-
[QUOTE=AJBopp;3706772]I don't read those books, but....isn't she the main protagonist?[/QUOTE]
Yes, she is.
I haven't read the books either, just seen most of the films.
-
[QUOTE=80sbaby;3707007]Yes, she is.
I haven't read the books either, just seen most of the films.[/QUOTE]
So that's an automatic disqualification from being a Mary sue
-
[QUOTE=AJBopp;3707196]So that's an automatic disqualification from being a Mary sue[/QUOTE]
I thought we were using the current connotation of the word, i.e. character is fantastic at pretty much everything/better than everyone without any reason given.
-
[QUOTE=80sbaby;3707361]I thought we were using the current connotation of the word, i.e. character is fantastic at pretty much everything/better than everyone without any reason given.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe that is a current connotation
-
[QUOTE=80sbaby;3707361]I thought we were using the current connotation of the word, i.e. character is fantastic at pretty much everything/better than everyone without any reason given.[/QUOTE]
Which is hilarious, because most stories are about exceptional people by design. Even classic stories like myth and folklore tended to be about notable people/events, which is why they are remembered to begin with.
-
[QUOTE=AJBopp;3707389]I don't believe that is a current connotation[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue"]""Mary Sue" today has changed from its original meaning and now carries a generalized, although not universal, connotation of wish-fulfillment and is commonly associated with self-insertion. True self-insertion is a literal and generally undisguised representation of the author; most characters described as "Mary Sues" are not, though they are often called "proxies"[9] for the author. The negative connotation comes from this "wish-fulfillment" implication: the "Mary Sue" is judged as a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting.[10]"[/URL]
-
[QUOTE=AndrewCrossett;3705194]The Arthurian Mythos is a series of many stories, not just one. Lancelot was the protagonist of his own story. Yes, he threw a monkey wrench into Arthur's story as well, but all stories have characters who do that. If Lancelot was a Mary Sue (and it's not even clear he was created by any one person), he would have come to a far happier ending than he did.[/QUOTE]
I view Lancelot as the tragic courtly love hero.
Lancelot is my favorite character in Arthurian Legend.
I have the 5 Volume English-translated Lancelot-Grail which include Vulgate and Post-Vulgate.
Lancelot's story was greatly expanded in Lancelot-Grail back in the 13th Century.
-
[QUOTE=Indian Ink;3705500]Galahad takes Lancelot's Mary Suedom and turns it up to violet unicorn level. A late insert into the mythos, he is son of Lancelot himself and the princess Elaine. Galahad is born with the promise that he will be the Bestest Knight Eva!
Upon coming to Camelot he sits down at an empty chair at the Round table. The chair is called the siege perilous and has instantly killed every previous knight that has sat in it. To the amazement of all, Galahad is unharmed. He thus becomes the Round tables greatest knight.
Later he's always rescuing other knights of the Round table. He alone can defeat twenty other knights unaided by himself. Galahad is so beautiful that by viewing only his face one can't be sure if he's man or woman. All love him, including some of King Arthur's enemies.
Only Galahad can succeed at finding the holy grail; his father, Lancelot being knocked out at the sight of it. Shortly after completing the Grail quest, and too pure for this world and undefeated by any foe, Galahad ascends to heaven in a glorious rapture of light and angels.[/QUOTE]
Galahad is who Lancelot would have been if he hadn't fallen in love with Guinevere.
Galahad was the name Lancelot was christened.
Both Galahad and Lancelot were names of his ancestors.
source: Lancelot-Grail
-
[QUOTE=AndrewCrossett;3705758] Lancelot ends up grieving in a monastery, having lost his friends, his lover, his worldly position, his son completed the Grail Quest instead of him, and the Round Table fell as a result of his actions. This is not the usual fate of a Mary Sue.[/QUOTE]
all that was originally from the Lancelot-Grail aka The Vulgate which was written in the 13th Century, and that had nothing to do with Chretien de Troyes
Lancelot actually died as a priest in a hermitage
His first cousin Bors and brother Hector were there
Hector died shortly before Lancelot did
-
[QUOTE=Star_Jammer;3707426][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue"]""Mary Sue" today has changed from its original meaning and now carries a generalized, although not universal, connotation of wish-fulfillment and is commonly associated with self-insertion. True self-insertion is a literal and generally undisguised representation of the author; most characters described as "Mary Sues" are not, though they are often called "proxies"[9] for the author. The negative connotation comes from this "wish-fulfillment" implication: the "Mary Sue" is judged as a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting.[10]"[/URL][/QUOTE]
So to the question in the original post, under this definition the term has no meaning at all and is just used to describe a character I personally do not fancy.
Also, it's worth pointing out that neither of the citations in the paragraph attempt to source the first sentence, neither of the citations suggest the first sentence is true, and the second sentence explicitly contradicts the first one. Ah, Wikipedia.
This definition is bs. The entire point of being a Mary Sue is to upstage the protagonist, to heroically save the hero as it were. The idea that the main protagonist could be a Mary Sue in their own title is confusing at best, and laughably ignorant at worst. Under this definition, a main protagonist would actually [B]need[/B] a Mary Sue to save/help them in order to not be a Mary Sue him or her self.
-
[QUOTE=AJBopp;3707528]So to the question in the original post, under this definition the term has no meaning at all and is just used to describe a character I personally do not fancy.
Also, it's worth pointing out that neither of the citations in the paragraph attempt to source the first sentence, neither of the citations suggest the first sentence is true, and the second sentence explicitly contradicts the first one. Ah, Wikipedia.
This definition is bs. The entire point of being a Mary Sue is to upstage the protagonist, to heroically save the hero as it were. The idea that the main protagonist could be a Mary Sue in their own title is confusing at best, and laughably ignorant at worst. Under this definition, a main protagonist would actually [B]need[/B] a Mary Sue to save/help them in order to not be a Mary Sue him or her self.[/QUOTE]
"[URL="http://thezoe-trope.blogspot.com/2011/08/you-can-stuff-your-mary-sue-where-sun.html"]1) A character who is based, at least partly, on the author
2) A character whom has no significant flaws (except possibly ones the other characters find cute)
3) A character to whom everyone within the story reacts as if they were beautiful and wonderful except characters who are clearly evil and/or motivated by jealousy
4) A character with whom, during the course of the story, every available character of the opposite (and occasionally the same) sex will fall in love given any contact whatsoever
5) A character who undergoes no significant growth, change or development throughout the story [/URL]"
Would you care to link the original definition?
The term [I]began[/I] with the Star Trek fan-fiction, thus the relevant character had to be inserted into an already existing fanbase. So far, however, I've been unable to find anything that says a Mary Sue type character [B]cannot[/B] be the protagonist.
-
[QUOTE=AJBopp;3707528]So to the question in the original post, under this definition the term has no meaning at all and is just used to describe a character I personally do not fancy.
Also, it's worth pointing out that neither of the citations in the paragraph attempt to source the first sentence, neither of the citations suggest the first sentence is true, and the second sentence explicitly contradicts the first one. Ah, Wikipedia.
This definition is bs. The entire point of being a Mary Sue is to upstage the protagonist, to heroically save the hero as it were. The idea that the main protagonist could be a Mary Sue in their own title is confusing at best, and laughably ignorant at worst. Under this definition, a main protagonist would actually [B]need[/B] a Mary Sue to save/help them in order to not be a Mary Sue him or her self.[/QUOTE]
It's not the same if it's part of an established story with lore and canon. You just introduce some new guy in Gotham and make him be better than Batman at everything after reading a Sherlock Holmes book and one karate lesson.
-
Originally, the term "Mary Sue" was intended to make fun of characters in Star Trek fanfic who were author-insert characters designed to service the (usually female) author's fantasy of being with one of the male characters (usually Kirk). In order to impress Kirk, the character would be made to save his life, or otherwise save the day with her incredible skills and competence, thereby turning the tables on the fandom's protagonists by making them the "damsels in distress.
it's not an invalid concept for a story; the problem arose from the fact that since the story was being written solely to satisfy the author's own fantasy, it wouldn't have very much resonance with anyone else. In the hands of an unskilled writer, the agenda would be clear.
Yes, the definition has evolved over time. Language is a pure democracy, and changes to it happen whether we old timers like it or not... it's always been that way. (There are probably people still alive today who remember when kids were taught that using contractions in conversations was vulgar.)
Today the term is used to mean any author insert character, which is too bad because there has never been anything wrong with author insert characters, as long as they are well written. MOST writers imbue at least one of their characters with their own attributes or viewpoints. But now apparently any author who does it has to be shamed as conceited or narcissistic. Being caught writing a Mary Sue is like being caught masturbating. Everybody does it, but getting caught is humiliating anyway.
-
[QUOTE=SpiderClops;3704270]Yes, most of the time it's targeted to a protagonist someone doesn't like. However, that doesn't mean all of their complaints are invalid.
A perfect Mary Sue is hard to find in any professional fiction. But there are a lot of characters that really teeters on the edge. Batman is probably the most famous example of that. I hope I don't have to explain that one. Actually, scratch that, a lot of times Batman is total Mary Sue.
Regarding Rey. I don't think she's a Mary Sue, but she does play close to that in The Force Awakens. As [b]Vegeta[/b] pointed out, Rey does things with pretty much zero training or guidance that Luke honed in the course of three movies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Luke wasn't able to use the Jedi mind trick until Return of the Jedi, was he? Rey does that in what, hours after learning she can use the Force? She knows more about the Millennium Falcon than Han Solo(even though she couldn't even recognize it was the Millennium Falcon). People do instantly take a like to her even though most of them don't have any reason to.
To be fair, The Last Jedi fixes most of Rey's character for me. I don't think she's anywhere near Mary Sue in that movie.
[B]Blatant example of Mary Sue in a movie[/B]: Adam Sandler's character in The Ridiculous 6.[/QUOTE]
First: You are correct. Luke was shown the Jedi mind trick in A New Hope, and uses it against Bib Fortuna in Return of the Jedi.
I can see where some of her skills come from, but even then there are problems. She knows how to fly, but has never flown off planet and we don't know if she's ever flown anything besides her speeder. She knows how to fight and use a staff, but Lightsabers are supposed to be difficult to control and take years of training to master, and she goes up against Kylo Ren at the end of TFA, a man who had been trained in lightsaber combat by Luke Skywalker. And the mind trick even bugged me in the theaters. She got an inkling that she was Force sensitive about five minutes before she was captured, and then used the Force to not only look into Kylo's mind, but to influence her guard as well? That didn't sit well with me.
Second: You actually WATCHED that Adam Sandler movie?!
[QUOTE=Powerboy;3704609]The only thing I found highly noticeable with Skye was that, to the best of my memory, she had no combat training in the first season. Then she gets some self-defense training and, suddenly, within months, the computer geek is a super martial artist capable of defeating multiple opponents who are themselves highly trained assassins and agents. Not Mary Sue and pretty much the standard in stories but noticeable.
While not Mary Sue, I consider the standard story where a character goes from zero to mastery of a skill in days or weeks if not instantly to be a step in that direction.
There are definitely Mary Sue or Marty Sue or whatever elements to James Bond. In "Never Say Never Again", to give one example, he plays a video game against the guy who invented the game and has the highest score ever in the game and beats him, Bond having himself never actually played that or any video game before and not even playing a practice round which would show him how the controls work (which he would undoubtedly learn instantly). But, as a friend of mine put it, "Well, of course. It's easy to master something instantly when you're perfect."[/QUOTE]
First: I admit that I stopped watching Agents of Shield in the first season, but I seem to remember when season 2 started that they said that Skye had been training with May? I know a few months of lessons doesn't make a person a bad-ass in real life, but it does in these shows. Just ask Roy Harper. Or Thea Queen. Or Laurel Lance. Or Evelyn Sharpe.... okay, maybe not her....
Second: You actually WATCHED that James Bond ripoff?! ;)
-
[QUOTE=SpiderClops;3704270]Yes, most of the time it's targeted to a protagonist someone doesn't like. However, that doesn't mean all of their complaints are invalid.
A perfect Mary Sue is hard to find in any professional fiction. But there are a lot of characters that really teeters on the edge. Batman is probably the most famous example of that. I hope I don't have to explain that one. Actually, scratch that, a lot of times Batman is total Mary Sue.
Regarding Rey. I don't think she's a Mary Sue, but she does play close to that in The Force Awakens. As [b]Vegeta[/b] pointed out, Rey does things with pretty much zero training or guidance that Luke honed in the course of three movies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Luke wasn't able to use the Jedi mind trick until Return of the Jedi, was he? Rey does that in what, hours after learning she can use the Force? She knows more about the Millennium Falcon than Han Solo(even though she couldn't even recognize it was the Millennium Falcon). People do instantly take a like to her even though most of them don't have any reason to.
To be fair, The Last Jedi fixes most of Rey's character for me. I don't think she's anywhere near Mary Sue in that movie.
[B]Blatant example of Mary Sue in a movie[/B]: Adam Sandler's character in The Ridiculous 6.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Powerboy;3704609]The only thing I found highly noticeable with Skye was that, to the best of my memory, she had no combat training in the first season. Then she gets some self-defense training and, suddenly, within months, the computer geek is a super martial artist capable of defeating multiple opponents who are themselves highly trained assassins and agents. Not Mary Sue and pretty much the standard in stories but noticeable.
While not Mary Sue, I consider the standard story where a character goes from zero to mastery of a skill in days or weeks if not instantly to be a step in that direction.
There are definitely Mary Sue or Marty Sue or whatever elements to James Bond. In "Never Say Never Again", to give one example, he plays a video game against the guy who invented the game and has the highest score ever in the game and beats him, Bond having himself never actually played that or any video game before and not even playing a practice round which would show him how the controls work (which he would undoubtedly learn instantly). But, as a friend of mine put it, "Well, of course. It's easy to master something instantly when you're perfect."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Comic-Reader Lad;3706632]It seems like no one has mentioned RiRi Williams, Amadeus Cho, Squirrel Girl, or Moon Girl.
I don't read their comics, but from what I know about them, they are all considered to be perfect and smarter than everyone. RiRi and Amadeus specifically replaced original characters and the subtext was that they were better than Tony or Bruce.
Squirrel Girl basically seems like a squirrel-ex-machina as she can defeat anyone off-panel including Galactus from what I understand.
Does anyone think these 4 qualify as Mary Sues?[/QUOTE]
Not sure about the others, but I was always under the impression that Squirrel Girl was kind of a parody character, and the writers are just running with the joke.
