Talk:Mary Sue/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Somewhat obscure point under "Criticism"

One bullet point under criticism goes:

"Characters may be accused of being a "Mary Sue" simply because the accuser does not like said character(s); being that the term is purely subjective and exclusively pejorative. The usual counterargument to this is that it is a straw man argument. "

This seems more than a little obscure to me. I think the idea is that:

A: "Your main character is a Mary Sue" B: "That is not an objective assessment, you don't like the main character."

Now A never meant nor claimed that his characterisation of the main character was objective and rational. He was expressing and explaining his dislike by calling her a Mary Sue. Therefore B a position that A never held. This is a straw man fallacy; criticing something the opponent has never said. To give another example: if someone is arguing for bigger government and higher taxes, the opponent can use a straw man fallacy by arguing that private property should be allowed to exist as if his opponent had actually taken the position that all private property should be abolished.

It was only when I read this for the third time that I really understood what the text meant to say, and I am still not certain that I am right. I think this point needs to be clarified.

I've rewritten that paragraph and hopefully made its meaning a bit clearer. Good job on spotting that one, but please do remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~), so that we know who's contributing here. Breed Zona 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I completely missed this part of the Talk page originally. As the person who originally added the "straw man" reference, since I've been asked to clarify (and I do want to help improve the article), I shall explain what I meant, since even I occasionally look at it and think it might be a tad confusingly worded.

The basic meaning was simply that the complaint that a character is being called a Mary Sue "just because you don't like the character" can usually be seen as pointless, since the entire point behind the usual modern usage of the term is to express the opinion that the character is not a particularly good character, usually because of poor character development (such as a percieved too few faults, or too many super-amazing abilities, or other traits that annoy that particular reader), or poor plot development (if you don't give the reader a chance to learn about the character or like the character before you show how lucky and amazing and pretty they are, and never really give them a challenge that's difficult or impossible for them to meet - or give seemingly impossible challenges that they solve with irritating and unlikely ease - that can be seen as a plot problem as much as it is a character development problem, and I've often seen that with stories where characters get labeled Mary Sues by a number of different readers). Also, Mary Sue is almost universally seen, nowadays, as a 100% pejorative term (even the handful of people I know who know what the term's original meanings were that don't see it that way only manage to see Mary Sues as harmless wish fulfillment - this would be the Mary Sue Society, as I recall - and therefore, they too do not generally seem to see it as a serious literary effort). In short, saying "You're just calling my character a Sue because you don't like her!" is basically stating the obvious; if they liked the character, they likely wouldn't refer to her (or him) as a Mary Sue, because it's inevitably pejorative. And, like essentially every pejorative term, it is inherently subjective. What is unpleasant to one person might not be to another. One person's Mary Sue is another's awesomely badass character. Look at Eragon, for goodness sakes; I have seen few professionally published and popular stories get more "Mary Sue!" cries than Eragon, but that doesn't stop legions of people from enjoying it, now does it? Further, when someone says "Your character is a Mary Sue," if they aren't just doing it to be mean (some inevitably will, though most people I know wouldn't unless they really did feel the character was a Mary Sue), they're generally doing it either in the same spirit as the standard caustic reviewer (basically, they're criticizing it - something every writer, no matter how good they or even most other people think they are, is going to need to learn to take eventually), or in the spirit of a rather brutally honest editor ("Your character development needs improvement", in other words, more than "you suck" ;) ).

On a side note - and I don't know if perhaps this, reworded somehow and reworked, could be a counter-counter-argument of sorts or not - I think when most people say "You just call her that that because you don't like her!", what they're really expressing is a combination of surprise (after all, THEY probably don't think of their character as a Mary Sue, right?), indignation (they know it's an insult, after all), and just a tad bit of either insecurity (after all, they're usually young that have the blatant Mary Sues out on the net, and it's sort of a blow to the ego usually if someone criticizes writing you thought you did well on), or, possibly, annoyance that that is (as is sometimes the case) the only non-positive criticism they were given. In other words, some people actually MIGHT want to improve, but would want constructive criticism - and for some, simply saying "Your character is a Mary Sue" doesn't really help, since it doesn't state why the commenter feels that way, it just says they feel that way. I haven't actually seen the latter possibility come to fruition very often in conversations which start with something like "You're just calling her a Sue because you don't like her!"- and then, usually only after considerable needling or fun-poking at the author's expense has been had. Again, I think it's often because they're caught by surprise or just aren't really psychologically prepared to be criticized negatively, or both. It's almost always easier to call your critics cruel and petty than it is to be humble and admit that your work is possibly flawed. Human nature, really, especially with the young writers out there, some of whom are only 12 or 13, sometimes even 11, if they're to be believed about their real ages.

Anyway, I hope I haven't confused things further and that helps? Runa27 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, LOTS of canon characters get called "Sues" or "Stus" not because they truly are, but because the people use the "Sue/Stu" concept as an excuse for character bashing. "I don't like him/her for X reason (usually the famous "s/h/it gets in the way of my favorite pairing or gets the how guy/girl I want for myself"), then /h/it is a Sue! Because *I* say so!" One example of that conduct is here, where I get the impression that the person accusing Terra from the Teen Titans cartoon NOT because she is a Sue, but because the OP's seething hatred of Terra is SO vicious that she needs to have everyone hating her. What better than accusing the characters one dislike of being Sues or Stus? That way, we can have everyone ganging up on him/her. Lunamaria 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be merged!

I cast my vote that this page should be merged into Mary Sue (fan fiction). This page has more info, and is at the correct URL. And it would also benifit in having the other info merged into it. TakingUpSpace 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I never knew that there was another Mary Sue article. *blinks* In that case, there definitely should be a merger: we can't have two articles covering the same subject, and this article seems to be the more comprehensive one. I vote for merge too. If nobody wants to do the merge, I volunteer to do it myself. Breed Zona 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mary Sue (fan fiction) article is a remnant from when there were, inexplicably, seperate, redundant articles for Mary Sue (popular culture) (which is now a redirect to this page, since the original Mary Sue (popular culture) article only copied info from this one - including some hideous, inaccurate and POV bits from older versions), and Mary Sue (fan fiction). There is no real seperation of the term Mary Sue from its fan fiction roots (nor does this article try to do so, even though it covers the broader meanings of the term as well), and there's long been a single Mary Sue article that covers all current aspects of the concept, so it doesn't really make sense at all for there to be an article on Mary Sue (fan fiction). Support merge. Runa27 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've turned the Mary Sue (fan fiction) article into a redirect page. I didn't copy any information from that article to this one because it's either already included here, or unnecessary and unproven. If you feel that some info from there would merit inclusion in this article, I left the entire original source code for the now redirect page there, so you can take a look. Breed Zona 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't merge Mary Sue into fanfiction. The fan community's analyses of Mary Sue storylines, author identification characters, self insertion, etc., are becoming recognized as a legitimate body of critical theory. We use "Mary Sue" as a term of art in the NYC publishing house where I work, and I've seen it used in critical writing that had nothing to do with fanfiction. As for declaring material in the fanfic version "unnecessary and unproven": those aren't standards normally applied to critical theory. Valid/invalid and productive/useless are the usual tests. 12.42.246.9 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)TNH

You misunderstood us a little. We weren't supporting merging Mary Sue with Fan fiction, which is a related but completely different and even larger article that's already spawned two sub-articles on terminology and legal issues; what we were supporting was merging the redundant article Mary Sue (fan fiction) - which was a separate article from this and basically was composed of crappier stuff from earlier versions of this same article - with THIS article (Mary Sue), because this article already covered its origins and usage in fan fiction communities to begin with. It's pruning redundant pages, not lumping one subject with another. :) Sidenote: which publishing house do you work at? I'd be interested to know. Runa27 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible source

This article (and its cousin, Mary Sue (fan fiction)) seem a bit light on sources. Does anyone have access to the following book?

• Karen Hellekson, Kristina Busse, eds., ed. (2006). "Chapter 6: Keeping Promises to Queer Children: Making Space (for Mary Sue)". Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. ISBN 0786426403. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

I don't know what's in it, but considering its subject and the reference in the chapter title, it might be useful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to pick that up next time I get the chance. The usage of the term in print is always nice, and it looks like it has theories on fanfic in general, which would greatly help the fan fiction main and sub articles. :) Runa27 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd

I used the mary sue tests on various fictional characters from famous works of speculative fiction and found that

1- They were all Mary Sues ( if we believe the tests). 2- Many were off the charts Mary Sues

Characters who were found to be Mary Sues included:

Paul Artredies of Dune That guy from the Wheel of Time Eragon ( no suprise here, I think this one really is a Mary Sue).

I was worried at first because my character scored quite highly ( which is odd because I'm not especially fond of the character) but then I found that it was much less of a Mary Sue than Paul Artredies so I figured if it was good enough for Herbert it's good enough for me. Perhaps the traits we associate with Mary Sueism aren't the real problem, but rather the bad writing that comes along with them is the problem? I couldn't find a single fantasy or science fiction protagonist which DIDN'T score as a Mary Sue.

Look harder.--141.225.78.90 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have actually heard quite a few complaints about the MSLTs along those lines, that SF and fantasy feature enough exotic traits that many non-Sueish characters score high anyway. The trick is to compare it to the basic reality of the story, not just say "yes, she has magic powers... yes, she has purple hair". For instance, what if you had a story about werewolves and your character was a werewolf? Then that ability to shapeshift isn't an uncommon one. If the races in your story frequently have weird colors of eye or hair or skin (like in Farscape), those would then be countable as a non-abnormal "found in nature" colors. This site seems to have an interesting response to the very broadness you complain of, and looks to have potential as a good guide for how to "read" the results of a MSLT.

However, you're right - it really comes down to writing skill. A skilled writer can create even an idealized character that isn't unsympathetic and boring. Hell, look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer - you'd think the series would be rife with Sues, but IMO, it's not. Instead, you get complex characters like Buffy or Faith, who are very human despite their plethora of seemingly Sueish (natural gift for fighting with weapons or bare hands; supernaturally strong strength, speed and agility, supernaturally-enhanced immune system, destiny as a "Chosen One", etc.) traits. An even better example is River Tam from Firefly; she has an even greater gift for the fight hard-wired into her by government agents, a natural grace, is a literal genius, a gifted dancer, etc., even an apparent psychic... but the very method that turned her psychic and gave her those fighting skills made her psychotic - schizophrenic, prone to violent outbursts, psychologically scarred, sometimes completely out of touch with reality, etc. And her own abilities and knowledge tend to frighten her somewhat.

I've actually toyed sometimes with creating a MSLT for SF and fantasy characters that would go in-depth as to WHY certain character traits verge on Sueish and how to improve your writing and character development. Never gotten around to it... Runa27 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture should go

I think there's no need for that picture.That fairy is not a stereotypical Mary Sue because a Mary Sue can be a human,undead,troll or any other race.Oh,and a Mary Sue doesn't have to be lady.I think the picture should be deleted.Dimts 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we should make a Harry Potter type sue. Those are one of the most common Mary Sues. The Quidam 21:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Needs moar pictures.--141.225.78.90 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of pictures? I mean, what kind could we have? The Quidam 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a multi-fandom sue? "With sparkling blue eyes that turn gold when she reveals the depths of her pains, this beautiful maiden (who goes by the name of Destiny) is taking Hogwarts by storm with the incredible Jedi powers she channels through her Keyblade, the Angel's Heart-- but unbeknownst to all around her, she is the sixth Animorph, and the alien technology flitting through her blood has made her a target for the Patriots, who are on the verge of sending Metal Gear TOT after her-- piloted by Nagi of Schwartz!"

...or something like that (god what did I just write! D: ). Alanahikarichan 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe somebody could draw a picture for us? Something gorgeous, with pink hair and huge breasts. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Camille Bacon-Smith's Enterprising Women? There is a cartoon of a typical Mary Sue in there which precisely fits your description. I'm sure it would be considered fair use. The artist is Mel White. These people should be fairly easy to contact if permission is needed. I'll upload the picture somewhere and let you guys have a look at it. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. Thank you guys for making me laugh before I go to class. I'm thinking of coming up with something tonight. We'll see how it turns out. Runa27 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we use a picture of Bun-Bun from Sluggy Freelance? ButteredToast 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While a picture is a good idea, we should really only use a picture that has been said somewhere as being a picture of a Mary Sue, whether human or not. How's this picture? I think it's quite funny: http://piratemonkeysinc.com/feb.htm Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Common

I think we should add a section that has a list of fandoms where Mary sues are most seen. Ex: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings. The Quidam 21:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And pray tell-- what fandom doesn't have Mary Sues? The 'Sues in the fandoms you mentioned are only remarkable because of the sheer bulk of them, but in relation to the number of fics, they make up about as much as Sues do in any fandom with prolific and bad writers. Seriously. There's Sues for Sherlock Holmes, for Metal Gear Solid, for Katamari Damacy (and I don't even want to think about how you can Sue a game about roling things into a ball >.>)-- just because HP and LotR are more popular than any of those doesn't make their badfic any more remarkable. Alanahikarichan 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Possible" Mary-Sue?

One of the references given is stated as being a "possible" Mary-Sue. Why? Shouldn't we be certain that a given character either is or isn't a Mary-Sue before putting the fanfiction up as a reference? Otherwise, it unfairly casts a spotlight on the author needlessly. Could someone just explain it to me quickly? Clevomon 19:28 EST, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no "is or isn't". It's not like 1 + 1 does or does not equal 2, where the answer is obvious and singular. It's a subjective term. DELETE any links to "possible Mary Sue" stories, they're somebody trolling around or something, and they're POV. Worthless. Parodies might be acceptable, but few parodies are notable, let alone available online for free, with the exception of the original A Trekkie's Tale story, which is already linked. Runa27 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Examples" section

The "Examples of Mary Sues in fan fiction" section was exceptionally unencylopedic, and presented personal opinion that fails Wikipedia's verifiability, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view policies. Please do not re-add personal essays or opinions about various fan-fiction characters; they belong on fan sites, not Wikipedia. --MCB 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the first one was right! It's not a personal opinion and it's been proved! People don't write about this stuff 24/7 ya know. Not to mention, when it comes to fan fiction just about everything is unencylopedic so don't bite our heads off about it! Anyways, that was a prime example that was given and should have been kept up! The Quidam 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's "not a personal opinion" and you claim it has been proven, cite your sources. Wikipedia's policies about verifiability, sources, and NPOV are not something one can simply ignore. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Please take a look at the policies linked above; I'm confident that after reading them you'll agree that such material does not belong in an article. --MCB 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who submitted the first entry for "Examples of Mary Sues in Fanfiction" section. I took great pains to make the first example neutral. I'm not sure who wrote the others. I'm putting in an appeal for that first example to be kept up, because I thought the story gave a good impression to the reader of what a "stereotypical" Mary Sue is.--64.131.32.78 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that does not meet Wikipedia policy. Your personal opinion of what a stereotypical Mary Sue, regardless of how "neutral" you think it might be, is not encyclopedic; what goes in an article must be verifiable and cited to a reliable source. Has anyone published a critical work in a reputable publication citing that example? Again, please read the policies I linked to above, and I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia articles should not be based on editors' personal opinions. Best, --MCB 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Then if Wikipedia isn't a fansite, why is there an article about Mary Sues? It seems to me that a lot of the article talks about concepts and characteristics that are subjective.

Oh, and what constitutes a "reputable" publication?--64.131.32.78 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation. --MCB 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1.) I'm actually planning on cutting most of the "traits" section. It's well-written, but it's just not encyclopedic.

2.) The article is here because the term is significant in terms of for instance, fan fiction (itself an academic feild of study, believe it or not), or literature, popular culture, language. You'd be surprised how many feilds of study this article could span!

3.) The only reason any "traits" get mentioned at all is indeed because they are common conceits in stories that DO tend to get called "Mary Sues". However, I'm starting to think it should be removed entirely without any sources, just because it's really getting out of hand and right now reads like a "how to not write a Mary Sue" guide (not a bad guide, but still...). It no longer reads like an encyclopedia so much. I will return to it after class and see what I can do. Runa27 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NO. Cutting out the descriptions of characteristic traits would amount to vandalism. They aren't just lists of examples. The body of Mary Sue critical theory is based in description. Theory is secondary. That is a valid, sophisticated critical approach.

It's bad scholarship and bad editing practice to demand verifiable hardcopy sources on this subject. There are a few scholarly studies that touch on Mary Sueism, but the development of this body of critial theory and practice has happened almost entirely online. This does not diminish its significance. Mary Sue critical theory has been spreading outside the fanfic universe because it's just too useful and insightful to ignore. (Citation: me. I'm a professional science fiction editor and former literary criticism reference series editor.)

I can't believe anyone would propose to delete this material because it's "just not encyclopedic". In fact, it's in the best traditions of genuinely scholarly reference compilations. If there is any unique virtue in Wikipedia as a reference source, it's contained in articles like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.252 (talk)

If you're the "TNH" I'm assuming that you are, welcome! and it might be easier if you were to register an account (the above was unsigned, although your initials are in the edit summary), so that your credentials, which are indeed impressive, are more in evidence. I'm the MCB who started this section of the discussion, and I'd like to try to explain the reason for it. First of all, the policies in question (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research) do not by any means demand hardcopy (print media) references! (I've linked to those pages at least three times before and no one seems to have bother to actually read them.) The vast majority of Wikipedia references are online sources, not books or hardcopy journals. But those policies require attribution of assertions to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays, speculation, synthesis, criticism, etc.; it's a reference work in which everything stated needs to be attributable to a published source that has some sort of cachet of authoritative legitimacy. (That is discussed at length in WP:RS.) That can mean an editorial gatekeeper function, as with mainstream news media (print, broadcast, and online); academic media (journals, online journals, monographs by experts); domain-specific reference materials; and the like. What is almost universally excluded are things like blogs, fan sites, other wikis, personal web pages, self-published works, etc. (Yes, there are exceptions: I argued that your blog and the SFWA web site were a reliable source for the Barbara Bauer article, citing the provision, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.")

Most of the "examples" section in this article failed those criteria. They were personal opinions or original research, largely uncited, and where cited, were attributed to the type of unreliable sources mentioned above. That sort of writing may be of use in original articles about the Mary Sue concept, but for better or worse, it does not belong in Wikipedia. If you read through the responses at the top of this discussion section, you will what I'm referring to. Best, --MCB 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amused that the New York Times is considered a "reliable source" with respect to fandom, and the article cited is nothing but a bunch of links to the sort of "unreliable" sites mentioned above. Alanhwiki 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

... I think you're missing the point a little, or else possibly skimmed it somewhat. The NYT is brought up here and quoted not because it is a "reliable source with respect to fandom" - other, more scholarly or detailed or accurate sources were drawn upon for the actual, for instance, origins of the term and the broader definition. The NYT review is brought up here not because it's a source of historical or critical merit in regards to "fandom"... but specifically because it is considered a good benchmark/example of how "mainstream" this fandom-originated term has become; the exact term (and a brief, approximate description of the concept) actually made it into one of the paper's reviews that focused on fan fiction websites. So, it is being cited here because it is a notable publication where the term has appeared in print, in English, with definition, in the context of fan fiction to boot - establishing a good amount of the term's notability and basic details in one fell swoop. So basically, it is there so that some silly person who doesn't realize how ubiquitous and notable the term/concept has become doesn't attempt to propose the article for deletion because it's "not notable enough" (because that's always kind of annoying to have to deal with), and because it sums up one of the major definitions of the term in relatively few words, which is always nice to have from a traditional media source so people don't niggle as much. ;)

And on your second point: what the hell are you even trying to argue here? I want to Assume Good Faith and be Civil and all that, and I'm trying, but honestly what you just said made no sense. Godawful Fan Fiction and Fanfiction.net were not being cited in the NYT article; they were being reviewed, the way one reviews books or movies. The NYT article was about fan fiction on the web, and so a couple of popular fan fiction websites were reviewed - which provided an excuse for the writer to toss in such terms as "het" and "Mary Sue", which though it seems trivial on the face of it, really does help us establish notability to everyone's satisfaction and standards, so that we can move on to improving the actual article's content without worrying someone'll try to delete it for not proving it's notable enough to share server space with Sailor Moon. And the reason Fanfiction.net and Godawful Fan Fiction aren't "reliable sources" is because they aren't informational or research websites - they're content-producing websites, which makes your complaint even sillier-sounding. That's like saying you can't cite a book review as an instance of its appearance in print, because the book being reviewed was a novel; it has no logical bearing whatsoever on the way the article is actually using its reference and quote. Runa27 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote: why on earth was the Rose Tyler reference removed? That actually had a cited review from a popular British publication that provided a critique of the character using the actual term. It was well-sourced. Either there's a Doctor Who fan who's a little oversensitive, or someone needs to learn to notice when something's actually referenced. She's a notable enough character. Runa27 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

suggestion for Canon-Sue

If an example from Deep Space Nine is appropriate, I submit Captain Lisa Cusak from the sixth season episode "The Sound of Her Voice", the most blatant Canon-Sue in any Trek incarnation, IMO.

It's apparent even in the episode summary on startrek.com: "Proving to be as good a listener as she is a talker, Lisa has a great sense of humor and a refreshingly positive attitude. She advises Sisko on his romantic problems, helps O'Brien cope with his anger over the war, and even gets Bashir to forget about his work and loosen up." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.78.3 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

There is even an overwrought wake for her, which overshadows the reactions to Jadzia's death.

Uh, no examples please. Not unless somebody in the notable media has called her a Sue. Otherwise, it opens the floodgates for a wave of people adding characters they, personally, feel are Sues... which is bad for two reasons: 1.) It counts as original research - your opinion isn't encyclopedically notable until you are! 2.) One person's Sue is another's superhero or magical girl; it's a subjective term, so people are bound to disagree. Also, I'd like to note that so MUCH fiction includes characters that somebody, somewhere on the net thinks is a Sue, that... well, let's just say I want to keep this article under 50kb as much as possible. :P Runa27 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides I don't think she would qualify as she doesn't "lack noteworthy flaws" since she's manipulative, the captain of a lost vessel, and dying. Furthermore a dying captain stranded on a planet is wish fulfillment? The wake is overwrought but that could just be the faceless numbers of the casualties of the war being given a face and therefore bringing general grief into specific relief. As for comparing to Jadzia's death, they didn't show a wake for her so you can't really compare the two.CoW mAnX (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cause Of A Mary Sue

After reading a number of pages on Mary Sue, including some Litmus Tests, I wrote that section, because I feel it defines what a Mary Sue IS, not just what she looks like. I didn't remove the Symptoms though. It's cool, right? I call it 'Vitamin Special'. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty cool, and pretty well written, but I don't think it's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, unfortunately. I'm starting to think very few of the traits should even be mentioned, if any. Unless somebody has a notable source defining Mary Sue traits beyond "an absurdly overpowered, overperfect author surrogate"? Runa27 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Garbage

I really think this article is non-notable and very poor quality. I will not prod or afd it, because the topic is way out of my realm of knowledge, but please consider improving it by further reducing it, and making the intro paragraph more of a context and notability declaration only. Jerry 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "garbage" really, but most of it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, however well-written it may be. I'll probably be removing most of it soon, possibly all if I can't find sources that back up the claims (not to say that AREN'T common traits that get associated with the term, but we need a source to say that, or else we're not being good Wikipedians, eh?). It's definitely a notable subject and term (it's starting to be used and referenced in the wider media, as you can see from the article) so it does deserve an article, but it has a long way to go before it gets to be a good Wikipedia article. I'm pretty happy with the lead and the etymology, but other than that, I'm not sure. Runa27 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Section removed, April 2, 2007

I removed the following section from the article (formatting changed slightly to show what was removed and to keep it under this subheader):

___Traits commonly associated with the term___

Please note that these are only symptoms of a sort, and as such do not automatically mean that a character is going to be considered a Mary Sue, any more than having a lump automatically means that a person has cancer. However, they are useful to detect which characters may risk being called a "Mary Sue", as they are common to the kind of characters that tend to be seen as Mary Sues. While "Mary Sue" is a subjective term, there are nonetheless many traits commonly associated with the concept of the typical "Mary Sue".

_______The Basics_______

The typical Mary Sue is almost always physically attractive. In fandoms that lack a human representation of beauty (such as Sonic the Hedgehog) beauty is relative, but the writer still manages to make other characters notice her charms. Even in cases where the appearance would probably seem bizarre (such as naturally blue hair on a young woman in many non-anime settings), it is instead seen by other characters as exotic.

Most 'Mary Sues' are generally in a narrow age-range, ranging from the early teens to the early 20s. If age isn't mentioned, they typically at least look that old. Their hair or eye color may be an unusual natural color, sometimes even colors not found in nature in real life, such as teal hair on a human. Eye color may also be depicted as changing according to time, place or emotion (though sometimes such details may be simple continuity errors). The character's name often has a 'special' meaning, and if so, often either she or the author will inform the cast or reader of it. (It should be noted that in some fandoms, such as that surrounding Harry Potter, or in many anime or manga fandoms, strange names with specific meanings are not entirely uncommon even in the original canon work, and may or may not be seen as contributing to how 'Sueish' a character is).

A 'Mary Sue' is often very intelligent, and gets plenty of chances to show her cunning. In action/adventure stories she is a skilled fighter, and yet lacks any disfiguring scars relating to her many battles. Many Mary Sues have skills based on those of the canon characters, and these skills are frequently far in advance of the canon characters's skill, or on the same level despite only training for a short while (if at all).

She may belong to a race which is uncommon or even unknown in the story's setting, or even a hybrid of two or more species. She may have unusual pets or magical possessions, often not to advance the plot but simply to increase her perceived 'specialness' compared to the other characters.

______Background_______

Tragic backgrounds are also common among characters seen as 'Mary Sues', and frequently include family abuse or neglect. These backgrounds are often used as a device to make other characters sympathize with them, as well as a device to gain sympathy from the reader. More importantly though, 'Mary Sue' characters often do not display any of the dysfunctional psychological profiles often associated with such a background.

Furthermore, a Mary Sue's background is often intertwined with that of major canon characters to make it easier to insert her into the group. She may be a long-lost relation, or an old friend, even if there have been no records of such relations in canon (Harry Potter's long-lost twin sister is a particularly good example).

Occasionally 'Mary-Sue' will just 'drop in' from the real world, teleported in by magic, science, or other unexplained methods. This is usually the most blatant form of self-insertion, but it is said that it can still 'work' provided that the author keeps their character realistic. (E.g., they weren't a sword-weilding warrior in real life, so they're not one now that they've been teleported into Middle-earth). Characters most typically called Mary Sues do not, however, have any such limitations.

______Reaction to her______

To further emphasize the superiority of Mary Sue to the other characters, authors will not only frequently describe her looks, life, and aptitudes in great detail, but also have other characters reflect on her even when they usually wouldn't (e.g., "For some reason he couldn't stop thinking about Mary Sue, her gorgeous, golden locks, her shining blue eyes...").

If the canon character is already in a relationship with another character, one of several things may happen - the other partner may inexplicably not appear in the story, or they may break up, (frequently as a result of the other character suddenly being unpleasant), or one of them may die.

If the author has a strong bias against a canon character, that character may be villified by not liking 'Mary Sue'. This can be done in three ways; the subtle way, where the character is villified by clever description, the not-so-subtle way where canon characters who do like Mary Sue no longer like the canon character who doesn't, and the brick-to-the-head way, where the canon character is extremely unpleasant and thusly now hated by everybody, even though that may make them totally out of character.

_______Effect on story________

'Mary Sue' often directly causes things to happen that the author wishes would occur in canon. They may mock and humiliate characters the author dislikes (although they never become unpopular for doing so), or recognize generally disliked characters (e.g. villains and lackeys) that the author likes as merely misunderstood or troubled.

Alternatively, 'Mary Sue' may help bring together characters the author thinks should be romantically involved with one another, splitting up other canon relationships and sometimes changing sexual orientation to do so. Alternatively they may make canon characters fall for them.

Another effect 'Mary Sue' often has is that despite her young age, she can supply deep wisdom to canon characters. Not only this, but they will listen, and with her help and advice, get over their own obsessions and faults, despite how long this obsession has been going on and despite the personality of the character.

Finally, 'Mary Sue' has a terrible tendency to show up in the story's summary or even the title. This may not be a direct reference by name. It may simply refer to "a new player" or when featuring in the title, something relating to the 'Sue''s abilities or personality. This is however not the same as putting 'OC' in the summary to warn the reader of the inclusion of an original character.

_______Personality________

'Mary Sues' are usually presented as highly moral, sometimes sacrificing their lives or happiness for the sake of other characters, even when this moral stance would be uncommon for the setting of the story. If a Mary Sue has flaws or limitations, they either do not actually hamper her (such as a fear of water, when the story takes place in the desert), are seen as endearing (a fiery disposition), or are just another hardship to bravely overcome with the help of her new canon friends (family abuse, eating disorders, etc).

Another widely accepted symptom of 'Mary Sue'-ness in a character is his or her similarities to his or her author, such as shared hobbies, likes and dislikes, and opinions, and the same nationality or age. Many alleged Mary Sues, however, have more dramatized physical appearances, backgrounds, and hobbies than those of their authors, which characterize them as resembling more the author's dream image rather than the author him or herself.

The reasons all of the above was removed were rational ones, so please try to understand when I give them. I just want to make sure Wikipedia is the best it can be - inclduing this article:

• The entire section was Original Research. Yes, it covered some traits common to characters that get labeled "Mary Sues". But NONE of the information was sourced, and having worked on the section a little myself, I know at least some of it (and I'm positive most of it) was from personal experience - which is original research. I know it's mind-bendingly obvious that some of the traits were obviously associated with "Mary Sue", but we need sources before we claim all this. Keep in mind that in removing the section, I removed several months' worth of my own work, too. I just couldn't leave it in, in good conscience.

• It had become MASSIVE, completely dominating the article, and suffered from two problems: 1.) it kept using "Mary Sue" as if it specifically meant a character with such and such trait, as if it's a species and not a subjective term for a VERY wide range of unsympathetic characters. 2.) it read like a guide for avoiding Sueish traits, as opposed to an objective description of information dealing with the subject of the article. Was it well-written? Hell yes. It pained me to remove such good writing, in fact. Witty on occasion, covering the whole scope of what I would agree is usually what I call I a Mary Sue, why, etc. But it's not an encyclopedia entry, it's a writing guide (the fact that it was well-written is why I copy-pasted it here instead of just deleting it. I'm a sucker for good writing...). (this was posted by Runa27 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Thus...

Things we need to keep in mind

Three things we need to keep in mind for this article:

1.)Even though it's used most often online and in the realm of fan fiction, that does not mean it isn't a subject of academic study. There ARE sources for most of the truly important things, and we CAN find them. And we SHOULD. If we don't start RELENTLESSLY sourcing this thing soon, it's probably never going to be more than a crappy Start class article over which fannish flame wars and edit wars are waged.

2.) The term Mary Sue does NOT mean Mary Starshine with her hair of gold, eyes of purple and magic horse from Ner'ter'aire and magic powers, what it IS is a term for a character that is unsympathetic because she/he is flat and lacks humanizing characterization. It's completely subjective, it's inevitably pejorative if you're not in the Mary Sue Society, and to be frank, we keep forgetting this. You can list all the "traits" you want, but there are inevitably going to be characters out there that have them and AREN'T seen as Mary Sues in the majority of cases. So in the end, a simple explanation of the concept (a flat, overly-perfect, unsympathetic character who is usually thought to be some sort of wish-fulfillment fantasy on the part of the author) will probably suffice to cover the subject. ESPECIALLY in lieu of sources.

3.)See above. STOP LISTING SPECIFIC CHARACTERS THAT YOU OR UNNAMED "FANS" THINK ARE MARY SUES OR GARY STUS! We STILL have problems with this, and it's ridiculous. Did you even READ the intro, people? "Subjective". It's SUBJECTIVE. And unless you can cite what reasonably notable source (New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) agrees with that opinion of the character, DON'T ADD THEM! The same goes for your feelings on what "is" a Mary Sue trait.

Thank you, Runa27 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Runa27's edit and comments, and expressed some similar views above regarding my edit which removed a similarly unsourced section that was a collection of opinions. I think this can eventually become a good article (and maybe even a Good Article) but it needs to be cut down to an encyclopedic summary of attributable facts as per Wikipedia policy, and not a collection of fannish anecdotes. --MCB 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Runa27 is right. For instance, listing characters that may be Mary Sues violate polices on original research, point of view, verifiability, and citing sources. Doczilla 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sulking a bit at having a whole crapload of work taken out (I split up that trait section to be helpful dammit!), but the symptoms were a bit bulky, and since they don't necesserily MAKE a Mary Sue, don't really deserve more than a brief mention. And the 'cause' thing is still mostly there. Oh, and no lists of characters. Not because it's not necessarily true, but somebody will get annoyed about their favorite character getting bopped without a source. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad other editors so far have agreed (and that I brought it up on the Talk page). I would LOVE to have this become GA quality someday, but it's not even close right now. The organization of the "trait" section, by the way, I thought was actually quite good Harley, but I just couldn't leave it in. ^^;; That's part of why I was reluctant to do so, even, but... well, you know.

The 'cause' thing is there because I was in a rush because it was class time for me at the time and I wanted to make it clear why I removed what I already had. Additionally, I thought that the (much shorter) section might be able to be revamped into something that alludes to commonly-associated traits, but doesn't overwhelm the article and is more easily sourceable (although even then, it needs a renaming of course). For instance, the New York Times review quote about Sues in the Usage of "Mary Sue" in the media section gives a sort of definition: "a ludicrously empowered author proxy". So does a currently-mentioned bit (in the same section) from the Times Literary Supplement: "[Rose Tyler is]what is commonly known as a 'Mary Sue'—an unironic reflection of the writers' and fans' desire to get in there and help the Doctor out (while managing to stay pretty)."

I'm thinking of moving those references up or otherwise trying to utilize them in a section explaining notable usages of the term and the common interpretations of it (in media and academia). Perhaps the references I just mentioned should also be in References, if you know what I mean (I still don't know how to set a cite up like that, though, could someone help me out here?). Let's hope we can track down some academic analyses, too. I'll take a stab at the new/revamped section and such soon. Lemme know what you think! Runa27 20:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Section removed, April 5

OK, the following section has been removed until I can replace it with something better. Again, good writing, and I'm sad to see it go, but it's OR and non-sourced, and reads more like a writing guide than an encyclopedia entry:

__The Common Cause of a Mary Sue__

It is important to note that the symptom is not the same as the disease. An original character can have beauty, strength and a tragic background, but she will not necessarily be seen as a Mary Sue.

Ultimately, what makes a character be interpreted as being a Mary Sue is not usually any individual factor like beauty, or even a group of symptoms like power, wealth and friendliness. It is not simply a clichéd plot, because sometimes clichés work. It is not even a total lack of originality when creating a character (although that is also generally considered a bad thing).

It is simply the fact that the character is seen as being 'special'. There are many ways this impression can come about. Perhaps her description is wildly disproportionate to the other characters (describing what she puts on in the morning with more than a short sentence or two is one commonly-cited warning sign). Perhaps she can charm even the really 'badass' characters, making them act out of character. Perhaps she has what makes other, canon characters special, such as super speed or strength, a special artifact (like a TimeTurner) or is another member of an otherwise extinct or rare but powerful race. She may be someone's long-lost relation. Perhaps, despite her bitter past, she holds none of the psychological scarring that should come with it. All because she is 'special' - and absurdly so.

In other words, while every character in the story should be special in their own way, including any original character, Mary Sue is so special that nobody else is special in comparison.

Note that the above applies primarily to fan fiction, but can be loosely extended into original fiction as well; a character described and portrayed with such overkill as to seem so very 'special' is usually interpreted to be a Mary Sue regardless of whether she appears in fan or original fiction.

Runa27 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Well, something occurred to me. Mary Sue is a subjective term. It's always opinionated. There's very little factual information on her. Just people's opinions. So it's not going to be easy to find references - if it's possible at all. Pretty much everybody has a different idea on what a Mary Sue is. I spent a lot of time going through the links and finding a common trait. There is almost nothing in this article that can be said to be 'official' information because there is no such thing as the definitive Mary Sue. Everybody keeps taking parts out and you could rip out the entire page really and be in the right. So STOP IT. I mean, I just pulled out this because it's all an opinion: Harley Quinn hyenaholic 11:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

_Criticism and debate on the concept's merit_

The concept of the Mary Sue has been criticized on the grounds that:

• What constitutes as an “exceptional” skill, background, appearance or even name is often subjective to the fandom. For example, in some fandoms, such as those surrounding certain science fiction or fantasy series, it is common for characters to have names that are also nouns or adjectives. The usual counterargument is that most fandoms still "have limits" past which a certain combination of traits in a single character may still seem over-the-top and thus unrealistic.

• Real people sometimes have skills, tragedies, or backgrounds that would cause fictional characters to be classified as Mary Sues. The usual counterargument is that they are "still rare".

• Some characters might reasonably have “exceptional” skills or backgrounds. For example, a professional interpreter would be expected to speak several languages very fluently and translate between them in real time, and a samurai would be expected to have great skill with a sword. The usual counterargument is that the "Mary Sue"'s experience and training are out of proportion with what is likely in a real person with a similar skill or background, usually being described as "naturally gifted".

• Many authors include similarities to themselves in at least some of their characters - including personality faults. The usual counterargument is that the latter is what a true "Mary Sue" lacks enough of.

• Good fiction containing idealized characters or author-surrogates can and has been written. Examples given sometimes include Charles Dickens for idealized characters and Hunter S. Thompson for author surrogates. Even highly psychologically realistic stories can have almost ridiculously skilled or attractive protagonists such as Genji in Genji Monogatari and Julien Sorel in The Red and the Black. The authors of these stories, Murasaki Shikibu and Stendhal respectively, are considered forefigures in the genre of realistic psychological novels largely because of these two stories. The usual counterargument is that a true "Mary Sue" story is not well-written enough to be compared to such works.

• It is common for authors to "write what they know", or to write about things which they are interested in. So an author who studies or has an interest in martial arts will be more likely to create characters who study or practice martial arts, and to describe the martial arts in more accurate detail. The usual counterargument to this is that people sometimes bring "what they know" to "what they don't know"; for instance, it is common for non-Japanese fans of Japanese entertainment to (unintentionally) use an ostensibly Japanese character who nevertheless follows Western norms or customs that the Japanese would sometimes find quite strange — or, conversely, to have utilized some research due to their interest in the culture, but to have missed certain other key facts, such as the usual etiquette in such rituals as formal meals, funerals, or certain holidays which are also celebrated in the Western world but differ from the Japanese in regards to exact celebratory customs.

• In fan fiction, it is only logical to give an Original Character more physical description than that of a familiar canon character. The usual counterargument is that "Mary Sues" tend to be described disproportionately on multiple occasions through the fan fiction, as being exceptional in comparison to other characters (including the protagonist), or to be thought about frequently by other characters in a positive light, even in cases in which the character would not necessarily automatically "take" to them.

• A dislike for overly idealized characters can be considered a cultural preference in modern Western culture and not a worldwide preference. Historically speaking, for example, highly idealized protagonists are incredibly common in mythology, sagas, epic, fairy tales and folklore.

• A character may be accused of being a "Mary Sue" simply because the accuser does not like the said character, criticizing him or her on a purely subjective basis. The usual counteragument to this is that it is a straw man argument, because the term "Mary Sue" is itself a subjective term, usually used to describe characters that are not seen "by the person using the term" as being interesting, three-dimensional or sympathetic. Despite a plethora of "common traits" and a frequent consensus amongst some groups on which characters "are" or "are not" a Mary Sue, the term is used to convey a negative impression of the character in question, and thus is not objective.

Some critics agree with the basic Mary Sue concept but believe that it is wrongly applied to characters who are unusual in any way or to any original or changed character in fan fiction. Other critics argue that "Mary Sue" should be applied only to idealized author-surrogates, not to characters who are only idealized or only author-surrogates.

Nonetheless, though highly subjective in nature and under nearly constant debate in regards to its exact meaning, the term "Mary Sue" continues to gain popularity in both original and fan fiction writing and reading circles.

See? There's so much that can simply be ripped out because it's not facts, turning this informative, if not entirely factual article into a Stub. I also pulled out where that same quote regarding GAFF was used twice. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, look. Sometimes an editor (due to, say, work, classes, homework, having other things scheduled with other meatspace people, etc.) does not have time to do everything they're planning to in one sitting. Or thinks they do, but gets interrupted. I was planning, today or tomorrow, to (re, sort of)insert an EXTREMELY brief, non-specific summary (actually, vaguely similar to what used to be in there regarding common traits, but, well you'll see) of the basic trope; that is, a character that is seen as "overly perfect" and over-the-top in their portrayl, etc. I'd explain, but I think we're better off if I just, you know, rewrite it like I was planning as opposed to summarizing what I'm planning to put in.

Now, regarding the quote - why on earth was the FIRST instance on the page removed?? That was the most useful use! I was planning on deleting the second instance in my next edit, but didn't get the chance, because I had to leave the library (and hence, the computer). The FIRST instance (or what used to be the first after my previous editing bit) showed the term in one of its two main contextual usages by a NOTABLE source, regardless of what the review was reviewing (it wasn't just a "GAFF quote", it was a quote from a review about GAFF and fanfiction.net in the 'New York Times Book Review). Also, I'm a little annoyed I'll admit because I actually had to work and spent half an HOUR looking for the actual "quote tag" thing just to format it correctly... and you removed it because there was a second copy. Instead of removing the less-useful usage of it below. It's OK, though, I know what you mean about having two copies; I plan to partially-revert it back up in proper format, but edit the quote (to remove the bit past the Mary Sue quote, since that's the only reason it's quoted here, anyway, right?), and then remove the second, less-useful, redundant copy.

As far as "we can't find sources for anything because it's subjective!" That's almost a straw man, as it's quite false. After all, technically, any given religion is an "opinion", i.e. belief or personal feeling or both, and yet, there are plenty of sources analyzing Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Analysis of the term's usage is actually surprisingly well-documented. Additionally, "Mary Sue" as a concept and term DO show up in academic sources (which can be cited), and occasionally even in the media (as quoted twice here defined by their reviewers, albeit in interestingly different manners), usually in the context of either literary (or equivalent) criticism, or in the context of developmental psychology or some such (e.g. seen as written wish-fulfillment, something that, written or no, pretty much every child has at some point). Don't tell me we "can't find sources", because we can. Hell, we already HAVE sources that cite its usage and provide some form of definition - in notable media, already brought up in the article. Again, how you can say 'because it's an opinion that means you couldn't find sources' I do not know. Runa27 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

April 6 additions, shufflings, tweaks

How's it look now? I agree that it's impossible to ignore the association of the absurdly over-the-top, so I tried to cover it as briefly and accurately as I could while connecting it to citeable things and the information already presented. I think I finally at least found a solution for how to describe the stereotype, etc., without describing it like it was anything non-subjective or non-variable or whatever: don't refer to "traits of" a Mary Sue, refer to the connotations (or similar) of the term Mary Sue (and usages). :D It's so simple, I can't believe it took me this long to think of it. I guess because I'm used to analyzing characters that I feel are Sues, and trying to pick apart what I think makes them a Sue - which is, unfortunately, original research in terms of WP (and anyway, one person's Sue is another's perfectly legitimate heroine... I mean, just look at pulp romance novels, eh? :P). Anyway, how does it look now? Much more manageable, at any rate, and as vague as it may be, I think it still gives a good overview of the term's usage and implications, etc., and isn't at all unsourceable, since it's practically sourced-up already thanks to the two quotes (though I would be really happy to find an academic analysis of the term or concept that addresses the over-the-top traits we see so often in characters we call "Sues", I'm sure there's literary analysis or developmental psych papers on such a thing somewhere, we just have to track them down...). Runa27 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I TOLD you a Mary Sue was a character with vast amounts of Vitamin Special in her. Well, anyway, now it's time to work on those links. Let's see how many we can get rid of. Starting with the ones that haven't been changed in a year or two. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, usually. Except, because of the nature of the term, you really can have a "Mary Sue" with surprisingly low "Vitamin Special" intake (hehe, I love that phrasing, by the way). Just look at Rose Tyler, getting herself labeled a Sue in a professional review even though her only claims to Suehood would probably be that she's young, cute and is the Doctor's Companion (then again, I suppose the reviewer may have been trying to comment that the otherwise inexplicable role of the Companions in general is not just as eye-candy, but also wish-fulfillment).

But really, you don't have to "tell me" that most Sues have ridiculous traits; I know what a Mary Sue is, I've been into fanfic online for years and even had the sense to trash most of my earliest writing (or completely rewrite it) after realizing how many of the characters were blatant and stereotypically ridiculous Sues. Hell, I even spent more than a year reading and posting on and off at GAFF, when it still had active working forums, criticizing and laughing at just such Vitamin Special-loaded characters. The thing is, though, that what a Mary Sue is changes based on the reader's perspective, because it's not as black and white as say, "protagonist" or "antihero" or even (going into abilities) "superhero" or "magical girl" or "genius". And you can have characters (River Tam is the best example I can think of - genius in practically every feild of arts or science known to man ranging from physics to dance, psychic, tragic backstory, graceful, uber-skills in martial arts, etc.) who would seem to have, from their basic description, all the traits of the Mary Sue but who are nonetheless never seen as a Sue, because a Sue isn't just Special, she's too Special to be real (or at least, too special to be sympathetic I should say; Tam's abilities would seem to border on the impossible or at least, the highly unlikely. But her fragile, broken psyche makes her much more sympathetic as a character, made more so by the fact that the same thing that honed her psychic abilities and gave her what turns out to be incredible fighting skills is also the very same thing that scrambled her little teenage brainpan... not to mention the fact that because of her mental condition, her very abilities have sometimes been hard to tap or actually caused more trouble than they're worth). Because of this, most of the previous stuff in the article was, well, out of place. I do agree that that association of the riduculous is strong with the term, and that it is important to note it in order to give a proper impression of what "Mary Sue" means to most people, but it should not dominate the article the way it was doing before. I'm just as guilty of having let it get that far as the next person, though, so yeah. :P

Now, as to the links... the "Original Mary Sue Litmus Test" I think should probably stay. It's spawned so many copycats and been linked to and quoted and analyzed and praised and criticized so often in relation to Mary Sues and such, it would be ridiculous not to link it. The other non-original ones may or may not need to go, though, as one example (let alone the example being the original) is probably enough to get the jist of what they are and how they work (if we're going to keep a second one, I would probably recommend one that's non-fandom specific, such as one of the several original fiction ones. However, no more than two total, I'd say). Some of the essays and other informative links are interesting (and at least some of them do seem to give a good idea of what some of the common Mary Sue stereotypes are), but most of the parodies (save for the one that gave us the term, Paula Smith's "A Trekkie's Tale") should probably go if there's any left. The link to "The Affirmation" should probably stay, as it's notable in the context of the article. I'll have to look through and see if there's any others I can comment on... I agree though, it's needed trimming for a while. Unfortunately, anything having to do with online activities, especially fanfic, tends to spawn a lot of trouble with external links, usually with people linking their own (or their favorite) parodies and such. Runa27 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well really, Vitamin Special takes many forms. It also makes sure that your hair doesn't get in your nose and mouth when you flip it. And makes your eyes change colour. And makes you a fantastic singer.

I always felt that Rose Tyler, rather than being an actual Mary Sue, was more a kind of generic representation of ALL fangirls. She's easily replaced by somebody else - us! She's also blonde and pretty. In other words, she's there so that we can be there. That's why the Doctor has guests in the Tardis. And also so that he can explain things like Daleks, Cybermen and so on without talking to himself. And do that showing off thing in front of. Doctor Who would be a lot less fun without his 'tin dog'.

We've got too many essays and 'origins' things. If we could get rid of one or two of those things, I think the article would be good for review. I got rid of the fandom-specific LotR one. It is good, but it's also entirely Lord Of the Rings. Fandom Specific. Oh, and Happy Easter. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 11:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did the Original MS Litmus Test go? If the Universal test was copied from it, shouldn't we have the original instead? Also, The Mary Sue Society ought to be included, as it was a landmark site on the Web. It hasn't been updated and won't be updated because Kielle -- the site owner and BNF in many fandoms -- died of cancer. I love this page and hope everyone gets a copy of Textual Poachers by Dr. Henry Jenkins so they can pull out cites as necessary. 67.175.143.234 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't remove it. I think the article detailing all the things that were wrong with the Universal Test was useful too. I mean, it involved many of the things that are wrong with the idea of just labelling Mary Sue. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Kielle, I was really conflicted about whether there should be an article about her (she was a friend), and eventually decided to err on the side of caution. Anyone disagree? DS 15:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

It would seem that this article has a strong bias towards fan-characters, but Mary Sues are very prevalent in original narratives as well. Though the article briefly mentions this, most of the references are to fan fiction. Almost (if not) every time that original Sues are mentioned they are labeled as 'canon', which still hints towards the fan sector. --Marshmello 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is largely because there are not enough sources that people have pulled on for anything but the usage amongst the same community (fan fiction community) which spawned the term. Also, I have yet to see the variety of permutations on the term in original fiction contexts as we have in fan fiction usages (which cross over somewhat with online original fiction community usage already; the ! convention, for instance, can be and has been used for original fiction characters as well as it's quite flexible), which is why that part takes up as much room as it does. However, minor correction: we CANNOT speak of "Mary Sues are prevalent in...". Remember, the term is subjective. In order to maintain a truly NPOV, we need to remember to describe it in that context, OK? :) Oh, that said - the Villain Sue section makes me chew my lip, even after I've tweaked it a few times. What to do, what to do... any comments? Part of me wants to toss it into Angsty Sue, but it's not quite the same thing; Angsty Sue describes poorly-received attempts at creating drama and pathos, basically, whereas the Villain Sue seems to be more associated with critiques of poorly-received anti-heroes and obsessions with "bad boy" type characters and badly-written attempts at tweaking the line between Good and Evil and the like. Runa27 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

At this point the page is looking pretty good except for the Sub-concepts of "Mary Sue" section which seems bloated and OR/POV - Logotu 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed both 'Godess Sue' (it seemed rather pointless) and 'Romantic Sue' (It was incredibly confusing). If somebody wants to replace Romantic Sue, kindly make it more understandable. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 11:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

References

I see someone has taken off the "unreferenced" tag; there are only four references, and a great deal of the text has no references. I don't think it's vital to add the tag back, but I would love to see more references added. As someone else noted above, this sort of article attracts a lot of personal opinion and unsourced examples; I think a good dose of referencing would help clean that up. Referencing for examples, I feel, should not just reference the story in which the character appeared; it needs to reference a reliable secondary source which describes the character as a Mary-Sue, or which describes that character in such a way that it is quite clear that "Mary-Sue" is applicable. Mike Christie (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the tag. I certainly don't object to more references, but there's an alarming trend to put the "unreferenced" tag at the top of almost every article. I think this is a bad habit -- adding the tag is an easy way to feel like you've made a contribution, whereas actually adding the references is much more difficult. Four references is not a bad start for an article like this, and tagging it "unreferenced" just spreads FUD among people who come to Wikipedia for information. Since I took the tag off, someone else has put a similar tag back up; I'm not going to bother doing anything about it, but I wish people would spend a little less time adding tags and a little more time adding references. Gabriel Roth 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Sue and Narcissistic personality disorder

Having just read a newspaper supplement article on Narcissistic personality disorder - to what extent does the "typical Mary Sue" show such characteristics? Jackiespeel 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The character doesn't really show it, though the author usually obsesses over a Mary Sue's beauty and describes it in detail. I don't think Mary Sues can be placed into a narcissistic complex of any kind.

Gabriel Texidor 01:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is James Bond in movies a Mary Sue?

Is James Bond in movies a Mary Sue? Character has no flaws, mostly good points, is incredibly lucky, and has a tragic past. Also after his wife died, there was a tragic past. I don't mean the redone Daniel Craig version where there is character development, but the movies before that. William Ortiz 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but the character is so well done, original, and simply iconic that you must over-look the whole Mary Sue nonsense. I think that the definition of a Mary Sue is "a perfect, flawless original character etc. etc. that is USUALLY INSPIRED BY ANOTHER WORK".

Gabriel Texidor 01:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Even ignoring the "well done, original..." portion (which is an opinion) and so on, we can't cite him as a "Mary Sue" until someone in traditional media (or at least a really, really popular-to-the-point-of-having its own article website like Wired Blogs) labels him such - something we've been over before (as has been stated before, one person's Mary Sue is another's "original, well done and simply iconic" character).

And leaving THAT aside - no, Gabriel. That is not the definition. Leaving aside the fact that it oversimplifies beyond what one should expect for a WP article (a character can be far from "perfect, flawless" and still be labeled a Mary Sue, the term does not "mean" such a thing either, it "means" a distaste for the character, with the usual but not universal implication that the character is too perfect to be sympathetic); there's also the fact that not all characters labeled a "Mary Sue" actually are "original characters" - see for example the section (which may be a "previous" section, depending on how the article's cleanup in the future goes) on "Canon-Sue (in original source)" (or whatever it's called; it's something very close to that, though), which refers to fan fiction stories in which a character from the original source the fanfic is based on is "sueified". And, of course, there's the fact that people also use it in the context of non-fan fiction characters - usually reviewers and public critics, but if you look above us, you'll see someone from a publishing house mentioning that their workplace uses the term for original fiction (i.e. non-fan fiction) characters. It's become a more standard, general fiction critique/criticism term, with increasing prevalence in criticism of original fiction.

I do hope none of the above sounded rude to you; I'm just clarifying so that you or someone else who doesn't seem to realize how widespread the term is doesn't edit the article to reflect an inaccurate definition of the term. ^_^ (User:Runa27, not logged in, October 13, 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.69.98 (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He isn't. "Mary Sue" refers to characters which are "uber", but should not be such. James Bond or Superman are the lead superheroes from superhero series. While they do display the full load of positive traits, these are expected starting from the box.

On the other hand, if some James Bond appeared in a realistic series like 24, outshadowing not too heroic Jack Bauer... then he would be the Mary Sue. That's a major factor. Lead characters are rare if ever labeled "Mary Sues", that's not the use. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"While they do display the full load of positive traits, these are expected starting from the box." Exactly -- but today, this is often condemned as a "Canon Sue". Lorenzo Dow's "damned if you do and damned if you don't" comes to mind. --Bluejay Young (talk)

OR

This article reads for the most part like original research, especially material after the beginning of the "sub-concepts" section. THere really need to be more citation, or a lot of this should be removed. --132.235.45.83 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood vs. The Colbert Report

Under parodies of Mary Sue there is an entry for Adam from Torchwood which doesn't make sense to me as it doesn't appear to be a parody as it doesn't make fun of the concept of a Mary Sue. I don't think he qualifies as a Mary Sue either particularly given that he is a bad guy who is eventually defeated - he therefore has flaws and is not wish fulfillment.

On the other hand I think Tek Jansen SHOULD be included as perhaps one of the most blatant parodies of Mary Sue, and unlike the Torchwood original research currently in the article, I have a source: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33366#6 CoW mAnX (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Another term for the male version

I've also heard "Marty Sam."  Qit el-Remel (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that the other two male terms have no references. Mothing personal, but ALL male terms must have references. Otherwise we'll end up with a long list. And I've mever heard the Barry term myself. Marty Sam sounds like a term that somebody thought up when they couldn't think up the real term. Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Marty Sam" actually has quite a few references: It appears in the TVTropes entry, Protectors of the Plot Continuum, and here. It is mentioned as a synonym on UrbanDictionary. And an essay entitled "Look Out! It's Mary Sue" (now only available by way of web archives) used only that term for the male version of a "Mary Sue." —Qit el-Remel (talk • contribs) 11:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Gary Stu in Camille Bacon-Smith's subchapter on Mary Sue in her book about fan fiction, Enterprising Women. So I would say that was more official. But my wife had never heard them called anything but Marty Stu until just a few years ago. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I tracked that book down. Here's the only male example given (emphasis mine): 

"Other fans have noted that James Kirk is himself a Mary Sue, because he represents similarly exaggerated characteristics of strength, intelligence, charm, and adventurousness." (p. 97) 

Bacon-Smith used the term "Mary Sue," not any of the various masculinizations, for the male version. —Qit el-Remel (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Godmoding

The article mentions mary sues in play-by-posts role plays, and I think that can be linked to Godmoding because I've seen several suethors that Godmod, sadly the forum with the best example has been deleted, so it wouldn't be easily cited. CatDemonNinja (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Better not to get too far off the track. The article has had to rely on examples of characters that have been referred to as Mary Sue because until recently not a whole lot of "notable" literature (online or off) has been published concerning the MS concept. Now we have a few such works and can use them for reference. I'm sure more will follow and the article can cite them and be trimmed down accordingly. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Rose Tyler?

...She's arguably as bad as Wesley Crusher when it comes to canonical Mary Sues (and even a female at that, and closer to the archetype), so I reckon that mention of her should be put back in. Whether a particular Wikipedian is a fan of hers or not is beside the point.Snowgrouse (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This Is Not What a Mary Sue Is!

The first half of this article is plain wrong. A Mary Sue is pure and simple wish-fulfilment, disguised or otherwise, wherein the author puts themselves into the story in an idealised form.[1] [2] [3] This article is obviously written by someone who just picked up on accusations of "Mary Sue-ism" and either didn't understand the term, or was present when persons who did not themselves understand the term made the accusations. A Mary Sue is not simply a character in a story who is too good to be true and therefore badly characterised. I have heard fanfic writers describe their characters as Mary Sues [4] , which would not make sense otherwise; nobody would say what amounts to, "I have created an unbelievable character". Paul S (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the discussion pages & archives of same, where the definition was worked out over many months. A great deal of energy has been expended by a great many people trying to understand just exactly how the concept originated and has evolved over the decades. The concept includes what you're talking about, but is much more complex than just "idealized self-insert". The references section includes books and articles which explore this more fully. There is a book out called Enterprising Women by Camille Bacon-Smith. See if you can get a copy of it from the library. It has a long subchapter on the Mary Sue concept and its impact on amateur (and even some professional) women authors. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mary Sue Picture

You can see the Mary Sue illustration by Mel White from Enterprising Women at

http://books.google.com/books?id=hWGgPXtRA7AC&pg=PP1&dq=Enterprising+Women+Camille+Bacon&num=20&client=firefox-a#PPA95,M1

Since it appears in the pages that are OK for online viewing by the public, I assume there will be no problem if we use it? How does one get permission, if not? --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You won't get any complaints from me, but the fair use inquisitors will likely point out that because "Mary Sue" is not copyrighted, a 'free' image should be used instead. But try to upload that picture and see what happens; just be sure to fill out the fair use rationale.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's got nothing at all to do with an image being findable through Google Book search or the concept of "Mary Sue" being copyrighted. Everything posted on Wikipedia needs to be legally allowed to be posted here. As it says right by the "Save page" button, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." There's no possible fair use rationale for this particular image, as anyone can draw a picture and say that it's "Mary Sue," and the book page clearly states "Copyrighted material". I recommend a good long look at WP:IUP. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I needed to know. In that case my next step is to write to the artist and ask her permission? --Bluejay Young (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you'd go about tracking down the artist, but here are some Example requests for permission if/when you do. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I plan to find out how to contact Mel White by writing to Camille Bacon-Smith through her publisher (DAW). I'm also going to drop a line to Jacqueline Lichtenberg just in case she might know. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

It amazes me that nobody has mentioned James Bond, the probably most known (to the whole planet, as opposed to just the Star Trek crowd) and profound example of the male Mary Sue.

The JB character is superior in: intellect, education, training, physical fitness, dedication to his job, acquisition and retention of information, and control of nerves. And successful with women.

Ian Fleming (the author) was himself a James Bond wannabe. Even a brief look at the origins of the JB character reveals painfully clear that JB was what the author wanted to be so bad that he had to invent and start writing about such a character.

--Gwrede —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC).