Talk:Mary Sue/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stephen Colbert Sues=

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article Split

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Eytmology and Communities

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: River Tam

message: 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)
thread_title:  why does Mary Sue redirect here instead of viceversa? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mary Sues as author substitutes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. :-) -dmmaus 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :) Runa27 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this article split without any consensus? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anime Genre not Mary Sue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sense when are Fictional messiahs Mary Sues? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Projection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the "sub-concepts" 

message: 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)
thread_title: General Usage?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bella Swan in the See Also section 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: What's the connection with Tall Poppy Syndrome?Autarch (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like the "nail that sticks up will be hammered down" saying. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on the connection with the subject of the article? Autarch (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tall Poppy Syndrome

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison to Selective Service