Works where you were surprised to learn you were in the minority of viewers

[Errorname]

Hrm. I don't remember Tyrion or Quentyn suddenly developing would-be-harems or getting forcibly validated at every turn just because they set foot in Essos.

I don't think that's really a fair assessment of how Daenerys' chapters go either.

Series!Daenerys always worked on a "give an absurd order to underlings; chide them for failing when they fail; use excessive amounts of violence; ? ; somehow actually profit" basis. And the anemic attempts to paint the whole deal as more nuanced (dragons are hard to control and are killing civilians! Slaves beat up older slaves and steal their toys! The old regime won't just roll over and die overnight because she told them too!) are invariably dropped without consequence long before we get into the idiocy that was the final two seasons.

Again, I think this is true for most of the cast in the later seasons. They make bad decisions that should have dire consequences, treat their allies badly, use brute force to get what they want and frequently succeed because the writers want them to. Daenerys isn't even the worst for it.

[Metastachydium]

I don't think that's really a fair assessment of how Daenerys' chapters go either.

The thing is, she has an absurd amount of fanboys and strawman opponents compared to pretty much everyone else on either continent. Sure, the series made sure it gets even worse when it addj Jon to the roster for cheap incest drama (admittedly a Targaryen thing, if done very stupidly), but hey.

Again, I think this is true for most of the cast in the later seasons. They make bad decisions that should have dire consequences, treat their allies badly, use brute force to get what they want and frequently succeed because the writers want them to. Daenerys isn't even the worst for it.

Yes. Except Daenerys doesn't start doing it in the last seasons. This is just what she does, consistently, pretty much starting with Qarth.

[Vahnavoi]

"Mary Sue" has always been iffy term to apply outside of fanfiction. That said, it may be possible Martin was actually angling to criticize, satirize or make fun of that sort of character - there is lot of that going on with other characters introduced early in the series. F.ex. I've seen a good case made for how Khal Drogo is a deconstruction of a Conan the Barbarian type of character, and Eddard Stark of Aragorn of Lord of the Rings. It's possible the author just missed the mark on the execution. It's hardly uncommon for a critical take to end up just a slightly edgier repeat of the target of criticism.

Speaking of the original topic, I am of the apparent minority of viewers who didn't dislike ending of Game of Thrones. Yes the last seasons were weaker than earlier ones, but not to a degree I found particularly appalling. Daenarys going mad and Jon Snow having to stab her in the back, I found perfectly logical and fitting in context. The Great Council afterword was weak, but acceptable.

[Errorname]

"Mary Sue" has always been iffy term to apply outside of fanfiction. That said, it may be possible Martin was actually angling to criticize, satirize or make fun of that sort of character - there is lot of that going on with other characters introduced early in the series. F.ex. I've seen a good case made for how Khal Drogo is a deconstruction of a Conan the Barbarian type of character, and Eddard Stark of Aragorn of Lord of the Rings. It's possible the author just missed the mark on the execution. It's hardly uncommon for a critical take to end up just a slightly edgier repeat of the target of criticism.

I think Daenerys ultimately boils down to her being deliberately constructed as a high fantasy character in a very low fantasy setting. It's not that she doesn't have serious flaws or struggle, but she's got a level of magical power that literally nobody else she's encountered (so far) can compete with.

Speaking of the original topic, I am of the apparent minority of viewers who didn't dislike ending of Game of Thrones. Yes the last seasons were weaker than earlier ones, but not to a degree I found particularly appalling. Daenarys going mad and Jon Snow having to stab her in the back, I found perfectly logical and fitting in context. The Great Council afterword was weak, but acceptable.

I think they really undermined Daenerys turning out to be the final villain by trying for shock value. D&D tend to prefer 10 seconds of shock to 10 minutes of suspense.

But also by that point the show is basically good actors and good production carrying scripts that have absolutely no weight. No sense of interiority for the characters, no sense of the broader world, no sense of lasting consequence. Just pretty looking war crimes and **** jokes

[Vahnavoi]

Daenarys turning into a villain didn't come as a shock to me - it seemed like a logical conclusion to the strain she'd been under for a very long time, and in line with her previous acts when not given "proper respect", such as burning of all the Dothraki leaders.

[Bohandas]

I feel that Rogue One was hands down the worst Star Wars movie (and also, on a tangential note, I feel that the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special is, at this point*, solidly average for the franchise in terms of quality). I've since gotten the impression that a lot of other people consider it to be one of the better movies in the series, or at least one of the better Disney movies)

*thanks to six or seven of the eleven movies and a fair number of the TV shows not being very good either

[Errorname]

Daenarys turning into a villain didn't come as a shock to me - it seemed like a logical conclusion to the strain she'd been under for a very long time, and in line with her previous acts when not given "proper respect", such as burning of all the Dothraki leaders.

I can't speak to how effective it was a shock, and Daenerys as an endgame villain did exist as a theory prior to the show, but I still don't think it worked.

It's just poorly dramatized. The actual triggers are dumb as rocks (Euron makes four impossible shots in rapid succession to knock a dragon out of the sky!), they do it in the span of a single episode and the characters are such hollow shells at that point that I can't care.

I feel that Rogue One was hands down the worst Star Wars movie and also that the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special is, at this point*, solidly average for the franchise in terms of quality

I struggle to see Rogue One being the worst unless you have a really high opinion of the sequels and the prequels. Rogue One is pretty middling, but I've never found it offensive the way other bad Star Wars things can be.

Holiday Special mostly noteworthy for being a massive departure in tone and genre. It's like a glimpse at another timeline where Star Wars became something completely different to what it turned out to be.

[Batcathat]

It's just poorly dramatized. The actual triggers are dumb as rocks (Euron makes four impossible shots in rapid succession to knock a dragon out of the sky!), they do it in the span of a single episode and the characters are such hollow shells at that point that I can't care.

Yeah, I felt like the basic ideas of the last season were alright (and Daenerys extremist side was definitely well-established, even if she usually showed it towards people the audience didn't like), but the pacing felt like someone was pushing slow-mo and fast-forward at random.

[Bohandas]

Yeah. I never got the hate for Solo either. I enjoyed it. At the end of the day, it's a one shot film, and does exactly what it needed to do (tell the origin bits for Han Solo). It checked every single box it needed to check: His signature pistol? Check. Millenium Falcon? Check. Chewie? Check. Kessel Run? Check. Why he's a smuggler? Check.

It did a lot of them in kind of a stilted or boring way. And as the others said it stretches credibility for all these things to have the same origin.

Also, what was the deal with the car going in the water at the end of the one chase scene. Why is repulsorlift worse than a real hovercraft?

I struggle to see Rogue One being the worst unless you have a really high opinion of the sequels and the prequels. Rogue One is pretty middling, but I've never found it offensive the way other bad Star Wars things can be.

Ok, there was the thing where Jedha City exploded in slow motion (it took like a couple minutes) but all the characters were moving at normal speed, like in that one Invader Zim episode. There was the guy that they made a huge deal about but who didn't actually do anything. They changed Tarkin from a coldly calculating sociopath to an unhinged homicidal maniac who blows up everything that he can, including an imperial military base (I was reminded of the scene in Mystery Men where the villain murders a bunch of his own men just to demonstrate how evil he is). The events and timeline are both completely at odds with what is implied in episode 4, to the point that the exchange between Leia and Vader at the start of ANH becomes almost farcical if viewed in the context of Rogue One. The movie is riddled with bizarre diabolus ex machina. It was tonally different from the rest of the movies. The plans weren't smuggled out on a tape drive. And everything that they say about the designing and construction of the Death Star is a needless retcon

[GloatingSwine]

Daenarys turning into a villain didn't come as a shock to me - it seemed like a logical conclusion to the strain she'd been under for a very long time, and in line with her previous acts when not given "proper respect", such as burning of all the Dothraki leaders.

The series doesn't have Daenerys "turn into a villain" in a manner consistent with the world she lives in though, it gives her the full Riefenstahl, it uses imagery specifically intended to reach a modern audience and say "this is actually the worst person ever!" because otherwise it would have had to put a lot more work into making the audience actually hate her and fear the idea of her victory.

And it really does not earn that, because it just hasn't presented her as any worse than anyone else who runs around with an army conquering people.

It's not the only illogical thing to happen for the finale, of course. The Hound trying to "protect" Arya from the stain of revenge and going himself after she's literally killed an entire family, fed them to their father, and then killed him? Comedy gold! She should just have told him what she did to the Freys and watched his brain snap.

[Precure]

Many of Martin's fantastical concepts have real world comparisons. Daenerys's attack is similar to aerial firebombing campaigns in our world, which made it less a case of madness.

[Metastachydium]

"Mary Sue" has always been iffy term to apply outside of fanfiction.

I mean, if the glove fits…

That said, it may be possible Martin was actually angling to criticize, satirize or make fun of that sort of character - there is lot of that going on with other characters introduced early in the series. F.ex. I've seen a good case made for how Khal Drogo is a deconstruction of a Conan the Barbarian type of character, and Eddard Stark of Aragorn of Lord of the Rings. It's possible the author just missed the mark on the execution. It's hardly uncommon for a critical take to end up just a slightly edgier repeat of the target of criticism.

But like I said earlier, I broadly agree with this analysis.

Daenarys going mad and Jon Snow having to stab her in the back, I found perfectly logical and fitting in context.

It was perfectly logical, just executed stupidly…

The Great Council afterword was weak, but acceptable.

…but I'll draw the line here. "Stupid pseudomedieval shmucks don't understand democracy" jokes? "I don't care about worldly matter and I'm totally not that guy called Brandon anymore, therefore… Of course I want to be your king, using the old nickname of the person I'm not!" "Hm. The Hightowers and Redwynes were closely related to the old Great House and weathered the wars with their power and resources largely intact. Let's make this nobody mercenary guy who helped murder their relatives and sack the province on behalf of their old enemies the new Lord Paramount of the Reach and Warden of the South instead, I'm sure they won't mind!"

As for the North seceding, I understand why they'd let it happen. It's not like it's not a depopulated wasteland with depleted resources facing a winter it's not prepared to survive (no, it won't last for a generation, but seriously, it really is winter) is much of an asset or something their crippled budget has funds to fix. But they paint it as a "Sansa so clever" good idea.

Yeah, I felt like the basic ideas of the last season were alright

I don't know. The basic idea seemingly being "let's clear the board of any characters too smart for us to write and everyone whose face we tire of, logic be damned"… I kinda disagree.

(and Daenerys extremist side was definitely well-established, even if she usually showed it towards people the audience didn't like)

Hard agree, thank you. Errorname and Swine are right that they went overboard with the aesthetic side of it, but the basics were always there.

, but the pacing felt like someone was pushing slow-mo and fast-forward at random.

And man, so absolutely true. "Let's do an episode's worth of soap opera where nothing happens, than get done with the whole Long Night deal in the next single episode once and for all. What could go wrong?" Well, so many things, guys. So many things.

It's just poorly dramatized. The actual triggers are dumb as rocks (Euron makes four impossible shots in rapid succession to knock a dragon out of the sky!),

The actual triggers are more like how everyone doesn't immediately start venerating her as god-empress; how her underlings keep failing in dying (in, admittedly, increasingly stupid ways), prompting her to solve stuff with her usual "obey me or DRAGONS" routine; how she then starts losing said dragons (in, admittedly, increasingly stupid ways); and how by the end suddenly nobody really wants her on the throne (so shocking! Albeit their other candidate being Jon… Yeah, let's file this under painful to watch too.)

they do it in the span of a single episode and the characters are such hollow shells at that point that I can't care.

That much is very fair, though, at any rate. I honestly wonder why, to put it in the terms these very forums will understand the best, there weren't more viewers who upon seeing S7, did like (if I'm not mistaken) you after seeing TLJ and never come back for S8.

[Peelee]

"Mary Sue" has always been iffy term to apply outside of fanfiction.

Fanfiction can be good quality writing and source material can be **** quality writing.

[Vahnavoi]

Fanfiction can be good quality writing and source material can be **** quality writing.

Sure. That doesn't actually justify or make usage of the term less iffy.

Imagine having a term that specifies a bad thing based on origin. Then someone comes in saying "but things can be bad regardless of origin!". Yeah. We know that. That's not what the term exists to describe. Applying it regardless of origin ruins its specificity and just turns it to another word for bad thing. Semantic drift and dilution at work.

Mary Sue was at its most useful when it referred to fan author self-insert in fan fiction. Broadening its use beyond that just made it into another internet snarl word.

[Peelee]

Sure. That doesn't actually justify or make usage of the term less iffy.

Why not? If a source material is as or more poorly written than a fanfic which has a character that fits the criteria, why is it suddenly iffy? Do the publication rights or IP licensing void that form of criticism? You say that criticism is most useful in fan fiction, which means you yourself agree and admit that it's not definitionally only applicable to fanfiction. The rest is just arguing price.

Also, I have no skin in the game on this specific accusation of Mary Sue. I've neither read nor seen Game of Thrones. I just don't think "you can't use this criticism because it's not fanfiction" is a terribly good argument.

[JNAProductions]

Sure. That doesn't actually justify or make usage of the term less iffy.

Imagine having a term that specifies a bad thing based on origin. Then someone comes in saying "but things can be bad regardless of origin!". Yeah. We know that. That's not what the term exists to describe. Applying it regardless of origin ruins its specificity and just turns it to another word for bad thing. Semantic drift and dilution at work.

Mary Sue was at its most useful when it referred to fan author self-insert in fan fiction. Broadening its use beyond that just made it into another internet snarl word.

You're wrong.
Mary Sue might've STARTED as a term for fanfictions, but there's no reason it can't be applied to any fiction with a character in it. You can have a Mary Sue in fanfictions, in published books, in D&D... If the shoe fits and all that.

[GloatingSwine]

Why not? If a source material is as or more poorly written than a fanfic which has a character that fits the criteria, why is it suddenly iffy? Do the publication rights or IP licensing void that form of criticism?

Trouble is the criteria have largely been broadened into uselessness, first by TVTropes and its relentless drive to categorise instead of examine and understand, and then by people using it as a catchall term for "female protagonist who I don't like".

It is a shoe which no longer fits anyone because it is four miles wide and an inch deep.

[Peelee]

Trouble is the criteria have largely been broadened into uselessness, first by TVTropes and its relentless drive to categorise instead of examine and understand, and then by people using it as a catchall term for "female protagonist who I don't like".

It is a shoe which no longer fits anyone because it is four miles wide and an inch deep.

Dang, you replies fast. I edited a bit more into that post, but more your rebuttal of what i wrote at the time, I disagree its been broadened to the pointyof uselessness. It just isn't relegated to "author self-insert character". Which, i also note, is hardly even relegated solely to fanfiction.

ETA: Also, i hate the term "Gary Stu" and think Mary Sue is a perfectly gender-neutral term for any character that fits it. If you want to argue sexism plays a role in people using this term against women characters they don't like, i won't argue that. But that doesn't appear to be the case here.

[Saph]

Trouble is the criteria have largely been broadened into uselessness, first by TVTropes and its relentless drive to categorise instead of examine and understand, and then by people using it as a catchall term for "female protagonist who I don't like".

Normally I'd agree with you, but in the case of Dany, she's a young super-beautiful female protagonist with silver hair and violet eyes and multiple super-powerful magical animal companions and a tragic backstory who's also a princess who's the heir to the throne and who's constantly admired/worshipped by almost everyone except the strawman villains she overcomes. She's practically a caricature of the archetype.

Complaining about people calling Dany a "Mary Sue" is like complaining about people calling Deadpool a rip-off of Deathstroke. It may or may not be true, but anyone with functioning eyes is going to notice that there's kind of a similarity there.

[GloatingSwine]

If people are trying to apply it to Daenerys, it absolutely demonstrates its overbroadness.

Remember that the original term was used to denote a character who everyone likes immediately, and if anyone doesn't like them it's specifically to show how wrong that character is, is always right and if anyone disagrees with them it's to show how stupid that character is, and because they're also a fanfiction ASI probably has a romantic entanglement with the author's preferred member or members of the original lineup.

Daenerys is only valued as chattel until she acquires power as the world around her understands it (which is the power to kill, embodied as giant **** off dragons) frequently wrong about things and people in destructive ways which hurt her specifically because she is a teenager with absolutely no understanding of the world, and the process of her learning to exert power and rise to a level of political control in the world is slow and tortuous.

Now, in the later seasons of the TV show there's a lot of conflict where her advisors are wrong about everything, she ignores them and then wins, but that's because absolutely everyone has mashed potato for brains in the later seasons and stupid things happen on the regular because the plot requires them.

[Vahnavoi]

Why not? If a source material is as or more poorly written than a fanfic which has a character that fits the criteria, why is it suddenly iffy?

Because the only clear criteria for application of the term were that it's a fan fiction character that is a fan author self-insert. All of the other supposed criteria are superficial and not widely agreed upon.

Do the publication rights or IP licensing void that form of criticism?

"There's a word for a bad thing from a specific source. Does not being from that source shield a bad thing from criticism?"

No, you use the word that specifies the correct source, if there is such a thing. Failing that, you call it just a bad thing and then specify what you mean.

"Mary Sue" has no utility for explaining what you mean, since outside its link to fanfiction, it's a loose checklist of traits that changes based on personal whim of nearly every user.

[Metastachydium]

You're wrong.
Mary Sue might've STARTED as a term for fanfictions, but there's no reason it can't be applied to any fiction with a character in it. You can have a Mary Sue in fanfictions, in published books, in D&D... If the shoe fits and all that.

Yep.

for "female protagonist who I don't like".

Notably, in the context of criticising fantasy works, I'm pretty sure I used it (or the Stu variant thereof) to describe a certain someone form the breadth of work churned out by a certain Terry Goodkind the most by a very far margin. I'm not calling Daenerys one of those because she's female, and find the implicit accusation rather offensive. I call her that because she handily demonstartes a whole host of traits associated with the archetype, thank you very much.

Normally I'd agree with you, but in the case of Dany, she's a young super-beautiful female protagonist with silver hair and violet eyes and multiple super-powerful magical animal companions and a tragic backstory who's also a princess who's the heir to the throne and who's constantly admired/worshipped by almost everyone except the strawman villains she overcomes. She's practically a caricature of the archetype.

Complaining about people calling Dany a "Mary Sue" is like complaining about people calling Deadpool a rip-off of Deathstroke. It may or may not be true, but anyone with functioning eyes is going to notice that there's kind of a similarity there.

See also this here above, yes.

If people are trying to apply it to Daenerys, it absolutely demonstrates its overbroadness.

Remember that the original term was used to denote a character who everyone likes immediately, and if anyone doesn't like them it's specifically to show how wrong that character is, is always right and if anyone disagrees with them it's to show how stupid that character is, and because they're also a fanfiction ASI probably has a romantic entanglement with the author's preferred member or members of the original lineup.

Daenerys has the single largest salivating-after-her harem in the series, and although I haven't touched the books in a while, I think it only differs from that in not adding Jon to the roster, but having an extra husband and even Xaro fantasizing about how a life of cruising the seas with D. would be so cool. And some "even the girls want her" on top.

Daenerys is only valued as chattel until she acquires power as the world around her understands it (which is the power to kill, embodied as giant **** off dragons)

That's pretty much only true until Drogo realizes he's madly in love with her, which is… Almost immediately after she's intriduced. His death throws in a brief hiatus (where People Who Are Really Bad are mean to her), but by the end of the whole Qarth thing, yes, she's entering full-swing "obey me or dragons" mode.

Now, in the later seasons of the TV show there's a lot of conflict where her advisors are wrong about everything, she ignores them and then wins, but that's because absolutely everyone has mashed potato for brains in the later seasons and stupid things happen on the regular because the plot requires them.

You have to be very generous to somehow pretend it isn't already on in S6 at the latest, where people not exposed to Her Inherent Greatness still do have pretty darn functional brains.

[Peelee]

Because the only clear criteria for application of the term were that it's a fan fiction character that is a fan author self-insert. All of the other supposed criteria are superficial and not widely agreed upon.

Aside from the sexist uses, which tend to advertise themselves as such fairly clearly, it seems the criteria are widely agreed upon. Aside from a small minority that insist language is unable to evolve and only the original definition of self-insert character will ever be valid.

[Bohandas]

Trouble is the criteria have largely been broadened into uselessness, first by TVTropes and its relentless drive to categorise instead of examine and understand, and then by people using it as a catchall term for "female protagonist who I don't like".

The term is applied to male characters as well

[Metastachydium]

Aside from the sexist uses, which tend to advertise themselves as such fairly clearly, it seems the criteria are widely agreed upon. Aside from a small minority that insist language is unable to evolve and only the original definition of self-insert character will ever be valid.

I am also yet to see any use of the term to describe a character that doesn't have any of the traits usually associated with the character type and is merely a self-insert (for which we have a better and cleare term in, well, self-insert), I might add, making the one defining quality Vahnavoi seems to accept as not only arguably not neccessary, but also not sufficient in itself.

[Vahnavoi]

Aside from a small minority that insist language is unable to evolve and only the original definition of self-insert character will ever be valid.

Evolution of language is perfectly capable of making useful terms useless and you are not a neutral party in said evolution.

[Ramza00]

I am sorry but I am going to annoy both sides of the discussion, I am having fun and I hope everyone understands I have no ill will even if I may be passionate.

but in fantasy literature there is often the concept of “the special” , the one who was anointed by heaven, who was prophesied , etc etc.

The one who is not a self insert , yet the audience has mirrored their own dreams and desires onto via being seduced via hearing that persons thoughts, dreams, aspirations via a first person perspective. The reader now relates to the protagonist in a way that they feel attached to the character like the attached character is family or themselves, they are FANS.

What does one do with this fan energy?

=====

And what if this character who is a walking dream, turns out to be a NIGHTMARE, yet truly believes in their cause. Martin was 16 when Dr. Strangelove came out, and I can list a thousands of other examples but will not for it would be long. What if one lives in an absurd world, the bad place, and one person gets to decide the tempo of the musical hall in which everyone else is FORCED to dance to?

Martin was once a horror writer you see 👀 ( in the last five years Martin has used some of his wealth to set up a scholarship for aspiring horror writers to attend the Odyssey Writing Workshop, the Miskatonic scholarship.

[Errorname]

Also, I have no skin in the game on this specific accusation of Mary Sue. I've neither read nor seen Game of Thrones. I just don't think "you can't use this criticism because it's not fanfiction" is a terribly good argument.

My position is more specifically that it was a fandom in-joke that broke containment and lost the context that made it make sense. I think it's carrying a lot of baggage from misuse and it isn't useful enough as an analytical tool to be worth keeping around.

Daenerys has the single largest salivating-after-her harem in the series, and although I haven't touched the books in a while, I think it only differs from that in not adding Jon to the roster, but having an extra husband and even Xaro fantasizing about how a life of cruising the seas with D. would be so cool. And some "even the girls want her" on top.

Do you think it is unrealistic for an unmarried royal who is rapidly amassing power and followers to have suitors?

And calling unwanted sexual objectification by older men who want to take advantage of her a harem is certainly a take.

His death throws in a brief hiatus (where People Who Are Really Bad are mean to her), but by the end of the whole Qarth thing, yes, she's entering full-swing "obey me or dragons" mode.

I question your takeaways from stuff like Mirri Maz Duur or the entire Meereenese plotline.

And what if this character who is a walking dream, turns out to be a NIGHTMARE, yet truly believes in their cause. Martin was 16 when Dr. Strangelove came out, and I can list a thousands of other examples but will not for it would be long. What if one lives in an absurd world, the bad place, and one person gets to decide the tempo of the musical hall in which everyone else is FORCED to dance to?

I'd also say that all Martin's main characters are playing into classic villainous archetypes as well as heroic ones. Jon is a resentful half-brother to the rightful heir, Daenerys has a lot of classic evil queen imagery, and Tyrion is very obviously a Richard III / Wormtongue figure, and I suspect a major tension in the final books will be which archetypes these characters ultimately end up filling.

[Mechalich]

I question your takeaways from stuff like Mirri Maz Duur or the entire Meereenese plotline.

Yeah, and she doesn't even have control over the dragons until after the Meereen plotline concludes, which has yet to happen in the books. She can give them a command to breathe fire, but that's all. She rides Drogon for the first time and he dumps her in the wilderness, resulting in her getting captured by her enemies (which is where the book plotline currently ends).

Daenerys is a destined fantasy protagonist with two standout features: she's unreasonably beautiful and she has innate fire resistance. That's not really all that impressive given her circumstances. The dragons are part of a great destiny in which she, Jon Snow, and a third character whose identity has not yet been revealed, share (the show ignored this by turning one of the dragons into an ice zombie).

Sure, lots of people lust after her, but ASOIAF is an extremely lusty series with an open embrace of sexual objectification all over the place. I think this is a point where people get wires crossed because the show heavily emphasized Daenerys' appearance by repeatedly having Emilia Clarke take her clothes off on camera while Lena Headey, Natalie Dormer, Sophie Turner, and others were mostly allowed to keep their clothes on.

[Peelee]

Evolution of language is perfectly capable of making useful terms useless and you are not a neutral party in said evolution.

I agree that I'm not neutral in that and that language evolution can render words useless. I do not agree that has happened with "Mary Sue".

My position is more specifically that it was a fandom in-joke that broke containment and lost the context that made it make sense. I think it's carrying a lot of baggage from misuse and it isn't useful enough as an analytical tool to be worth keeping around.

Gotcha. I'm even less qualified to opine on this specific instance, then, since all I know about the fandom is they turned hard against the show at the last season or two.