Vonnie, I've only recently found the Vorkosigans myself, and have no answers to your questions, but just wanted to say YAY. Love them.

No one seems too bothered when a male character "always" comes up with the right answer, is independent, self sufficient, etc.

Oh, yes they are, or at least, the same people who have their Mary Sue buttons pinged will tend to have their Marty Stu Buttons pinged, too. (See: many reactions to Dan Brown heros, Wesley Crusher, etc.) In general, I've found Marty Stu characters less common, but that's probably because I've read more books aimed at women than at men.

It's not simply a matter of always having the right answer, being independent, blah blah blah. It's unrealistic perfection or near perfection with a handful of "interesting" flaws. Your Mary Sue/Marty Stu is a flat character. There's no there there, and one of the most common problems with them above and beyond the inability to suspend disbelief when one appears is that the author violates show don't tell like a wild thing.

Bond has often been cited as a male Mary Sue.

I dunno -- take Modesty Blaise, for instance. She's independent, self-sufficient, WAY over-idealised. Yet she doesn't ring Mary Sue to me. Perhaps because I don't feel the text simpering at her feet.

I have heard lots of people talk about male MarySues, actually. They are often female, but not excusively so. I think what makes a character a MarySue is that it is so obviously a wish-fulfillment character for the writer, rather than a well-rounded human being. The character is not only gorgeous (but in an unusual way--violet eyes or something) and brilliant, they are also funny and warm. The writers can't let their creations have the flaws and layers of real people because they, maybe, inhabit them too much. Buffy is NOT a MarySue because she is strong and decisive and gorgeous, but she is also stubborn and bossy and awkward and all kinds of other interesting things. James Bond, I think, is.

Bond has often been cited as a male Mary Sue.

The books, or the movies? I've never read a Bond book, so I can't evaluate it, but in the movies, I always thought his omnicompetence was always a little tongue in cheek, like "yeah, we know he shouldn't be able to do all this so well, but isn't it fun?"

I think the Mary Sue concept is extended to men rather than limited to women. Spenser by Robert B. Parker. The movie Bond perhaps. (The orginal written Bond by wottisname was actually rather satisfyingly broken).

I think the objection in both cases is not extreme competence, but perfection. For example Batman is ultra-compentent, but no one could call him a Mary Sue. (For that matter you would have a hard time arguing he is sane. See Plei's old Batman posts for details.)

I think MarySueness is much more annoying in literature than it is in video / visual arts. For one thing you have the pretty in a movie or a TV show. For another, when you have bright colors and flashing lights it becomes easier to excuse poor characterization. The equivalent can be done in literature, but it is IMO much rarer. Gus described Manny in Moon Is a Harsh Mistress as a Manny Sue, and I think that fits. In short I think iMary Sueness is as common and as annoying with male characters.

The name arisng with regard to female charactes was possibly due to male prejudice. But the fact that it arose in the context of fan fiction, where a lot of the early authors were women, and the annnoyly perfect fantasy projections of the authors were in fact women also had something to do with it.

Typo Boy is right inasmuch as the term "Mary Sue" comes from fanfic by women for women, and was coined by a woman speaking to other women. As far as I know, there was/is not nearly as specifically skewering a term to describe masculine fantasy authorial insertion, so Mary Sue has become the default term for all genders of that concept.

In general, when I see people be hateful toward Mary Sue, they have one or more of several specific beefs with it.

1. All conflict is flimsy and resolved too quickly/easily.
2. Characters tend to be shallowly defined.
3. The pattern, once discerned, is too predictable.
4. The extreme of the Mary Sue fantasy can indulge in some deeply crazy paranoid ranting.
5. Women's fantasies are not a suitable topic for fiction.

I strongly disagree with #5, and for that reason can whip up a pretty good argument for why Mary Sue can be a feminist issue. I find #4 is rare, but absolutely toxic to my ability to enjoy a novel. #1-3 I take on a case by case basis. While those who write Mary Sue also tend to be those least experienced in reading/writing, I cannot say that the correlation between crappy characterization/plotting and Mary Sue is necessarily causative.

Vonnie: on the Vorkosigan front, it is mentioned a number of times in later books that several languages "survived" -- Greek, Russian, and a couple of others -- during Barrayar's long isolation. So, yes, it is posited as a way-far-future, not an alternate reality. (I think at least 500 years, which was the length of isolation, but nobody ever says exactly how far future.) Also, at least one novel takes place on Earth.

And to combine topics, I always found Cordelia the least plausible character in the whole series, and was relieved that Miles has several neon-outlined character flaws, and even admits to himself that he is an annoying person.

Thanks for the clarification on LMB, Nutty. I'm pretty curious to learn more about the oft-referred to "Time of Isolation".

Hmmm, Cordelia as a Mary Sue... I guess there's enough of how she always rises to the occasion and unfailingly kicks the occasion's ass to Sunday. My Mary-Sue-o-meter was actually pinged on page one where there was a description of "a long tendril of copper hair" or some such, but then, LMB put her through so much hell that I was on her side all the way through her incredible feats. 'Cause I'm an utterly incorrigible angst-puppy.

I think the Vorkosigan stories are set a long time in a future compatable with our present. There's a book where Miles goes to Earth, and there are occasional references to events that would have happened between now and the time of the books.

While the whole Russian cultural thing runs strong in the Barryaran books, there are also hints of other subcultures -- a Greek-based minority, for example, and French is apparently a useful language for Miles to have. Most of the Russian references are language related, although I believe Miles refers to a Russian folk tale or two. The Cetigandan empire seems to have more of a Japanese Empire feel to it.

I've cast the books in my head many times. Most of my casting is based on the more recent books, where Miles is ~30 and the other characters aged accordingly. Cordelia would have to be played by an actress who can do kick-ass and smart, but she wouldn't have to be particularly pretty. Casting for her character fluctuates in my head. Aral strikes me as looking like Patrick Bauchau (Sydney on The Pretender).

The tough thing is casting Miles. The DH and I have cast and re-cast the Vorkosigan movies (and we're split on Cordelia-Sue, btw...he thinks she is, I think she's borderline but acceptable), and can't find a Miles. Maybe they can CGI Miles a la Gollum.

Yes, and Frodo would like it back.

Wrod.

Manny Sue

SO perfect.

Not a book, but in line with the Idea vs. Story discussion, I watched Amateur last night. Good movie, but I have to admit to missing the Idea because I was waiting for Godot. Or rather, waiting for the main character. I think story should be about a character's (or more than one) challenges, responses, successes, failures, and at the end of the story the character should be changed somehow by what he or she has experienced. At the end of this movie, the protagonist didn't seem to me to have changed at all, while the Idea had been resolved. So I was cranky. If your protagonist, who is ostensibly living the Idea of your story, doesn't have to change to show what the Idea is, I don't think viewers/readers can relate to it. Or at least, can't relate easily.

Now, in the case of "Amateur," it's entirely possible that I mis-identified the protagonist, or that the character changes were just really subtle. So my specific example may be flawed, but I stand by the point that if the Idea resolves without any Story, it's boring. (Conversely, if the Story resolves without any Idea, it's pointless.)