In Defence of Mary-Sue (1982 essay)
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | In Defence of Mary-Sue |
| Creator: | Karen Maund |
| Date(s): | October 1982 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
In Defence of Mary-Sue is a 1982 essay by Karen Maund.
It was printed in Communicator #7.
A response essay is LAVINIA versus THE CREEPING BLORCH, or, A reaction to the 'Defence of Mary Sue'.
"In a way this article might be better entitled 'Star Trek- and the anti-schmaltz syndromer for the reasoning that has caused editors world wide to cry 'beware Mary-Sue' can be seen in operation in many, many contexts quite separate from Trek. It is not in to be in love and it is hinted that writing about such things is in some way inferior. And certainly in the case of Trek fan fiction, a new-girl-aboard-the-Enterprise only has to make the briefest of appearances for a general groan to go up. But why should, this be? Closer consideration reveals a number of reasons, of varying degrees of rationality."
Some Topics Discussed
- Mary Sue
- the new-girl-on-the-Enterprise almost always elicits a groan
- love is certainly apart of the Star Trek world
- K/S can be Mary Sue
- there is a place for all genres if they are written well
From the Essay
The most common [reason fans dislike Mary Sues] is perhaps the feeling that to introduce a strange character with whom Kirk, McCoy or etc. falls in love is an adulteration: this newcomer is not a part of the original Roddenberry creation, she does not fit in, she is unnecessary. The implication is that the Mary-Sue type story is a distortion of the ideals of Star Trek.
This is patently not true. If the Trek universe was not intended to embrace the concept of romance, would such episodes as 'City on the Edge of Forever' 'Requiem for Methuselah' or 'All Our Yesterdays' have ever been made? One of the central features of Trek is that the regular characters are not stereotypes; they are complete and it is only a very incomplete individual who is incapable of feeling love. Star Trek presents us with a universe wherein image maintaining has lost its importance, wherein individualists feel free to express their full emotions without fear of ridicule. The message is 'to thine own self be true' regardless of whether you are an impetuous Chekov, a humanitarian McCoy, a swashbuckling, hot blooded Kirk, a cool and controlled Spock, It would seem even more ridiculous if they could not each in his own way fall in love.
Which brings us to the next reason. Mary-Sues are, it is frequently asserted, badly written, badly justified and most commonly of all - the regulars are badly characterised. Well, O.K. for some Mary-Sues this is true, but not for all and anyway, the same thing can be said of a lot of 'other genre' Trek fiction. I personally feel that Kirk's sudden, over-riding passion for the voluptuous beautiful Lavinia (or whoever), is far more explicable than his sudden, overriding passion single handedly to attack the Horrendous Creeping Blorch: the former action can at least be understood on the well documented grounds that Jim likes pretty girls! It is unfair to single out the Mary-Sue story for the 'badly written' criticism. All right, if Kirk and Co are going to fall in love, they should do so in a way that accords with their expressed characters but if they are going to throttle the Blorch, well then, ditto.
Yet, although romance is an explicit element of the S.T, universe, although Mary-Sue stories are as good, bad or indifferent as other kinds, they are still the most disliked of genres. There are very few people who will actually say 'I like Mary-Sues', Most either dismiss them or resort to embarrassed condescension - why?
Two levels of explanation appear. The first is, alas, jealousy or at least resentment. Fans are usually willing to accept the big two, Edith Keeler and Zarabeth but other romances, aired or fictional seem to bring out the prickles. The attitude is very much one of 'why should she get him?' Especially when the 'she' is merely the creation of another fan. We can think of an hundred reasons why a personal character or favourite T.V. character is a better choice for Spock or Kirk or Chekov. There is nothing wrong in this; S.T. is a personal as well as a general experience and it has generated millions of alternate universes in the heads of its millions of fans.
The second level goes deeper and is more worrying. A lot of people simply won't own up to enjoying romance. One does not read Mills and Boon in public or admit too loudly to crying over 'Gone With the Wind'. Romantic love is wet, soppy, cringeworthy. It is not done. It is in instead to be cool, ruthless, sophisticated. To use people and throw them away. Twentieth century people are afraid of their own emotions. They deride them and hide them away. It is very sad.
Through IDIC and through other concepts, S.T. presents a world that has progressed beyond this. that is ready to accept every variation in the human and alien type. A place where Captain Kirk can be both macho and tender without being embarrassed by either. And by rejecting. Mary-Sue as innately inferior, we are negating an' important part of the S.T. phenomenom. People are romantic, idealistic, loving. There would not be any Mary-Sues written at all if they weren't.
So much for the negative side of Mary-Sue; what about the positive? For there is a very strong positive side to Mary-Sue stories. They are the most overt way we have of saying to the S.T. universe 'I love you'. And they have a lot to offer in the area of writing technique also.
There is another type of Mary-Sue outside of McCoy meets girl 'McCoy falls in love with girl' type. This is a sort of second level Mary-Sue story. There need not be a female in it at all but it does contain the same expression of love and attachment. I'm talking about the kind of story often labelled 'Worrying About Jim'. The scenario is familiar. Kirk/Spock/McCoy either singly, or in a pair, undergo a traumatic experience. The other(s) go mad with anxiety. The situation Is resolved, often via a mind meld, with a reaffirmation of mutual love. There is often a great deal of touching; supporting an injured friend; comforting the grief stricken. It is interesting to note that these stories frequently hinge on some kind of revelation made by Spock. Indeed, they seem to be deliberately set up to force a situation where the Vulcan might believably say 'I care'.
I would suggest that there are two reasons for this; firstly that the pure type Spock/Mary Sue almost never works. Secondly, that this second level type provides the writer with the opportunity to express personal affection for the characters without running the rick of being labelled wet, soppy, a bad writer, or an adulterator of pure Trek. But for all the absence of Lavinia, this story remains a Mary-Sue. So does much K/S material; it allows one to 'get' one's man without being seen to do so. Not that this is in any way a bad thing, any more than writing pure Mary-Sue! (It is interesting to note that the most ardent Mary-Sue deriders are often the most ardent writers of the second level form.)
The regular S.T. characters are presented to us as being complete. In various aired episodes: they love, grieve, hate, fear, vacillate, resent etc. etc. We know that they can have these reactions and Mary-Sue writers, like all oter writers are simply exploring one of S.T.'s existing themes. No story is ever bad just because of its genre. Individual stories should be judged on their own merits, and 'Kirk loves Lavinia' may be as good, or even better than 'Kirk and the Creeping Blorch'.
The S.T. universe says to us that difference and diversity are beautiful and this should be as true for fan fiction as for aired T.V. This article is breaking no new ground by examining and repeating this but as a final thought; wouldn't you rather meet Lavinia in a dark than the Creeping Blorch?
Fan Comments
Given the choice of meeting Lavinia or the Creeping Blorch in a dark alley... well, with the Blorch, the suffering is over quicker.[1]
Karen Maund suggests that the writers of K/S stories are writing Mary Sue stories -- I can only say that I do not, Any sex scenes I write are written cold; I can identify with Spock, but I do not find Kirk (or Shatner) sexy - quite the opposite, in fact, I actively don't want a sexual relationship with either Kirk or Spock (or Shatner or Nimoy, in all fairness) so whatever I'm writing when I write K/S, it isn't Mary Sue. [2]
Returning to Communicator 7, I have a comment on Karen Maund's article, 'In Defence of Mary-Sue'. I think there's some confusion here over what is a Mary-Sue. It is not, necessarily, a romance, (Wow, I must admit, I don't like romances. In the libraries we play a game with Mills and Boons - someone reads out the blurb, and the rest give a synopsis of the story. With a little practice, it can bo done just by looking at the cover. By the way, it would surprise you how many Mills and Boon authors are men.)
However, to get back to the subject. A good Kirk, Spock or McCoy romance is possible - of course it is. All it needs is a female character who is up to the male's weight, so to speak. But Mary Sue... beautiful, charming, intelligent, modest, self-sacrificing, wonderful Mary Sue... is, quite frankly, a pain in the neck. If she's so marvellous, she should be Grand Admiral of Starfleet by eighteen (which she usually is, if not even younger.).
In other words, it's a question of realism. I can't believe in Mary Sue. I can believe in an Edith Keeler, a Carol Marcus, an Areel Shaw, intelligent, mature women who have done something with their lives, who exist in the real world, who have some other reason for their existence than to gaze adoringly at/save the life of/patiently sit around waiting for their men.
Now think of role-reversal for a minute. Would you tolerate Mary Sue for one single instant if she was Mark Simon, nursing a secret passion for Uhura? More to the point, would Uhura? [3]
I don't think it's the appearance of the girl that causes a groan of 'Mary-Sue' but rather how she's handled. Too often these girls are depicted as young, nubile, beautiful, very intelligent, courageous, athletic - you name the virtue she has it and able too to do the work of whichever man she's after better than he can.
Karen says 'a believable Lavinia is half way to a believable story' - end yes she is but how many of the Mary-Sue genre is believable? How many kind, young...very beautiful, very intelligent, unselfish, courageous, athletic, ingenious, modest, compassionate( etc.) girls do any of us actually know- and even more to the point, if we did, would we actually like them? I suspect not; we'd be too aware of our own ..shortcomings and in typical Human fashion, would react by disliking the person who made us aware of them. Yet the classic Mary-Sue has all those qualities and more... and everyone positively adores her.
A good Mary-Sue is rarely classified as Mary-Sue, I find. If it's well written, the fact that the 'heroine is the writer's alter ego does not show up blatantly and the worst that will be said is 'I think it's a Mary-Sue but it gets away with it.'
A story where the heroine loves Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Take your pick isn't necessarily a Mary-Sue either - it's having the male passionately in love with her, usually at first sight, that's the giveaway. If she's still in her teens, that's another. Sixteen is still the age of consert (I don't know if it's younger in other countries), and I doubt if it's likely to to be lowered, but some Mary-Sue heroines have been only 14 or 15! I could give you several examples of stories that fall into this trap, like the 14-year old too young to enter Starfleet Academy but taken along on the Enterprise as a cadet, who satisfied Spock's next pon farr... and how happened to be Kirk's illegitimate daughter as well. [4]
On the other hand, I've read some excellent stories that I'm sure were Mary-Sue. One (printed in the US and long out of print) has a heroine who is plump, fiftyish, not particularly good looking or intelligent, who is transported into S.T's time and gets a job in security because she's mildly telepathic [5]... and it worked because her qualities, in combination, were feasible.
No, I don't personally slam a story automatically for being Mary-Sue. Such stories are often a writer's first attempt, and it shows, and this is where good editing comes in. A good editor should be able to encourage a writer to overcome the weaknesses in development etc without harming the story the writer wants to tell. [6]