Philiisophical Musing: Mary Sue Characters · 12:37am Jul 16th, 2020
While meditating today, I mused about a subject that has been in the back of my mind and sometimes the front of my mind for years that has been bothering me. Namely, Mary Sue characters and how society generally regards them.
When it comes to protagonist or heroes, I do understand why it's more exciting to root for the underdog. Characters like that in fiction help make us feel like there is always a chance to succeed in real life as well, even if the odds seem bleak. Conversely, overpowered villains are downright common, but sometimes the ones that are not are still highly respected. In the Marvel cinematic universe, the main antagonist that sparked the core plot points of "Civil War" was just an ordinary guy who had a grudge against The Avengers due to collateral damage. This was a guy most of the heroes could have crushed with ease in a straight one-on-one fight, but he did more damage than almost any other villain in the franchise (for the films).
I've always been bothered by the negative trend that has been noticeably rising over the last twenty years against Mary Sue type characters. Personally, I'd love to be a character like Superman, but I noticed that same character falling in popularity over the course of the new generation and Batman rising in popularity for what I suspect is the same reason. Superman is regarded as powerful to the point of almost being invincible. I dispute that somewhat. I'm not a comic book reader, but seems to me Superman does get the shit kicked out of him all the time, but to be fair . . . they are really powerful villains. Sometimes so powerful they can challenge the entire Justice League, let alone Superman by himself. Comics like that are supposed to be grand and epic in scale. They are so far out of our league that it becomes inconceivable how humankind can get close to that kind of scale. If something is unrelatable, should it therefore automatically be considered bad even though it's fiction?
To me, imagination is the testing ground for endless possibilities with absolutely no restraint required. Some restrictions can be imposed for various reasons, but the base default idea of fiction is for it to transcend reality in some way, whether it be in a minor way or dramatic in scale.
There is something I'm not sure about when it comes to dislike of Mary Sue type characters. Do people generally dislike "overpowered" characters, like Superman, or do people mainly dislike "flawless" characters, like Marty Mcfly in Back To The Future 1?
I can see the problem either way, though I don't necessarily think these make bad characters. As a child, I never had a problem with Marty's character until Back To The Future 2 where a flaw was suddenly shoehorned into him. Because there was no build-up or warning about that flaw and it seemed thrown in there "just to give him a flaw of any kind", it felt forced in this case. Prior to that, however, he seemed like a chill and mellow guy that generally did the best he could in an outrageous situation. The conflict of the story of the first film was never within him but rather outside of him. He was there to fix every problem he observed external to himself. A few times he caused the problem, but that was because he stumbled into a situation and may not have had enough time to really analyze a situation and realize why certain courses of action may have consequences. For a while, he was probably stumbling about and wondering if this was all real.
As for "overpowered" characters, I don't have a problem with them either. I even wish I was one just so that I wouldn't have to be afraid in life, or less afraid, but when I examine the situation more carefully and asked myself, "What if I did become Superman or somebody like him?" A lot of hard questions would have to be answered after that, and I think "good" characters ask that of themselves as well. Great power can often corrupt. It is extremely difficult to remain humble with overwhelming power unless that power is an extension of the character's wisdom which is usually derived from experience. Why wouldn't such a character become a villain? With all that extra power, it would be easy to bully their way into anything they want, but if that actually happened in a story then I think there can be consequences no matter what path is taken. If they do start going on a conquest or killing spree, then a lot of forces may be organized against them, and in time it may cause their downfall. Or, if that character should succeed in that goal, what comes next? So the world is conqured, but running it can be very difficult. If everyone is killed, then there is nobody left to fight.
If a character chose to take the path of the "hero" instead, then I'd compare that to how such a thing might unfold in real-life, and that's how a story can remain grounded despite some fantastical elements. Putting on a cape and going out to fight crime for real in real life, even with superpowers, has a long string of consequences of it's own. For instance, fight who? Who is the real bad guys in real life? Everyone might have an opinion, but it's just like taking side in politics. One faction hero is another's villain. Real-life is not so black and white. Also, facing criminals over and over again could give someone PTSD, or cause them to feel jaded because they keep facing "the bad guys" all the time. If that happens too often, it might make them paranoid into thinking everyone is a bad guy. The psychological scars of failing to save the innocent, even once, can cause enormous mental strain. Someone immune to bullets isn't nessesarily immune to that.
I think good characters are people who readers or viewers can establish an emotional connection with. Their degree of power or lack of noticeable flaws are, in the end, ultimately irrelevant next to a more crucial component of the character, and that all surround one core question; do I care about this character?
For one reason or another, making a character that is challenging to relate to may hinder a "yes" answer to that question, but there are many factors that can keep them interesting. When exploring OP characters, I think it's important to explain why they are overpowered instead of shrugging it off and saying, "they just are, end of story." I say, "No-No! No character jumps to maximum level without a reason. Something built them up to that point, and it's important to explore that at some time so that the great power the character has feels justified."
There are also other aspects to a character like their background, hobbies, relationships. Any of these aspects can offer a challenge. The characters' flaws can offer counterbalance too, but they, too, may need a reason. If a character has an allergic reaction to something, it may not need to be explained in detail. Just note that the flaw exists. If, however, the flaw comes from something like a phobia, something about their background might help to explain why this is so.
When I think about all the reasons why most people have a problem with Mary Sue characters, there are a number of factors that I've come up with over the years.
Number 1, Rereltable: Even in fiction, if a character can do something that seems absolutely impossible to do in real life, then they wonder why they should care about the character even in fiction. I think they say, "Since that is never going to happen to me, I don't see why I should remain invested in this story."
Number 2, Jealousy: There often is something inherently painful about watching someone else have a better life. There can be all kinds of reasons for why the feeling is there, but I think it's generally regarded as undesirable to follow a story that makes the viewer/reader feel bad.
Number 3, Arrogance: a common flaw for an OP or a supposedly "flawless" character, meaning all advantages and absolutely no disadvantages, regardless of the scale of power. I have often noticed how most people I watched who watched the show like MLP or many others suddenly get really angry and/or annoyed at the rich, stuck-up characters (like Prince Blueblood or Uppercrust). Within seconds, every reactor I've seen devolves into making fun of their accents or words within seconds. This is also so common that the percentage seems darn close to 100%. Everybody does it! It seems as if nobody can help it. If a rich, arrogant character shows up on screen, I have never seen a reactor take it casually and just accept it with an innocent shrug. Instead, they almost always say, "I hate this character" and they say it really quickly. Some exceptions is any story taking place within humor.
I have seen a few OP characters who are not arrogant. One Punch man comes to mind on that one. His flaw is being overpowered, and he longs for a challenge. He also wants to be seen as a hero, but because he's not, he doesn't act stuck up. As a result, a lot of viewers of the show still root for this guy despite his power being overwhelming and unrelatable. Plus, I suspect the show's humorous aspect makes these outrageous claims easier to accept on a personal or emotional level.
Another example is lot of people like "Meliodis" as well from "Seven Deadly Sins" which is generally regarded as another triumph and success story of an OP character done right. Why is that? Well, I guess viewers just find him fun and/or funny, so again that is an emotional connection to the character.
When it comes to fiction, the only emotion a writer needs to avoid evoking is boredom. Cringe, fear, anger, disgust . . . all of this is fair game. All emotions can be considered acceptable for an entertaining story as long as it avoids only one emotion in the entire world.
I guess my main point is I do understand some of the reasons that hinder enjoyment for Mary Sue type characters, but they can still be very entertaining if done right. Doing it right can be a complex formula, but what it all boils down to is establishing an emotional investment in the character and the story. Everybody has different tastes when it comes to quality. That's why there are so many heated arguments about that online, but a story is a true failure when it's so bad that nobody is even willing to talk or argue about it, even after they have seen or read it. If it did not stir enough of an emotional reaction to make an argument about it worth it, then it just gets forgotten and left in the dust.
Infamy is still fame and success in a way. It means the idea was worth remembering. It was worth talking about and/or arguing about.
What do you all think? I'd love for you to share your thoughts on the subject. How you might like or dislike the concept, or agree and disagree with certain aspects about it. I think there is a lot to explore and discuss here.
Personally, for me I hate Mary Sue characters. I think they are boring.
That being said let me clarify some things.
I would not define Marty Mcfly as a Mary Sue. His biggest mistake was his mother almost fell in love with him preventing his own birth! That is heavy.
Superman is nearly a Mary sue but that is why Kryptonite exists and he does fight batman at one point.
I would define none of your examples as Mary sue because they have certain flaws within them.
To me for a character to be a Mary Sue must have all 4 qualities that ruin a character for me.
1.) They are always right. = Anything they say goes and everyone else is wrong. Nobody questions them.
2.) All-powerful = Any baddy is easily defeated. And or they are the way to defeat any villain. They show no fear because they have all the power.
3.) No personality = A plank of wood has more personality than them. Why be happy or sad. why have any likes or dislikes we have a world to save.
4.) No flaws = no clumsy is not a flaw. Yes the Marty chicken thing was a strange flaw but it was a flaw.
5318954
That's a pretty darn specific definition for a Mary Sue character. I have never heard "No personality" used to define them. I thought the term only meant "all-powerful" or "flawless".
I got to admit, though, if a character really did have all the qualities you listed, it wold be very hard to root for such a character.
Actually, that would apply to any character. If a villian had all the traits you listed, then again it would be a yawn-fest.
5319103
Well I said no personality but I forget to mention one important fact. Most of the time Not having a personality is a symptom of a Mary Sue. When they are all knowing, when they have no flaws and are all powerful it is difficult to create a character with personality.
Because my OC is an alicorn I run the risk of him being a Mary Sue. So I based my character off of me and gave him near bleeding edge anxioty and a major temper problem. And yes I do have a temper problem. Like if I lose it, I lose all rational thought or I use too. I have gotten better, just like my OC will.
Honestly from what I've seen, the Mary Sue thing means different things to different people, and even OP characters aren't always considered Mary Sue's (even if they literally walk all over everything around them). I think to most people, Mary Sue means a character they don't like or which provides no meaningful attributes that they can relate too or invest in, and that looks vastly different from person to person.
5332640
So according to your definition, a Mary Sue character is someone not liked and can't relate to, but the exact specifics of it is akin to one's own definition to the word "beauty", because that standard can also vary from person to person; thus the term "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/06/beholder.jpg
I see. Thank you for your input.