Man of Steel!

[astridv]

[edit for new readers, 04/30: this post was part of a wider hypertext debate and focuses on but one aspect of it. Please read my previous post for context.]

Once upon a time, there were two guys, Joe and Jerry, who wrote a story about this super awesome dude who jumps as high as the tallest building. And he flies faster than a plane. And he's got strength up the wazoo. And he's using his power for good (because he's awesome like that) so he's fighting crime.

Everybody knows how the story goes: eventually they found a comic book publisher and the story turned out to be this huge success and the start of a giant franchise, triggered an entire genre and made a ton of money.

The story about the guy who is the strongest guy on Earth is at heart the ultimate boy's wish fulfillment fantasy. Pure and unfiltered. I read the first issue once and thought that quality-wise it was pretty clunky. If it was fic, I would've thought 'badfic'. But hey, the target group loved it.

Eventually he got more backstory, more characters to fight and otherwise interact with, and more character. I haven't read a lot of Superman but I think it's safe to say that he's a more rounded character than he was when he started out. The writers had the chance to develop the character over time.

If we are talking Sue, Action Comics #1's Superman would be the definitive one. But I think that would miss the point. He's not a Marty Stu, he's a hero. Heck, he's a Superhero.

Then after a while we got Supergirl, and after Batman there was Batgirl, and a bunch more but I'm not that into superhero comics so I can't list them all. Whodathunk: girls like wish-fulfillment fantasies too. (And the female form of hero is heroine. Not Mary Sue.)

No one has the right to tell girls that, no, they don't need self-insert fantasies, because they're perfect the way they are. So they shouldn't indulge in those. It’s for their own good!

Know what it sounds like in my ears? Don't dream big! Know your place!

Thanks, but that's a world of No from this dreamer.

... This post was brought to you by more than one poster saying that Mary Sue fantasies are sexist and should be opposed because they teach young women that they have to be perfect to be loved. I think that is getting it completely backwards and is super-unhelpful. I think the opposite is the case: these fantasies can be very empowering and dammit, they’re fun and girls have as much a right to them as boys.

yes, yes, I haven't even answered all my comments of the last few days but this post came to me as I was running, so I had to jot it down quickly and now I might as well post it. I hope I'm done with the meta now.

[eta: anonymous comments are screened]

Comments

[less_star]

(And the female form of hero is heroine. Not Mary Sue) Yes, exactly!

[miera_c]

No one has the right to tell girls that, no, they don't need self-insert fantasies,

And isn't it interesting that the most common form of self-insert fantasy story for women is romance novels which are all about... getting a man!

*headdesk*

[cesare]

I realize we have vastly different opinions on this, so I'll try to resist piping up in the future, but I wanted to answer this one. Because I agree that a lot of "Sue" accusations are slung at characters that don't deserve the label. And more, I don't think "Mary Sue" should be a pejorative. I have a lot of affection for the Sue I made up as a young writer, and for Sues in general.

I do want to make this point though. I think what people object to about "Sue" characters isn't that they're powerful, because like you say, heroes and heroines are often powerful.

I think what people criticize is that the special abilities that "Sues" have don't really seem to be there to make them powerful; they're there to make the "Sue" special. That's one of the main differences, imo, between characters that people tend to regard as heroes and characters that people tend to regard as Sues.

I find "Sues" endearing and fascinating, myself, and I've read a lot of stories labeled as Mary Sues, especially in Harry Potter fandom. It's remarkable how many of these characters have incredible abilities, which they usually show off once or twice... only to then settle down and befriend or date the canon characters. So often, the abilities don't empower the "Sue" to have adventures, they just earn her admittance into the story, which then tends to concern itself with her relationships or her taste in clothes and music, not her heroism. I don't think it's surprising that young writers tend to focus on the mundane over the heroic, though. After all, one of the pieces of advice young writers hear most is to "write what you know."

So many writers go through this process as they try to figure out how stories and characters work. I think it's amazing, and I wish there were more contexts to talk about it from a perspective of fascination rather than disdain.

[astridv]

So many writers go through this process as they try to figure out how stories and characters work. I think it's amazing, and I wish there were more contexts to talk about it from a perspective of fascination rather than disdain.

Well, that's basically what the "pro-Sue" folks are saying. I don't see how we disagree here.

But the term 'Mary Sue' itself has become so warped and gendered that I don't think it's even possible to reclaim it at this point. It's certainly a fascinating subject, but the term itself has to die. (We won't ever get rid of it, I know, but I wish we could.)

I think what people criticize is that the special abilities that "Sues" have don't really seem to be there to make them powerful; they're there to make the "Sue" special. That's one of the main differences, imo, between characters that people tend to regard as heroes and characters that people tend to regard as Sues.

Sure. And no one is saying that it's great literature and everyone has to read and wholeheartedly embrace it. It's about giving young writers the space to figure out how stories and characters work, like you say. And that includes getting it wrong, and learning by doing. Without getting bullied by older fans and scared out of writing OFCs at all.

Fandom is all about "your kink is not my kink but that's okay" and "don't like don't read" and Mary Sue can't be the one special exception.

eta: I realize we have vastly different opinions on this, so I'll try to resist piping up in the future,

There's no need for that, I have no problems with people disagreeing with me per se. I just have a No bashing of female characters policy which I reinforce pretty rigorously (which includes calling a female character Mary Sue). Oh, yeah, and I'm a Keller fan and have been a tad burned by fandom so that's an area where I'm really touchy. ;)

[lakrids404]

Women: Know Your Limits!

[originalpuck]

(And the female form of hero is heroine. Not Mary Sue.)

ILU

[seekergeek]

It is my contention that so-called Mary Sues are actually heroic female characters in search of a world to be heroic in. The writers just don't know enough about worldbuilding yet to take that next creative step.

[eggcrack]

these fantasies can be very empowering and dammit, they’re fun and girls have as much a right to them as boys

I agree with this and the rest of the post hardcore.

[zing_och]

I have nothing to add but "Yes, exactly." Thanks for saying this!

[(Anonymous)]

girls have as much a right to them as boys.

No, women don't have a right to keep insisting that women are only complete when approved by men, without facing criticism for it.

This is sexist, period. So, yes Mary Sues are sexist, and this will be pointed out again and again, and rightfully so. This is not missing the point, this is pointing out a sexist concept for what it is.

Heroines, on the other hand, are not necessarily sexist. Heroines are not Sues by design. These two things are not identical.

girls like wish-fulfillment fantasies too. (And the female form of hero is heroine. Not Mary Sue.)

A Sue is not a woman with a ton of abilities, nor a automatically wish-fulfilment character. Neither implies canon warping, which is the core trait of a Sue and has been ever since the term was coined.

That people use the term wrong does not mean the term suddenly has a new meaning. Even when people keep using regime instead of regimen, regimes aren't suddenly regimen. It just means a lot of people are using words/concepts wrong.


By the way:
Can you please stop insisting that awesome female characters are Sues? It's wrong, and you insisting so is insulting pretty much every story with an awesome female character that *gasp* manages to not have a Sue - which is the overwhelming majority of stories about female characters that are awesome.

We can write awesome female characters without godawful writing!
This includes characters that are "big dreams". A lot of female characters of this kind exist, from Superheroines to Buffy, and they manage to do fine without being Sues.

[astridv]

Can you please stop insisting that awesome female characters are Sues? It's wrong, and you insisting so is insulting pretty much every story with an awesome female character that *gasp* manages to not have a Sue - which is the overwhelming majority of stories about female characters that are awesome.

You miss the point, oh anonymous commenter. I'm insisting that awesome female characters aren't Sues. For more context, read my previous post.

No, women don't have a right to keep insisting that women are only complete when approved by men, without facing criticism for it.

My Sue was the leader of her own teen spy organization at one point, and an awesome martial artist in another incarnation. She was perfectly complete without a man, thankyouverymuch.

If you want to dismiss the entire trope because some of it is sexist, you'll have to dismiss, for example, slash because some of it is misogynist. Or, oh, het because some of it is sexist.

I'm really boggled by this trend in fandom to equate romance with sexism. Being in a romantic relationship doesn't equal conforming to gender stereotypes or devalue the woman.

And considering how the majority of non-Sue fic also consists of romance in the form of het or slash shipper fic, with writers often identifying with one of the characters to one degree or other (which is a form of self-insert, only much less obvious), I find it pretty hypocritical to dismiss Mary Sue fic for following the same pattern.

Apart from the fact that those Mary Sue fic that I have read... actually didn't; they were gen.

As a gen reader, btw, I think there's way too much ship/slash fic. But I wouldn't dismiss people's right to read romance. Humans like to read about romance.

I'd write more but I have a barbeque waiting for me and that sounds infinitely more fun than arguing with an anon who answers "girls have as much a right to something as boys" with "No!"

[richardak]

I wanted to respond to this, because I think you've raised some interesting and important points, but my response got kind of long, so I decided to post it as an entry on my own blog. You can find it here: http://wretchedretch.blogspot.com. I hope it's okay that I'm posting a link to my own blog here. I apologize if it's not; in that case, please feel free to delete this whole comment.