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.

Not your ideal girlfriend character

Though this isn’t always the case with other writers and stories, I do get the impression of some writers treating certain characters as if they’re so idealised as to be almost unrelatable and even Mary Sueish. As in the idealised reader surrogate that some fans live vicariously through and unintentionally bothering others, which I think’s the true hallmark of a Canon Sue.

As for Kitty Pryde, this isn’t to say she lacks flaws (she does have a habit of losing her temper to the point of being vindictive and ruthless that some stories do play up the ruthlessness) but I have a feeling she’d actually be less Mary Sue if she’s less idealised girlfriend/reader surrogate and more like what Psylocke and X23 ended up as: a ruthless ninja.

(Kitty Pryde got trained to be a ninja, Psylocke only got ninja skills through a body swap and that’s saying, as if writers ironically forget canon at times.)

Not to mention, she does have a habit of losing her temper and even violent that the Age of Apocalypse version played up this trait as a ruthless assassin or at the very least, an antiheroine who’s as practical as she’s conniving.

(Actually if they portrayed Kitty Pryde as more of an antiheroine, that actually involves taking her to where she’d logically become like a ruthless ninja who uses the focused totality of her intangilibility and also somebody who’d bend the law to her own will when the situation suits it.)

As for other characters, I still think flawlessness doesn’t always make a character Mary Sue but rather a form of vicarious fan identification that makes it harder to not idealise that’s often different from your usual semi-autobiographical character fiction.

(I did have a Mary Sue character when I identified with a certain character before.)

Whilst not always the case, there’s the problem with trying to turn Patty Spivot into Barry Allen’s girlfriend but because Iris West is his girlfriend the longest and the one with a deeper impact (I always said that the storyline where Barry’s doppelganger kills her and Barry himself avenges her got repeated in later stories).

It could even be argued that Iris West might have more in common with Barry than Patty does that if writers did depict Patty as obsessed with romance novels, gambling and soap operas but Barry’s into hunting, reading comics (Patty doesn’t like that) and the occasional soccer then that’s proving my point right.

Possibly the case with canon to some extent, but that involves realising that either Patty’s not that incompatible with Barry or if she didn’t make a big impact or whatever. (But it could be argued that some writers do depict her as an idealised girlfriend figure, even though there’s the possibility of her liking romance novels much to Barry’s chagrin.)

Both characters aren’t necessarily Mary Sue because of apparent flawlessness but risk being Mary Sue due to over-eager fan idealisation that keeps them from going where they’d logically become or in some cases, be human even if that’s not always the case.

Logical directions

Not being able to take a character to a logical conclusion doesn’t always make them Mary Sue but rather a missed opportunity that involves not only knowing that’s within the character’s capability (I have a feeling if they portray Kitty Pryde as a ruthless assassin or at least hitwoman ninja, it would be less Mary Sue this way) but also knowing a lot to pull it off.

Something like Tigra not only having paws (there are attempts at making her look more bestial: paws, fur, more feline features) but also ending up as a professional huntress but that also involves not only taking her tendencies into consideration (she does want to hunt animals and did this to a mouse) but also sticking to it and knowing about female hunters/huntresses to pull it off.

The logical direction isn’t always the coolest, but it’s worth taking to where the character would become/capable of doing it.

The logical direction

I still think my point stands to some extent where when it comes to characters being Mary Sue, if they’re idealised a lot then taking them to a logical conclusion would involve less idealised portrayals even if that makes the most sense in terms of their history and trajectory. It would actually be all the more logical and intuitive for Kitty Pryde to take up the role Psylocke ended up as.

But that would mean it would be all the more in-character for Kitty Pryde, who got trained to be a ninja, to become Psylocke without difficulty (as in she’d be the deadly ninja who attacks people with the focused totality of her phasing power whereas Psylocke became a ninja from body-swapping*).

Not to mention turning Kitty into a female Wolverine and/or a cat where if they stuck to both, there wouldn’t be any X23 and rather than X23, Kitty Pryde would be the feline Wolverine if they ever committed to it.

(That actually makes the most sense as cats do have retractile claws and wolverines don’t, but the other problem’s that it gives away too easily of her namesake as to be too literal, which writers may’ve avoided.)

The logical direction’s not the most flattering take, where I think the portrayal of her as an assassin in Age of Apocalypse’s the most realistic and logical direction (she’s trained to be a ninja and has no shame in beating up and killing people outright) but it’s also the least idealised portrayal of her ever.

*Until recently, Psylocke was stuck in somebody else’s body and there are portrayals where Psylocke does act like her old self, but that would involve realising that’s still her in a different body and would have difficulties doing other things she’s not used to (she’d still eat with a fork and spoon rather than chopsticks, which she’d be unfamiliar with).

What makes a Mary Sue

As I said earlier, flawlessness doesn’t always make a character Mary Sue since Marvel’s Kitty Pryde does have flaws (like say having a short temper) but rather in some cases the inability to take the character to where they’d logically become (i.e. there are attempts at turning Kitty Pryde into an assassin or a female Wolverine, but that would mean X23 would be redundant by then). Though the other problem’s that if Kitty Pryde starts to possess retractile claws, it’s not just her being a female Wolverine but also being actually catlike (also attempted).

I guess this is a direction not many writers take and stick to for longer, even if that involves taking the character to where she’d logically become given attempts at turning her into a cat or a female Wolverine or both. (Then again that makes X23 redundant and even butterflied away, as Kitty occupies that role by being X-Men’s Catwoman if there ever was and needs one at all.) I guess when it comes to what makes a Mary Sue, it’s not even always about having a self-insert or a character based on you and your life as many writers do it.

(The existence of autobiographical literature should attest to it.)

What does make a character Mary Sue isn’t always about flawlessness but something like a wish-fulfillment especially if the character’s meant to be the avatar of a fan or appeals to the fan a lot as to become more idealised than the main characters are. (That actually makes more sense in that a good number of Mary Sues occur in fanfiction but do occur in official works if the character serves as an avatar for the fans to idealise upon.)

An authorial self-insert isn’t always a Mary Sue, but a fan self-insert risks being one that’s if writers don’t just add flaws but also do something about them that’s logical and intuitive even if that applies to any non-Mary Sue character.

The logical direction

When it comes to characters deemed Mary Sue, I’d argue it’s not always the flawlessness that makes them like this but also the inability to take them to where they’d logically become given how writers are tempted to turn them into. If only they stuck to it. To give you an example, Marvel’s Kitty Pryde isn’t necessarily flawless.

She’s very quick to anger, beats up people and holds a grudge. She’s not a Mary Sue, at least in the formal sense of the word but it seems writers are afraid to take her to where she’d logically become and stick to it given how often they’re tempted to. But that would mean she’d actually mature or develop in ways they don’t expect her to.

It did happen in a way but if they were to stick to her being a werecat Wolverinesque ninja there wouldn’t be any need for both X23 and Psylocke as she’s stereotypically presented as. If because she occupies both roles. (Actually there wouldn’t be any need for the werecat Feral either.) That would involve doing things the hard way.

Even if that’s actually allowing the character to grow up or develop naturally.

Shower Thoughts

Considering that Marvel character Kitty Pryde’s actually no stranger to being trained by Wolverine (even donning claws at some point), made feline at various points and trained as a ninja it’s almost surprising why almost no writer bothered sticking to either one, both or all of them. But that would necessitate allowing Kitty Pryde to actually mature or develop in ways nobody expected her to.

Though that would mean she’d practically render X23 and even Feral redundant. Or at least become either one or both of them. Actually there wouldn’t be a need for X23 should Kitty Pryde actually be a cat version of Wolverine. (Also it makes a lot more sense for felids to have retractile claws.) But that’s something that even if writers are tempted to, they’re not willing to stick to it either.

At times sticking to the logical conclusion would necessitate doing things the hard way. Something that writers do feel tempted to turn Kitty into a feline Wolverine but one that involves having her move past what others call the idealised girlfriend thing and experience her developing in ways they wouldn’t foresee her to.

She wouldn’t necessarily be Marvel’s Catwoman but there wouldn’t be any X23 and perhaps Psylocke in her expected form if they play up the feline ninja thing for real.

Extremely low

I still think that out of all the most popular franchises, I’d say X-Men takes the cake for constantly depicting Christians in a dubious or scornful light in addition to seemingly mocking Christianity (a church being destroyed, that Warren ‘Angel’ Worthington doesn’t just resemble an angel but also gets made into a bad guy or tortured in some manner). There aren’t that many positive portrayals of Christians in X-Men.

Barring the demonic looking Nightcrawler, the only non-stereotypical non-bigoted Protestant (Rahne Sinclair) not only gets tortured a lot but also got killed off twice (I say twice as this was attempted earlier in X-Men Unlimited). The odd fact that the demonic characters (Magik and Nightcrawler) not only have more staying power but also popularity than Angel and Wolfsbane (to some extent) makes me think some X-Men writers don’t have a high opinion of Christianity.

If I’m not mistaken, some X-Men writers are even atheistic. (Keep in mind Gail Simone is secular but has a soft spot for Christians so for all her faults, she really shouldn’t be dragged in here.) So it seems what should be considered the most openly blasphemous superhero/entertainment franchise seems spiritually overlooked. Not that Harry Potter’s any better but X-Men should also deserve more scorn really.

Weird sense

I still strongly think that to take characters to where they’d logically become, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll become unrecognisable or unrecognisably evil, but rather go where they’d realistically and practically become. Had writers stuck with giving Kitty Pryde claws and turning her into a clawed ninja, she’d make other characters who fill these niches redundant. Why have X-23 when there’s Kitty to do it.

Same with Psylocke and even Feral. But that would involve either a stronger hands off approach or to cultivate more interests and experiences to pull it off. If Wolverine was compared to Batman, it’s only natural that Kitty Pryde would be X-Men’s Catwoman. In fact a somewhat more precise version in that rather than merely sporting clawed gloves, she has retractile claws like an actual cat.

(That would further tempt people to make her more feline, which I think might unconsciously be why some writers and artists back away from this. She’d ironically be a more successful version of Hank McCoy as cat.)

I still if writers were to commit to giving Kitty Pryde claws, rather than X-23 we’d see a more feline Kitty Pryde anyways.

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.