Biggest Mary Sue/Gary Stu

[Chiki]

Then you should spend more time reading about how they actually refute arguments and less time obsessing over their word choice. More specifically, you should learn how to identify the context which something is being discussed and stay within the bounds of that context. Using philosophy to argue against a literary definition for a literary term isn't the best approach.

Uh, sorry, but I don't think you know much about philosophy. Analytic philosophy is about nothing but finding a solid argument; that is, the context is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's a literary context or a scientific context; modern philosophy attempts to find solid arguments in all fields. There is no such thing as a philosophical context.

Even if we're in a literary context, the fact remains that "Mary Sue" is an abstract concept in the same way that a person is "good" or "bad." And as long as concepts are involved, modern philosophy is too.

If you think about it, it's just common sense that one would want a solid argument for their case in any field. Do you think professors and such don't care about how solid their argument is when they write a paper? Let's say a person was arguing for Sonic being a Mary Sue. No one would listen to that person if their argument wasn't solid--that is, if all there premises weren't true and the conclusion didn't follow from the premises. No one would be convinced if their argument wasn't solid. Crafting a solid argument is used in all disciples. There is no such thing as a philosophical context, period.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Chiki

[Caliban of Sycorax]

I feel like one can split Micaiah into three parts: Part 1 Micaiah, Part 3 Micaiah, and Part 4 Micaiah. Her Sue traits show up the most in 1 and 4, especially 4 when she gets basically god status for no reason (also the billion plot twists at the end that all go in her favor). Part 1 she's worshipped by everyone in Daein and no one questions it. Sure, she's leading the army, but it's only because she has healing powers and can see into the future. If it weren't for those two powers she'd honestly have nothing going for her. In fact, Pelleas would end up taking all of the credit if it weren't for Micaiah's god powers. In Part 3 Micaiah actually is given some substance. In Daein she's still worshipped by most everyone, but people like Jill and even Sothe begin to question her decisions and leadership--so much that Jill and Zihark can defect to the Greil Mercenaries. She's a villain to everyone else. Tanith straight up says that Daein's delusional for following her, and it seems that most of the Greil Mercenaries are wondering what makes her so special. Then, of course, there's the oil and fire incident, which everyone disagrees with. Hell, even the Daeins disagree with it.

Basically Micaiah's a Sue for Parts 1 and 4 and has substance in 3.

[RJWalker]

Micaiah barely exists in part 4. It's all about Yune by then and she's reduced to little more than Yune's vessel.

Micaiah's a pretty big subversion of Mary Sues. Was this subversion of the usual Mary Sue tropes done well? That's definitely worth discussing.

[Tamanoir]

You do have a major good point there. D8 I always hated that part of the game, and I can't call My Unit a real self-insert after that. I'd never use such a cruel, heartless tactic either. It's one of the defining weakpoints in Awakening's story telling IMO.

Alternatively, Wallhart is called out many time by Chrom. Talk about double standard...

[Steampunk]

Uh, sorry, but I don't think you know much about philosophy

You are absolutely correct. I said that quite clearly in my previous post. Do you actually read the things I write?

I'm still waiting for you to actually address anything I said about Samus being a Sue. I don't need a lecture in rhetoric; the fact that you've dodged my argument instead of refuting it tells me I've made my point just fine. Sorry, but three strikes and you're out. Your last couple of responses have nothing to do with what I'm arguing, so there's no point in continuing to annoy everyone else trying to post in this thread since you aren't going to refute my post anyway. If you ever want to seriously discuss this, I'll be happy to pick up where we left off. Until then, I think you said it best in your post in the video game influence thread:

I think you're just nitpicking as you always do; it's very clear what I meant, and you know it too.

Funny, philosophy and semantics only seem to apply when you say so. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Sheik

[Chiki]

You are absolutely correct. I said that quite clearly in my previous post. Do you actually read the things I write?

I'm still waiting for you to actually address anything I said about Samus being a Sue. I don't need a lecture in rhetoric; the fact that you've dodged my argument instead of refuting it tells me I've made my point just fine. Sorry, but three strikes and you're out. Your last couple of responses have nothing to do with what I'm arguing, so there's no point in continuing to annoy everyone else trying to post in this thread since you aren't going to refute my post anyway. If you ever want to seriously discuss this, I'll be happy to pick up where we left off. Until then, I think you said it best in your post in the video game influence thread:

Funny, philosophy and semantics only seem to apply when you say so. I'll have to keep that in mind.

I already did address it. Samus isn't a Sue simply because being underdeveloped is not in the definition of the concept of Mary Sue.

And then there's Other M, which does have a script comparable to a Fire Emblem game, but it makes Samus look like a needy woman. Pretty much everyone hated her portrayal there.

[Florete]

This description can fit just about every main video game character ever made. Link from LoZ, Samus Aran from Metroid, Mario from SMB, the Vault Dweller/Courier from Fallout 3/NV, Sonic from Sonic the Hedgehog, the list goes on.

Well, sure. That is kind of the point in video games such as those that don't have a heavy reliance on narrative. One could definitely call them Mary Sues, but then:

I don't think you should be applying this kind of logic to video games like Zelda, Metroid and Mario when they barely have a proper plot, characterization and script in the first place.

I have to agree with this. There's no point in calling out a character like Mario as a Mary Sue when he doesn't even speak and the plot he's involved in is only basic enough to get a player moving him across a screen.

You could also argue that many supporting cast characters from Fire Emblem are Sues with this logic. There's no way Tiki, a really old (yet still young and beautiful) dragon priestess with the power to destroy the world, could be considered a Mary Sue right?

I don't see how this follows. Perhaps I should also mention that a Mary Sue is almost always the protagonist but should definitely have relevance and impact on the plot. But at the same time I was only trying to give a general idea, not a listing of specific criteria that determines any character who follows under it to be a Mary Sue.

[Steampunk]

I already did address it. Samus isn't a Sue simply because being underdeveloped is not in the definition of the concept of Mary Sue.

And I explained there is no definition of Mary Sue, only common themes and traits. I also explained why Mary Sues are considered poorly/underdeveloped characters even though working definitions don't outright state it. Shall I go through it again?

I have to agree with this. There's no point in calling out a character like Mario as a Mary Sue when he doesn't even speak and the plot he's involved in is only basic enough to get a player moving him across a screen.

He is a character in a story. Stories aren't simply than words on a page. They are action. Does Mario do any action in his video games? Yes, he does. I knew a person who studied drama in university who auditioned to be part of the Blue Man group. The people interviewing him asked him to tell them a story about something that happened to him in real life. When he was done, they asked him to tell the same story without saying a word. You don't need a Shakespearean screenplay for something to be a story. Mario is a character in that story. But even still, there are many Mario games. Did Super Mario Sunshine have a plot? Or perhaps Paper Mario? Or Super Mario RPG? We can also debate whether or not the Mario Party and Sports games should be considered (even though they are technically canon). We can also look at the Mario Wiki's description of Mario, which reads pretty Sue-ish.

don't see how this follows. Perhaps I should also mention that a Mary Sue is almost always the protagonist but should definitely have relevance and impact on the plot. But at the same time I was only trying to give a general idea, not a listing of specific criteria that determines any character who follows under it to be a Mary Sue.

It's a bit of a stretch with Tiki, I will admit. Still, I can see how she'd be considered one. They don't have to be plot-central (though they usually are) so much as author-fantasizing.

[Florete]

He is a character in a story. Stories aren't simply than words on a page. They are action. Does Mario do any action in his video games? Yes, he does. I knew a person who studied drama in university who auditioned to be part of the Blue Man group. The people interviewing him asked him to tell them a story about something that happened to him in real life. When he was done, they asked him to tell the same story without saying a word. You don't need a Shakespearean screenplay for something to be a story. Mario is a character in that story. But even still, there are many Mario games. Did Super Mario Sunshine have a plot? Or perhaps Paper Mario? Or Super Mario RPG? We can also debate whether or not the Mario Party and Sports games should be considered (even though they are technically canon). We can also look at the Mario Wiki's description of Mario, which reads pretty Sue-ish.

Uh, okay? Now who the hell cares? I didn't say these characters are not Sues, I said there's no point. We don't care if these characters are Sues because top-notch writing isn't the point with them, we're just playing as them in a game and being the Mary Sue has proven quite fun in practice.

We do not need to define the whole world of fiction in terms of what is Sue and what isn't. You're taking the concept to a ridiculous extreme with all this.

[Steampunk]

Uh, okay? Now who the hell cares? I didn't say these characters are not Sues, I said there's no point. We don't care if these characters are Sues because top-notch writing isn't the point with them, we're just playing as them in a game and being the Mary Sue has proven quite fun in practice.

I said FE Sues aren't any more Sue-ish than any other major Nintendo character and I've spent the past several posts debating this, so apparently someone does care. Read some of my older posts, and you'll find I said the exact same thing: it' really doesn't matter whether they are or not. If someone wants to debate it though, I am going to defend my statement. Unless I'm not supposed/allowed to in this thread. If so, sorry about that.

We do not need to define the whole world of fiction in terms of what is Sue and what isn't. You're taking the concept to a ridiculous extreme with all this.

I'm not asking anyone to do that. If you're going to jump on me for something, at least jump on me for something I've actually said or done. Calling Mario a Sue is a little facetious (just a little), but it emphasizes the point I was trying to make.

[Florete]

I said FE Sues aren't any more Sue-ish than any other major Nintendo character and I've spent the past several posts debating this, so apparently someone does care. Read some of my older posts, and you'll find I said the exact same thing: it' really doesn't matter whether they are or not. If someone wants to debate it though, I am going to defend my statement. Unless I'm not supposed/allowed to in this thread. If so, sorry about that.

1. I've only read your responses to me because that's how this conversation started in the first place. If you want me to read something else, repeat it or quote relevant passages.

2. Wait, what is 'your statement' exactly? Simply that FE Sues are no more Sue-ish than other Nintendo protagonists? If so, I don't really get the point of all this. What is the purpose of your argument?

[Steampunk]

Simply that FE Sues are no more Sue-ish than other Nintendo protagonists?

Yeah. That pretty much sums it up. Not criticizing your definition, just saying all Ninty heroes are cut from the same cloth so to speak. Mario, Link, and Samus are tongue-in-cheek comparisons because there's not much to read in to, but they still fit the archetype nonetheless.

I don't really get the point of all this. What is the purpose of your argument?

Chiki disagreed with me about them being Sues, and I'm explaining why I think that. If someone says I'm wrong about something, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if I explain why I think I'm right. If they come up with more reasons why I'm wrong, I'll refute those too in the name of good-natured pointless discussion. If that sort of thing is frowned upon on SF outside of the Serious Discussion section, I apologize for the disruption and hijack. If it's getting annoying, just say so.

[Chiki]

And I explained there is no definition of Mary Sue, only common themes and traits. I also explained why Mary Sues are considered poorly/underdeveloped characters even though working definitions don't outright state it. Shall I go through it again?

Let me give you an example.

There is no widely accepted definition of "good" or "bad." We both agree with this, I am sure.

But I believe that there is the concept of "good" that we simply can't agree upon: it's there, but we just can't find it.

I am arguing that being underdeveloped is not in that not-yet-found definition of Mary Sue. That is all.

[RJWalker]

I've always believed that in order to qualify for Mary Sue, the character has to actually bring down the story's quality as well.

[-Cynthia-]

Yeah. That pretty much sums it up. Not criticizing your definition, just saying all Ninty heroes are cut from the same cloth so to speak. Mario, Link, and Samus are tongue-in-cheek comparisons because there's not much to read in to, but they still fit the archetype nonetheless.

I don't really think they're "cut from the same cloth" at all. People's issues with Ike or Micaiah are not that they are blank slates you can project yourself onto easily because the game lacks much plot or script. People think Avatar is a Sue because of his/her effects on the plot and treatment by other characters, not because of being "underdeveloped."

[Florete]

Yeah. That pretty much sums it up. Not criticizing your definition, just saying all Ninty heroes are cut from the same cloth so to speak. Mario, Link, and Samus are tongue-in-cheek comparisons because there's not much to read in to, but they still fit the archetype nonetheless.

Okay. Why does this matter?

Chiki disagreed with me about them being Sues, and I'm explaining why I think that. If someone says I'm wrong about something, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if I explain why I think I'm right. If they come up with more reasons why I'm wrong, I'll refute those too in the name of good-natured pointless discussion. If that sort of thing is frowned upon on SF outside of the Serious Discussion section, I apologize for the disruption and hijack. If it's getting annoying, just say so.

Let's get something straight: I don't care about your discussion with Chiki. I don't care about anything the two of you have said to each other. As far as I'm concerned, our conversation involves just the two of us since you responded to something I was saying in general, not to any one person. Your discussion with Chiki started as a result of that, but that doesn't concern me. You're not breaking any rules here, but I want to know why you felt the need to point out, to me, that many Nintendo protagonists are Mary Sues.

[Steampunk]

I want to know why you felt the need to point out, to me, that many Nintendo protagonists are Mary Sues.

I wasn't addressing you in particular. When I said "You could also argue that many supporting cast characters from Fire Emblem are Sues with this logic," that was not targeting you personally; it's just shorter than saying "a person could argue" or "someone could argue. I use "you" in a generic way. Also I quoted your definition so people would know what traits I was saying applied to most Nintendo characters (more specific than saying "Mary Sue" for those who don't know what that is, and saves redundancy of me listing off traits myself since most would be the same that you listed).

When you asked what my argument was, I thought it was in reference to Chiki. I haven't disputed anything you've said as far as I know. You're welcome to show me where I have if I'm mistaken.

There is no widely accepted definition of "good" or "bad." We both agree with this, I am sure.

But I believe that there is the concept of "good" that we simply can't agree upon: it's there, but we just can't find it.

I am arguing that being underdeveloped is not in that not-yet-found definition of Mary Sue. That is all.

When you're talking about character development, you're talking about one of two things: the actual character development process (creating backstory, physical appearance, traits, personality), and how the character changes over time. I say Mary Sues are poorly/underdeveloped because they are very shallow on a conceptual level and they never undergo any real change.

On the drafting table, they are perfect. People like them, they do nice things "just because," they overcome every obstacle with ease, etc. Such a character takes no real thought or effort and do not reflect an actual, real life human being. Their backstories consist of what the author most likely wishes their own backstory was like. Their personalities are that of what the author wishes their's was like, etc, etc, etc. Such a character is more or less a list of things the author finds appealing with weak links holding them together.

A conceptually well developed character takes a lot more thought and effort because everything they are, everything they've done in their backstory, and how that shapes their personality and traits has to make logical sense. Their personality, skills, appearance, etc. all have to reflect what they've experienced regardless of whether the author (or anyone for that matter) finds appealing and their traits have to resemble what an actual person's would be. People don't like Mary Sues because they can't connect with them. They can't connect with them because they are designed to be perfect. They are designed to be perfect because they are poorly developed. They are poorly developed because they are built entirely out of what the author considers an ideal character with no thought as to whether their backstory justifies their personality or traits, or even if their backstory makes sense. They are built entirely out of superficial things the author wishes about him/herself or just likes in general.

Secondly, a character develops (or grows) over time. To do this, a character needs flaws and hardship (the author has to make the character suffer from something). Mary Sues do not grow as characters because they are either flawless, or the author simply doesn't allow them to experience hardship. In either case, the Mary Sue has no reason to grow as a person: everything works out just fine the way things are. As in real life, if the status quo is just fine, a person has no reason to change in any way. So, they stay the same and never evolve. Since they don't change or grow over time, they never "develop." If they never develop, they are justifiably considered "underdeveloped" or "poorly developed." That is why Mary Sues are looked down on: they are static, unchanging characters either because they are "too perfect" or the author refuses to let them get a little roughed up (most likely because the Sue is their perfect creation and they don't want anything to happen to it).

That's why I say they are underdeveloped, and why I consider them a special class of poorly developed characters. They are conceptually superficial and never undergo any significant change as a person.

[IceBrand]

FE13's avatar seems to be getting the most votes.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Majestic Paladin

[Fala]

When I really think about it, Marth is a Stu. He barely has any personaility and everyone in-game and out is praising him (At least in Japan.). Hell, in Awakening they outright elevate him to messianic status.

[Chiki]

They are designed to be perfect because they are poorly developed. They are poorly developed because they are built entirely out of what the author considers an ideal character with no thought as to whether their backstory justifies their personality or traits, or even if their backstory makes sense.

Do you consider Ike a Mary Sue?

He's a well developed character for sure. We can agree on that.

But he's the biggest Mary Sue ever, despite how well developed he is.

That is why I cannot agree with your definition.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Chiki

[Florete]

Perhaps there's another question that needs to be asked: Is this character a bad Mary Sue or an acceptable Mary Sue?

[Steampunk]

Do you consider Ike a Mary Sue?

He's a well developed character for sure. We can agree on that.

But he's the biggest Mary Sue ever, despite how well developed he is.

That is why I cannot agree with your definition.

I don't consider Ike to be one (though he is rather generic as far as heroes go). First of all, he relies on other people quite a bit. He has Soren handle strategy, has Titania help with managing the mercenary company/army, relies on assistance from the Laguz kings, etc. Secondly, his skills are limited to certain ones that make sense for the character (mainly swordsmanship), and they are skills he's actually had to develop (rather than being a masterful swordsman the first time he picks up a sword, he trains under his father and gets a good deal of swordsmanship practice throughout PoR). He's not a master of every skill he needs to save the day all by himself (strategy, magic, the Serenes galdrars, etc). He is really popular among other characters fighting with him, but that's also happens with real military leaders. My grandfather and most of the people from his generation I've run in to (who fought in WWII) loved the shit out of Eisenhower. Kinda Sue-ish but we do see that sort of thing (soldiers with a little hero worship for their commanders) in real life too, so popularity in this case is tricky. In RD, he's built up as a super-powerful fighter, but he's also "proven himself" in PoR; so I don't think that counts against him either. There are other characteristics of Sues, but I really don't want to go through every last common theme (but feel free to bring up any you feel apply). I think I've hit on the more prominent ones though, and I don't think Ike fits the bill personally.

Is this character a bad Mary Sue or an acceptable Mary Sue?

Depends on which one we're talking about. If you mean Ike, see above. Even if I am way off base and he is a Sue, it doesn't seem to hurt the story that much much. If we're talking about Samus, Mario, etc, same thing. It works for the games they're in, so it's not worth fussing over. Don't recall any video games that have really shameless Sue heroes, though I have watched some tv shows that did (Andromeda's Dylan Hunt and Xena, even though the show was entertaining) come to mind.

[Sigurd's Bonfire Party]

"Mary Sue" is possibly the worst term on the entire internet, I’m serious. I cringe in agony everytime I see it. They should ban it from the internet forever.

You see, you could basically call every single protagonist in anything ever a "Mary Sue", it’s only a question of perspective. But of course, there needs to be a way of expresssing hate for a fictional character. What is better than a word like "Mary Sue"? Because if you call a character you totally get away with it. Wow, congratulations. You’re totally an expert if you use those special terms, instead of simply saying, you know, that character is shit.

But let’s take a look at the characters that currently have the lead in this poll, shall we?

MU. The only reason they are written the way they are, is because the player is supposed to identify with them and feel like an important hero, whatever. I think their personality is as generic as it can get, so the player has an easier time seeing themselves in this character. I mean, who doesn’t want to be the super charismatic pr0n-tactician and all?! I think everyone in Awakening is poorly written; Cartoonish, unrealistic, gimmicky. But apparantly everyone loves these characters. But what's up with the hate for MU? "Wait, there is a bandwagon that I can jump on if I call MU a Mary Sue?! YES!" Hnghnhglknmnhglhnmn.

Micaiah. She has super-special powers and always clings to hope, everyone prays to her and she is the great savior of Daein, yadeyadeyada … She also planned to set Sanaki‘s army on fire by pouring oil or whatever that was down a cliff. Yeah. That’s not something a Mary Sue does, right? She had no reason to do that. She could just be like, no, there’s hope, we don’t need to help Begnion, screw the blood pact, you know. But nope. Wants to set soldiers on fire, even though the battle was already over.

Ike. Okay, a lot of people in-game think he’s the UBER-shit. So do people in the real world. Me included. He is my favourite character in everything ever and that's only based on an irrational admiration, leave me alone alright. Everything that has a hype also recieves a lot of hate, Ike is no exception. Just because everyone thinks he's super cool and all, a lot of people think it's a good idea to hate him just because, you know. But what does he do that people call him a Mary Sue? Well, HE FIGHTS FOR HIS FRIENDS OF COURSE!!!11 No... but seriously now. He is the legendary hero that everyone cherishes. He is, like, the most powerful human that has ever graced this planet (but seriously when is that implied in-game? Somebody point that out to me, thanks), nobody ever beats him, he slays a god (with the help of another god *cough*) and wields a legendary sword, and all of that around the time he hit only about 20. A lot of people want to accomplish all of this all their lifetime, yet Ike manages to do so before he is an "adult". Also, he devastated a whole country and knowingly caused the apocalypse. Latter is because he does the war-thing even though he knows about Lehran's Medallion. And about the devastation thing? At the beginning of Radiant Dawn, you actually see how Daein was ruined. I actually thought they were going to put Ike as the villain. He did not turn out to be a villain, but a somewhat antagonist, if you say Micaiah is the protagonist. Also, his personality was pretty flawed (In FE9 he was ignorant, naive, oblivious, blunt,insolent. whatever, in FE10 he even added some rad arrogance.) Is that a Mary Sue? I don't think so.

You see, you can intepret it the way you want. If you turn it like this, every character is a Mary Sue. If you turn it the other way, they're not. I can totally see why people think Ike and Micaiah are Mary Sues, but I don't. And I don't even like Micaiah. I just could go ahead and call everyone's darling Celice a Mary Sue! He is the Bringer of Light, after all, isn't he? But I won't, because I love my baby Celice and I never dare to criticize the Holy Grail of the FIre Emblem series that is FE4. I only want to make it clear once again, that you can put it however you want and that "Mary Sue" is a buttload of bullcrap.