I think it's largely that the Jedi failed to follow their own teachings. The Jedi are intended more of a (western idea of a) Buddist analogue. Which is less about not showing emotions as it is rather about not attaching oneself so closely to someone that you're unable to let them go. Anakin's motivation for joining the dark side was to save the family he had left because mystic visions (a trope I'm not a fan of) that they would die. Being encouraged/allowed to openly protect them wouldn't change it. As for the jedi doing unethical things, leaving Anakin's mother is just one of a long list. Admittedly the bulk of the list is condoning the use of the creation of life for the explicit purpose of war. Lucas was not the best at thinking through his story, both his best and worst parts ironically.
"Larger-than-life" isn't a necessary characteristic of a Mary Sue. At least not with the definition we're working with. Which is why Wesley Crusher of Star Trek can be considered a clear Mary Sue, even though few would likely describe Wesley as larger-than-life. Mary Sues aren't limited to action-adventure fiction.
I'll agree this is at least a piece of it. In reaction to the "give your characters flaws" advice for avoiding a Sue, some people started tacking on things like clumsiness or "too nice". But these traits never cause trouble, so they might as well not even be there. The Sue remains unchallenged. Some Sues have very obvious flaws from an objective standpoint, but the narrative persistently avoids recognizing them as such. I can recall more than one fanfic protagonist who was a genocidal, autocratic monarch and this was portrayed as a good thing.
I don't think Yumiko is a Mary Sue really. She definitely has a risk fetish. We don't know enough about her to determine whether or not she is good at gambling just by luck/innate talent/otherwise. And people generally hate her until they love her, and they usually love her for good reason. I don't think that they accommodate her really. The second season seems to be going a bit more into her background, but it is sort of crap so I will finish it when I run out of better things to watch. ETA: It seems there are a lot of varying opinions on what a Mary Sue is. I personally always thought a MS was someone who was without flaw and universally adored, with things just falling into place for them by the grace of the gods.
I’m not surprised you aren’t liking the second season. It’s such a well contained story. Like Legend of Korra and One Punch Man. I think one season could have been enough for the show—just let it be perfect.
One Punch Man season 2 comes out this spring! I cannot say I am unhappy about this. I would like more airbender stuff too. I really loved it all. But a different story in the same universe.
At least for my own definition of Mary Sue, I would argue a character can have little or no flaws (though it's difficult to think of examples of flawless characters) and still not present themselves as a Mary Sue. They walk that tightrope by constantly being nearly defeated by external conflicts, as opposed to battling their internal ones. Several well-known superheroes are evidence of this imo.
My definition of Mary Sue I largely borrow from Overly Sarcastic Productions. In short: if a character's charm/skills/strength/plot armor make the story lose drama/engagement/suspension of disbelief, then the character is a Mary Sue. Since there are many characteristics that can make a character Sue-like, but depending on the character's role and presentation those traits aren't necessarily bad (and in the case of antagonists often good), I think it's a good rule of thumb. Using this definition of a Sue, I can't say it would ever be good to have one in your story.
My definition of a Mary Sue has always been someone who is too perfect, too loved, no flaws, no enemies, no problems, fixes/solves every problem others are experiencing, etc. In my opinion a well written Mary Sue can exist, in a comedy sketch such as Monty Python or in an over-the-top comedy story, but not in regular story telling.
Alita isn't a Mary Sue, to be frank...she has defined flaws and insecurities, the latter of which leads to the overarching romance plot of both the anime Battle Angel and the movie of the same name. James Bond isn't a Gary Stu either, because he's not perfect, he's frankly not even that bright and kinda depends on his friends and sidekicks like Q to help him, he's just a hitman with a big dick and multiple girlfriends--essentially a less cucked version of Scott Pilgrim. And no one would realistically argue that a Low-T grunge band guitarist who gets tricked by a psychopathic purple coiffed teenaged prostitute into killing her ex-boyfriends in exchange for sex (i.e, Scott Pilgrim) is a Gary Stu. There's also the fact that it's been all but said aloud in the series "James Bond" isn't an individual, but a series of agents who use the same codename; "James Bond" is basically whoever the primary operative is and different ones have different skills and personality traits, for example the 90's James Bond was far more cold and borderline sociopathic, as is the 2000's James Bond who seems to basically have no remorse or empathy, while the 60's James Bond was more humorous and stealthy and more geared towards genuine espionage...though frankly he was just as sociopathic. That really may be their defining recruitment criteria: zero empathy and even less compunction about killing someone in cold blood. A perfect example of a Mary Stu, going back to Scott Pilgrim for a moment, would be the aforementioned purple haired street hustler Ramona Flowers. Allegedly, she's an irresistibly beautiful girl (though Knives was way, way, way better looking but I digress) with superhuman fighting powers who no man could ever say no to and who has a literal army of exes who are LITERALLY killing each other to have sex with her, and she convinces her latest "conquest" to murder them for her because she's bored with all these stupid men lost in their hopeless love for her and wants someone who will shut up and do what she says...and she's the HEROINE of the story. Now, mind, this character has showed up before--in Basic Instinct! But there she was portrayed in a more realistic light, and by that I mean, she was still portrayed as a soulless sociopath (like Ramona) with no redeeming qualities but not in a heroic light. And that's the key: the Mary Sue/Gary Stu is a character who is so grating because they offer nothing to the story, they're always right, they never change, they can do anything they want, hurt anyone they want, KILL anyone they want and seduce anyone they want, anytime they want and if someone questions them that person is by default a villain...despite being in most cases a more developed and less psychopathic character than THEY are. And that is why Alita, or the chick from The 100, aren't Mary Sues. Weakly written? Maybe, but they're not inhuman monsters seducing armies of people into killing each other in the streets just for their amusement...again like Ramona.
For me, a Mary Sue is a character who never encounters problems he or she can't quite easily solve, and who acquires a range of difficult skills with very little effort. There usually isn't much point in reading about them, because they always win, and always win easily. The worst literary Mary Sue I've encountered in recent years is Kvothe, the 'hero' of Patrick Rothfuss's series, The Kingkiller Chronicles. Pity, because the books are otherwise interesting—and they have become bestsellers and have won awards. I got through The Name of the Wind, and because I'd already bought it (bought the two together) I started to read Wise Men's Fear. But I had to quit partway through. Kvothe's accomplishments just became way too silly for me to believe or enjoy. This sums the problems up better than I ever could. https://chimaeraspeaks.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/kvothe-a-mary-sue-case-study/
Pretty much anyone who has nothing likable or remarkable about them, can do no wrong, and gets pretty much everything and everyone thrown at them. Everybody likes them, despite the fact that they have done nothing to earn or deserve anything that they get handed to them on a silver platter. Sprinkle in a watered down Jekyll/Hyde Hunk/Lady, and poof! You're on your way to writing the modern Mary-Sue. Would point out that the 'Chosen One' tropes are Mary-sues, but less so in the fact that they can get kinda hurt and have personalities, and kinda have to work for what they achieve, but will always win in the end. Toss them in a love triangle, or better yet the Bermuda Triangle.
This is a little vague, as words like 'engagement' and 'drama' cover a lot of ground. But despite that, I think it's probably the best definition in this thread.
Hmm, good point about the drama and engagement. By drama I mean there's not much worry about what the outcome will be because you can already predict it based on the Sue's pattern of success (by their own means or not). By engagement I mean the ability to connect with such characters. Of course, it's still a rough definition. What makes a character a Sue, even by the definition I use, is still subjective after all.
If I might propose an alteration to this, it's that their abilities reduce drama, without proper set up. If in act one of the story, a character is attempting to jump very far, then I expect it to be reincorporated later on. This, combined with the knowledge that most narratives have happy endings, or being able to see that the book has more pages, means that I know the character will most likely be okay, which does reduce tension. Admittedly, part of this is due to the genre savviness of the audience.
I call your Star Wars Rey and raise you Star Trek's Michael Burnham. In a fight, Burnham would win. She would learn the Force mid-battle, dark and light, and use it against Rey while philosophizing. After defeating Rey soundly and saving the day, she would become admiral of Star Fleet and destroy three Death Stars with an Ewok bolo. Hmm . . . I found this really funny: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/yub-jub-means-devour-the-weak-an-authoritative-study-of-ewoks-from-the-field-notes-of-davo-atten-boru-and-pladdo-cardigun-exo-naturalists "Contrary to New Republic reportage, Ewoks possess a varied culture, centered on shamanistic cannibalism, carnal brutality, and the divi slatu, or “divine slaughter”—their religio-cultural term for the hostile subjugation and ritualized consumption of rivals."
I think it's possible to have a good story but not a good character at the same time. I don't think anyone should be in favor of creating a Mary Sue character. If you feel like you have one, I think it means you have to work on character development. It means your character is not unique enough. There's no depth to her. She's not coming off the page as a "real" person. A good story deserves good characters. I wrote a short story once where I thought I wanted a paper-thin character. I was using this character more as a prop, and I thought that served a purpose in the story. It was back when I was working on my MFA thesis and my advisor said to make this character a real character. I was reluctant at first, but I did it, thinking it was only for my thesis and my original idea would work better in the publishing world even though that story had been rejected a number of times. But as I made this character fuller -- gave him a name and a back story and more of a role in the story -- the story got so much better. And that's the version I sold to a magazine. I'll let you in on a secret. That same story (but the original version) had been rejected a year earlier by the same magazine that bout the new version. I know you're not supposed to try the same magazine with the same story more than once, but it had become such a better story and I always thought the magazine that eventually bought it was the perfect fit. If I hadn't made the changes and changed my character into a "real" character, I don't think the story would have ever sold. I get the appeal of writing a Mary Sue-type character. Sometimes it feels right. But it's not. It could be holding you and your story back like it was for me. Generic characters do feel like props in the narrative quite often. They're not bringing anything to the table. If you want them at your table, make them bring something good. Put them in charge of bringing the wine. After all, what is a dinner party without the wine?
Didn't read the entire article but I read the Narcissist snippets. Kvothe is a stupid name and the quoted bits make him sound like a right arse. Why would anyone bother reading about him? The one credit to the author is perhaps that the writing/character certain elicits strong reactions! He sounds like an awful person I'd not want to spend a whole book's worth of time with. Speaking of Mary Sue, I think Richard Rahl of the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind counts right? He thinks he is righteous because he kills evil people, but if anyone opposes him then that makes them evil because if you were righteous you'd agree with Richard. Richard is the embodiment of reason, and anything without reason must be killed, for it is evil. See the circular logic? He is also all powerful, of course, with women in skintight red leather at his command. All women are in love with him. Life was not worth living without Richard, a belief that is upheld not only by Richard's love interest but by basically everyone. He saves everyone.
One of my biggest gripes with the trope is that, a lot of the time, they don't have any concrete goals. They succeed, they win the hearts of those around them, they're fawned over--but for what? They don't have an agenda, they don't want anything--or if they do, it's something abstract like "they want to do the right thing". Human beings are complicated; they have desires and wishes and fears and secret, private prejudices. They have an entire history, every one of them, of successes and failures and the consequences of each--how those consequences have embedded themselves in their psyche. Mary Sue's don't evoke that kind of complexity, or I haven't seen that degree from them. Part of the 'journey' is the struggle, the overcoming. But to a Sue, there is no overcoming--they're already a Goddess, in the story to be worshiped. A Sue isn't a character--she's an embodiment of wishes longing to be realized. And it uncomfortably reminds me that that's why I'm reading in the first place.
I think it's also important to point out that an "author insert" character isn't necessarily a Mary Sue. I hate to sound like (more of) an asshole, but I put a self-insert character in a short story I'm working with, but he's not like John Shaft in space...the whole point of the character is he's a kinda skeezy, horny asshole "science-priest" trying desperately to hide his obvious boner for the MC (a genetically engineered sex slave he created for his corporate aristocrat boss) and half the time she's throwing side-eyes at him and wondering why this douche is grinning incel-ly at her from across the room and panting so hard it's fogging up the windows. So me, but in space. The point is a self-insertion character isn't good or bad it's just a character. When it progresses to the Mary Sue is when said character becomes Wesley Crusher and he's the smartest cat on the block and saves the galaxy twice every morning just getting out of bed and whenever he walks in a room women's panties hit the ground so fast they need warp drives. That's a Gary Stu, or Mary Sue or what have you.
What makes Mary Sue a tricky concept to work with, is that certain aspects of the Mary Sue trope can be real enough. We all know people whom everybody seems to like. We all know people who have a lot of talent that seems to be inborn. (I knew a guy who could pick up any musical instrument, even weird ones he wasn't familiar with, and be playing them quite capably after only a few minutes of experimentation. Aaargh.) We all know people who seem incredibly lucky. So including somebody who has one or two of these attributes doesn't necessarily make them a Mary Sue. It's hard, sometimes, to draw the line. However, for me, it's when those characters' attributes become unbelievable. Too many of them. Their path through the story becomes way too easy. You KNOW right from the outset that they are going to win the lot, without mussing their hairdo. Then I think uh-oh.
I wish. You're right of course, but people literally worship him. In one book he made a long speech and converted an entire village where they one by one came to lay down a stone at his feet as their mark of changed faith and allegiance to Richard Rahl. Baaaah.
