responde esta pregunta

Critical Analysis of Twilight Pregunta

Why is Mary-Sue a bad thing? Please and thank you!

Whenever I thought of Mary-Sue, I always imagined it to mean a boring character. And in my mind, boring is equivalent to having no sense of humour ^_^ So I considered characters that aren't amusing to be Mary Sues.

However, the definition of Mary Sue on Wikpedia is quite different! It refers to "a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasía for the autor o reader."

I don't understand what's wrong with this at all! Why is it considered a bad thing? D:

"Overly idealised mannerisms" - doesn't that just mean that they're brave/kind/selfless/etc. to an unlikely degree? What's wrong with that? D: Does anyone have an example?

"Lacking noteworthy flaws" - Again, I don't understand why that's bad D: Could someone give an example?

"Primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasía for the autor o reader" - This one I understand least of all. Why does it matter? D: Imagine Tolkien used LOTR as a self-insertion, and based Legolas on himself. That wouldn't make the LOTR world any less amazing, o the story less interesting, o Legolas less of an amusing character ^_^ Why does it matter?

Please, and thank tu very much :D
 -Grace- posted hace más de un año
next question »

Critical Analysis of Twilight Respuestas

ArcticWolf said:
"Overly idealised mannerisms" - doesn't that just mean that they're brave/kind/selfless/etc. to an unlikely degree? What's wrong with that? D:

If it's to an unlikely degree, it's not realistic. I'll get into that más later.

"Lacking noteworthy flaws" - Again, I don't understand why that's bad D:

All characters need to have character flaws, no exception. No one on this Earth is perfect in every possible way. Therefore no book character should be perfect in every possible way. There is no person on this Earth that is loved por everyone, so there should be no person in a story who is loved por everyone. No matter the genre, fictional stories are supposed to reflect real life in some way. Being the "perfect character" is not possible. The whole reason people amor (or hate) character flaws so much is because the character grows as a person throughout the story. It's amazing to watch how much a character can develop and change (for good o bad) throughout the story. Without character development, the character stays the same throughout the entire story. That's not realistic. People change throughout a significant period of time, especially when a huge devastating event happens (which usually occurs in books). If these characters don't have flaws, there's nothing to overcome. It's absolutely dull.

It may seem interesting and appealing to the reader at first, because they could insert themselves into the character's shoes and for a moment feel everyone loves them, too. That may be the reason they amor the book so much, because it's a break from reality. The problem is... how does it affect them in real life? If the character is perfect and everyone loves him/her, the reader won't be able to relate the story to the real world at all. This may not seem like a problem, but it is. They'll soon begin to dislike reality and live for the moments as they re-read the book over and over again because their reality could never be as perfect.

For example, let's say someone is being severely bullied. They really amor this one book, because the character in the story never gets bullied, and they can imagine and pretend for once that they are the character in the story who never once gets bullied. But... how does that help their bullying problem? They may get help from teachers, counselors, and parents, but deep down internally they feel the same.

Now, let's say this same person reads a different book. But this book isn't like the other book. In this book, the main character is severely bullied, just like the reader. As sad as the bullying to the character in the story is, the reader connects with the main character right away. The main character, later in the story, may become this great, Valiente leader, o maybe they save someone's life. o maybe they just become this decent, good person who helps out someone else.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
*
They still get bullied, yes, but they're able to do all these other great things. The character, who gets bullied, is [i]worth[/i] something. The reader may begin to think, "Hey! This completely realistic character is bullied, just like me, and he's still able to do all this other stuff!" Okay, they're probably not thinking those words, but subconsciously in their mind, something begins to click. por the end of the story, the character overcomes the bullies, and believe o not the reader may feel better about himself/herself, even if it was [i]very slightly[/i]. They may gain the confidence to stand up to their bullies because of this book. The reader had inserted themselves into the main character's shoes, but differently than the first book. Instead of just pretending to be the character, the reader [i]connected[/i] with the character. And because they connected with the character, very deep down inside they almost felt like they overcame the same problems the main character did. This is what a good book does - it connects tu to its characters. Even if they did not literally do the same great things the character did, they feel like they can overcome the same realistic problems the character had to face. And this was all because they could simply connect with the character.
ArcticWolf posted hace más de un año
*
With a Mary-Sue, tu can't do that. A Mary-Sue has no flaws. tu can't connect with the character and tu can't grow with the character. If tu can't connect o grow with a character, it gets very hard to CARE about the character.
ArcticWolf posted hace más de un año
*
^Alright, then, thanks for responding (again). And yes, the typo thing is annoying.... I actually made a typo on this box five minutos hace and had to borrar it and rewrite my whole comment... xD *sighs* Oh, typos, how I despise tu and your war against fast typers...
ArcticWolf posted hace más de un año
cassie-1-2-3 said:
I agree with you.
This is why I don't believe in the idea of "Mary-Sue"

I've read so many libros with characters that would fit perfectly into the definition of a "Mary-Sue", yet they receive no criticism.

I'm pretty sure every single book character can be twisted into looking like a Mary-Sue, in one way o another.


In Bella's case, I think it's humorous when people call her a Mary-Sue.
They like to pick on her, say she's so weak and defenseless. She's too dependent. She doesn't always make good decisions. She's too judgmental.
Yet somehow, these same people say she's flawless and perfect.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
*
Mary Sue is basically an author's pet, which I think best fits Bella. She also has no major flaws.
luv_warriorcatz posted hace más de un año
*
Stephanie Meyer basically inserted herself into Bella. I know some authors do this but Meyer basically wrote "Stephanie and her fantasy".
luv_warriorcatz posted hace más de un año
*
shes in amor with edward and jacob of course she has flaws!!!
wolfclan121 posted hace más de un año
November99 said:
A Mary Sue's "over idealized manerisms" are the fact that she's so selfless and Valiente and kind and sexual that everyone loves her for no real reason. This is not good because she's harder to identify with if she's so perfect.

Which leads me to flaws. Again, harder to identify with if she has no real flaws like quick to anger o o even stupid.

Read this: link and see if tu can identify with the main Mary Sue. Read a couple chapters.

"Wish fulfilmet" is usually más of an autor as a enfriador, refrigerador person. In the example above, the autor Tara starts inserting her name where Ebony's should be, especially in later chapters. In Twilight, Bella's descripción exactly matches that of Stephanie Meyer, minus a few dozen pounds.

Never read LOTR, but Legolas does come off as a Captain Obvious Gary Stu in the movie.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
*
"A Mary Sue's "over idealized manerisms" are the fact that she's so selfless and Valiente and kind and sexual that everyone loves her for no real reason." Wouldn't that fact that she's perfect be the reason everyone loves her? Oh! I've heard that dicho a lot (about characters being identifiable), but I'm unsure what it means D; Would tu be able to explain, if it's not too much trouble? Sorry >///< Ahahahaha, oh dear. My favourite part is the author's note on the 4th chapter: "AN: STOP FLAMMING DA STORY PREPZ OK!" ^_^; I'll just assume that identify with is interchangeable with like and say that I can't identify with her because I wouldn't be friends with her in real life. For me stories are all about the characters, and I consider a character to be acceptable if I would be friends with them in real life. I would definitely not be friends with her ^_^; Yes, I don't understand whythe wish fulfillment is a bad thing D: It's like I said, if the autor made for an interesting character, wouldn't that be ok? :D Ahaha, oh no he's not at all ^_^ H'es a really cool character in the books. From what I gather, Mary Sue as a pajorative doesn't work because not everyone dislikes those qualities. Enjoyment is too subjective for that :)
-Grace- posted hace más de un año
*
Sorry for the complete lack of grammar :\ tu can't seperate paragraphs o anything in the comentario box. Thank tu very much for your comment! I'm findind all this very educational.
-Grace- posted hace más de un año
*
^That has never been proven. But it is still a very good example of a Mary Sue.
November99 posted hace más de un año
twilightluver4 said:
Basically they are stating that Mary-sue characters are very, very dull. And, just too perfect to be considered a character with flaws. Bella is supposedly perfect, and Edward has nothing wrong with him, he just sticks out. A Mary-sue can reflect on how under-developed a character is; if a character is too perfect then they are under-developed. Nevertheless, if they aren't and have flaws, then they are well developed and can fix their problems throughout the book o series.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
ilovereading said:
These are the basic characteristics of Mary Sue, but what is even más important is how they function together.

"Overly idealised mannerisms" - doesn't that just mean that they're brave/kind/selfless/etc. to an unlikely degree? What's wrong with that? D: Does anyone have an example?
Tehnically, there is nothing wrong with idealised characters. Sometimes they are necessary to get the point across or, with an apropriate plot, can come out as believable characters.
An example of this is The Bride from Kill Bill. A summary in case tu never watched it: One of the best contract killers in the world wants to settle down and have a family. On her weeding día (she is also heavily pregnant), her former assasination squad tracks her down and she is shot in the head por her employer, Bill (while telling him it's his child). She survives and wakes up in hospital four years latter. After that, she is searching and killing the five people (four members of her squad and Bill) to get her revenge, during which she reveals to be incredible fighter, quick learner and dedicated over all reasonable measures. In other words, it would be hard to find anyone like this and in that sense she is idealised. But that alone does not make her a Mary-Sue.

"Lacking noteworthy flaws" - Again, I don't understand why that's bad D: Could someone give an example?
This one is a bit harder. I can use your example - Tolkien's elves. They are flawless. Beautiful and smart and fast and almost-imortal and all that. But the whole LOTR is writen in a poetic and fairytale style that allows that. All bad people are bad and all good are good. There is no questioning these concepts. This would be hard to put in a modern fantasy, but it worked in its beginnings in the fifties.

"Primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasía for the autor o reader" - This one I understand least of all. Why does it matter? D: Imagine Tolkien used LOTR as a self-insertion, and based Legolas on himself. That wouldn't make the LOTR world any less amazing, o the story less interesting, o Legolas less of an amusing character ^_^ Why does it matter?
I have no problems imagining Tolkien based his character(s) on himself. There is actually no problem whatsoever with it. As someone who sometimes writes, I can tell tu I ofen give my characters at least something I have - a dream, a personality trait o just a simmilar realationship that I have in real life. All writers do it and it is what ultimately creates believable characters.
So there is nothing wrong if Tolkien based Legolas on him. Mary-Sue however, is something else than being based on author. She is her author. The writer didn't use herself (or himself in case of Gary-Stues) as an inspiration. She used the character as a self-insert in a fantasy.
Now imagine Legolas was Tolkien's Gary-Stu. He would be beautiful and smart and fast even por elfin standars, hook up with Arwen and maybe invent tanks to win the
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
*
the war egainst evil if he was already at it. Legolas isn't Tolkien's self-insert. If he was, LOTR [i]would[/i] be worse.
ilovereading posted hace más de un año
*
Imagine day-dreaming about yourself being at the parte superior, arriba of your class with ease, having loving family AND eventualy meeting Prince Charming who is totally into you.
ilovereading posted hace más de un año
*
Thank tu so much for your answer! :D Yes, it seems to be as I thought: Mary Sue is too subjective a concept to be used as a pajorative. There coud be characters who meet all of the criteria and are still enjoyable to some people, because of the subjective nature of enjoyment. tu used The Bride as an example of a character with Mary Sue traits who is not a Mary Sue, but I didn't enjoy her character at all! I did, on the other hand, enjoy Bella as a character, and she IS considered a Mary Sue. Even if it were entirely a self-insertion, I think the same logic would apply: if autor (or rather, the author's idealised version of themselves) made a good character, I think that would be fine! They say that Twilight is a self-insertion, and I really enjoy it :) What's more, the kind of story tu describe in your comentario sounds exactly like something I would want to read (perhaps not that atory, because fantasía FTW, but I ONLY read happy endings)! ^_^ Despite the fact that, to you, it would be boring to read written down. It just all seems far too subjective for Mary Sue to be an inherent;y bad thing. I appreciate tu going to so much effort that tu overcame the character ^_^ Thanks so much!
-Grace- posted hace más de un año
Latrans said:
I know this pregunta has been already answered, but I just wanted to add something from myself. I think the thing that's bad about Mary Sue's is that if it's the main character, it will probably make the story much más boring and worse overall. If a character is perfect and has no personal traits that means her personality won't develop. I always thought that escritura means mostrando not only the "main" plot, like fighting the evil overlord, but also mostrando characters' development, which includes mostly overcoming their traits and weaknesses. Character without weaknesses won't mostrar us anything new and refreshing... maybe except new superpowers. Not too realistic, huh?
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
HPfan236 said:
because if the character is a Mary-sue she is perfect and has no flaws so then the character seems boring but also because if she is mary-sue the character will lack depth because she makes no mistakes
THIS IS WHY I THINK IT'S A BAD THING
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
AbbieCoast said:
Well, a Mary Sue isn't a person. They don't have any flaws, and they always seem to do misceláneo good things. Who do tu know is like that?

A character should be three dimensional. Even the heros need a weakness.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
wexiewoo said:
I think some people take it to far in their critisisms in my own honest oppinion. What i think when i hear the word Mary Sue is someone stuck into a harry ptter fanfiction for example whos name is japanese has floor length arco iris hair, is impossibly small, with eyes bigger than possible that are also rainbow. I think that alot of people have gotten to nit picky when lectura characters. I wanted to test my theory por using a pretty well known Mary Sue test, using JK Rowlings Harry Potter. He came out a Mary Sue o should i say Gary Stu. As long as your character fits into the universe and has proper Character development ignore the haters. I have a feeling if they read Harry Potter like they read some of the fanfiction and original fiction without knowing it was harry potter they would accuse harry of being a Gary stu. Most people have gotten so critical that they have unfortunately become...Boring. One of my characters was accused of being Mary Sue so i got worried and took my story to my english teacher and she loved it so they have turned the Mary Sue thing into an internet witch hunt and if someone calls a character a mary sue there will be others that jump on the band wagon. So my mary sue is not like that of other authors opinions and i only believe a Mary Sue can be in a fanfiction not an original fiction. Mary sue is becoming a new way to flame an author.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
*
Why? Rowling used proper character development in her story, she had actual rules that falls within the spectrum of willing suspense of disbelief. That's the criteria that people use to determine that a character is a Mary Sue and if they are using any other criteria it is best just to ignore them for the simply fact they don't know what they are talking about. That said, your English teacher saying they loved your story isn't proof that your character isn't a Mary Sue. Mind you, I'm not saying that your character is one here. When one calls a character out for being a Mary Sue they're supposed to bring out evidence as to why dicho character isn't believable. In the same regard a person can bring out evidence as to why a character is believable. Of course, if someone isn't giving tu evidence as to why your character is a Mary Sue then don't worry about it.
yemi_hikari posted hace más de un año
*
How is Harry Potter a Gary-Stu? He is angsty beyond belief, self-centered, takes his friends for granted and makes the assumption that he has the right to know everything.
Book-Freak posted hace más de un año
*
he is always right, always has to save the day, his lying and cheating are seen as the correct moral things to do, he's super popular, only the "dumb" slytherin girls dislike him, he always wins, he has no real char, development. Hermione is a huge mary sue also especially in the cine where all guys magically like her and she does no wrong.
girlygirlspwn posted hace más de un año
Book-Freak said:
Mary-Sues are considered bad among readers because they are too perfect. An ideal character, be it from a book, film, tv mostrar o the like, needs to be a realistic human being. They need to have flaws and imperfections because no human being is completely perfect. People are defined por the balance of their imperfections and perfections, so to have a character that is 100% perfect is annoying, and generally make the entire book/film/tv mostrar dreadful. Characters need to clash and burn, not just go along with what the Mary-Sue does.
As for your last point, self insertions are annoying beyond belief, because invariably the plot-line is shaped to make the autor seem to be better than who they actually are; give them qualities they don't have and to make up for whatever has gone wrong in their lives.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
Rebecca321 said:
It makes the autor out to be rather selfish...as though the story was más intended for teh mthan anyone else. Mary/Gary sue is usually based on the author...but perfect. It's being dishonest with readers and with yourself, and all in all very unrealistic...people aren't perfect, and are never good ar everything o loved por eveyone who matters...It's important for a character to have flaws and depth so readers can relate to them...instead of the autor just trying to make themsleves seem like they're better than they really are. It's mostly about dishonesty, I think. but it's also just plain annoying and unreal to have a perfect character and a perfect situation. Does tgat make sense? :)
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
next question »