The "perfect" protagonist

[TheArsonist]

part of the path to the happy ending is his learning to be less of an arse.

Certainly Darcy has his flaws, but so does Elizabeth, and the happy ending involves them both growing:

“We will not quarrel for the greater share of blame annexed to that evening,” said Elizabeth. “The conduct of neither, if strictly examined, will be irreproachable; but since then we have both, I hope, improved in civility.”

She has grounds for her initial bad impression of him, due to overhearing his conversation, but while it was rude, it seems clear that it was not meant for her to hear, and that it's a blunt truth: Lizzie's beauty is at least debatable ("more than one failure of perfect symmetry in her form"). Also, at that time class distinction was extremely important, and the social inferiority of the Bennetts and the rest of Meryton society was simply a fact.

“His pride,” said Miss Lucas, “does not offend me so much as pride often does, because there is an excuse for it. One cannot wonder that so very fine a young man, with family, fortune, everything in his favour, should think highly of himself. If I may so express it, he has a right to be proud.”

“That is very true,” replied Elizabeth, “and I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.”

We also learn that Darcy doesn't enjoy this sort of gathering and is generally standoffish with strangers, only comfortable among people he knows. (And this is not just snobbery, as he is pleasant to his servants and tenants.)

However, once he actually meets Elizabeth he very quickly falls in love with her, and his behavior towards her changes markedly, while he still remains skeptical of her family (with good cause!). Elizabeth, having formed a prejudice against him from that initial meeting, refuses to revise her opinion as she learns more about him and his good qualities, and pays back his one-time rudeness with a biting tongue. She is eager to be taken in by Wickham's lies because they justify her antipathy.

There are six Bennett women, all with very different personalities. That particular accusation would be fair towards Mrs. Bennett, Lydia and perhaps Kitty, but it's way off the mark for Lizzy and Jane. (And Mary wouldn't know a feminine wile if she tripped over one.)

Darcy mistakes genuine affection between Jane and Bingley for manipulation, partly because Jane's a shy soul who doesn't make a big show of her feelings and - not having taken the time to know this woman - he misinterprets that for coldness. (But surely an actual gold-digger would have been happy to make a big show of love? Darcy should be the first to understand that still waters can run deep.)

It's worth remembering that in that day and age, women of that social stratum were expected to take a hard-headed approach to marriage that would probably look a bit "gold digger" to modern eyes. They couldn't just go out and get a job to pay for their own living expenses (governess maybe?) and in many cases, as with the Bennetts, they couldn't inherit; their options were basically to marry somebody who could provide, or to depend on charity.

At the time, people's standing came largely from their family, and the actions of family members reflected back on their relations with very real consequences. The problem Darcy has with the Bennetts is not that they are eager for a match, but that they – and especially Mrs. Bennett – are vulgar and indiscreet about it, showing bad character, and that they have little to offer. He considers that marrying Jane would be a poor choice both as a family to marry into and as a love match. He suspects that Jane, a nice and pliant girl, does not love his friend, but is going along with her mother's scheme for the good of the family.

Elizabeth is fully aware that the behavior of her mother and two youngest sisters (abetted by a father who favors his two oldest and is ignoring his responsibilities, when not outright abusive) is disgraceful. And of course it leads to a near catastrophe that would have ruined them all if not for Darcy's intervention. So while he misjudges Jane's feelings, Darcy was perfectly right to warn Bingley against forming a connection with the Bennetts.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Certainly Darcy has his flaws, but so does Elizabeth, and the happy ending involves them both growing:
...
Elizabeth is fully aware that the behavior of her mother and two youngest sisters (abetted by a father who favors his two oldest and is ignoring his responsibilities, when not outright abusive) is disgraceful. And of course it leads to a near catastrophe that would have ruined them all if not for Darcy's intervention. So while he misjudges Jane's feelings, Darcy was perfectly right to warn Bingley against forming a connection with the Bennetts.

What makes Austen so great a writer (in my arrogant opinion) is exactly this: none of her characters are perfect, nobody's mistakes are unmotivated and there just to move the plot, and almost none of her characters are pure villains (maybe Wickham). Mr. and Mrs Bennett are far from perfect, but they do mean well, for instance.

--Annie

 

[Bramblethorn]

Certainly Darcy has his flaws, but so does Elizabeth, and the happy ending involves them both growing:



She has grounds for her initial bad impression of him, due to overhearing his conversation, but while it was rude, it seems clear that it was not meant for her to hear, and that it's a blunt truth: Lizzie's beauty is at least debatable ("more than one failure of perfect symmetry in her form"). Also, at that time class distinction was extremely important, and the social inferiority of the Bennetts and the rest of Meryton society was simply a fact.

One could argue that he's just telling the unvarnished truth, or one could argue that he's just acknowledging the social realities of his time. But these two arguments conflict with one another: one of the other social realities of his time was that speaking blunt truths was very often an unacceptable thing to do.

Darcy is well aware of this principle. It's why he holds his tongue for far too long on the blunt truth of Wickham's villainy, and if he can keep his mouth shut about that it's not unreasonable to expect that he should also be able to hold his tongue on the Bennetts' inferiority for a few minutes.

P&P isn't exactly Das Kapital, but in its own subtle way it has plenty of implicit criticism of the social order of the time. I don't think anybody who reads it closely is likely to come away it thinking that Jane Austen approved of the entail system, or the high status that society granted to odious people like Lady Catherine, or the cover that it gives to a sexual like Wickham. It's fact that most of the characters in the book accept that order (tautologically so: it's only a social "fact" because they accept it as one). But it doesn't follow that Elizabeth is unreasonable to resent it, and in particular to resent having it thrown in her face so tactlessly.

(And yes, some of what Lizzy takes for rudeness is shyness, and one of the points Austen makes through characters like Lady Catherine is that there are far worse things than bluntness. Darcy is a much better person that Lizzy initially takes him for, but that doesn't mean her initial reaction is unreasonable in the context of what she's seen of him.)

Elizabeth is fully aware that the behavior of her mother and two youngest sisters (abetted by a father who favors his two oldest and is ignoring his responsibilities, when not outright abusive) is disgraceful. And of course it leads to a near catastrophe that would have ruined them all if not for Darcy's intervention.

If I may reframe:

Lydia is a girl of fifteen, being groomed by a man almost twice her age who has done this kind of thing before (and as it turns out, is simultaneously trying it on with another fifteen-year-old, Mary King). Yes, attitudes about adulthood and consent were different in Austen's day, and Lydia would have been considered marriageable, but even in that age people understood that this kind of behaviour was villainous.

Mrs. Bennett is not a sensible woman, both she and Mr. Bennett ought to have raised Lydia better than they did, and both of them could have been more skeptical of Wickham. But they don't know his background; they have no particular reason to believe ill of him beyond the wariness one might show towards any young man. Even if they had been better parents, it's not obvious that they would have prevailed against him - after all, he very nearly succeeded with Georgiana.

But Darcy? He knows exactly what Wickham is and the threat he poses to somebody like Lydia or Mary King, and yet he keeps that knowledge to himself long enough for Wickham to do some grave harm that is only very partially mitigated by Darcy's eventual intervention. (It's also a somewhat self-interested intervention, given his attachment to Lydia's sister; had Wickham instead eloped with Miss King, or one of the Merryton tradesmen's daughters alluded to later, it's not clear what if anything Darcy would have done about it.)

Had he been as willing to speak "blunt truths" about Wickham as he was about Elizabeth, Lydia would've had at least a chance to grow into adulthood and develop a little more sense. She might have ended up with something slightly better than being married off to the man who groomed her. No fifteen-year-old deserves that kind of punishment for being the victim of a calculated predator.

Obviously the greatest part of the blame here falls on Wickham himself, but this episode taken as a whole doesn't give Darcy any grounds for feeling superior to the Bennett family.

 

[TheArsonist]

One could argue that he's just telling the unvarnished truth, or one could argue that he's just acknowledging the social realities of his time. But these two arguments conflict with one another: one of the other social realities of his time was that speaking blunt truths was very often an unacceptable thing to do.

That supposed conflict seems like sophistry to me, but let that pass. If Darcy thought that Elizabeth could hear him, he was certainly being unspeakably rude, to an extent that seems out of character. I therefore conclude that he did not. And speaking bluntly about a third person to a friend was clearly not beyond the pale: characters do so all the time throughout the book.

P&P isn't exactly Das Kapital, but in its own subtle way it has plenty of implicit criticism of the social order of the time. I don't think anybody who reads it closely is likely to come away it thinking that Jane Austen approved of the entail system, or the high status that society granted to odious people like Lady Catherine, or the cover that it gives to a sexual like Wickham.

Perhaps. I'm not especially qualified to comment on Austen's social and political views, though I note that having conservative politics is cited as evidence of respectability and perhaps of good character in Sense and Sensibility (IIRC).

In general, I think as outsiders to the author's milieu we may project ideas of social criticism onto elements of mere social realism. Or to put it another way: someone can agree that a system has bad apples without necessarily coming to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the system.

But Darcy? He knows exactly what Wickham is and the threat he poses to somebody like Lydia or Mary King, and yet he keeps that knowledge to himself long enough for Wickham to do some grave harm that is only very partially mitigated by Darcy's eventual intervention. (It's also a somewhat self-interested intervention, given his attachment to Lydia's sister; had Wickham instead eloped with Miss King, or one of the Merryton tradesmen's daughters alluded to later, it's not clear what if anything Darcy would have done about it.)

Had he been as willing to speak "blunt truths" about Wickham as he was about Elizabeth, Lydia would've had at least a chance to grow into adulthood and develop a little more sense.

While they are both in Meryton, Wickham stays out of Darcy's way; then very soon afterwards Darcy goes away to London and then on to Pemberly. He never has any reason to suspect a liaison between Wickham and Lydia (or Miss King), and probably hasn't even heard about Elizabeth's regard for him. And what could he actually do? He cannot reveal the details of Wickham's misdeeds without exposing his sister. At the same time, he shows how he feels about Wickham very clearly by snubbing him in the street, and Miss Bingley does in fact warn Elizabeth about him based on vague information from Darcy.

Then he does eventually tell Elizabeth the whole story, well before Lydia's elopement. It is Elizabeth and Jane who decide not to tell anyone else, as Wickham will soon be safely away (as they think). So no, I cannot accept that Darcy bears much responsibility for the Wickham affair and Lydia's disgrace.

But I feel we're getting quite a ways off topic. I don't think I was wrong to link the common romance trope of forming an unreasonable dislike against a love interest with Pride and Prejudice, and I don't think litigating the rights or wrongs of Darcy's actions really gets us any further. As I've repeatedly said, he definitely has his flaws, but nevertheless Lizzie's antipathy is IMO excessive, and her stubbornness in holding on to it unreasonable. (Of course, the reader may suspect that underlying it there is not just injured pride but an element of thwarted attraction. Hell hath no fury, the lady doth protest and all that.)

Actually, in checking some facts for this reply I came across Elizabeth's wry judgment of herself, and who could put it better?

“And yet I meant to be uncommonly clever in taking so decided a dislike to him, without any reason. It is such a spur to one’s genius, such an opening for wit, to have a dislike of that kind. One may be continually abusive without saying anything just; but one cannot be always laughing at a man without now and then stumbling on something witty.”

 

[Bramblethorn]

Then he does eventually tell Elizabeth the whole story, well before Lydia's elopement. It is Elizabeth and Jane who decide not to tell anyone else, as Wickham will soon be safely away (as they think). So no, I cannot accept that Darcy bears much responsibility for the Wickham affair and Lydia's disgrace.

But I feel we're getting quite a ways off topic. I don't think I was wrong to link the common romance trope of forming an unreasonable dislike against a love interest with Pride and Prejudice, and I don't think litigating the rights or wrongs of Darcy's actions really gets us any further. As I've repeatedly said, he definitely has his flaws, but nevertheless Lizzie's antipathy is IMO excessive, and her stubbornness in holding on to it unreasonable. (Of course, the reader may suspect that underlying it there is not just injured pride but an element of thwarted attraction. Hell hath no fury, the lady doth protest and all that.)

My stance is more that Lizzie's initial antipathy is quite reasonable given what Darcy's shown of himself at that point, and her fault lies more in being reluctant to rethink it as additional information comes to light. I'm not sure we're likely to come to full agreement on these other points, but I do very much appreciate the level of argument you've put into making your case, it's been an enjoyable discussion.

 

[Rob_Royale]

This is probably the weakest part of my writing. Mary Sues abound! I just like doing likeable people having great sex. I just don't know if it's worth worrying about though in erotica. There are plenty of people writing damaged folks that I just don't see a reason to change.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This is probably the weakest part of my writing. Mary Sues abound! I just like doing likeable people having great sex. I just don't know if it's worth worrying about though in erotica. There are plenty of people writing damaged folks that I just don't see a reason to change.

There is a lot of room between Mary Sue and Broken.
Mary Sue's aren't likable...

 

[RocketGrunt]

Mary Sues are a perfectly cromulent character archetype for erotic fiction.

The original Mary Sue was criticized for reading like a stroke fiction personal insert into the Star Trek fanfiction that she was in. Well, guess what? If you're actually literally writing stroke fics, that's not exactly a problem, is it?

Not every piece of erotica needs to be an unhinged power fantasy where the main character makes all the dicks hard just by walking into the room, but some erotica actually does need to be that. It's genuinely OK if a sex fantasy reads like a sex fantasy.

Sometimes people criticize my work because the main characters aren't "alpha chad" enough. And while that would be an utterly ridiculous complain to levy against works in most subgenres, it's not an unreasonable complaint to make in porn. Sometimes people don't want to read about mistakes and setbacks and learning experiences when they are trying to masturbate.

 

[RetroFan]

There is a lot of room between Mary Sue and Broken.
Mary Sue's aren't likable...

That's true. Rey from the 2010s Star Wars trilogy is a classic example of a Mary-Sue, and the character completely unlikeable. A male example of this would be Wesley Crusher from Star Trek, a teenager with amazing abilities never really explained but definitely not a likeable young man.

The litmus tests I tend to use when determining if a character is a Mary-Sue or not is the presence of unexplained skills or abilities never properly explained, a lack of weaknesses that do not allow for much character learning, development and growth, and character shilling which is where other characters constantly praise this character for certain traits and abilities, but this doesn't come across well to the reader/viewer.

As a hypothetical example, say I wrote a sci-fi fantasy about two college-aged girls one in 1955 and the other in 2025 who swap places via an enchanted mirror. Obviously both girls are going to have culture shocks and be out of their element in timelines 70 years apart, but the modern girl would be at an advantage because she would probably have some idea of what the 1950s were like, whereas the 1950s girl would be stuck in an alien world 70 years in the future with no idea of what is going on.

Using driving as just one example, the 2020s girl driving a 1950s car might present some obvious problems, but I could work around this by some explanation such as her family being classic car enthusiasts. Plus driving was easier back in the 1950s. But put the 1950s girl in a 2020s hybrid car that has all the modern conveniences and she gets right in and unfazed by all the modern elements of the car she could never have seen before drives the car perfectly in busy city traffic, this puts her into Mary Sue territory.

 

[RocketGrunt]

That's true. Rey from the 2010s Star Wars trilogy is a classic example of a Mary-Sue, and the character completely unlikeable.

The Star Wars sequels are a net negative to the franchise, but Rey is not a Mary Sue. Like, not even a little bit.

Mary Sue characters are like Menolly from the Harper Hall Trilogy of Pern. She's 15 years old and makes all the best music that all the adults constantly praise, and she has the most little dragon familiars that anyone ever had, and everyone spends the entirety of Dragonsinger being told how great she is by everyone else and her only flaw is that she doesn't understand how great and cool she is with all her musical talent and telepathic mini-dragon friends. Mary Sue characters are not just female characters whose training montages aren't long enough to make internet neckbeards happy.

There are lots of reasons to despise the Star Wars sequel trilogy. It basically destroyed the setting, which is why Disney+ has put out Eleven series of prestige live Action Star Wars content, and literally none of it has bothered to try to tell stories after The Force Awakens. But that's because that movie kills the whole New Jedi Order off camera and destroys Coruscant off camera and breaks the whole New Republic and replaces it with nothing. Things can be bad without characters being Mary Sues. In fact, very few things are bad because they have Mary Sues in them. Very few things with overpowered characters that are bad are bad because those overpowered characters are Mary Sues.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

That's true. Rey from the 2010s Star Wars trilogy is a classic example of a Mary-Sue, and the character completely unlikeable. A male example of this would be Wesley Crusher from Star Trek, a teenager with amazing abilities never really explained but definitely not a likeable young man.

The litmus tests I tend to use when determining if a character is a Mary-Sue or not is the presence of unexplained skills or abilities never properly explained, a lack of weaknesses that do not allow for much character learning, development and growth, and character shilling which is where other characters constantly praise this character for certain traits and abilities, but this doesn't come across well to the reader/viewer.

As a hypothetical example, say I wrote a sci-fi fantasy about two college-aged girls one in 1955 and the other in 2025 who swap places via an enchanted mirror. Obviously both girls are going to have culture shocks and be out of their element in timelines 70 years apart, but the modern girl would be at an advantage because she would probably have some idea of what the 1950s were like, whereas the 1950s girl would be stuck in an alien world 70 years in the future with no idea of what is going on.

Using driving as just one example, the 2020s girl driving a 1950s car might present some obvious problems, but I could work around this by some explanation such as her family being classic car enthusiasts. Plus driving was easier back in the 1950s. But put the 1950s girl in a 2020s hybrid car that has all the modern conveniences and she gets right in and unfazed by all the modern elements of the car she could never have seen before drives the car perfectly in busy city traffic, this puts her into Mary Sue territory.

I'd think driving was harder in the 1950s.
Might not have power steering or power brakes. Having to use a choke, pump the gas pedal for a cold start. Cars didn't handle nearly as well.

You could write it either way.

2020s girl may never have seen a car door opened with a key, or started with one.

Think Scotty talking to the mouse in Star Trek.

Spot on about Rey and Wesley though.

 

[YmaOHyd]

The Star Wars sequels are a net negative to the franchise, but Rey is not a Mary Sue. Like, not even a little bit.

No, Rey is practically the dictionary definition of a Mary Sue. The original Mary Sue was an unrealistically beautiful character beloved by the original main characters who possessed unrealistic powers.

Rey is the strongest Jedi ever. Within moments of meeting Han Solo and Chewbacca, she knows as much about the maintenance of the Millennium Falcon as he does, and is basically adopted as his heir. When he dies, she gets the Falcon and Chewie becomes her copilot. The villain falls in love with her at first sight. Despite being so poor that she's scavenging ship parts for bread, she's also a crack pilot instantly.

Without training of any sort, she uses advanced Force powers. She's the Chosen One despite there already being two of those.

And she's recognized in-universe for all of this and celebrated by characters around her.

That she is a Mary Sue is not the major failing of Disney-Wars, but it's definitely a minor one.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The Star Wars sequels are a net negative to the franchise, but Rey is not a Mary Sue. Like, not even a little bit.

Mary Sue characters are like Menolly from the Harper Hall Trilogy of Pern. She's 15 years old and makes all the best music that all the adults constantly praise, and she has the most little dragon familiars that anyone ever had, and everyone spends the entirety of Dragonsinger being told how great she is by everyone else and her only flaw is that she doesn't understand how great and cool she is with all her musical talent and telepathic mini-dragon friends. Mary Sue characters are not just female characters whose training montages aren't long enough to make internet neckbeards happy.

There are lots of reasons to despise the Star Wars sequel trilogy. It basically destroyed the setting, which is why Disney+ has put out Eleven series of prestige live Action Star Wars content, and literally none of it has bothered to try to tell stories after The Force Awakens. But that's because that movie kills the whole New Jedi Order off camera and destroys Coruscant off camera and breaks the whole New Republic and replaces it with nothing. Things can be bad without characters being Mary Sues. In fact, very few things are bad because they have Mary Sues in them. Very few things with overpowered characters that are bad are bad because those overpowered characters are Mary Sues.

Sorry, but she's totally a Mary Sue.
She's amazing at everything with no explanation at all.
Teenage orphan from BFE...
Can fly the Falcon without any training.
Speaks Wookie for no discernable reason other than the plot needs her to roll with Chewie.
Can use the Force to do anything she needs with zero training.
You can go on and on.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I'm going to link again to my Luke/Rey Tie-Figter challenge again because I think it settles the Mary Sue argument pretty neatly.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/thoughts-on-mary-sue-characters.1600395/post-97978669

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'm going to link again to my Luke/Rey Tie-Figter challenge again because I think it settles the Mary Sue argument pretty neatly.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/thoughts-on-mary-sue-characters.1600395/post-97978669

The "but...but... Luke..." crowd always forgets how badly Luke got his ass kicked. Repeatedly.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I'm going to link again to my Luke/Rey Tie-Figter challenge again because I think it settles the Mary Sue argument pretty neatly.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/thoughts-on-mary-sue-characters.1600395/post-97978669

Also, it's part of New Hope that Luke has a T-16, which is the little model craft he's swooping around at the beginning of the movie. There's a deleted scene that establishes that the T-16 and the T-65 X-wing have essentially identical control configurations, and that Luke and Biggs used to have races through a canyon system. We know the T-16 is armed because Luke "used to bulls-eye womp rats back home," meaning he's already used to flying, aiming and shooting. Luke being a good pilot seems to me to be pretty well-established, given the time constraints. It's not like he has other hobbies.

In a way, it's a bit like the real-life case of Jann Mardenborough, who won a bunch of online races in the Gran Turismo video game and got a contract to race with Nissan despite having no real experience behind the wheel.

 

[RocketGrunt]

Rey doesn't actually win anything. She isn't the best at anything. No one praises her. She gets captured.

I mean, the movies are terrible. Stuff happens that makes no sense. Somehow Palpatine Returned. Characters gain and forget skills over and over again because of a lack of continuity in writing. The trilogy has two directors that have nothing better to do than to spend time looking directly into the camera and undoing each others' work.

But no, Rey is not a Mary Sue. Words mean things.

Rey's biggest trait, the one that she uses to solve the most challenges in the movies and motivate herself and the other characters to carry on with their various quests, is that she is a fangirl for the original trilogy. The resolution of the trilogy isn't that they save the galaxy or restore the Republic, it's that Rey finds a way that she can continue loving the original trilogy. That's very meta, and I understand why people find that infuriating. But like, that is a trait. That is character growth. She does in fact have established skill sets that she uses to overcome challenges and there are other characters who get their turn in the spotlight and she has to get rescued by those other characters a completely normal amount of times. And she has to get rescued because she does fail at things over and over again.

The Force Awakens is a fucking horrible movie that killed the Star Wars franchise. But any analysis that concludes that it is bad because "girl too strongk!" is sexist and bad. The movie also isn't bad because of bad pacing (it's almost a shot for shot remake of New Hope, of course the pacing is solid), or because the special effects aren't good (produced by Disney and IL&M, the special effects are gorgeous and obviously more advanced than what other companies were doing at the time). It's bad because instead of building up a galaxy full of imagination, it's two hours of JJ Abrams breaking your toys and ranting at you about how hard it is to be a fan of the old Star Wars and still try to tell new stories.

The whole sequel trilogy is just JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson arguing with each other and having midlife crises about how they can't live up to expectations about Star Wars from a storytelling standpoint. And literally none of that is the fault of the female characters or the actresses who played them.

 

[StillStunned]

Dragging this away from Rey...

I've been listening to The Thirteenth Witch by Mark Hayden, and the more I listen, the more I'm convinced that the main character Conrad is a Mary Sue. It's masked behind some minor vulnerabilities, but it's there.

Amazingly competent? Check. Respected and feared by everyone? Check. Instinctively knows how to overcome challenges that have killed other, better equipped people? Check. Misunderstood when doing the right thing? Check. People who try to hold him accountable are revealed to be petty and incompetent and are punished accordingly? Check.

 

[YmaOHyd]

And literally none of that is the fault of the female characters or the actresses who played them.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Rey doesn't actually win anything. She isn't the best at anything. No one praises her. She gets captured.

I mean, the movies are terrible. Stuff happens that makes no sense. Somehow Palpatine Returned. Characters gain and forget skills over and over again because of a lack of continuity in writing. The trilogy has two directors that have nothing better to do than to spend time looking directly into the camera and undoing each others' work.

But no, Rey is not a Mary Sue. Words mean things.

Rey's biggest trait, the one that she uses to solve the most challenges in the movies and motivate herself and the other characters to carry on with their various quests, is that she is a fangirl for the original trilogy. The resolution of the trilogy isn't that they save the galaxy or restore the Republic, it's that Rey finds a way that she can continue loving the original trilogy. That's very meta, and I understand why people find that infuriating. But like, that is a trait. That is character growth. She does in fact have established skill sets that she uses to overcome challenges and there are other characters who get their turn in the spotlight and she has to get rescued by those other characters a completely normal amount of times. And she has to get rescued because she does fail at things over and over again.

The Force Awakens is a fucking horrible movie that killed the Star Wars franchise. But any analysis that concludes that it is bad because "girl too strongk!" is sexist and bad. The movie also isn't bad because of bad pacing (it's almost a shot for shot remake of New Hope, of course the pacing is solid), or because the special effects aren't good (produced by Disney and IL&M, the special effects are gorgeous and obviously more advanced than what other companies were doing at the time). It's bad because instead of building up a galaxy full of imagination, it's two hours of JJ Abrams breaking your toys and ranting at you about how hard it is to be a fan of the old Star Wars and still try to tell new stories.

The whole sequel trilogy is just JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson arguing with each other and having midlife crises about how they can't live up to expectations about Star Wars from a storytelling standpoint. And literally none of that is the fault of the female characters or the actresses who played them.

She's a Mary Sue. No one here is claiming that's THE reason the movies suck, but it's certainly PART of the reason they suck.
If your main character isn't interesting or likeable... well... that's a problem

 

[RocketGrunt]

She's a Mary Sue. No one here is claiming that's THE reason the movies suck, but it's certainly PART of the reason they suck.
If your main character isn't interesting or likeable... well... that's a problem

Do you think that Deadpool is a Mary Sue?

Rey's central and consistent ability that is established at the very beginning is that she is a superfan of the original trilogy. She can identify Han Solo because she is a superfan. She can identify Luke's old lightsaber because she is a superfan. She knows how The Millennium Falcon works because she is a superfan. Other than that, she's a pretty mid-tier action movie hero. She genuinely only has one special skill, and she uses it consistently.

Now, that is an ability that breaks the fourth wall. I totally get being driven burning red hot with fury over a character having abilities that are dependent on having access to Star Wars media that exists in our world and presumably does not exist in their world. It's literally the thing from fucking Space Balls where the characters watch the movie in order to figure out where they have to go to find the next plot point.

But that's not what being a Mary Sue is. Characters having fourth wall breaking abilities is not the same as characters having exhaustingly inexhaustible perfection. Deadpool gets to solve problems by explicitly referencing other movies that the audience has seen. No one calls him a Mary Sue (or Marty Stew, because he is a dude).

If you wanna say that characters in Star Wars should not have narrative skill sets based on Star Wars fandom and merchandise, I'm not going to fight you. I liked Space Balls, but I never asked for or wanted Star Wars to turn into that. But that is not what Mary Sueism is. It's infuriating for entirely different reasons.

https://www.springhole.net/writing/marysue.htm

That's the Mary Sue test, not whatever the hell you're talking about. It's about characters like Bella from Twilight or Eragon from Eragon. Not characters from movies that are infuriating because the director decided to have an extended meditation on what it means to be a fan of the franchise instead of doing storytelling and worldbuilding within that franchise.

 

[YmaOHyd]

It's very funny to me that the apparently-definitive Mary Sue test starts with "I no longer support this test." Fortunately there's an enormous body of literature about what the definition means and how it's changed over time.

 

[RocketGrunt]

It's very funny to me that the apparently-definitive Mary Sue test starts with "I no longer support this test." Fortunately there's an enormous body of literature about what the definition means and how it's changed over time.

Well, considering how many people have been waving torches and shouting "Mary Sue!" at female characters who aren't even remotely Mary Sues, you can see how people might get frustrated about it.

Almost all of Mary Sue discussion, very much including this thread, just turns into people hating on female characters from a position of truly impressive ignorance. The people who want to retire the term entirely certainly have a point.

There is no insight to be gained on why the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy is bad by claiming that Rey is a Mary Sue. None at all. And people who make that claim are not really worth listening to on that topic, and probably not on a great many other topics.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Do you think that Deadpool is a Mary Sue?

Rey's central and consistent ability that is established at the very beginning is that she is a superfan of the original trilogy. She can identify Han Solo because she is a superfan. She can identify Luke's old lightsaber because she is a superfan. She knows how The Millennium Falcon works because she is a superfan. Other than that, she's a pretty mid-tier action movie hero. She genuinely only has one special skill, and she uses it consistently.

Now, that is an ability that breaks the fourth wall. I totally get being driven burning red hot with fury over a character having abilities that are dependent on having access to Star Wars media that exists in our world and presumably does not exist in their world. It's literally the thing from fucking Space Balls where the characters watch the movie in order to figure out where they have to go to find the next plot point.

But that's not what being a Mary Sue is. Characters having fourth wall breaking abilities is not the same as characters having exhaustingly inexhaustible perfection. Deadpool gets to solve problems by explicitly referencing other movies that the audience has seen. No one calls him a Mary Sue (or Marty Stew, because he is a dude).

If you wanna say that characters in Star Wars should not have narrative skill sets based on Star Wars fandom and merchandise, I'm not going to fight you. I liked Space Balls, but I never asked for or wanted Star Wars to turn into that. But that is not what Mary Sueism is. It's infuriating for entirely different reasons.

https://www.springhole.net/writing/marysue.htm

That's the Mary Sue test, not whatever the hell you're talking about. It's about characters like Bella from Twilight or Eragon from Eragon. Not characters from movies that are infuriating because the director decided to have an extended meditation on what it means to be a fan of the franchise instead of doing storytelling and worldbuilding within that franchise.

Nobody is "driven red hot with fury and anger".

No one is mad about Rey being a Mary Sue, it's just an acknowledgement she is, which is one of the numerous flaws in the new movies.

Nor is it about "breaking the 4th wall."

Being a "superfan" doesn't explain her abilities. Just because you are a Superfan of TopGun doesn't mean you can fly an F-14. Being a "superfan" doesn't explain why she can use the force as necessary with zero training.
Being a "superfan" doesn't explain how an untrained person can effectively use a lightsaber with zero training.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Well, considering how many people have been waving torches and shouting "Mary Sue!" at female characters who aren't even remotely Mary Sues, you can see how people might get frustrated about it.

Almost all of Mary Sue discussion, very much including this thread, just turns into people hating on female characters from a position of truly impressive ignorance. The people who want to retire the term entirely certainly have a point.

There is no insight to be gained on why the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy is bad by claiming that Rey is a Mary Sue. None at all. And people who make that claim are not really worth listening to on that topic, and probably not on a great many other topics.

And this is a tired and worthless argument...

"Anyone who disagrees with me just hates female characters."

No, we hate Mary Sue's.
Want to drop Ripley, or Sarah Connor into the discussion? Weird how we can hate strong female characters yet love those two.