Godspousing: how to be a real life Mary Sue.
Yes, my opinion got worse.
18+ article.
If you follow me, you may already know that the photos in my articles are never random. I’ll usually search Unsplash or my own photography collection for something that illustrates the topic, with varying degrees of success. Today, I am pleased to announce that the photo above couldn’t be more perfect. It encapsulates basically everything I will say on the topic today. (Props to the team behind it and the beautiful model, by the way. It’s an interesting concept, well executed).
Another thing you might already know is the fact I take my sweet time making up my mind about ideas. This is not to say the final “decision” is unchangeable, though — I’m a firm believer that nothing is fixed or permanent, so why would my opinions be — which might explain why if you compare one of my recent articles to one of my first articles on the same topic, you’ll see a contrast (Friendly reminder: always check the date before commenting). I do delete articles every now and then, but it tends to be because “meh, I no longer think it was necessary to say that/use those words”. It’s never because an opinion evolved.
Different from the first one (which you can click here to read), today’s Godspousing article will be a lot more tongue-in-cheek because honestly I’m sick of these people. I’m not saying every godspouse in the world fits into the description I’m giving you here (so, feel free to prove me wrong. Not whine and be a Karen, or I won’t respond; actually prove me wrong with facts and evidence). All I’m saying is I may or may not have run into far too many godspouses for comfort by now, and all these encounters were at the very least annoying (and at worst, downright passive-aggressive and two-faced), so, yes, there IS an element of personal resentment to it. Delusional people (not just godspouses, mind you) find me because I’m open-minded, so they think my mind is also open for rubbish. I’m fed-up to the back teeth with this kind of assumption. I will, however, try and keep the article as impartial and informative as possible — call me out if I don’t succeed.
After all, let’s face it: I’ve gotten myself into conflicts with all sorts of people. I got into very heated debates that left an actual emotional scar with the trans community on several occasions, for example; But will I go on to invalidate trans identities just because I got backstabbed by people who happened to be trans? No. I’m 100% for their fight for social justice and hope they succeed. This will NOT change as far as I can predict. It’s a worthwhile cause. They have a point (an actual, logical, not just whiney and crybaby-like point). Godspousing, on the other hand… I’m sorry, but I can’t see the point in it. So, having “beef” with the community was only the last straw to motivate me to write about it, to be honest.
Could my opinion change for the better one day? Sure. If that happens, I’ll come back here and make a third article.
Without further ado:
What is a Mary Sue?
Look, I’m trying to keep this article brief; But I don’t think oversimplifying the concept of Mary Sue would be fair, so here you go, take this video and have fun. I think this youtuber does a pretty good job of explaining this fiction trope and its evolution, all the while staying impartial and respectful to both sides of the debate.
“Both sides of the debate? What debate”, you may be wondering. Oh boy, careful what you ask for…
So, one side of the debate is like “Mary Sue characters are undesirable because they don’t add to the narrative and are only there to satisfy the author” — I’m with them, as you’ll see. Meanwhile, the other side says “Mary Sue is a sexist insult because you’re targetting female authors! Shame on you! Never criticise the self-insert characters female authors create! Boo!”.
*Sigh*
If you’re team taboo (that is, trying to make it taboo to use the term “Mary Sue” because, I guess, feelings), rage at me all you want. Get it all out, go ahead. I’m used to being people’s punching bag. Better here than against somebody with a thin skin, am I right?
The only thing I will say, and I’m not hoping the close-minded crybabies will listen (but ya know, others might) is: has anyone ever cancelled Hermione Granger? She’s a self-insert character JK Rowling even admitted to. She is female and created by a woman. She is a good protagonist a lot of people love and consider “special”. Is anyone calling her a Mary Sue? Anywhere? Ever? No. They’re not. Rightfully so, because Hermione Granger is NOT a Mary Sue by any stretch of the imagination. She fits in perfectly well in the world of Harry Potter without defying any of the world’s rules or appearing unnecessarily god-like. She is a perfect example of how to write a plain-and-uninteresting-female-loser-turned-amazing-protagonist without falling into Mary Sue territory. That’s because, to put it simply, Hermione has flaws, has room to grow, makes mistakes (all of this, well into the very last book!), does NOT always get a happy ending for her endeavours, and feels real. Hermione is one way to live out a fantasy of “becoming special and well-liked” which a lot of female authors seem to secretly wish for, without too much delusion.
(And I’m saying this, without even being a fan of JK Rowling or her books. Or not anymore, after the scandals).
So, to the naysayers: I hear you. Yes, surprisingly, I do. When I strip your argument out of all the logical fallacies and emotional chaos, one part of it actually makes sense: the fact that Mary Sues get more hate than Gary Stus (same trope, male version). Yes, there can very well be sexism behind that. Surprise, surprise, we live in a sexist world. Now, tell me the news!
The thing is, how do you resolve that? By shaming and guilt-tripping people into not discussing the Mary Sue phenomenon anymore? What would that achieve, other than compel critical thinkers to start whispering instead of speaking out loud?
I personally think a much better solution would be, instead of this idiotic emotion-fuelled deflection and politically correct fearmongering… Instead of allowing all the Mary Sues because “how dare” anyone give female authors anything other than praise… Why don’t we push for disapproving of Gary Stues more vocally? We can dislike characters of both genders in equal measure — or at least strive for that.
But no, the issue is another, isn’t it? There’s an ego wound lurking behind the politically correct facade. The same ego wound that drove Amber Heard to try using a similar argument in her defense even when she became objectively indefensible. “Oh, but I’m a woman, guys. Women are oppressed. I have free pass to lie and be nasty as much as I want. UWU. *puppy eyes* Will you disagree? UWU” Yeah, no. Enough of that bullshit.
Hurt people hurt other people. It’s not just the 100% evil cartoonish villains you should watch out for. This world is full of wolves in sheep clothing and I am NOT impressed.
Narcissism is a common culprit.
Why is it that every godspouse I’ve ever seen has at least one narcissistic parent? Have you ever noticed a similar pattern? By all means, if you know anyone in this, uh, “community” [can I call it that? Or do most godspouses dislike each other too?], anyone at all, who does NOT have a history of severe abuse by narcissists, let me know. I’m all ears.
Let me repeat the maxim: hurt people hurt other people. Narcissism is called a generational curse for good reason. People don’t just wake up one day and say “ya know what? Life is too boring. Let me spice it up a bunch by behaving like a narcissist from now on, just for funsies”. You’re probably smart enough to know that nobody does that.
There’s also no evidence behind the claim that narcissism could be genetic (or genetic to a significant extent, anyhow).
Wounds that begin in our upbringing often cause us to continue the cycle of disordered thinking/behaving, not because we’re somehow masochists and want to follow the footsteps of our abusers… But because we simply do not know better. We can learn to look at life from a different angle with the help of mental health professionals, but chances are we can’t “just deal with it” and break the cycle alone.
No, not even alone with a deity. That’s called spiritual bypassing.
I know a lot of people would say “but I do see a therapist”, and in fact that’s true. But a therapist is a therapist; not a mind reader; not a lie detector; not a forensic investigator. Unless you tell them you’re willing to work, specifically, on your possible narcissistic traits inherited from the shitty upbringing, chances are they won’t manipulate you into getting there — it could even be unethical. It’s a matter of deciding to get HONEST with yourself about yourself. No-one else can take that decision FOR you. No one can force you to take another look at a belief or behaviour of yours and go like “damn… Maybe there could be a self-centered trait here and I’m covering it up with a ton of excuses to avoid the hurt of seeing it for what it is”. Denial is a state we only get out of if we decide to.
As for the common deflection, “but I’m NOT enjoying the Godspousing experience, I was forced/manipulated into it and I’m such a victim”… look up COVERT / VULNERABLE narcissism please. Not everyone is grandiose. Alternatively, rewatch the video I shared above and pay attention to the dark/edgy Mary Sue.
Overindulgence to make the inner child “shut up”.
No, the problem isn’t the fact a lot of Mary Sues in fiction and Godspouses in real life alike are “chosen ones”. The chosen one can be a bit of a cliché, but it’s not necessarily a problem — not even in fiction. And you could argue that, in real life, a lot of people ARE “chosen ones” and can’t help but BE “chosen ones” in order to keep doing their jobs. Your president or other head of State for example — it’s only one at a time, or only a few at a time if you take many nations’ leaders and put them together in one room.
The problem I see is another thing entirely: the fact an author will overindulge when creating a Mary Sue (like, screw having ONE big quality or advantage; let’s put everything into one character for no good reason!), and likewise, a self-centered person will overindulge in a fantasy of romance with the perfect partner as is the case with Godspouses (because all deities are perceived as perfect, or way way way better than us anyway. So imagine marrying one? Whatever you do, wherever you go, whenever… It will always lead to a happy ending or at least a moral ending with a noble lesson that the mere peasants watching from afar will admire for ages to come…). Too good to be true? Let’s come back to Earth a tad? Because I’m sick of seeing Godspouses claiming they’re learning so much and evolving so quickly… Then proceed to behave in a very childish and (dare I say?) “unevolved” way a few days later. Where is all that maturity and spiritual evolution when you guys gossip about people, triangulate, create conflicts out of thin air, prioritise your ego instead of a friendship, etc? Isn’t it nice how you can turn this so-called “evolution” on and off like flipping a switch?
I wasn’t born yesterday.
You can tell me all you want that it’s “not all roses”, and indeed I believe that. But I’m not saying it HAS to be 100% pleasant in order to qualify as self-centered overindulgence, am I? All it takes is reaching a level of perfection that would elevate you and your Godspousing pals (as opposed to most people) above and beyond “the crowd”. It’s like an infinite evolution glitch, because when we marry a fellow human, there’s always the possibility your partner could end up doing something unredeemable… But with a god, oh no, with a god it’s guaranteed success because they’re so much more evolved than us. Even the fights have a moral behind them; the disagreements are all mere misunderstandings; Even the periods of difficulty have a big-ass silver lining that hints at learning and spiritual evolution [and insert here other admirable, noble, enviable kinds of character development].
Overindulgence is the key word here. It is what the Mary Sue trope and the whole appeal of Godspousing have in common, thus inspiring me to make the comparison. It’s one of the problems that can lead to addictive behaviour: overindulging in this, and that, and a third thing over there… Because “hell yeah, I suffered so much, I deserve it”.
It could come to a point where (not for everyone, but worth mentioning) you’d just be running away from the real wound that needs addressing and throwing “stuff” at the inner child to make it shut up about the wound. As if saying to the inner child, “oh, you’re crying about trust issues and relationship failure? I don’t wanna hear it; take this substitute with a deity”; “Oh, you’re crying about self-esteem issues? I don’t wanna hear it; take this ideal of a romance with a deity because deities don’t reject as easily as people”. It’s almost as if… Godspouses have problems with other humans, then make it a deity’s business. Not that they can’t help us from afar with our worldly problems (and occasionally get weirdly NEAR us; Which gives rise to beliefs about sex I guess)… But that’s no reason to literally consider them a spouse.
What’s more: one could be “chosen” by a deity for a specific job, and still not need to involve romance or marriage into it. I’ve expanded on it in the previous article so I won’t here, but basically, proximity (even if it includes rituals that brings you weirdly familiar sensations) does not automatically mean you’re family now. Deities are by definition attracted to us (don’t take this in a degenerate way…), take a look at myths and legends from anywhere at all. They enjoy interacting and teaching us lessons; it’s what they do. What makes you think you need to “put a ring” on this proximity with a deity? You’re literally just being human. It’s a very common part of the human experience to interact with the sacred — especially so if you care about it and try on purpose. Most people just don’t care about it; have too unrealistic standards for what qualifies or not; have a fear of believing; etc. But we’re all equally “special” in that regard. Let’s all marry the gods and turn it into a generalised tradition, shall we? That makes more sense.
All in all, this is probably overcomplicating an issue that could be summarised into a single sentence: if there’s a simpler explanation, always test the simpler explanation first.
9 times out of 10, if someone claims to be married to a god, chances are they’re just living out a twee fantasy, much like our unrealistic expectations and “taboo” interests are often turned into kinks — which is fine, but the way they sell it as a legit practice for spiritual evolution to naive passerbys (like myself… I fell for it at first) is NOT fine. Similarly, 9 times out of 10, if someone claims they take “entheogens” for spiritual pursuit (and are doing it out of context / recreationally), it’s just code for “I want drugs”. And what’s wrong with wanting some fun? Why this need to frame it as something morally better? Sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll are 3 things every person likes or has liked in life; they aren’t bad per se, but they very often (not always…just incredibly often) cater to our basest instincts. That’s the very OPPOSITE of pursuing enlightenment… Don’t you think? Sure, it can be done, but it’s usually a matter of these things (or similar enough) existing within very specific, not too frequent rituals *because we are human*. Same way you still need your physical body no matter how hard you’re meditating. It doesn’t automatically mean that it’s okay to go overboard with catering to your instincts just because you NEED to cater to the instincts anyway. There are levels to things.
Overindulgence is bad no matter how you frame it. Even Dionysus, god of indulgence, preaches moderation. Food for thought, I hope.
