A Question

[laleia]

Before I ask my question, I should probably make two things clear:

1.) I've never read Twilight.
2.) I believe that Mary Sue should be defined as any original character written in a fanfic; as such, I do not believe that female characters in the original source canon should ever be referred to as Mary Sues because quite often, these accusations are actually the result of underlying (internalized or otherwise) misogyny.

Obviously, a lot of people disagree with me about #2. In fact, people often accuse major and minor female characters of being Mary Sues. One recurring example that comes up is Bella Swann from Twilight. I've never actually read Twilight (and I never really plan on doing so, unless it's for a specific purpose; it doesn't sound like the kind of thing I would enjoy for fun), so I've never been able to defend Bella, as it were.

It has recently come to me to wonder, however:

Why is that people always refer to Bella Swann as Mary Sue but I've yet to see anyone refer to Edward Cullen as a Mary Sue (or a Gary Stu)?

I mean, is there an actual canonical reason? Does Edward Cullen in the books simply have more explicit flaws or something? He's less perfect?

Comments

[askerian]

Maybe because Edward's the "love interest" and doesn't feel like a person in his own right. IDK, I found them both bad characters. I only read the first book, as well, so maybe more stuff happens in the others.

For me a Sue is a character that warps the established laws of the setting in their favor without a good reason. Harry Potter isn't a Sue because Voldemort was the one who chose between him and Neville in the prophecy, and he gets a lot of shit along with the respect and admiration, and along with his innate abilities there's also a lot of stuff he's only so-so at; Hermione's way smarter, Ron's more tactical, and he doesn't ace any of his classes apart from DADA and flying. If he were a woman I would think the same thing -- he's the main character because a lot of interesting things happen to him, and his personality in turn means he happens to a lot of people and plotlines, and he's got some weird magic done to him which means he's special, but he doesn't warp the setting entirely. Special =/= Sue.

The world is also not divided between people who love harry unconditionally and admire him and never think he can do wrong, and people who hate him and are obviously evil/blind/stupid. Lots of people love him but think he does stupid shit and call him on it, some people admire him blindly but are seen as creepy/embarrassing/not really knowing him at all, some people dislike him but it doesn't stop them being not-evil. Some people don't especially care at all!

Of course part of it is misogyny, internalized and otherwise, and a lot of women get called Sues when they shouldn't. That word is used way too much. But as for Bella, she is so full of setting-warping. I don't think they ever explained why she, a baseline human, was immune to Edward's mind-reading, for example, or why he found her smell/pheromones/whatever so totally intoxicating; also she was supposed to come across as sympathetic when she kept pissing and moaning about how people in her new place dared to be super-interested in her, while also doing the fake-modesty-please-flatter-me thing. (note, Bella didn't do it openly, she was all "i'm not that hot" which I could have believed she believed of herself, but the narration did it for her, along with the not-hot-enough guys who dared to be interested. The character isn't to blame when a Sue happens, the author definitely is.) The world and the plot kept warping to fit her, instead of her having to take her lumps and try something else to get what she wanted.

Edward was also full of speshulness but I don't remember that he especially broke the laws of the universe. I mean, he sparkles in the sun but all vampires seem to. He's telepathic but you have a vampire that can see the future. He's super crazy hot but most vampires are. The fact that he would choose Bella added to HER speshulness more than the other way around -- he probably just seemed strange to other vampires for going so crazy about a mere human, not OMG CHOSEN. As for his personality, uh. Mostly he was the classical controlling-stalker-boyfriend whose possessiveness is meant to come off as intensely romantic. I don't remember how his vampire family treated him, but even in normal families there might be a favorite, and I don't remember that he was outrageously treated so.

Anyway, Sueness for me isn't linked to powers, or to personality, it's more of a disconnect between the text telling us things are one way, and the subtext telling us things are one way EXCEPT FOR THIS PERSON -- not even because of a reasoned exception to the usual rules, which makes for a good main character (for a lot of genres, the main character pretty much HAS to not be baseline/normal in some way, or nothing happens), or because the character's personality is quirky or charismatic and it's logical people would react to them differently or do them favors, but because the author believes they're just that awesome and doesn't see a need to really show any of it. It's a failure to prove that the character deserves to be seen that way, because the author doesn't seem to conceive that anyone could not know that from the get-go, because they identify so much with them and idealize them like crazy. In that sense, a sue can definitely happen in ofic.

[askerian]

Thinking about it a bit more, I think the difference between a character coming across as a Sue or not (male or female) is whether the characters in the setting include some who are indifferent to him, or only have the kind of vague opinion/interest you'd get toward your neighbor who you see maybe once a week and never really talk to, or some random coworker. Because when Sue happen there's a lot of group compassion/interest/coddling/worship, more than is warranted by their social status/job/actions. It's like even strangers are interested in the details of their courtship and want to send them cookies when things don't work out with something, like the character's actions aren't validated if they aren't witnessed by more people than simply their immediate friends/partners/coworkers/people who'd give a crap. Usually there's that very teenagery vibe of "you all should be sorry you didn't realize how unique and precious this person amongst you is". It's like the setting and background characters aren't doing their own thing even where the focus of the story isn't on them, but like they're hanging out and waiting for their chance to play the peanut gallery.

[laleia.livejournal.com]

I think it's pretty difficult for an original source canon character to warp the rules of the setting when their setup and their existence is part and parcel of the setting, and thus the rules of the setting. In other books/movies/TV shows, main characters are frequently special and/or break the rules in some way (the one character who has magic despite all the reasons they shouldn't, or the one character who doesn't have magic even though his/her entire family does, or the one character who can resist the pull of the One Ring, or the only character who can defeat the enemy, or the only character who doesn't pick a side, etc.)

That being said, I didn't know that Bella's special scent and/or mind-reading-blocking was never explained. (I assumed there was at least some attempt to address that.) I wonder if Stephenie Meyer ever even had an explanation in mind.

As for the setup, I feel like Edward Cullen's setup (if you reversed the genders) of "I am super-special because I am supernatural and attract people around me. The new boy that everybody else has a crush on has decided to focus on me and become obsessed with me and wants to be with me even though I put him in danger, he doesn't care" can easily become an equally Mary-Sue premise.

I do see your point about Sueness being linked to whether or not there are characters who are indifferent to them, who are not invested in them and/or do not care about them. But can't that same argument be made about Edward?

[That's a legitimate question; you've read the book and I haven't. Are there characters who are indifferent to Edward Cullen?]

I'm not arguing that Bella isn't poorly written, but isn't Edward Cullen poorly-written in much the same ways? Why does Bella think he is so perfect? Why does she like him so much?

Anyways, thanks for your comment! :)

[essbeejay.livejournal.com]

Your question really made me stop and go, "Huh" at myself, because despite how sparkly and insipidly underdeveloped Cullen is I never associated him with a Sue/Stu, while I certainly did it with Bella. But then I was reminded that quite a few comments I've read of Meyer's - particularly the ones where she talks about how she'd have trouble choosing between Edward and Jacob if they both showed up at her door, not to mention the fact that she was inspired to write the series by a dream she had about a gorgeous vampire boy - give me the impression that Bella is largely a projection of herself into the story. So a lot of Bella's Mary Sue-ness (for myself, at least) has to do with the author's gender in this case.

The setup is also pretty... well, familiar. Bella is the new kid at school. Everybody at her new school either wants to be her friend or date her. Including the sickeningly gorgeous hot boy who turns out to be a vampire.

Edited for word choice, plus the fact that I have another thing in my head about how I often classify a character as Sue-ish/Stu-ish based on the gender of the author/creator, but it's too late for my brain to work properly and I'm not convinced Twilight is worth the energy.

[laleia.livejournal.com]

I knew that a lot of Stephenie Meyer's comments indicated that Bella Swann is a huge self-insert, but if you're going by the definition of a Mary Sue as the author's projection into a fictional world, there are an awful lot of male self-inserts in other books that never get labeled "Gary Stu." One example might be the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy which is written by a Swedish journalist and is about a Swedish journalist who solves crimes and saves the day. I've seen his self-insertion name-checked on occasion, but I don't really see his main character accused of being a Mary Sue as often as Bella is. Granted, his books are an entirely different ballpark from Twilight but the self-insertion at the very least doesn't seem to bother people much at all.

Meanwhile, especially on TV shows that are most often written by men, female characters that appear are very often accused of being Mary Sues, usually along the lines of "It's not the character's fault, of course. But the author tried to make their love interest too perfect, and of course, being too perfect makes her a Mary Sue."

But, of course, I can see how the gender of the author/creator factors into your personal classification of Sue/Stu-ishness. Out of curiosity, how are you affected if you don't know the gender of the author/creator?

As for the setup, I feel like the Edward Cullen's setup (if you reversed the genders) of "I am super-special because I am supernatural and attract people around me. The new boy that everybody else has a crush on has decided to focus on me and become obsessed with me and wants to be with me even though I put him in danger, he doesn't care" can easily become an equally Mary-Sue premise.

Thanks for your comment! :)

[sabrina-il.livejournal.com]

Actually when I first described Girl With the Dragon Tattoo to my friends (movie, not book, but same diff) I described the male protag as a Mary Sue. Because he is, a huge one! I've never seen him refered to as such in professional reviews, but then pro reviews wouldn't call anyone a Mary Sue, generally, and there isn't a fandom for Girl With The Dragon Tattoo that would make it possible to "test" the theory, but. I'm one of those people who refer to author self inserts (around whom the story also revolves) as Sues, male or female (and I don't necessarily think they're a sign of bad writing! It depends!) and there are many examples like that in literature. I think it's also less accentuated in Girl because unlike Twilight, the male journalist isn't the center of every single plotline/scene, though, whereas Bella is literally all over every page of Twilight.

Not that I don't think there's isn't tons of misogyny involved in stuff like this, especially in TV fandoms. I recently got into Doctor Who, and I mean, if there was EVER A MARY SUE IN EXISTANCE the character of the Doctor would be it. God-like perfect being who travels the world and saves the universe and is universally adored and so on. But of course, the person who gets called a Mary Sue most often in fandom is River Song, his wife/girlfriend, for being "too perfect".

[laleia.livejournal.com]

Exactly! To everything!

[darklightluna.livejournal.com]

I've heard of him being referred to as a Gary Stu/Mary Sue, a walking cardboard cut out, and is often bitched about more than even Bella.

[laleia.livejournal.com]

See, I've heard him bitched about a lot (mostly because he's the obsessive stalker boyfriend in an abusive relationship) but less about his Gary Stu-ish tendencies. This is, however, because I hang out with sane people who shun Twilight, and not actual Twilight fans. :)

[aimmyarrowshigh.livejournal.com]

Edward is DEEPLY self-loathing, and frankly, Edward is nothing BUT flaws (in my opinion; not Bella's). People don't call Edward a Mary Sue because he's not based on Stephenie Meyer, which is what a Mary Sue is: a character based on the author's wishful self-insertion into a fictional world.

And I think you're fundamentally wrong with your assumption in #2; a Mary Sue in fic is explicitly a character based on the author's self-insertion into a story, and I think it's more than possible to write an OC when the plot demands it who has nothing to do with yourself and whom you would never, ever want to be (for example: any OC I have EVER written into Panem. DNW. Ever. Love the characters. Would NEVER want to be from District Five or Twelve or One. ...And why I never write OC's for Four. :P)

However, I do agree that it's problematic when people assign original source canon characters unless they did genuinely derive FROM a fic Mary Sue (like Clary Fray in The Mortal Instruments, who derived from Cassandra Clare's AU Ginny Weasley, who was basically Cassandra Clare [hence 'Clary']). BUT.

Stephenie Meyer essentially wrote Twilight as a fanfiction of the general vampire genre, for fun for herself and as a Christmas gift to her sister. Bella Swan is based on herself, the way she wishes she were -- and she admits this. That is the dictionary definition of a Mary Sue; she just didn't come as a side-product to an existing fanworks canon.

[laleia.livejournal.com]

I knew that a lot of Stephenie Meyer's comments indicated that Bella Swann is a huge self-insert, but if you're going by the definition of a Mary Sue as a character based on the author's wishful self-insertion into a fictional world and ignoring how well-written and/or flawed/flawless the character is, there are an awful lot of male self-inserts in other books that never get labeled "Gary Stu." One example might be the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy which is written by a Swedish journalist and is about a Swedish journalist who solves crimes and saves the day. I've seen his self-insertion name-checked on occasion, but I don't really see his main character accused of being a Mary Sue as often as Bella is. Granted, his books are an entirely different ballpark from Twilight but the self-insertion at the very least doesn't seem to bother people much at all.

As for Edward being self-loathing, I gather from other people's comments that Bella also has a habit of saying or thinking disparaging things about herself and/or thinking poorly of herself when the canon contradicts it, making it more of a false modesty. Edward may be self-loathing, but since he is viewed as so perfect (by Bella, at least, and presumably the general population finds him a heartthrob as well), wouldn't that be false modesty as well?

[Once again, I haven't actually read the series, so it's very possible that the self-loathing is a huge flaw different/separate from Bella's low self-esteem. I haven't actually seen it come up as much in the Twilight sporkings I've bothered to read, so I don't know much about it.]

That being said, I was unaware that Stephenie Meyer intended Twilight to be fanfiction of the general vampire genre (although that makes a lot of sense), and I can see how that intention can make Bella into more of a Mary Sue.

My assumption in #2 is less an assumption and more my personal definition of Mary Sue. I choose not to assign original characters in source canon the label Mary Sue and choose to assign all original characters the label Mary Sue simply because the distinction between a well-written original character and a poorly-written Mary Sue is often up to each reader's personal preference. (For example, when scrolling through summaries of stories up on fanfiction.net, I frequently come across summaries like "Original Character X has a secret, and must do ______ and ends up making friends with our favorite characters" which have plenty of reviews from people who enjoy it and don't consider it a Mary Sue, whereas I am instantly put off because of the summary.)

This is especially true in original canons, when people will often have widely different opinions about whether a character is a Mary Sue or not, and a character can be considered very well-written by one fan and one-dimensional and Mary Sue-ish to another fan. That's why I ascribe to my personal definition, but I recognize this is not the definition the majority of people on the Internet use. I should probably also have clarified that as a result of my definition, I don't think a Mary Sue is always a bad thing, and that well-written Mary Sues can be good comfort reading when you're in the right mood. For example, Penny/Pen-ii is a character in a LotR fanfic "Don't Panic" that I read a long time ago that I consider a Mary Sue (she's a person from our world who was transported to Middle-Earth) but that I consider well-written and quite addicting in terms of plot. However, other people will generally not consider her a Mary Sue because the character/plot is well-written despite the premise.

In other words, I know that my definition of a Mary Sue is not everyone else's, and the reason I mentioned it was to give context as to the way I view characters in general.

Anyways, thanks for the comment! :)

[lilbabiangel888.livejournal.com]

Everyone's made good points above but I just wanted to add that it may have to do with the author's gender.
Specifically that if SMeyer was a straight man and wrote Twilight, I'm pretty sure Edward would be instantly labeled as the Gary Stu. The events of the novel would be interpreted from his POV of course but from the way everyone reacts to him (Bella's sickening worship of his looks, vampires' general coolness and untouchability, his special mind-reading powers, and I believe even Edward's father remarks on the beauty of Edward's face. CREEPY) the laws of the universe do sort of bend around him. Especially considering that he "gets the girl" at the end just as much as Bella "gets" him.

[laleia.livejournal.com]

And I understand that the author's gender plays a big factor for some people but

1.) What if you don't know the author's gender? Does that affect how you interpret the work and/or the Sueishness of the various characters?
2.) Why is it that male self-inserts aren't called on being Mary Sues as often as female ones? (Example: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I've seen the author's blatant self-insertion called out several times but I don't think the main character has ever been explicitly called a Mary Sue, or at least nowhere near as often as Bella.)
3.) I feel like there's also a lot of original canon written by men, who give their male characters semi-perfect female love interests, and those female love interests are often being called Mary Sues, so I don't know if it's quite a gender thing. An example for me: female characters on Doctor Who (where both Russell T. Davies and Steven Moffat are both male; although I think the former might be gay?) are often called Mary Sues. An example for you: .... I think this might happen on Supernatural? I'm not sure, though? Considering I don't know the canon, the fanon, or the fandom?

But then, I've always had an atypical perception of Mary Sues (see the number of fanfics I've written starring Mary Sues).

[lilbabiangel888.livejournal.com]

1) Well we might also have to consider the demographic at which the work is targeted. SMeyer's Bella lends herself to being called a Mary Sue because she's patterned after the author and targeted towards other women who want to be like her. I'd contend that if she did that for a male audience with a male character, it would be a valid Gary Stu regardless of the fact that SMeyer is a woman.
2) I've not read GwtDT but I've watched the film and Mikael (the male lead) is just not what you imagine as a self-insert. The world doesn't revolve around him the way it usually does around a protagonist Mary Sue/Gary Stu. The thing is, I've read nowhere near as much Mary Sue stuff as you have and the original fiction I've read usually doesn't usually have such a blatant one as the protagonist. I mean like Twilight blatant.
I've not read the Larssen books but I always imagined Lisbeth as the protagonist since she's the one creating the action and moving the narrative forward. But that may be just me.
3) There should be a differentiation, I think, between a Mary Sue character and a protagonist Mary Sue. Mary Sues happen all the time, and they should, as they help the audience relate and act as foils for the main characters. But with Bella, a protagonist Mary Sue who is bland to that extreme and yet also has the entire canon population revolve around her as much as it does just isn't good writing. Getting called out for having a Mary Sue isn't a bad thing right? From what you wrote, I sort of feel like you think it is.

[laleia.livejournal.com]

1) I concede that Bella and Twilight is targeted towards other women who want to be like her. I feel like there's a harsher standards for female characters and female audiences than for male characters and male audiences, however, which leads me to ...

2) My argument for GwtDT is less that the world revolves around the main character (which, Mikael is explicitly identified as the main character on almost any summary of the book that I have read, as well as the cover blurb, I believe) because I do think that Larssen exhibits better writing than Meyer (even though it's still not to my taste), but more focusing on the mere act of self-insertion. He has a male character who is doing everything he would like to do, in essence, and represents an idealized form of him.

That's just one example, though. I feel like throughout history, there have been numerous epics written with male heroes that the (presumed) male audience is a huge fan of that is very idealized (ranging from Charlemagne to Arthurian epics to Odysseus to Gilgamesh to Hercules), where the world revolves around a male character who surmounts unthinkable odds towards improbable ends. And some of them are pretty bland, IMO. I feel like most people who dismiss Bella Swann as a Mary Sue aren't so willing to go through History and Literature and Important Things (mostly written by men and about men) and apply the same critique to them. If people do, of course, I'm more than willing to let them go about calling characters out left and right on being Mary Sues, which leads me to

3) I personally don't think Mary Sues are a bad thing (which is also in line with my personal definition of Mary Sue). My problem is that people are going about dismissing my favorite characters as Mary Sues, because they're too perfect or have no flaws, or have no canon proof of their flaws, or are better than the main characters, or aren't as good as the main characters, or canon says they're awesome but isn't showing it, or when canon shows their awesomeness it's coming out of nowhere.

Fortunately, most people I hang out with are reasonable about female characters and are awesome (there's nothing more awkward than being super-happy to meet a person RL who is also fannish and reads fanfic ... only to learn that they prefer to read Ginny-bashing fic because they hate her so much and think she's a Mary Sue), but I am still peeved about a double standard about how much attention a female character is allowed to get vs. a male character.

Anyways, the point of my question was to solicit ideas about why Bella is a Mary Sue but Edward is not (beyond the obvious answer: misogyny). (Well, actually the point of my question was to be cheeky, but also acquire information without actually having to read the books.)

The point you bring up, that you feel Edward Cullen is more of a Mary Sue character (in that he acts as Bella's foil) while Bella Swann is more of a protagonist Mary Sue is interesting. (... was that your point?)

(P.S. I wanted to use the word "salient" somewhere in this comment, but I forgot where. So I'm putting it here, and you can insert it anywhere you like. :P)

[lilbabiangel888.livejournal.com]

"My problem is that people are going about dismissing my favorite characters as Mary Sues, because they're too perfect or have no flaws, or have no canon proof of their flaws, or are better than the main characters, or aren't as good as the main characters, or canon says they're awesome but isn't showing it, or when canon shows their awesomeness it's coming out of nowhere. "

Wow that's a lot of ground you cover. But I don't understand some of your point. I don't think my first reaction would be to dismiss them but I would find it strange or contradictory if canon says a character is awesome but there is no evidence for it or maybe even a lot of evidence against it. Maybe an example would help?


As for you question about why Edward isn't a Mary Sue...(ahem misogyny)
Well I just imagined if I was a guy, would I identify with this sparkling, beautiful, obsessive, controlling, overly protective vampire? Well no. But I mean, in SMeyer's eyes, Edward is like the perfect specimen and that's inherently not Mary Sue-ish because how is anyone supposed to self-insert themselves into a perfect being? He's not meant to be the Mary Sue, he's meant to define who the Mary Sue actually is, which is Bella because she is receiving the deluge of attention from the perfect being despite not doing anything at all to warrant such attention. So...no, it wasn't really my point for Edward to be a Mary Sue.

[laleia.livejournal.com]

Okay so, an example: I've heard many, many people refer to Ginny Weasley as a Mary Sue, and I've heard every one of those reasons given at some point. Many people dislike her (ranging from virulently hate to finding her off-putting) and their main reason is because she's a Mary Sue.

Also, it's interesting that you say Edward is too perfect and it's impossible for (possible, potential male) readers to identify with him, so that's why you don't consider him a Mary Sue. I've seen a lot of other people define Mary Sues as someone who is perfect and lacks noteworthy canon flaws. Often, the reason they dislike Mary Sue is because it's impossible to identify with them. But I see how according to your definition, Bella is the character the reader and target audience is intended to identify with and Edward is not.