female characters

Hi, I was just reAding your defence against bad writing and I agree with it but I was just wondering what you meant by Mary Sue? You referred to it a few times. Thanks

seananmcguire:

thefourthvine:

The short answer: Mary Sue is the author’s idealized self-insert. (If you want to know alllll about Mary Sue, including the history and origins of the term, TV Tropes has your back. Also, if you aren’t careful, your mind and soul. Pack a lunch.) A Mary Sue story is one that primarily features a Mary Sue.

The slightly longer answer: That story you used to tell yourself, about the awesome girl who was totally pretty and everyone liked her and she maybe had magic powers and also like fifteen skills that you wished you did and also her hair never did that, you know, THAT THING your hair always does? And she was in your favorite fictional (or real person fictional) world, and all the characters or people that you loved the most loved her, and she married them or solved their problems or saved them or made them awesome food or held them when they cried? That story was a Mary Sue story, and that girl was a Mary Sue. Sometimes people write those stories down and post them. (AND THAT IS FINE.) Often the stories have limited appeal beyond the author and maybe her friends. (BUT THAT IS ALSO FINE.)

The “Sorry, you kind of touched a nerve” answer: While we can all identify our own Mary Sues, even if we’ve never written them down, people tend to spend a lot of time figuring out if other people have maybe written a Mary Sue, and checking every female character for potential Mary Sueism. In fandom times of old, the letters “OC” (original character) in a story header were a giant flag that meant Potential Bad Story Here, and the letters “OFC” (original female character) were translated as Guaranteed Bad Story Here. So people mostly stopped putting original female characters in their fan fiction.

But that couldn’t stop the inexorable progression of the Mary Sue Hunt. Canon female characters in fan fiction became the focus of intense scrutiny. Is this character being, perhaps, idealized? Is she better than she should be?

It was surprising how often she was better than she should be.

I mean, it’s one thing if we write John Sheppard being brilliant and solving a Millennium Problem while being extra super badass and a sharpshooter and extremely hot and having a troubled past and also he can play the piano and small children love him and he rides a horse. It’s one thing if we write Stiles as a badass motherfucker who can hack and do MMA and make small explosive devices and he saves everyone, and also it turns out he’s a surprisingly sexually skilled virgin, and also there’s this scene where he wears skintight leather and he has two boot knives. It is fine to write those things. (AND IT IS.) You could give Sheppard’s horse a telepathic soulbond with him and have Stiles elected president of universe (because he is awesome), and you’d still potentially have a significant and delighted readership. (WHICH IS ALSO FINE. Who doesn’t sometimes like a President Awesome with a Psychic Horse story? Give Sidney Crosby a psychic horse and you’ve got my click.) That’s just having fun and extrapolating from the canon. (Or, in the case of the telepathic soulbonding horse, it’s a crossover. From real actual published original fiction. And people call us strange.)

But if a female character does one of those things in fan fiction, she’s declared a potential Mary Sue. It’s out of character, it’s over the top, it’s wish fulfillment (as if there’s something wrong with wish fulfillment), it’s a self-insert. And that. That is less fine with me. 

And the Mary Sue Problem is not limited to fan fiction. Turns out Mary Sues are also surprisingly prevalent in the canon itself! A tiny sample of the female characters I have heard described as Mary Sues:

  • Hermione Granger
  • Nyota Uhura
  • Natasha Romanov
  • Haruno Sakura
  • Rose Tyler
  • Bella Swann
  • Katniss Everdeen
  • Buffy Summers

Basically, think of any female character who gets more than eighteen lines, from any popular canon. Someone has called her a Mary Sue. Because she’s competent, because she’s smart, because she’s talented. Because she can do stuff, or because she tries to. Because she loves someone, or because someone loves her. Because she thinks she’s interesting. Because the author thinks we should care about her.

Mary Sue, in short, has become another way of dismissing female characters. Of telling women that we can’t be awesome. Of drawing the line between people who do (dudes) and people who are done to (ladies). Yet another entry in the long list of All the Unacceptable Female Characters. Yet another way of viciously scrutinizing every woman, real or imaginary, and either finding her excessively flawed (and therefore terrible) or excessively without flaw (and therefore terrible).

And also, of course, if the author of the Mary Sue story is a fan fiction writer, we make fun of her.

Which is why my actual definition of the term Mary Sue is: it’s a phrase that is useful for describing a certain common tendency in fan fiction that, taken to an extreme, is often pretty repetitive and uninteresting (but not, let me note, actually criminal or anything). Unfortunately, it has, over time, warped into a tool for knocking down ladies who write, and also other ladies, so I’m trying to learn not to use it any more. (But that is hard. Because see above about usefulness. Almost everyone has dreamed up at least one or two of these, and it’s so nice to have a name for them!)

This is a beautiful explanation of why I hate the term “Mary Sue” like I hate fire ant sandwiches.

maryjanewtson:

real question time

what do y’all mean when you say “sharon carter deserves better”?

bc i see that thrown around a lot but with no actual meat behind it. she deserves better than what? how have her two appearances so far not lived up to the expectations and how have other secondary characters’ development and story been better than what she got?

im legit looking for replies here so i can understand where y’all are coming from

hit me up, for real. help me see what you see

I’ve been thinking about this a bit recently and I think –

(bear with)

– like, certain characters are thought of as real people, but other characters are thought of as just a collection of the writer’s whims. AMAZINGLY dudes (especially white dudes) tend to form most of the first aforementioned group, and women (especially WOC) most of the second as far as I can see. And sometimes a ___ deserved better tag is really legit (Poussey Washington from OITNB, for example, I bet we can all agree she deserved better) and sometimes it’s like…well… if Steve Rogers (for example) does something, Steve did it. If Sharon or whoever does something, the writers did it. Hence ‘Sharon Carter deserves better [writers]’, is what I imagine that’s all about.

BUT on the other hand when Male Characters are treated like people with agency (e.g. omg I can’t believe Steve did that for Bucky! What a stand-up guy! etc etc etc) and Female Characters are…not (e.g. omg I can’t believe the writers made Sharon do that! It’s like they were trying to make her a s**t!) it….does not exactly make for productive discussion I suppose. Probably because “Sharon(/whoever) is a terrible person” / “Sharon(/whoever) is a terrible character” and “Sharon(/whoever) is a great female character who the writers underwrote*” are three separate arguments (of many), which usually just get squashed together in a endless loop of what constitutes writing and what constitutes A Person and what constitutes sexism and so on and so on.

(* = Sharon is, at least, no less underwritten than Bucky is. And I love Bucky as a person! I just think as a character he’s a little lacking. He….um…god, he deserves better, you could almost say.)

boobsdontworkthatway:

 

dabokitty:

feminspire:

alyssakorea:

Tumbling over the past year and a half has made me see the problems of gender roles that exist in media, but sometimes it gets to the point where I over analyze every single piece of television or film that I come across. (However this in no way means that I think feminist media criticism is wrong, or should be avoided!) Mostly I just over think everything.

This is awesome!

Oh god, my life.

Sort of relevant?

Sorry for the lack of posts everyone- I’ve started my summer job and studying for MCATS so I’m quite busy! I’ll try to queue up some posts today! 

-Satya

falconrune:

falloutgirlongirl:

brorotica:

“I Don’t Hate This Female Character, I Only Hate The Lazy Writing and Shallow Male-Based Wish Fulfillment That Went Into Her”, an increasingly frustrated ongoing novel.

i know someone probably makes this addition to this post every now and then but it is cycling through my dash again and i’m just here to remind everyone that badly written female characters deserve the same kind of painstaking, loving headcanoning and analyzing than your 2-minutes-of-screentime male faves do. if the writing is lazy, fix them with the same amount of dedication background male characters are given. if she has a bad story, rewrite it in 50k fics like u do for yr male faves with no lines, fandom is transformative, you have the power to make those female characters the best characters there are. try it, it’s quick, it’s easy, it’s free

also, slightly off topic but i think relevant: there’s plenty of legitimately well-written female characters who fandom sexists brush off or excuse their hate for by claiming ~they’re just badly written. please actually consider whether that female character you’re bemoaning for being Alas, Just Lazily Written is actually all that lazily written, or you’re just not, for whatever reason, getting it.

Anonymous: can you expound more on why you dislike the term manic pixie dream girl? just curious

Well, it was originally a phrase coined by a guy to describe a female character he didn’t like. He later apologised for inventing the term, feeling it had gotten too far out of hand, but-

– I think the damage had already been done, because now it’s used as rather boring, unthinking shorthand to describe ‘a female who is too quirky/too excitable/loves life to the extent it rubs off on those around her’. None of which, I think, makes a bad character. But I’ve heard everyone from Amy Pond to Disney’s Rapunzel to Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind called a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. It’s as pointless as the term ‘Mary Sue’. Actually, I think the writer Zoe Kazan said it best – “It’s a way of describing female characters that’s reductive and diminutive, and I think basically misogynist….I think that to lump together all individual, original quirky women under that rubric is to erase all difference.” I mean…Maria a Manic Pixie Dream Girl? Come on!

Besides – lemme take a page out of this article’s book. Say there’s this girl. She’s poor and hard-done-by but she remains optimistic. She’s a talented artist, as well. She has some weird quirks, like drawing prostitutes and sleeping under the stars. Also, she’s blonde and attractive and smiles a lot. When she embarks on a forbidden love affair, she tries to get the other person to loosen up and have fun and break the rules a little. God, what a manic pixie dream girl and unrealistic character! I just described Jack from Titanic.

fakegeekgirlslikeus:

I feel like they had a missed opportunity with really developing Amy Pond’s character from Doctor Who. They could have made her so much more badass (like the way they made Rose) but instead put her in short skirts and made her have this silly crush on the Doctor the whole time.

What female character in nerd/geek/fan culture do you wish was more developed? Send us your thoughts at www.fakegeekgirlslikeus.tumblr.com/submit

But Amy Pond isn’t a badass, nor should she be.

Not a badass in the traditional way, anyway – she has tremendous strength of character, a great deal of intelligence, and it can’t be denied that she likes to hit things. But this is just one more example of the bizarre faux-feminist Strong Female Character argument that leaks into so much of online discourse- Rose isn’t some generic ‘badass’ either, nor Martha, nor River, because ‘badass’ isn’t a description of someone’s character. If we’re judging women to be missed opportunities or not based soley on the amount of Cool Stuff they do, we’ve set the bar incredibly low.

No-one put Amy in short skirts apart from Karen Gillan, and she talks about that here. Which actually brings me neatly round to my next point: Amy shouldn’t have to be more more like Rose, either. Female characters, just like female people, are not one-size-fits-all. I can’t help but notice that on that fakegeeksgirlslikeus website, they’ve grouped three very different women – Martha, Amy, Tauriel from The Hobbit – under the banner of, basically, ‘could have been more interesting if they hadn’t crushed on the Doctor/been part of a love triangle.’ Well, why? Nothing about their love lives cancels out what they actually achieve, which is plenty. Going back to Amy-

-like, I relate to Amy. I did as far back as The Beast Below. She’s immature in her attitude to sex and relationships (hence the ‘silly crush’). She’s abrasive and insulting even to her loved ones, she’s afraid of abandonment, she has complete mental breakdowns in bad situations (Like me!), she likes history and storytelling and art. I honestly don’t think these are things that are easy to miss, either: I don’t buy the ‘not developed enough as a person’ argument.

I found some of the little details of her character – her strength in the face of lack of support, her doubting her own mind sometimes (again, like me!) to be affirming. I know I’m not the only one who thinks that, either. But, yeah-

-I suppose she could have been badass in the way none of the Doctor Who companions actually are. When her husband is dying in her arms, she could have yelled ‘DON’T YOU DIE ON ME!’ and brought him back with a punch to the chest. When being sucked into the earth, she could have made a sarcastic quip about it. When told to hand over her baby daughter, she could have blown Kovarian and her soldiers up with a big gun and walked in slo-mo away from the explosion-

or she could have cried, panicked, pleaded, and acquiesced. Which is what she actually did. Rose (to give just one example) probably wouldn’t have done. But that’s alright too, because female characters should represent the entire spectrum of women. And we’re not all strong, and we’re not all badasses, and we shouldn’t have to be to gain respect.

theladyinquisitors:

there is this thing that fandom does, where fans who love female characters aren’t able to even discuss their flaws, to talk about the negative things they say or do, in a constructive way, because we’re too busy defending their right to fucking exist against people dumping all manner of hate on them

and it really sucks? i would love to have some nitty gritty conversations picking apart the ladies i love and viewing them as complex people

like wouldn’t it be nice if we could discuss sansa stark’s flaws without constantly having to sanctify her to people who think she deserves every single awful thing that’s happened in her life, but we are mired in a culture that only allows us to lavish nothing but positive attention on minority characters we love because everybody else is bound and determined to shit on them

we can’t even get a breath in to treat them as people because we’re too busy defending their right to exist

“But when it comes to women, a single selfish or not-nice act – a stolen kiss, a lie, a brushoff – is somehow enough to see them condemned as whores and bitches forever. We readily excuse our favourite male characters of murder, but if a woman politely turns down a date with someone she has no interest in, she’s a timewasting user bimbo and god, what does he even see in her? Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen some great online meta about, for instance, the soulfulness and moral ambiguity of Black Widow, but I’ve also seen a metric fucktonne more about what that particular jaw-spasm means in that one GIF of Cumberbatch/Ackles/Hiddleston/Smith *alone*, and that’s before you get into the pages-long pieces about why Rumplestiltskin or Hook or Spike or Bucky Barnes or whoever is really just a tortured woobie who needs a hug. Hell, I’m guilty of writing some of that stuff myself, because see above: plus, it’s meaty and fun and exactly the kind of analysis I like to write. And yet, we tend overwhelmingly not to write it about ladies. It’s not just our cultural obsession with pushing increasingly specific variants of the Madonna/Whore complex onto women, such that audiences are disinclined to extend to female characters the same moral/emotional licenses they extend to men; it’s also a failure to create narratives where the women aren’t just flawed, but where *the audience is still encouraged to like them when they are.*”

Sympathetic Characters: Gender Bias, Villains, & Orphan Black (via themarysue)

sarah531:

sarah531:

Eventually I gave up on the Mary Sue test, the Sexy Lamp test et al and invented a new one I like to call the “Fuck It” Test: can your female character be said to have had a positive effect on anyone, anywhere? If so, she’s a good female character, fuck it.

Wow look they’re still tripping on a bar so low it’s the fucking floor HOW IS THIS HARD? representation matters (x)

Alright, what’s your idea?

Representation does matter, obviously, but at the same time I don’t think trying to remove someone’s – anyone’s – favourite character under the guise of ‘she’s just a sexy lamp! Find a better role model!’ or whatnot is going to help. If a particular character has a good effect on someone, who am I, or anyone, to take that off them?

OKAY I’M BACK FROM GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY LEMME ELABORATE THE SHIT OUTTA THIS

Representation matters on an almost primal level. (Other people have explained that concept much better than I could ever do.) I don’t think there’s anyone here reading this who hasn’t got at least one fictional character who’s theirs. Everyone deserves to be able to look at a fictional character and say ‘that’s me’, and feel good about themselves, everyone, and writers aren’t providing that and it’s endlessly, endlessly frustrating.

But I don’t think discourse about female characters on the Internet is providing that either. Has anyone here not had their favourite (or even their least favourite) female characters written off as ‘not really a person’, or whatnot? Black Widow isn’t good enough, because she wears a form-fitting outfit. Tauriel from the Hobbit isn’t good enough, because she’s only there to have a relationship with a man. ‘Manly’ female characters aren’t good enough. Hell, Mako Mori (…viewed through a white feminist lens…) isn’t good enough. Who the hell is? (Gingerhaze actually put this far better than I did: her list of female characters who’ve been said to have been sexistly written is eye-opening to say the least. There’s a lot of them.)

I’m not saying male characters don’t get similar things every now and again, but there are endless tests and examinations before a female character is declared ‘good’, tests that male characters don’t have to undergo. I know that this is because these tests are supposed to be weighing up whether the (almost always) male writer can write women, but – if a male character fucks something up, or behaves weakly, or does something terrible etc, people are happy to apply motivations to him as if he were a real, living person. Female characters just don’t get that in the same way – people just say ‘X cannot write women; this is not a character’ and carry on. (Sometimes they also say ‘[character] deserved better’ which puzzles me. How could she have deserved better when there was never a her in the first place?)

I think the difference between white-straight-abled male characters and all the other characters in the world is this: those characters can represent everyone. But female characters, for example, have to represent all females. And they shouldn’t have to, which is the crux of this argument, really.  I remember when the Doctor Who episode Doomsday aired: people were furious at Rose Tyler’s assertions that she was going to be with the Doctor forever, feeling that her character arc had been reduced to her pining over a man. I definitely remember one comment that’s stuck in my mind all this time – (paraphrased) “This selfish child, this is meant to be us?” And maybe Rose was meant to be us, and if so she definitely failed in that regard – as any character would: no character can represent everyone, no matter how well (or not, even) they’re written. But some people clearly did see themselves in that selfish child – Rose has a massive fan following to this day – and I don’t want to tell them their admiration isn’t valid. Because it is.

Ideally, I want people to recognise that just because they can’t see themselves in a character, the woman next to them might. Just because they think Amy Pond/Jane Foster/Abbie Mills/Brienne of Tarth/Joan Watson/whoever isn’t a character or a person, that doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t thank god for them every day. I don’t want there to have to be a bar at all, but until then – until everyone gets to look at a character and say ‘that’s me’ instead of (though the two aren’t mutally exclusive) ‘that’s us’…

…well, fuck it.