Is Rey a Mary Sue?

[Ellie Mors]

I am practically disgusted some people think otherwise

10/10 best argument in the history of arguments.

But also, even wounded; Kylo should've still had the upper-and and won pretty handily.

Kylo Ren survived what was shown in the exact same movie to be what was basically a single-shot-kill weapon. We see a storm trooper, donned in full riot armor, get killed in a single shot by a bowcaster. Kylo isn't even wearing armor and gets shot near center mass and barely even acts like he is hurt.

​This opinion is the height of stupidity.

No, you are providing me so many more quotes to prove that not only is the opinion you're voicing your dissent against is justified by your remarks here, but also that you're a massive hypocrite.

because Disney clearly pushes an agenda

Hey, here we find this word again. Yes. Disney doesn't push alt-right values onto its audience. This doesn't mean they push an agenda, unless pushing an agenda means not creating propaganda for the political spectrum you're in favor of.

This is why most people find so-called "Gary Stus" like Luke tolerable and even likable, because they at least have a coherent character trajectory to go along with their immense power, making for a compelling underdog story that sees the viewer rooting for the protagonist to take their rightful place at the top. By contrast we have Rey who lacks this sort of action-based forward motion and instead keeps the charade of disinterest and feigned weakness going, and the whole thing just becomes tiresome after a while.

I don't know if you realize this, but you're just contradicted yourself in your reasoning here. You praise two characters for doing exactly what the character you are saying is bad and poorly written for. Actually, scratch that, you've made it perfectly clear you know exactly what you're saying.

Anakin was shown to have prowess in his own right, so was Luke.

Yes, and so has Rey. Also, about your training bit, Anakin had no training before he did all of his feats in Episode 1, and barely had any before he did any of the stuff he did in episode 2 - in fact, he did more great feats than Rey did in 1 movie than she did in 2 and he was 10 years old, had no training (oh but he's the chosen one, so that excuses the absolutely worst writing in the history of cinema)

People hated it. The same way, people hate Rey for degrading the other Saber Wielding heroes of Star Wars.

lol. Here we see a prime example of hypocrisy.

Its why people hate TLJ, cause a lot of its narrative amounts to little more than degradation for Skywalker to make Rey look like a hot shot.

Weird that you say that, since Anakin "degraded" Luke in what he did in Episode 1 (destroying the droid federation battleship, winning a pod racing match against aliens that literally are given traits in canon to make them more capable than humans at doing so, being the literal chosen one with the highest recorded midichlorian count in **all** of star wars history) to one-up Luke's feats in Episode 4 (destroying the death star via a mind-guided missile, and that's it). By comparison, Rey barely making it out of a duel with a guy that survived being shot by a weapon shown in the exact same movie as being fully capable of one-shot killing a fully grown man in armor designed to protect against blasters is hardly "degrading".

Unless you just can't stand to see Rey one up either of them in anything. you know, because she's a girl.

ten year old anakin wasn't really able to get anything bad he won the podrace and destroyed the droid ship which luke also did in the first movie introducing him.

I don't see how you don't say this and realize that calling Rey a Mary Sue and a bad character only means they are worse.

The problem for many is that Rey beat Kylo so easily and was able to use the Force just like that. It's plausible if you say that Kylo was extremely exhausted from his prior fights and trauma not so long ago, but still stretching it. However, I'll ignore that for now

Neat. You're going to casually ignore the reason why Rey got away in her duel with Kylo because it doesn't suit your narrative. That's pretty par for the course in this thread though.

The Power of the force has nothing to do why she is a Mary Sue at all.

You're right, because if we actually compared powers of the force, Rey wouldn't even compare to Yoda in the original trilogy who had the least amount of impressive force feats in the entire saga after Rey.

That internal logic is what means there can be overpowered people, or powerful Sith or Jedi. That internal consistency is part of why Vader and the Emperor are beloved.

Yes, and part of that internal consistency is that both Rey and Kylo are powerful. Unless you mean internal logic and consistency in genetics, which weirdly sounds rather eugenic. Also sounds very incorrect, considering genetics isn't how the force works.

Anakin was literally born by the force, and Luke is his son. They are kind of an exception to the rule, but even then both required training.

lol. no they didn't. Why don't you actually go watch episode 1 and episode 4 before you go spouting nonsense about training. The only training in the entire saga was Luke's rocky montage with Yoda.

in TLJ, she's undergone some modicum of training, but did things neither luke nor anakin were capable of,

Name one single thing she did that they didn't. One single thing.

Also what handwavium is in place for Anakin when he trained for well over a decade if not more by a full fledged Jedi Order, including three years of warfare and was beaten in his second movie and even lost his most important fight in his third film?

Anakin had zero on-screen training time. It was assumed he had training because he knew how to use a lightsaber in episode 2 and they (the movie/writers) told us. Similarly, Rey had on-screen training and off-screen training that was implied because she got better at using a lightsaber and the force.

Arguments in defense of Rey are now boiling down to "but the prequels and some EU books had bad writing too!"

No, I'm not defending Rey as a well-written character. I'm saying that unless you are open to labeling both Luke and Anakin as poorly written for the same reasons you label Rey as such (or, in your case, not characters at all), then you have no argument at all because you are praising them for having the same qualities as her.

Are you purposefully ignoring all the thought out arguments brought forth previous to the last page on purpose to make your argument have some validity?

I don't think anyone is ignoring the (not) thought out arguments made prior. In fact, I've responded to all of them above just for you <3!

sexism towards Rey isn't a common occurrence

Hi. I saw this and decided I would take the 6 minutes out of my day to quote every instance of where a writer (user on this forum) has decided they consider it a bad trait for Rey to be a Mary Sue while being perfectly okay (and in some cases, also quoted, happy) with Luke & Anakin being Gary Stus (A gary stu is the male version of a mary sue). By having this double standard one is, by definition, being sexist. I haven't been arguing that disliking Rey is something unique to sexist people, so I don't appreciate that everyone keeps misrepresenting the dissenting view as that, but I can assert that several people posting in this thread have made their political stance and societal views known to the public in the past, all of which are in favor of fixed gender roles and double standards (hypocritical) views on traits for each gender (i.e; being a Mary Sue as a negative while being a Gary Stu as a positive). So, in a very roundabout way, yes, I guess by your own arguments everyone who is arguing in defense of Anakin & Luke while treating Rey as a lesser character simply for being a Mary Sue (which she isn't, by the very definition of what a Mary Sue is as it was originally written).

Anakin is a Gary Stu (Mary Sue) personified. He has every trait of this trope, including the trope of Chosen One.

Luke is only a Gary Stu if we're going to broaden the definition of Mary Sue to include Rey, as he has failed as many times as Rey has and succeeded more. (He also has more feats in proportion to his failures, too.)

Rey has less feats than either of the two, and more failures than both. Luke lost one duel. Anakin lost a hand once and was defeated by Obi-Wan only because the Original Trilogy already existed so he was required by plot to lose. Rey never actually won her first duel with Kylo, who somehow survived being shot with a bowcaster in the same movie we see a storm trooper wearing actual armor get killed and knocked flying through the air in a single shot, and didn't actually win her second duel either - she simply escaped.

So, sure, if we're going to call all 3 protagonists Mary Sue/Gary Stu, then Rey is a Mary Sue. And unless we're going to say Anakin and Luke are bad characters for that, then I'm not going to agree that being a Mary Sue even matters.

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

[member="Braith Achlys"]

Right, lets dismantle this one piece at a time.

- Kylo Ren was wounded, used the force lalala. Presumably he's had training from both Luke and Snoke, danced with the Praetorian Guard even possibly for training. Its clear the wound is mitigated, by the sheer fact the kinetic bamf the trooper got that Kylo didn't get. Maybe he used tutanamis to absorb it? Who knows. Doesn't matter. But considering he might be sore, but his movement isn't even affected, he still should've diced her up. The movie in of itself fails at making her victory.

- Where is your evidence I'm a hypocrite? Anywhere?

- They 100% push an agenda the 'force is female' ring any bells? Its the thing to do, to have female leads. Ghostbusters, Oceans, Star Wars, ect.

- You keep bringing up Episode 1 & 4, which I've agreed are both bad films in terms of the characters skills. Won't disagree there. I've made it clear I'm comparing the Lightsaber feats primarily, and also Episode 2-3 Anakin & Luke in his latter films. I wont' deny they are both Gary Stews in the first films. Especially Anakin.

- And why would he barely have any in Episode 2? He went from 9 to 20. That's 11 years! In episode 1. Hell, Episode 1 ends with Yoda agreeing to let Obi-Wan train him, and there are several conversations in Episode 2 about how Anakin's growth in skill through his training has made him arrogant.

- On another note, yea you're right about Anakin being better than Luke, but its not quite the same. Parroting that the Phantom Menace is bad isn't helping your argument. Nobody disagrees with that, but Anakin is also Luke's dad, and Darth Vader. A character already established as a badass, its a different ballgame. We don't see a barely trained Anakin beat the hell out of an accomplished Luke. But we do see Rey beat him.

Even then, both of Luke & Anakins feats are 'luck' in their first movies. Jedi skills, like mindtricks and force pulls require training. Seeing as that is what Rey is doing, we can only really compare that to Luke & Anakin in their latter films as that's the context for comparison.

Also neither Anakin nor Luke pick up a saber combatively or use the force in the traditional way until their second movies, and both of them lost. Big time. Vader toyed with Luke until he struck his shoulder and then quickly dismantled him. Anakin got his ass beat as well.

Also how does Rey not even compare to Yoda? Rey can levitate like 30 rocks, whilst Luke struggled with 3. She can mind trick off the bat and tap into the force, or force pull weapons, beat several incredibly skilled swordsmen.

but I can assert that several people posting in this thread have made their political stance and societal views known to the public in the past, all of which are in favor of fixed gender roles and double standards (hypocritical) views on traits for each gender (i.e; being a Mary Sue as a negative while being a Gary Stu as a positive). So, in a very roundabout way, yes, I guess by your own arguments everyone who is arguing in defense of Anakin & Luke while treating Rey as a lesser character simply for being a Mary Sue (which she isn't, by the very definition of what a Mary Sue is as it was originally written)

All of this nonsense falls apart when you have no evidence for this, and all the people you're claiming are for this are the same group of people, the same demographic that made all our female-lead action heroes popular and successful. Or the fact that it has nothing to do with Rey being a girl, when I made the comparison to Agent Locke in Halo 5, who's a guy. You gonna claim I don't like him because he's black?

No, its because Luke earned his stripes. Rey hasn't. It's got nothing to do with gender, and you made yourself look like a fool trying to portray it that way.

 

[Jor Kvall]

I don't know if you realize this, but you're just contradicted yourself in your reasoning here. You praise two characters for doing exactly what the character you are saying is bad and poorly written for. Actually, scratch that, you've made it perfectly clear you know exactly what you're saying.

I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. You obviously didn't even read the post you're quoting from.

The argument is not simply about who is or isn't a Sue or Stu. The issue is also about what is a more serviceable vehicle for telling a story. So-called Gary Stus typically represent a more active type of wish fulfillment, while Mary Sues are usually passive wish fulfillment. Rey is quite clearly the latter.

 

[Jor Kvall]

This implies you are acting in good faith and are open to being convinced. Reading your comments, I think you found your hill to die on regardless of what is put forward. As mentioned above, context matters. None of us walked into the sequel trilogy with a sterile view of Star Wars. Comparisons to other things in the franchise are going to happen, you can’t just brush them off.

Your argument is irrelevant.

The thread is about *Rey*. Not Anakin, or Luke, or any other fourth-rate Expanded Universe novel nobody has read.

By invoking other questionable things that have happened in the Star Wars universe you're a) assuming that people who disapprove of Rey also wholeheartedly approve of those instances, and b) believe these other examples excuse Rey's character from criticism. So we have a strawman argument, a red herring, and a tu quoque all in one.

Anyway, we've already shown why Rey is fundamentally different from Luke and Anakin.

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

​[member="Braith Achlys"]
Also regarding ANH and TPM I'd like to quote this;

"While Luke was a talented pilot, he got his practice from shooting womp rats in his T-16 Skyhopper back home. Once he actually goes into Yavin, he pulls off no impressive stunts, takes an engine hit from a TIE and loses his astromech to Vader, and is saved from kill-position TIEs at least once each by Wedge and Biggs, not to mention saved from Vader and his wingmen by Han's impeccably timed return. Han's return also eliminates the last remaining opposition, so Luke can put all his focus into making the shot and letting the Force guide his hand in aiming -- a luxury Red Leader didn't have, as he was still being pursued by Vader, resulting in Red Leader's glancing hit compared to Luke's direct hit. The next time we see him flying, in Empire Strikes Back, with another three whole years of experience, his contribution to the battle consists of coming up with the tow cable idea, getting his gunner killed, getting shot down, and then cutting open an AT-AT and tossing a grenade inside it. After the battle, even his years of experience are unable to save him from crashing straight into Dagobah's swamp.

Anakin's skill at podracing is remarkable for a human at all, let alone a human of the age of 9, but let's not forget that he'd been racing for quite some time and had yet to finish a single race before he finally won that fateful Boonta Eve. While the Force gave him fast reflexes, it didn't exactly let him pull off stunts more complex than "drive forward; turn left; turn right". The moment he got behind the controls of an unfamiliar starfighter, he was boxed in by the autopilot and unable to do anything other than stay alive. Shortly R2 switched it to manual, he lost control of the fighter and got shot down, crashing in the droid control ship's hangar. It's only by luck that he managed to skid to a stop where he would have a clear shot at the reactor. The next time we see him flying anything is the Battle of Coruscant, where he performs perfectly ordinary maneuvers alongside Obi-Wan."

 

[Soly Hone]

[member="Jor Kvall"]

Fuuny how you claim this argument about Rey, but conclude your comment by acknowledging you yourself had talked about Luke and Anakin. You might want to brush up on your understanding of logical fallacies rather than trying to use them to twist a persons argument.

Comparisons between Luke, Anakin and Rey happened before I entered this thread. It was something you engaged in. You do not get to shift the goalposts and proclaim that it is suddenly irrelevant now while simultaneously trying to pat yourself on the back about how you think you've shown Rey is different. That's not your call to make.

As I've commented previously, Rey does not exist in a vacuum. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. None of us entered the new trilogy without expectations and influences from previous Star Wars movies and maybe other works. Even if we had, comparisons to prior works in the same series, or even different series, is a natural part of critiquing process because it helps put that character in context.

So when I evoke other questionable things that have happened, I'm not suggesting you agree with them, I'm asking where they factor into the argument to these characters not being or are more acceptable Gary/Mary.


Nor have I suggested this excuses Rey's writing, as I pointed out in my first comment I don't think she's written that well. But context matters, and your own argument (correct me if I'm wrong) of where Rey fails centers around goals between the main characters in the trilogies rather than traits that define Mary Sue.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Presumably he's had training from both Luke and Snoke

Off screen training that you are assuming happened. You don't give Rey this same assumption, even though the movie actually tells us this. The movie also shows us that Kylo had little to no training from Luke via a flashback from Luke himself when he shows that the incident between the two of them happened at the very start of his new Jedi Order.

Maybe he used tutanamis to absorb it? Who knows.

You're right, who knows. I actually think he used the wound to channel the dark side until he couldn't handle it anymore. But that's my point. He was seriously wounded and you act like he had a paper cut.

Doesn't matter.

I mean, sure, for the purposes of furthering your argument. The movie itself would beg to differ, as we see him clutching the wound and visibly limping, which means the thing you said next:

but his movement isn't even affected,

Is wrong and a blatant lie because you don't want to be wrong. Just give it up and move on. It's okay to be wrong and learn from your mistakes. Kylo tried to press on with a wound, and eventually he couldn't handle it. He fought two people, one of whom was a fully trained storm trooper who had more training than he did (FYI Finn was taken as a baby and trained from birth to fight, Kylo had no such training until he was nearly as old as he was in the movie, if we base it off of flashback sequences that show how old he looked when he ran away from Luke).

Where is your evidence I'm a hypocrite? Anywhere?

Hypocrisy is defined by saying one thing and doing another. You are denying that Rey is anything but a bad character/mary sue while simultaneously praising Luke and Anakin for the same traits in their respective movies. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy. If you don't want to see that, I don't know what to say.

They 100% push an agenda the 'force is female' ring any bells? Its the thing to do, to have female leads. Ghostbusters, Oceans, Star Wars, ect.

Star wars didn't make Ghost Busters or Oceans, neither did Disney. There's also no such thing as a "force is female thing". This is you being a paranoid pedant who needs something to hate newer movies, specifically ones made by a group you perceive as liberal.

I've made it clear I'm comparing the Lightsaber feats primarily, and also Episode 2-3 Anakin & Luke in his latter films

Anakin shows the greatest feats in the history of lightsaber duels, and I'm including the Yoda v Sidious and Sidious v Jedi Masters fight in this, in episode 3. He is only defeated by the necessity of the plot to rationalize how he became Darth Vader. If the original trilogy had not already existed there is no doubt in my mind that there would have been no crippling defeat for him on Mustafar.

And why would he barely have any in Episode 2? He went from 9 to 20. That's 11 years!

Off screen training time. You refuse to allow the possibility for Rey to have training because we don't explicitly get shown it in the movies, so I am giving you the same ridiculous measure in regards to her predecessors.

but its not quite the same.

Yes it is. Being given powers like candy and handed wins for the sake of plot because he can't be allowed to lose because of a trilogy that happens after him is exactly the same thing.

but Anakin is also Luke's dad, and Darth Vader. A character already established as a badass, its a different ballgame.

Weird, so if the movies start out saying they're a bad ass, then we're supposed to just accept that? So you're saying that if they had told us Rey was already a master in melee combat, then we'd accept it then? Somehow I feel like you're applying one standard to Anakin and Luke and another to Rey.. hmmm....

Even then, both of Luke & Anakins feats are 'luck' in their first movies. Jedi skills, like mindtricks and force pulls require training. Seeing as that is what Rey is doing, we can only really compare that to Luke & Anakin in their latter films as that's the context for comparison.

Anakin used the force to defeat an entire naval force of droid piloted starfighters and destroy an entire battlecruiser (a 3000 meter ship with the largest amount of weapons in all of canon outside of Snoke's personal ship), and Luke used the force to guide a missile down a ventilation shaft barely larger than the missile he was firing for the entire radius of the death star and destroyed it with his mind.

Rey just escaped a duel with a guy who couldn't take the pain of being shot, a wound he was still heavily scarred with in the next movie.

There is literally no comparison here. She didn't even destroy Starkiller Base, that was all the Resistance fighters who were trained pilots.

Also neither Anakin nor Luke pick up a saber combatively or use the force in the traditional way until their second movies

Considering Anakin did what he did as I noted above, I feel that, for a 10 year old, that's far more of an impressive feat. Luke happened to live in a time where there were only 2 saber users outside of him and Obi-Wan, but he also destroyed the Death Star with his mind sooooo....

when you have no evidence for this

They 100% push an agenda the 'force is female' ring any bells? Its the thing to do, to have female leads. Ghostbusters, Oceans, Star Wars, ect.

Hi, you asked for proof of hypocrisy, here's a prime example of you contradicting yourself in the same post.

because Luke earned his stripes. Rey hasn't.

They both have, but you refuse to apply the same standards to them both. Luke also "earned his stripes" in his final movie, Rey hasn't had that yet.

So-called Gary Stus typically represent a more active type of wish fulfillment, while Mary Sues are usually passive wish fulfillment. Rey is quite clearly the latter.

I'm not missing the point, I'm highlighting what you keep saying in this statement as the prime example for your bias against that character. A Gary Stu is literally only the male version of a Mary Sue, There is no categorical difference. They are the same characters but gender swapped. The only issue you have with Rey is that she isn't a man.

The thread is about *Rey*. Not Anakin, or Luke, or any other fourth-rate Expanded Universe novel nobody has read.

By being about Rey you need context to provide examples that invalidate your statements, to highlight your blatant hypocrisy and bias. That is why they are being mentioned ad nauseum. Listen, I love Luke, he's my favorite character in Star Wars, but by the same token of appreciation I like Rey. She's not as cool as him, doesn't get to spend movies doing nothing and then doing something big like destroying a Death Star in her first time flying, but she is just as enjoyable to watch for the same reasons he is.

believe these other examples excuse Rey's character from criticism.

No, we believe that unless you give the characters that suffer the same writing flaws as her the same criticism, you are being hypocritical. This is why we are bringing it up. You refuse to acknowledge that because of clear bias against the character.

so Luke can put all his focus into making the shot and letting the Force guide his hand in aiming

With training he never had. Which is what you keep complaining about Rey.

Anakin's skill at podracing is remarkable for a human at all, let alone a human of the age of 9, but let's not forget that he'd been racing for quite some time and had yet to finish a single race before he finally won that fateful Boonta Eve. While the Force gave him fast reflexes, it didn't exactly let him pull off stunts more complex than "drive forward; turn left; turn right". The moment he got behind the controls of an unfamiliar starfighter, he was boxed in by the autopilot and unable to do anything other than stay alive. Shortly R2 switched it to manual, he lost control of the fighter and got shot down, crashing in the droid control ship's hangar. It's only by luck that he managed to skid to a stop where he would have a clear shot at the reactor. The next time we see him flying anything is the Battle of Coruscant, where he performs perfectly ordinary maneuvers alongside Obi-Wan."

"it's only because he was lucky he did all those things, so it's okay". "it's not okay that rey did the things she did because reasons".

That is what your argument has boiled down to. It's okay because it was Luke and Anakin, it wasn't okay when it was Rey.

Next sycophant, please.

 

[Rach Tarvus]

dude Ray could have been a cool character.
I loved Daisy i liked ray i loved Fin
fin became a joke. he was screwed over.
Ray.. what the heck do we know about her? at all?
zilch.
why is she able to do sh*t?
" stop asking you just hate X"
fine. who are here parents?
" she doesn't need parents you just hate... "
look my ONLY issue is Ray is badly written.
she's the main character.
i shouldn't care more about a set of dice than the bad-ass space ninja wizard.

my big issue is that the writers skilled them over.
i wanted to see her train. i wanted some one as cool as Jhiana.
i wanted some cool Backstory.
nope..
she's just the bestest.

 

[Auteme]

This thread makes me sad idk

Go watch Overly Sarcastic Production's Trope Talk on Mary Sues, it's really good and basically holds my feelings on Rey

Don't be mean, luff yall <3

 

[Rach Tarvus]

dude i know.
at this point i just don't care. i wanted to care.
hell its not like this wasn't salvageable.
1 light-saber: what do we know? she's good with a staff
so easy Kylo kicks her ass . she runs and tapes it to a stick to jury rig a spear
kicks his ass like that.
2 she SAYS " oh i know who that guy fixes ships he's a dumbass i removed the converter. "
basicaly a few little tweeks hear and there could have made her compelling

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

Next sycophant, please.

Come on now. Vaas isn't a sycophant, he's just a white nationalist.

 

[Jsc]

Next sycophant, please.

Yes, hi. I was called? What are we doing. Is this the convention?

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Alright, simmer down, folks.

It is possible to have a discussion without resorting to insults and silliness.

Keep this topic on track and productive or I swear I am turning this speeder around and no one gets blue milk.

 

[Valdus Bral]

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

Copy that.

 

[Jor Kvall]

Fuuny how you claim this argument about Rey, but conclude your comment by acknowledging you yourself had talked about Luke and Anakin. You might want to brush up on your understanding of logical fallacies rather than trying to use them to twist a persons argument. Comparisons between Luke, Anakin and Rey happened before I entered this thread. It was something you engaged in. You do not get to shift the goalposts and proclaim that it is suddenly irrelevant now while simultaneously trying to pat yourself on the back about how you think you've shown Rey is different. That's not your call to make.

Yes, I talked about Luke and Anakin. Even compared them to Rey. What you're failing to understand is that the crux of my judgment upon Rey doesn't depend on comparisons to Luke or Anakin.

You'll recall by bothering to read more than a post or two that the comparison was made before I entered the thread and I'm simply responding to it, same as you. I'm merely pointing out that judging Rey as good or bad by comparing her to another character tells us nothing about whether she actually is good or bad. It's a massive red herring.

Comparisons between Luke and Anakin seem always to arise when Rey's power level is in question and is often used to justify her as a *good* or at the very least inoffensive character, as we've seen here, "because Luke and Anakin did it first, therefore Rey is fine". The argument invariably goes -- "Well, Luke and Anakin did X, Y, and Z, so what's your problem when Rey does it?" Leaving aside the questionable assertion of her deeds being equivocal to Luke's or Anakin's (perhaps we should add false dichotomy to the list), this type of argument doesn't answer the central question - is Rey a Mary Sue? Instead it's nothing more than a colossal distraction for reasons I've previously posted, which you then errantly responded to.

As I've commented previously, Rey does not exist in a vacuum. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. None of us entered the new trilogy without expectations and influences from previous Star Wars movies and maybe other works. Even if we had, comparisons to prior works in the same series, or even different series, is a natural part of critiquing process because it helps put that character in context.

Yes, mere comparison is fine and can provide helpful examples to look to, but again, you're missing the point. I'm not sure how else to explain this in a way that makes you understand.

Bringing up Anakin and Luke as justification for why Rey is good, and then using such comparisons to call out others for their alleged hypocrisy against Rey as some are doing here is a tu quoque fallacy. A tu quoque fallacy is:

"...called the 'appeal to hypocrisy' because it distracts from the argument by pointing out the hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn't solve the problem, or prove one's point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth." (1)

Applied to this context, someone might argue that Rey is a Mary Sue, while simultaneously worshiping Anakin despite him also being an alleged Mary Sue. Even if this is true, and Anakin is in fact a Mary Sue and the person in question hypocritically ignores Anakin's Sue qualities, it doesn't answer the central question - is Rey one? It doesn't matter which other characters are or aren't Mary Sues. Rey can be a Mary Sue even if Anakin is one, too. Therefore invoking Anakin or Luke to justify Rey's abilities is a stupid waste of time.

I'm not missing the point, I'm highlighting what you keep saying in this statement as the prime example for your bias against that character. A Gary Stu is literally only the male version of a Mary Sue, There is no categorical difference. They are the same characters but gender swapped. The only issue you have with Rey is that she isn't a man.

Thus far you've done nothing but put forth fallacious arguments and then call people sexist for disagreeing with you.

And people wonder why there's been a reaction against Star Wars.

To your point. Sure, Gary Stus and Mary Sues are the same -- on paper. In practice there's often a world of difference though.

The most clear and succinct difference is that Gary Stus are generally special because they are powerful, while Mary Sues are powerful because they are special.

In other words, a Gary Stu is typically required to continually do a bunch of awesome stuff in order to prove themselves, while the Mary Sue is great merely by existing. Again, it's a form of active wish fulfillment vs. passive wish fulfillment. That's not to say that all male characters necessarily fall into this "active" (what we are calling "Gary Stu") category, and all female characters do not. I can certainly think of some notable exceptions running both ways. But that doesn't change the fact that this distinction between male and female Sues generally holds true. For whatever reason, that's simply how a lot of literature and movies have treated the gender dynamic.

Listen, I love Luke, he's my favorite character in Star Wars, but by the same token of appreciation I like Rey. She's not as cool as him, doesn't get to spend movies doing nothing and then doing something big like destroying a Death Star in her first time flying, but she is just as enjoyable to watch for the same reasons he is.

I don't really care if you like Rey or not. That's good for you. I find her to be obnoxiously boring. I can, however, appreciate Luke -- and yes, Luke is something of a Gary Stu himself.

Whoa, mind equals blown, right?

The whole thing actually goes beyond Sue accusations -- the real question at the heart of the matter is, is the character an effective vehicle for telling a story? The difference is the place each occupy in their respective stories. Luke is the textbook example of an everyman character which was absolutely necessary to the first installment of a fantasy series featuring green aliens and space magic. Luke also had tangible and relatable desires which made him more sympathetic. Rey does not. But I'm repeating myself.

No, we believe that unless you give the characters that suffer the same writing flaws as her the same criticism, you are being hypocritical. This is why we are bringing it up. You refuse to acknowledge that because of clear bias against the character.

I've already addressed why Rey fails as a protagonist where Luke succeeded in my first post, as well as my thoughts on the issue of her power level. You're capable of reading. Repeating myself is something I tolerate only when talking to children.

Next sycophant, please.

You're getting quite bent out of shape about this. Did someone kick your dog today or something?

 

[Jor Kvall]

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"]

 

[Ordo]

(Quietly makes a list of who to avoid.)

 

[Kirie]

For my piece on this topic, I'm going to be borrowing from a few internet sources on Mary Sues, Gary Stus, and the criticism surrounding them. They are not referenced in-text, but have been added below.

What is a Mary Sue?
A Mary Sue, according to the definition described in Alana Roger's 2003 essay "Make up your mind: what is a Mary Sue?" is a female character who shares one or more of the following characteristics:

• Mary Sue is a self-insert. Anytime you put yourself into a story, or adopt as a pseudonym the name you gave a character in a story, she is Mary Sue.
• Mary Sue is improbably attractive and talented. (marysues seems to be using this definition, classifying a number of canonical heroes or heroines as Mary Sues/Marty Stus on the grounds that they are attractive, talented, heroic, and have complicated lives.)
• Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic. (Any original female character.)
• Mary Sue is an original character who overshadows the canonical cast.

Using this definition, and adapting it slightly to work outside the realm of fan fiction, there is a legitimate argument that Rey, by meeting several of the characteristics, falls in the category of a Sue. Certainly Rey is an attractive and talented character acting with power and agency, and one with a complicated and tragic backstory. While there are certainly counter-arguments as to the justification of Rey's talents, if you are judging solely on this checklist, it isn't all that surprising that many place Rey into the Mary Sue category. Additionally, many argue Rey has many other characteristics associated with a Mary Sue, such as being a 'perfect' character with no discernible flaws, and a character who seems to warp from place to place, taking over the narrative without logical reason.

However, many have argued that this checklist of Mary Sue attributes is ultimately harmful to the depiction of female characters in our media. As the term "Mary Sue" has moved from a condemnation of too-perfect self-insert fan fiction characters toward a broader umbrella term for any female character that acts with agency, the threat of having a character branded a Sue has stifled the creativity and the proliferation of strong female characters. So-called "Sue Paranoia" has been cited by authors both professional and amateur as a force that suppresses and silences the creation of strong female characters.

What's more, with this broadened definition of the Mary Sue, it has become increasingly easy for critics to accuse any original character of being a Mary Sue on the basis of them being a talented or attractive character with agency. 'Mary Sue' is fast becoming a blanket term for any female character who does not fit into the traditional, subservient position in society, in which they "grow up" by accepting societal standards and get together with the male protagonist. Interestingly this character, the stereotypical female character who gets the guy, was the original target for the term 'Mary Sue,' what is now referred to as a 'Purity Sue'.

As [member="Braith Achlys"] and [member="Jor Kvall"] have both pointed out, this kind of criticism doesn't just apply to female characters. 'Gary Stu' (Marty Stu, Larry Stu) is Mary Sue's male counterpart, who, according to the website TV Tropes, "[a]ll the same rules apply, but a couple variations do tend to show up, expressing different ideas of what constitutes male and female "perfection"."

These differences generally boil down to the differing expectations held by audiences towards male and female characters. In contrast to Mary Sues, Gary Stus tend to be the personification of action, because men who do not take an active role in dramatic events are considered unmanly and, by definition, not perfect. A Gary Stu can also be the epitome of intellect, and all supporting characters appreciate him, and gladly take orders from him. He is physically perfect, or if not, can solve his problems with ease in spite of this. While the standards of male perfection obviously differ from the standards of female perfection to which the Mary Sue is held, the fact that both are characters without flaws and that have unrealistic talents and attributes makes them functionally the same.

So, if both Gary Stus and Mary Sues are basically the same, why aren't they held to the same standard?

"Every time I've tried to put a woman in any story I've ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue." Smith also pointed out that "Participants in a panel discussion in January 1990 noted with growing dismay that any female character created within the community is damned with the term Mary Sue."
-Le Parisien

"Marty Stus are often subject to a Double Standard where they tend to be noticed and hated to a much lesser degree than Mary Sues are. See also The Ace, which often uses this trope as a minor character for comic relief."
-TV Tropes

The truth is that male characters that share these traits, Gary Stus, are called such much less than their female equivalents. I find the earlier example of Luke Skywalker vs Rey to be illustrative of this. While both characters have been criticised, Rey has been called a Mary Sue far more frequently than Luke Skywalker has been called a Gary Stu, despite both sharing very similar characteristics, and having several of the previously stated attributes of those characters. This is an obvious double-standard, and calls into question the legitimacy of referring to a female character such as Rey as a Mary Sue, but not referring to a character such as Luke as a Gary Stu, or indeed saying that Gary Stus and Mary Sues aren't basically the same thing.

In defence of the Mary Sue
Is being a Mary Sue really that bad? What exactly is the harm in a character that shows agency, is competent, and solves their problems. Is any character with admirable traits immediately to be discarded because he is a Gary Stu, is an attractive character really not worth anything to the narrative because she is a Mary Sue? Probably not.

As Elizabeth Minkel writes, "[e]ven detractors admit Mary Sues are about young girls finding their power and agency in a world of fictional landscapes that rarely afford such journeys to women." Perhaps we can excuse Rey's Mary-Sue-ness and accept that her story, like that of Finn, is one in which marginalised groups can achieve their goals independent of the groups that had restrained them. It seems that many of the arguments that have been presented here portray Rey as a Mary Sue not because that label is a legitimate criticism of the character and her attributes, but because the term Mary Sue is a convenient way to dismiss female characters with agency. If it wasn't, there would be no reason to hold Gary Stus to a different standard.

So sure, Rey is a Mary Sue.

So what?

Sources:
Dictionary.com, What Does Mary Sue Mean?
Fanlore: Mary Sue
Fanlore: Make up your mind: what is a Mary Sue
La Parisien: Définition-MARY SUE
TV Tropes: Purity Sue
TV Tropes: Marty Stu
Wikipedia: Mary Sue

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

However, many have argued that this checklist of Mary Sue attributes is ultimately harmful to the depiction of female characters in our media. As the term "Mary Sue" has moved from a condemnation of too-perfect self-insert fan fiction characters toward a broader umbrella term for any female character that acts with agency, the threat of having a character branded a Sue has stifled the creativity and the proliferation of strong female characters. So-called "Sue Paranoia" has been cited by authors both professional and amateur as a force that suppresses and silences the creation of strong female characters.

​No issue with definitions. Lets start off by making it clear that any female character that acts with agency is not immediately called a Mary Sue. We can take a look at our biggest female characters from blockbusters, Gamora, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Wonder Woman, Atomic Blonde, ect

​Each and every one of them acts with agency, is competent. Scarlet Witch beat Thanos, nobody called her a Mary Sue. Gamora is the best fighter on the Guardians team, nobody called her a Mary Sue. Its people too afraid of seeing Woman get hurt, or beaten.

​E.g; Rey, Captain Marvel, CW's Batwoman.

​These characters have received hate because, part of their competence and strength is to due with pushing female empowerment. Which, based on the reception of Sarah Connor, Gamora, Princess Leia, ect is fine. But not at the expense of men, or established characters. Its fine if they beat established characters, but they need to earn that.

Same way Spider-Man shows up in Civil War and gets laid out by a much weaker but more experienced Captain America.

Strong female characters are created all the time. Just look at this board, or any form of media.

What's more, with this broadened definition of the Mary Sue, it has become increasingly easy for critics to accuse any original character of being a Mary Sue on the basis of them being a talented or attractive character with agency. 'Mary Sue' is fast becoming a blanket term for any female character who does not fit into the traditional, subservient position in society, in which they "grow up" by accepting societal standards and get together with the male protagonist. Interestingly this character, the stereotypical female character who gets the guy, was the original target for the term 'Mary Sue,' what is now referred to as a 'Purity Sue'.

Except we can clearly see in the most popular franchise on the planet at the moment [The MCU] that there are many beloved strong female characters that are not subservient. Sure, Gamora ends up with Quill; but that's getting over intimacy trauma caused by an abusive surrogate father, not societal norms.

Rey on the other hand, picks up abilities on the fly that required training from the other protagonists. Mind trick, force pull, ect. Only a very small minority has issue with a female lead for the sole fact she's a female lead. I already made the comparison regarding deriding established characters with Halo 5's agent locke, it has nothing to do with gender.

As [member="Braith Achlys"] and [member="Jor Kvall"] have both pointed out, this kind of criticism doesn't just apply to female characters. 'Gary Stu' (Marty Stu, Larry Stu) is Mary Sue's male counterpart, who, according to the website TV Tropes, "[a]ll the same rules apply, but a couple variations do tend to show up, expressing different ideas of what constitutes male and female "perfection"."

These differences generally boil down to the differing expectations held by audiences towards male and female characters. In contrast to Mary Sues, Gary Stus tend to be the personification of action, because men who do not take an active role in dramatic events are considered unmanly and, by definition, not perfect. A Gary Stu can also be the epitome of intellect, and all supporting characters appreciate him, and gladly take orders from him. He is physically perfect, or if not, can solve his problems with ease in spite of this. While the standards of male perfection obviously differ from the standards of female perfection to which the Mary Sue is held, the fact that both are characters without flaws and that have unrealistic talents and attributes makes them functionally the same.

So, if both Gary Stus and Mary Sues are basically the same, why aren't they held to the same standard?

​I don't see much in the ways of evidence that they aren't. Quotes or no quotes.

The truth is that male characters that share these traits, Gary Stus, are called such much less than their female equivalents. I find the earlier example of Luke Skywalker vs Rey to be illustrative of this. While both characters have been criticised, Rey has been called a Mary Sue far more frequently than Luke Skywalker has been called a Gary Stu, despite both sharing very similar characteristics, and having several of the previously stated attributes of those characters. This is an obvious double-standard, and calls into question the legitimacy of referring to a female character such as Rey as a Mary Sue, but not referring to a character such as Luke as a Gary Stu, or indeed saying that Gary Stus and Mary Sues aren't basically the same thing.

Similar characteristics, yet the in-universe logic that applies to Luke regarding the difficulty of training in the force is not applied to Rey. Nor is experience, as she shows up Han Solo in knowledge of how to fix his own Ship, and shows up Luke's skill in the force with much less to almost no training in TLJ when she levitates some thirty boulders.

There's no issue of legitimacy here. Rey breaks the in-universe rules to make her look better. They are basically the same thing, but the Original Trilogy laid out the rules of the universe, the Prequel trilogy added to them. The sequel trilogy contradicts that with their degrading portrayal of Luke which serves to make Rey look superior.

The universe warps to make her special, she isn't special or interesting or even well-acted.

The last part is just a regurgitation of what you said before, but no female characters aren't dismissed.