The Mary Sue Problem

Actually, there’s two problems which are connected to the term ‘Mary Sue.’ One problem is over-powered and over-candied characters (often referred to as ‘Mary Sue’). The other problem is the way the term is often used. But let’s do things bit by bit, shall we?

The term ‘Mary Sue’ came into being through a Star Trek fan-fiction with a female wish-fulfilment character named Mary Sue, who could do everything, despite being very young and on the lower end of the hierarchy within Starfleet. Of course, Mary Sue would have been a ‘Mary Sue’ as a man, too. Just look at Wesley and the abuse heaped on him by TNG fans - and he’s way less of an over-powered and over-candied character than Miss Sue was.

So, as a such, the term ‘Mary Sue’ refers to any character who has an unrealistic amount of what Mythcreants refers to as ‘candy’ (meaning any overly positive traits, the opposite coined by the page is ‘spinach’ for negative traits). If a character is loved by all, can do everything, and is perfect in every way, he, she, or it is a ‘Mary Sue’ (which reminds me of Mary Poppins … perhaps that name could have been used instead?). So far, so good. And, as you might have spotted in the last sentence, this term can be used for every character, no matter the sex or species. An intersexual alien can be a ‘Mary Sue.’ An overly manly man can be a ‘Mary Sue’ (even though some coined the term ‘Gary Stu’ for the male variety, but it never caught on as much). So far, it’s also not that much of a problem. A term for characters which are badly written and definitely need to take their spinach is not bad as a such.

But (you knew that was coming, right?) the term still is bad, because of its usual use. Female characters which dare to break the usual expectations for a female character (quite often by being more competent, confident, or outright badass) run a much higher chance of being called out as a ‘Mary Sue’ than male characters with the same qualities. A male character can get away with a lot more candy before being called out - if they are called out at all. Let me give you an example or two.

Katniss Everdeen, main character of the Hunger Games series, is often called out as a ‘Mary Sue,’ but is she one? She was trained in archery since childhood, so it’s not as if she learned that specific skill in short time. She has survived in a dystopian future for a long time, which makes her quite adept at surviving (even though she’s pretty new at the ‘to the death’ game variety). She does have her candy and she does have the usual YA love triangle, but she’s not really a ‘Mary Sue.’ She’s competent, she becomes confident, she certainly can kick ass, but that’s not enough to make her a true ‘Mary Sue.’ Yet, people claim she is one, simply because she is a female character one might call a wish-fulfilment one.

What about James Bond? He was trained as an agent and has been on the frontlines for a long time, so high competence for his job is to be expected. Yet, he is supposed to live in a more or less realistic version of our world. That means he shouldn’t be able to survive that many bullets, that many car accidents, that many almost-drowning incidents. Yet, he does. Don’t get me wrong - Mr. Bond is an action hero and those are exceedingly resilient. But still, he should be dead. And I bet that if Mr. Bond became a Miss Bond in the next movie (or a POC, even though I think Ezra Idris would have rocked the role), people would start complaining about 007’s level of candy. As a man, he isn’t anything less of a wish-fulfilment character (all leading characters are, to a certain degree), but he’s in much less danger of being called out as a ‘Mary Sue.’

One interesting thing I saw during a recent discussion about the term was that someone claimed female badass warriors were a wish-fulfilment character for men who like dominant women. Now, far be it from me to judge other people’s kinks, but why is it more likely for some people that a woman who kicks asses and takes names is a man’s wish-fulfilment character? That she’s not someone women want to see, because they’re fed up with the female lead often only being a damsel in distress and trophy to enhance the story of the male lead?

There still are relatively few female characters who kick ass and take names. There’s Furiosa in recent movie history. There’s Xena, if you want to go for something classic. There’s a handful of others, too. What I mean here are female warriors who have the build and the skill sets for what they’re doing. Not Hollywood-pretty actresses who engage in the art of waif-fu and look at the same time like a strong wind can topple them over. Not characters who are all strong and self-reliant until the hero comes around, at which point they become shy damsels in need of rescue. Those badasses are wish-fulfilment characters for women as much - if not more - as for men. Women who don’t sit around and wait to be rescued. Women who go out and rescue others, men and women alike. Women who represent the often forgotten side of history, the history of female leaders, fighters, and badasses. So, yes, some men might want to see a dominant woman on the screen who deals out punishment - and they’re welcome to watch those female badasses. But don’t underestimate the number of women who enjoy seeing a Xena, a Buffy, or a Furiosa do their thing on screen.

But what, to come back to the trouble with the ‘Mary Sue,’ can be done about that? First of all, we could drop the term, because of its female connotation (since it’s clearly a woman’s name) and find something else. ‘Hairy Who’ was suggested in the discussion I mentioned above. Or just talk about over-powered or over-candied (I like the term ‘candy,’ because it doesn’t really need a lot of explanation - it’s too much of the good stuff). Both terms are gender-neutral, meaning you won’t instinctively or automatically judge male, female, and neutral characters differently when it comes to them.

First and foremost, however, stop pushing women into much more limited roles in storytelling. We’re far from the time when most fairy tales were written (and even those come with the occasional female badass), there’s no reason why a princess shouldn’t go out these days to battle a dragon and free a prince (or find another princess for the happily ever after). Once women have the same range of characters as men already do, we will only use terms like ‘Mary Sue’ or ‘over-candied’ for characters who really deserve them.

Before you call a character out for being a ‘Mary Sue,’ take a very, very close look at them. Are they really over-powered or just very competent. Are their skills and traits realistic enough for the surrounding? Because then they’re not ‘Mary Sues.’