Talk:Mary Sue

Not even the people on this site can seem to agree what's a Mary Sue.

Which is why I removed the "Ever-Growing" List. All it did was illustrate how arbitrary the definition can be while making the article unnecessarily bloated.--Newerfag (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

But that was the purpose of the section: a giant skub magnet, like what Mary Sue chars tend to do when brought up anywhere. Tactical Mehren (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Mary Sue lists

Why do the lists keep getting removed. The list of Mary Sue characters was a skub magnet, but there were a few legitimate entries, and there was no reason to remove the list of types of Mary Sue. Could we restore one or both lists and get the page semi-protected please?

What purpose did the list serve? -- SFH (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was supposed to serve any purpose, it was to demonstrate how arbitrary the definition of a Mary Sue was by providing flimsy rationales for how every fictional character that ever existed could be interpreted as a Mary Sue. The lists shouldn't have been made in the first place- take them somewhere else. --Newerfag (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The purpose was "because people wanted a toy to play with," like Emperor's To-Do List; and that is okay, since people can play at being wiki editors over there without buggering up the articles people actually use as references and citations on /tg/. If you find it seriously not to your liking, just leave it alone and think of it as a 'containment article' like the "something General" threads on 4chan. --NotBrandX (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

They have userpages for that sort of thing, and the Emperor's To-do List doesn't sound like a bunch of people whining about how much they hate a fictional character. The fact that the "containment article" needs its own containment articles kind of speaks for itself now.--Newerfag (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Humanity

I don't think humanity should really be on the list. Nor, come to think of it, should Elves. The fact that a race is often purely portrayed, or that a lot of characters of that race are Sues, doesn't make the race itself a "race of Sues" (unlike, say, chakats, which are definitely all Sues). --69.125.57.117 04:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Because when a Elf acts like they're better than everyone else its bad, but when a human does it its Humanity Fuck Yeah! (ie good). sounds like a mary sue trait to me.
• The only humans that AREN'T Mary Sues are ones still born in reality, eg. You and Me. --Derpysaurus
• That's why I put humanity on the list (that and not all elves are Mary Sues while we give our species a lot of favoritism in fiction). No one would have taken notice of the article if I just complained about how not all elves are Mary Sues. Proves that much of 4chan is anthropocentric.
• How is cheering for your race a Mary sue trait?

---

People didn't like it

Who were said people again? I'm pretty sure they were having fun pointing out Mary Sues and reading the satirical content.
Tactical Mehren (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved the list

One article for 'what is a Mary Sue,' another article for 'who is a Mary Sue'. --NotBrandX (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did that image with the superheroes come from?

Because it's perfect in every single way and I love every atom of it. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow chart

I don't agree with the flow chart because it says that if your character is a female, it's a mary sue. Now I'm not a feminist but I think that's kind of unfair if every female character is labelled a mary sue. Surely not every female character is a mary sue. Samus isn't. Sarah Kerrigan isn't. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The flow chart's a joke, if you follow it to the end it says that everybody is a Mary Sue, regardless of whether they're male or female, the only difference is how long it takes to get to that point in the chart. -- Triacom (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this a Mary Sue?

Could somebody please explain to me how the "AntiSue" and "Sympathy Sue" character types are Mary Sues? When the description is like this, then you're not describing a Mary Sue:

The first case results in an extremely noticeable character archetype: the one guy who is theoretically on the side of the heroes, but is useless, wrong about everything, an asshole, and generally disliked by the rest of the heroes, and who spends all of his or her time complaining or offering obviously stupid ideas. Remember Eric the Cavalier from the 1980s D&D cartoon? How about Nathan Ramsey from Seven Days? The Grand Vizier from War Planets? The magical ragdoll character "One" from the movie "9"? Avoid writing characters like this. Please.

So please explain to me how not writing a Mary Sue qualifies as writing a Mary Sue. -- Triacom (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I refer you to TVTropes on the subject. But my definitions of the distinction are:

• Anti-Sues are somewhat complicated; they fall into the "Sue despite being ugly/stupid/unpopular" camp (which is an easy case: They're still Mary Sues, they just have one real "flaw"), and the "Butt Monkey" camp. The later is fairly complicated (and only arguably qualifies as a Sue), but the author bending the plot over backwards to make them wrong or have them suffer is the usually distinguishing mark; they get called "Sues" because their role is effectively the same as a regular Mary Sue, just in reverse. The same "Why is this the main character?" question hanging over it, the same "the plot entirely revolves around the main character" problem, the same "That makes no sense" and "things that only happened because the Author said so" plots, the same "there must be mind control involved" character reactions, just set to negative instead of positive.
• Sympathy Sues are more straightforward. They're just Sues tuned to "Invoke Audience Sympathy" rather then, or in addition to, "Being Awesome".

For the purposes of this article, these are simply a complicating factor in any definition of "Mary Sue": These are things that get called "Mary Sueish", and there is a definite overlap in the way they are written. For the most part, we don't need to cover them, because they so rarely show up in /tg/-related stuff, but they still need to be mentioned when defining "Mary Sue", in order to make clear why the definition is frequently so blurry. All that being said, I'm not defending the paragraph you quoted. It's still an annoying character type, but it's not really a Mary Sue in the usual definition of that term. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I've zapped the paragraph you quoted as not actually being about Mary Suedom. Feel free to revert me on this, though, as I can see the counterargument (the character types described are really annoying). Saarlacfunkel (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If we're using tvtropes as a source, let me remind you they'll make the most tenuous connections, and often either see something that isn't there or will make shit up. If you're ignoring the flaws of a character so that you can call them a Mary Sue, then you're not using the term right. Even if we just start grading the flaws and saying they only have one "real" flaw, then all of a sudden any character who's extremely good at their job becomes a Mary Sue. It's bullshit made up just to broaden the definition rather than something that actually follows what a Mary Sue is supposed to be. As for butt monkeys, that description is entirely the opposite of a Mary Sue, so explain to me how not writing a Mary Sue means you wrote a Mary Sue. The plot going out of its way to make/prove them wrong is not indicative of that, unless we change the definition. Sympathy Sue's are the same, they're either a Mary Sue or they're not. Trying to broaden the definition again does not help, and neither does attaching an extra label to it. It's thanks to these extra inclusions that the label has become blurry in the first place, and I'd like to hear you justify them. -- Triacom (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Also the paragraph I quoted describes butt monkeys to a T, so I'm putting it back in. -- Triacom (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. The "Butt Monkey" Anti-Sue case is very much a case that has the "reading the author's mind" problem of most Doyalist interpretations of "Mary Sue". Maybe I'll edit things to make that clearer. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, can you please explain how they're a Mary Sue then if they don't fit the definition? Having poor writing and doing certain things just because the author wants them to is not itself an example of a Mary Sue, neither does having the plot revolve around them. When we stretch the definition like that, it literally covers everyone. "Why does the book Farmer Boy revolve around Almanzo? Must be a Mary Sue." How about this one: "Why's Tom Sawyer an asshole, why is he doing what he's doing and why does the plot revolve around him? Must be a Mary Sue." As for sympathy Sue's, they're either Mary Sue's or they're not. The definition itself isn't a slippery one at all, people just keep trying to make characters fit it when it doesn't work. If you can't explain how these labels describe separate instances of Mary Sue's I'm going to delete them, because we should not assist in watering down the definition to the point where it can include literally everyone. -- Triacom (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Who : The Timeless Child (SPOILER)

I did not think we would get to this point, but should we add the doctor to the list? Here why:Timeless Children Doctor Who: Series 12 on youtube

Like one of the comment said, "Can't The Doctor just be a madman w/ a box, passing through, helping out. Why make him/her the most important person in the universe?".--Gilten (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Doctor in general fits the description. Sure, the 13th Doctor is a skidmark on the entire franchise, especially after the season finale, but for this one I would rather we mirror what the frenemies over at tvtropes list, and I couldn't find them tagging the doctor as a sue, not even on the page for the 13th. --Taufag (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If you ask me, this is a Batman Scenario: Yes, it's a Sue, but only in the hands of an unskilled writer. Omnicompitant characters frequently fall into this scenario. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Doctor is only a Sue in the hands of a poor writer. Also anyone whining about the Doctor being the most important person in the universe is way too late, the time to complain about that was when Moffat took over and fucked everything up. -- Triacom (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)