# The HFIL is a Mary Sue?



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 18, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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

(or plausible)

That's my take anyhow.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 19, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

ThinkerX said:


> '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 (Jan 19, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

Bella Swan = Mary Sue.

She seems to be the most recent poster girl.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 19, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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 (Jan 19, 2016)

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

*For entertainment purposes only.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


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





Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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...



NerdyCavegirl said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


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



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.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 20, 2016)

I don't think the term is useful if someone is trying to use is as if it's a valid argument against a character they simply don't like.

On the other hand I don't see anything wrong with calling out an author for creating a wish fulfillment character.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 20, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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.



I strongly agree with this.

My only possible quibble would be on the phrase "constrained and narrowed"—because I think that describes what happens when the term is used poorly or at least understood poorly when received as criticism.  I _do_ think that the term must have a recognizable, definite....definition.  (See what I did there?)  So it needs to be constrained, narrow enough to have meaning.  But equating the term to merely those omnipotent, can-do-no-wrong characters that are nothing more than an author putting himself or herself into the story in order to have an adventure (a day at Disneyland!), makes the term less useful than it might be.  That type of Mary Sue may be a symptom, or one type only, of the general problem that some new writers have when creating a main character.

But on the whole, I'm not as interested in debating the term's use for criticism, nor even its usefulness for _instructing_ new writers, as I am in keeping the term for my own use when writing.  I do think new writers can benefit from keeping the idea in mind, as I think I will; but that's their own concern.  I don't really care about gaining a cudgel to use against someone who is beginning the process of learning how to write good fiction.  Anyway, even if I did find an occasion to use the term when offering criticism, I'd surely extend my criticism to explain what I meant by it.  (Keeping the term broad enough would actually promote this type of extension, since I'd need to explain _what type_ of Mary Sue I mean by that term.)

I suppose I like the broader consideration because it gets at the heart _of the process_ of writing rather than stopping only at the end product (and only one type of end product.)


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 20, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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.



In my experience, I've never seen the term used for anything other than lazy criticism and, to a lesser extent, general writing advice.
I never suggested that the writer should think of the critic as infallible and follow their advice without question.  I'm saying that the use of terms without clear meaning doesn't make for good criticism or good writing advice.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where the writer is critical of the Mary Sue criticism.
I can imagine a writer either following that advice, learning what a Mary Sue is (which is a very broad category of bad characters which, according to who you ask, can - but not always - involve general wish-fulfillment or specific traits or role in a story) and then focus on writing to avoid Mary Sues rather than focusing on writing good characters *or* the writer can dismiss the critique as invalid and continue writing the characters that were called "Mary Sue".  And that could be good if they're writing characters like James Bond or Superman but bad if they're writing Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way or Ensign Princess Mary Amethyst Sue of Starfleet.



Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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.



The difference between Mary Sue and passive voice is that passive voice has a clear meaning that is universally agreed on while Mary Sue does not.
That would be great if we all can agree on a definitive and useful meaning for Mary Sue.
But then I think about how much the meaning of the term has changed (I don't consider it misuse of the term, just the definition has changed or is changing).  Then I think about how terms like trope, irony, meta and deconstruction have apparently changed meaning over the last decade or two.
I mean, I don't like to be pessimistic or anything but I just can't see the term being used well.

Also, I don't think having buzz words that could be substituted for valid criticism encourages critics to become better at critiquing.  Or encourage people who give advice on writing to give better advice.



FifthView said:


> But on the whole, I'm not as interested in debating the term's use for criticism, nor even its usefulness for _instructing_ new writers, as I am in keeping the term for my own use when writing.  I do think new writers can benefit from keeping the idea in mind, as I think I will; but that's their own concern.  I don't really care about gaining a cudgel to use against someone who is beginning the process of learning how to write good fiction.  Anyway, even if I did find an occasion to use the term when offering criticism, I'd surely extend my criticism to explain what I meant by it.  (Keeping the term broad enough would actually promote this type of extension, since I'd need to explain _what type_ of Mary Sue I mean by that term.)



I can get behind this but I also worry that new writers would get into the mindset of writing to avoid a poorly-defined archetype.  It's like developing a bad habit early: it's just going to cause issues latter on.
I also think that when discussing the term, we should discuss it's use in criticism and writing advice since that is when the term is most often used (in my experience).


----------



## Mythopoet (Jan 20, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> On the other hand I don't see anything wrong with calling out an author for creating a wish fulfillment character.



Here's the thing, _ALL_ fiction is wish fulfillment to some degree. Every work of fiction seeks to fulfill the audience's wishes for certain emotional experiences. Wish fulfillment is the very nature of fiction. This is, in general, a good thing. I think we all agree that there comes a point in time for every person where they can get _too much_ wish fulfillment, to the point that it damages their ability to function in the real world. 

This is exactly the problem that many critics and scholars have with fantasy: they see it as merely wish fulfillment. And many people see immersion into fantasy media as an actually dangerous thing. A whole movie staring Tom Hanks was made in the 80s to scare kids away from Dungeons and Dragons. That seems silly to us, right? So who gets to decide at what point wish fulfillment becomes a negative thing?

In general, no one. Wish fulfillment only becomes a negative thing on an individual basis. And so people can only judge whether a person has been negatively affected by wish fulfillment in fiction are other people who are close to a particular individual and know their personality and life circumstances intimately. 

Because every individual person has different needs, different desires and gets differing amounts and kinds of fulfillment out of their fiction. What might be too much for one person might not be enough for another. Who are you to judge?

But that's exactly what people are doing whenever they say, "this character is terrible, nothing but wish fulfillment". They're saying it to indicate that they see the character as nothing but a negative part of the work, maybe even a negative influence on the reader. (As in the case of Bella Swan, many people view her as being nothing but a negative influence on teenage readers.) However, in reality what they mean is that they personally got nothing out of the character and they personally viewed the character as a negative part of the work. They are taking their personal assessment, based on their personal fiction needs and tastes, and acting as if these are an absolute truth for every single reader. 

Most people who talk about wish fulfillment characters and "Mary Sues" never bother to consider whether some other reader might see them in a different way, whether another reader might actually identify with the character positively and whether another reader might be getting something from the character's story that they need in their life. 

We ALL have different experiences with stories and characters. Whenever we base our assessment of a story or character on our personal experience and put forth that assessment as if it were simply the true nature of the thing, we are insulting other readers who have a different perspective. You're basically telling those readers that their point of view, their experience, is invalid. 

That's why the way people use the term "Mary Sue" these days is not only wildly off the mark from where the term originated, but actually detrimental to communication among readers and writers, in my opinion.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 20, 2016)

_Note:  Dan Wells is best known for his John Wayne Cleaver series; the MC is a teen sociopath serial killer.
_

[Brandon] Sure. All right. How do you respond to accusations of being a Mary Sue? Dan, you and Howard both have been accused of this apparently. How do you respond?

[Dan] I usually respond by putting the person ill at ease. Because they'll come up to me in a bookstore and they'll say, "So, are you really like your main character?" Or "So, how do you do all this research?" Well, it's all hands on. Then they stop asking silly questions.

[Howard] Stand a little closer to me and ask that question again. In a softer tone of voice. I like your voice. I like your shirt. And they stop. I've watched it happen.

[Dan] How did you write such a compelling sociopath? Well, it's an autobiography.

[Brandon] Speaking of Pat Rothfuss, someone asked this at Comic Con this year. Just to the panel of me and him and Christopher Paolini. I think it was mostly directed at Christopher Paolini because people were accusing him of Mary Sue. *Pat Rothfuss had this great answer where he leaned in and said, "I don't. I think it's great. I love that people think my character's a Mary Sue, because then they think I'm awesome." He says, "What's wrong with that?" He said, "I sit down and I write characters... I write this character that I think is awesome, that is everything that a lot of people would want to be. I think there is nothing wrong with that." He says. It only is an accusation that hurts if the character is a poorly written character who is a Mary Sue or a Marty Stu, would be the response there.*

[Howard] People think that Kevyn is obviously me because both of us are bald and wear glasses and have facial hair and are short and may be a little bit on the pudgy side. I... that comparison wouldn't be there if I hadn't actually drawn him that way. Kevyn is based on a friend of mine. He's not based on me. Physically, he looks a lot like me because I think the world needs more short, dumpy, bald, glasses-wearing, facial-hairy heroes. But... I'm pleading the Canadian girlfriend defense. He's not based on me, he's based on somebody else you don't know.

from Writing Excuses 5.6: MicroPodcasts | Writing Excuses​


----------



## Amanita (Jan 21, 2016)

In my opinion, the term Mary Sue serves as useful purpose in fanfiction where it originated. People including characters who take away spotlight from the characters actually important in the canon, have powers that don't belong there, replace the canon friends/lover  and mess up the rules of the setting are extremely annoying and few if any people enjoy reading this kind of thing.
In original fiction, these things don't apply unless the author breaks his own rules for the sake of the character but that's generally judged as bad writing without requiring the term Mary Sue. Usually, I see this term used (almost exclusively) against female characters for traits and a level of "perfectness" that wouldn't bother anyone in a male character. The term can be used to describe simply bad writing but all too often, it's used for female characters who "step out of their place" in the commenters opinion or for ones that don't act in a way the commenter approves of as in the case of Bella Swan. 
I don't approve of having such a narrow bundle of traits a supposedly "good" female character while much more is possible for male characters and I don't consider it helpful but people are entitled to their opinions of course.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 21, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> Here's the thing, _ALL_ fiction is wish fulfillment to some degree. Every work of fiction seeks to fulfill the audience's wishes for certain emotional experiences. Wish fulfillment is the very nature of fiction. This is, in general, a good thing. I think we all agree that there comes a point in time for every person where they can get _too much_ wish fulfillment, to the point that it damages their ability to function in the real world.



There's wish fulfillment from the readers that want to be swept away into a world that captivates their imagination, and wish fulfillment that becomes glaringly obvious that the readers are reading a story where the author is unabashedly projecting him or herself onto the MC. 

Of course there is always a part of us in the books we write; however, leaving some ambiguity as to what parts these are and where they appear doesn't hurt.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 21, 2016)

Amanita said:


> In my opinion, the term Mary Sue serves as useful purpose in fanfiction where it originated. People including characters who take away spotlight from the characters actually important in the canon, have powers that don't belong there, replace the canon friends/lover  and mess up the rules of the setting are extremely annoying and few if any people enjoy reading this kind of thing.
> In original fiction, these things don't apply unless the author breaks his own rules for the sake of the character but that's generally judged as bad writing without requiring the term Mary Sue. Usually, I see this term used (almost exclusively) against female characters for traits and a level of "perfectness" that wouldn't bother anyone in a male character. The term can be used to describe simply bad writing but all too often, it's used for female characters who "step out of their place" in the commenters opinion or for ones that don't act in a way the commenter approves of as in the case of Bella Swan.
> I don't approve of having such a narrow bundle of traits a supposedly "good" female character while much more is possible for male characters and I don't consider it helpful but people are entitled to their opinions of course.



The are plenty of examples of male characters that fit that trope, but I think it's more common with female characters , especially in YA literature, where the Mary Sue becomes the love interest of the hot guy or guys and the author thinks if they make her the "pretty yet awkward girl" that the female readers can relate to her more readily. It's like they try and create some weird personality where underneath it all she's nearly flawless, yet you are shown aspects of her that are supposed to be flaws yet they just make her more endearing and attractive to her potential love interests, so they cease to really be flaws. 

If you created a story where the genders are switched and the guy has two girls fighting over him and he's the same type of character then it shouldn't be judged differently. This type of story just isn't as common because I don't know if it really interests that many teenage boys.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jan 21, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> The are plenty of examples of male characters that fit that trope, but I think it's more common with female characters , especially in YA literature, where the Mary Sue becomes the love interest of the hot guy or guys and the author thinks if they make her the "pretty yet awkward girl" that the female readers can relate to her more readily. It's like they try and create some weird personality where underneath it all she's nearly flawless, yet you are shown aspects of her that are supposed to be flaws yet they just make her more endearing and attractive to her potential love interests, so they cease to really be flaws.
> 
> If you created a story where the genders are switched and the guy has two girls fighting over him and he's the same type of character then it shouldn't be judged differently. This type of story just isn't as common because I don't know if it really interests that many teenage boys.



If a character has qualities that make her relatable to the target audience she is NOT a Mary Sue. It doesn't matter if _you_ don't find those qualities realistic or relatable. If a significant portion of the intended audience does, then the character _works_ and is NOT a Mary Sue. 

The whole point of the Mary Sue label was to designate fanfiction where the author basically used the source material to write their own personal fantasy, *to the point where other people would no longer be able to enjoy it*. It's about inserting a character in a place (the source material for a fanfiction) he/she doesn't belong possessing traits that don't make sense and engaging in a plot that abuses the source material. The whole point of the term is the discrepancy with the source material. This just doesn't apply to original fiction.

And just because you come across a character that you can't relate to that you don't think is well written, that does NOT make it a Mary Sue.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 21, 2016)

How can anyone relate to a character that is essentially supposed to be perfect?


----------



## glutton (Jan 21, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> How can anyone relate to a character that is essentially supposed to be perfect?



They could relate to the problems the character has and the suffering they endure. Or the character fits into the readers' desired wish fulfillment enough that they like it.


----------



## X Equestris (Jan 21, 2016)

glutton said:


> They could relate to the problems the character has and the suffering they endure. Or the character fits into the readers' desired wish fulfillment enough that they like it.



Many Mary Sues never suffer, because the authors can't bear to put their darling through something difficult.  And the tension is often absent in stories with Mary Sues/Marty Stus, because they're so perfect there's never a doubt about the outcome.  

I'd say that if anyone relates to Mary Sues, it's for that second part.  They enjoy the wish fulfillment.


----------



## glutton (Jan 21, 2016)

X Equestris said:


> Many Mary Sues never suffer, because the authors can't bear to put their darling through something difficult.  And the tension is often absent in stories with Mary Sues/Marty Stus, because they're so perfect there's never a doubt about the outcome.



I guess it depends on the 'degree' of Suedom but a nearly perfect character with few flaws can still have problems. Superman is an idealized character without much in the way of character flaws in many depictions, but he struggles and suffers such as 



Spoiler: Man of Steel



when his dad dies in the latest movie.


 Another part of it is what opposition they face, if 'cute and adorable girl warrior full of scars with a twenty pound sword' is mowing through normal soldiers throughout the book and her best opponent is a more 'elite' soldier who goes down in a page instead of a sentence that would get pretty boring, on the other hand if she faces Godzilla sized eldritch abominations things get more interesting. XD


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 21, 2016)

Bella Swan faces enemies much more powerful/smarter than she is, goes through a nasty breakup and love triangle (a relatable conflict for the readers) and goes through a social crisis and health scare brought about by pregnancy (which is pretty heavy).  She also, as far as anyone can tell, seems to work as wish-fulfillment for the type of people who read Twilight.

But no one on Earth is going to tell you that characters like her are good or interesting.

If there is one consistent trait of a Mary Sue, it's that they have to be bad characters (which is generally subjective).  
And even that isn't always a trait as we've discussed with characters like Superman.


----------



## glutton (Jan 21, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> Bella Swan faces enemies much more powerful/smarter than she is, goes through a nasty breakup and love triangle (a relatable conflict for the readers) and goes through a social crisis and health scare brought about by pregnancy (which is pretty heavy).  She also, as far as anyone can tell, seems to work as wish-fulfillment for the type of people who read Twilight.
> 
> But no one on Earth is going to tell you that characters like her are good or interesting.



Well, Twilight literally has over a million 5-star reviews on Goodreads and over 700,000 4-star ones, so I would think there are a lot of people on Earth who did not mind the character that much.

I think the axiom 'no one is harder on writers than other writers' holds a lot of merit. 'Hardcore' fans of something eg. sports, movies, video games and people who aspire to succeed in a field often seem to be the ones who jump quickest to bash others already successful in that field whether athletes, actors, video game developers or writers. Some might argue it's because 'hardcores' naturally have higher and more educated standards, but I don't think that's all there is to it.

Disclaimer - I haven't actually read the Twilight books and maybe if I did I would dislike the Bella character too, but I've seen several of the movies and didn't really mind her. What I'm trying to imply above is that I think it can be tempting to scapegoat something popular and declare it objectively bad in an attempt to feel like oneself can do better than that, but the reality is that quality is extremely subjective.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 23, 2016)

Hi,

Speaking as a Trekkie I can tell you that (unfortunately) the term Mary Sue came from a Trekkie fan fic. In it she was a fifteen year old girl, the youngest ever to graduate Starfleet, who of course saves the day. In short she was the darling of fifteen year old girls everywhere. But the character was completely unbelievable. That I think is what's significant about the term. Yes some people say it's wish fulfilment and the author inserting an idealised version of him or herself into the work - and maybe that's true in some cases. But it's not the issue. It's can you believe the character?

In Trekkie worlds Wesley Crusher is often considered a Mary Sue. Things just come too easily to him and he saves the day, everyone loves him etc - making him the darling of nerds everywhere. Another who springs to mind is Dougie Howser. They tried to give the child doctor real problems to deal with, but in essence the show at least for me, was unbelievable. I mean if they were going to go there, why not just have a preschooler doing surgery in nappies and be done with it!

It's not so much that they are often young and freakishly talented. It's that they don't rate as believable.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jan 23, 2016)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Speaking as a Trekkie I can tell you that (unfortunately) the term Mary Sue came from a Trekkie fan fic. In it she was a fifteen year old girl, the youngest ever to graduate Starfleet, who of course saves the day. In short she was the darling of fifteen year old girls everywhere. But the character was completely unbelievable. That I think is what's significant about the term. Yes some people say it's wish fulfilment and the author inserting an idealised version of him or herself into the work - and maybe that's true in some cases. But it's not the issue. It's can you believe the character?
> 
> ...



The problem with that is that different things will or won't be believable to different people. Half of children's and ya media is full of characters that are totally unbelievable to me as an adult. But it doesn't matter as long as they are believable to to the intended audience. Different people in different life situations will find different kinds of characters either believable or not. And there's little you can do to predict that. So I just don't see that kind of standard being at all useful.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 23, 2016)

The argument that subjectivity makes everything okay (or okay because meaningless) doesn't quite hold up because it applies to every single aspect of fiction.  Don't like capitalizing the first word of sentences or the pronoun "I" because it's your style?  That's perfectly fine, because some people will grok what you are doing when you don't capitalize those words–they'll appreciate that _statement_.  Standards don't exist because everyone's standards are different; it's all subjective.

I do think that Mary Sue characters will work fine in some genres and/or with some audiences, the same way anachronistic technologies and beliefs will work in some situations.  But in other situations, no.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 23, 2016)

I've never felt that "wish fulfillment" is a good parameter for a Mary Sue. If it was, then every character ever written whose shoes people wanted to fill would be one. As has been said, the definition has shifted quite a bit due to people not really understanding anything more than the broadest connotations of the term.

A name that's been thrown around in this thread as an example of "sounds like a Mary Sue but isn't" is James Bond. But looking at the character's history, Mr. Bond is practically the definition of a Mary Sue and seems to be getting a pass mostly because of his status as a pop culture icon and a published character. Mr. Bond is based on three real-life badasses (Christopher Lee, Jon Pertwee, and the original author Ian Fleming himself, if you're curious), and his identity can basically be summed up as "the bestest spy ever."

Mr. Bond can handle any vehicle, fire any weapon, has all the best gadgets, has women fawning over him everywhere he goes, always has the perfect one-liner on hand, and always comes out on top. Now, later adaptations, particularly Craig's Bond, have worked to avoid such a one-dimensional paragon of perfection, but that's because the character has had decades to kick around and dozens of writers with different ideals to write for him. But let's be honest; when he was originally penned, James Bond was Ian Fleming's idealized self. And as an actual literal former spy, self-idealization at that point is a pretty high standard to set.

The dreaded Mary Sue isn't about being a self-inset (the mantra of 'write what you know' pretty much ensures every character you ever write is at least a little bit you). It's not about power. It's not about wish fulfillment. It's kinda about all of those at once, though. And I think that's what makes it so hard to define properly.

No, the Mary Sue is mostly about one thing: the story loves her. It doesn't matter what stupid, horrible, mean-spirited, foolish things she does, the story will find a way to make it all okay. The Mary Sue is the DM's Girlfriend of storytelling. She can have hardships, as long as her strength of character is fawned over while she suffers. She can have personality flaws, as long as they're inevitably forgiven. Mary Sue-ness is defined by how far the narrative can bend over backwards to make her look good.

Bella Swan is considered a Mary Sue because she's introduced as a physically unremarkable, socially-awkward nobody, but then proceeds to effortlessly make tons of friends, get several hot guys to fight over her, and becomes completely amazing when provided with superpowers of her own, all through basically no merit of her own as all she really does is gape into the middle distance, throw manipulative temper tantrums, and just act overall useless while her underlying radiance of specialness solves all the problems for her. (For the record I hate Twilight not because of this so much as because it is UNGODLY BORING, to read or to watch.)

I don't like Superman either but I wouldn't consider him a Mary Sue because despite being overpowered Space Jesus, he DOES have character struggles. He HAS been shown to do the wrong thing, the stupid thing, and pay for it. He HAS been shown to be uncertain with himself, he HAS been shown that his powers aren't always great. He does, when not later elevated to even higher absurdities of greatness by less adept writers, HAVE LIMITS.

Mary Sue is hard to define because a big stereotype is "the hero always wins in the end," so how do you distinguish that from a Mary Sue? Well, I'd say the difference is yes, the hero always wins. But the Mary Sue makes it look easy, and that's just not very interesting to watch.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 23, 2016)

Ok, so Brian, have you found your answer?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 23, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> Ok, so Brian, have you found your answer?



I think so. I am not 100% certain I have it all straight. But I think I have the elements of it. Now, it's just a matter of organizing my thoughts so it makes sense and is usable for me.


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Jan 25, 2016)

I think the whole thing isn't so much about what a Mary Sue is so much as what we should avoid-- characters who defy the internal logic of the piece for awesome, whether it be a villain regressing to ape-level intelligence, some improbable deus-ex-machina, etc. 

Sometimes, we can suspend our disbelief and just be like "Wow that's SO awesome!"

Unfortunately, authors feel this way more than readers.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 26, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


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



Because it's an easy criticism to make when you're critiquing or reviewing a book. It's like "show don't tell." Worthless on its own. The underlying concept can be useful as a criticism, but only if expanded beyond the bare definition into some kind of meaningful analysis.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 26, 2016)

glutton said:


> Disclaimer - I haven't actually read the Twilight books and maybe if I did I would dislike the Bella character too, but I've seen several of the movies and didn't really mind her.



Bella isn't a bad character. Good and bad have to be viewed in the context of the work and what the character is meant to accomplish. To that end, Bella works perfectly well as a character (which is one reason the books did so well).


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 26, 2016)

I've been doing a ton of reading about this, especially after my "character arc" issues I was having last week. I have read about six character development books in the past few days and this is what i have come to learn: 

The term "mary-sue" or "gary-sue" is 'typically' used to describe over the top characters that are so 'perfect' they are unbelievable... like the girl in Star Trek. 

However, this is not _always_ a bad thing, and, in fact, can be exactly what the reader or viewer is looking for. 

So, in certain platforms (which I will get into in a minute) the Mary-Sue or Gary-Sue is perfectly acceptable... however, these platforms are typically not considered to be literary, and so the lack of character development is often criticized by literary critics. 

Platforms where Mary-Sues or Gary-Sues are appropriate and even appreciated by readers/viewers. 

Action/Adventure 
- Examples include: Indiana Jones, Chris Pratt's character in Jurassic World, Shia Lebouf's character in Transformers, Jack Reacher. 

I mean, seriously, look at Chris Pratt's character in Jurassic world. He is the 'alpha' for the raptors and he gets a scene where he races through the jungle on his sweet motorbike flanked by raptors on both sides. But... this is what the audience came for. This is what they were expecting and this is what they paid for. They want to envision themselves being bad ass with dinosaurs for an hour and a half. They don't want a "spiritual awakening" (as my husband would say). My husband is the prime example of a man who loves Gary Sue characters and the stories they are found in. 


The Caper/Idea driven stories. 
Examples: Oceans 11, Oceans 12, Oceans 13, The Italian Job, Pirates of the Caribbean, Percy Jackson, any of Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt novels, Lara Croft. 

This one is close to my heart because I'm writing a caper. I DID find a way to add some character depth to my story, but since then I have read that it is not necessary. When people pick up a caper or a treasure hunt story they are specifically looking for the adventure of the treasure hunt or the heist. They are typically interested in plot twists, funny moments between characters, hilarious situations and chases by natives (if a treasure hunt story). They want clues and mystery. The characters are typically just the vessels to deliver the excitement (as Clive Cussler did perfectly with his character Dirk, who is for all intensive purposes is a Gary Sue... on purpose). Danny Ocean is also a Gary-Sue character, who is witty, charming, smart and such an amazing thief, with very little to no character development. But readers of capers or treasure hunt books are not looking for character development. 

It doesn't get more Mary Sue than Lara Croft. And yes, I love Lara Croft. 

There has been a huge push in the twentieth century to write "character based" novels. And this push is good. But there has to be a balance. In the case of Twilight she very smartly used a 'vanilla' character that would appeal to a mass amount of teenager girls. If she had made Bella quirky, eccentric, dark, or in any way added too much 'flavour' to her character then the teenagers would have had a harder time using her a vessel for themselves in the situation... she crafted Bella to be the character that the readers could live the experience through. 

Clive Cussler creates a character that is so awesome that you want to be him and have his exciting adventures. You are not supposed to learn much from Dirk. It is purely escapism. 

So, know what sort of story you are writing and what your audience is going to expect. If it means a mary sue or Gary sue then that is fine, so long as the decision is made intentionally.

Certain actors and actresses have made their livings off of portraying exactly these sorts of characters: 
- Bruce Willis
- Arnold Schwartzenegger

come to mind.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 26, 2016)

Good post Heliotrope.

I dislike the negative connotations that go along with labels like "mary sue" or "purple prose" etc. You did a nice job of dispelling that idea. I enjoy the Jack Reacher books a great deal, for example, but Reacher is faster, stronger, and smarter than anyone else. That's just part of the books. They're still good.


----------



## vaiyt (Jan 26, 2016)

The term ended up worthless because it's either used as "character I think should be less important because I hate them", or disproportionately used to disparage wish-fulfillment directed at girls. 

Batman is a playboy millionaire by day and vigilante by night, with basically infinite resources at his disposal, plans that never fail and allow him to beat even godlike enemies, gets to act like a sanctimonious prick against his moral superiors without ever being called out, attracts lots of women despite being a paranoid misanthrope. By the original, "too-perfect" metric, he should be the Mary-Sue to end all Mary-Sues.

You're better off not bothering with such loaded terms and working with some more solid literary criticism.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 26, 2016)

Batman is actually called a Mary Sue on quite a regular basis, to be honest. The only reason why the trope is stereotypically applied to females is that for whatever reason, it seems that the majority of fanfiction writers are female and since the fanfiction community tends to be... for lack of a more tactful term... more amateurish than original fiction, the phenomena tends to crop up there more often than elsewhere (and indeed originated from a Star Trek fanfic, as has been noted already). Perhaps because the very nature of fanfiction lends itself to the wish-fulfillment of inserting yourself or your OC into an established story and dazzling everyone with your self-idealized awesomeness?


----------



## kennyc (Jan 27, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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.



It's the current buzz-word, the in-term, the social elite cliche if you don't know you can't be part of our group word.


----------



## kennyc (Jan 27, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> 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.



This.



.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jan 27, 2016)

I have never, ever seen Batman referred to as a mary sue. Superman, obviously, is often called a mary sue. And usually Batman is held up as a positive counter example to Superman. Despite not really being any more realistic.


----------



## kennyc (Jan 27, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> I have never, ever seen Batman referred to as a mary sue. Superman, obviously, is often called a mary sue. And usually Batman is held up as a positive counter example to Superman. Despite not really being any more realistic.



It's all about Transgenderism!


----------



## FifthView (Jan 27, 2016)

I don't think the movie would have been called _The Dark Knight_ if Batman was a Mary Sue.

A couple things I'm seeing here:

a) Because some people use the term in a facile way, it should be abolished.
b) In defense of _Twilight_ and Bella, the term must be abolished.

I have no stake in defending poor Bella.  Never read the books, although I very much enjoyed the movies until the last one--and that one only seemed rushed to me, or else maybe the delay between seeing the others and seeing the final movie meant I'd already fallen out of the spell.

Superman is an interesting case, given the difficulty directors have had in making good or great movies using the character--and what they've had to do in trying to accomplish that goal.  The difficulty is generally acknowledged.

Edit:  Incidentally, it seems some are arguing that any character must end a tragic character, must ultimately fail in the main plot, because anything else means "MARY SUE!"  Superheroes succeed (and others) so voila!


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 27, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> I have never, ever seen Batman referred to as a mary sue. Superman, obviously, is often called a mary sue. And usually Batman is held up as a positive counter example to Superman. Despite not really being any more realistic.



The only difference is Superman's overpowered abilities vs Batman relying on gadgets. Other than that Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy, moonlighting as caped crusader, sure has a Gary Sue ring to it.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 27, 2016)

Ah, rich men are now Mary Sues!  It's all becoming clear...


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 27, 2016)

Yeah. Fifthview, you raise another good point. When I was in high school I used to write a ton of dark angsty poetry. One day my writing teacher told me to stop. She said dark angsty stuff is the easiest to write. It's a fall back, like sunset photography. 

It does seem, nowadays, that the dark angsty stuff is the only stuff that people seem to think is legit... Anything else is a Mary Sue.... Very interesting,


----------



## FifthView (Jan 27, 2016)

Yeah Helio, I was just pondering whether those who desire to see nothing but anti-heroes are the ones most likely to throw "Mary Sue!" at any character that is not an anti-hero.  It's either gray or Mary Sue.

I'm still pondering that.  As I said before, I do think authentic (??) Mary Sue characters can succeed in some genres and with some audiences.  Maybe I reveal too much of myself by having admitted that I liked the Twilight movies and, now, in admitting that I've enjoyed _Vampire Diaries_, _True Blood_...even _Smallville_ (which is the best of those three television shows, in my own very personal opinion.)  And, _Veronica Mars_....I am a sucker for those types of shows.  Never really got into Buffy though; but at the time, I was busy doing other things.

For me, an inexact yet intriguing metaphor for looking at the idea of the Mary Sue is the difference between DC Comics and Marvel Comics.  It's only a metaphor, just a type of vague guidepost, but as a young kid I was very much a Marvel Comics fan and didn't particularly like most DC Comics.  The heroes in DC Comics were exaggerated "perfect" heroes in comparison to the heroes Marvel tended to use.  (That said, this was in the 80's, and I did like some DC series, like _Teen Titans_–right around the time that the creators of Titans were trying to emulate the X-Men.  Also, as an even younger child, I got up extra early every Saturday morning to try and catch the _Super Friends_ cartoon. Kids are a particularly great audience for the type of stereotypical Mary Sue-ish perfect characters who easily succeed in everything.)


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 27, 2016)

Don't even get me started on Sookie Stackhouse.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 27, 2016)

Batman being a Mary Sue has nothing to do with him being rich, and only slightly has something to do with the fact that he is canonically the best criminologist in the world and is a master of every single martial art (yes, literally all of them). No, him being a Mary Sue has more to do with this barely being an exaggeration:








Batman is a Mary Sue because he regularly does the blatantly impossible - like sneaking around Superman - with no explanation besides "because he's Batman," and it's a commonly accepted truth that he can beat literally any opponent given sufficient prep time. But Batman is also an example of a Mary Sue not necessarily being a bad thing - a lot of people enjoy him specifically BECAUSE of those qualities.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 27, 2016)

Lol. I also loved Marvel a d not so much DC, but like I mentioned in my earlier post, my husband loves those types of characters.... Batman being his favourite. He has a first edition Super Man as well. The man absolutely loves Batman. I think he really likes the concept of being invincible (almost)... He is a very sensitive guy (Im sharing too much), and I think for him, having a hero who is so capable was really important to him as a kid. In his imagination, when he read Batman, good could always win. Good could always be the best. I think that matters to a lot of people, actually.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 27, 2016)

Drakevarg said:


> Batman is a Mary Sue because he regularly does the blatantly impossible - like sneaking around Superman - with no explanation besides "because he's Batman," and it's a commonly accepted truth that he can beat literally any opponent given sufficient prep time. But Batman is also an example of a Mary Sue not necessarily being a bad thing - a lot of people enjoy him specifically BECAUSE of those qualities.



There's probably a disjunction between the different Batmans, as different writers and creators have done him differently.  In _TDK_ for instance, he failed to save the woman he loved, he was routinely outmaneuvered by the Joker–even at the end, capturing the Joker was less victory than draw given what the Joker had accomplished with Harvey Dent–and he was forced to retreat to the shadows and become the target of all of Gotham in the end just to save the possibility of a good outcome for Gotham.

But, again, the issue is whether a character must absolutely fail in resolving the main plot, end in tragedy, to avoid being called a Mary Sue.  Genre fiction often isn't written with ordinary, mediocre characters as MCs; but extraordinary characters or characters doing extraordinary things are a staple of fiction.  The fact that those characters are a-typical is what makes them interesting and the story worth telling.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 27, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Lol. I also loved Marvel a d not so much DC, but like I mentioned in my earlier post, my husband loves those types of characters.... Batman being his favourite. He has a first edition Super Man as well. The man absolutely loves Batman. I think he really likes the concept of being invincible (almost)... He is a very sensitive guy (Im sharing too much), and I think for him, having a hero who is so capable was really important to him as a kid. In his imagination, when he read Batman, good could always win. Good could always be the best. I think that matters to a lot of people, actually.



Batman was one of the comics I never or rarely read as a kid.  I did buy some issues of a Robin comic, once, I think.  As kid I just didn't quite "get" Batman.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 27, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Don't even get me started on Sookie Stackhouse.



She actually became annoying for me when she decided to try giving up her powers.  The episode where she made that decision was the last I watched.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 27, 2016)

FifthView said:


> There's probably a disjunction between the different Batmans, as different writers and creators have done him differently.  In _TDK_ for instance, he failed to save the woman he loved, he was routinely outmaneuvered by the Joker—even at the end, capturing the Joker was less victory than draw given what the Joker had accomplished with Harvey Dent—and he was forced to retreat to the shadows and become the target of all of Gotham in the end just to save the possibility of a good outcome for Gotham.
> 
> But, again, the issue is whether a character must absolutely fail in resolving the main plot, end in tragedy, to avoid being called a Mary Sue.  Genre fiction often isn't written with ordinary, mediocre characters as MCs; but extraordinary characters or characters doing extraordinary things are a staple of fiction.  The fact that those characters are a-typical is what makes them interesting and the story worth telling.



Yes, I've been more referring to the comics interpretation of Batman (and Superman) when referring to either as Mary Sues. Which in that case is also a symptom of how the comics industry works - it's primarily made up of promoted fanboys who want to see their favorite characters be the bestest ever. It's basically a medium run primarily by licensed fanfiction at this point. Whether or not you like that is of course a matter of taste, but it does breed many more instances of Mary Sue than say film adaptations of the same characters.

I would say that those options are a very poor false dichotomy. Only those with a very poor understanding of what the term means would take characters with an unambiguous victory under their belt as Mary Sues, using the old "true art is angsty" maxim. No being a Mary Sue comes in, again, when the character not only wins but they don't even make it look particularly difficult. Because then what was the thrill of seeing them succeed? It's like having a blockbuster adventure where we see the hero daringly open a jar of peanut butter.

To use Batman as an example again, one of the main reasons I eventually got bored of the Arkham game series was because I eventually realized that Batman's response to literally every challenge put in front of him, no matter how insurmountable it was presented, was to grit his teeth and punch it harder. Now I don't think I'm necessarily the majority on this, but I couldn't get invested in Batman's struggle when he inevitably won every fight and was ultimately proven right with every decision he made. The narrative had no uncertainties in it whatsoever, the only chance of failure being my own inability to keep up with Batman's awesomeness. He never had to think outside of the box or deal with uncertainty, he just summoned up more heroic willpower and Batman'd even harder.

Comic book characters are hard to use as an example though because of what we've just been noting - there are many, many reinterpretations of the same character of varying qualities, and trying to classify them as a broad identity isn't particularly helpful. TDK Batman isn't the same person as Arkhamverse Batman isn't the same person as mainline comics Batman.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 27, 2016)

Drakevarg said:


> To use Batman as an example again, one of the main reasons I eventually got bored of the Arkham game series was because I eventually realized that Batman's response to literally every challenge put in front of him, no matter how insurmountable it was presented, was to grit his teeth and punch it harder. Now I don't think I'm necessarily the majority on this, but I couldn't get invested in Batman's struggle when he inevitably won every fight and was ultimately proven right with every decision he made. The narrative had no uncertainties in it whatsoever, the only chance of failure being my own inability to keep up with Batman's awesomeness. He never had to think outside of the box or deal with uncertainty, he just summoned up more heroic willpower and Batman'd even harder.



Did you say hit them harder?[video=youtube_share;HE9Y--Oz3Vc]https://youtu.be/HE9Y--Oz3Vc?t=10s[/video]


----------



## FifthView (Jan 27, 2016)

I think the biggest trope helpful in seeing the Mary Sue nature of the comic Batman is the frequently asked question, now taking up the title of a movie, "Batman vs Superman?"  The very thought that Batman would stand a chance (absent Kryptonite) is fairly laughable. 

Didn't Christopher Nolan say that he purposely avoided putting any unrealistic superpowered characters in his Batman movies?

One of the problems in comics is the serial nature.  If you have a comic called "Batman," he has to keep surviving from issue to issue.  Same goes for other comics and also for movies like the James Bond movies.  (Rumor has it that maybe as many as three Avengers will die in the upcoming Civil War?  I'll believe it when I see it.  They've already lined up the next Captain America (Winter Soldier) so I could see him being killed off.)


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 27, 2016)

True, but despite what GRRM might tell you, death is not the only way to present hardship to your characters. No the issue with comics isn't that no one can ever die (and stay that way), it's that everyone wants to preserve the childhood memories of their favorite character forever. The issue is that hardly one ever GROWS and CHANGES significantly in comics.

There are exceptions of course - Bucky into Winter Soldier, Robin into Red Hood - but usually when someone tries to make a change, it's inevitably reverted a few years later. Spider-Man was one of the best examples of someone who DID change over the years - he grew up, he went to college, got married - but then One More Day happened, which is widely regarded as Joe Quesada throwing an executive sulk over people "wanting to see Peter Parker grow old and die" and demanding he lose 10-20 years of character development. Not an example of a Mary Sue, but an example of how the comic book industry lives and breathes status quo, which combined with and rooted in fanboy idolization makes a veritable breeding ground for Mary Sues competing who can be the greatest and bestest at everything, which only exacerbates the problem.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 27, 2016)

Not to mention that if you paint yourself into a corner with a certain character or story line in the world of comic books, just create an alternate universe to bail yourself out.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 27, 2016)

Drakevarg said:


> True, but despite what GRRM might tell you, death is not the only way to present hardship to your characters. No the issue with comics isn't that no one can ever die (and stay that way), it's that everyone wants to preserve the childhood memories of their favorite character forever. The issue is that hardly one ever GROWS and CHANGES significantly in comics.
> 
> There are exceptions of course - Bucky into Winter Soldier, Robin into Red Hood - but usually when someone tries to make a change, it's inevitably reverted a few years later. Spider-Man was *no that didn't happen mephi-stofo-what? I don't know what you're talking about* Not an example of a Mary Sue, but an example of how the comic book industry lives and breathes status quo, which combined with and rooted in fanboy idolization makes a veritable breeding ground for Mary Sues competing who can be the greatest and bestest at everything, which only exacerbates the problem.



I don't think it's so much a status-quo thing as much as a writer ego thing.  Everyone wants to do what Alan Moore did to Swamp Thing or what Frank Miller did to Daredevil: they want to make their favorite character into _their_ character.

Which is generally where Mary Sues come from: the writer saying "this character is my baby, my legacy" and so they obsessive over the character.  Often this manifests into characters who are perfect and never lose.  Other times, it manifests into characters who aren't perfect and never loses.  And other times, characters who lose and aren't perfect but still they're just wonderful and deserve all our love and attention.

I also think that's why it's hard to pinpoint what a Mary Sue is.  It's not really about the character itself (the end result) but more about the process of writing it - what the writer wanted with the character.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 27, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> I also think that's why it's hard to pinpoint what a Mary Sue is.  It's not really about the character itself (the end result) but more about the process of writing it - what the writer wanted with the character.



A good way to put it. More or less why I called it the "DM's Girlfriend" of writing.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jan 29, 2016)

Personally I support Mary Sues - at least in the hands of beginning writers.  They function as empowerment fantasies (often for young people who have little power in their lives) that keep kids making pages and sharing their stories, and who am I to deprive them of that?

Now as a writer matures and becomes more experienced they need to be made aware of the drawbacks inherent in Mary Sues, but until then I say let them write and learn.


----------



## Devor (Jan 29, 2016)

I've seen different definitions, and I won't argue with whatever the fan sites find useful for their own purposes.  When I'm reading to become a better writer, or trying to come up with my own stories, the definition that I find _useful _is:

_A Mary Sue is a character so talented that it breaks immersion._

^ This is a concept that I can wrap my head around and think about as a writer, reader and critic.

I don't find the self-insertion concepts to be tangible enough to be useful in a similar sense.  How should I know if an author is inserting themselves into the character?  Why should that be a bad thing?

I mean, maybe I want to write myself into the story the same way Alfred Hitchcock did, or the way that Stan Lee appears in Marvel Movies - I'm the barkeep who tosses out a meta-joke at the MC briefly in the third chapter of the book.  Or in Order of the Stick, there's these little demon roaches which are clearly speaking in the voice of the author.  Are any of those a Mary Sue?

Well what's the difference between that and a Mary Sue? - ohh, it's when the self-insertion ends up so good they break immersion.  So just cut to the chase.


----------



## vaiyt (Jan 29, 2016)

Devor said:


> I've seen different definitions, and I won't argue with whatever the fan sites find useful for their own purposes.  When I'm reading to become a better writer, or trying to come up with my own stories, the definition that I find _useful _is:
> 
> _A Mary Sue is a character so talented that it breaks immersion._
> 
> ...


Talent doesn't enter into it. See Human Bella - she's supposed to be plain and unremarkable, but gets the hottest guys in school instantly falling over her. All the people who dislike her reveal themselves to be nasty or outright villains. Characters whose motivations don't revolve around Bella are few and far between. Even though she's mostly a burden on the vampires and werewolves, both are devoted to her.
It's fairly common in fanfiction to have a character of no redeeming qualities and never seem to accomplish anything (to avoid scoring too many points on those inane Mary-Sue Litmus Tests) who nonetheless becomes the center of the universe and gets _treated_ (by the other characters and by the plot) as though they're special.
-
I could cite a number of other heroes who share these traits and yet are beloved of many of the people who heap scorn at wish-fulfillment for girls. They even have their own misguided attempt at flaws - usually, characters around a boring invincible hero get hurt to fuel their endless brooding.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 29, 2016)

I wouldn't say that's a very accurate definition. It certainly supports the notion of Rey as a Mary Sue, but doesn't begin to address the underlying issues. Because many Sues AREN'T spectacularly talented. Bella, for example, is often considered one despite being a totally unremarkable specimen when separated from her narrative. And being a self-insert is more of an underlying cause (because it promotes entitlement) than part of the definition.

I'd say a better way to put it is that *a Mary Sue is a character who comes off as entitled to greatness without real merit*. Exactly what that implies is very open ended, which is why TVTropes has over a dozen subtypes of Sue. It can mean they're immersion-breakingly talented, it could mean they're beloved by the cast without having any likable personality traits, it could mean success just falls in their lap without them really doing anything to earn it.

Narrative selfishness is ultimately what the phenomena boils down to, which is why it's often considered a self-insert and why it's so prevalent in fanfiction.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 29, 2016)

Here's a problem I am seeing with this debate. And it has nothing to do with the terms of the various definitions. It has to do with the way we are approaching this. There are two ways I look at writing tools. They are either "bright line" rules or I look at them as a multi-factor test. Bright line rules are usually fairly mechanical. These rules usually look like x thing has qualities a, b, and c and anything that doesn't have those qualities is not x. This would be like identifying whether something is an adverb or whether something is in passive voice. Each of these has certain qualities that are absolutely necessary in order for a sentence to be passive or for a word to be an adverb. We are attempting to approach identifying a Mary Sue like this. Saying that a Mary Sue must be self-insertion or must have the plot bend over backwards for it or, more insidiously, must be female. However, I don't think that this is the best approach.

The better approach would be to look at a Mary Sue using the factor approach, or a totality of the circumstances method. No single factor in this test is dispositive. Yet each one has a certain amount of weight to it that pushes the meter one way or another. This I think is the way to look at a Mary Sue no single factor will push the meter over into Mary Sue land. In fact, it seems possible that a character could tick every box and for other compelling reasons might not be a Mary Sue. 

It seems to me then, that the second option is the better one to analyze whether some character is a Mary Sue or not. The factor test is far more fluid than the bright line definitional method of analysis and so can be better tailored to fit each situation itself.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 30, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> The better approach would be to look at a Mary Sue using the factor approach, or a totality of the circumstances method. No single factor in this test is dispositive. Yet each one has a certain amount of weight to it that pushes the meter one way or another. This I think is the way to look at a Mary Sue no single factor will push the meter over into Mary Sue land. In fact, it seems possible that a character could tick every box and for other compelling reasons might not be a Mary Sue.
> 
> It seems to me then, that the second option is the better one to analyze whether some character is a Mary Sue or not. The factor test is far more fluid than the bright line definitional method of analysis and so can be better tailored to fit each situation itself.



But then you have people arguing about when a specific character does fit into the Mary Sue role.  And, of course, there will be debate as to what the factors specifically are (wish-fulfillment, undeserved accomplishments, female-ness I guess).  
The term becomes subjective and, as I mentioned in my first post, boils down to meaning "character I don't like" or "character I think is bad".  And that meaning has no real value in literary analysis.

I've mentioned before - and I'll stand by it - that the only consistent and meaningful aspects of a Mary Sue is that they are "bad" characters.  It's an umbrella term for any inconsistent, poorly-written, one-dimensional, static, simplistic and/or shallow character.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 30, 2016)

You're fairly correct, Brian, hence why there are so many of those Mary Sue Litmus Tests that Vaiyt mentions. The reason I try to give a core, but open-ended definition of what exactly makes a Sue is to define the ballpark we're discussing, or you're just left with a tautological observation that a Sue is a Sue.


----------



## Devor (Jan 30, 2016)

Drakevarg said:


> I wouldn't say that's a very accurate definition. It certainly supports the notion of Rey as a Mary Sue, but doesn't begin to address the underlying issues. Because many Sues AREN'T spectacularly talented. Bella, for example, is often considered one despite being a totally unremarkable specimen when separated from her narrative. And being a self-insert is more of an underlying cause (because it promotes entitlement) than part of the definition.
> 
> I'd say a better way to put it is that *a Mary Sue is a character who comes off as entitled to greatness without real merit*. Exactly what that implies is very open ended, which is why TVTropes has over a dozen subtypes of Sue. It can mean they're immersion-breakingly talented, it could mean they're beloved by the cast without having any likable personality traits, it could mean success just falls in their lap without them really doing anything to earn it.
> 
> Narrative selfishness is ultimately what the phenomena boils down to, which is why it's often considered a self-insert and why it's so prevalent in fanfiction.



You're right, I misspoke and should've paid more attention to my post.

What I mean is, maybe the "self-insert" is a valuable part of the discussion on the fan fiction sites, but I don't think it is elsewhere.

And I think the idea that the problem is "immersion breaking" is necessary to make the notion measurable and definable as a problem.  If it doesn't even break immersion, then who cares?  The Mary Sue defies belief.

_The Mary Sue character is so "blessed by the narrative" that it breaks immersion._

Does that work a little better?


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 30, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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.



Thought I recognized a DBZ quote.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 30, 2016)

Drakevarg said:


> I'd say a better way to put it is that *a Mary Sue is a character who comes off as entitled to greatness without real merit*.





Devor said:


> _The Mary Sue character is so "blessed by the narrative" that it breaks immersion._



I think these are the closest bull's-eyes we've had in this thread.  I might put "breaks or prevents immersion;" but that would be a minor quibble.



Devor said:


> What I mean is, maybe the "self-insert" is a valuable part of the discussion on the fan fiction sites, but I don't think it is elsewhere.



I'm not sure that's true.  I do think that avoiding the "self-insert" might be valuable to keep in mind, for new writers, but that it's more useful for each individual writer to keep in mind than as a form of criticism a reader/writer can level at a writer.  Obviously, no one but the writer can know _exactly_ what the process entailed.  But for new writers to keep in mind, it's useful because one of the natural consequences of self-insertion may be the Mary Sue character–I mean, unwitting creation of a Mary Sue.

_No man, however tough he appears to his friends, can help portraying himself in his autobiography as a sensitive plant._  W.H.Auden.​
Hope I'm not taking a useless tangent, but...Auden used the above sentence to close a paragraph in which he contrasted how we view ourselves vs how we view others:

"Subjectively, my experience of life is one of having to make a series of choices between given alternatives and it is this experience of doubt, indecision, temptation, that seems more important and memorable than the actions I take....But when I look at others, I cannot see them making choices; I can only see what they actually do..."  

–This is something that's always stayed with me.  These choices seem so important, so grand and consequential, and can puff up the sense of a character when in fact the character actually _does_ very little to merit that bloated grandness.  (Auden later mentions the phenomenon of accidentally catching a glimpse of oneself in a mirror:  a stranger.  Or, in light of the above, a being bereft of all that decision-making.)

I think this phenomenon might often lead to unwitting creation of a Mary Sue.  In the case of the mopey, doubting, fretting Mary Sue who doesn't do much to warrant the successes he/she receives, the self-insertion might exhibit as a too-grand internal mental bloat.  In the case of the apparently omnipotent Mary Sue, the self-insertion could be a case of not feeling the need to explain the success given the fact that the external world (external to the character) is relatively unimportant.  No need to _show_ merit, in either case.

But I'll reiterate that I think that being aware of potential pitfalls of self-insertion would be something each individual writer might find helpful.  As a label for other writers, I default to what Auden said:  We can only see what they _do_–the resulting product–not that internal decision-making process.

Plus (as if it needs to be said) I think that showing the internal world of a character is not, itself, a bad thing; I think most will agree that it is usually a very good thing.


_Note: The Auden reference is from his essay "Hic et Ille."_


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 30, 2016)

Devor said:


> You're right, I misspoke and should've paid more attention to my post.
> 
> What I mean is, maybe the "self-insert" is a valuable part of the discussion on the fan fiction sites, but I don't think it is elsewhere.
> 
> ...



Yes, probably. I rather doubt you can really call a Mary Sue out if their inherent amazingitude doesn't pull you out of the story.

EDIT: Got ninja'd by FifthView. Good points there, though I'm sure the underlying causes for Sueness are even more broad and varied than their manifestations. Whole other can of worms beyond just trying to define the bloody things.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 30, 2016)

Devor said:


> You're right, I misspoke and should've paid more attention to my post.
> 
> What I mean is, maybe the "self-insert" is a valuable part of the discussion on the fan fiction sites, but I don't think it is elsewhere.
> 
> ...



"Blessed by the narrative" is a pretty good term.  I wish I had more opportunities to use it.

On the subject of Rey from Star Wars, she was "blessed by the narrative" in such a way that it broke my immersion.  So, could I say she was a Mary Sue without causing some kind of debate or disagreement?


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 30, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> "Blessed by the narrative" is a pretty good term.  I wish I had more opportunities to use it.
> 
> On the subject of Rey from Star Wars, she was "blessed by the narrative" in such a way that it broke my immersion.  So, could I say she was a Mary Sue without causing some kind of debate or disagreement?



You can't say you take your tea without sugar on the Internet without causing some kind of debate or disagreement. So no.  Sueness is still a very open-ended and subjective assessment of a character after all, and borderline cases of anything are harder to agree on than obvious runaway abusers.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 30, 2016)

I like Rey. On the subject of Mary Sues, I don't mind them if they work within the context of the story and the author does a good job.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 30, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> I like Rey. On the subject of Mary Sues, I don't mind them if they work within the context of the story and the author does a good job.



I think it's a good question, whether the term Mary Sue must always carry a negative connotation.  Baron Munchausen comes to mind.  It is possible to enjoy the exploits, even the absurdity (in those cases that are absurd), and so forth without having immersion broken—so I've wondered if breaking immersion is an apt description.  But it depends on whether the term is always a negative.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 30, 2016)

I've mentioned Jack Reacher before. Seems like a Mary Sue in many ways, but the books are quite enjoyable.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jan 30, 2016)

I don't think I've ever heard a character be actively praised FOR their Sueness. _In spite of,_ perhaps. So yes, I'd say that being a Mary Sue holds inherently negative connotations. But as mentioned, Sueness is a ballpark, not a point. There are both variations and degrees of being a Mary Sue. Their presence doesn't necessarily invalidate a story's entertainment value, nor does it inherently invalidate anyone's enjoyment of the character. Much like the term "overpowered," it both requires context to have meaning and is often open to debate.

That said, I wouldn't say the term is inherently meaningless. It's like temperature. Everyone has their own tolerances and comfort zones. But that doesn't make the concepts of "cold" or "hot" meaningless, especially when extremes are taken into account.


----------

