Talk:Mary Sue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fan Fiction, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Fan Fiction. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

Previous entries to this Talk page from before August, 2006 have been archived here. - Runa27 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 An old Staying 2 Just a Thought 3 Kira and Lacus?! 4 Clearly, I Need To Watch This Page 5 Statement removed from "Etymology" on Sept.1, 2006 - my reasoning 6 September 1 Talk page archival 7 It was NOT a "random link": Response to Ken Arromdee's Sept. 8, 2006 edit 8 Categorization 9 Somewhat obscure point under "Criticism" 10 This should be merged! 11 Possible source 12 Odd 13 The picture should go 14 Common 15 "Possible" Mary-Sue? 16 "Examples" section 17 suggestion for Canon-Sue 18 Cause Of A Mary Sue 19 Garbage 20 Section removed, April 2, 2007 20.1 Things we need to keep in mind

[edit] An old Staying

Just something that SHOULD be added, if I could source the darned thing. A Mary Sue is "Smart as Spock, Something as Kirk, Something as Bones, and sleeps with all three." But I can't remember the darn form, or the source. Page had red-on-black text...Checking the links.

Sexy as Kirk? 139.153.13.32 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can add it, provided you give its source in a reference or footnote. Breed Zona 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Thought

But in a "Sprite" comic just an example let's say the infamous author sprite would be known as a Mary Sue? And I mean a character that makes fun of the characters breaks the fourth wall too many times to count, and ultimatly has "teh uber POWAS!!!" should be called a Mary Sue? A guy!

I would sincerely advise against using "real" examples from anywhere except parodies, because otherwise, you're going to open a whole can of worms that we'd already slammed shut a few months back - right before we cut the list of so-called Mary Sues, many of whom were only superheros or magical girls, and some of whom were VERY debatable, and almost all of which somebody took offense to them being on the list. Best to stick with the original Paula Smith character (who was a parody to begin with), and descriptions of common perceived "Sue"/"Stu" subtypes. Believe me, you could rip the descriptions from any two of a thousand different "New girl comes into town and wows the rest of the cast" stories on fanfiction.net alone and change the names and mix them together and chances are, no one would notice. But naming names is VERY POVish, especially if there's no notable sources describing them as a Mary Sue. Beware of name-dropping in a case like this, believe me. - Runa27, not signed in because she's not at home. 67.8.207.23 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kira and Lacus?!

Question What tells me that this Sue/Stu accusation against Lacus Clyne and Kira Yamato isn't just a fan revenge against Fukuda and Morosawa after the end of the SEED: Destiny series? Beause, HONESTLY. I myself didn't like the ending a lot - but the bitteress, hatred and idiocy that appeared after that... they still baffle me. Lunamaria 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it; eighty-sixed it. ;) None of the examples featured a direct usage of the concept in popular culture so much as behind-the-scenes fansversations. You CANNOT say such and such character "is" or "is not" a Mary Sue, because it's a subjective term. Thus, any "example" of a "Mary Sue" is inherently POV, just as it would be to go to an article on say, idiocy, and place characters as "examples" of idiots. Unless they were intended to parody the concept (Jonathon in the Buffy episode "Superstar" comes to mind, for example, in regards to Mary Sues), it really shouldn't be here.

I'm planning on placing notable parodies of the concept (such as "Superstar") from popular media in their own section eventually; for now, I've retitled it to reflect only mentions of the term/concept of Mary Sue seen in "the media", which of course refers to reporters and reviewers and newscasters and the like - professional ones. As it was, that kind of thing was mixed in with the POVish list of characters that were alleged "examples" of Mary Sues. Now, when a reasonably notable reviewer uses the term in print - that's different. It's not anonymous or non-notable fans (I keep getting a mental image of The Blob wearing an anime shirt and groaning "Suuuuue.... SUUUUUE.", here) slinging mud using the term, it's somewhat notable people using the term (in print, so far), and that's quite different. Fanpinions need to be left out; otherwise, the article on the concept will be useless. Runa27 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly, I Need To Watch This Page

Alright people, caaaaalm down. I'll get around to it this weekend. I'll be putting this page on watch as soon as I get home and am signed in.

I've also put in a picture request because, frankly, I think the article would be better with one and it would be VERY easy to create a picture that looks sufficiently over-the-top to capture the essence of the (stereotypical) Mary Sue. Maybe a cartoonish one, or, maybe, an actually vaguely pretty one. - Runa27, not signed in because she's not at home.

[edit] Statement removed from "Etymology" on Sept.1, 2006 - my reasoning

I just removed the following statement from the bottom of the "Etymology" section:

A well known alleged case of this context of Mary Sue is in the 2004-2005 sequel to Gundam Seed, Gundam Seed Destiny. This placed Kira Yamato and Lacus Clyne to director Mitsuo Fukuda and his wife, the show's series supervisor, Chiaki Morosawa. Supporting this threom is the fact that both chracters begain showing signs of being overpowered and, especialy in the case of Kira, untouchable in battle.

I removed it for the following reasons:

1.) It is quite badly worded, to the point where I can't even be entirely sure how it's trying to make whatever points it has. I mean "This placed [characters] to director..."? That makes no grammatical sense. Placed where? There's also a number of misspellings here - "especialy" instead of "especially"; "threom" instead of "theorem" (and it is NOT a theorem, it's a theory; please do not confuse the two); and "chracters" instead of "characters." This leads me to believe that this edit was made quickly and without much thought or work put into its writing, which isn't a standard we should really hold to, especially not in unsourced, highly POV statements - it makes Wikipedia look really bad.

2.) It has VERY little to do with the actual etymology of the term; while I understand the desire to use an example to make sure the reader "gets the jist of it", to use a SPECIFIC character or set of characters as an "example" (even if you use weasel words like "alleged") when this view has yet to be advanced or referenced by a notable source that you can and have cited for it, and which has referred to the character as an actual "Mary Sue" or Gary/Marty/Larry Stu(e)/Sam/whatever, is NOT a good idea. It is bound to create a POV-riddled edit war; I have seen it happen time and time again. You KNOW it will. Please don't do it.

3.) This kind of thing would probably be better kept to another section, say, "Characters in original fiction who have been called a Mary Sue in the mainstream media"... but, other than Rose Tyler from Doctor Who, I do not know of any remotely notable case of a character being called an actual "Mary Sue" in the mainstream media (and I really stress "mainstream media" here, because Joe Fanboy or Jane Fangirl is NOT a notable enough source to quote or advance the POV of here on Wikipedia and you know that. See: WP:Notability and WP:Fancruft).

4.) It is completely uncited and unsourced... and a POV view (albeit more weasel-ly worded this time around) should never go uncited or unsourced, especially if it's supposedly so "well known" (which would, presumably, provide easy access to sources; another thing that makes me think this edit was made on a whim and not out of a genuine desire to improve the article).

I would appreciate it if people would make an attempt to keep this article free of POV or rush-job entries such as the above, and focus on sourcing everything and finding more notable references to the term/concept in mainstream/notable media. I would like to bring this article to GA status some day, and letting either spam or POV to slip in continously and go unchecked while more important bits go not properly cited or sourced, will prevent this article from being, well, good. Or useful. Runa27 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 1 Talk page archival

I have have archived discussions from before this past August (see top of this Talk page), because almost ALL of the discussions had been completely dead for weeks or months on end, and it was getting really unweildly, wading through all of them (that, and you have to realize, people with certain browsers or browser plug-ins will have trouble with longer pages being cut off unexpectedly when they go to try and edit them, as well). :) They can still be read on this page, however. - Runa27 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It was NOT a "random link": Response to Ken Arromdee's Sept. 8, 2006 edit

This is in response to Ken Arromdee's most recent edit to the Mary Sue page, the edit summary for which is the following:

Tweaks. And contrary to popular belief, you're not supposed to link to random terms; it's very unlikely that enough people reading this would want to know more about eyes, that we need an eye link

Bolding mine, because I plan to refute the idea that "we [don't] need an eye link" or that "it's very unlikely that enough people... would want to know more about eyes" (by the way, it is NOT an "eye link", and it's NOT about the general topic of "eyes", it's an EYE COLOR link, about ONLY eye colors, which were referenced in the criticism section as part of a typical and common anti-Mary Sue concept argument, and which I'll get to in a minute. Please be accurate if you're going to criticize one of my edits, OK?). The following is largely the same as what I posted to his Talk page, but for full clarity and full disclosure, I chose to post it here as well (he seems largely adverse thus far to discussing his changes on the Talk page, ranging from removing the "photo request" tag without replacing it with the appropriate-if-existing "illustration request" or "picture request" tag, to his more common edits to the main article itself; thus, my reasoning behind posting it in both places).

The link to the eye color article was done as a citation for the fact that there are odd eye colors that though rare, do exist in humans; in other words, pointing out that violet and especially amber eyes (the latter of which I know of no famous celebrities that have that trait, unlike Elizabeth Taylor having violet ones) exist, as well as explanations for the colors (which are on that page, but not here on Mary Sue because it's a side-issue, not a main issue, to do with the "unrealistic" aspect of the concept of "Mary Sue"). It was NOT a "random link", it was more information that was related to the topic in that section/sentence of "unusual physical traits that are often treated as the mark of a Mary Sue, but which do occur in real life sometimes." (to paraphrase). I'm reinserting the link, because darnit, do you know how long it took to figure out where it was that I could prove there were "honey-colored" (amber) eyes (over an hour, thanks to "yellow eyes" not having a redirect or even a disambig. Come to think of it, I should fix that...)? That page is the only one on Wikipedia that had that information, that PROVED that the trait of amber eyes - which was being cited as an example of a "rare but real trait that sometimes is used for so-called Mary Sue characters" exists! And I do believe it is worth linking, and more to the point, see NO reason whatsoever why it HAS to be removed. If people don't care about amber or violet eyes, they won't click on the link; if they DO, however (for instance, if, like me, they didn't originally know those traits did exist in humans, or are curious as to how common they really are), they won't have to search for it... which is the whole point of internal links (before you argue, consider this: do we "need" links on Dixie Chicks to the articles on its individual members? Not technically, but it's a convienience for the reader tha wants to know more about the individual band members, so they don't have to search for it and possibly come up with unrelated pages as well. Also, again, "yellow eyes" and similar terms do NOT redirect to the appropriate page!).

And if you don't think the fact that "yellow" or violet eyes of a kind exist in real human beings is relevant to the concept of "Mary Sue", you've not read enough fan fiction; practically every werewolf character that gets labeled a "Sue" has a yellow eyes, and due probably to the influence of anime and manga on American teenagers (who are apparently the producers of the majority of fan fiction today, if you go by the largest archive, FanFiction.net), "weird" hair and eye colors - including violet! - are also common. The fact that these eye colors do exist provides a minor counterargument to the "unrealistic" aspect, and that's exactly why it was mentioned under "Criticism" (along of course with the appropriate countercounterargument pointing out that they're still fairly rare traits).

If you don't think that people will be "interested"... I gotta ask why you CARE. Plenty of people are "interested" in things that many of us could not care less about, such as string theory or spatulas, yet THOSE have pages. I'm not particularly interested at the moment in reading about Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks and whose article is linked from the main page for the band, but I appreciate that some people WILL want more than an "overview" of one area or another of a subject. Just as I don't feel the need to remove links to individual famous people's pages in references to them on other Wikipedia pages (since arguably, there is only going to be one page for JK Rowling and it's NOT going to be hard to find through the Search/Go box), I fail to see the need to remove the link to eye color here, especially since eye color covers the subject referenced in the sentence it was linked from here in more detail. The point isn't whether "a lot of people will likely be interested" or not, it's whether we should think ahead to the undetermined (and thus, just as potentially large as it is small) number of people who will in FACT be "likely interested" in it, and take the really simple step of linking to the appropriate page, so that both camps will be covered.

And if you don't think the fact that "yellow" eyes exist is worth citing... well, I have no answer to that, because that thought process makes no sense at all to me, since I didn't realize at all that they were a real trait in HUMANS until a couple of years ago, after I pointed out that the main character of Big Wolf On Campus had yellow eyes that "didn't look like contacts" to my mother and she said "oh yeah, I actually dated a guy who really had that eyecolor." It's not a common enough trait that everyone realizes it exists, and if they try to verify it, at current, they'd have to go through a minor rigamorale in order to discover it's correct. I'm of the mind that it's better to give them the link and make it easier for them to personally verify for themselves that it's true, than it is to make them go through that much work to find it, because I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia should be as easy to use as possible, and that that would help. Again, if they don't care about the eye colors they won't click the link; but some people will be curious, and I wanted to make it convenient for any readers who were curious enough to want to look it up. Additionally, it becomes an issue of citation, as I pointed out above; the fact that violet eyes exist may be easy to verify due to Elizabeth Taylor having them, but "yellow"/"honey-colored" (amber) eyes are NOT as easy to verify WITHOUT looking at that page.

Therefore, I actually take offense to the suggestion that the link is worth removing. It provides easy verifiability for a claim mentioned in the article, and let alone being, yes, Ken, of potential interest to some besides that. Again: I am reverting that portion of your edit and reinserting the link, because reader convenience and verifiability are to me very important in making Wikipedia as good as it can be, and I think both apply here. Runa27 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Also, I see your actual comment, Ken, as being not very nice at ALL. You seem to be implying that I have no idea what I'm doing and/or am stupid (in being supposedly unable to discern a useful link from a "random" and "unintersting" one) just because I made one edit to include one link that you didn't think was "interesting", regardless of the fact that it helped clarify what the section was talking about and verify claims made in it. There's no need to bite off the heads of other editors for such things, and I would appreciate it if you'd be a little nicer in any future edit summaries. We're all here to improve the article, not denigrate each others' work. :| Runa27 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

SECOND ADDENDUM: Now that I actually look at the article, though, you didn't even remove the link. WTF? No offense, but WHY are you biting my head off over "uninteresting" and "random" links, and then not doing anything about the links you're complaining about? Your edit summary makes it sound like you removed the link, which you did NOT do. If you're going to talk about other factors of the article WITHOUT doing something about them, do it on the TALK PAGE of the article, not in an edit summary. :\ Runa27 05:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

THIRD ADDENDUM: Nevermind, people, he apparently was fixing a typo in the link in the article (which apparently DID read "eye" and not "eye color", despite, of course, my edit summary actually including the RIGHT link. No, I still have no idea how that actually happened, myself...), his edit summary was just kind of hard for me to dechipher; he clarified the issue on our Talk pages. (And of course, I apologized for the mistake and thanked him for the correction and quick response). Runa27 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Some of the categories this article has been put in are a little... odd, to me. I'm going to go over them and discuss what bothers me:

• "Alter egos" - the page for alter ego begins thusly: "An alter ego (Latin, "other I") is another self, a second personality or persona within a person. The term is commonly used in literature analysis and comparison to describe characters who are psychologically identical.". This does not quite seem to fit. I mean, I get that they're talking about self-insertion, but it STILL doesn't sound right. It sounds, frankly, like the person may have been thinking of the concept of the avatar, but then... not every Mary Sue is a reincarnated god, in fact, most probably aren't.
• Stock characters - read stock character and tell me please how this concept fits that description. I don't think it does, except as parody.

Runa27 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat obscure point under "Criticism"

One bullet point under criticism goes:

"Characters may be accused of being a "Mary Sue" simply because the accuser does not like said character(s); being that the term is purely subjective and exclusively pejorative. The usual counterargument to this is that it is a straw man argument. "

This seems more than a little obscure to me. I think the idea is that:

A: "Your main character is a Mary Sue" B: "That is not an objective assessment, you don't like the main character."

Now A never meant nor claimed that his characterisation of the main character was objective and rational. He was expressing and explaining his dislike by calling her a Mary Sue. Therefore B a position that A never held. This is a straw man fallacy; criticing something the opponent has never said. To give another example: if someone is arguing for bigger government and higher taxes, the opponent can use a straw man fallacy by arguing that private property should be allowed to exist as if his opponent had actually taken the position that all private property should be abolished.

It was only when I read this for the third time that I really understood what the text meant to say, and I am still not certain that I am right. I think this point needs to be clarified.

I've rewritten that paragraph and hopefully made its meaning a bit clearer. Good job on spotting that one, but please do remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~), so that we know who's contributing here. Breed Zona 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I completely missed this part of the Talk page originally. As the person who originally added the "straw man" reference, since I've been asked to clarify (and I do want to help improve the article), I shall explain what I meant, since even I occasionally look at it and think it might be a tad confusingly worded.

The basic meaning was simply that the complaint that a character is being called a Mary Sue "just because you don't like the character" can usually be seen as pointless, since the entire point behind the usual modern usage of the term is to express the opinion that the character is not a particularly good character, usually because of poor character development (such as a percieved too few faults, or too many super-amazing abilities, or other traits that annoy that particular reader), or poor plot development (if you don't give the reader a chance to learn about the character or like the character before you show how lucky and amazing and pretty they are, and never really give them a challenge that's difficult or impossible for them to meet - or give seemingly impossible challenges that they solve with irritating and unlikely ease - that can be seen as a plot problem as much as it is a character development problem, and I've often seen that with stories where characters get labeled Mary Sues by a number of different readers). Also, Mary Sue is almost universally seen, nowadays, as a 100% pejorative term (even the handful of people I know who know what the term's original meanings were that don't see it that way only manage to see Mary Sues as harmless wish fulfillment - this would be the Mary Sue Society, as I recall - and therefore, they too do not generally seem to see it as a serious literary effort). In short, saying "You're just calling my character a Sue because you don't like her!" is basically stating the obvious; if they liked the character, they likely wouldn't refer to her (or him) as a Mary Sue, because it's inevitably pejorative. And, like essentially every pejorative term, it is inherently subjective. What is unpleasant to one person might not be to another. One person's Mary Sue is another's awesomely badass character. Look at Eragon, for goodness sakes; I have seen few professionally published and popular stories get more "Mary Sue!" cries than Eragon, but that doesn't stop legions of people from enjoying it, now does it? Further, when someone says "Your character is a Mary Sue," if they aren't just doing it to be mean (some inevitably will, though most people I know wouldn't unless they really did feel the character was a Mary Sue), they're generally doing it either in the same spirit as the standard caustic reviewer (basically, they're criticizing it - something every writer, no matter how good they or even most other people think they are, is going to need to learn to take eventually), or in the spirit of a rather brutally honest editor ("Your character development needs improvement", in other words, more than "you suck" ;) ).

On a side note - and I don't know if perhaps this, reworded somehow and reworked, could be a counter-counter-argument of sorts or not - I think when most people say "You just call her that that because you don't like her!", what they're really expressing is a combination of surprise (after all, THEY probably don't think of their character as a Mary Sue, right?), indignation (they know it's an insult, after all), and just a tad bit of either insecurity (after all, they're usually young that have the blatant Mary Sues out on the net, and it's sort of a blow to the ego usually if someone criticizes writing you thought you did well on), or, possibly, annoyance that that is (as is sometimes the case) the only non-positive criticism they were given. In other words, some people actually MIGHT want to improve, but would want constructive criticism - and for some, simply saying "Your character is a Mary Sue" doesn't really help, since it doesn't state why the commenter feels that way, it just says they feel that way. I haven't actually seen the latter possibility come to fruition very often in conversations which start with something like "You're just calling her a Sue because you don't like her!"- and then, usually only after considerable needling or fun-poking at the author's expense has been had. Again, I think it's often because they're caught by surprise or just aren't really psychologically prepared to be criticized negatively, or both. It's almost always easier to call your critics cruel and petty than it is to be humble and admit that your work is possibly flawed. Human nature, really, especially with the young writers out there, some of whom are only 12 or 13, sometimes even 11, if they're to be believed about their real ages.

Anyway, I hope I haven't confused things further and that helps? Runa27 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This should be merged!

I cast my vote that this page should be merged into Mary Sue (fan fiction). This page has more info, and is at the correct URL. And it would also benifit in having the other info merged into it. TakingUpSpace 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I never knew that there was another Mary Sue article. *blinks* In that case, there definitely should be a merger: we can't have two articles covering the same subject, and this article seems to be the more comprehensive one. I vote for merge too. If nobody wants to do the merge, I volunteer to do it myself. Breed Zona 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mary Sue (fan fiction) article is a remnant from when there were, inexplicably, seperate, redundant articles for Mary Sue (popular culture) (which is now a redirect to this page, since the original Mary Sue (popular culture) article only copied info from this one - including some hideous, inaccurate and POV bits from older versions), and Mary Sue (fanfiction). There is no real seperation of the term Mary Sue from its fan fiction roots (nor does this article try to do so, even though it covers the broader meanings of the term as well), and there's long been a single Mary Sue article that covers all current aspects of the concept, so it doesn't really make sense at all for there to be an article on Mary Sue (fan fiction). Support merge. Runa27 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've turned the Mary Sue (fan fiction) article into a redirect page. I didn't copy any information from that article to this one because it's either already included here, or unnecessary and unproven. If you feel that some info from there would merit inclusion in this article, I left the entire original source code for the now redirect page there, so you can take a look. Breed Zona 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible source

This article (and its cousin, Mary Sue (fan fiction)) seem a bit light on sources. Does anyone have access to the following book?

• (2006) "Chapter 6: Keeping Promises to Queer Children: Making Space (for Mary Sue)", in Karen Hellekson, Kristina Busse, eds.: Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. ISBN 0786426403. 

I don't know what's in it, but considering its subject and the reference in the chapter title, it might be useful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to pick that up next time I get the chance. The usage of the term in print is always nice, and it looks like it has theories on fanfic in general, which would greatly help the fan fiction main and sub articles. :) Runa27 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd

I used the mary sue tests on various fictional characters from famous works of speculative fiction and found that

1- They were all Mary Sues ( if we believe the tests). 2- Many were off the charts Mary Sues

Characters who were found to be Mary Sues included:

Paul Artredies of Dune That guy from the Wheel of Time Eragon ( no suprise here, I think this one really is a Mary Sue).

I was worried at first because my character scored quite highly ( which is odd because I'm not especially fond of the character) but then I found that it was much less of a Mary Sue than Paul Artredies so I figured if it was good enough for Herbert it's good enough for me. Perhaps the traits we associate with Mary Sueism aren't the real problem, but rather the bad writing that comes along with them is the problem? I couldn't find a single fantasy or science fiction protagonist which DIDN'T score as a Mary Sue.

Look harder.--141.225.78.90 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have actually heard quite a few complaints about the MSLTs along those lines, that SF and fantasy feature enough exotic traits that many non-Sueish characters score high anyway. The trick is to compare it to the basic reality of the story, not just say "yes, she has magic powers... yes, she has purple hair". For instance, what if you had a story about werewolves and your character was a werewolf? Then that ability to shapeshift isn't an uncommon one. If the races in your story frequently have weird colors of eye or hair or skin (like in Farscape), those would then be countable as a non-abnormal "found in nature" colors. This site seems to have an interesting response to the very broadness you complain of, and looks to have potential as a good guide for how to "read" the results of a MSLT.

However, you're right - it really comes down to writing skill. A skilled writer can create even an idealized character that isn't unsympathetic and boring. Hell, look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer - you'd think the series would be rife with Sues, but IMO, it's not. Instead, you get complex characters like Buffy or Faith, who are very human despite their plethora of seemingly Sueish (natural gift for fighting with weapons or bare hands; supernaturally strong strength, speed and agility, supernaturally-enhanced immune system, destiny as a "Chosen One", etc.) traits. An even better example is River Tam from Firefly; she has an even greater gift for the fight hard-wired into her by government agents, a natural grace, is a literal genius, a gifted dancer, etc., even an apparent psychic... but the very method that turned her psychic and gave her those fighting skills made her psychotic - schizophrenic, prone to violent outbursts, psychologically scarred, sometimes completely out of touch with reality, etc. And her own abilities and knowledge tend to frighten her somewhat.

I've actually toyed sometimes with creating a MSLT for SF and fantasy characters that would go in-depth as to WHY certain character traits verge on Sueish and how to improve your writing and character development. Never gotten around to it... Runa27 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture should go

I think there's no need for that picture.That fairy is not a stereotypical Mary Sue because a Mary Sue can be a human,undead,troll or any other race.Oh,and a Mary Sue doesn't have to be lady.I think the picture should be deleted.Dimts 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we should make a Harry Potter type sue. Those are one of the most common Mary Sues. The Quidam 21:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Needs moar pictures.--141.225.78.90 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of pictures? I mean, what kind could we have? The Quidam 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a multi-fandom sue? "With sparkling blue eyes that turn gold when she reveals the depths of her pains, this beautiful maiden (who goes by the name of Destiny) is taking Hogwarts by storm with the incredible Jedi powers she channels through her Keyblade, the Angel's Heart-- but unbeknownst to all around her, she is the sixth Animorph, and the alien technology flitting through her blood has made her a target for the Patriots, who are on the verge of sending Metal Gear TOT after her-- piloted by Nagi of Schwartz!"

...or something like that (god what did I just write! D: ). Alanahikarichan 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe somebody could draw a picture for us? Something gorgeous, with pink hair and huge breasts. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man. Thank you guys for making me laugh before I go to class. I'm thinking of coming up with something tonight. We'll see how it turns out. Runa27 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common

I think we should add a section that has a list of fandoms where Mary sues are most seen. Ex: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings. The Quidam 21:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And pray tell-- what fandom doesn't have Mary Sues? The 'Sues in the fandoms you mentioned are only remarkable because of the sheer bulk of them, but in relation to the number of fics, they make up about as much as Sues do in any fandom with prolific and bad writers. Seriously. There's Sues for Sherlock Holmes, for Metal Gear Solid, for Katamari Damacy (and I don't even want to think about how you can Sue a game about roling things into a ball >.>)-- just because HP and LotR are more popular than any of those doesn't make their badfic any more remarkable. Alanahikarichan 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Possible" Mary-Sue?

One of the references given is stated as being a "possible" Mary-Sue. Why? Shouldn't we be certain that a given character either is or isn't a Mary-Sue before putting the fanfiction up as a reference? Otherwise, it unfairly casts a spotlight on the author needlessly. Could someone just explain it to me quickly? Clevomon 19:28 EST, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no "is or isn't". It's not like 1 + 1 does or does not equal 2, where the answer is obvious and singular. It's a subjective term. DELETE any links to "possible Mary Sue" stories, they're somebody trolling around or something, and they're POV. Worthless. Parodies might be acceptable, but few parodies are notable, let alone available online for free, with the exception of the original A Trekkie's Tale story, which is already linked. Runa27 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Examples" section

The "Examples of Mary Sues in fan fiction" section was exceptionally unencylopedic, and presented personal opinion that fails Wikipedia's verifiability, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view policies. Please do not re-add personal essays or opinions about various fan-fiction characters; they belong on fan sites, not Wikipedia. --MCB 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the first one was right! It's not a personal opinion and it's been proved! People don't write about this stuff 24/7 ya know. Not to mention, when it comes to fan fiction just about everything is unencylopedic so don't bite our heads off about it! Anyways, that was a prime example that was given and should have been kept up! The Quidam 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's "not a personal opinion" and you claim it has been proven, cite your sources. Wikipedia's policies about verifiability, sources, and NPOV are not something one can simply ignore. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Please take a look at the policies linked above; I'm confident that after reading them you'll agree that such material does not belong in an article. --MCB 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who submitted the first entry for "Examples of Mary Sues in Fanfiction" section. I took great pains to make the first example neutral. I'm not sure who wrote the others. I'm putting in an appeal for that first example to be kept up, because I thought the story gave a good impression to the reader of what a "stereotypical" Mary Sue is.--64.131.32.78 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that does not meet Wikipedia policy. Your personal opinion of what a stereotypical Mary Sue, regardless of how "neutral" you think it might be, is not encyclopedic; what goes in an article must be verifiable and cited to a reliable source. Has anyone published a critical work in a reputable publication citing that example? Again, please read the policies I linked to above, and I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia articles should not be based on editors' personal opinions. Best, --MCB 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Then if Wikipedia isn't a fansite, why is there an article about Mary Sues? It seems to me that a lot of the article talks about concepts and characteristics that are subjective.

Oh, and what constitutes a "reputable" publication?--64.131.32.78 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation. --MCB 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1.) I'm actually planning on cutting most of the "traits" section. It's well-written, but it's just not encyclopedic.

2.) The article is here because the term is significant in terms of for instance, fan fiction (itself an academic feild of study, believe it or not), or literature, popular culture, language. You'd be surprised how many feilds of study this article could span!

3.) The only reason any "traits" get mentioned at all is indeed because they are common conceits in stories that DO tend to get called "Mary Sues". However, I'm starting to think it should be removed entirely without any sources, just because it's really getting out of hand and right now reads like a "how to not write a Mary Sue" guide (not a bad guide, but still...). It no longer reads like an encyclopedia so much. I will return to it after class and see what I can do. Runa27 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion for Canon-Sue

If an example from Deep Space Nine is appropriate, I submit Captain Lisa Cusak from the sixth season episode "The Sound of Her Voice", the most blatant Canon-Sue in any Trek incarnation, IMO.

It's apparent even in the episode summary on startrek.com: "Proving to be as good a listener as she is a talker, Lisa has a great sense of humor and a refreshingly positive attitude. She advises Sisko on his romantic problems, helps O'Brien cope with his anger over the war, and even gets Bashir to forget about his work and loosen up." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.78.3 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

There is even an overwrought wake for her, which overshadows the reactions to Jadzia's death.

Uh, no examples please. Not unless somebody in the notable media has called her a Sue. Otherwise, it opens the floodgates for a wave of people adding characters they, personally, feel are Sues... which is bad for two reasons: 1.) It counts as original research - your opinion isn't encyclopedically notable until you are! 2.) One person's Sue is another's superhero or magical girl; it's a subjective term, so people are bound to disagree. Also, I'd like to note that so MUCH fiction includes characters that somebody, somewhere on the net thinks is a Sue, that... well, let's just say I want to keep this article under 50kb as much as possible. :P Runa27 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause Of A Mary Sue

After reading a number of pages on Mary Sue, including some Litmus Tests, I wrote that section, because I feel it defines what a Mary Sue IS, not just what she looks like. I didn't remove the Symptoms though. It's cool, right? I call it 'Vitamin Special'. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty cool, and pretty well written, but I don't think it's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, unfortunately. I'm starting to think very few of the traits should even be mentioned, if any. Unless somebody has a notable source defining Mary Sue traits beyond "an absurdly overpowered, overperfect author surrogate"? Runa27 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garbage

I really think this article is non-notable and very poor quality. I will not prod or afd it, because the topic is way out of my realm of knowledge, but please consider improving it by further reducing it, and making the intro paragraph more of a context and notability declaration only. Jerry 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "garbage" really, but most of it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, however well-written it may be. I'll probably be removing most of it soon, possibly all if I can't find sources that back up the claims (not to say that AREN'T common traits that get associated with the term, but we need a source to say that, or else we're not being good Wikipedians, eh?). It's definitely a notable subject and term (it's starting to be used and referenced in the wider media, as you can see from the article) so it does deserve an article, but it has a long way to go before it gets to be a good Wikipedia article. I'm pretty happy with the lead and the etymology, but other than that, I'm not sure. Runa27 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed, April 2, 2007

I removed the following section from the article (formatting changed slightly to show what was removed and to keep it under this subheader):

___Traits commonly associated with the term___

Please note that these are only symptoms of a sort, and as such do not automatically mean that a character is going to be considered a Mary Sue, any more than having a lump automatically means that a person has cancer. However, they are useful to detect which characters may risk being called a "Mary Sue", as they are common to the kind of characters that tend to be seen as Mary Sues. While "Mary Sue" is a subjective term, there are nonetheless many traits commonly associated with the concept of the typical "Mary Sue".

_______The Basics_______

The typical Mary Sue is almost always physically attractive. In fandoms that lack a human representation of beauty (such as Sonic the Hedgehog) beauty is relative, but the writer still manages to make other characters notice her charms. Even in cases where the appearance would probably seem bizarre (such as naturally blue hair on a young woman in many non-anime settings), it is instead seen by other characters as exotic.

Most 'Mary Sues' are generally in a narrow age-range, ranging from the early teens to the early 20s. If age isn't mentioned, they typically at least look that old. Their hair or eye color may be an unusual natural color, sometimes even colors not found in nature in real life, such as teal hair on a human. Eye color may also be depicted as changing according to time, place or emotion (though sometimes such details may be simple continuity errors). The character's name often has a 'special' meaning, and if so, often either she or the author will inform the cast or reader of it. (It should be noted that in some fandoms, such as that surrounding Harry Potter, or in many anime or manga fandoms, strange names with specific meanings are not entirely uncommon even in the original canon work, and may or may not be seen as contributing to how 'Sueish' a character is).

A 'Mary Sue' is often very intelligent, and gets plenty of chances to show her cunning. In action/adventure stories she is a skilled fighter, and yet lacks any disfiguring scars relating to her many battles. Many Mary Sues have skills based on those of the canon characters, and these skills are frequently far in advance of the canon characters's skill, or on the same level despite only training for a short while (if at all).

She may belong to a race which is uncommon or even unknown in the story's setting, or even a hybrid of two or more species. She may have unusual pets or magical possessions, often not to advance the plot but simply to increase her perceived 'specialness' compared to the other characters.

______Background_______

Tragic backgrounds are also common among characters seen as 'Mary Sues', and frequently include family abuse or neglect. These backgrounds are often used as a device to make other characters sympathize with them, as well as a device to gain sympathy from the reader. More importantly though, 'Mary Sue' characters often do not display any of the dysfunctional psychological profiles often associated with such a background.

Furthermore, a Mary Sue's background is often intertwined with that of major canon characters to make it easier to insert her into the group. She may be a long-lost relation, or an old friend, even if there have been no records of such relations in canon (Harry Potter's long-lost twin sister is a particularly good example).

Occasionally 'Mary-Sue' will just 'drop in' from the real world, teleported in by magic, science, or other unexplained methods. This is usually the most blatant form of self-insertion, but it is said that it can still 'work' provided that the author keeps their character realistic. (E.g., they weren't a sword-weilding warrior in real life, so they're not one now that they've been teleported into Middle-Earth). Characters most typically called Mary Sues do not, however, have any such limitations.

______Reaction to her______

To further emphasize the superiority of Mary Sue to the other characters, authors will not only frequently describe her looks, life, and aptitudes in great detail, but also have other characters reflect on her even when they usually wouldn't (e.g., "For some reason he couldn't stop thinking about Mary Sue, her gorgeous, golden locks, her shining blue eyes...").

If the canon character is already in a relationship with another character, one of several things may happen - the other partner may inexplicably not appear in the story, or they may break up, (frequently as a result of the other character suddenly being unpleasant), or one of them may die.

If the author has a strong bias against a canon character, that character may be villified by not liking 'Mary Sue'. This can be done in three ways; the subtle way, where the character is villified by clever description, the not-so-subtle way where canon characters who do like Mary Sue no longer like the canon character who doesn't, and the brick-to-the-head way, where the canon character is extremely unpleasant and thusly now hated by everybody, even though that may make them totally out of character.

_______Effect on story________

'Mary Sue' often directly causes things to happen that the author wishes would occur in canon. They may mock and humiliate characters the author dislikes (although they never become unpopular for doing so), or recognize generally disliked characters (e.g. villains and lackeys) that the author likes as merely misunderstood or troubled.

Alternatively, 'Mary Sue' may help bring together characters the author thinks should be romantically involved with one another, splitting up other canon relationships and sometimes changing sexual orientation to do so. Alternatively they may make canon characters fall for them.

Another effect 'Mary Sue' often has is that despite her young age, she can supply deep wisdom to canon characters. Not only this, but they will listen, and with her help and advice, get over their own obsessions and faults, despite how long this obsession has been going on and despite the personality of the character.

Finally, 'Mary Sue' has a terrible tendency to show up in the story's summary or even the title. This may not be a direct reference by name. It may simply refer to "a new player" or when featuring in the title, something relating to the 'Sue''s abilities or personality. This is however not the same as putting 'OC' in the summary to warn the reader of the inclusion of an original character.

_______Personality________

'Mary Sues' are usually presented as highly moral, sometimes sacrificing their lives or happiness for the sake of other characters, even when this moral stance would be uncommon for the setting of the story. If a Mary Sue has flaws or limitations, they either do not actually hamper her (such as a fear of water, when the story takes place in the desert), are seen as endearing (a fiery disposition), or are just another hardship to bravely overcome with the help of her new canon friends (family abuse, eating disorders, etc).

Another widely accepted symptom of 'Mary Sue'-ness in a character is his or her similarities to his or her author, such as shared hobbies, likes and dislikes, and opinions, and the same nationality or age. Many alleged Mary Sues, however, have more dramatized physical appearances, backgrounds, and hobbies than those of their authors, which characterize them as resembling more the author's dream image rather than the author him or herself.

The reasons all of the above was removed were rational ones, so please try to understand when I give them. I just want to make sure Wikipedia is the best it can be - inclduing this article:

• The entire section was Original Research. Yes, it covered some traits common to characters that get labeled "Mary Sues". But NONE of the information was sourced, and having worked on the section a little myself, I know at least some of it (and I'm positive most of it) was from personal experience - which is original research. I know it's mind-bendingly obvious that some of the traits were obviously associated with "Mary Sue", but we need sources before we claim all this. Keep in mind that in removing the section, I removed several months' worth of my own work, too. I just couldn't leave it in, in good conscience.

• It had become MASSIVE, completely dominating the article, and suffered from two problems: 1.) it kept using "Mary Sue" as if it specifically meant a character with such and such trait, as if it's a species and not a subjective term for a VERY wide range of unsympathetic characters. 2.) it read like a guide for avoiding Sueish traits, as opposed to an objective description of information dealing with the subject of the article. Was it well-written? Hell yes. It pained me to remove such good writing, in fact. Witty on occasion, covering the whole scope of what I would agree is usually what I call I a Mary Sue, why, etc. But it's not an encyclopedia entry, it's a writing guide (the fact that it was well-written is why I copy-pasted it here instead of just deleting it. I'm a sucker for good writing...). (this was posted by Runa27 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Thus...

[edit] Things we need to keep in mind

Three things we need to keep in mind for this article:

1.)Even though it's used most often online and in the realm of fan fiction, that does not mean it isn't a subject of academic study. There ARE sources for most of the truly important things, and we CAN find them. And we SHOULD. If we don't start RELENTLESSLY sourcing this thing soon, it's probably never going to be more than a crappy Start class article over which fannish flame wars and edit wars are waged.

2.) The term Mary Sue does NOT mean Mary Starshine with her hair of gold, eyes of purple and magic horse from Ner'ter'aire and magic powers, what it IS is a term for a character that is unsympathetic because she/he is flat and lacks humanizing characterization. It's completely subjective, it's inevitably pejorative if you're not in the Mary Sue Society, and to be frank, we keep forgetting this. You can list all the "traits" you want, but there are inevitably going to be characters out there that have them and AREN'T seen as Mary Sues in the majority of cases. So in the end, a simple explanation of the concept (a flat, overly-perfect, unsympathetic character who is usually thought to be some sort of wish-fulfillment fantasy on the part of the author) will probably suffice to cover the subject. ESPECIALLY in lieu of sources.

3.)See above. STOP LISTING SPECIFIC CHARACTERS THAT YOU OR UNNAMED "FANS" THINK ARE MARY SUES OR GARY STUS! We STILL have problems with this, and it's ridiculous. Did you even READ the intro, people? "Subjective". It's SUBJECTIVE. And unless you can cite what reasonably notable source (New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) agrees with that opinion of the character, DON'T ADD THEM! The same goes for your feelings on what "is" a Mary Sue trait.

Thank you, Runa27 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Runa27's edit and comments, and expressed some similar views above regarding my edit which removed a similarly unsourced section that was a collection of opinions. I think this can eventually become a good article (and maybe even a Good Article) but it needs to be cut down to an encyclopedic summary of attributable facts as per Wikipedia policy, and not a collection of fannish anecdotes. --MCB 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Runa27 is right. For instance, listing characters that may be Mary Sues violate polices on original research, point of view, verifiability, and citing sources. Doczilla 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)