Talk:Mary Sue

Previous entries to this Talk page from before August, 2006 have been archived here. - Runa27 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More previous entries to this Talk from before January 2007 have been archived here. - Runa27 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

More previous entries to this Talk from before January 2009 have been archived here. - Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bella Swan in the See Also section

Bella Swan is listed in the see also section but is not refrenced at all anywhere else. I agree with whoever listed it though, Bella is the greatest example of a canon Sue I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.106.82 (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact, I once added a section on Bella Swan, since she is, after all, the most prototypical "Mary Sue" in the history of professional literature. However, the segment kept getting deleted by rabid "Twilight" fans, so I eventually gave up on it. It's too bad though, because having an article on the "Mary Sue" phenomena without referencing Bella Swan is like writing a history of World War II without ever mentioning Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we REALLY to the point where one of us has to make a blog entry about Bella Swan, just so someone else can "cite" it?

I'm Jewish. Every other Jewish person reading this knows exactly where I'm going with this already, but let me explain for the rest of you: In Jewish Rabbinical circles, nobody will take you seriously unless you cite another Rabbi when making a claim. For example, Rabbi A might say "eating pork is okay if it saves a baby's life", but no other Rabbi would accept it unless Rabbi A said "Excuse me, I meant to say that Rabbi B once said that eating pork is okay if it saves a baby's life". It seems to me that this is the point we're to with Wikipedia. We're all pretending that we can't state the obvious unless some doofus has made a Blog Entry somewhere backing up what we want to say.

The fact that people keep wanting to add Bella Swan to this page has nothing to do with "hating Twilight". In fact, classifying a character as a "Mary Sue" isn't necessarily a "bad thing" or an "insult", it's just a description. The people that want to add that particular character mainly want to do so because THAT'S WHAT THE CHARACTER IS. Yes, the books and movie are popular. Which is, of course, why the character is receiving attention.

Here's another example: Let's say that you were doing a Wiki entry on Superheros, and somebody wouldn't let you cite Spawn, because "Superhero is a term jointly trademarked by Marvel and D.C., and therefore Spawn cannot be cited as a Superhero". You'd think it was silly and stupid, right? And pretty much a disservice to Wikipedia, given that Spawn was one of the most popular and influential Superheros of the 90's.

In any event, I wish all of us could just get over the whole Fanboyism thing. Bella Swan should be referenced on this page because the character is the most high-profile example of the archtype. Keeping the character off because "fanboys love her" or "fanboys hate her" is just plain dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike 209.33.202.98, I'm not going to make any gross generalizations about why editors add or remove references to Bella Swan; instead, I'll just say why I remove them: because they're never referenced. Any of them. Ever.

Wikipedia isn't a list of things that everyone knows—or at least it shouldn't be. It should be a compilation of what's been previously published by verifiable reliable sources. When you can find a reliable source that says that Bella's a Mary Sue, feel free to add that to the article (hint: blogs are explicitly not reliable sources). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"When you can find a reliable source that says that Bella's a Mary Sue" How about the Twilight books themselves, are they reliable enough for you? 202.89.137.147 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably never find a reliable published source that Bella is a Mary-Sue though. Most people agree that she is a Mary-Sue, but that's just a matter of opinion, isn't it? So where would one go to find a reliable source stating that she is one? I could write an article stating that, but it probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Even the fans of Twilight will admit she is one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.132.108 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If a verifiable reliable source can't be found for a statement, that's usually a tip that it's not something worth including in an encyclopedia. OTOH, if something is commonly known, someone should eventually mention it in a usable source. For instance, this article in today's SJSU Daily Spartan. Consequently, I've added it to this article, and because it has a source, it's likely to remain. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link doesn't succeed - it is an opinion posted in a student newspaper, not a proper critical analysis of the concept. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Imo, that source completely supports the statement that "original characters in role-playing games or literary canon are also sometimes criticized as being "Mary Sues"". In that article, she's an original character that's being criticized as a Mary Sue, yes? The article doesn't say that it's solely about litcrit theory (f it was, it would be considerably shorter and should include {{litcrit}}). And pretty much anything that uses the phrase "Mary Sue" will be someone's opinion. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read your own Wikipedia article on "Mary Sue" you'll notice that Bella Swan actually fulfills the criteria listed in this very article. Therefore, she is technically a "Mary Sue". 202.89.136.172 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you read WP policies (such as WP:V or WP:RS), you'll see what can be added is what's independently verifiable. "Meets the criteria" isn't what matters. "A published academic paper says she meets the criteria" is. Now, as to whether this article should allow statements published by verifiable reliable sources outside of the litcrit world—ah, that's another discussion altogether. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying Bella Swan isn't a Mary Sue because nobody else has published anything stating that she's a Mary Sue and therefore it isn't "official" that she is one. 203.211.77.193 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Projection

The difficulty with finding objective sources for this kind of thing is that, precisely because the concept is an author and maybe reader projection, both author and reader are often sensitive about any such suggestion. For example, the entire concept of ego projection directly counters objectivism. This pretty much limits any research into these areas to those journals or other publishing portals that already preach to the choir. For Wikipedia purposes, it might be simplest to wait until the first wave of popularity blows over -- it always does -- at which point the question can be approached without quite so much emotional investment. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.43 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

"Litmus tests have also been criticised for increasing a character's rating for trivial attributes, such as having the same gender as the author (there are only two genders to choose from), being a teenager (even if the character would be LESS believable had they been older) or for the author pretending they are the character (which is in fact useful for better characterisation)."

Shouldn't this page note that almsot all mary sue tests are intended to be taken as asking questions against established canon? Words like "unusual" in these tests mean unusual in context. The example about sci-fi and fantasy settings making high mary sue scores is incorrect because it assumes that a test-taker took the test incorrectly - you're supposed to mark things that stand out in the canon: having magical powers, for example, doesn't stand out in a fantasy setting where most characters have magical powers, so a test taker should not mark it even though it's technically correct.

As for real poeple such as Bono being mary sues according to tests; it should also be noted that a fictional character in a fanfiction-type setting with the same attributes is usually poorly recieved regardless of whether or not such people actually exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.250.139 (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)