User blog:Bluebutterflychan/Opinion Article: No such thing as "Mary Sue"

NOTE TO THE MODS: I hope I am using the blog post function correctly, because quite frankly, I have no idea what non-mods even use this function for. However, if any of you find that this op-ed post doesn't belong on the wiki blogs, please feel free to delete it without any further ado!

Dear Readers,
I am writing this post to address a character which seems to many the bane of OC and canon fic alike: the most dreaded archetype of """Mary Sue""" (please imagine that I am making most judicious use of air-quotations there, in conjunction with an eyeroll). As a wiki site which is deeply dedicated to the creation, publication, and usage of Original Characters (OCs) and fanfiction, I very strongly feel that our dear friend Mary can be the elephant in the room that nobody ever really wants to address.

Though "Mary Sue" and her male counterpart, the "Gary Stu," are a blanket terms for characters across fandoms, I really want to talk about how characters like these play into Ever After High and its fandom specifically, and why I personally believe that the description of "Mary Sue" cannot be attributed to any character-- at the very least, in this fandom.

This is an opinion post. The viewpoints expressed herein are mine and mine alone, and are not endorsed by anyone except myself. This being said, I would like to begin with an introduction. There is an old, old friend of mine whom I'd like for you to meet...

Who is "Mary Sue," and why do people dislike her so much?
She doesn't seem to have any flaws, save for an inconsequential few that other characters find "endearing." She's capable of just about everything, from martial arts to fashion-design to computer-hacking, and more proficient in her fields than other people twice her age. She is a best friend or a relative to all of the main characters from the canon material, except for maybe one that the creator dislikes, and her antagonist is so incredibly malicious or insane that their sole thoughts seem to be about the main character's demise. She embodies her creator's every ideal, both in character and appearance, and her indiscretions are always explained away by a tragic backstory or stressful circumstance.

People call characters like these "Mary Sues," characters that behave so idealistically within their stories that the readers find them completely unrelatable and, by extension, unbelievable. Sometimes, people will find it irritating if other characters in a story treat the so-called Sue as some sort of goddess among them, even if she does things that ordinary people would find annoying in real-life. Sometimes, a character is so perfect that any conflict they encounter is only superficial, not internal-- which some believe makes for a boring story. Maybe the reader feels that the character is over-powered, and any conflicts they encounter are too simple to deal with.

That is a long, long list of things that embody the derisive term "Mary Sue." Sometimes, a character might be called a "Mary Sue" just for being an OC who's shipped with a canon character. Sometimes, an OC can be called a Sue for being designed or drawn a certain way. A personality with too many conflicting traits. A character lacking personality at all. A character who's too perfect. A flawed character who behaves in a way the reader finds "stupid." A character with an umbelievable backstory, or a character with no backstory at all.

Basically what it boils down to is this: any character can get called a "Mary Sue" if they don't match up to a reader's expectations.

People who study fandom as an insight into the human psyche theorize that the concept of a "Mary Sue" only exists at all because of impossible and contradictory ideals that people project on each other, and therefore onto characters. Feminist scholars have even hypothesized that readers tend to be especially critical of female characters, thanks to unrealistic standards set by media and popular culture.

TL;DR, in its history as a term, "Mary Sue" and "Gary Stu" have served only as mean name that people call OCs that they don't like, for whatever reason it may be. Generally speaking, this is because they find the character boring, irritating, poorly-written, or completely unbelievable.

"Mary Sues" and Ever After High
EAH in particular has something of a history with the Sue phenomenon... particularly since a large portion of the characters in fairytales are meant to embody a certain flaw or virtue within their tale, while lacking any further development than one or two lessons learned at the end of the tale.

However, in spite of this, most-- if not all-- of Ever After High's canon characters seem to be reasonably well-rounded. This is because, in addition to carrying ideals and lessons learned from the previous generation, every character comes with a built in "oh curses!" moment that really clings onto a major character flaw and makes them interesting.

For example, Cedar Wood's eternal-truth curse manifests itself as a lack of brain-to-mouth filter, creating the relatable situation of "I-wish-I-hadn't-said-that"-- after all, we all have moments like those. Sometimes, even a character's "magic touch" or talent can be a sign of an ongoing struggle... I'm still completely convinced that Daring Charming's literally blinding smile is a metaphor for how his good looks blind people (including himself!) to nearly every other aspect of his personality, flaws and virtues alike.

But the matter at hand is this: despite all such setups and opportunities to create flaws for a character, Ever After High has at least one canon "Mary Sue" in spite of it all, a character who hits most if not all classic "Mary Sue" tropes...

A Sue by Any Other Name
She doesn't seem to have any flaws. While I am sure she must have one or two tucked away somewhere, they are never explicitly shown to bear any substantial consequence in any of the tales detailed throughout the doll line, both book series, or the web animation. She seems to be capable of just about everything, from swordsmanship to Princessology, from stealth-missions to plumbing the depths of hidden knowledge in her research.

She always takes the most righteous side of an argument, the side that the readers/viewers are most likely to be rooting for. Her hair is so fabulous that it can slow down time. Her one "oh curses!" moment is that she's so beautiful and well-bred that she has an excess of boys who would do anything for her... and keep in mind that in the EAH universe, Apple White has that same trait and it is considered her beneficial talent.

Everyone likes her-- and that means  everyone, be they Royal or Rebel. Let's not forget that she was introduced as the beloved little sister of two very popular pre-existing canon characters, who play the roles of stereotypical "protective older brothers" even at the expense of their established characterization.

I am speaking, of course, about Darling Charming.

"But I like Darling!" you might say. Well, of course-- so do I. That doesn't change the fact that she has every trait typically ascribed a "Mary Sue"-labeled character and then some.

Despite being extremely suspicious at every possible opportunity, such as her attempt to cover up her Wonderlandian secret in Way-Too-Wonderland, nobody ever seems to suspect her at all. In the same film, she quite capably bests the Red Knight in multiple instances, despite the fact that he has been formally trained and Darling would have had only a fraction of his experience, due to having to practice secretly and at odd hours, in-between pretending to be a delicate princess. Her brothers are shown to be uncharacteristically overprotective of her, even though  Dexter has very visible Rebel sympathies and  Daring didn't involve himself with others' concerns until Epic Winter. Even Headmaster Grimm, a stickler for the rules, made up a story about a Charming Princess specifically so Darling could attend Ever After High. Whenever she lies, people believe her, and whenever they find out that she lied, she is always forgiven and ultimately suffers no consequences for her deceptions.

The world of EAH seems to bend to whatever the story says its opinion of her should be. She is characterized and framed exactly like the sterotypical "Mary Sue" in every way, shape, and form.

So, why do we like her? Simply put, because she isn't a "Mary Sue" in the world of Ever After-- because in Ever After High, all of those traits are normal.

Depending on who's narrating the story, be it Mattel, Shannon Hale, Suzanne Selfors, Brooke Page or one of her parents, they are capable of altering the little, tiny details of storytelling to convey an overall mood. Case in point: the webisodes Apple's Tale and Raven's Tale, which portray the exact same set of events with two different narrators. Headmaster Grimm's dialogue outright changes between the webisodes, even though the scenes are concurrent and portray the same event. The depiction of that very same scene in Shannon Hale's Storybook of Legends novel differs even further, and all of these narrations are considered canon.

This offers a certain suspension of disbelief, because the tales are set literally (book pun intended) inside a story-- other people's reactions to Darling are exaggerated for literary effect, storytelling purposes, and mood-setting. Darling's excessive suspicious behavior foreshadows that there is a mystery behind her, and other characters treat her extra-delicately to the point where it becomes an emphatic reminder that these are their expectations of her. By setting the tale's events so that she proves herself stronger than every adversary they meet, her unmasking (or unarmoring,as the case may be) seems all the more prominent.

Upending society's expectations about what a girl should be is an empowering storyline. She makes us want to root for her every act of defiance. Her story is framed in such a manner that makes these traits believable-- she isn't anything less than perfect because the society around her won't let her be.

In this way, there is no such thing as a character who is inherently a "Mary Sue", especially in the EAH verse. It is not the character alone, but their story (the story they live every day, and not just their fairytale) which makes them well-rounded and sets up a narrative for them to develop as a person.

What does this mean for OCs?
This wikia's How-To on OC Development offers a lot of great advice on character creation, a great deal of which is geared towards  constructing character  flaws and multi-faceted personality in order to avoid one-dimensional characters who are defined only by a fairytale, a hobby, or a solitary trait. Vices and virtues come in pairs-- good and bad traits are evermore in balance, like two sides of the same coin. Determination and pig-headedness, for example, share their heart in trait of obstinancy-- merely painted in slightly differing light. A character who has high moral standards, too, may inadvertently judge others by holding them to that same standard.

However, I would like to add this: it is not only traits and nuances which make up a character, but the background from which they come forth. In a series where the stories of the past directly inform and create the destiny of the future, a character's history can bind together a series of vast traits, even traits that are oft considered a poor choice in character creation. As a wise man once said: "Character is not about being but rather about becoming."

Do not worry about making a character who is inherently a "Mary Sue," and most of all, do not look to find dear Mary in the faces of others' creations. I assure you, friends, that such a creature is made of myth. There are only backgrounds and narratives and the way that a character wears them, like a mantle of memories past and present. Every character has the potential for growth.

I humbly encourage every new-made OC to flourish, no matter how skeletally-written or just-conceptualized or amateur they may be. I think that is the least I can do on behalf of the people who encouraged my own first original character-- Kikki Mae Samson, the princess of an otherwise extinct race of magically-supreme demigods, defier of death, 7th member of at least three different magical-girl groups, and kin to our dear Mary Sue. Fourteen years have passed since her conception (making her older than some of the members of this wiki) and I shudder to think how I would have grown up had I not created Kikki Mae, my very own so-called "Mary Sue."

The End (Is Just the Beginning)
If you've stuck around until the end of this rambling op-ed piece, I thank you deeply for reading my inane babblings about a silly, old concept in fandom history and OC creation. If you're not coming after me with pitchfoks yet, I implore you to leave a comment below.

What is your opinion on the concept of "Mary Sue," and do you think the character label still makes sense to use? In which cases? Do you agree with my assessment of "canon Sue," or do you think I have woefully mislabled our dear Miss Charming? I would love to hear!