I've wondered about the Disney princesses

Subject: I've wondered about the Disney princesses
Author: the Irish Samurai
Posted on: 2013-01-24 19:25:00 UTC

I didn't recall finding them that annoying, but wasn't sure if that was just that it was a while ago when I watched those films, and wasn't too bothered back then about having well rounded characters in the stories.

But I finally got around to watching Tangled over Christmas, and really enjoyed it, despite Rapunzel having several speshul characteristics.

I think some it might be (for me at least, I can't speak for anyone else), that the Disney princesses and other overly special canon characters aren't going around upstaging people that they shouldn't. If I remember rightly from Jay and Acacia's missions, a lot of the Sues seemed to think that they had to justify their presence in the Fellowship by being 'better' than one of the canonical members. If someone tried that using Rapunzel's character as the basis for an OC, I'm pretty sure there would be a pair of agents waiting for the right time to do the Duty. But in her own story, I think she works really well as a good character.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Mary Sues in Classic Literature by meow139 on 2013-01-22 23:38:00 UTC Reply

I've recently been trying to freshen up on some nice old classics. A few days ago I picked up "A Little Princess" by Francess Hodgson Burnett. I loved "The Secret Garden" and so far I think that this, too, is a splendid read- splendid aside from the titular character, Miss Sara Crewe. Jadis in a block of ice, that kid is a SUE.

So how about some other opinions on Sara? What about some other Sues that you've come across in the classics?

I'm specifically fascinated by Charles Wallace Murray. Not sure if he's a Stu or not but... C'mon, no kid is that smart.

Disney princesses by hermione of vulcan on 2013-01-23 15:01:00 UTC Reply

While not quite classics, they are based on classic fairy tales. Perfectly beautiful, desirable, all sweetness and light, Tragic Pasts, Twu Wuv, Cute Animal Friends, the whole package. The Sue-ishness might have had its roots in the original fairy tales, but Disney certainly popularized them, and many a little girl has wanted to be a Disney princess. Arguably, this is why some little girls grow up to write characters like that.
Interestingly enough, my friend on DeviantArt, who got mad when her characters were accused of being Sues - I posted on the Board about it - is a Disney princess fan, and when drawing her OCs in Disney style used the princesses as references. When she posted the pictures of them, she asked for critique, which I gave to her. (I'm not sure she's listening, but it hasn't gotten angry and I've offered to beta read any fic she writes, so hopefully I can stop anything before it gets onto the Internet.)

Not a Disney Princess problem. by Ellipsis Flood on 2013-01-23 15:56:00 UTC Reply

The original fairy tales were actually quite grim (*rimshot*), but Disney took them and made them brighter and fancier. I wouldn't call them Sues as much as I'd call them just shallow. There's not much to your average Disney Princess, and in the end you can't tell me that you (as an adult) watched the movie for the plot. We know that Belle gets the beast, Jasmin gets Aladdin and the little mermaid lives happily ever after with her smexy prince (okay, the latter is definitely very sparkly).

I'm not denying that these kinds of characters are really really easy to Sue.

Although I feel like they've been better nowadays. by Lily Winterwood on 2013-01-23 21:14:00 UTC Reply

The more modern princesses like Tiana and Rapunzel and Merida seem more realistic - yes, even Rapunzel, who has so many Sueish traits yet is still an engaging, sympathetic character.
Perhaps it's because she's so blatantly naive and obviously suffers from it?

I've wondered about the Disney princesses by the Irish Samurai on 2013-01-24 19:25:00 UTC Reply

I didn't recall finding them that annoying, but wasn't sure if that was just that it was a while ago when I watched those films, and wasn't too bothered back then about having well rounded characters in the stories.

But I finally got around to watching Tangled over Christmas, and really enjoyed it, despite Rapunzel having several speshul characteristics.

I think some it might be (for me at least, I can't speak for anyone else), that the Disney princesses and other overly special canon characters aren't going around upstaging people that they shouldn't. If I remember rightly from Jay and Acacia's missions, a lot of the Sues seemed to think that they had to justify their presence in the Fellowship by being 'better' than one of the canonical members. If someone tried that using Rapunzel's character as the basis for an OC, I'm pretty sure there would be a pair of agents waiting for the right time to do the Duty. But in her own story, I think she works really well as a good character.
Yes, I agree. by hermione of vulcan on 2013-01-23 22:33:00 UTC Reply

The whole sweetness and purity and light can actually work in a character as long as it is shown to be both a strength and a weakness. Rapunzel is sweet, but also horribly unaccustomed to the world.
All the Disney princesses have the same message "Dreams come true". (Of course they do if you're a Sue![and that rhymed]) But Tiana was interesting in that her dream was not to marry a handsome prince, and she was actually working to try to achieve it.
And Merida doesn't get married, and the story mainly focuses on her relationship with her mother, which is some real conflict and not "my mom is oppressing me! I'm going to wangst!"
So, Disney's improving. Woo-hoo!

Plus Merida is SCOTTISH! by World-Jumper on 2013-01-24 09:21:00 UTC Reply

What more could ya posably want laddie?

(I might be absolutely in love with Irish and Scottish acents and culture. Red-haired celtic lasses may also be my lust object. Expeshaly with green eyes.)

But yes, I too beleve Disney is improving, at least as far as leading female roles are conserned. Disney channel programming on the other hand...

Aye, lad! by hermione of vulcan on 2013-01-24 16:49:00 UTC Reply

Accents from anywhere in the British Isles are cool. Music's good too. I'm in a Scottish fiddling group, and I prefer it to classical. It's a lot more expressive, not to mention the way I've learned how to make the fiddle sound like bagpipes. I've played with a piper before. It's harder than it looks - they have so few notes, you have to keep adjusting to them. But cool, aye.
I don't want to go anywhere near the Disney Channel.
Dude. Your SPaG. by Ellipsis Flood on 2013-01-24 11:56:00 UTC Reply

Again, I say. Please, at least reread your posts, or turn on spell check.

Oh no, I believe you are mistaken. by World-Jumper on 2013-01-24 16:00:00 UTC Reply

While this device has no spell-check, and my spelling is abismal, in this particular instance I was trying (and failing apparently) to do a slight scottish accent. Most times now, I do double check but because I don't know how to spell in the first place, I often miss my own mistakes. I apologise for my lack of spelling, but I am trying.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Ellipsis Flood was right by the Irish Samurai on 2013-01-24 17:31:00 UTC Reply

Your transcription of a Scottish accent looked alright to me, but it also looks like it was supposed to be confined to your first line. There are mistakes in the later lines:

acents = accents
celtic = Celtic
Expeshaly = Especially
beleve = believe
conserned = concerned

It's good that you're aware of the problem (and that's 'abysmal' by the way), and I don't think anyone is expecting perfection, but it would be nice to see improvement.

If your device doesn't have a spell checker, what about an online dictionary? http://dictionary.reference.com/
Or, if you're feeling a little old-school, a physical one - my copy of the OED is still probably the most frequently picked up book that I own.

NOW I'm more than a little annoyed. by World-Jumper on 2013-01-24 21:36:00 UTC Reply

Those were corrections from my device's good-for-nothing dictionary. I knew not to trust the darn thing. Man, this is not a good day for me...

I am trying to correct it, and I have shown improvement. It's just hard correcting several years of doing it wrong, you know? Still, excuses. I am trying, and I believe I have shown improvement, of a sort.

Expeshally? What. by Ellipsis Flood on 2013-01-25 07:42:00 UTC Reply

Whoever is responsible for that needs to be tunaed.
Hey, it happens, you know? by the Irish Samurai on 2013-01-24 22:12:00 UTC Reply

I tend to use Word whenever I'm writing anything, which has a pretty good spellchecker, but every now and then auto-correct will throw something daft in to keep me on my toes. Sometimes I spot it.

And yeah, it's habit-forming. I only realised how much I'd come to rely on Word helping me out when I started posting on here, and all of a sudden my spelling and grammar got a lot worse. There are still words that I have no idea how to spell, and have to look up every time I want to use them (manoeuvre and silhouette immediately spring to mind in that regard).

I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't shown improvement with my previous comment, I apologise for that.

In the same vein by doctorlit on 2013-01-24 03:11:00 UTC Reply

was Giselle in Enchanted. She started out as a very blatant parody/homage to the older animated princesses before being dropped literally and figuratively into the real world. That exposure is what shifted her character from "someday my prince will come" to "I need to assert myself and find someone who cares about me."

I liked Enchanted by hermione of vulcan on 2013-01-24 17:00:00 UTC Reply

It proves the real indicator of non-Sueishness - character development. Have you ever seen a "Girl Falls into Middle-Earth" plot where the girl learns and grows through her exposure to Middle-Earth? (Besides, of course "Don't Panic!") Giselle, however learns from her experiences and changes.
(Now I want to rewatch that movie.)

Hm, there were at least two others... by Lily Winterwood on 2013-01-27 20:55:00 UTC Reply

"Time Will Tell" by Bombur Jo and "The Awkward Adventures of Meghan Whimblesby" by FebruarySong.

Both of those two do have elements of OC/Canon in there (especially the latter, which is Legomance), but there's definite adjustments into Middle-earth customs and character development galore so yes.

StillÂ… by hermione of vulcan on 2013-01-27 22:15:00 UTC Reply

Three goodfics against countless Suefics. My case stands.
Heh, maybe I'm just sensitive about it because my second Suefic was a failed attempt at a goodfic version of that. (Only it was Girl-falls-onto-the-Enterprise, because I've never been enough of a Lotr fan to write fanfiction for it.)

Ariel's a Sue too. by Tawaki on 2013-01-23 18:37:00 UTC Reply

Andersen's grave must have been a steady source of power already by the time of Lofty Skies.

Already said that. (nm) by Ellipsis Flood on 2013-01-23 18:53:00 UTC Reply

Borrowing the thread for a second... by KittyNoodles on 2013-01-23 03:31:00 UTC Reply

...to announce that I've discovered a new Sue color, known as Glite. It is an eyeball-melting, highly unlikely combination of gold and white, and I discovered it in this Warcraft fic.

It is now the official color of OFUA.
Oh gosh. by Lily Winterwood on 2013-01-23 02:54:00 UTC Reply

I never quite got around to finishing A Little Princess. Sara grated on me as a little Lily.

I'm sure Sir Galahad must be some form of Stu in some version of Arthurian legend, given how ~pure~ he's touted to be.

Yeah, Galahad is urple. by Tawaki on 2013-01-23 15:19:00 UTC Reply

The Holy Grail is still a thrilling fantasy overall, though.

Yep, Sara Crewe is a Sue all right. by Calista on 2013-01-23 02:34:00 UTC Reply

Thankfully, the writer is so good that the book is still entertaining despite Sara's Canon Sue status. It's almost like a literary experiment: If the worst thing in the world happened to the best person in the world, what would happen?

Back then, I think it was considered more okay than it is today to write about idealized characters, especially idealized child "role model" types. I don't think it was fooling anybody even then.

Charles Wallace... nah, I don't think he's a Stu. His intelligence is really the one remarkable thing about him--he's not given a bunch of superfluous positive traits for no good reason. Sara, for example, isn't just kindhearted (the only trait she actually needs to have for the story to work); she's also beautiful, intelligent, well-traveled, multilingual, and a great storyteller. That she eventually does crack, just a little, is the saving grace of the story.

Charles Wallace is just unusually smart. He's also small for his age, often bullied, sometimes overconfident, and somewhat autistic--more of a realistic character than Sara. Real-life prodigies and profoundly gifted kids really can be that smart.

But but but- I liked that one! by Silken Dawn on 2013-02-05 20:50:00 UTC Reply

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Sarah Crewe was an "idealized child 'role model'" and that it was more acceptable back then to write about idealized characters. The story was intended, at least partially, to teach little girls about how they should act, whether in good circumstances or bad.
It's difficult for me to admit, but... I guess she did at least have some Sue-like qualities, leaning toward a Purity or Sympathetic Sue (according to TV Tropes).