The HFIL is a Mary Sue?

[Garren Jacobsen]

No seriously, I keep seeing people call x-character a Mary Sue. (The present popular belief is that Rey from The Force Awakens) From what I understand a Mary Sue is supposed to be a self-insertion character that is over idealized. Yet, I keep seeing people mention idealized characters (like Rey) to be Mary Sues. So now I am a bit perplexed. So, tell me, what in the Home for Infinite Losers is a Mary Sue? Because now I have no idea.

 

[WooHooMan]

It's a buzz word that literally means "bad character".
The more specific a definition you give it, the less accurate that definition becomes.
"Over idealized self-insertion" can be part of the definition (it often is) but not always.

My advice: throw away the term. It's worthless.

 

[ThinkerX]

'Mary Sue' = 'Character too good to be true'

(or plausible)

That's my take anyhow.

 

[Penpilot]

Sometimes people throw around terms without actually knowing what they mean. In regards to Rey, I can see the argument, because she seems to take to her force powers quite fast without enough struggle. But I don't agree with the assessment, because I believe there's a reason for her quick learning.

Then again, if those reasons don't come to pass in some form, then I'd say it's darn close that she's a Mary Sue.

As for the definition, I believe it's a character that comes by their skills with little effort to no effort, is without flaws, cannot fail in anything they do, and is basically a form of wish fulfilment by the author.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

'Mary Sue' = 'Character too good to be true'

(or plausible)

That's my take anyhow.

But if this is the case then Superman, Batman, Captain America, Rand al'Thor, Aragorn, Sam, Legolas and a whole slew of other characters are Mary Sue's and the term as a criticism or pejorative, which is how most people use it, is utterly useless and is a mere descriptor of a nigh perfect being.

 

[WooHooMan]

But if this is the case then Superman, Batman, Captain America, Rand al'Thor, Aragorn, Sam, Legolas and a whole slew of other characters are Mary Sue's and the term as a criticism or pejorative, which is how most people use it, is utterly useless and is a mere descriptor of a nigh perfect being.

Yeah, those character are included under that definition. And...?

No one explicitly said the term is useful to any degree. You just asked for a definition not justification for using the term in literary criticism.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Yeah, those character are included under that definition. And...?

No one explicitly said the term is useful to any degree. You just asked for a definition not justification for using the term in literary criticism.

If the definition of a Mary Sue is idealized characters then why is it so often used as a pejorative?

 

[WooHooMan]

If the definition of a Mary Sue is idealized characters then why is it so often used as a pejorative?

Because the term was created to mean "bad idealized character". Bad quality is tied into connotation of the term. It always has been. In fact, "bad" is more deeply tied to the term than "idealization".

Superman, James Bond and so forth qualify as Mary Sue if you're using the term to mean "idealized character" but not if you use the term to mean "bad idealized character".

And of course, "bad" is subjective.

 

[X Equestris]

It's lost a lot of its original meaning, but a Mary Sue is a too-good to be true character. Often, they're flawless, or have not-flaws (like clumsiness that never hinders them in an important story moment, or being too compassionate but never having their compassion be taken advantage of). The most extreme Sues have the narrative outright on their side, and it treats them like perfect people even if they do pretty awful things. And anyone who doesn't fawn over them is often demonized by the narrative voice. Really, it's most useful in fanfic circles. Defining Sues who are products of the actual author and part of canon is a much hazier exercise.

 

[Deleted member 4265]

A lot of what I wanted to say has already been covered, but I think whether someone is a Mary Sue or not depends on whether or not you believe they have something to lose and/ or they have a good reason for being really special.

Take Harry Potter for example. He's clearly wish-fulfillment, but is he a Mary Sue? I think that all depends on whether or not you can buy into the fact that his mother is apparently the only person who was able to use the power of love to protect her son. If you can accept that and some of the other explanations such as him being able to talk to snakes because some of Voldemort's powers were transferred to him when Voldemort tried to kill him then him having special abilities and being treated as a celebrity are okay.

You also have to think about whether or not there are any real obstacles in his path which is why I wouldn't consider him a Mary Sue despite being a wish fulfillment character. I'll admit in the first book he's pretty Mary Suish. He's instantly great at quiddich, able to get past spells set up by his teachers as a first year, and defeats Quirrel/ Voldemort very easily. But in later books, we find that he needs help. His friends aren't just there to show how amazing and well-liked he is (as they would be with a true Mary Sue), they actually help him. While he's ultimately the hero, you get the sense that without Ron and Hermoine he wouldn't have made it out of some of the situations he was in.

It's a highly subjective term and what I think it all comes down to is whether or not you believe the author is treating a character with a degree of "specialness" they haven't earned.

 

[Miskatonic]

Bella Swan = Mary Sue.

She seems to be the most recent poster girl.

 

[FifthView]

No seriously, I keep seeing people call x-character a Mary Sue. (The present popular belief is that Rey from The Force Awakens) From what I understand a Mary Sue is supposed to be a self-insertion character that is over idealized. Yet, I keep seeing people mention idealized characters (like Rey) to be Mary Sues. So now I am a bit perplexed. So, tell me, what in the Home for Infinite Losers is a Mary Sue? Because now I have no idea.

Normally I think of "Mary Sue" as that type of idealized character who has unbelievable good luck, always succeeding (usually without much effort), and for whom the setting and other characters seem to "work." By that last, I mean that every situation is set up to show off just how competent, intelligent/clever, "special" the character is.

Then I started listening to some of the early podcasts of Writing Excuses—I bought the first 5 seasons on a disk and imported them into iTunes for easier listening while at work—and Brandon Sanderson et al. seem to define a Mary Sue mostly as mere self-insertion of the author into the book. The really bad ones are examples of the too-good, too-competent character. But any sort of apparent self-insertion would fall under that term.

[Brandon] Speaking of looking bad, we're going to talk about Mary Sue. Or... well, Dan, tell us what a Mary Sue is.

[Dan] A Mary Sue is... that is where the author puts him or herself into the book as a character.

[Brandon] Yeah. Blatantly.

[Dan] Blatantly. Not necessarily by name. This can happen with this character is actually me but I changed the name or I changed something else to throw you off but not really because it's obviously me.

[Howard] Clive Cussler does it in all his books on purpose. At that point it becomes a cameo.

[Brandon] A Mary Sue is more of a... usually, if someone says, "Hey, that's a Mary Sue," it's an insult. Meaning what they're saying is they're pointing at one of your characters and saying you are inserting yourself sneakily into this book as a form of wish fulfillment. Instead of having a real protagonist, you just want to go on all these adventures. So you change a few things, you give this character too many things, you make them all powerful, omnipotent and this sort of thing, just to fulfill your own desires.

Writing Excuses Season 3 Episode 16: The Anti-Mary Sue Episode | Writing Excuses​

Edit: In the intro to the podcast, they include this in the summary:

In broader terms, what we’re covering is voice, and how to make our characters sound like themselves rather than us.

So I think the term can be used more broadly than merely to cover the too-good, too-competent sort of character. Basically, rather than a well-rounded character with his/her own background, personality, and so forth, a Mary Sue might be that type of character who obviously shares the author's beliefs, outlook, history (analogous history, at least), personality, etc.

 

[Mythopoet]

The term came about to mean a character in a fanfiction created by the author to represent the author. So for instance, if I'm writing fanfiction set in Middle-earth and I create an original character to insert into that world so that I can pretend to have the experience of being the most beautfullest of the Elves whom Legolas falls in love with at first sight and is practically perfect in every way so that no matter what everything always goes well for her. That's the original definition of a Mary Sue.

However, it has come to be used to describe any character that the describer thinks has it too easy or is written just for "wish fulfillment". There is no standard for this term so it is applied based solely on the tastes of the person using it. As such, it is almost always a completely useless term.

As stated above, Bella Swan of Twilight is often called a Mary Sue, but millions of preteen and teen girls were able to identify with her and get a lot out of her story. So if she is a Mary Sue, so what?

As with any term used in literary criticism, it's hard to tell at what point it's being used legitimately and at what point it's just a term used to describe something that doesn't appeal to the user's tastes.

 

[FifthView]

I think that dismissing the term out of hand is not helpful and actually might be harmful to new writers.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I think that dismissing the term out of hand is not helpful and actually might be harmful to new writers.

I have to admit, I Mary Sued the hell out of myself and my friends in my first book. But, at the same time, that book wasn't meant to be published. It was a "see if I could write something" kind of deal. That was when I first ran into the term. It helped me realize why this was a problem, and I knew that it was bad form going into it. But it looks like the term, as it is commonly used, has been muddied. Still though, I think keeping the term narrow (self-insertion, perfection, wish-fulfillment) is better for new writers.

 

[NerdyCavegirl]

I think another type of Mary Sue I see a lot deserves mention: The person who has a ridiculously horrible life, being exiled and persecuted, everyone they love always dying, being raped and tortured multiple times, but if they experience any disability or post-traumatic stress, it's often extremely exaggerated while at the same time never negatively impacting their success and being treated as a non-issue in story. Such "characters" feel as if I'm being forced to feel pity and awe for them for overcoming overly dramatic obstacles, I guess in an attempt to distract from the lack of genuine characterization, and it feels just as shallow as a Mary Sue with a perfect life, no mental problems, and dozens of friends. And I agree that most of these are in fanfics, which let's not forget are often written by tweens.

 

[FifthView]

NerdyCavegirl: I suppose "wish fulfillment," to whatever degree we apply that term to the Mary Sue, will depend on the type of wish. Being omnipotent, etc., could be one wish; being rescued could be another, in which case the perpetual victim type might be an example. Or, being pitied?

The broader concept, in which the MC doesn't substantially differ from the author in personality, beliefs, worldview, and so forth, could also crop up in MCs whose beliefs are somewhat anachronistic. The crusading feminist in a medieval setting, for instance. Or the MC who think all the laborers in a medieval society should be paid extra for working longer days. Or whatever.

I've even wondered if my current mental logjam with a project might be related to the fact that I've specifically chosen an MC whose background is similar to my own and who will experience the same sort of culture shock and alienation in the novel that is not entirely unlike my own life. His own particular experience is not exactly like mine, but it's analogous. So perhaps if I consciously chose to give him personality traits and motivations quite unlike my own–I've considered making him a lecher; then, tossed that idea–maybe I'd break that logjam.

I suppose the "Mary Sue" approach can crop up in multiple ways.

 

[Velka]

If anyone is interested, there's an online Mary Sue (or Gary Sue depending on your character) test*.

*For entertainment purposes only.

 

[WooHooMan]

I think that dismissing the term out of hand is not helpful and actually might be harmful to new writers.

Still though, I think keeping the term narrow (self-insertion, perfection, wish-fulfillment) is better for new writers.

I disagree. I think using the term harms new writers and here's why...

I think another type of Mary Sue I see a lot deserves mention: The person who has a ridiculously horrible life blah blah blah I guess in an attempt to distract from the lack of genuine characterization, and it feels just as shallow as a Mary Sue with a perfect life, no mental problems, and dozens of friends.

I call this the "Bizarro Sue". Which I think is more common nowadays than the traditional "perfect" Mary Sue.

What happens is a critic (or anyone giving writing advice) will tell a new writer "this character is a Mary Sue and that's bad".
The new writer then looks into what the term means and usually is given the definition "a flawless character used for wish fulfillment". So the new writer goes for the opposite extreme: a character who is nothing but flaws.

If we do away with the term, the critic will not have the buzz word to substitute for substantial criticism so they will have to come-up with more concrete criticism like "this character is bad because they lack character development" or "this character is bad because they do not earn their accomplishments".
At the very least, the critic would say "this is a bad character" which would prompt the new writer to try and figure-out "what is a good character and how do I write one" rather than "what is a Mary Sue and how do I avoid writing one".

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I disagree. I think using the term harms new writers and here's why...



I call this the "Bizarro Sue". Which I think is more common nowadays than the traditional "perfect" Mary Sue.

What happens is a critic (or anyone giving writing advice) will tell a new writer "this character is a Mary Sue and that's bad".
The new writer then looks into what the term means and usually is given the definition "a flawless character used for wish fulfillment". So the new writer goes for the opposite extreme: a character who is nothing but flaws.

If we do away with the term, the critic will not have the buzz word to substitute for substantial criticism so they will have to come-up with more concrete criticism like "this character is bad because they lack character development" or "this character is bad because they do not earn their accomplishments".
At the very least, the critic would say "this is a bad character" which would prompt the new writer to try and figure-out "what is a good character and how do I write one" rather than "what is a Mary Sue and how do I avoid writing one".

I don't feel that your proposed solution is really a solution at all. First, you are attempting to eliminate specific instances of poor criticism when one of two things would handle the problem better. First, for the author to recognize that a critic isn't infallible and to analyze their criticisms with a critical eye. Second, for people to simply get better at critting. To do away with a term is a bit over the top. If constrained and narrowed and used properly, the term can be a useful tool. The problem isn't the term itself but the use of the term. Doing away with Mary Sue would be like doing away with telling people to avoid passive voice when the critter doesn't know what passive voice is. It's not the fault of the term but of the user.