Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/7360
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

In [this question](https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/7358/is-there-any-standardized-definition-of-a-mary-sue) I asked about whether there was a standardized definition of the term "Mary Sue". However, a related question would be whether the repeated dilution of the use of the term has rid it of any merit as a label.

I ask this because in my ventures, I've heard the term used to cut down any character who shows any signs of sticking out too much, out of a desire to either darken the story down (or to "ground" it) or simply make fun of a new author. On one hand, there are people who say that the Mary Sue archetype can (very rarely) be used to good effect. On the other hand, some people insist that all Mary Sues are bad, as being bad is part of their definition.

When people do the latter, they risk either making the gross generalization that all idealized characters are inherently bad, or making the archetype lose all meaning. If a character is idealized to the point of unrealism, why not simply call her an unrealistic character? What good does the term "Mary Sue" actually serve in this case? And when people do the former, they violate the inherently negative connotation that Mary Sue has come to acquire. Who is right, if any?

Original score: 0