sarahreesbrennan:
lorienscribe:
I have heard a bunch of discussion going around about the term “Mary Sue” — a term often used by reviewers to dismiss characters that they feel are too perfect, too awesome, and too favored by their author. Zoë Marriott gives a really good breakdown of its definition and a point-by-point analysis of the problematic way she’s been seeing it used over on her journal. I thought it was a really great post about a very overused term and made me consider the Mary Sue a bit more. Then Sarah Rees Brennan made a fantastic post about flawed characters and female identification with awesomeness and her call for flawsomeness.
Fantastic piece on the overuse and misogynistically overuse of the term “Mary Sue” in non-derivative works. Sadly, not even fictional females can get a break. What boils my blood is when the readers drag in the woman writers into the mess and rip them apart. Do we say that Aragorn was too perfect and Tolkien was writing a self-insert fantasy where everything revolved around him, and how Tolkien’s clothes look awful? No. So why do we go around making all these awful comments about the way, for example, J.K. Rowling dressed in so-and-so event? What does her (and any female writers’) wardrobe have anything to do with her writing? Let’s discuss the author’s writing, not her and not her female characters as though they are vermin that poisoned her stories.
Being a writer myself, this kind of mentality sickens and worries me.
I love this post and this is great commentary on it!
3 days ago -
37