I've seen plenty of people get angry at Edward Cullen, Christian Grey, Jace Wayland, and countless fanfiction versions of Harry Potter or Draco Malfoy, among others, for being overpowered, smug jerks, perfect at everything they try, and adored by just about everyone who knows them.
While I agree that the Gary Stu should be just as known and accepted as the Mary Sue, that doesn't mean Mary Sues should be considered acceptable. There are plenty of ways to write female characters who are beautiful, strong, smart, or competent without having them be Mary Sues.
As I pointed out, there are quite a few cases where it's a matter of opinion on what makes a Mary Sue. If a person doesn't think a character's intended flaws balance out her strengths or that a character is given unrealistic amounts of attention or if a character is considered overly special without reason, they'll think that character is a Stu or Sue. If another person thinks that the same character is well-written, has genuine flaws to contend with, and has an understandable place in the story, they won't think the character is a Stu or Sue.
Now, I know people often use the Stu or Sue term to snipe at characters they simply don't like, which is a problem.
The issue I have with the article is that it seems to be saying that either if a female character is strong, independent, beautiful, talented, special, etc she'll automatically be labeled a Sue (which is not necessarily true - for every character on FF.net accused of being a Sue, you can find plenty of other people praising that character as being well-written. The only exceptions I can think of are characters like Ebony Darkness D'mentia Raven Way, who are that over-the-top) or that because a character is written as incredibly strong, independent, beautiful, talented, special, etc she's automatically a fully-developed character and calling her a Mary Sue is disempowering to women (which is also not true. Just because a character is beautiful and powerful and have magical powers doesn't make them a role model. Like I said, I've seen plenty of characters who fit that mold who were also ridiculously objectified and stripped of any sense of actual agency). That was what I had issue with, not the idea that male and female characters should be held to different standards. Well-written characters are a standard that should be a given for both of the sexes.
I hope I explained myself properly there and I apologize for being long-winded. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Doesn't refute their main argument.
Date: 2014-12-02 12:33 am (UTC)While I agree that the Gary Stu should be just as known and accepted as the Mary Sue, that doesn't mean Mary Sues should be considered acceptable. There are plenty of ways to write female characters who are beautiful, strong, smart, or competent without having them be Mary Sues.
As I pointed out, there are quite a few cases where it's a matter of opinion on what makes a Mary Sue. If a person doesn't think a character's intended flaws balance out her strengths or that a character is given unrealistic amounts of attention or if a character is considered overly special without reason, they'll think that character is a Stu or Sue. If another person thinks that the same character is well-written, has genuine flaws to contend with, and has an understandable place in the story, they won't think the character is a Stu or Sue.
Now, I know people often use the Stu or Sue term to snipe at characters they simply don't like, which is a problem.
The issue I have with the article is that it seems to be saying that either if a female character is strong, independent, beautiful, talented, special, etc she'll automatically be labeled a Sue (which is not necessarily true - for every character on FF.net accused of being a Sue, you can find plenty of other people praising that character as being well-written. The only exceptions I can think of are characters like Ebony Darkness D'mentia Raven Way, who are that over-the-top) or that because a character is written as incredibly strong, independent, beautiful, talented, special, etc she's automatically a fully-developed character and calling her a Mary Sue is disempowering to women (which is also not true. Just because a character is beautiful and powerful and have magical powers doesn't make them a role model. Like I said, I've seen plenty of characters who fit that mold who were also ridiculously objectified and stripped of any sense of actual agency). That was what I had issue with, not the idea that male and female characters should be held to different standards. Well-written characters are a standard that should be a given for both of the sexes.
I hope I explained myself properly there and I apologize for being long-winded. :)