My understanding of Mary Sue

Too often the word Mary Sue’s used to refer to either characters they hate (though I’m guilty of this to some extent) or complain about being too competent that I think Mary Sue actually and historically referred to idealised fan inserts interacting with official characters.

I did have a Mary Sue where I identified a lot with a certain character and based my character upon her, interacting with other characters but that happened mostly in my head as far as I recall. So a Mary Sue should be a character that fans live vicariously through, when it comes to stories they like.

When it comes to Kitty Pryde, she might be a better example of a Mary Sue as she’s dangerously close to the Mary Sue as identified by earlier writers: an idealised fan surrogate interacting with existing characters. She might be less Mary Sue if they played up her ruthlessness, given she’s shown to be one at times.

But that would mean certain characters would be made redundant and we’d see Kitty become a ruthless assassin (as shown in Age of Apocalypse) who attacks people with the focused totality of her phasing powers, so Psylocke wouldn’t occupy that role (at least until recently).

Play up the feline aspects, then she’s the X-Men version of Catwoman and a proper female counterpart to Wolverine so there’s no need for X23, that would involve thinking through characters and taking them to where they’d logically or realistically become.

That would mean actually following through the character’s logical progression and sticking to it, whether if they want to go through it or not like say turning Kitty into Professor Xavier’s brutal hitwoman (her beating up people in anger and assassinating people should be the logical or organic progression).

So Mary Sues aren’t necessarily flawless, but rather idealised fan surrogates that fans live vicariously through especially in fanfiction.

Logical directions

I realised that if you let the character go where they’d logically or rationally do given the circumstances they’re in, their capabilities, development and tendencies that would mean giving a damn about characterisation and storytelling. Albeit not in a way people expect to. Consider this, if Caitlin Snow were to become a werewolf then Barry Allen would be Red Riding Hood.

As there are stories where RRH cons the wolf in order to escape, Barry Allen being a speedster would do just that. In fact he could and should be DC’s best escape artist. If a villain threatens to trap him, he’d either run away or punch through his surroundings in order to escape. (The real problem may be that writers may have to significantly limit his powers in order for him to do these.)

Likewise, given all the ninja training Kitty Pryde got and that she sometimes sported claws it’s shocking why almost nobody made her stay a ninja. Psylocke wasn’t meant to be a ninja, since she got body-swapped with one and earlier still she was a white woman (she did revert to it recently). Ironically since Kitty’s apparently more experienced with swords than she is, this should come naturally.

However with some authors won’t commit to it because if Kitty’s a character they live vicariously through that would mean letting her do what’s needed or necessary. Something like in Age of Apocalypse, which happened and briefly so. Realistically, she’d make X23 redundant should writers commit to her using claws more often given it’s been done before too.

Should they commit to it, that would mean not only significantly limiting their powers (as there’s no need to show feats) and go where they need do given the circumstances and plot. At any rate, we’d get Barry Allen escapologist extraordinaire and assassin Kitty Pryde 24/7. If they commit to it at all.

My idea of the Mary Sue

When it comes to Mary Sues, I feel like the definition’s been stretched beyond recognition and used to chastise characters some viewers and readers don’t like though I could be guilty of the same or similar. Admittedly I did have a Mary Sue character before when I was into DC Comics. Some older authors and commentators do consider the original definition of the Mary Sue as an idealised reader surrogate.

This makes much more sense as some audiences do want more interactive stories and to see themselves in those characters. Though Mary Sues can be author surrogates, not all author surrogates are necessarily Mary Sue as it’s not uncommon for literature to be semi-autobiographical to varying degrees. You could write a story that’s based on your life but the people you know become different characters.

Pardon if it’s unpopular but I actually think the real red flag of a Mary Sue character’s the inability to take a favourite character to a logical conclusion. Whilst the inability to take a character to their logical conclusion doesn’t mean they’re Mary Sue, it’s much likelier especially if it’s a pet character in question. Though that would necessitate being more practical.

Something like Barry Allen being an escape artist per excellence given being this fast’s helpful in escaping ordeals. (Though that would mean significantly limiting Barry’s speed power to just running fast and some amount of superhuman strength needed to escape should he get trapped.) Or Kitty Pryde being a deadly assassin ninja.

That would’ve made more sense than turning Psylocke into one since the latter wasn’t introduced as an Asian ninja (in fact she got bodyswapped with one) but Kitty only got training through brainwashing. If they ever let Kitty become the character Psylocke ended up as, we’d get stories where Kitty focuses on the totality of her phasing powers whenever she sneaks and kills people.

Something like in Age of Apocalypse and possibly the only time they’re committed to it. (Admittedly I don’t read comics much.) If Barry and Kitty were conceived as reader surrogates and idealised ones at that (maybe nearly so), it’s not that they’re flawlesss. But rather if they’re reader surrogates, the inability to take them to a logical conclusion makes it likelier for them to go Mary Sue.

Instead of going where it’s needed for them to do, they become conduits of writers who want to depict them as cool and likable even if in reality they’re capable of messing up and being jerks (especially Kitty if it weren’t for her attitude). It’s not that Barry and Kitty lack flaws. In fact they do, whether if it’s Barry bothering people with his tardiness or Kitty losing her cool a lot.

But I think the Mary Sue aspect comes from that they’re reader surrogates and thus easy to live vicariously through and try to make them seem cooler or whatever than they really are or initially were. Actually if writers dared to make them go the logical route, that would involve either significantly limiting their powers a lot or better yet, do something that’s necessary.

Especially for the plot. If a villain were to trap Barry (given now his powers are more limited), he’d have a few options. Either he runs away or he punches through something real hard and then escape. Likewise with Kitty Pryde, considering she got ninja training and sometimes sported claws, she should be doing many of the things Psylocke and X23 came to do.

Perhaps elegantly so as she got there first. (But that would necessitate the two being redundant.) So it seems my idea of a Mary Sue isn’t (just) about idealisation but also the inability to go where it’s needed in the plot considering their capabilities and development. Or the situations they face and as believably as possible.

Mary Sueing away

I sometimes think when it comes to calling Batman a Mary Sue, if he’s caught dead being wimpy or doing other stupid stuff that angers fans (whilst not always the case) he’s definitely not a Mary Sue because of that. Same with Carol Danvers or even Felicity Smoak at times. Actually to me, what makes a character Mary Sue isn’t necessarily always a matter of being flawless or wish fulfillment.

It would be wish fulfillment to want Kitty Pryde to actually have retractile claws and become a proper feline. In fact, I actually think Mary Sue goes beyond that since wish fulfillment can involve things that are practical or feasible if only others will to. Though not always the case, the inability to commit to a logical conclusion or possibility could make a character Mary Sue.

But in the sense of having counter-intuitive character development. I mean you have people tempting to turn Kitty into either a feline or a female Wolverine (ironically cats tend to have retractile claws, whereas wolverines don’t so it’s oddly more practical for her to have retractile claws on top of going through narrow spaces easily).

Why bother creating a female Wolverine when you can give Kitty claws. The other problem, to some, may necessitate making Kitty Pryde actually more feline than that and sticking to it given how writers are tempted to do so. It’s even part of her name and this writes itself well. Likewise there’s counter-intuitive plot development.

I mean if you’re faced with an evil demon tempting you a lot, if you do fall in love with it it should ruin your life or at least give an incentive to escape it. So I think my idea of a Mary Sue involves not so much a matter of infallibility but rather of a counter-intuitive development that makes some people riled up with certain fanfictions.

Mary Sue, not what you think they are

I actually consider a Mary Sue to be somewhat more nuanced than the usual line of thought considers them to be. But in the sense that a Mary Sue isn’t necessarily overpowered, flawless or whatever. It can be either due to sentimental author overidentification (I did it to one character before) or the inability to take a character to a logical conclusion.

If the very last one were to be believed, it makes a lot more sense why some characters don’t really hold up well. That’s if writers are rather to take to where they’d logically become and go. This pretty much plagued Kitty Pryde a lot where at some point writers were tempted to turn her into either a ninja, feline or female Wolverine.

The real problem’s that if writers were to take her to where she’d logically become, there’s a chance she’d make the other mutants (Feral, X-23 and Psylocke) redundant but also where rather than being an over-idealised girlfriend type, she’s Marvel’s answer to Catwoman. In fact even moreso than Black Cat in the sense of what Catwoman would be like if she were a mutant.

The retractile claws and going through spaces seems very much in line with what actual cats do, something Kitty would effortlessly pull off. But to pull it off for good, writers would have to stop over-identifying with her and let her do whatever she wants/needs to do. Or at least have more interests and experiences to pull it off. But that’s still proving my point.

Likewise with Tim Drake, you have writers tempted to make him a villain but if he’s supposed to be likeable that makes him even shadier when you think about it. (That really wouldn’t happen to the likes of The Joker but because you take his malice for granted.) He either becomes a bad Batman or another Joker in some stories. That doesn’t mean he’s necessarily that shady.

I think in order to realistically/plausibly pull it off, Tim Drake would do things he thinks are good but ones that end up annoying people a lot. What if he poisons an animal with the intent of escaping and self-defence but not knowing that’s Stephanie’s pet that he’d anger her and be made responsible for his own shortcomings. Again that doesn’t mean TIm’s bad.

But that he’s mistaken and may even do things where he’s not aware of the consequences like Stephanie Brown losing her temper because he killed her pet by accident. That would mean he’s well-intentioned but also reckless when sometimes doing so if he angers people like Stephanie for attempting to escape or defend himself. That would mean Tim would have to owe up to his own shortcomings.

Even if it’s a way to make him fallible without making him evil. Or at least unwillingly do something bad by thinking he’s doing good. (But that would mean even Tim’s not always aware of his own actions, should Steph get mad at mad.) So it seems with Mary Sues, the real issue’s not always a matter of whether if they’re flawless or not.

Sometimes if writers are tempted to turn them into something else, the inability to commit to it would make characters Mary Sue. In the sense of disregarding the logical or practical possibility (Kitty Pryde being X-Men’s Catwoman would necessitate rendering Feral, X-23 and Psylocke redundant) for telling readers how cool they are. Even if they tire of it.

Mary Sue, how to undo

It’s actually not necessarily wrong to have a Mary Sue. I actually did one before. The trick to not making a character a Mary Sue’s really hard and tough as it would necessitate having to have more life experiences and/or interests and the like to pull it off. Not to mention having to keep a safe distance from characters when necessary.

At other times, to make a character any less of a Mary Sue’s to make them go the logical route. But that would necessitate having to go where they ought/need to go. I think part of the reason why Kitty Pryde’s a Mary Sue’s not because she lacks flaws but because writers are afraid to take her to where she’d logically become and stick to it.

(I would actually be okay if she got reinvented as a wereleopard forever but with her original powers intact.)

Actually Kitty Pryde would be better off as X-Men’s Catwoman, if only they’re willing to stick to her having retractile claws (as felids do) it would be too befitting given her namesake and some intentions of making her feline. Again that would involve having to go where she’d logically go or become, even if it’s not so cool at first.

The inability to not go where the character would naturally go doesn’t necessarily make a Mary Sue but it does generally imply a writer’s unwillingness to actually do something about the character in their context and of their own tendencies and development. That’s secretly why I think Kitty doesn’t really work well as a cheery girly girl.

This was a one-off portrayal in the X-Men Evolution cartoon as subsequent productions come closer to her comics portrayal. I actually think Kitty would be less Mary Sue if they’re not only willing to allow her to be fallible but also go where she’d logically become and chances are she’d make both Psylocke and X-23 redundant.

The former’s a British woman who got turned into a Japanese ninja against her will and undid it on her own volition whilst the latter’s a female Wolverine even if Kitty sported the claws before. (The other problem may be how oddly blatant and too befitting this is as wolverines don’t have retractile claws whereas felids do.)

So I think the real problem with de-Mary Sueing some characters involves having to go where they’d naturally become but one that necessitates not only a change to one character but also eliminating a few others to make for less redundancy.

Mary Sue and her lack of experiences/other interests

I still think whilst not always the case, the best way to avoid a Mary Sue self-insert is to have more interests, get into perspectives of other people and have more experiences. I come to realise why some writers, especially young writers, create Mary Sues may be partly because they lack other life experiences and other interests, though that too’s vague.

But I think it does matter. Again not always the case but it does make flesh out characters that don’t resemble the author as well as making the author surrogate a much more natural human being. But that also involves doing things the hard way around though it’s something I eventually realised in life.

But it still matters in not making Mary Sue self inserts forever.

On another note

I actually did have a Mary Sue and attempted several others before. I admit these might be too embarrassing to admit. But I did try at some point or another. I actually think when it comes to what constitutes as a Mary Sue, they’re often intended to be fan proxies. Especially if that author’s a fan of something that they’d do anything to insert themselves in that story.

It makes a lot of sense that most fanfiction Mary Sues are fans’ wishes to either be part of that world or be that character. It’s even more blatant with canonical characters intended as audience surrogates where I think they have a better chance of being considered Mary Sue really. I think these are the easiest to live vicariously through although any character would do.

I think when it comes to Mary Sues, the more an author likes the character or identifies with them the more they idealise them a lot. Same if they like franchises as a whole that in order to not make a Mary Sue authors can like the character but still either allow them to do whatever they need to do or to base them after somebody else. Albeit in a non-idealised manner (this goes if said character’s based on themselves).

That’s on top of having an actual personality, which I think most Mary Sues don’t.

Mary Sue qualifications

I think when it comes to what constitutes as a Mary Sue, it should be something like a flawless audience surrogate in theory and to some extent, in practise too. However it’s also used to deride characters some readers dislike such as Carol Danvers. I actually/honestly don’t think Carol Danvers is really much of a Mary Sue. If she’s going to go bad but the fact that Mary Sues are supposed to be flawless, then technically Carol isn’t.

I don’t think Carol Danvers is ever created as an audience surrogate, which most fanfic Mary Sues tend to be, so she’s disqualified either way. I actually think the characters most in danger of becoming Mary Sues aren’t competent female characters (or even competent male characters or whatever) but rather audience surrogate characters.

(Author surrogates usually don’t much either but because it’s usual to depict stories and literature after authors’ own sentiments and experiences to whatever degree.)

Especially in things most aimed at nerds that there’s a good chance an audience surrogate would easily become a Mary Sue. Barry Allen’s something of a borderline Mary Sue in my definition. Not because he’s flawless but because he’s created to be an idealised audience surrogate even if it robs him of a personality beyond that.

(Not that he lacks a personality but because he lacks any personality beyond that role as I meant.)

There were some attempts to de-Sue him even if it’s met with resistance (I was part of that too). An even more egregious Mary Sue would be Tim Drake. It’s not that he’s flawless but rather almost all the characters around him are sometimes depicted as so flawed as to keep him on a pedestal. (Especially Stephanie Brown but I have a feeling it might not last if she does become a Red Lantern because Tim killed her pet.)

Perhaps a much more blatant one (especially if it’s almost dangerously close to one’s parody and initial identification) would be Kitty Pryde. Although she wasn’t initially conceived as such and some non-comics media do downplay this, but as what one blogger noted, she seems to pander very much to a narrow audience that to outsiders she’s definitely not a girl next door.

For starters, a lot of comics characters own dogs because lots of people own dogs. But the same can’t said of her, she owns a dragon on top of being a mutant hacker-martial artist who’s part of a franchise that’s largely and practically insulated from the rest of the Marvel universe. So much so that it proves her point right. Another one would be Felicity Smoak.

Of all the characters, for the longest period of time (in comics) she wasn’t created as an audience surrogate and was even somebody’s mum! By the time she appeared on Arrow, she was made entirely different from her comics counterpart that she’s barely recognisable. Some fans liked her so much that they demanded writers to increase her presence and make her romance with Oliver canon.

But it also bothered other fans that I think it’s more of a case where fans better be careful of what they wish for. Especially if Felicity Smoak turned out to be a victim of her own popularity. I still think when it comes to Canon Sues, the more they’re made in mind for a specific audience the likelier they are to be identified a lot to the detriment of gaining a proper personality.

Or in Kitty Pryde’s case, go where she’d logically become (something like in Age of Apocalypse). Though Mary Sues can be author surrogates, not all author surrogates are necessarily Mary Sues as it’s not uncommon for writers to base prose and stories after themselves and people they personally know to varying degrees. Of all the characters considered Mary Sue, only four qualify and come dangerously close to the fanfic Mary Sue.

As in they’re fan-surrogate characters stuck in a world that’s in the same setting as the franchise said fan likes. Felicity Smoak being a very damning example as she’s part of a franchise she wasn’t historically part of. (It would be more plausible with Tim Drake, that’s had Black Canary been outed as his biological aunt as she’s part of Birds of Prey and Justice League, which has Batman family members in both.)

Likewise Kitty, Tim and Barry are conceived as audience surrogate heroes in pre-existing franchises. Two of them are fans of pre-existing characters and one gets to be part of a pre-existing group permanently. Likewise Tim got adopted by Batman. These come dangerously close to the fanfiction Mary Sue where they’re adopted and/or tormented by tragedy.

None of these exactly mean a Mary Sue as much as I think these are half-arsed attempts at making them fallible. Not that Mary Sues can’t be flawed and some of them have flaws with consequences. But rather a better marker of Mary Sue to me would be the inability to go where the character would logically become. But that would involve having to let the character do what they need to do or become.

And on a closing note, I suspect if you were to make a character any less of a Mary Sue don’t make them too idealised.

She’s not a Mary Sue, he is

I sometimes think some readers do use the word Mary Sue (highly idealised audience surrogate character) to disparage some characters they don’t like. I could be guilty of something similar. But let’s face it, a true Canon Sue would be pretty rare in the entire scheme of fiction because it’s not uncommon for writers to base characters after themselves and others they know to whatever extent. Same with the stories and plot.

A proper canon Sue might not even be a protagonist from the get go (as these are the characters said story’s supposed to focus on). Sometimes what makes a Mary Sue isn’t that they lack flaws but that writers don’t and won’t let them take the logical route. Something like Kitty Pryde being less Mary Sue if she was an anti-heroine assassin (from Age of Apocalypse).

She even got similar training, was even close to Wolverine and considering her own bad temper, she’d easily be the most cut-throat X-Woman. (The other problem’s that it would necessitate Kitty to render both X-23 and Psylocke redundant but that would also mean they’d have to make Kitty Pryde properly feline all the way and make Feral also redudant.) So the logical conclusion may sometimes necessitate them to be actually fallible.

I think one of the real reasons why I don’t think Supergirl’s a Mary Sue’s that in later stories she’s written to be actually fallible (more emotional, easily misled) but also willing to learn from it as usual. Despite her alien origins, she seems like a genuinely fallible human being as she sometimes screws up, sometimes loses her temper real badly. But still willing to learn from it.

Whilst that can be said of other characters to whatever extent, I actually think the characters most at risk of becoming a Mary Sue would be the reader surrogate types. In the sense that they’re never/rarely allowed to actually screw up or go whatever’s necessarily needed of them. That they have to be idealised audience surrogates makes sense if they cease being those, they won’t be liked anymore.

Even if that makes them less Mary Sue. They may not be Mary Sue in the proper sense of the word though it’s more like they toe a line as writers seem awkward to make them outgrow that idealisation role thing. It’s not that Tim Drake’s infallible but that to make him not Mary Sue is to observe what he could be if he were to go wrong (i.e. villain). The best one’s in DCAU where he becomes the Joker when under the influence.

I actually think he needn’t to be a villain to be less Mary Sue but be made into a character who’d do shady things to do what’s right. Something like poisoning dogs to stop them from barking (Rao help if he angers Stephanie Brown this way and have her go Red Lantern for it). If Stephanie gets really livid at him, that’s when he’s got flaws but in the sense that they have bad consequences for the people around them even if he’s well-intentioned.

(If Stephanie Brown becomes a Red Lantern, whilst it would be really shocking at first but if she got angry at Tim for poisoning her dog, that’s understandable.)

I think if Tim’s caught poisoning animals even with the intention of self-defence it would make him less Mary Sue in that even if he meant well, sometimes they don’t go as expected if his girlfriend were to get mad at him at all.