That's Mary Sue?

Meta
Title:	That's Mary Sue?
Creator:	Joanna Cantor
Date(s):	Winter 1980
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

That's Mary Sue? is a 1980 essay by Joanna Cantor.

It was printed in Archives #5.

Parts

It consists of five parts:

• a reprint of the December 1973 story, A Trekkie's Tale
• Paula Smith's March 1979 letter to Interstat #17
• Joanna's comments in response to "A Trekkie's Tale" and Paula's letter
• Paula's letter written in response to Joanna's comments
• Joanna's response to Paula's response

The Essay

The Trekkie's Tale

See A Trekkie's Tale.

Paula Smith's Letter to Interstat

Paula Smith wrote a letter to Interstat #17 in March 1979 in which she explained the term.

The letter (minus the last two lines) :

I suppose I am as qualified as anyone to explain: "Mary Sue," a.k.a. "Lt. Mary Sue, the youngest (15 1/2) officer in Star Fleet," is a term I created in "A Trekkie's Tale" (Menagerie #2, 1974), to comment on a story type prevalent at the time (and still common afterwards), the story of the youngest, smartest, pertest, most adorable ever female teenaged (generally) lieutenant on the Enterprise, who is lusted after—chastely—by any or all of the senior officers, is often half-Vulcan/half-God-knows-what, saves the ship in some improbable way, sometimes has the grace to die-beautifully by the end of the story, and is impossible to accept as a real being by anyone save the author. If later became a term of disapprobation and was slung around, sometimes undeservedly, at any woman character of more personal presence than Christine Chapel at her most vapid.

Comments by Joanna Cantor in Archives

That's Mary Sue?

This neo friend was absolutely astonished, and understandably so. The Mary Sue story runs ten paragraphs. But in terms of their impact on those they affect, those words have got to rank right up there with the Selective Service Act.

"I don't know if I ought to be sending this to you," a neo described her story in 1978. "I'm afraid it's a Mary Sue. Only I don't know what that is."

"I know you can't publish this," wrote another neo in 1979,"because it's a Mary Sue. But if you wouldn't mind reading it anyway. I'd appreciate it...."

Which is ridiculous! In my opinion. I started Trekwriting with a Mary Sue (though I had the self-protective smarts to call my character 'Uhura', which is acceptable to the self-styled guardians determined to purge Treklit of all traces of the unfortunate adolescent). So have many other Trekwriters — in fact I would propose that just as every dog is allowed one bite, so every Trekwriter should be allowed one Mary Sue.

Said story should not necessarily be published (though we publish other stories whose plot/characterization have been done before), but they should be given a sympathetic reading and critique, and perhaps returned to the author with the explanation that she is following a too-well-beaten path, with the encouragement to turn her interests to other stories. No? Take a look at Jean Lorrah's Amanda.

Why has the label 'Mary Sue' had such an impact? Partly through misunderstanding. As Paula points out, the label has sometimes been taken far beyond her original intention, to put down all stories in which a female concerns herself with something besides Kinder, Kuche, and Kirche, and sometimes all stories in which a twentieth century female meets the Enterprise characters. (I've never asked Lois Welling why the heroine of THE DISPLACED is named Sue. But I suspect I know.) A parody targeted on the depiction of an idealized, too-perfect self aboard the Enterprise has become, in some cases, a tool of the all-too-common tendency of some women to tear down women who act and do, as opposed to the more comfortable feminine options of observing and applauding.

The effects on Treklit have been unfortunate, I think. Now please understand, I have nothing against stories about the men of the Enterprise. On the contrary. And it tickles me that one of the questions people often ask about the Treklit network is, why is there such a preponderance of women? The answer seems relatively uncomplicated to me. I don't know of any more gorgeous men (all right, you other-media people, yours are as gorgeous. Okay?) And I love stories about them.

But why is it that in a group of people who are probably 90% female, we have so few stories about believable, competent, and identifiable - with women? And of perhaps more importance, why do so many of our stories read like stick-figure exercises in plot? W.S. Gilbert used to map out his staging using stick figures on a dollhouse set. But Sullivan's music turned Luiz and Casilda, Jack Point, and even Katisha into living, breathing, hurting, loving, laughing people. Why do so many Treklit stories lack this music? Because they're the early work of inexperienced authors? Sometimes, maybe. But could it also be that we are afraid, as women, to put into our creations that touch of humanity, for which read touch of self, that might make them a little too real? I think so. And I think "Mary Sue" has been a tool in a process of intimidation that has worked against the development of stories that are psychologically more interesting.

"So what if it hurts, if it makes a good book," Lord Peter Whimsy decreed. (Granted, he wasn't the one who was going to write the book, read the reviews, and do the hurting.) We're not going to get rid of the term Mary Sue —it's too convenient for them as wields it. But we can be prepared to turn a resolutely deaf ear, as we work on what we want to work on.

Every story bears the author’s thumbprint. Why should that insertion of self be torn down for one class of stories, and one class only? Because they're so common? No. I'll bet I can find one story in which Spock haltingly tries to deal with his feelings, for every Mary Sue ever written. But nobody dismisses them as an example of the Spocky Sue.

Comments, anyone? JTC

Paula's Response to Joanna

Dear Johanna:

Since you gave me the opportunity to respond to your editorial...the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of your draft is not clear to me, and one interpretation of it as it stands bothers me.

Did you mean “the label Mary Sue has been taken to put down all stories, etc." or "Paula's original intention was to put down all stories etc. and sometimes she meant to put down all stories about aspiring females"?

The latter was never my intent; my original idea...was to parody the glut of stories that existed in 1973 and 1974 which featured the totally incredible adventures of the literally youngest-ever member of the Enterprise (and often her dog, cat, or horse as well). I still have a few of them in the old zines; one memorable one has the heroine dying and then resurrecting herself (hence, incredible adventures). They were the dreams and fantasies of beginning writers. When the beginning writers developed into more advanced writers, they still wrote about their dreams and fantasies, but with more skill and consequently with more meaning for a wider circle of readers.

As far as I can tell, there are currently two meanings of the term Mary Sue: any story with a female lead who carries out the wish-fulfillment of the author; and any badly-written story with a female lead who etc. By the former definition there's nothing wrong with producing a Mary Sue story, but by the second, to produce a M-S story is to produce bad writing. It's the confusion of the two definitions that causes bad feelings; it was the extension of the former from the latter that created the opportunity for this confusion.

One other point, people may not label stories in which Spock tries to deal with his feelings for his friends as "Spocky-Sue," but many do dismiss them as "relationship" stories, legitimately or not. Stories in which Spock deals with his sexuality were called "Lay-Spocks," and everyone knows what a "Get-Spock" is. Labels come into existence because there truly is a limited assortment of stories that get written; few are the pioneers. But labels get misused by readers and loc-ers too lazy or unwilling to tell the distinction between a good story that includes the labelable element, and a bad story that is nothing but the element.

I trust I have made myself obscure. Paula Smith

Joanna's Response to Paula

"Cutting in again if I may, sir," (largely because this has something to do with the intent of ARCHIVES), Paula has brought up an additional point, on which I've always respectfully disagreed with her.

Paula, here and elsewhere, makes ‘bad writing' sound like the creative equivalent of not brushing your teeth. Probably I'd feel the same way if I were a professional writer, or had aspirations thereto. I don't, and probably most Trekwriters don't. We dabble in writing the same way a Sunday painter dabbles in water color. We enjoy it, and friends who are into the same interests enjoy it, and I see nothing wrong with that.

I also feel strongly that Trekwriting can serve an apprenticeship function even for those who do aspire to professionalism. But not if we create a climate in which people are afraid to submit a certain type of story — or any story at all, and not if one of the commonest early story themes automatically "types" a story as beneath consideration.