Mary Sues and Gary Stus-Legit complaints or misplaced insults?

[Jim Kelly]

When I didn’t know where it came from, it just seemed like a bad insult. Knowing the provenance of the term helps, but it still seems like it’s mostly used to be insulting. Moreover, ready made terms too often are plopped into a critique, so the critics doesn’t have to lay out the criticism. But a critique should always be explained—so there’s really no need for the term, other than being a smart ass.

The thing is, it’s generally the conventional heroes—Captain Kirk, the first twelve Doctors—who escape the label. White males of a certain age. The label attaches to those who are other—those that are younger, of colour, female. Because they are outsiders pushing their way into the conventional narrative, it’s too easy to saddle them with this term.

[SpiderClops]

Definitely apt for Alice from Resident Evil,

I've heard that before, but I just don't see it. She's just a bland uninteresting action girl protagonist. Not a Mary Sue.

Wolverine, and Bruce Wayne.

Which versions? I don't think any of the live action versions are Mary Sue.

Skye felt more like a "writer's pet" than a traditional Mary Sue, but it was very close and she was *extremely* annoying in the early seasons.

Some of the complaints are legit, but I would also argue that there are times when having a Mary Sue serves the story as well. It all depends what they are trying to tell.

I mean, writer's pet(which is not the same as author insert) and Mary Sue kind of overlap each other.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

I've heard that before, but I just don't see it. She's just a bland uninteresting action girl protagonist. Not a Mary Sue.

Which versions? I don't think any of the live action versions are Mary Sue.


I mean, writer's pet(which is not the same as author insert) and Mary Sue kind of overlap each other.

Nope they fit. Especially Alice in RE 2, 3, & 4. Batman has become less Batman and more Batgod, why do you think people say he can beat anyone with prep? lol

[SpiderClops]

Nope they fit. Especially Alice in RE 2, 3, & 4.

Still don't see it. Maybe because it's been a long time since I've seen those movies.

Batman has become less Batman and more Batgod, why do you think people say he can beat anyone with prep? lol

That's why I asked which versions. Live action are most definitely not Mary Sue. Comic and animation, a lot of times he definitely is.

[Alan2099]

Definitely apt for Alice from Resident Evil, Wolverine, and Bruce Wayne.

I'll give you Alice and Batman. Wolverine tends to have way too many flaws as a character.

While people can give you long indepth definitions of what does and doesn't count, to me, it all boils down to "is the character obnoxiously perfect."

[AJBopp]

I think the meaning of Mary Sue must have gotten lost over the years. A Mary Sue is someone with no particular qualifications who somehow steps in and saves the hero, or does something that allows the hero to save the day in a manner that he wouldn't otherwise have been able to achieve.

If Batman saved Superman from certain death by Doomsday, then single-handedly took down doomsday, or gave Superman a weapon with which he could take down Doomsday, the he's a Mary Sue. If he's just being Batman taking down the Joker, that doesn't really qualify. A random person rescuing Batman from the Joker and then taking him down - that's a Mary Sue.

[Gray Lensman]

When I didn’t know where it came from, it just seemed like a bad insult. Knowing the provenance of the term helps, but it still seems like it’s mostly used to be insulting. Moreover, ready made terms too often are plopped into a critique, so the critics doesn’t have to lay out the criticism. But a critique should always be explained—so there’s really no need for the term, other than being a smart ass.

The thing is, it’s generally the conventional heroes—Captain Kirk, the first twelve Doctors—who escape the label. White males of a certain age. The label attaches to those who are other—those that are younger, of colour, female. Because they are outsiders pushing their way into the conventional narrative, it’s too easy to saddle them with this term.

I wouldn't think of Kirk as a Gary Stu - the other characters around him have far too much agency for that. Some of the Doctors I can believe since in many of the old episodes the companions really have no ability to affect the plot - they are just there for the Doctor to explain things to rather than just the audience.

[Jim Kelly]

I wouldn't think of Kirk as a Gary Stu - the other characters around him have far too much agency for that. Some of the Doctors I can believe since in many of the old episodes the companions really have no ability to affect the plot - they are just there for the Doctor to explain things to rather than just the audience.

The Mary Sue label came about as a reaction to fan fiction where some random character would one-up Kirk. So I see Kirk as the absolute NOT Mary Sue. Or Picard v Wesley Crusher. Or any of the Doctors v their Companions.

It’s fustrating with Doctor Who, because the Companion is open to the criticism by virtue of not being the Doctor. It’s too easy for fans to call out all the Companions for being Mary Sues, as if that wins the argument and there’s nothing more to say. Whereas it’s the purpose of the Companion to be someone who represents everyone else—that’s why the Companions are more representatve than the Doctor. Yes they punch above their weight, but that’s what they’re supposed to do.

[Panic]

When I didn’t know where it came from, it just seemed like a bad insult. Knowing the provenance of the term helps, but it still seems like it’s mostly used to be insulting. Moreover, ready made terms too often are plopped into a critique, so the critics doesn’t have to lay out the criticism. But a critique should always be explained—so there’s really no need for the term, other than being a smart ass.

The thing is, it’s generally the conventional heroes—Captain Kirk, the first twelve Doctors—who escape the label. White males of a certain age. The label attaches to those who are other—those that are younger, of colour, female. Because they are outsiders pushing their way into the conventional narrative, it’s too easy to saddle them with this term.

Kirk has no real flaws in the original Star Trek show, but it is not so obvious because Spock is stronger, smarter, has telepathic abilities and is standing right next to him, whist McCoy has medical skills Kirk doesn't. And the Doctor pre-2005 reboot is brilliant but very flawed - depending on the incarnation he is egotistical, stubborn, irritating, has eccentric dress-sense, is sexless and not conventionally good-looking, and is occasionally less intellectually brilliant in certain fields than some of his companions (Zoe did better in standard IQ tests than him, whilst Romana looked down on his qualifications from the Time Lord Academy when comparing them to her own). After Russel T. Davies rebooted the show, that's when we got the really hard sell of the Doctor being super-cool and sexy and everyone being in love with him. I thought that was awful.

While I'm sure there are some people who are threatened in terms of race or gender, most of the reason that the older conventional heroes don't get labelled Mary Sue is that they are not actively competing or supplanting a previous hero. Indian Ink's checklist pretty much spells it out:

Is he/she a late insert into an established mythos?
Does he/she already have the abilities of a paragon character?
Do his/her abilities exceed those in the wide field of the established mythos?
Do the established characters love him/her without reservation, even though they barely know them?
Do established characters fail at what they're normally good at so he/she can show how much better he/she is?
Is he/she young and beautiful?
Is her beauty in someway unique? (example; violet eyes with powder blue hair)
Does she have a tragic but noble back story with her parentage?

The most important of the above in terms of riling up fans are, imo, the late insert into established mythos, and the exceeding and showing up of established characters.


In comics both Batman at DC and Captain America at Marvel come under fire when they defeat or show up rival heroes in events or team books. It doesn't mean they're not good characters, but if the writer is consistently writing-down other heroes in order to gain popularity/keep popularity of their favourite, that is going to cause upset.


This is a long-running issue in fiction. In Arthurian lore Lancelot (and the love triangle) was actually inserted into the story by a French noblewoman's writing team, and as his popularity grew in the French court the other characters were written-down or dirtied-up in order to let Lancelot shine. This is why in modern versions of the story Lancelot's role is often either diminished or he's portrayed as evil or a jerk - many of the writers really resent him.

[Gray Lensman]

This is a long-running issue in fiction. In Arthurian lore Lancelot (and the love triangle) was actually inserted into the story by a French noblewoman's writing team, and as his popularity grew in the French court the other characters were written-down or dirtied-up in order to let Lancelot shine. This is why in modern versions of the story Lancelot's role is often either diminished or he's portrayed as evil or a jerk - many of the writers really resent him.

Lancelot may be the first concrete example of a Mary Sue.

[AJBopp]

Lancelot may be the first concrete example of a Mary Sue.

Prolly taking this a bit too far, but under this definition, which I do not believe is an accurate portrayal of the term, Jesus would seem to fit and predate Lancelot by a good bit.

[Gray Lensman]

Prolly taking this a bit too far, but under this definition, which I do not believe is an accurate portrayal of the term, Jesus would seem to fit and predate Lancelot by a good bit.

Religious and mythological figure are a different matter entirely. With Lancelot we can trace when he entered the stories, and many of them portray Arthur for being in the wrong for trying to get in the way of the guy having an affair with his wife. This is on top of Lancelot basically being the best at everything.

[AndrewCrossett]

Lancelot wasn't a Mary Sue, he was a protagonist. A hero. He did the things a hero is supposed to do.

[Panic]

He hijacked an existing mythos, coming to the fore by character-assassination of pre-existing characters. The Team Lancelot fanboys were ruthless in the glorification of their hero.

[AndrewCrossett]

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.