Is Mary Sue a term that discriminates against female protagonists?

Would you have sex with Mary Stru?

Yes and no. Yes, because male protagonists are indeed given way more leeway when it comes to tolerability of their smug perfections. No, because in a way, it's justified. Women simply didn't deserve to have equal amount of respect given to them. Women aren't strong, or for the most part smart, they didn't build nations, invent wondrous technology, or brave the oceans. For the vast majority of history, females sat on the bench, doing nothing notable outside birthgiving. So, when a female character is given those heroic traits, any rational individual is spiked with disbelief, the wrongness of it, which causes female characters to be judged more harshly.

>Severian
Never read it, but fantasy is fantasy, it is not supposed to be remotely realistic and why should characters be realistic.

Tale of Genji? But it's pretty uncommon in my opinion. Most women haven't read any classical literature so they just assume there's a lot of mary sues

I guess if i read genre fiction I would see more of these perfect males and mary sues.

The argument here seems to be the trashy romance and detective stories are trashy.

umm yeah no shit thats kind of what the term means

No, because the term “Gary Stu” exists to refer to male characters that are shit for the same reason. The playing field is level in that sense.

That said, accusations of Mary Sueism tend to be more common. Whether that says something about how the genders are perceived, I’ll let you decide.

Jessica Watson is a mary sue. She didn't actually circumnavigate correctly or alone given she had 24 hour contact, direct support and countless dependencies on others. The luxury yacht sailed itself, she even rammed into another vessel because she was asleep. Despite this everyone lauds the brave little heroine for her legendary leisure tour, she can do no wrong. Her so called great achievement is a fraud and I won't accept it. Jessica Watson, if you are reading this, I see through you

I've heard the term 'Mary Sue' before, and if the description is indeed true of a badass female character that everyone likes and can do anything because 'girl power'... then it's simply lazy ideological writing. People are right to judge. It's also counter-intuitive because it's trying to push women into a role that is generally left to men, and it makes sense why. Men are the defenders of civilization, men are the soldiers, the guards, the construction workers, the fire fighters, and the most capable Police. Women are smaller and weaker and on average it's true; less emotionally stable. This is reflected in women being higher in personality trait agreeableness and higher in personality trait neuroticism (which is sensitivity to negative emotion).

Were there female badasses in the past? Yes, like the Soviet female snipers and pilots in WWII. Were they perfect? Fuck no. Were they the best in their class? Fuck no, many men did it better. If it turns out a Soviet female pilot or sniper did better than all the others then bring it to my attention.

Women have, on-average, about 50% (HALF) the upper-body strength of a man, and about 60% (slightly more than half) the lower-body strength of a man. Women also have a much taller and thinner bell curve of IQ than men, meaning that a higher percentage of women than of men have AVERAGE IQ, meanwhile men dominate, by far, the population of people with the lowest IQ but ALSO, the population of people with the HIGHEST IQ. Most geniuses in the world are male, which explains why almost every invention ever is from men.

Cultural Marxism... not even once. Lazy fuckin' writing. Also, no, my male characters are not perfect. Perfection is not only boring, but is essentially impossible.

tfw bullied

The closest I can think of in terms of a perfect male character is James Bond. He's witty, highly intelligent, highly skilled, well-trained, always gets the girl; a pretty blatant alpha-male. Still, in Goldeneye things were botched and he lost his good friend 006, at least he believed he did. He also very nearly gets killed by a woman's legs, and in 'The World is Not Enough' he's tortured in some kind of device that seems capable of breaking one's back and/or neck. He's also known for destroying a lot of the advanced gadgets he's given for his missions. He's been captured numerous times (another Goldeneye scene comes to mind involving the pen-grenade that is primed by clicking it a certain way), of course even back in the 60s with Sean Connery there's that Dr. No scene where he's about to be cut in half with a laser, starting at his groin. Then there's all those dangerous fights where he's clearly physically outmatched by Jaws.

So it's not like he goes into every fist-fight and gives a quick Judo-chop to render the enemy unconscious without breaking a sweat, he also doesn't always hit when he shoots, indeed he's lost partners before both in terms of male colleagues and love interests, very nearly dies on several occasions, Hell in one of Daniel Craig's movies (one of my least-favourite Bonds) he's stripped naked and is tortured via having his junk smacked by a rope with a knot at the end. That's not why I disliked Craig's rendition though. He just looks... odd... to me. The ears in particular, but yeah, Pierce Brosnan is easily a favourite. Very handsome, very smooth.

Biologically speaking, women are physically inferior to men in terms of physical capabilities. That's why having trans women (biological men) competing with biological women is bullshit, because the trans women repeatedly come out on top. When comparing common averages and not outliers like female UFC fighters or female body builders, the stronger women out there are about on par with the weaker men. As mentioned, 50% upper body, 60% lower body. If a woman is going to be a badass, and realistically so, then she should be confined to technological means of fighting like with firearms or other advanced weaponry, and not via melee, unless her only opponents are other females or she's highly-trained with melee weapons and is going against men who are untrained.

Why must "strong" female characters be *literally* physically strong and embody traditionally masculine characteristics in order to be deemed as such by the feminist-type?

Feminists hate femininity. They've been at war with it for decades and have been pushing women to be masculine. They themselves seem to see femininity as weakness that is keeping the female gender back. It's tragic, considering the beauty of actual historic femininity.

You can have strong uninteresting female characters and weak interesting female characters.
It's ultimately up the writer.

The term is obviously gendered. But considering gary stu also exists, that's fair.
The issue stems from several things:
>retards don't understand what really constitutes a mary sue/gary stu
>there are indeed a lot of retards who'll whine mary sue the second a strong female protagonist appears
>Because of the current trends, it's far easier and more juicy (ad campaign basically does itself on twitter/youtube) to churn out badly written female protags who turn out to be Mary Sues than make the effort of actually writing compelling female characters (see Rey from star wars 7 and how the internet discussions revolved around her)

Yep. Emma Woodhouse does nothing but gossip, bitch and go to parties but she's arguably the greatest female protagonist ever written

Marie sue? Bah qu'elle prenne l'air je sais pas

This is something I still question. Don’t get me wrong, I love physically strong female characters when done right, but half of what we commonly define as strength and virtue comes internally rather than externally. Stories with strong female characters in the past understood this. If you look at Austen’s novels for example, the female characters are usually mentally strong, and the stories are about them using that strength to overcome physical limitations placed on them by society. Even in future, when fiction started to include more “action girls” these girls often had actual moral virtues and general internal depth (Ripley from the Alien movies being an oft cited example).

I swear this SJW brand of “empowered” woman is a fairly recent phenomena.

Neo from the Matrix comes close. He is instantly liked by anyone but the villains (who are not even humans so whatever) and the girl throws herself at him even though he has no personality. He gets new powers out of nowhere, becomes the most powerful character in the story, becomes a Jesus analogue.

t. hasn't watched the Matrix

>see Rey

Any Jesus analogue is a mary sue really.

(Pic related, which is weird because the actual Jesus in his other novel is not a mary sue.)

Attached: ChristRecrucified.jpg (264x376, 19K)

Yes, and no. When it's used for characters who dosen't need to train or develop to become powerfull, it's because they are trying to merge the male experiance with the female experiance. The hero's journey is the archetype of the male experiance. Gaining more social prominance/desirability by getting material wealth through acquiring new skills and going through trials.
Women more or less start out at max, as their social prominance/desirability through their fertility. There is no need for training or going through trials.

Yes in the same vein that Gary Stu discriminates against men being it's a term made specifically for a certain sex. Everything else in the pictures you posted is based on strawmanning

Let's be honest, women are very oppressionable.

This is a 100% rehash of verbatim Jordan Peterson quotes.

I don't think you understand what 'verbatim' means.

..Or maybe people just write a lot of obnoxious and terrible female characters. The term emerged from mostly female communities of fanfiction authors writing terrible self insert characters.

Be honest, Yea Forums:

Do Gary Stu’s really bother you personally?

Obviously Mary Sues get a ton of shit, but in my experience criticism towards the male equivalent is less vocal.

I have never read anything with one.

It can be entertaining if it's being done on purpose.

A lot of girl audience don’t like hero’s journey for girl protagonists. They cant handle the defeat and adversity at the beginning. It triggers their PTSD.
Women are too emotionally weak for hero’s journey.

>...and then user uttered two simple words: "Gary Stu", and with those two words came crashing down with them the premise of the entire thread.

I've always shot a ton of flakk at harry potter for his gary stu tendencies, and he's not even a full blown specimen.

They have the heroine's journey.

Attached: heroine-journey-arc-1a-crop-e1426605586958.jpg (1145x1107, 112K)

That reminds me of something I said in regards to philosophy I think. Deep-thinkers thinking deeply on deep subjects, because men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people on average. Men are more likely to think scientificially, to think about why things are the way they are, while women are more likely to think about whether Susanna fucked Craig's gf last night or if dresses matched or which celebrity is dating whom or what have you.

One of the responses I got was basically what I wrote, copy/pasted, then with the genders swapped. It seemed to be a suggestion that dudes give a damn about other people's relationship or who their friends/enemies are fucking.That's silly and a waste of time.

Cultural Marxism, I tell you, it's a terrible ideology/religion, though I don't think it's as inherently evil and oppressive as Islam. Close though.

>all these uneducated plebs in this thread talking about mary sues as if they know anything about the term's history and application

Mary Sues are relevant ONLY in relation to discussions of fanfiction. The whole "overpowered character is a mary sue" thing is a wholly separate topic that has nothing to do with this. As someone with over a decade of experience in reading and writing fanfic who's been in that sphere and active in the broader community: a Mary Sue is an idealized self-insert of the author that they use to vicariously live alongside the characters of the thing they're inserting into. Nine times out of ten all the actual characters from the original work will metaphorically fellate the insert character as they become the most important person in the universe of the work. Stories like this are invariably written by people with crippling emotional disorders and they're a font of unintentional hilarity. The term doesn't apply to self-inserts in original, non-fanfic works because the fact that a pre-existing universe has been hijacked to make it all about the Mary Sue is an essential ingredient.

So the discourse about smug, stronk woman characters is a wholly separate discussion. Mary Sues can be male or female: the term has nothing to do with gender, but rather originates from a self-insert Star Trek fanfic where the author's insert was named Mary Sue in the story (though some people choose to call male versions Gary Stu, etc.)

Now, where we enter a gray area here is when we're discussing modern sequels to old stories made by fans, like the new Star Wars films, where it's technically fanfic. And you have the protagonist of that story hijacking the universe of the original plot to make it all about them. The argument against Rey being a Mary Sue is, of course, that JJ is a dude and Rey is a girl, therefore she can't be his vehicle to live out his peurile Star Wars self-insert fantasies. People who say this are wrong though, because people will commonly make their Mary Sue persona the opposite gender to avoid allegations of their being a Mary Sue.

Isn’t the implication here that femininity and agency/subjectivity are incompatible, or am I a brainlet?

Is this a pasta? It sure reads like one.

Ellen Ripley is a widely loved character by both men and women, and she is incredibly competent.

Can anyone actually name any flawless male characters who are revered? It's not like anyone takes arnold movies seriously, they're schlocks carried my his charisma. If there was a woman with the same kind of charisma, people would be all over her as well

What's more important to Ripley's success as a great character is that her competency isn't attained at the expenses of the other characters. She is very competent, but the rest of the Nostromo crew is decently competent too.
Too many writers don't know how to make females competent in any other way than by contrasting them with idiotic males.

The author of this comic is almost certainly a woman, so she probably thinks that about many male heroes because of her inherent narcissism and inability to understand male characters’ flaws and struggles. She probably would read stuff like the Nibelungenlied or the Iliad and walk away thinking Sigfrid and Achilles are Gary Stus despite their major character flaws.

>It's not like anyone takes arnold movies seriously
Rejoice user, for you shall never be this wrong in your entire life again

Attached: predator_1987_turkey_original_film_art_600x.jpg (600x855, 105K)

>Yes, like the Soviet female snipers and pilots in WWII
They literally didn't exist

There’s almost no point in giving these facts to people who have already decided to disagree with them. It’s like pushing a button on a machine causing it to automatically make at least one of the following responses:

>Oh, so you hate women and want them to be oppressed, then? For these reasons we should oppress and hate women?
>Yeah well these differences are obviously socialized!!! Who knows what society would be like if we changed it so it was more geared towards women and feminine notions of success!!!
>lol incel
>lol what are you a Jordan Peterson fan?

Yes, because the irl female equivalents havent and basically never really existed. History is a mans game. Their is plenty of mary and gary stuism in things like myth though.

>all these uneducated plebs in this thread talking about mary sues as if they know anything about the term's history and application

Mary Sues are relevant ONLY in relation to discussions of fanfiction. The whole "overpowered character is a mary sue" thing is a wholly separate topic that has nothing to do with this. As someone with over a decade of experience in reading and writing fanfic who's been in that sphere and active in the broader community: a Mary Sue is an idealized self-insert of the author that they use to vicariously live alongside the characters of the thing they're inserting into. Nine times out of ten all the actual characters from the original work will metaphorically fellate the insert character as they become the most important person in the universe of the work. Stories like this are invariably written by people with crippling emotional disorders and they're a font of unintentional hilarity. The term doesn't apply to self-inserts in original, non-fanfic works because the fact that a pre-existing universe has been hijacked to make it all about the Mary Sue is an essential ingredient.

So the discourse about smug, stronk woman characters is a wholly separate discussion. Mary Sues can be male or female: the term has nothing to do with gender, but rather originates from a self-insert Star Trek fanfic where the author's insert was named Mary Sue in the story (though some people choose to call male versions Gary Stu, etc.)

Now, where we enter a gray area here is when we're discussing modern sequels to old stories made by fans, like the new Star Wars films, where it's technically fanfic. And you have the protagonist of that story hijacking the universe of the original plot to make it all about them. The argument against Rey being a Mary Sue is, of course, that JJ is a dude and Rey is a girl, therefore she can't be his vehicle to live out his peurile Star Wars self-insert fantasies. People who say this are wrong though, because people will commonly make their Mary Sue persona the opposite gender to avoid allegations of their being a Mary Sue.

I don't think so personally. It is a person's imperfections that make up their character much more than their positive qualities. Even if you're looking at something like courage, being courageous is only possible in the face of fear. Kindness means being more sensitive and emotionally generous than you could've been in the same situation. It is the triumph of a good inclination over lesser ones that truly makes someone admirable. And speaking more broadly, it is the conflict between the dark and light within a person (whether that's truly cruel and kind traits or, much more mundane, both being ambitious and hypersensitive to set backs or whatever) that creates tension and makes them compelling.

In any psychologically layered or realistic novel a Mary Sue man or woman is basically a wasted character, filler, a NPC, someone to give lines to characters who do have an inner life.
You can argue that there's also male characters like this, no doubt true, but female characters are often left 2D because many male authors just don't understand or care to think about what a believable woman looks like on the page.

I mostly think in case of male "Mary Sues" it's written off as a flat character, or psychologically unconvincing. And I don't have an issue with a term that draws attention to the crapload of half-baked female figures in literature. If nothing else it's just a waste. I'd rather an author does not write about any woman than doing such a piss poor job.

Also re: who brings up good points, I definitely read the term Mary Sue loosely here, as a female character with no discernible flaws and no apparent goals/motives of her own. Other user is right about this (they become the most important person in the universe of the work) being the real definition.

There's images of female Soviet snipers, names, wasn't there even one at Lt. Gen. Mikhail Kalashnikov's funeral or something back in late 2013? Also, leftist doctrine does tend to have a lot of stuff written about equality and I recall it was very common for men and women in Maoist China and Khmer Rouge Cambodia and the Soviet Union to wear the same style of uniform regardless of gender. I don't think the Soviets had anything in particular to gain in the 1940s by lying about female snipers. Do you REALLY think Commies in Soviet Russia 70 years ago had Cultural Marxist ideology that had them cheering women being in masculine roles? I find this to be a very dubious claim. Not as far-fetched as Holocaust denial, but still quite illogical.

Even if the enemy are nonsensical and foolish and cannot see logic and reason, we must not stop talking. I consider it a part of my Christian faith to speak what I understand to be true, and to also be open to questioning that perception of truth. I used to defend Islam, now I am an ardent antagonist of it and desires at LEAST reformation. I also used to believe in some feminist ideals when I was very young, but I have learned that their foundations are based on falsehoods. I have even spoken to anti-Semites and GENUINELY tried to understand their views and to dive deep within them to see what's at the bottom. If I had a mild disagreement about something but didn't think it would be worthwhile to argue about such a small thing, I would say "okay, operating under the assumption that everything you just said is true..." then continue to pick at their brain and pay attention to what they're saying. Maybe the Jews DO have some kind of big worldwide conspiracy, maybe they HAVE gotten to power via nepotism+malice... but I'm not seeing the malice or the worldwide conspiracy.

Sounds like a big conspiracy theory. High IQ+nepotism seems like a more logical answer as to why so many Jews have gotten to high-ranking positions in America in spite of their small local population, but because I'm not a Marxist or Socialist who demands equality or wishes to take down the rich, I don't give a damn if there's a bunch of rich Jews in America. I also understand their nepotism, I've experienced familial nepotism before and the Jews have suffered a lot in the past, they're also a fairly small group of people and they actively discourage non-Jews from converting to Judaism which makes them even more tight-knit and so it seems perfectly understandable.

In the end, it came down to two things. "You need to read book 'X' to understand" (can't remember the title) or even less helpful, "you need to be an Aryan to understand." That's what it boiled down to, and so I wiped my hands of the matter even though I SERIOUSLY tried to see things from their perspective.

I have never seen anyone call Brienne of Tarth, who this image is clearly supposed to represent, a Mary Sue. Female characters who are competent but not constantly in the spotlight and beloved by all are almost never called Mary Sues. Absolute strawman.

Neo is a Gary Stu in its purest form but that’s literally the point.

No he's not. He repeatedly fails, stumbles on his path, antagonizes people and needs friends to back him up.
He is a messianic figure, but that doesn't make him a gary stu.

I was going to post this. Gary Stus usually get recognized but get a pass, usually 'but that's the point' or 'but it's so over the top it's good'. I can't think of a comparable example of a mary sue that gets a pass. Maybe Red Sonja or Samus.

Severian isnt a man, and also they raped someone

>even women hate women
wow this rly says a lot about society. 1000 like = one tear ;(

Yes

t. Gary Stu

Name one (Besides literal cartoons)

>Is Mary Sue a term that discriminates against female protagonists?

Sort of, in the good old "disparate impact" sense that women and female characters are more likely to do it.

The Mary Sue is a combination of wish fulfillment and bad writing. I believe this usually happens because Mary Sue is written for the purpose of wish fulfillment, and this gets in the way of good writing/author development.

Right now, it's common for people to fantasize about women who exemplify masculine -- especially martial -- virtues. Notice that the woman in the comic is wearing the chivalric costume of sword and armor. Of course, she's still feminine and pretty. Notice again that the comic's author blames the (male) audience for failing to see that the femme character in the first panel is "really" the butch character in the second panel. In reality what is usually going on is readers seeing through an author's unwitting failure to to draw the second character instead of the first -- typically because the author's wish fulfillment doesn't involve being butch, sometimes because they just don't know how someone who's not a middle-class girl/fop acts and thinks.

By literally drawing this out, the comic's author makes this problem seem absurd, but it is not.

>Mary Sues are relevant ONLY in relation to discussions of fanfiction.

You kind of shot yourself in the foot by admitting (correctly) that characters like Rey are Mary Sues.

Aside from that cheap jab, the discussion of non-fanfic Mary Sues is still relevant because the basic formula of self-insert and wish fulfillment can still be used in an "original" universe. If I create a highly derivative fantasy setting, say, and then insert a "Mary Sue" character into is as a protagonist, I'm still doing the same thing.

What happens is that authors create the character in the first panel, then when people point out it out they say "but Brienne of Tarth!". Maybe they even tried to do Brienne of Tarth, but the simply couldn't -- because they don't want to be some ugly Women's Rugby scrummer in a suit of armor, they want to be a pretty girl, and the character is their self-insert. The comic artist is just gaslighting you.

>pivoting a terrible storytelling trope to be about anti-cultural marxism

Attached: 1543418170110.png (205x252, 33K)

like so much else we write, it's just a stock phrase to fill in the space where a real thought should go.

There's one argument about Mary Sues and Gary Stus that I found compelling. Namely, the key difference between the two archetypes is that, while they are both vehicles for some kind of vicarious experience, Mary Sues tend to lack both agency and the need to prove themselves while Gary Stus tend to have both. Within this conception, there are male Mary Sues as well as female Gary Stus - as it is agency that is the dividing line.

That being said, people are more willing to overlook Gary Stus because they are actively working towards some goal against something or someone that is actively holding them back. While the Gary Stu shapes the world, the world shapes him. Compare that to a Mary Sue, who is a passive participant who lacks any clearly defined goals beyond some trite phrase that could be slapped onto a fortune cookie. The Mary Sue is a prop that is carted to the scene as the plot demands.

Who is John Galt?

Isekai light novels
But it's also full of Mary Sues too.

Yeah but chinks are like women insofar as they can't write so it doesn't count

E;R I didn't realize you visited Yea Forums

Because male mary sues don't get artificially propped up by marketers.

It's a lot more common in Fantasy and Sci-Fi, and even then, more so in games and films. The only one I could think of from a book was Geralt of Rivia from The Witcher series, and even then it's more prevalent in the games.

yes, they do
perfect female characters can exist in non-bothersome ways, also, it's just that they're much more likely to be there to serve a political point rather than for the sake of the story/characters/themes/whatever. It's harder to wrap trite politics into male perfection and so perfect male characters are more likely to exist for acceptable reasons.

Gary Stu's only exist in women's novels/films however.
>50 shades of grey
>Twilight

All seemingly perfect men with absolutely farcical imperfections. Mimbos the lot.

Compare and contrasts late capitalism relation to capeshit/sf/fantasy with the greek polis relationship to tragedy. In both cases the spectator is 'empowered' by the spectacle. The greeks experienced tragedy as something exhilarating, the confrontation of life with its limits. It was both political and deadly serious. On the other hand modern entertainment is locked in self disavowal , it's says im merely entertainment you shouldnt take me seriously. This becomes increasingly harder as time goes on. But myths have a deep psychological effect on us even when we dont take them seriously. Technology has given man seemingly unlimited control over nature, superpowers if you will.Just like greek warriors modelled themselves on Achilles, were Achilles, office drones and normies model themselves on superheroes. The ideal of the Wonder Woman empowered badass is just a cypher for the competent middle manager. Condescention, not populism is behind the liberal elite's embrace of pop culture. Criticism is no longer a question of considering art from different perspectives but of determining its therapeuthic utility. Is it good for you? Is it good for society? After all dont all demographics deserve a generic superhero who looks like them? They have taken away even the childlike joy of trash. Its all premeditated and focus grouped. George Lucas original starwars trilogy could only be a product of 1970s New Age Calfornia, thought up by a mildly narcissist geek who read Dune, the hero with a thousand faces, moebius comics and watched kurosawa samurai movies. The residual mystery of the bullshit 'oriental' spirituality is replaced in the sequels by managerial girl boss philosophy.

What a load of gibberish.

Yeah, though these categorical genre-originating critiques are garbage anyway.

I think this post is right but also boring and trite in a sense. All discussion about mary sues as they are properly defined has been solved. What's more interesting to me is a discussion in general about how femininity is depicted in writing, and with what values it should be associated, and that's the direction the thread derailed in and also compelling. The fact that almost everyone conflates mary suedom with other aspects of writing is practically inconsequential to be honest desu.

I kind of feel the same way but dread rationalizing these feelings. I feel as though I am leading myself down an uncultured and lowbrow path by yielding to pretensions of what a form should be rather than judging it precisely how it is.

Every one that bangs dagny in atlas shrugged, plus the pirate guy. They are all more oerfect than the last. Titans of industry, passionate lovers, some brooding, all romantic. Not to mention they have giant cocks and are able to take down the government together to save Galt, the biggest Chad and stu, just becuase dagny needs to taste his cock.
The best part of the book is when Eddie is trying to fix the train at the end, he’s doing his very hardest to keep the dagnys legacy alive. He screams her name in vain as he is about to die, all the while dagny is getting fucked silly by Chad Galt. LOL.

This faggot should learn how to draw, this shit looks grotesque.

>While the Gary Stu shapes the world, the world shapes him
Then that sorts of defeats the purpose of a Gary Stu where one is already perfect and needs no changing

Nobody complains about Brienne. I like Brienne

Big-think I.Q.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I think one thing to point out about James Bond is that he's specifically designed to be an outlier of a character--an uber-cool, hypermasculine surrogate that guys can watch and feel like when they see this movies, kind of like Indiana Jones.

I think the difference with female characters is that, especially in today's films, people are so afraid to put them through actual trials for fear of being labeled as "misogynistic". This is why the worst injury Rey has received thus far in the new trilogy are a few cuts and bruises--by this point in the OT, Luke had been knocked unconscious by a Tusken Raider, mauled by a Wampa, nearly frozen to death, crashed, and had his hand chopped off. He and other male heroes often go through harsher physical punishments alongside their emotional ones; today's female characters seem to be just challenged on an emotional level.

Which is fine--as another user pointed out in this thread, Austen novels feature incredibly strong, compelling female characters who are interesting in their own right. They overcome whatever petty drama they're bogged down in and eventually win the day through merit of their emotional growth.

The problem is that, for action films, a character has to be put through both emotional and physical challenges in order for the audience to feel like any change is warranted, natural, or even real. And from what I've seen, female characters don't really suffer that.

Most women never mentally develop past the mind of a child. This is by design. The folly in society is pretending they are equal in all respects to men. Specifically politics and intellectual pursuits.

Attached: IMG_20190301_095804.jpg (854x821, 67K)

False. Doctor who & Sherlock Holmes are the biggest mary sue of them all.

Is Clarissa a Mary Sue?

Or Pamela?

They are being promoted for ideological reasons and not monetary nor artistic merit.

I just went to the street and punched a girl in the face, are you happy now? it's your fault

men can be mary sues too so. no

>be holmes
>be brilliant
>still be an insufferable asshole and opiod-adddictedd weak-willed tranny
>everyone fucking hates you
>the only guy who doesn't, Watson, still finds you're a wretch of a man and frequently wishes he could be done with you
That's not a mary sue.

Gerald doesn’t really count though. He’s not automatically ‘loved by all’ and faces persecution and ostracism, he’s not an expert in magic like The sorcerers. He’s hyper competent at his job, sure, but that’s not enough to be a Mary Sue. The world doesn’t revolve around him - There are many lords, kings, nobles etc, that he works for or serves, without them fawning over him.

this isn't a widely-recognized typology and I've never seen it before you. if I say Mary Sue and Gary Stu most people assume one is the opposite gendered version of the other, and as far as I'm concerned then that means that's the definition.
you're committing the sexism that the OP comic is accusing audiences of. you've arbitrarily assigned one of these terms to be 'better' or more active and you've arbitrarily chosen the male version to be superior. a differing degree of agency isn't inherent to these two terms.
now, I'm not saying this is some cackling hand-rubbing plot that you're consciously going through. but this typology you've introduced is strongly biased in favor of one group over another

Mr. Pee?

The most glaring examples of Gary Stus are probably romantic interests for the female self-insert main character in trash lit directed to women like Twilight and Sixty Shades of Grey or whatever.

uhhhh lol?

Genji is flawed though, he pursues relationships he shouldn't and gets punished for doing so

It literally doesn't matter if jews have a high average IQ, there's so few of them that the population of high IQ members of other races should still be larger.

Ok...? Do you have a point or what? It's like you think saying jewish will make you seem smart.

What a perplexingly moronic post.

I think you're a big retard. James Bond is not meant to be an outlier. James Bond is not an outlier in any form. Fuck, you can't consume only good media and then claim you can't find any examples of shit writing, like (who obviously hasn't read any pulp/genre fiction).

I'd have to see the math on that to confirm. To my understanding the average IQ for Ashkenazi Jews is 115 which is 15 points higher than the general average IQ of the West. That's quite considerable. Even if the Jews are indeed over-represented even in terms of IQ, then I assume it's the element of nepotism that is helping them get there. A Jew gets to the top, and as high-ranking positions open, they aim to hire other high-IQ Jews to the position and it's their right to hire who they like.

Funny how that works out.

Attached: 1517378609960.jpg (800x1200, 145K)

>that pic
>Yikes!
Do women actually think like that?

You've never been around many girls have you user?

no

Attached: NLDHDT5.jpg (720x762, 65K)

we'll make it bro, don't u worry none

Attached: 1518953094047.png (906x799, 672K)

Attached: Dgxt102XUAA1_-m.jpg (750x1067, 122K)

Mr. Pepe

Try Red Rising for an example

People literally think that its all just a matter of shopping around.

Even kafkaesque.

Perhaps, but ultimately the question is this: Do people tend prefer prefect male characters over prefect female characters because of their respective sex or how they are portrayed?

The conception I outlined may be called sexist, but only because the writers of the current trend of Mary Sues are sexist in assuming female hypo-agency - thus undermining their own objectives.

Black Panther in the film is a Gary Stu, not in the comics.

Obviously Mary Sues in this day and age are more likely to exist for political reasons, but both them and Gary Stus are equally bad when judging a work of fiction on it's own merits. I think some people have become so sensitive to politics that they've forgotten that.

Interestingly however, I will say that most objections to Gary Stu are targeted not at the Stu's character, but rather at the way he treats the female characters. Gary Stus tend to have harems or bland love interests that exist only for them, and I see lots of accusations of sexism be thrown towards the character as a result. You pretty much never hear such criticisms when the genders are reversed, interestingly enough.

Yeah, especially when the psychology of the characters is a more important aspect of a story. Fundamentally the problem with narcissistic wish fulfillment fantasy writing, regardless of gender, is that it's dishonest and pathetic, and I feel a deep loathing for 'false messiah'-characters like BBC Sherlock and what I've seen of the Protagonist of Doctor Who.

No they are being promoted coz retarded lowest common denominator lap shit like Mary and Gary Stus

seems like it. the feminine is treated as the resting, intuitive principle which is disturbed by logos as the negative. I'd argue that men and women become more similar as they individuate, and which point the male and female heroes journey basically converge, but this diagram is probably more accurate for less psychologically developed women while the corresponding masculine version would be more accurate for psychologically less developed men.

All the modern revisitations of the books are. He incarnates the utopia of a life entirely dedicated to the development of one's intellectual and creative faculties, and he's usually depicted as autistic in a very adorable way.

You get very interesting outcomes the moment you invert the sexes in fiction. I've been long interested in seeing how people would interpret an inverted Taming of the Shrew. I am under the impression that you would make some generic Rom Com with little to no objections from the audience, unlike the original.

Raskolnikov. The only guy who dislikes him is a moustache-twirling villian

People who overuse the word 'inherently' are just as annoying as people who overuse the word 'literally'

>Pride and Predjudice becomes a novel about men emotionally manipulating women
>The Bell Jar becomes an incel's diary
>The Great Gatsby becomes a feminist power fantasy
>Lolita becomes an /ss/ doujin in literary form

You're completely right and it's scary.

Raskolnikov is a horrible person, which is the entire point of the book.