Disaster Stop Calling Women Who Train For Years a “Mary Sue” in Media



***Spoilers for Prey ahead***

Waking up to “Mary Sue” trending isn’t exactly something that inspires confidence in the year of our lord 2022, yet here we are. On Twitter, I was confronted with a sea of people either angry that a character was called a Mary Sue or people doing the calling. The most recent entry into this strange and daunting trend is Naru (played by Amber Midthunder) from the new movie Prey, a prequel into the Predator franchise.

A video dropped from YouTube reviewer The Critical Drinker and in it, he ignores important information the film gives you as to why Naru is strong enough to take on the Predator, and why she survives. (Some of why are skills like knowing medicine and realizing that Predator can sense body temperature, and using that to her advantage where the other hunters in her tribe just want to hunt him as they would another animal). The Critical Drinker, critically, does say in his video that she’s “not” a Mary Sue despite completely missing the point of multiple scenes (and at one point getting mad that the French colonizers are depicted as gross?) but then there are YouTubers like Tyrone Magnus who called Naru a “Mary Sue” from the jump. Pair that with their large subscriber lists and it seems as if Naru is now a “Mary Sue” in the eyes of those who have no idea what a Mary Sue is. This got the topic trending on Twitter.

le sigh​

We here at The Mary Sue don’t have a problem with characters who are dubbed our namesake and for good reason: this website bears the Mary Sue moniker proudly because we think there’s nothing wrong with powerful, capable, heroically-minded people, or with looking toward an ideal version of what we can be. Traditionally, it’s young women who have been called Mary Sues since the advent of the phrase, but there are plenty of male characters who are also “depicted as unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses.” So-called “Mary Sue” characters tend to have the plot revolve around them, are incredibly powerful, and are considered special by the universe at large, or at least the other characters. Like, say, James Bond. The biggest one of them for me is Luke Skywalker, my dramatic prince. The presence of “Mary Sues” in a narrative basically just means that we’re either thrown into the story once they’re already good at something, they’re naturally talented, or they just so happen to be a person gifted with an ability at birth that makes it so they don’t have to train as much as others to become some the hero of the piece.

While again, men also frequently fall into this category of characters and are sometimes called “Gary Stus,” it is far less likely (from my own observations) that a male character will be called that and, instead, it falls to any female character in a movie or TV show or book that is a complete bad ass. The most recent trend with Naru makes no sense, because we actively see her training in the movie. In Prey, she also is observant and watches how Predator hunts and uses that to her advantage, making her successful in the end against him. The fact of the matter is that even when female characters doreceive lengthy training montages or explorations of their history that show why they’re so good at something, some people will still cry “Mary Sue.”

Most the arguments against Naru thus far have been: how does a young woman (many of the comments also commented Amber Midthunder’s weight and body, and that’s gross on a whole different level) take on the Predator, when highly skilled soldiers were nearly taken out in the first Predator movie?

The answer is simple: She watched how he hunted and found a way to outsmart him. I’m sorry but I don’t think that Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, and their team were out here monitoring the Predator in the same way that Naru was.

How much do women need to “train” to avoid this label?​

Naru joins characters like Arya Stark from Game of Thrones who are shown to be training, have trained their entire lives, and then are called a “Mary Sue” because they are the victorious heroes at the end of the day. What it boils down to is simply that sexism usually prevails over any actual character analysis, especially on the Internet. In the eyes of those who have a problem with it, they’re mad that the character doesn’t let a man take over.

And I’m sure when pressed, the people who constantly complain and yell about the characters they deem to be “Mary Sues” would say something about a male character being a better choice. In the reviews above, their justification for not believing in Naru went back to Dutch (Schwarzenegger) and how he was believable, but not Naru.

So the next time you want to say that a character is a Mary Sue while we’re watching her train in the movie, just say instead that you don’t want a woman to be the hero in something. Just speak your sexism outright because hiding behind a definition of a trope you don’t understand is getting aggressively exhausting.
 
Imagine watching films in 2022.

You could make the argument for the first film with him being a phenomenal pilot. But even then it's partial because being a mary sue means being good at absolutely everything without any noticeable investment and being fawned by everyone.
Nope.

"It's just like Beggar's Canyon back home..."

He's been flying for years.

If you look in the background before he meets Ben, you see a civilian version of the X-Wing behind him.

That's why he was able to fly the Death Star trench, him and Biggs had been doing it for years for sport, shooting whomp-rats in the canyon.
 
On the "training" business:

Personally, I'm split on whether the detail has much value. In terms of surface level import, any training sequence of any length can all be boiled down to the mere fact of "this person is prepared to some level to contend against whatever conflict he was preparing for". There's value in seeing that preparation play out-- it can help the viewer to sympathize with the struggle of the character to achieve his goal-- so, right off the bat, I'm not going to say that it's no better than just being told that the person was trained.

But "struggle" is something that can be shown pretty much anywhere else in the character's screentime. Proficiency gained from training can be demonstrated by way of contrast with another character, or with references to a past training, or with a demonstration of "rough around the edges" skill. The value of training itself can be instead accomplished from having a character managing to survive a series of progressively more difficult conflicts, and clearly learning from them. Ultimately, the same sympathy I talked about can be engendered with or without a training sequence. How well executed any of this ends up being comes to the skill of the writers and editors.

So, I'm of the mind that training sequences are fine, but are really only valuable when they're leveraged for something more than an explanation for why a character performing as he does in a conflict isn't completely unrealistic. People talk about "stakes" a lot I normally bite straight from the cow as its heart beats like an actual apex predator but fights should fundamentally be about more than "I gotta beat this guy"-- in a particularly serious narrative, I'd argue that more than just the character's fists should be involved. When I see someone preoccupied with the fact of a training sequence and its immediate import, but nothing more, I sometimes suspect the critic is more concerned about "things being done" rather than "a good story".

You could make the argument for the first film with him being a phenomenal pilot.
My understanding is that he was billed as "competent" rather than "phenomenal". At any rate, there's a video I found some time ago arguing that the final sequence of ANH is very well-constructed from-- most importantly-- a thematic standpoint.

 
Last edited:
Waking up to “Mary Sue” trending isn’t exactly something that inspires confidence in the year of our lord 2022, yet here we are.
Year of my Lord, maybe. You can stop with the cultural appropriation unless I'm mistaken in the belief you don't attend church regularly.

These training sequences are a joke in a story. I think these people are so broken brained from mediocre shonen anime that they think "training arcs" are supposed to be actual character development rather than an explanation of acquiring new skills or abilities. For example, I could train in boxing for 5 years straight and Canelo would probably still kick my ass simply because he's a freak of nature who understands the sport on a higher level than I likely ever could.

Therefore, it breaks my suspension of disbelief when some random girl who "trained" takes down a 7 foot freak of nature with highly advanced technology from an honor culture where the hunt is the end all, be all.
 
Ah... The Mary-Sue website, the den of fake geek girls and the biggest attention whores in the geek community. Fitting that a website called "The Mary-Sue" which is made of of the most insufferable women in geekdom will go to bat for insufferable, Mary-Sue female characters in pop culture. I don't think these insufferable feminists realize how much damage they are doing to the next generation of women. Many young girls are told, by man hating feminists and Hollywood, that they are better then men. That they are stronger, faster and more intelligent then men can ever be. That all they have to do is just try something and they will be a master at it. Problem is this isn't reality and you are seeing more and more young women get frustrated and break down in tears when they aren't automatically good at something or can't beat men at stuff.
 
I think these people are so broken brained from mediocre shonen anime that they think "training arcs" are supposed to be actual character development rather than an explanation of acquiring new skills or abilities.
Do you mean that the other way around? If leveraging a training arc as an occasion for character development is typical for "mediocre shonen anime", it'd be the one good thing they do.
 
Female characters tend to be Mary Sue's because women can't into character development. One of the few male characters that fit this archetype is Harry Potter, and guess who wrote him.

This legitimately seems to be a problem with the way that modern women write and consume fiction, or even react to real life issues and politics. No time for character arcs, development or subtlety. They have to start yass qweening immediately or their dopamine cooked brains start going into withdrawal.
 
Do you mean that the other way around? If leveraging a training arc as an occasion for character development is typical for "mediocre shonen anime", it'd be the one good thing they do.
I suppose both can apply, but to me it always seemed like "Oh, that's why Main Character-san got stronger and won the fight." It seemed more like a way to move the plot along/ give a reason for beating the current bad guy to me. Not that you can't use a training arc for character development, but only sometimes do the training arcs actually cause a character to grow rather than them just nebulously getting stronger.
 
Even if you train for years, there will still be trouble. Your victory still shouldn't be flawless in comparison to your ideological or greatest foe. This idea that even with years of training, of which there is none for these 'characters' let's be real, your protagonist will overcome your villain is childish. Sometimes, there is an unavoidable gap between people. Like a good developing rookie and a pro, debatably the best. There is no winning. Even if you rationalize it as best you can, it will still be a copout.

I do not expect a literal fucking spearchucker to contend with a centuries year old creature that hunts with technology so beyond the former's understanding it is effectively magic. Unless the former is capable of killing a Jaguar with their bare hands, I doubt there is an even 1% chance of that happening. It's like a toddler going up against Tyson.
 
Female characters tend to be Mary Sue's because women can't into character development. One of the few male characters that fit this archetype is Harry Potter, and guess who wrote him.

This legitimately seems to be a problem with the way that modern women write and consume fiction, or even react to real life issues and politics. No time for character arcs, development or subtlety. They have to start yass qweening immediately or their dopamine cooked brains start going into withdrawal.
It wasn't always like this. 60-70 years ago women did know how to write fiction. There were many great female authors who could write flawed female characters that went through a arc. However, the feminist movement came along and completely destroyed the way women wrote fiction. Instead of "liberating" women it made women bitter, fearful, angry, resentful, envious and hateful and it is reflected in the fiction women now write.
 
On the "training" business:

Personally, I'm split on whether the detail has much value. In terms of surface level import, any training sequence of any length can all be boiled down to the mere fact of "this person is prepared to some level to contend against whatever conflict he was preparing for". There's value in seeing that preparation play out-- it can help the viewer to sympathize with the struggle of the character to achieve his goal-- so, right off the bat, I'm not going to say that it's no better than just being told that the person was trained.

But "struggle" is something that can be shown pretty much anywhere else in the character's screentime. Proficiency gained from training can be demonstrated by way of contrast with another character, or with references to a past training, or with a demonstration of "rough around the edges" skill. The value of training itself can be instead accomplished from having a character managing to survive a series of progressively more difficult conflicts, and clearly learning from them. Ultimately, the same sympathy I talked about can be engendered with or without a training sequence. How well executed any of this ends up being comes to the skill of the writers and editors.

So, I'm of the mind that training sequences are fine, but are really only valuable when they're leveraged for something more than an explanation for why a character performing as he does in a conflict isn't completely unrealistic. People talk about "stakes" a lot I normally bite straight from the cow as its heart beats like an actual apex predator but fights should fundamentally be about more than "I gotta beat this guy"-- in a particularly serious narrative, I'd argue that more than just the character's fists should be involved. When I see someone preoccupied with the fact of a training sequence and its immediate import, but nothing more, I sometimes suspect the critic is more concerned about "things being done" rather than "a good story".


My understanding is that he was billed as "competent" rather than "phenomenal". At any rate, there's a video I found some time ago arguing that the final sequence of ANH is very well-constructed from-- most importantly-- a thematic standpoint.

The best training montage in my opinion is "Be a man" in Mulan. The song itself is fun and catchy but what happens during the song is great and relates to rest of the movie.

Before the song starts we get set up with Mulan failing badly to make a good first impression. The boys being not being friendly, respectful or mature and definitely not being impressed or liking her. Who the pretty boy captain is, what he wants and why is he in charge. Then the captain sets up a challenge, get an arrow from a tall pole with the symbolic weights on. Que a failing montage that slides in to the song. So, we know what this song is about before it's starts, these guys including Mulan aren't good enough and the hot shirtless love intrest guy will try make them good enough.

First of we see all of the main characters struggling and failing with the training in entering ways but still keep going. This not only sets us to like these characters despite their earlier actions but more importantly sets up the turning point of the song.

Mulan is doing so badly that she gets kicked out the army but she decides to try to prove herself one last time before leaving. She goes for the arrow again and fails once more, but then realizes what she needs to do. She uses her greatest strength, thinking outside the box. She uses the symbolic weights as a climbing tool. It doesn't do everything, the task still takes a long time and pushes her to edge of not being strong enough. The other guys kinda stumble on her doing this, while she already high but not done. They are impressed and cheer her. She uses the arrow to show she did it as the guys celebrate the feat together.

Then the rest of the song is a success montage to show that the training is working. They are able to do what they previously failed at and are in general acting much better as song gets intense for the ending.

If look at this montage, this does actually quite little to justify Mulan's skills. Her creative thinking got established earlier in the movie plenty of times and that's how she wins pretty much all her fights. No, this isn't about justifying Mulan outside of why the other characters like her, this about moving the story forward in general that also happens to show how Mulan getting stronger.

The song is basically a self contained mini story about working trough failures that ends to wonderful emotional high, but this mini story has everything do with rest of the movie. Just following scene shows that huns are also skilled and tactical, the impressive training we just saw might not be enough. Giving us more reason to fear the enemy. This is followed by a natural continuation to the song. The characters making up, becoming friends and setting off to the war. Plus the song had the plentiful foreshadowing of tools and techniques that are important later in the movie, like the canon for the mountain fight and how the characters get into palace. "Be a man" is a fun, dense and important moment. The training isn't there to make Mulan strong but make her and others likable so that care about them when fights and danger comes.
 
Who are they talking about? I thought Ray in Star Wars was the only recent example of this that pissed people off. She never left her planet, yet somehow knew how to do a ton of bullshit immediately. With Luke, they establish he's a semi-competent pilot throughout the film.

Were there any notorious ones since then?
 
Yes, professional soldiers would not at all pay any attention to how their enemy operates, nor would they try to learn his strengths and weaknesses.
Well, they weren't at first. Billy figured out it was honorable and liked to fight (somewhat) "fair", but most of the time, Arnie's squad was just trying to shoot the fuck out of it. That was a key part of their character arc.

It wasn't until basically everyone except Arnie was dead that he changed tactics and fought smarter; sneaking and hiding and eventually luring it into a trap.

(that stuff was believable, of course, because Arnie was a crazy SpecOps commando, and would have had years of training in guerilla warfare shit. Arnie definitely could have iced a bear with his bare hands)

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not going to comment on the article (except to say "lol TheMarySue seething over a Mary Sue"); I've heard the actress is good but the plot is dumb. Is it worth watching? What does Kiwifarms think?
 
Back