It's hilarious really, and also kind of a perfect example of how this Newspeak shit works. And it's not a coincidence that it almost perfectly overlaps with other concepts like "hate speech" (a wildly broad term which means literally nothing but a word that makes someone uncomfortable) or "problematic" (which also just means something that makes a person sad) and they ALL have the same goal. Erase old words, replace them with newer, broader, ever-evolving terms that mean nothing, until it becomes impossible to criticize anything.
It's evolved into a buzzword good for nothing more than bludgeoning people and works who don't share your politics. Which is why I advocate going back to the standard it had when it first entered use outside the Trek fandom. As opposed to the absurd notion that all definitions of Mary Sue are all equally valid?
Are you saying that "Mary Sue" means the same thing as "hate speech"? Kind of like "packing tape" means the same thing as "tire pressure gauge"? What are you saying here?
Except Newspeak is more fiction, and not so useful for describing reality. At least that's what my buddy the Mentat is telling me.
You're deliberately being dishonest now. That's a shame. There's no political agenda behind accusing characters like Wesley Crusher, James Bond, or Superman of being a Mary Sue. You know that. It's clear now that you've taken a political stance on this topic. Because of this I don't believe you're willing to change your position, regardless of how many holes I, or anyone else, poke into your logic and arguments.
It is when it leads you to trust someone obviously untrustworthy, which nearly gets you killed. As is chaining yourself to the past and passing up opportunities when it should be obvious that you've been abandoned. Rey's piloting skills are indicative of Force sensitivity (they were the only reason Anakin could pod race, for precedent). She didn't realize it was the Force until Kylo probed her mind and straight up told her. But once she knows, she starts employing it along lines she's heard stories about. It's well established unaware force users employ it without training in fine motor tasks, from piloting to combat, so Rey's usage here isn't surprising. And as I've pointed out, Kylo is incompletely trained and lucky to be standing at this point. That's the only time we see her outdo him. Killing Snoke was beside the point; she went to the Surpemacy with the intent of redeeming Kylo...which she completely failed to do. And merely getting thrashed by Snoke means she's not the most powerful person at play. That fails another of your earlier criteria. Dude, Darth Maul used the Force to survive getting bisected. Darth Plagueis created life ex nihilo. Qui-Gonn, Obi-Wan, and Yoda used it to attain immortality. Palpatine strangled Dooku on the opposite side of the galaxy. All of these require far more power than anything Rey's done. She didn't move a mountain; she moved some boulders. Do you remember Palpatine's throwing Senate hover pads like frisbees? And since you've referenced Legends content before, I imagine you're familiar with Starkiller pulling a warship out of the sky. Moving on, subverting the previous movies doesn't imply anything political. It just means he wanted to go in a different, unexpected direction. I'm curious what politics could possibly be linked to Rey.
Those accusations have their origins under the early, post-Trek definition. You know, the one I want to go back to? Nobody has successfully poked any holes in the objective standard. I have no political stance on this topic, except to say that when someone criticizes an actress's bust or rants about a religion as part of their reasoning why a character is a Sue, it's probably because they have a political axe to grind. Whether those characters are actually Sues in a story sense is irrelevant to them.
Aside from the blatantly political nonsense, the biggest problem with Mary Sue appears to be that people want to spend a huge amount of energy articulating why some character might qualify, instead of just articulating a direct criticism of said character. If you have something to say, say it. No one needs to filter their literary criticism through a hoary trope that no two people can agree about.
@X Equestris I genuinely have some quotes I could find and will, but to be honest I have to watch Walking Dead and I can't at the moment but tomorrow I will bring up what I can find/remember. What I will leave with is, to point of the politicking behind Rey, it's literally the same politics behind every Strong Female Character which is to be "subversive" and "representative" of people by forcing a contrived Mary Sue into a story for no reason. And if memory serves, I'm literally certain the writers and producers and even Mark Hamil said this, outright. That they added a female character for no reason other than to just make a Strong Female Character so they gave her powers that were retarded for no reason other than to make her seem more lit.
That isn't a Mary Sue. Giving a woman more power because powerful woman haven't been as common in fiction AND Star Wars isn't the sin you make it out to be. It is just a choice, and one that does nothing bad to the story. AND, Rey is not a literary character. She exists in something closer to the literal real world where we can clearly see her interactions with other characters rather than have them told to us.
The one you want to go back to? The definition you subscribe to excludes—without debate—all of those characters from being a Sue! It excludes all popular fiction characters from being a Sue, as well as the original Mary Sue. Except for the fact that there is no objective standard. There never was an objective standard. And there never will be an objective standard. Outside of all that, your objective standard is sitting pretty. Sure you don't...
Yes, it excludes them. But not without debate. Now, my point is that those accusations came against the backdrop of that definition, often made by people with a loose familiarity with the character in question. Superman in general isn't a Sue--he loses on occasion (Doomsday being the most prominent example) he has weaknesses (Kryptonite, magic, red sunlight), he has limitations (his morals), etc.--but someone on the outside looking in might not know about this and still make the accusation. It doesn't exclude all popular fiction characters, but it is exceedingly unlikely one qualifies. Considering the term has always been a pejorative, I don't think that's unusual or a bad thing. Point of Order: Mary Sue herself wasn't the first of this sort of character. She was commentary on a fandom trend. Primarily, author inserts showing up canon characters. She has very little to do with the concept named after her after it migrated out of the Trek fanbase. So again, it's not surprising she doesn't fit. When I say objective, I'm talking about the criteria. You can look at a text and see whether there are setbacks or losses, whether there are traits that hinder the character's pursuit of their goals, whether the character is portrayed as always being right, etc. Nobody has articulated a good reason not to go by such a standard. I'm all ears if anyone has one, though.
This is a tricky term, since there are so many competing definitions and it can be easily applied to a character that someone doesn't like, since the criteria isn't always agreed on. It's also sometimes applied unevenly based on gender, which is concerning. Iconic Hero is a better term for characters like James Bond and Nancy Drew, since it captures the fact that the characters are unchanging and idealized. Having an idealized character in and of itself is not a sin. The writer should just understand that they are employing that tool, and bringing with it all of then disadvantages that come with perfection.
Superman, like Rey, Ms. and Captain Marvels, anime ninjas, etc are physical characters that earn our interest for reasons that have nothing to do with what we read about them. Superman, regardless of how poorly the story or dialogue is scripted; flies, punches and lifts choo-choos. Our interest in this kind of visual display will always offset any sort of disbelief we have in the literary side. But Mary Sue comes from a world of all words, and it just isn't excusable to have flimsy plotting and dialogue when all you have are words. I'm currently re-reading a manga called Blame! It has no description and very little dialogue. There is so little sense of what anyone thinks of each other that you couldn't even begin accusing any character of being a Sue. The story is visual, and all films, comics, etc are also incredibly visual as well, making other considerations not nearly as important to the impact on the audience.
It's often debatable whether those setbacks are significant, thus it will require a subjective judgment. Same answer. Same answer. As a matter of fact, I have. And you're most definitely not all ears; you're fixed to your agenda. You can't point to a single example of a Mary Sue in popular fiction that adheres to your standard. The original Mary Sue doesn't fit your standard. And I'm not convinced you can point to a single fanfic example that meets your standard. You're hoping to remove a word that occasionally gets tossed around by people who you oppose politically. I'm 100% certain this conversation can't possibly go anywhere interesting, so I'm done with it.
Interesting points about how those characters are very visual. I think there is more going on here though. Characters like James Bond and Conan the Barbarian, who have their origins in the written word, share many common attributes to Superman. They have the same pulp appeal that is based in action and wish fulfillment. This is conveyed in many different mediums.
Significance really doesn't enter into it. Does the character straight up fail to get their goal, or get it but end up in even more trouble? That's a very straightforward yes/no question. I think it's pretty clear when a character trait causes that character problems. Again, it's pretty clear when a character makes a bad decision. Your reasons so far seem to amount to "but then there won't be as many Sues". As if that's a compelling reason. Define popular fiction. Good sales? Well known? Or merely "commercial"? If it's the latter, I'd point you to the protagonist of Victoria as the closest I can recall, but I can't be certain because it was so disgusting I couldn't wade through the entire riffing of the book. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing. As Fallow said: Why on Earth would we want popular fiction to be infested with characters that suck the tension out of it? Turning to fanfic, I'd point you to some of the fics critiqued by The Library of the Damned. Some absolute abominations in there. On the contrary, I'm hoping to save the word by returning it to a more useful point in its usage. Willy nilly use is already making people roll their eyes and dismiss the concept of Sues entirely. I've seen it on various writing forums, groups, etc.
Not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not, but everything I've seen about this term is that it describes something rather obnoxiously negative, and you really have to have very little faith in publishing if you think you're likely to encounter something as egregious as Mary Sue. I think people find the concept captivating, so they keep trying to water it down into something useful for critique. I'm just not sure it is actually useful because it isn't a single sin but a cluster of them that only an author with zero self awareness could assemble.
No, I was agreeing with you there, then moving on to the rest of B2P's points. I don't think it's very useful in terms of critiquing a finished, published product (and not likely to show up there anyway), but it does have some uses in advising new writers of things to be wary of.
You should consider putting the Strong Female Character with a ™ because a lot of the strong female characters I've seen of late just seem to be modeled on successful male characters. Rey combines elements of both the Skywalkers in their journey into being a Jedi but Luke visibly struggles while Anakin has a time skip of around 10 years between his first and second films to polish his Jedi combat skills. Rey has neither and she's boring as a result to me. A good example of feminine strength to me is Chloe Decker from the Lucifer TV series. She may not be the strongest person in the series (especially since she is unknowingly solving crimes with the devil himself) but she is shown standing strong even when inside she's terrified. The season 1 finale is a prime example of her doing so out of a sense of her duty and her love for her daughter combined.
