriate use of punctuation, and decent sentence structure...and that's without getting into plot, flow, and characterization.

Writers who haven't spent as much time writing are still working on these elements. Hell, I'm still working on them, and I've been writing for (gulp!) well over half my life at this point. To expect perfection from individuals on their "first fic" is unrealistic. If I read a first fic that ~~doesn't make me run, screaming~~ has some good elements, I try to make sure to provide constructive feedback so that their next outing may be a little easier on the inner-grammar nazi. On the other hand, I think there is a responsibility for a developing author to pass their stories on to someone they trust for that all-important beta read. The trick is finding a beta reader who will provide that con crit, and not just, "OMG! This is soooo good! You have to post it!!!11!"

If the structure of the story is passable, then I look a little closer to the more material things -- plot, characterization, and flow. A decent plot will keep me tuned in, even if the flow is a bit choppy. Bad characterization will make me run, screaming, almost as quickly as poor punctuation.

Thus, if a fanfic story with a female OC is technically well-written with good characterization and flow, I'll probably stick it out -- even if the female OC has friends in every town and village from here to the Sudan, speaks a dozen languages, knows every local custom, and can disappear into the aether. (I'll offer up virtual cookies to whoever gets the reference!)

So... if that's the case, and I focus on grammar, diction, and characterization, rather than the context of the Mary Sue, does that mean I don't hate Mary Sue, and just hate bad fic? =)

(Reply to this)

	no subject msilverstar 2010-04-18 06:37 am UTC (link)
	My own biases against Mary Sueishness lie primarily with bad writing (specifically canon warping). Someone else's may lie with female characters being 'too gifted to be realistic'. Still other people are wary of the self-insert character and the canon warping that tends to follow. Well said! I tend to dislike male characters with those characteristics as well. (Reply to this)

	no subject miss_haitch 2010-04-18 08:47 am UTC (link)
	I suspect, when people say "celebrate Mary Sue", they're mostly not advocating bad writing so much as encouraging the development of fabulous female characters. In my case, this is right on the mark. Thank you for this post! (Reply to this)

no subject

thelana.livejournal.com
2010-04-18 09:23 am UTC (link)

Bad writing often follows self-insertion, simply because the writer, having placed themselves in that universe, is unable to keep from involving the character in the thick of the action, and canon-warping tends to follow hard on ze's heels.

For me it's actually self-insertion hate that I find most questionable about MarySue hate. I might not *like* a lot of self-inserts, but at the same time can we really discount that they can be bloody effective writing and that they or at least traces of it show up in a lot of stories, some very populars ones like the ones you cited sometimes even stories that are considered literature.

So when it comes to self-inserts there are at least some things I would like to throw into the ring:

-) What about write what you know?
-) Isn't one complaint we have in regard to finding female characters we can identify with, isn't a major point of discussion in a lot of fields the issue of identification. It seems to me that the core point of that is to speak of characters we can to some extent insert ourselves better?
-) I suppose there's a difference between writing what you know/writing what is real and writing just to make your dreams come true and project your fantasies. But on the other hand isn't the point of a lot of fiction wish and dreamfullfillment? I mean if people can for example dream about travelling through time and space and make a franchise out of it (like Dr. Who for example), why shouldn't girls also write about making their dreams come true?
Isn't this precisely what people take issue with? Why shouldn't little girls (or little black boys or asian boys or asian girls or black girls or gay boys or gay girls) also get to dream about saving the world and getting the desired partner and being strong and powerful? Is there an element of -ism to it if we seem to inherently cry self-insert or lack of realism when it's for example suddenly a woman getting all these wonderful things when so much literature is dedicated the the very idea of boys getting all these kind of things?

I do think that there are many questionable things to self-insertion. For example it's been my experience is that for example fandom gets a lot more unpleasant if people identify too much, see too much of themselves in a character, fandom tends to get a lot more radical. Because if you live too vigorously through a character it's usually hard/impossible to keep perspective and be able to be fair. It's a character hitting just *that* spot really hard that makes you see their problems from completely your perspective and you can't leave it anymore. And every slight their experience is suddenly a slight against *you* and suddenly you hang your heart completely on them *winning* in the end. It's not just "it would be a good story if..." it's suddenly a ruining of *your* existance if things end badly for your character.

Of course... maybe this is only a problem of people who actually aren't that well represented, because people who are well represented/over represented can always live with the awareness that even if things don't work out for this character there are a gazillion others around who totally get everything they want every time.

(Reply to this) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

no subject

thelana.livejournal.com
2010-04-18 10:39 am UTC (link)

Anyway, it seems to me that there are at least two ways to see fictional characters:
1) to go out and experience adventures in your mind
2) to meet new people/to learn about new people in the form of characters

Where option 1 is the self-insert and option 2 is the "characters as friends" idea. Or 1 is "write what you know" and 2 is the writer as the spectator of life who writes what they see/what is real. And I just don't feel comfortable saying that option 1 is not also a somewhat acceptable choice, especially since again, it seems to me that a lot of books have actually been written in the spirit of method 1 that had quite an impact on the history of books.

And of course there are also two ways we have to look at the idea of self-insert:
1.) Is it wrong for a writer to self-insert?
2.) Is it wrong for a reader to self-insert?

And if for example 2.) is completely ok and even desirable, why shouldn't an author get to use 1 if it helps them achieve method 2? If I blatantly write about *my* dreams coming true, but at least it will be a good experience for the ideally rather large portion of people who are like me (like teenage girls in the case of Stephanie Mayer or teenage boys in the case of the guy who wrote Eragon).

From a writing perspective, I think there are a bunch of things to consider when self-inserting (or empathizing or even over-empathizing):

First and foremost, if you are self-inserting, it's a good idea ot try to hide it in your writing. Mostly for two reasons:
1.) It makes the story more predictable if the reader knows which character you are self-inserting. It means that the reader at this point can guess that chances are that that character will win/will never be shown in a bad light. (this can be particularly annoying for example on a tv show that is supposed to remain interesting over a long period of time)
But really, let's be honest here, in fanfiction, how often is that not already true anyway? That stories are writen about character X in a positive light and people flock to it precisely because they already love character X and desire to see them shown in a loving light. And how often is the root of not at least some stories some sort of self-empathy (X is a geek and I too was a geek when growing up, I empathize with X because I too was a younger sibling; why should these be "ok" reasons to latch on to a character but others are not? Or is gender supposedly supposed to be some sort of barrier to protect you against self-insertation/make it ok somehow? Like, if the character is a different gender from yourself, it's ok to latch onto him because of their personality traits mirroring yours, but if the character is female suddenly it's wrong and icky? I do think that you are more likely to lose perspective or fairness the more a character has in common with you, but my argument is that we seem to do that a lot anyway even if the character does not have the same gender as we do (respectively white males identifying with white male characters seem to manage to do it without going insane, so why should the standards be different unless you believe on some level that people who aren't white or male are somehow inherently more unstable/less trustworthy).

2.) If the goal is for a high number of readers to be able to self-insert you should try to reveal to obviously that somebody is your self-insert in ways that would simultaneous make it harder for them to identify with the character. So even if something is *your* fantasy, it should be written in an open enough way for it to be other people's fantasy too. Because people might be more easily persuaded to read a book where they feel like *they* are being loved and praised than they would be to read a book where they notice that *you* are being loved and praised on their money. That is the point of making stories accessible. It doesn't mean that you as the author shouldn't or won't self identify with the character, but you have to hide it to at least some extent.

The second thing one has to consider is self-insertion vs. obeying the rules of the world.
1.) This is a particularly big issue in fanfiction where the world has already been established and is known already to the reader. So if you bend the rules of the universe for your character people are more likely to know and even take offense because there is a chance that they might be a fan of the universe itself and feel protective of it.
2.) However you can create your own universe or even expand a fanfiction universe and be successfull with it. Usually the key is to make the universe interesting and exciting. And usually a good way to make a universe exciting and *good* is for it to have rules and mythology that the readers can understand. IMO some of the best/most successfull self-inserts work so well because they (a) come packaged in interesting, addictive universe (b) are hidden behind breath taking action. Having a good universe is one of the best ways to have a self-insert and have people not care that the price of getting to visit that universe is that they have to follow a self-insert. [btw, I hated Shut-Up-Wesley as much as the next person, but I often wonder if people had been more accepting of him if he had actually been the main character with the story being from his POV. Because Gene Roddenberry actually set him up more as a spectator on the bridge, which for the viewer meant that they could plainly see that they didn't need him to get access to the Star Trek universe when there were other obvious main characters. Now, I think if it had been something like "The Adventures of Teenage Captain Wesley" he probably would still have been a very annoying and hated captain, but I also think that he complaints would have been very different and maybe it would have had some validity as a teenage wish fullfillment show (it's not like it would have been the first one). Yes at the same time I'm sure there is not way it would have lasted as many seasons with Wesley at the helm ;)]

Anyway, I think people like rules in universes because it makes them feel smart and involved, so it's good to have them and not throw them out for your character.

One last thing about universes is how they interact with the real world. Basically, how come it's ok to for example write books about little boys slaying dragons, but if for example somebody wrote a universe where women (or black people) rule and are better without any major explanation, chances are that they would get accused of blatant and cheap wish fullfillment? Maybe it's because for it goes against people's expectations or even experiences. Which is really unfair and really should be obsolete for example in a fantasy setting where you write about potentially completely random things anyway. But yeah, it might be something you encounter you find yourself in the situation where you have to drop a sentence or two to create a lead over from people's current expectations. But regardless of whether you do that or not, I think authors should not forget that this is 100% their right. Because (1) this is fantasy you have as much right to is as you have the right to write about green dragons and blue unicorns and (2) there is a long history of all kinds of wish fullfillment universes so you totally have a right to yours.

Another thing is that people don't like a one-sided serving of just one thing. We *like* seeing the super-hero for example having to learn to deal with responsibilites rather than *only* getting to enjoy his or her powers. I like to call it emotional realism. When something is too happy we distrust it. We need at least a smidgen of darkness to believe it. IMO, it has nothing to do with actual realism. Theoretically you write about a person who for example gets born into riches and gets everything they want for their entire life and it might be a 100% realistic retelling of real events, but it still would be emotionally unsatisfying to a reader. So even if you write the amazing adventures of your personal self-insert a good way would be for you to also encounter some less than pleasant things (for example in the form of (a) learning about responsibilities (b) villain you only beat at the second attempt (c) coming in a situation where your personal special powers are of no use (d) have an unhappy backstory (ideally one that 100% goes with the rules of your universe). Technically this falls under the heading of "hiding your self-insertion".

Another big thing to think about when self-inserting as an author is that a lot of times self-insertion = passion. Or rather if there is something you feel passionately about it can ideally translate into your book being interlaced with passion. And imo the most successfull or most charming self-inserts may work because of that. If you for example get a real sense of excitement or innocence from the author. Because in the end there's a big difference between a wish fullfillment story where the little boy or girl gets to slay the dragon or confront the bully and for example the little boy writing a universe where all women are sluts and bow to him. Again, this probably also falls under hiding your self-insertion and even more under keeping your self-inseration accessible (even generic enough) for other people. But I do think that one also has to consider potential good sides of self-inseration rather than just the dangers and downsides. And IMO stories where innocence or genuine excitement shines through are the plus side. Of course passion can be a double edged sword because it can also take readers out of the story (or it can be "cheating" and manipulative if you blatantly address the trauma of a part of the readership). But imo in cases where blatant Sues or Stus work as stories anyway, this can be a reason for it there is just an underlying feeling of the real sweat or real love of the author.

One last aspect of self-insertion is that it can be painful. If you put yourself in the story, it means that you put yourself (your personal traumas, your views on life, your things that means a lot of you) out there and they might be rejected by people who read them and that can hurt (see: losing bias and flame wars). So some people might decide to not do that and rather cloud and distort their self-insertion. On the other hand you might want to weigh it against for example on how important you think you perspective needs to be put your there and be heard (and ideally is also interesting).

Basically I think we need a more differentiated view on the nature of self insertion. I think there are a lot of things to it that are good and worth discussing. Plus again, the distinction between author self-insert and reader self-insert and how there are plenty of mixed forms. You can author-self insert to achieve reader-self insert. Or you can write a character you personally don't self-insert with but who is meant for your readers to deeply self-insert with. Or you can self-insert yourself, but still sell the character to the reader more like a "fictional characters as friends", with *you* as the fictional character they meet and talk to and get to know.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

azurelunatic
2010-04-18 04:57 pm UTC (link)

The original mention of Wesley and then this led to me writing a whole long screed on fixing Wesley; I linked it down there. I think he could have been written much better and more accessibly, and even without making the show all about him, just a slightly different backstory, it could have been less "who is this fucking kid getting in the way on the bridge" and more "Oh, man, the poor kid is trying to do his job and ow, that had to hurt".

There's a certain style of fic that explicitly takes the writer and a cluster of their friends and pops them into the universe in question, either POP HERE THEY ARE, or with backstories, and I actually enjoy a well-done one of those. I like it when it says so openly up front: here is what you have, if you do not want to go on this ride, please do not take this ticket or get in this queue. But you know what it is, and you go in, and the character does not pretend to be Everywoman, she is very much *her*, and her friends are very much *themselves*, and they are having a *great old time*. And the sheer amount of fun is very infectious.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

azurelunatic
2010-04-18 04:48 pm UTC (link)

Here via

metafandom, and your mention of Wesley Crusher spun me off on a tangent about how I think he could have been fixed.

I think it was not just "character is written poorly", in that case, but "character is thrust into series without a backstory consistent with the universe", and also "character intended for a portion of the audience to identify with shoved in without an effort to actually encourage identification".

(Reply to this)

(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)