What’s the Matter with Mary Sue?

This panel was a discussion of Mary Sue as used in fan fiction, as the main character in any story, and as a feminist problem.

The Cast:

Sigrid J. Ellis: Moderator who directed traffic without seizing the conversation.

Laurel Amberdine: YA Author

James Frenkel: TOR Editor

Caroline Pruett: Comic book blogger and fiction craft podcaster

Heidi Waterhouse: Knows something about Mary Sue.

Snapshots from the discussion:

This panel didn’t seem to know what it wanted to be. Of course, it was about the broad umbrella of Mary Sue, but there seem to be a great many issues under that umbrella. I will focus on reporting opinions and discussion points offered up.

The Masters at Wikipedia offer up some of the definitions that will be used in this discussion.

A definition of Mary Sue was put forward. The original Mary Sue Trek parody story was read, just to familiarize the panel with the history of Mary Sue.

There was some discussion of Cannon Sue and how she differs from Mary Sue, the suggestion being that Mary is generally considered wish-fulfillment insertion on the part of the author, and Cannon Sue is a suped-up version of a character borrowed by the author in fan fiction.

Some discussion followed about boy Mary Sue. Several audience members suggested that Mary Sue is problematic because she is a female, and boy wish fulfillment writing is more accepted by society.

Some panelists suggested that the problem with Mary Sue as a story hero is youth and naivete.

Other panelists suggested that all writers have to start some where.

These panelists basically suggested that everyone has to start somewhere, and Mary Sue authors probably will grow up to produce better work.

There were other assertions that gender is still the issue.

The panel took a turn into a lack of positive role models for girls, and why girls have to insert themselves into fiction, because there are more interesting boy examples.

Examples of worthy girls ensued. Examples of less than worthy girls ensued.

Some societal discussion then followed. There was some assertion that girls and boys and difference are more tolerated in the new generation. There was some assertion that society is still problematic in this regard. There was some assertion that both things were actually the case–change is occurring at the individual level, but overall the effect is not felt.

Someone suggested that the trouble with all wish fulfillment writing is that it is lazy. It defaults to the easy. And therefore, it’s not so good. That it would be much cooler to see characters become these awesome, incredible characters, rather than just have their incredible abilities be a given.

The audience discussed the judicious use of the training montage, rather than lots of time on Dagobah with a puppet.

In the end, both the panel and the audience were divided. Is Mary Sue a feminist issue? Are young girls getting discriminated against in ways young boys are not? Is Mary Sue the mark of the immature writer who needs to mature? Should those writers just grow up? Is good writing hallmarked by the struggle rather than the perfection of the characters? How do men and women handle this differently? How are male authors and female authors viewed differently when they produce archetypical Sue characters?

Most likely, since so many of these issues were left hanging, there is plenty of fodder to riff on for another panel.