zombiesarejerks:

adventuresofcomicbookgirl:

Looks like this essay was needed, so I went ahead and did it. Not sure I said everything I wanted to say, but I tried.

So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly.  They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.

 God, what a Mary Sue.

I just described Batman.

  Wish fulfillment characters have been around since the beginning of time. The good guys tend to win, get the girl and have everything fall into place for them. It’s only when women started doing it that it became a problem.

TV Tropes on the origin of Mary Sue:

The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment.

Notice the strange emphasis on female here. TV Tropes goes on to say that is took a long time for the male counterpart “Marty Stu” to be used. “Most fanfic writers are girls” is given as the reason. So when women dominate a genre, that means people are on close watch, ready to scorn any wish fulfillment they may engage in. This term could only originate if the default was female.

 In fact, one of the CONTROVERSIES listed on the TV Tropes page is if a male sue is even possible. That’s right, it’s impossible to have an idealizied male character. Men are already the ideal.

 In our culture, male tends to be the default. Women take on the distaff parts. “Him” and “mankind” are what humanity are, “her” and “womankind” are secondary. Yet this isn’t true for Mary Sue as a term. That name was created first. It was a Star Trek fic that coined it and the female desigination was likely a big reason it caught on. This female is name the default to use when describing idealized characters. Marty Stu and Gary Stu are only to be used if you’re discussing men specifically.  Heck, there isn’t even an agreed upon term for them. So the only time female can be default is when discussing a badly written character, someone who is more powerful or important or liked than they should be allowed to be, someone the plot focuses on more than you would like, someone you don’t want to read about. Hmmm.

 What’s really wrong with a thirteen year old girl having a power fantasy, even if it’s badly written?  Who is it hurting? Men have baldly admitted to writing power fantasies and self inserts since the beginning of time. How many nerdy, schlubby guys suddenly become badasses and have hot girls chasing after them in fiction? See: Spiderman- blatant everyman who happens to  stumble across amazing powers and catch the eye of a supermodel.  Mary Sue is considered the worst insult to throw at a character as it renders them worthless. But since when are idealized characters automatically worthless? Aren’t all heroes idealized in some way? Don’t all heroes represent the author in some way? Aren’t these characters supposed to be people we look up to, people who represent human potential, the goodness that we strive for? Fantasy by nature is idealized, even the tragic ones.

 If you look at the TV Tropes page for Mary Sue, it’s ridiculous. You can be a sue for having too many flaws, or not enough, for fixing things or messing things up, for being a hero or a villain. And of course, this is specifically pointed out as a trope related to the Princess and Magical Girl genres- genres aimed towards women are naturally full of Mary Sues.  Magical girls are powerful and heroic and actually flaunt femininity as a good thing. They are a power fantasy designed for girls. So of course, a girl using traditionally feminine traits to dominate and triumph means she’s a sickeningly pure Mary Sue who makes everything go their way. Feminine traits are disdained and look down on, so when the positive feminine traits are prominent, the reader has an aversive reaction. How can a character be so feminine and triumph? She must be unrealistic, she must be badly written, because everyone knows it is impossible to be feminine and powerful.

 Let’s look at what kinds of Mary Sues people will point to. People will claim a female character is a Mary Sue if she is a love interest. Put a female character within a foot of a male character, and people will scream “Mary Sue!” Why does someone falling in love with her make her a Mary Sue? Well, she hasn’t “earned” this awesome dude character’s love. What has she done to show she’s worthy of him? Fans miss the irony that this line of logic makes the male character seem more like the Sue in Question, as he’s apparently so perfect one has work for his coveted love and praise.

  The idea that woman has to “earn” any power, praise, love, or plot prominence is central to Mary Sue.  Men do not have to do this, they are naturally assumed to be powerful, central and loveable. That’s why it’s the first thing thrown at a female character- what has she done to be given the same consideration as a male character? Why is she suddenly usurping a male role? “Mary Sue” is the easiest way to dismiss a character. It sounds bad to say “I don’t like this female character. I don’t like that this woman is powerful. I don’t like it when the plot focuses on her. I don’t like that a character I like has affections for her.”  But “Mary Sue” is a way to say these things without really saying them. It gives you legitimacy.

 If a character is badly written, there’s generally something much more problematic than idealization going on. The plot will be dull and the character will perpetuate harmful stereotypes while other characters act oddly.  For instance, Bella Swan is one of the only characters I’d even begin to classify as a Mary Sue, yet it’s not really her supposed Mary Sue traits that bother me. I don’t mind that she gets what she wants and everyone loves her, that she’s Meyer’s power fantasy. What I actually mind is that Stephenie Meyer has her perpetuate harmful anti-woman stereotypes- women need to be protected, women are shallow, women’s worth rests in desirability. That’s what’s actually harmful about her and worth discussing. I would criticize that rather than even get to the fact Bella got to be “too perfect and powerful”- that’s just a tiny, insignificant thing not worth mentioning in a huge pile of problems.

 And that’s why I don’t call characters Mary Sue anymore. There’s really nothing bad about a power fantasy or wish fulfillment. It’s what’s fiction’s about.  If one of my characters is called a Sue, I’ll proudly say “yep”, because that must mean that she broke out of that box a female character is supposed to be in.  So I’ll go and say it: I love me some Mary Sues.

First of all, your description of Batman is fucking wrong. Batman doesn’t reject women because he is dedicated to what’s pure and good. He rejects women because he’s DAMAGED AS ALL FUCK. Batman doesn’t defeat superhumans “with ease.” Sometimes he does, but that’s because they have some ridiculous weakness.

Not all powerful are Mary Sues. Lara Croft isn’t. Sarah Connor isn’t. You’re just finding sexism in everything. If you love Mary Sues then you love bad writing. You love stupid characters. Characters who have no flaws, no obstacles that they can’t easily overcome with a snap of their fingers. Mary Sues aren’t strong characters, they’re invincible characters. Characters that we in no way can relate to because they’re god damn perfect in every way.

And now you have a problem with Stephanie Meyer’s Mary Sue. Well you just sat there talking about wish-fulfillment as a good thing, and then you shit all over Stephanie Meyer’s wishes. Who the fuck are you to do that? The entirety of this essay seems to say “Women should be able to create any characters they want without fear of judgement, unless I don’t like the character.”

Not saying sexism doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t exist in literature, or that there aren’t men who will become afraid of a strong female character, but this argument is complete and utter bullshit.

I’ve read Batman comics for years, so it’s sort of laughable that you can decide my description of him was wrong. I like how people are always most offended by the Batman thing. HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THE BATGOD. It’s clearly supposed to be exaggerated, but this is how a lot of comics portray him. Funny how his “damaged” personality doesn’t stop everyone from Wonder Woman to Lois Lane from getting wet for him and then having to go home in defeat. 

You sort of missed the point of the Bella Swan thing. Criticizing the sexism of Twilight doesn’t shit all over Stephanie Meyer at all (not that I would care about offending her, she’s an awful misogynist and racist and she can cry into her piles of money). I was saying that she’s welcome to her power fantasy and that Bella Swan being wish fulfillment does not bother me. Maybe I wouldn’t be interested, but I wouldn’t judge. The only thing that is problematic for me in a story is how it perpetuates sexism and racism, and that’s the only thing anyone should really have a problem with in regards to Twilight. That’s what should be criticized instead of female power fantasies. If you want to improve someone’s writing, look at the stereotypes they perpetuate and the problematic mechanics of the plot- don’t shame them for writing powerful woman. That. is. sexist. That’s all this post is about, and I’m sorry that makes so many people angry, but I can’t say I’m surprised.

epaulettes:

schampusmitlachsfisch submitted: Only now saw that you reblogged this post so I wanted to say something.

I don’t think everyone calling a character Mary Sue is sexist. It feels to easy to say “Well yeah that character is badly written…BUT WE NEED THAT” because no. We don’t. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a male or female character. Also, the comparison to Batman is poorly chosen because he is the main character and a super hero. He is supposed to be the best. Give me a female super hero and it’s fine. But any poorly written character will be mocked because it’s just all kinds of lazy to accuse critics of sexism. You know what I mean? When I tell someone that a character reeks of an overly flawless characterisation and is therefore a Mary Sue (going with the female name here because - at least in most fanfictions I’ve read - all original characters are female*), they call me sexist and are done with it. They don’t even need to examine the character again because “what’s wrong with a little power fantasy”? And that just encourages books like Twilight. They are badly written but it’s just a fantasy, right?

(I’ve read again what I wrote and I sound tetchy and aggressive and I just wanted to let you know that this is not my intent.)

I’m not entirely sure you wanted to make this public, but I—on the understanding that I’m responding publicly for the purposes of discussion and don’t feel hurt or, I dunno, ~aggressed upon~, and still think we’re cool—am just gonna put this out there.

The point of the original post was that calling a character a Mary Sue is in and of itself a gendered insult, and one that specifically targets the creation of female power narratives by, yes, usually young/inexperienced/bad writers.

But the point that I took away is (and this relates back to your criticism of the Batman reference) that young fangirls who enter fandom are told right off the boat that creating an indulgent power narrative for yourself is stupid and worthy of shame, while at the same time young fanboys are basically sold it as a career path, no shame anywhere to be seen.

Personally, I agree with you that we should call a badly written character what it is, which is badly written. I believe that criticism of characters which fit the stereotypical Mary Sue/Gary Stu mold (where the character is just so goddamned perfect that everything magically works in their favor) is fair because we live in a world that I personally feel overvalidates our desire for everyone in the entire world to care about our personal narrative, and powertripping on your own ego is the sort of thing I’d encourage young writers to realize is uninteresting no matter what a few kind and/or deluded souls tell you when you first start posting. I sincerely hope that they learn from other writers who are doing better work that what they’re creating is not anywhere near as cool to their audience and as useful to their self-growth as other stuff they could be writing.

But I don’t think we should continue to support a gendered way of looking at this kind of criticism. It’s a convenient shorthand, but like many terms popularized due to convenience (“genderswap,” anyone?) , there are problematics to it that make a strong argument for its retirement.

Also, I think it’s important to acknowledge that there is no actual harm inherent in writing a Mary Sue. As the OP points out, Bella Swan is a Mary Sue, but that’s not actually her damage. The problem with Bella Swan is that she’s totally fine with her creepy, codependent relationship, disdainful of her sense of personal agency, and generally a wet blanket of a human being who encourages young girls to also be wet blankets because it will land them an inhumanly perfect man who will transform their entire life for them without ever requiring them to think or struggle for themselves. Twilight is a a wish fulfillment narrative that is also an extremely flawed and problematic power narrative. All of Bella’s power gets siphoned off into Edward*, and that’s all kinds of not okay.

And moreover, I really believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to create a smarter/better/faster/stronger (WORK IT HARDER MAKE IT BETTER~) version of yourself when you write something**. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wish fulfillment. That’s how we got Batman, after all. It’s also, I’d be the first to point out, how we got Elizabeth Bennet. There’s just a learning curve involved in knowing how much writers can indulge themselves before it’s just serving them and no longer serving their characters.

So yes, continue to call out badly written self-insert power fantasy/wish fulfillment OCs if that’s a writing thing that bothers you (and honestly, why wouldn’t it). But consider calling them self-insert power fantasy/wish fulfillment OCs. Or think up a cooler name that’s not quite so gender specific…

Anyway, that’s what I took away from that post.

*Until, I’d argue, the last half of the last book, after Bella becomes a vampire—which has some pretty interesting implications regarding what is and isn’t an equal partnership dynamic in the series, and if (and if so, where/when) Bella actually strives for/succeeds in getting such a dynamic.

**I think it’s especially unexceptional that this desire manifests itself so much in fandom because I believe there’s an intense LACK of characters young girls can identify as aspirational versions of themselves in the male-centered hero/fantasy narratives that dominate fandom as a whole.

So the OP actually messaged to let me know about this, which was very nice, and wow, what a thoughtful post! Very well-done. Basically all these words are how I feel and my intention.

I especially liked this part:

**I think it’s especially unexceptional that this desire manifests itself so much in fandom because I believe there’s an intense LACK of characters young girls can identify as aspirational versions of themselves in the male-centered hero/fantasy narratives that dominate fandom as a whole.

because I never quite realized that, but yes, I think that’s exactly it, wow.

Also this:

Personally, I agree with you that we should call a badly written character what it is, which is badly written. I believe that criticism of characters which fit the stereotypical Mary Sue/Gary Stu mold (where the character is just so goddamned perfect that everything magically works in their favor) is fair because we live in a world that I personally feel overvalidates our desire for everyone in the entire world to care about our personal narrative, and powertripping on your own ego is the sort of thing I’d encourage young writers to realize is uninteresting no matter what a few kind and/or deluded souls tell you when you first start posting. I sincerely hope that they learn from other writers who are doing better work that what they’re creating is not anywhere near as cool to their audience and as useful to their self-growth as other stuff they could be writing.

But I don’t think we should continue to support a gendered way of looking at this kind of criticism. It’s a convenient shorthand, but like many terms popularized due to convenience (“genderswap,” anyone?) , there are problematics to it that make a strong argument for its retirement.

Very good stuff.

I haven’t said this enough, but I do love people’s points- even the ones I disagree with, provided they aren’t of the “I’m-not-even-going-to-bother-to-think about what you were getting at or even pretend I carefully read the post” variety. Then I get testy. But if it’s informed, that GREAT! Debate is good. I’m glad this is being discussed, even if it’s really overwhelming for me.

But also thanks so much for the support. I’m going to try to answer most of the supportive messages privately from now on, unless they bring up something the *public should see* but there are a LOT! And I am incredibly grateful. It means a lot. You guys rock, thanks for really taking a look at what I was getting at, because I do think it’s important to consider! YOU ARE THE GOOD! 

it’s out of control like a runaway train

I’m kinda scared

the shortpacked people even reblogged it I sort of bounced up and down in my bed and squealed a little bit

a little

but how am I going to act on my urge to debate everyone who contradicts me with all this there’s too many notes

I think I’ll just c/p the two posts I just made w/ every reblog b/c they sort of cover most of the stuff people are getting on me about.

Tumblr you will have to bear with me for a while this may break me

My point wasn’t that there’s no such thing, but that it only bothers people when they’re female and the term started because it bothers people when they’re female and VERY QUICKLY came to mean “any female character”. 

I pointed to Bella Swan as an example. The point is, if a genuine “Sue” does exist, there’s generally waaaay more problematic things going on than a female character being powerful. You’ll have lookism and stereotypes up the wazoo. Focus on that shit. It’s more difficult than crying “Sue!” but ultimately more worthwhile.

I do think characters need to earn their happy ending, need to run the gauntlet absolutely. But guys are allowed to have skills right off the bat that girls will be “sued” for.

My example: Winry Rockbell vs. Edward Elric- since that’s what started this whole thing.

Winry is called a Sue for being a skilled mechanic. What did she do to earn her genius level abilities, huh?

Edward Elric is NOT a sue for the same genius level skill in alchemy right off the bat.

Winry is a Sue for being helpful to the plot and “not earning” Ed’s love. No one cares about Ed being helpful to the plot and he does not need to earn Winry’s love.

That’s how the Mary Sue double standard works. 

Hahahaha I knew people would be pissed at the Batman thing. Yep, there’s no single Batman either. But the overall concept is a thing, and it’s complete wish fulfillment- and it’s why Batman can be insufferable and problematic in some versions.