sholio | Oh, frig, I know what I want to say; I just can't figure out how to say it.

Entry tags:

meta

Oh, frig, I know what I want to say; I just can't figure out how to say it.

I've been reading a bunch of Metafandom links on the Mary Sue concept today, and trying to write a thoughtful and coherent post on how all of this is making me challenge my own core values as a writer (in a good way, I think) and it just ... will not come together. Maybe because I'm still struggling with my own reactions to it.

I particularly recommend reading Such stuff as dreams are made on, and Why the Culture of Mary Sue Shaming is Bully Culture, and on mary sue policing and why i cannot abide it. I am not saying that I agree with everything they're saying, but they've definitely given me a tremendous amount of food for thought, and made me look at the uglier side of my own drive to "write better! aim higher!" with newly critical eyes.

I feel like an idiot for not having realized the extent to which "writing well" is a moral value for me - I'm not saying that I judge people as less worthy for the quality of their writing, or anything like that, but reading these posts and trying to think of what I consider "poor" writing as being just as worthy and worthwhile and fulfilling as what I consider "good" writing - on an intellectual level, I absolutely think it is! But I still feel like a core value of mine is under siege and I'm struggling with that knee-jerk reaction - I know it's irrational and wrong, but I can't seem to make it stop. I've always pushed myself hard as a writer, and I want to keep doing that, but I want to manage to balance that with not being elitist and judgmental towards other people's writing, and I'm not sure how to do that. HELP.

It doesn't help that I don't think I'd had any idea that the creeping expansion of the Mary Sue term is as bad as it seems to be. I had no idea that people used Mary Sue for as wide a range of character types as they do - any OFC? Really? When I say "Mary Sue" I've always meant it in its narrow sense - or at least I thought I did, but then I get to thinking about all the various situations that I've used the "Mary Sue" term, and ... I'm not so sure anymore. But I definitely think of a certain type of character and situation when I hear it, so I'm struggling with both the battle to accept that as a valid character type even though my internal editor is saying NOOOO, and the fact that I think I've just been intellectually convinced that it's not really a useful term of critique but my internal editor wants to hang onto it.

It's interesting to consider Mary Sue a genre of itself, just as deserving of having fans and followers and communities grow up around it as, say, hurt/comfort or any of our other established fannish genres. Non-h/c people may roll their eyes at h/c or mock the more WTF? examples, but I don't think anyone questions its right to exist. I had honestly never thought of self-insertion that way, as a perfectly valid form of indulgence for some people that's just as deserving of its own dedicated communities and fans, but - why the heck not?

And this post is ~~kind of~~ completely awesome: Celebration of Mary Sue, or, Writing Advice I Could Have Used at Age 14. Because yes, this is SO much better than judging and looking down upon new writers - explaining community norms to them and giving them the tools to create their own spaces, so that they can play with the self-insert idea as long as they need to (forever, if need be) in safe non-judgmental places. Isn't that better than saying "Get your Mary Sues out of my fandom"? I'm not sure how to export that ideal to fandom as a whole, but I agree with the bloggers above that something ought to be done, because we don't want to be chasing away new writers before they have a chance to get their writing legs under them.

ETA: And here is another post making similar points. It's foolish and short-sighted to say "Don't write that!" when you can win friends and new writers in your fandom by saying, "Here is how you can take what you already have and make it better."

ETA2: Just in case anyone was thinking about it, please do not link this in Metafandom.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

Yeah; you and I have generally tended to come down on opposite sides of the concrit debate in the past, with me being on the pro-crit side. I think I'm starting to heavily question my own position in those debates, though, and to agree with you about crit being more of an opt-in thing than an opt-out thing. And for similar reasons - because anything that drives people away from writing and makes them miserable "for their own good" can't be a good thing. If someone wants it, then sure. And I do think that the general Mary Sue concept can be useful at the Writing 400 level, especially for figuring out why a story isn't working or seems to be impacting beta-readers in a way it's not intended to - I think that's why it got picked up among profic writers, because it's a useful term for something that we never had a word for before. But at a Writing 101 level, and especially carrying with it the overtone of shame and bad writing that it's come to, I think the above-linked posts have an excellent point that it does far more harm than good.

I don't know if this is really such a terrible thing as all that. A lot of us don't like 'Sues - they're just not what we read fanfic for, or aren't anymore.

Well, yes, but (devil's advocate here) - what about hurt/comfort? Or slash? Or kink Y, or pairing Z? There's a ton of different stuff in fandom that's not Individual Fan A's personal cup of tea, but I think as a general rule fandom has tended to move (slowly) away from shunning or shaming fans for their personal kinks - remember all the "Slash! Please don't flame me!" disclaimers that you used to see? You'd see them because people used to get flamed for slash, which is almost unthinkable in most fannish circles today. I know that a lot of people don't like hurt/comfort as a genre, and avoid it, but I don't think there are very many who think it shouldn't exist, or sit around mocking people who like it as immature, bad writers. I certainly think they're entitled to have that opinion, of course, and I'm sure a fair amount of that goes on under flock, but as a general rule, fandom tends to look down on insulting or mocking groups of other fans in public for their personal kinks. But self-insertion fic is the big honkin' exception - they're like furries in the Geek Hierarchy, the one category of fans that other fans in every walk of fandom enjoy feeling superior to. But it amounts to policing other people's fantasies.

And this doesn't even touch on terminology creep - I'm mildly boggled seeing some of these posts and their comments, because I had no idea that what I think of when I hear "Mary Sue" isn't what people are often talking about. All OFCs? Really? And there are people who are afraid to write any female character (canon or not) for fear of being accused of writing a Mary Sue - that just boggles me. Clearly something has gone horribly wrong!

You'd see them because people used to get flamed for slash, which is almost unthinkable in most fannish circles today.

Hmm. I've got two counter-thoughts to this. Firstly, flaming is just not on, period - if anyone's getting flamed for writing Sues, that's bad behavior on the part of the flamer; it's got little to do with whether Sues should be considered legitimate writing/a legitimate part of fanning. (erm, before I argue any further, let me state for the record that I totally believe Mary Sues are a legitimate writing and fanning technique!) Bad grammar/spelling is considered bad writing by an even larger number of fans, but someone who posts an unbeta-d fic still doesn't deserve to get flamed for it.

But flaming is different from sporking is different from critiquing, and I hesitate to pass judgment on the grayer areas of fanning. The anti-slash sentiments of past fandom were disturbing not only because they were looking down on other fans' kinks, but because they were often homophobic, and that's harmful outside of fanning. When it comes to fans mocking fans for strictly fannish things - I don't know that it's always harmful. (It can be. But not always, and not to the point that it should be stricken from fannish practice...)

(I have some other thoughts that are part of a larger theory of fanndom trends that I'm still working out - "fandom" is not monolithic, and a practice in one part of fandom may not carry over to others - Mary Sues are rejected by the majority of fans in the circles that we run in, but they are embraced by other parts of fandom, and I don't know that our circle's opinion counts for as much as we might think...)

And there are people who are afraid to write any female character (canon or not) for fear of being accused of writing a Mary Sue - that just boggles me. Clearly something has gone horribly wrong!

Agreed! Though I think what's gone wrong there is less that the term is being used more broadly by some fans, and more than some people are actually afraid of writing a char that might be called a Mary Sue - if they're worried about being flamed, that's one thing; but if all they're afraid of is that some reader might think that they made a Mary Sue...here I lean more on the side of a reader is entitled to their own opinions, and if you're going to post publically you should have the strength to ignore those opinions if you disagree with them. Letting perceived fan opinion sway you to the extent that you won't even try to write something (as opposed to trying and getting attacked for it, which is a different story) is a problem an individual author must surmount, rather than fandom as a whole.

The anti-slash sentiments of past fandom were disturbing not only because they were looking down on other fans' kinks, but because they were often homophobic, and that's harmful outside of fanning.

But Mary-Sue shaming is rooted in misogyny which is no less harmful. The overwhelming majority of OCs that are targeted are female (not coincidentally, the same goes for the application of the 'canon-Sue' label). The old double-standards are firmly in place - boys are allowed to dream bigger than girls, and their avatars are allowed to be awesome without question. Ultimately, this kind of scrutiny and disdain discourages girls and women from the kind of empowering wish-fulfillment fantasies that I think is actually important (and fun).

Whereas there's no harm if a writer indulges in one of those fantasies and shares it on the net. They're easy enough to skip. And there are a lot of readers who love to read them and specifically seek them out, and they have a right to read their kink of choice. Hey, I don't get it either but then, there are a lot of kinks and pairings I don't care for, and I just don't click on the link. Genereally, Sue-fic is clearly recognizable from the summary and easy to avoid. I haven't run into a Sue unawares in about ten years.

if they're worried about being flamed, that's one thing; but if all they're afraid of is that some reader might think that they made a Mary Sue...here I lean more on the side of a reader is entitled to their own opinions, and if you're going to post publically you should have the strength to ignore those opinions if you disagree with them.

Did you read some of those Sue reports? I think I have a thick skin, but I found those I read nasty and very hurtful. That's why I stopped reading those communities, years ago. Oftentimes the authors were linked to the sporks, to rub their face in it. If those don't count as flames I don't know what does. Worse, it's being flamed and mocked by a pack. And keep in mind that a lot of Sue authors are very young. It's like, at least pick on someone your own size, you know.

And it's not just fic writers - about two years ago I read about similar worries on the blogs of two high-profile pro authors. Well-known authors who were worried about how their female characters would be received - because the Mary Sue concept had reached the pro-writing sphere. And now pro writers too can worry about writing cool female OCs because they second-guess their own ability to write them in a way that's sufficiently not-too-awesome.

And it's not just one reader... it's a prevailing sentiment in fandom. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was just a handful of readers.

I must finish this one post I started - "hot-damn awesome female protagonists who're NOT Mary-Sues, they're protagonists, dammit." If only to find out how many people on my friends list fangirl Modesty Blaise, Mrs. Pollifax, and Evan Wilson.

Mrs. Pollifax

Eeeee, I loved those books so much when I was younger! :D I re-read the first one a few years ago (Farrell! ♥) and really enjoyed it; I ought to see if the library has any of them.

Did you know she was still writing them in the 90s? I just googled it out of curiosity and found that there I five books I never read. I ordered a couple on Amazon. I don't know if I'll still love them as much as I did when I was younger but they're only 1 cent a piece. One cent, hah.

(I just ordered one of the FMA YA novels at amazon.jp for one Yen. Well, and 10 Euro postage. But one Yen!)

But Mary-Sue shaming is rooted in misogyny which is no less harmful. [...] The old double-standards are firmly in place - boys are allowed to dream bigger than girls, and their avatars are allowed to be awesome without question.

I don't think this is necessarily true. At least not in my circles of fandom; I've seen plenty of male-authored male chars called self-inserts. Rodney was totally a self-insert for Martin Gero, and I think Gero's writing suffered for it. And the few fic I've seen penned by younger men often have *outrageous* Gary Stus (there was this one DBZ epic featuring an OMC who could outfight anyone, named after the author...) Yes, Mary Sues are sporked more than Gary Stus, but I suspect that's primarily because there's a hundred times as many fanfics penned by women as by men, so a hundred times as many fanfic Mary Sues.

...and then, the concept of Mary Sue can often be misogynist in its own right. I'm reading an urban fantasy novel now in which the protagonist is awfully Mary Sue, and I find her off-putting not because she's too cool, but because she's isolated in her awesomeness - she's surrounded by hot guys who are also all badasses (if not as badass as her) but she is the only female character who's appeared for more than half a dozen pages in the whole novel. It's not uncommon for a Sue to be the single important female character in a world of men (while as a Gary Stu is rarely on his own with a bunch of women, except in anime harem shows and let's not go there!) and while this can be empowering wish fulfillment (especially when it's about inserting oneself into a series with an all-male cast) - it also can be misogynist in that it still ends up supporting the male-dominant status quo - men are still cooler than women, with only one exception.

So if pro-authors are putting more thought into their female chars, considering them more closely, developing them further to avoid the Mary Sue label - this might not be a bad thing.

Which isn't to say I believe it should be open season on Mary Sue. The Sue-mocking definitely can go too far. But then, a lot of the arenas of fandom mockery can go to far, I believe; it's not exclusive to Sues. I'm personally an advocate of live-and-let-live fanning, and the mocking side of fandom is always a conundrum, because no matter what opinion I take I'm passing judgment on someone's fanning style...

I don't agree with some of what you've said (see last paragraph *g*), but here's an area where I do diverge from the posts I linked to: like I said elsewhere, I think the Mary Sue concept becomes useful at the advanced writing/prowriting level, as a troubleshooting feature if nothing else. It's another tool in the toolbox, no more and no less; for a writer who's working beyond the level of "fun fantasy to share with my flist" (and not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that; I write for that reason quite frequently!) it's a useful test to apply to help answer the question "Why is this not working? Why does my beta hate this character? What can I do to improve this?"

And sometimes the answer will be "Yes, this is probably a Mary Sue, but I love her anyway/ I can make this work/ this character is right for this story" - just like there are times when a sentence fragment is the best possible way to convey meaning in a given paragraph. YA and kidlit is an obvious example, because (I'm speaking from personal experience here *g*) kids tend to like character "blanks" that they can insert themselves into, who get the cool toys and are totes oppressed and then get to beat up the bullies. Many of my favorite books were like that, and reading them as an adult is disconcerting, because the characters that I used to love seem to me now like cardboard cutouts or else painfully obvious self-inserts, and the characters I remember hating (flawed characters who struggle and fail) are the ones I like best now. But how many of us who were little girls in the '80s loved Menolly in Dragonsinger and wanted to be her? And the New Fannish Theory of Mary Sue says that not only is there nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing wrong with still loving Menolly and wanting to be her; it's not a dirty secret that has to be hidden.

And clearly profic self-inserts sell to adults - most romance is full of them (for women) and there are tons of military action stories or sci-fi stories (of the John Ringo type) that are obvious self-inserts for a certain type of guys. And the Gero-type insert (the likable, balding geek schlub who gets the girl), as much as it's derided in certain segment of fandom, is obviously popular among guys or there wouldn't be so many of them. So - knowing about the Mary Sue concept is a tool in the toolbox, and quite a useful one if you're looking to write some types of stories to appeal to some types of readers, but for other types of stories and other readers, the "Sues" work just fine.

Wrenching myself back to fanfic *g*, it doesn't really matter if there are profic Sues of the male and female varieties, because within the fanfic community, they're nearly all female, and nearly all written by women. And the issue at hand is how Mary Sue writers are treated by the fanfic community as a whole, and the effect that it has on new (and established) writers. Because there are testimonials which indicate that it does have a chilling effect, writers saying that they are afraid to write female characters for fear that they'll turn into Sues, or that they're afraid to start writing at all. So the thing is, I guess, these posts have sold me on the idea that there is a problem, and as a writer and a member of fandom, I would like to not be a part of the problem! Even if all I have to do to not be part of the problem is leave Mary Sues alone (which I was doing anyway) and not use Mary Sue as a shorthand for, or example of, bad writing (which I know I've done before) - at least not without thinking hard about what point I'm trying to get across and whether this is the best way of making it.

Hmm. Really I agree with almost all of what you say - especially because I'm taking as a given the general principals of fanfic include that nothing is out-of-bounds, that "good writing" never needs to be the goal of a fanfic-writer, and that id-satisfaction is one of the primary and totally acceptable reasons for fanfic - so of course Mary Sue is a legitimate fanfic construct! And I appreciate that you come at this from a somewhat different and changing perspective.

But I'm arguing anyway (other than just 'cuz I like to argue. Which, well, is old news!) because I'm not really convinced the chilling effect is all that cold, outside certain limited communities. I loved Menolly myself (and yes, totally wanted to be her. Except I wanted a queen dragon instead of just firelizards :P); I adored Jane Eyre and Secret Garden too. But given that the last two YA books to make it big were Harry Potter and Twilight, I hadly think the idea of a self-insert char is endangered in literature as a whole. And given its preponderance, I don't feel that some fans being a bit more critical than average, and wanting other things in their fiction, is that uncalled-for.

(It's the same reason I don't see much point in defending het fic in fandom - yes, parts of fandom are slash-heavy to the point of discouraging het fic, but that's decidedly counter to the norm in fiction overall. Het ficcers don't deserve to be abused or flamed, but slash-leaning communities shouldn't really have a responsibility to make het fans feel welcome, when it's only those isolated communities where slash is the rule. Even if within those communities it feels oppressively dominant.)

People, new fans, afraid of writing - yes, that's a problem! But I think that's more a problem with parts of fandom being overly critical and unaccepting in general, not limited to Mary Sues.

Some of the particular Mary Sue antipathy, too, I suspect is a generation gap that is always going to be there - blatant Mary Sues and self-insert chars are a more juvenile variety of fiction, and adults are always going to be somewhat dismissive of the childish pursuits of youth, just as younger people are always going to be somewhat dismissive of boring adult stuff. (in general obviously, there are always individual exceptions!) We can support Sues in theory, but a lot of us are never going to read them again (at least not for the same reasons) so I think a level of, hmm, gentle discouragement of Sues in certain fan communities is not necessarily out-of-line, but honest (same as some communities discourage fic with poor grammar/spelling.)

dangit! that was me again! >.>

ZOMG, okay, I read a post this morning that made a comparison that I had to come running back here to share, because I think it perfectly encapsulates where I've been trying to go with this.

It compared use of the term "Mary Sue" to use of the term "slut" (not as directly meaning the same thing, of course, but in terms of how they're used in critical discourse). And I went, OMG, yes, that's perfect. Because sluts and sluttish behavior - in its narrow, non-pejorative sense; the denotative, not the connotative - certainly exist! We've all known people who sleep around a lot, I'm sure; we see lots of them, of both genders, in the media.

But even though it describes a real, existing thing, "slut" is utterly useless as a term of criticism - because, the way it's been used all these years, it's intrinsically tangled up in its pejorative meaning, in its sexist connotations, in the blurred and subjective and impossible-to-define boundaries of the behavior it describes. It's so vague that it could mean anything: "that person has a lot of sex partners" or "that person cheated on their regular sex partner" or "that person's sexual morals are different from mine" or "I just don't like that person".

I don't think "Mary Sue" is nearly that bad yet, but I think it's rapidly sliding down all those axes - the vagueness one, the pejorative one, the sexism one. Saying "That character's a slut" stops critical discourse dead; even though the term refers to actual real-world behavior, there's no useful way you can go from there. And even though Mary Sue (in its narrow, non-pejorative sense) refers, or used to refer, to an actual thing, if you want to seriously talk about that thing, is it really the most useful term to use, with all the baggage and negative connotations and vagueness that go along with it? Or would it be more useful to stick to the specifics of the issue at hand - "This character would probably be more sympathetic if she didn't win so easily at the end", or whatnot.

Hmm. The difference is that there are alternative, non- (or less-) perjorative words to describe the same behavior as the basic defintion of "slut" - sexually promiscuous and/or polyamorous, depending on the sitation, have the same meaning but not the same judgmental ring. There isn't any alternative word to "Mary Sue" - "self-insert" is about the closest, but "self-insert" is nearly as judgmental, these days. And we need *some* word for the concept, judgmental or not; even if we stop using Mary Sue, another word will pop up to replace it, that's just how language works.

Some fans right now seem to be trying to reclaim Mary Sue as a positive term, as a creative fanfic trope to be encouraged, and I think that's probably got a better chance than ignoring the word and dimissing those who use it - especially since at least right now, a lot of thoughtful, intelligent fans out there will not have heard of this discussion, and not realize that "Mary Sue" is now considered unforgivably rude rather than just the name of a common fictional trope.

...argh. I want a new fandom out there...I'm tired of reading meta, I just want some squee, dangit! >.

--ack, that was me - lj'ing from work on no sleep, forgot to log in! ^^;

if they're worried about being flamed, that's one thing; but if all they're afraid of is that some reader might think that they made a Mary Sue...here I lean more on the side of a reader is entitled to their own opinions, and if you're going to post publically you should have the strength to ignore those opinions if you disagree with them. Letting perceived fan opinion sway you to the extent that you won't even try to write something (as opposed to trying and getting attacked for it, which is a different story) is a problem an individual author must surmount, rather than fandom as a whole.

Hmm, yes and no. Yes, it's necessary to have, or to cultivate, a skin that is at least somewhat thick in order to participate in fandom. To some extent, you've got to be able to ignore what people are saying about you just to be involved in social interaction, period. But I think there's a big difference between that, and having a significant number of fans being afraid to write because they fear a social climate that encourages finger-pointing and mocking.

Using h/c as an example again ... since that's largely what I write, it stings a bit when I run across someone remarking on how they can't stand h/c, even though I know it's just their opinion and not something that should matter to me. It stings a lot when I see one of my stories brought up in a negative way, although it doesn't happen very often. But that sort of thing is rare enough, and I have enough community support, that I can just shrug it off. I think that being told repeatedly that h/c isn't something a serious writer would want to write, and running across "how to write" posts that frequently mock it or explain how good writers don't do that would put me off, though, and make writing less fun for me. I don't know how much it would put me off because, frankly, I can't imagine anything stopping me from writing as long as I'm still capable of it. But I can only imagine how offputting it must be, and reading testimonials of fans who stopped writing or never started or don't write certain kinds of fic because they're afraid of the reaction is ... sobering. Yes, it's a perception on their part, and for most of them, their worst fears probably wouldn't come to pass. But just having that perception out there is a problem, you know? It's something that maybe we fandom old-timers should try to do something about. :)

(But you do have a point about different fannish contexts, and the fact that it certainly varies from fandom to fandom, subgroup to subgroup. And this is useful to keep in mind too! It would be interesting to hear from fans who still openly write Sues, or participate in Sue-friendly segments of fandom, if such places exist, as they almost certainly must - we may just be getting stuck on our own corner of fandom's mores, and failing to take into account other places.)

But that sort of thing is rare enough, and I have enough community support, that I can just shrug it off. I think that being told repeatedly that h/c isn't something a serious writer would want to write, and running across "how to write" posts that frequently mock it or explain how good writers don't do that would put me off, though, and make writing less fun for me.

*nods* That's a really good example. As a reader of h/c I know this would bug me tremendously, and turn fandom into a much less fun place.

The anti-slash sentiments of past fandom were disturbing not only because they were looking down on other fans' kinks, but because they were often homophobic, and that's harmful outside of fanning. When it comes to fans mocking fans for strictly fannish things - I don't know that it's always harmful.

Also, to paraphrase

astridv and take her point a little further - homophobia in fandom is bad because it reflects negative attitudes directed at LGBTQ people in RL, and marginalizes queer fans, right? Anti-kink sentiment in fandom marginalizes kinky fans and implies that there's something wrong with their sexuality. And so forth. But the anti-Mary Sue sentiment in fandom is doing the same thing to (some) fans' identities as women and girls, isn't it? Self-insertion characters are personal avatars by their very nature, maybe more personal than anything else any of us write. This is something I had not thought about until reading this round of links, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like mocking a person's fannish self-insert character and pointing out how juvenile and stupid it is, is one of the nastiest things a person can do.

Obviously there's a difference between that, and how most of us relate to Mary Sue fic. I don't think I've ever pointed and mocked a Mary Sue, especially not to the author's face. But I've certainly tossed off the Mary Sue phrase as a shorthand for bad writing, bad plotting and so forth. I don't think it should necessarily be thrown out entirely - like I said, um, somewhere, I *do* think it's a useful concept in editing and critiquing one's work. But I also think that it might be a term that's become so trite that it might be far more useful (and less prone to potential problems) to say what one really means - not "That's a Mary Sue" but "Should this character really have won so easily?" or whatever is appropriate to the situation. And maybe it's useful for us to look past our knee-jerk "Mary Sue!" reaction (when it happens) and try to figure out what's causing the reaction and why it bothers us so much. (There's an interesting thread elsewhere in this discussion that talks about that a little bit.)

But the anti-Mary Sue sentiment in fandom is doing the same thing to (some) fans' identities as women and girls, isn't it?

Hmm. I actually don't think this is the case - if anything, it's the opposite. A Mary Sue (at least traditionally) is not merely a self-insert - it's a glorified self-insert, an idealized version of oneself. Consider the traits of a classic Mary Sue - the violet or sapphire eyes, the flowing hair, etc etc. To mock Mary Sues is to reject this model - to reject that a girl needs to be perfect and amazing and gorgeous to be worthy of love and loyalty. The Mary Sues that are most often mocked (in fanfic and in canonical works, too) are those which are the most fantastic and unbelievable and perfect - the standard litmus test for Mary Sueism is if the char has any real flaws. The more flawed and human a char is, the less likely fans are to cry Mary Sue.

Actually, this may also be one reason why Mary Sues and self-inserts are targeted more than other fannish tropes - because they are self-evident examples of authorial hubris, and pride past a certain point is still considered a sin, or at the very least a character flaw.

The lack of flaws in Mary Sues I suspect is often just a result of them mostly being written by inexperienced and younger writers - and it's not limited to self-inserts; many writers will make canonical chars overly perfect as well. It is a more juvenile element of writing - not that juvenile means bad, but as many people judge writing, complexity = quality, and hence the Mary Sue trope by its nature is never going to be considered quality writing by most standards. And as such, it's always going to be mocked by the contingent of fans who are into such fanning styles.

A Mary Sue (at least traditionally) is not merely a self-insert - it's a glorified self-insert, an idealized version of oneself. Consider the traits of a classic Mary Sue - the violet or sapphire eyes, the flowing hair, etc etc. To mock Mary Sues is to reject this model - to reject that a girl needs to be perfect and amazing and gorgeous to be worthy of love and loyalty.

I do get what you're saying here, and I think that a lot of fans who write that kind of Mary Sue will probably realize this for themselves eventually (or else make peace with the problematic aspects of it and continue enjoying it), but I don't think that having other fans come in from the outside, telling them that they're oppressing themselves, is going to help. Or that it's anyone else's business, really. It's like ... I dunno, telling someone who enjoys noncon fantasies that she's contributing to rape culture. She'll probably say "stop telling me what to fantasize about!" ... and she'd be right.

Actually, I think that's probably what was the most valuable for me about reading the posts in this meta-round - to begin to see the Mary Sue as a legitimate fantasy, that a lot of people have and enjoy, rather than a form of poor writing that "proper" writers grow out of!

haven't even had my first cup of tea yet, but I have to reply first...

A Mary Sue (at least traditionally) is not merely a self-insert - it's a glorified self-insert, an idealized version of oneself. Consider the traits of a classic Mary Sue - the violet or sapphire eyes, the flowing hair, etc etc. To mock Mary Sues is to reject this model - to reject that a girl needs to be perfect and amazing and gorgeous to be worthy of love and loyalty.

I could not disagree more.

Yes, Mary Sue is a gloriefied self-insert, that's the point. I spent many of my teenage years making up stories of that great, totally awesome version of Me who was having adventures with the crew of the Enterprise in a Star Wars/Star Trek/my fave YA novel amalgamum. I was super-cool, I'm telling you. Confident and multi-skilled. Totally unrealistic, and very unlike my then-shy real self.

I think that Sue helped me develop a sense of self. I believe it's actually a healthy thing in a young person's development.

Dream big. What is wrong with that? And like I said, boys get to do it all the time; your entire graphic novel genre is based on the concept of superheroes! Superman, if we're talking Sues, is one of the biggest of all. Kids will imagine themselves to be heroes (or heroines) and that's a good and natural thing. That is not something we should reject.

Or at least leave it to the individual. Maybe not all people are dreamers like that. But I was. And I loved it. These fantasies were precious to me.

It's not up to us to police other people's fantasies.

eta: Not to mention, Mary Sue is a way for girls and women to write themselves into stories and main roles that are all too often reserved for guys. A female fan can identify with the guy in the main role, and that's of course what many fans do, and there's nothing wrong with that... or she can write herself into a main role, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

When I watched the movie "Remo: Unarmed and Dangerous" it triggered a very happy elaborate series of daydreams in which I kicked Remo out and wrote myself in instead. And years later I realized that that was one of the main reasons why I took up martial arts. Martial arts was something that gave me pleasure, confidence, friends, and many things more. It made me discover the joy of working out (after years of playing ball games in school sports which I loathed with a passion.) Thank you, Remo, is all I can say. :)

Edited 2010-04-13 10:09 (UTC)

And my avatar when I was a pre-teen rode a Pernese dragon who could take me between dimensions to different fictional universes (and conveniently became a spaceship for my Jedi smuggler Star Wars alter ego!)

I'm not arguing we should police fantasies! Fantasies are awesome! And more than that, as I said outright above, I believe Mary Sues are a perfectly legitimate fictional trope. And that some of the mockery of them goes too far. Especially when it's targeting kids.

OTOH, sometimes the criticism (of the concept, generally, not targeting specific fans) is an acknowledgment that self-insertion makes for somewhat juvenile fiction. And that as adults we often look for more and different things in our fiction. And sometimes fantasies subconsciously play into socialized gender constructs and other things that we want to move beyond.

The criticism I've seen against Mary Sues is not against the idea of self-insertion fantasies, but against written, posted stories about those fantasies. I wonder if part of the reason Sues set many fans off is because they're personal fantasies given text, and there's something almost, hmm, obscene about that. I didn't write anything with my own personal Sue but I drew her a lot - but I never liked showing people the drawings; it was so personal to me. It's not the fantasy but its publication - not that fans are writing the stories, but that they're posting them, when they're meant to be private.

(The above, btw, is not me saying that I think the anti-Mary Sue folks are all correct and justified - fanfic is largely about id-satisfaction, and self-inserts are id-tastic, so more power to them! But at the same time, I feel that "Mary Sue" is important as a critical concept, and that should be examined and questioned and yes, maybe mocked a bit.)

You know, it doesn't really sound to me that you guys are arguing positions that are that far apart. I mean, you both agree that self-insert fantasies are natural, healthy, and nearly universal; that fanfic is full of the id and that Mary Sue stories are another expression of that; that mocking and bullying kids is nasty; and that fangirls of whatever stripe should have the right to their own spaces with their own social values, right?

Yup, that's a succinct summation!

I think I'm mostly arguing from the position that fantasy != fiction, that cricizing fiction is not the same as criticizing fantasy. And I feel that Mary Sue is a legitimate fictional trope but also a legitimate critical concept. And I feel that mocking can be a legitimate form of criticism, and that publically posted fanfiction should not necessarily be off-limits from criticism (though what limits there should be I really can't say, it's an area I seesaw on all the time...) So fundamentally...I don't think all Mary Sue mocking is inherently bad. Even if some of it is.

I think I agree up to a point but not beyond that point, if that makes any sense. I mean, I've long believed that you need a thick skin to get by in fandom and in life, and I still think that. But ...

fantasy != fiction, that cricizing fiction is not the same as criticizing fantasy.

... I think fails to take into account humans-as-emotional-creatures. It's one thing to know, intellectually, that it's okay to like what you like, and that other people can't take your fantasies away from you. But in actual practice, we're so close to our fantasies, and we have so much trouble separating ourselves from them, that criticism of a Fannish Thing (a story, a fannish love object) feels like criticism of us, and I don't really think that's going to change. Especially since the line between pure fantasy indulgence, and guilty, unhappy, ashamed fantasy indulgence is so very narrow in most of us. There have definitely been times that I've talked about beloved personal things with other people and ended up feeling as if their scorn or criticism had tarnished my enjoyment of the original. (Heck ... SGA, in some ways.)

It's not black and white because obviously you have to balance every individual fan's need to fan in her own way - I mean, I've generally tended to think of publicly posted work as being open to criticism too. And I don't think it shouldn't be, but I'm starting to really come around on my crit=yay! viewpoint that I've espoused for so long, because maybe we fans, as a group, need to put a little more effort into being kind to each other. I know some people complain about the Cult of Nice in fandom, but it really seems to me more like we've got the opposite problem, a cult of Nasty where we use our journals to attack and tear down each other. Maybe fandom would be a more welcoming place if we (fandom) tried a little harder to keep our more pointed critiques and mocking to private posts/emails/lists. I don't think I would want to go all the way to "critiques should never happen in public!" with associated blaming/shaming of people who dare to criticize each other (... which happens, come to think of it) because you're just getting a different aspect of high school that way. >_> But I do think that it's much too simplistic to say, "Well, critiquing or mocking the story isn't critiquing or mocking the person!" because even for me, it sometimes feels that way, and for something really close to the heart, it feels that way even more - and Mary Sues are about as close to the heart as it gets.

"Well, critiquing or mocking the story isn't critiquing or mocking the person!"

Hmm. This wasn't what I was saying (which I think you realize, but just to clarify) - I was more meaning that to, say, discuss why the Mary Sue construct can make for less sophisticated writing is not to say anything about the act of fantasizing a self insert. Many of us fantasized self-insert, Mary-Sue type chars when we young, but never wrote down or posted stories with them - probably, for many of us, because the Internet didn't exist when we were having such fantasies, so it never occurred to us to even try to share them. But the act of fantasizing is different from writing, which is different again from posting.

And I realize that it can be hard to separate - that once you write up a fantasy into a story, then you are close to the story. All the same, it seems inaccurate to me to say that anti-Mary Sue-ing is the same as being anti-self-insert daydreams - that to criticize Mary Sues is to criticize the ego-actualizing fantasies of young girls. If you are targeting a specific fangirl's story/Sue, making fun of it on a comm, or flaming her for it - yes, that's cruel, and potentially damaging. But to say that you don't care for Mary Sues in general in your fanfic, to write a parody Sue, to use "Mary Sue" as a critical term to discuss a certain type of char - I don't think that's the same as saying girls shouldn't fantasize, any more than critically discussing the problematic aspects of superheroes, or making fun of Superman, is to say that boys shouldn't fantasize.

Maybe fandom would be a more welcoming place if we (fandom) tried a little harder to keep our more pointed critiques and mocking to private posts/emails/lists.

I wonder about this...it seems like it might be even worse, in some ways, if everyone is always snarking behind one another's backs, if no one dares express a negative opinion in public for fear of being considered "nasty." It has the potential to be super-cliquish, as you say. But fans are always going to have negative opinions about fiction and fictional tropes and fandom and other fans, expressed or not; it's part of being a fan, part of being human.

There's got to be a happy medium...I just don't know where!

A pox on logging in! A pox I say!! >.

At this point I pretty much just assume that anonymous comments are you. *g*

Oh, frig, I know what I want to say; I just can't figure out how to say it.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)