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

[lea-hazel.livejournal.com]

I mostly agree. I think Mary Sewage is a very real problem for most fledgeling writers, but I also believe it's a phase that most of them get over natually when they start wanting more from their stories than mindless gratification. That's what a Mary Sue is, in essence: using writing as a form of gratification that allows the writer ro have everything s/he wants, and achieve it all without consequence or effort. As a result I think the true Mary Sue is a fascinating character study -- of her author, and by proxy society.

On the other hand, I also believe the term Mary Sue is thrown around recklessly by many readers, and used as a tool in needless character bashing. Instead of putting some thought into what makes them dislike a certain character, readers will just say she is a Mary Sue. Often they will complain about her being "flawless" and then proceed to outline all of her flaws in the same argument. I think this is because they don't realize that it's the character's true flaws that irritate them, and that the ability to create a character who is sometimes -- or even often -- irritating is important to a writer. Certainly much more important than creating characters who are always easy to like.

Me, I need to be able to hate a character sometimes, in order to love her/him. But nevermind that.

I agree that fandoms are often overly harsh on OFCs, much moreso than OMCs. Fandoms are generally harsher on the female characters than the male ones. Even in fandoms where the main protagonists are female, the amount of negative judgement passed on supporting female characters, the sheer spite of it, and yes, the character bashing, sometimes blow my mind.

I don't know what causes this, and I don't know why it seems to come primarily from female readership. I suspect it shares some common sources with the widespread phenomenon of male/male slash among female readers. I think decades and centuries of male-dominated literary history have caused some female readers to condition themselves against female characters, to dislike them by instinct. Then again, this is a rather far-fetched theory, and full of assumptions.