Subject: Araeph's long-winded reply, Part III:
Author:
Posted on: 2010-04-14 13:32:00 UTC

There is no substantive harm in writing a "Mary Sue" -- there is no substantive harm in creating a character, original or otherwise, who "warps the world around them", who is "adored by all for no particular reason", who wins the day.

Even if the character perpetuates all the most damaging Harlequin romance novel clichés?

Even if the character insults and degrades a beloved character of yours? (And if you say to me, “It’s only a story,” I will say to you, “Then why are you so upset about us mocking only stories”?)

Even if all the female OCs in a fandom are lily-white, silky-haired, green- or blue-eyed, and anorexic-thin with huge breasts, because the Suethors honestly can’t imagine that their real selves would be attractive to a male hero, so they give themselves imaginary extreme makeovers to win their idol’s heart?

Sue-mocking isn’t about female characters being too powerful, Boosette. It’s about any character being too powerful and too perfect with too few negative consequences. The nature of the medium (fanfiction) means that most Suethors happen to be female, not that the PPC is specifically out to get female Suethors.

But here’s some real harm, if you want it: Mary Sue, in all her super special glory, continues the very wrong idea that superb female achievement can only be won in an exaggerated, fictional scenario.

Who cares, really, if fantastic SuperPunkRockGoddess triumphed over Persephone and won Hades’ heart? There was never any doubt! What does it matter if Riellanaiëlvaniela defeated ten legions of orcs in your fanfic? It doesn’t say a thing, good or bad, about what a real woman, a real person, could actually do or not do! All it says is that someone wanted it to be true, but didn’t really believe it could be, because the scenario itself is not believable in the context of that particular universe. And worse, it implies that an ordinary woman—a woman who gets a man she loves but sweats and smells during training, a woman who is not as physically strong as an orc but wins the fight through sheer determination, a woman who achieved greatness but learned the cost was high, as all great people do—simply could not measure up, so a super-powered one had to do.

Truth is, without authorial interference, a Sue divested of all her special attributes would be just a cardboard cut-out that a realistic woman could crush beneath her feet.


There is substantive harm in bullying and shaming real people for empowering themselves through their writing.

If Mary Sue truly “empowered” these authors, then wouldn’t the authors act more, well empowered? Wouldn’t the authors be mature enough not to be flustered and go into shrieking conniptions when some stranger on the Internet happened to not like their story? Wouldn’t the authors say, “Hey, my heroine can do anything regardless of what all those people think…and so can I”? Wouldn’t they say, “My character is so awesome, she can take any attacks thrown at her from obnoxious reviewers”? Or even, heaven forbid, “Maybe they have a point, and I can write better”?

Let me tell you, a reaction like that from a Suethor would make me very happy. Yet Mary Sue’s presence in a piece of fiction seems to make the author more sensitive to criticism, more entitled to praise, more overprotective of the Mary Sue. Because the Mary Sue is so much the author’s darling, so much the author’s insertion and avatar, that the author has trouble separating her Sue from herself. And that is not the mark of a character who makes her author stronger.


Words have power. Words cause harm. Words hurt, and the wounds they leave are deeper and longer-lasting than many physical wounds.

We know that words have power. That’s why we don’t like Mary Sue messing with the words of stories that we love.

I nearly stopped writing entirely, as a teen, after having my work and my OC called "Mary Sue". I have friends who did stop writing because of it.

Do you know how many of us PPCers have written Mary Sues in the past? Almost all of us. And the only reasons we stopped creating them were: we grew out of it, or someone actually had the honesty to call us on it. (Option B being the more frequent occurrence.)

You know, when I was looking through some of my younger writings, I had several of my cherished OCs called “Mary Sue.” By me. But also indirectly by my dad, who years ago tried to hammer into my skull the fact that my “kickass” femmes weren’t really so kickass if I had to write all the male characters and antagonists as lumbering, bumbling idiots in order to make my Sues seem that superior. (If there’s one thing a Mary Sue can’t stand, it’s a real, true, honest-to-goodness challenge at which there’s a chance she’ll get bested.) Back then, I didn’t understand what he meant. I wish I had.

I’m so glad that I found the PPC and realized that I was creating Mary Sues before I shipped off the unfortunate darlings to try and get a wider audience! It hurt, realizing how much work my fantasy characters needed, but it would have hurt a lot worse if I had written Suefic well into my twenties, then gotten a scathing rejection letter from a real editor as opposed to an anonymous online snarker.

My point being, I am sure that calling a character a Mary Sue—when it ís one—has caused fanfic authors pain in fandom. But I think it helped avoid pain and disappointment in many cases, too.


Before anyone says: "Oh, they/you should just have sucked it up and grown a thicker skin! Learn to accept criticism!"

Actually, what I was going to say was, “If you don’t think there is actually anything wrong with creating a Mary Sue, why are you so upset when people call it one?”

Think.

You are blaming the victims of bullying for their bullies' behavior.

I am thinking…I am thinking back on my school days and the bullies I have seen and dealt with.

I don’t think there has ever been an occasion where a bullying “victim” chose to go to school with hair a mass of snarls, a shirt fished out of the garbage, bubble wrap shoes, and pink glitter on her nose, and yelled out to the schoolyard for all to hear, “WHAT DO U THINK?! PLS REVUE MY APEARENCE!!!”

And that is exactly what Suefic writers, with their needless plot contortions to shoehorn the Sue in, the carbon-copy characterization of “rebellious princess” or “pure flower”, their blatant refusal to let their self-inserts fail at anything, their zealous worship of the supermodel physique, and of course their endless demands for reviews, have done.


That is Not. Okay. Ever.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, this is the baggage the term "Mary Sue" comes with. This is the context. This is the culture and the environment and the experience of many, and it cannot be divorced from the term itself.

When someone says, "your semantic choices are hurting me" the decent human being response is to access how you can stop hurting people with your semantic choices, not to throw up your hands and go:

"BUT I DON'T WANNA! I LIKE MY HURTFUL WORDS!! YOU'RE JUST BEING OVERSENSITIVE!!!"

So, it’s not a decent response to call a Mary Sue (who is a fictional character) a Mary Sue, but it is decent and humane to use loaded words like “bullying”, “misogyny”, and “denigration of female awesomeness” on real people whose only crime is mocking flat fanfiction characters?

*tips her hat cordially*

Thank you, Boosette, for being a sterling example of not using cruel semantic choices on real people! You have truly shown me how not to insult the misfit geeks of fandom.

Happy ’Sueing,
~Araeph

Reply Return to messages