Everybody but me seems to know what a "Mary Sue" is.
It seems to be a type of story rather than a character.
Would somebody let me in on the secret?
Everybody but me seems to know what a "Mary Sue" is.
It seems to be a type of story rather than a character.
Would somebody let me in on the secret?
It's a type of character, not a type of story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
A Mary Sue is a type of fictional character, usually a young woman, who is portrayed as unrealistically free of weaknesses.[1] Originating in fan fiction, a Mary Sue is often an author's idealized self-insertion. Mary Sue stories are often written by adolescent authors.[2]
The term Mary Sue was coined by Paula Smith, as a character's name in the 1973 parody short story "A Trekkie's Tale", which satirized idealized female characters widespread in Star Trek fan fiction. A male character with similar traits may be labeled a Gary Stu or Marty Stu.
It seems like every action TV show has a female computer geek who is unreasonably gifted at hacking everything. The internet would be destroyed if real people could do that and everything connected to it.
"Bull" had two of them. But the various NCIS incarnations all had guys as the primary hackers. (Although Abby, in the original, more than made up for not being totally a hacker.)
Everybody but me seems to know what a "Mary Sue" is.
It is a well known writing trope that started in Fan Fic, but has often branched into other genres. In short, if the main character is an almost perfect variant of the author, and does things that the writer only wishes they could do.
Being a crew woman that romances Jim Kirk or Spock was among the first, but there are many others that follow the trope.
James Bond, Jack Ryan, and Conrad Stargard being well known variants. In each case, the created character is often only a thinly disguised perfect version of their creator.
James Bond, Jack Ryan, and Conrad Stargard being well known variants.
Which points out both that 'Mary Sue' is a broad term and that one can have very successful stories starring a 'Mary Sue' (or 'Gary Stu'). I've always read it as unrealistically capable and without much in the way of weaknesses, succeeding at everything on the first try, a polymath, etc.
It's a very wide term and it's sometimes (often?) used to put down characters someone simply doesn't like, rather than characters that really fit the term. 'Rey' in the third Star Wars trilogy fits that - is she a Mary Sue? Or does it make sense that she's highly gifted because it's explicitly a series where people can be born to do great things?
Luke took a lot of criticism for being a 'Gary Stu' back in the day, too, as did Anakin. Sometimes it's just a subtlety - is Anakin being a ridiculously good pilot at an early age a 'Gary Stu' element, or is that part and parcel of his being a person of destiny? Could one be a person of destiny in the Star Wars universe and not have extraordinary abilities?
I think it's both useful as criticism and also greatly overused as an attack.
Which points out both that 'Mary Sue' is a broad term and that one can have very successful stories starring a 'Mary Sue' (or 'Gary Stu').
Lady in Red has multiple Mary Sue's and Gary Stu's. So many that some stopped reading it because it became ridiculous, others really liked it that way.
Lady in Red has multiple Mary Sue's and Gary Stu's. So many that some stopped reading it because it became ridiculous,
I don't mind the Mary Sue characters in that story, and while I do object to the constant detailed repetition of material already well covered that could've been dealt with a simply sentence like "... they explained the circumstances of ..." and leave it at that I can deal with it.
However, what really killed the series for me was when they have a well established character act totally against their established behaviour patterns just so they can build in a new bit of drama. That's kind of like having the pet pony suddenly turn into a hippogryph. The change does not fit at all and it ruins the story to the extent I have to put it down and walk away from it while placing the author on my 'Do not ready' list.
However, what really killed the series for me was when they have a well established character act totally against their established behaviour patterns just so they can build in a new bit of drama.
I remember there was a while where the 'brain tumor' plot device was popular, to explain characters suddenly acting out of character.
Sneaking in to note: the latter is a very frequent phenomenon on SOL, not only by novice authors. Some have made it the primary - one might say only - plot mechanism.
Sneaking in to note: the latter is a very frequent phenomenon on SOL, not only by novice authors. Some have made it the primary - one might say only - plot mechanism.
I think this is especially true in "Do-over" stories.
Lady in Red has multiple Mary Sue's and Gary Stu's. So many that some stopped reading it because it became ridiculous, others really liked it that way.
Just like every woman in stories by Morgan.
Which points out both that 'Mary Sue' is a broad term and that one can have very successful stories starring a 'Mary Sue' (or 'Gary Stu'). I've always read it as unrealistically capable and without much in the way of weaknesses, succeeding at everything on the first try, a polymath, etc.
Like James Bond, Jack Ryan, and Conrad Stargard.
Ian Flemming was a member of the Yeomen Aristocracy, from a well off family with political connections. Went to the best schools, was groomed for leadership government position, and frequently was in trouble with those over him for his outrageous behavior (specifically fast cars and women). Then during WWII worked with the Special Operations Branch with the Royal Navy.
Tom Clancy was a gifted chess player, devout Catholic, and involved in ROTC but was denied a commission in the military due to poor eyesight. He worked for the insurance company his wife's family founded, eventually buying it and becoming wealthy. Long involved in playing and creating wargames, his novels started as an extension of his passion for Naval capabilities and games. He owned a large stone mansion on top of a bluff overlooking the Chesapeake Bay.
Le Frankowski was a successful engineer, and frustrated author when he retired and turned to writing full-time. Proudly Catholic and Polish-American, believing in many aspects of Socialism (yet rejecting Marxism and the "deadwood" that often is connected to Socialism), he was well known to have some rather interesting hobbies, like strip clubs and younger women. Married a Russian "mail order bride" and moved to Russia, and was in the process of building his own castle. Of course, by then the Conrad novels were a success and he quickly went downhill.
In short, got his friend and Publisher to also marry a Russian mail order bride, both of them got screwed over by said brides (both bought property in Russia in the name of the wives due to Russian property restrictions) and lost a bundle when wives dumped them keeping all Russian assets. Fired by publisher, then went to self-publishing as nobody else would pick up his books.
Yes, was really a fan of the last 2 authors, but it is impossible to deny their most famous characters (along with Bond) are simply extensions of their creator. When you know their biographies, it can become almost impossible to separate the character and creator.
Where as, Tom Clancy's other major character (John Clark), and Ian Flemming's other well known book and movie character (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) are not much like their creators at all.
Where as, Tom Clancy's other major character (John Clark), and Ian Flemming's other well known book and movie character (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) are not much like their creators at all.
Somehow, a character like James Bond would fit in perfectly with the obviously flawed overly simplistic characters in the Chitty-Chitty film.
Somehow, a character like James Bond would fit in perfectly with the obviously flawed overly simplistic characters in the Chitty-Chitty film.
The stories were like many others, and the book was based on ones he told his son when he was an infant. He was literally writing them longhand before he died because his wife took his typewriter and wanted him to rest. It was not published until after he died.
The movie is barely based on the book, created by Broccoli as an attempt to cash in on the death of the author, and Mary Poppins. He was able to get 1 of the main cast, and the story was barely that of the book, trying to emulate the Disney movie of a few years before.
Few movies are, as they actively seek out successful books and then strip away everything that made them successful as they insert the same tripe moviemaking motifs that kills thousands of terrible movies. That's why I ALWAYS read the book before ever watching the movies, and for all those books I've never quite 'gotten to yet', the movies simply go unwatched at least that long too.The movie is barely based on the book
My favorite infamous example is 'The Lawnmower Man'. The movie (which is half a fairly decent 'Flowers From Algernon' ripoff and half an absolutely abysmal cyberspace ripoff) contains exactly one line of dialogue from the story. That's pretty much the only connection.
and half an absolutely abysmal cyberspace ripoff
I don't get this, how can it be a ripoff of a generic idea that doesn't particularly belong to anyone?
'Ripoff' might have been the wrong word there. I felt like there was nothing original in either half, but the 'cyperspace' half of the movie didn't really connect to any particular work so much as 'hey, why don't we throw in computers and networks and put the people in them and see what happens?'.
If the description is muddled, so was the movie. Had they stuck with the first half of the movie and seen it through, it could've been decent - not high art, but decent. The second half dragged it into into complete awfulness.
It is a well known writing trope that started in Fan Fic, but has often branched into other genres. In short, if the main character is an almost perfect variant of the author, and does things that the writer only wishes they could do.
It's fairly common on SOL (or any forum with mostly novice authors who've yet to refine their techniques and content), since the stories are typically live as they wished theirs had turned out (i.e. they won the girl who dumped them, they got revenge of the wife for divorced them, and they were successful, rather than a plodding middle manager.
I myself have fallen into that trap often enough, as they tend to sneak up on you.
It's fairly common on SOL (or any forum with mostly novice authors who've yet to refine their techniques and content), since the stories are typically live as they wished theirs had turned out (i.e. they won the girl who dumped them, they got revenge of the wife for divorced them, and they were successful, rather than a plodding middle manager.
I myself have fallen into that trap often enough, as they tend to sneak up on you.
I am told I do it often, as I often have characters join the military.
But the truth is, I spent almost my entire 20's in the military, and have no idea what say "college life" would be like. Plus, it lets me send them off to exotic locations, like Arizona.
The big difference is that in a MS, everything tends to work out almost miraculously for the character. If anything, I think the incest stories in here tend to fall into that trap. What the authors wanted to do, but never did.
There's no problem with writing about what you know, as it provides a unique insight into what most others never experience, and we all know, there's no shortage of Gun-Porn enthusiasts (i.e. stories where the details of which specific guns are used and why take such precedence they read like porn's descriptions of breast sizes).I am told I do it often, as I often have characters join the military.
But I agree about the MS (Micros*it?) element of incest stories. You know if a kid screws his sister, it's only a short time until he screws every other family member, including the family dog, plus most of the sister's best friends. But that just creates openings for new stories.
Hence, my dismissal of most stories now as "pulp works". Just boilerplate where the story really does not matter. Instead of being an excuse to see Kirk and Spock, or Marshall Longarm go on yet another adventure it is just an excuse to have lots of sex with family members.
Dull, boring, the exact same thing as the 50 stories it followed, and the 50 that will follow it.
Its an opportunity for puns.
Sue gets married. Who wants to Mary Sue?
A lawyer involves Mary in a lawsuit, so she is Mary sued.
She is a gardener and gets asked Mary, Mary quite contrary how does your garden grow? Suede. "Suede is a type of leather with a napped finish, commonly used for jackets, shoes, shirts, purses, furniture, and other items. The term comes from the French gants de Suède, which literally means "gloves from Sweden".
To follow a well known Australian author with occasional typographic challenges, he tells us how Mary uSe.
Mary joins the Sioux Indians, she is Mary Sioux.
Wait a while, I am sure there are more. But I don't want to offend any Roman Catholics who venerate Mary and at Christmas time say Mary Christmas. Even to people named Sue.