In Which Feather Quill Rants...

[featherxquill]

I want to rant about MARY-SUES. Ergh, I hear you sigh. Not another person who found Fanfiction dot net and realised it was full of SHIT.

Well, actually, no.

This rant is in favour of Mary Sues. Well, kind of. I would like to know what Mary-Sues actually ARE. I know the 'dictionary' definition, but what that is and what it equates to in people's minds are two totally different things.

This is not something I have trouble with much anymore, since I haven't played (rp-d or fanficced) with my OFC much at all in the last six months, but it used to be something I came up against all the time. Hatred of OFCs, hatred of Mary-Sues. Being called Mary-Sue by people who hadn't even stopped to watch you play, but decided on it by simply glancing at your signature.

What exactly makes a female character a Mary-Sue? Commonly, it is the assumption that the writer/rp-er is making an idealised version of herself, that a MS is just too perfect to be real.

What bothers me is what makes a character be seen as a Mary-Sue. Any character who is seen to be both attractive AND intelligent is a Mary-Sue, any character who is more powerful than (than what? than Harry? than Dumbledore?) is seen as a Mary-Sue. And fandom hates them. Men hate them. Women hate them. Everyone seems to hate them.

What bothers me is the idea that a woman CANNOT be all of those things - beautiful, intelligent, sexy, powerful. The assumptions that these kind of women are to be bashed, flamed and put down - even in fanfiction - is distressing to me.

Thank God, women like this do exist. There are women in the world - in the workforce, in academia, wherever - that are all of these things. Flick through any glossy magazine. Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Lopez. Beautiful, sexy, rich, powerful, famous. Often cut down by reporters. If these women were written into fiction, would they be Mary-Sues?

I have heard people call Hermione Granger a Mary-Sue, just for being intelligent. The most horrible thing to do to Hermione, according to some readers, is to make her beautiful. Why is that? Is Hermione only allowed to be seen as a real woman while she is either intelligent OR sexy? Why can she not be both? When is she ever described in canon as being ugly? Admittedly, there are many writers out there who completely ignore canon and turn characters into horrible parodies of the ones we know and love, but why does a Hermione who decides that hey, maybe it would be nice to straighten my hair a bit immediately become a Hermione-sue? (Go and read Anna's Roman Holiday for a story where Hermione is both intelligent and sexy, and STILL a real, three dimensional, recognisable character.

And what about the male characters? People talk about 'Gary-Stu', but hardly as often as they talk about his female counterpart. Gary-Stuism usually happens to Snape, and usually involves some sort of makeover. But I'm not really sure that's what qualifies as a Gary-Stu, in terms of the 'projection' definition.

I have a friend who RPs Snape (or at least used to), and he refuses to believe that Snape could ever fall in love. Now, is something like that really canon at all? We know nothing at all about Snape in that capacity. All information we have about him is filtered through Harry, and through the channels of student/teacher relationships. We know NOTHING about Snape's desires for romance/relationships or lacktherof. Yes, this is going somewhere.

What interests me is that for a MALE RPer of Snape (and the other male Snape rpers that I know), the attraction seems to be to play a complete and utter bastard of a man who can tell people off as he pleases, or (in the case of the foremost Snape) take rp lovers that he will never care for or want for more than sex. Is this Snape 'canon'? Is snarky!bastard!hateful!Snape more canon than one who shows emotions in private? Is he more of a believable man than a woman who is intelligent, sexy and powerful? I don't really think so. I think the desire to play a Snape who is mean and nasty stems as much from perceived 'canon' Snape as it does from a desire to inhabit a factional character and act in a way that you would never be able to in RL, and hence exactly what women are criticised for when they create 'Mary-Sue' characters.

I don't think any of these characters are Mary-Sues. Obviously, I don't extend this to include those characters who have ten animagi forms, are part fairy and part Tolkien elf, are Snape's daughter and Dumbledore's granddaughter and both Harry and Draco's sister and going out with Ron, but I heartily dislike characterisation of all beautiful, intelligent, powerful female characters as Mary-Sues. Thanks to feminism and the battles fought in the past, women are able to be all of these things in the real world. Don't crucify them when they appear in the fictional one.

Comments

Writers, Readers and Sues (Part 3)

[dazzleberry.livejournal.com]

Fantasy writer + critical reader + writer's Sue = Seldom a good combination. Once again, this writer is not occupied enough with the story to leave the characters alone, and if she's critiquing the writer's stand-in, there's a high potential for offense.


Fantasy writer + critical reader + reader's Sue = Tetchy. This reader is going to notice the lack of characterization, and her eyebrows have already migrated to her hairline because the genre is so difficult for her to believe to begin with. You have to give this reader something to occupy her mind, and most fantasy won't do it.

Psychological writer + escapist reader + writer's Sue = Iffy. This reader wants to *escape* real life, not to be confronted with it. If she reads a writer's Sue that is a heavy psychological study, she's probably going to be reminded of someone she has to deal with in real life, and probably won't be thrilled. The only thing that turns this reader away is too much reality.

Psychological writer + escapist reader + reader's Sue = Not so hot. This reader doesn't necessarily want to lose herself in fiction, but if she does, she wants it to be a nicer world than the one she left. Psychological studies are often a hallmark of angst, and they can leave this reader feeling raw and dissatisfied.

Psychological writer + empathetic reader + writer's Sue = either heaven or hell. If the reader is able to share the stand-in with the writer, then this works just as well for her as the reader's sue. If the reader and writer have similar desires and expectations, this works well. If the writer is into goth and the reader is into glam, though, the writer's sue is going to get in the reader's way of self-insertion, and it will not be a happy fit.

Psychological writer + empathetic reader + reader's Sue = Danger. Code Red. This reader is getting lost in the character, remember? She is *becoming* the character. The psychological study is not a very safe place for her to do this. She is less likely to get her happy ending here, but even worse, it's not going to be a romantic unhappy ending. She isn't going to die heroically to save the world, and she isn't going to pine away for love. There is high potential for this reader to become psychotic with this story, because it's too raw for her.

Psychological writer + critical reader + writer's Sue = One sided bliss. The reader loves having something so real and raw to sink her teeth into, but the writer must be prepared for the critique. The critical reader recognizes psychology, and is going to be quite willing to discuss it at length, often in terms of how realistic it is and how 'screwed up' the character is. Given that this character is the writer's stand-in, there is once again a high potential for offense.

Psychological writer + critical reader + reader's Sue = True love. This reader really 'buys' this character, and there's plenty of room for her to analyze and think about it. This Sue isn't well-developed enugh to set off this reader's 'reality sensors', but she's interesting enough to intrigue the critic. This is a story the reader is likely to tout as 'brilliant', much to the writer's elation.

Now, if it were only so easy to guage writers and readers and characters, there'd be less 'Sue' accusation thrown around. For the critic, the challenge is to keep the character intriguing without flagging her as unrealistic. For the escapist, the character simply needs to stay out of her way. For the empath, the character needs to be 'safe' to 'become', and familiar enough that nothing stands in her way.

And any time a reader's expectations are not met, the cry of Sue! is the result.

</long, rambling, unsubstantiated observations>