# Is Your Character Too Awesome?



## PlotHolio (Feb 6, 2013)

Most of you probably know about this, but I'm posting it anyway.

The Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test

This handy test will score your character. Higher scores mean your character is getting too awesome. Shoot for a lower score.

This test is designed to aid you, not destroy your vision of your character, so don't feel obligated to bring your score down beyond a certain point if your character feels right.


----------



## OGone (Feb 6, 2013)

That took awhile but it turns out my main character is not awesome at all 

What is awesome is your forum name btw, lol.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 6, 2013)

Oh God. Not that thing.

Look, that test has been around for quite a while and it's basically useless for evaluating characters. It's heavily scewed to punish characters for having any kind of admirable or impressive traits and it only barely takes any kind of context into account. The only way to get an acceptable score out of it is to make your character about as interesting as a piece of cardboard.

As a matter of fact, _any_ heroic or fantastical character you put through that test is likely to score very high. I once ran Aang from Avatar: The Last Airbender through this test and he scored 67 points, which is ridiculous. Scrooge McDuck scored a more moderate 44, which is still well into what the test considers a Mary Sue. I just ran the Doctor from Doctor Who through this and he scores an absurd _77_ points.

And before you go "You probably just did it wrong", know that I skipped any question I obviously couldn't know since I'm not the author (Like "do you have the same opinions as your character?", and so on) plus any question I felt I didn't know for sure. So, I think I was actually very lenient. It doesn't even work as a decent guideline, is what I'm saying.

Heck, some of these questions don't even make sense. "Did you give your character a name you thought had a meaning appropriate for your character?" _Of course _I did! Other than randomly drawing names out of a hat, how else would I name my characters? 

"Does your character sing or play the guitarr, harp or flute very well?" What the heck does _that_ have to do with anything? 

I've been over this before, at length, but to repeat myself: A character being Mary Sue has nothing to do with how "awesome" or "perfect" she is. That is a misconception that has proven very damaging to fiction writing in general. Mary Sueness is about having an unhealthy approach to your character, basically using him or her as a proxy for your own desires and feelings. You cannot determine if a character is Mary Sue or not just by quantifying traits. Your character does not magically cross the line just because she has a weird eye-color.

I_ have _seen a Mary Sue test out there that actually seemed to do a decent job at detecting real Mary Sue characters. I'll see if I can find it again. For now, though, please don't take this test seriously.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 6, 2013)

Here are a couple of alternative Mary Sue tests:

The Writer's Mary Sue Test

Mary Sue Test

Is either of these the one you were thinking of Anders? If not, how do you think they fare compared to the other one?


----------



## The Unseemly (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm really sorry, and am making an apology for anyone offended in advance, but I really have to agree with Anders, on any of the tests.

This test is so annoyingly perspective-bias based. The fact that a character is amsome or not, doesn't mean he has to do all these ridiculous things, haved a #YOLO name, and all that jazz. A character, should not be, out of all things, _bias_ in any shape or form. If you want your character to be realisitic, you have to make him/her do his or her amount of stupidities, and no matter whether is MC, villan, or random background guy, they all have to have positives and negatives in their characteristics. These test do not evaluate on this.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Feb 7, 2013)

Every time someone links this test, I find that since the last time I saw it, it's been edited to remove some issue. (Typically, these changes lower my characters' scores, so I'm all for that!)

I agree with pretty much everything the test designer has said about the test. That doesn't mean I take it as an absolute rule, but neither does she.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 7, 2013)

When I first read the title of the thread, I was like, "Chyeah! That's kinda' the point "

I'm not opposed to any of the tests after trying out the first (scored a 41, even though he's basically a comic book hero in terms of power and ideals) and looking at the next two. I think maybe people get hung up on the details, when all three tests seem to try to weed out the author's approach to the character—albeit also using the awesomeness of the character against it if it doesn't have consequences. I'd say the only real issue I have with the first is that it's a simple one-dimensional scale, when there should probably be several different qualities making up the Mary Sue-ness of a character and a ranking in each.


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 7, 2013)

Anders, I know you're going to hate me on this one, but...

I think you did it wrong. Maybe you clicked all the language fluency boxes, when in fact the Doctor only knows one language and the TARDIS translates the rest for him. Other points are that Sonic Screwdrivers and TARDISs are not unique to the Doctor, but were previously available to the entire Time Lord race.

I ran one of my main characters through this test before I posted it, and he scored a 2 (mostly because being an exceptional sword-fighter and strategist for his age are not options on this particular test). The thing that makes him interesting is not all the cool stuff he can do and how his golden left eye has the power to see people's true feelings so he can become friends with the bad guys and convince them they were wrong all along (NOTE: He has no such eye). What makes him interesting is that I put a gigantic pile of excrement in front of him and his friends and they have to dig through it.

Also, I put The Doctor through, and I got an 11 (perhaps this is an omen relating to Matt Smith). I'm putting Aang through now.

EDIT: I got a 30 with Aang.

Context is a big one here. The two alternatives that Mindfire posted both ask me if my character (the one who scored a 2) wears black or leather a lot. In this case, the answer is yes, because it's his military uniform and he's proud of his position. To a certain extent, you need to think of these things on a case-by-case basis.

I still believe that all three of these tests are useful tools.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 7, 2013)

PlotHolio said:


> Anders, I know you're going to hate me on this one, but...
> 
> I think you did it wrong. Maybe you clicked all the language fluency boxes, when in fact the Doctor only knows one language and the TARDIS translates the rest for him. Other points are that Sonic Screwdrivers and TARDISs are not unique to the Doctor, but were previously available to the entire Time Lord race.
> 
> ...



Well, it's assumed the Doctor knows more languages because he has on occasion spoken them (breaking continuity, but whatever; I assume it's like someone saying "Sayonara" in English...)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 7, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Here are a couple of alternative Mary Sue tests:
> 
> The Writer's Mary Sue Test
> 
> ...



It's the first one. 

It still has several questions I think are entirely beside the point, but it's generally more focused on how you as the writer relate to the character. And even when running my most Sueish characters through it, the results do seem fair.



Zero Angel said:


> I'm not opposed to any of the tests after trying out the first (scored a 41, even though he's basically a comic book hero in terms of power and ideals)



Yeah, but that's kind of my point: The test judges all characters by the same standard. It doesn't care if your character is a super-hero or a time-traveling alien or whatever. It doesn't care if these traits actually make sense for the character.



PlotHolio said:


> Anders, I know you're going to hate me on this one, but...



Oh, I doubt that. I don't really hate people.

I may respect you a little less, though.



> I think you did it wrong. Maybe you clicked all the language fluency boxes, when in fact the Doctor only knows one language and the TARDIS translates the rest for him.



First of all, that's basically the same thing as being an omniglot as far as the story is concerned. Wether he actually speaks all languages or has a universal translator makes no practical difference.

Second, he does claim to speak all languages even without the help of the TARDIS, and does talk to a lot of things that are not auto-translated. For crying out loud, the man speaks _baby _and _horse_.



> Other points are that Sonic Screwdrivers and TARDISs are not unique to the Doctor,



True, which is why I did not click those options.



> Also, I put The Doctor through, and I got an 11 (perhaps this is an omen relating to Matt Smith). I'm putting Aang through now.
> 
> EDIT: I got a 30 with Aang.



How is that even possible?

I just checked, he scores 46 on Section 1 alone.



> I still believe that all three of these tests are useful tools.



The fact that you and I can get _radically_ different results on the same character even though we are both trying to score as low as possible seems to suggest otherwise: Something this utterly unreliable and subjective cannot possible be considered a practical tool.


----------



## Chilari (Feb 7, 2013)

PlotHolio, it sounds to me like you're finding excuses for taking these Mary Sue tests as seriously as you do. For example, for language fluency I would consider the Tardis translating to count for language fluency, because the effect is the same: the Doctor can understand all languages, enabling the writers to skip over that as an obstacle. As for your character wearing a lot of black and leather, I can't help but wonder - is it his military uniform because you think it's cool and decided to make it that way to enable him to wear black leather, or is there a practical purpose for it, such as needing dark colours because his unit is a night-time stealth unit? Because generally, military uniform colours have a reason for it. Modern uniforms have camoflage. The red coats of the British army in the past meant that injuries and blood weren't so obvious - and thus morale was maintained even after soldiers were injured.

I don't think these tests are useful. Why? Because they try to cover everything, and in doing so fail to allow the specific and the context-laden. For the record, I did take one of my characters through two of the tests, and got a low score on the first and a negative score on the second, so this isn't me being bolshy because I got a high score. Some cools things are okay, and to be honest I think a Mary Sue needs to be an uninteresting character that the author thinks is the best character ever, which might mean they've got these cool things going but no depth and no character development, or it might mean they're an author avatar with bells on (one thing the tests missed that I think can make a Mary Sue - is the character something you wish you were? A hanggliding teacher if you went hanggliding this one time and it was cool, for example).

In fact I think I need to make a blog post about this, because I honestly don't think these tests are useful. Fun, sure, but I think in some ways they can do more harm than good.


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 7, 2013)

I think _you guys_ are the ones taking this way too seriously. You're ripping this topic apart based on your personal biases. You should remember that even though you know how to create well thought out and interesting characters, many of this forum's members are novice writers who want to learn how to do that kind of thing. You're treating it like an evil program because it doesn't have every imaginable context present in the questions, but it doesn't need to.

I think Feo and Zero Angel are the only people who get that it's simply a character creation aid, not Let Me Write Your Novel For You: The Game. It's on the same level as a fantasy name generator, which I know a lot of our members use. If you don't like what the quiz tells you, you don't have to follow it, but I posted it here because I'm sure someone will find it useful.

You're also implying that people who use these tests are bad writers because they can't tell a good idea from a bad one. I find that a little insulting, especially since it's coming from people who have been members of this forum for much longer than I have.


----------



## Phietadix (Feb 7, 2013)

PlotHolio said:


> I think _you guys_ are the ones taking this way too seriously. You're ripping this topic apart based on your personal biases. You should remember that even though you know how to create well thought out and interesting characters, many of this forum's members are novice writers who want to learn how to do that kind of thing. You're treating it like an evil program because it doesn't have every imaginable context present in the questions, but it doesn't need to.
> 
> I think Feo and Zero Angel are the only people who get that it's simply a character creation aid, not Let Me Write Your Novel For You: The Game. It's on the same level as a fantasy name generator, which I know a lot of our members use. If you don't like what the quiz tells you, you don't have to follow it, but I posted it here because I'm sure someone will find it useful.
> 
> You're also implying that people who use these tests are bad writers because they can't tell a good idea from a bad one. I find that a little insulting, especially since it's coming from people who have been members of this forum for much longer than I have.



He never implied that. It sounded to me that he was saying the test does more harm then good because it may cause a writer to abandon a perfectly good character. I happen to agree with him. Some of the questions seem a little pointless.


----------



## Chilari (Feb 7, 2013)

*She.

Yes, what I mean is, if a new writer finds these tests and discovers their character has a high score, they're gonna go all out the other direction and end up with a boring character designed to get a low score. What I'm saying is, we should ignore these tests and try to create an interesting character organically, not measuring them against these criteria, which anyway doesn't effectively encapsulate what a Mary Sue is or provide a reliable answer.

I say this from experience. I first discovered the Mary Sue Litmus Test (or a precursor) when I was about 17, a starry-eyed young writer, and found my main character came alarmingly high. I sought excuses for some elements and retook the test until I got a score I thought acceptable, without actually changing things but just sort of inventing explanations for hy things are like that, some of which were shockingly contrived. For my next story, my protagonist was designed around getting a low score. I deliberately made my character fat, ugly, unlike me in what she knew and was good at, and I ended up with a character I couldn't get into, a character I didn't like and didn't want to write about. It took me _years_ to move past this attitude, this anti-sue approach and just try and create real, interesting characters with understandable motivations. If I'd just tried to create real characters in the first place, instead of trying to avoid the dreaded Mary Sue, I could have saved myself a lot of trouble.

And that's why I say they do more harm that good. Seriously. Even up until 2011, when I was 23, I was struggling with characters because in the back of my mind I was always measuring them against the Mary Sue tests. It wasn't until October last year that I finally wrote a story containing a character who was free of the shadow of the Sue, because I didn't have the space in the short story to mess around with that stuff, I just had her motivation and her skills.

Edit: I said I'd blog about it. I have: The Dreaded Mary Sue.


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 7, 2013)

I understand that you don't like them, but they're not completely useless. You did not benefit from them. I did. The Litmus Test got me thinking about what I needed and didn't need in a character, and got me to dump some of my old characters and ideas. I don't regret doing it, because I was growing as a writer and some of my characters were laughably strong for no reason or had ridiculously Sue personalities (Evil for the sake of being evil, etc).

All those "pointless" questions are on there for a reason. Learning almost anything takes time and practice, so if your character knows how to play six musical instruments, speak four languages, hunt, cook, fence, and cast spells better than most others by the age of 15, that's not good.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that at 17 you were not a member of this forum. Do you believe that, if you had been a member at the time and had this community available to you, you would have done the same things to your characters, or would you haven taken a more balanced approach?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 7, 2013)

PlotHolio,

First of all, I agree with the above poster - Great name!

What I've found at my time on this forum is that people here get very sensitive about terminology.  For example, if you state something as a general rule, they'll spend days arguing whether anything in writing should be called a rule rather than discussing the merits of the advice offered.

Perhaps you have run afoul of this phenomenon as well.

It seems that the main objection is to the test you recommended saying it is trying to help authors locate Mary Sues in their writing when, in fact, it appears to be more strongly focused on, perhaps, finding cliched characters.

So, perhaps you're trying to argue merit when others are trying to argue definition.  I've had that experience more times that I care to count!


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 7, 2013)

PlotHolio said:


> I understand that you don't like them, but they're not completely useless.



I don't think stuff like this is useless but it can be dangerous for a lot of reasons stated above. It's a tool, but like a lot of tools, if you don't know how to use it, someone ends up losing a finger or worse.  I think that's why a lot of post caution in the use of things like this.

It's like someone bringing a chainsaw into the room. People are going to say don't turn that on unless you know how to use it. 



> All those "pointless" questions are on there for a reason. Learning almost anything takes time and practice, so if your character knows how to play six musical instruments, speak four languages, hunt, cook, fence, and cast spells better than most others by the age of 15, that's not good.



See those traits in themselves don't make a Mary Sue, and those traits in themselves as a group are neither good nor bad. They're just traits. How you used them to define your character and conflict are what will define Mary Sue or not.

For example. A Mary sue would be something like this. 

I played six musical instruments, spoke four languages, could hunt, cook, fence, and cast spells that could devastate a city by the time I was fifteen. Leaders came to me for advice. Girls fell at my feet. I was a golden god ...

That's Mary sue. 

This is not. 

I played six musical instruments, spoke four languages, could hunt, cook, fence, and cast spells that could devastate a city by the time I was fifteen. But for the life of me, I couldn't ask Suzie Smith to the prom. I couldn't stay out past eleven, and if a movie had an R-rating, Mom still said _no._


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 7, 2013)

Ooh, I have a GREAT new test for determining if a character is a Mary Sue or not...

Here it is:
If you're significantly worried that the character is too much like you, too much wish-fulfillment, and too much Mary Sue enough that you are dreading the results of a Mary Sue quiz, then you've probably got a Mary Sue character on your hands.​
I think the point that what is important in the so-called Mary Sue characters is your attitude towards the character is a good point. Regardless of if your character is technically a Mary Sue or not, chances are if you are concerned enough to take the quiz (as opposed to taking it out of curiosity), then there will be people out there that will label it a Mary Sue. 

I always think of myself as a schizo (I realize this is not politically correct nor an accurate description), so all of my characters have some element of a "me" in them, but I definitely do think that getting overly defensive about your characters as though they were you is something to avoid. I don't think I've crossed over into that level of narcissism. I write to tell the story, not so that good things happen to my characters.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 7, 2013)

Chilari said:


> Edit: I said I'd blog about it. I have: The Dreaded Mary Sue.



I should really pay better attention to signatures! Followed your blog.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 7, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> As a matter of fact, _any_ heroic or fantastical character you put through that test is likely to score very high. I once ran Aang from Avatar: The Last Airbender through this test and he scored 67 points, which is ridiculous. Scrooge McDuck scored a more moderate 44, which is still well into what the test considers a Mary Sue. I just ran the Doctor from Doctor Who through this and he scores an absurd _77_ points.



I got an 89 before the de-Suiferers, then ended with a 73.


----------



## Chilari (Feb 8, 2013)

PlotHolio said:


> I'm going to hazard a guess and say that at 17 you were not a member of this forum. Do you believe that, if you had been a member at the time and had this community available to you, you would have done the same things to your characters, or would you haven taken a more balanced approach?



Not a member of this forum, no, because it didn't exist. But I was a member of a different fantasy writing forum then, along with others of varying levels of experience though perhaps a lower average - more people who were at a similar level to what I was at then and fewer, beside the forum founders, who were published.

I think if I'd never learned the existence of a Mary Sue test I would have made progress more quickly.

As for the topic at hand, Brian may well be right - this could be an issue over definitions. Like Penpilot, I'd argue that those traits make a character cliche, but not necessarily a Mary Sue. I'd say a Mary Sue is a character who doesn't grow or adapt over the course of the story but rather is shown to be right time and again, never wrong, and never in the wrong.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 8, 2013)

I think it comes down to awareness by the writer. You can write a successful story using a character many would consider a Mary Sue, if you're aware of that fact and it fits your story. It's when you stumble unwittingly into things that you have problem. 

Look at characters like Jason Borne or Jack Reacher. They're good at everything, rarely wrong, mess up only occasionally, stay relatively static. Clive Cussler wrote a consistent stream of wish fulfillment, Mary Sue type characters and people have bought one after the other.


----------



## Ireth (Feb 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think it comes down to awareness by the writer. You can write a successful story using a character many would consider a Mary Sue, if you're aware of that fact and it fits your story. It's when you stumble unwittingly into things that you have problem.
> 
> Look at characters like Jason Borne or Jack Reacher. They're good at everything, rarely wrong, mess up only occasionally, stay relatively static. Clive Cussler wrote a consistent stream of wish fulfillment, Mary Sue type characters and people have bought one after the other.



Exactly. Someone like Luthien from The Silmarillion would score pretty dang high on one of those tests -- she's an uber-powerful half-elf, half-demigod who basically flips the bird to Middle-earth's equivalent of Satan, his deputy, and all his servants, then helps her boyfriend steal from him and gets away with it. Then when her boyfriend is later killed and she dies of grief, she buys both of their way out of the Halls of the Dead by singing to the Lord of the Dead and making him feel pity for the first and only time. Plus she's also basically an author avatar of Tolkien's wife, with her boyfriend being an avatar of Tolkien himself. And yet it totally works for the story.


----------



## Jess A (Feb 8, 2013)

These tests are kind of for fun, aren't they? I think a lot of role-players rely heavily on them.

I read somewhere on here that a lot of people like a bit of 'Mary Sue' in the characters they read about. Bourne and Reacher are definitely along those lines. Then there's Dirk Pitt (Clive Cussler) as mentioned above also. Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake has been called a Mary Sue. She's a popular author. Not someone I'd generally read, but entertaining in many ways.

Other characters are highly interesting because they have a very flawed side to them but they either overcome it, or it drives plot. If you give them a flaw that people can't relate to, or it makes them hate the character, then what's the point? Characters should evolve in a story (or at least, I enjoy stories where they do). 

I'll put a book down if I don't find the character interesting in some way.

People-watching (sitting in a cafe or public place, observing human behaviour) is a good way to learn about human nature  Or just looking at those people you know.


----------



## Sadie (Feb 8, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Scrooge McDuck scored a more moderate 44, which is still well into what the test considers a Mary Sue. I just ran the Doctor from Doctor Who through this and he scores an absurd _77_ points.



Oh God, I just laughed out loud at the idea of Scrooge McDuck as a Mary Sue (or isn't it rather Gary Stu?...), I am in a public library and everyone is giving me looks now.  If you think of Mary Sue in fanfiction, especially fanfiction based on some fantasy book or movie, it's usually a girl from our world ending up in the magical realm of the original and impressing everyone with her awesomeness. I think Middle-earth and Hogwarts have been particularly abused in this regard, so much in fact that I imagine poor elves and Hogwarts students must have got used to their share of Mary Sues popping up every now again and doing their work for them. Imagine their surprise if their next Mary Sue was Scrooge McDuck... oh I have to stop, or they'll throw me out of here. 

My character scored a -6 on the first Mary Sue test. But I feel that in a lot of ways, she is a Mary Sue, and in my attempts to de-suify her she gets more and more Sue by the second. I might have to drop her from the story completely.

I agree that you cannot establish the mary-sueness of a character by these tests, but Mary Sues and Gary Stu's exist and are very annoying.

Recent fantasy example? Kvothe from The Kingkiller Chronicle. [SLIGHT 2ND BOOK SPOILER]A typical Mary Sue who is a natural at magic, music, and gets to bang the hottest fairy in town which is his first time and of course he is so good that this ancient vixen who's had many men before him is surprised he was a virgin.[/SPOILER]


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 8, 2013)

It's okay Sadie. He has that magical birth control root.

Also, before you drop your character, you should make a post on here about why you're considering it, so that other people can take a look and give you their input.

As these earlier posters don't seem to get, the tests are writing aids, and you shouldn't put too much stock in what they say. Especially if you got a -6, which is really difficult unless you filled out almost nothing in the top sections and clicked all the de-Sue-ifiers at the bottom. Like I said in a previous post, even my "dry toast" character Jacobus scored a 2.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 8, 2013)

Sadie said:


> Recent fantasy example? Kvothe from The Kingkiller Chronicle. [/SPOILER]



A lot of people love that character, though. I think it underscores the point, above, that a Mary Sue character isn't necessarily bad, if that's what the author intends to write. It is bad when the author stumbles into such a character in a clumsy and ham-fisted manner, unaware that he's writing one.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 10, 2013)

Phietadix said:


> He never implied that. It sounded to me that he was saying the test does more harm then good because it may cause a writer to abandon a perfectly good character.



I think that's pretty spot on. 

You know you have a problem with a character when _actual readers _don't like that character. There are no arbitrary character traits that are inherently "wrong" and wether or not a character is "too awesome" depends on the context of the story. Writing is not an exact science.

It's very dangerous to rely on this test because it teaches you to doubt your own judgement, while at the same time being fantastically inaccurate to judge the quality of any given character. You must have very little faith in your writing ability if you would rather trust a piece of online quiz algorithm created by some random person of unknown literary authority, rather than your own senses of taste and reason. And if you are the sort of person, using this test is a very, _very _bad idea.



PlotHolio said:


> I understand that you don't like them, but they're not completely useless. You did not benefit from them. I did. The Litmus Test got me thinking about what I needed and didn't need in a character, and got me to dump some of my old characters and ideas. I don't regret doing it, because I was growing as a writer and some of my characters were laughably strong for no reason or had ridiculously Sue personalities (Evil for the sake of being evil, etc).



Stuff like "evil for the sake of evil" are not Sue traits. That's just bad characterization, and most of us learn how to avoid that just by talking to other writers and reading a lot. You don't need a highly questionable internet test for that.



> All those "pointless" questions are on there for a reason. Learning almost anything takes time and practice, so if your character knows how to play six musical instruments, speak four languages, hunt, cook, fence, and cast spells better than most others by the age of 15, that's not good.



I disagree, there is absolutely nothing inherently bad about that. Thinking that way is highly presumptious and only limits you as a writer. 



Penpilot said:


> For example. A Mary sue would be something like this.
> 
> I played six musical instruments, spoke four languages, could hunt, cook, fence, and cast spells that could devastate a city by the time I was fifteen. Leaders came to me for advice. Girls fell at my feet. I was a golden god ...
> 
> ...



How about this:

I played six musical instruments, spoke four languages, could hunt, cook, fence, and cast spells that could devastate a city by the time I was fifteen and I have _no idea _why. Seriously, I can play a nyckelharpa perfectly and I'm not even sure what that is. Don't get me wrong, it's cool to be a master swordsman without having to train for it but I still wonder why, you know? Leaders come to me for advice, because I have vague yet frightingly accurate visions of the future that I cannot explain. Girls fall at my feet, only not in a good way but, you know, in kind of a disturbing and unnatural way? Oh, and on my last birthday, my skin turned golden and now I'm on the run because the High Council of the Lord Wizards want me dead for some mysterious reason.

Is that a Mary Sue?



Zero Angel said:


> I got an 89 before the de-Suiferers, then ended with a 73.



Yeah. The de-Sueifiers are pretty much bullshit.



Steerpike said:


> I think it comes down to awareness by the writer. You can write a successful story using a character many would consider a Mary Sue, if you're aware of that fact and it fits your story. It's when you stumble unwittingly into things that you have problem.
> 
> Look at characters like Jason Borne or Jack Reacher. They're good at everything, rarely wrong, mess up only occasionally, stay relatively static. Clive Cussler wrote a consistent stream of wish fulfillment, Mary Sue type characters and people have bought one after the other.



As I've said before, power fantasies aren't the same thing as a Mary Sue, because power fantasies can still be well written. A Mary Sue is bad writing by definition. 

If I had to boil the definition of a Mary Sue story down to a single sentence, it would be:* "A story wherein there is a major dissonance between how likable you find the character to be, and how likable the character is presented to be."*

_Dissonance _is the important thing. It's not that Mary Sue is always right and everybody loves her. It's that Mary Sue is always right and everybody loves her, _for reasons that do not make sense to you._


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 10, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> If I had to boil the definition of a Mary Sue story down to a single sentence, it would be:* "A story wherein there is a major dissonance between how likable you find the character to be, and how likable the character is presented to be."*
> 
> _Dissonance _is the important thing. It's not that Mary Sue is always right and everybody loves her. It's that Mary Sue is always right and everybody loves her, _for reasons that do not make sense to you._



I think you have a very specific definition of Mary Sue and anytime someone says the phrase "Mary Sue", you get a little worked up over their chosen semantics (which is cool, we are all writers after all—we get worked up over words). 

My semantics say that a Mary Sue is a character in which the author has created themselves as they wish they could be and how they feel others would/should react to them. Regardless of if this is healthy or not, to me, a Mary Sue character can be good or bad. To you, what I am saying is not a Mary Sue character. To you, a Mary Sue has the dissonance phenomenon you described, to me that is called "personal opinion". 

Question: 
I tend to read the manga my fiancee likes, and she reads manga written for girls quite a lot. In those manga, there are usually characters (male love-interests) that are ridiculously popular (character popularity polls are a common thing in manga, but they are also popular within the world of the manga). I sometimes feel that those characters are absurd and am annoyed by their very existence, let alone their actions and the gut-wrenching reactions of the female protagonists to them. According to your definition, they would be Mary Sues?


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 11, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Question:
> I tend to read the manga my fiancee likes, and she reads manga written for girls quite a lot. In those manga, there are usually characters (male love-interests) that are ridiculously popular (character popularity polls are a common thing in manga, but they are also popular within the world of the manga). I sometimes feel that those characters are absurd and am annoyed by their very existence, let alone their actions and the gut-wrenching reactions of the female protagonists to them. According to your definition, they would be Mary Sues?









_A reader has gained sentience. This oversight must be... corrected._

Your fiancee should read real manga, like Dorohedoro.





_NOTE: Never let your fiancee read Dorohedoro._

That entire post was off-topic, but I feel like this thread needed something to lighten it up a bit.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 11, 2013)

PlotHolio said:


> _A reader has gained sentience. This oversight must be... corrected._
> 
> Your fiancee should read real manga, like Dorohedoro.
> 
> ...



The first comment made me laugh aloud. I've never heard of Dorohedoro before—any good? (To keep on topic, any Mary Sues present )

For the record, my fiancee and I enjoy many different types of manga, but she tends to gravitate to the girly ones (while adamantly denying 1. that she enjoys girl manga, and 2. that they are considered girl manga at all). I think a lot of "girl manga", especially the ones written by female writers have these characters that many readers and apparently the author like quite a lot, while others will experience the dissonance mentioned by Anders. I don't think that necessarily makes them a Mary Sue, I just think people are bat crap crazy.


----------



## Nihal (Feb 11, 2013)

All this manga talk reminded me of the other kind of "Sue" character, often present in romantic (and ecchi) mangas. The awkward hero/heroine who isn't special in anyway... supposedly. For absolute no reason the most perfect characters (now I'm looking at these super popular and pretty manga boys/girls) fall for them and often some happy accident make those awkward penguins highly popular.

This kind of clumsy but (artificially) likable character is usually the author's avatar. They shouldn't be perfect, being seeming plain at first sight but being amazing somehow. It's so badly overused that I often want them to die gruesome deaths.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 11, 2013)

Nihal said:


> All this manga talk reminded me of the other kind of "Sue" character, often present in romantic (and ecchi) mangas. The awkward hero/heroine who isn't special in anyway... supposedly. For absolute no reason the most perfect characters (now I'm looking at these super popular and pretty manga boys/girls) fall for them and often some happy accident make those awkward penguins highly popular.
> 
> This kind of clumsy but (artificially) likable character is usually the author's avatar. They shouldn't be perfect, being seeming plain at first sight but being amazing somehow. It's so badly overused that I often want them to die gruesome deaths.



I agree it can be bad, but sometimes it can be done well (and thus not bad). I can think of three examples of anime with a male protagonist where all the female (and sometimes male) characters fall for him that I felt was done very well. Still, I think you are correct in that some of them are author avatars (and thus at least borderline Sues by my definition). Are there any particular Sues that you want to share as an example that you especially wanted to die a horrific death?

I always find it concerning that in these anime/manga (at least the ones that I watch) that any non-main character male (assuming the protagonist is male) is usually a crappy individual. They usually don't have good intentions and are obnoxious to the point that they make me itch with annoyance. In those cases, it's no wonder that the relatively-perfect female characters all fall for the average Joe male character! It's like, are there really no good guys around?


----------



## Nihal (Feb 11, 2013)

Yes, if it's done well it's not bad. Isn't this the same situation of those perfect awesome characters? 

I don't watch or read too often the genre of anime/manga where this kind of character is present.

Still, I can think of Kensuke from "Ga-Rei". I watched "Ga-Rei Zero" and loved it, the first episode managed to fool me and I really liked to watch the characters' conflicts. Most of them weren't good or evil because they were, or likable "because yes.". Then I read the manga and really struggled to finish it. The character development was just plain bad, I went from a well done OVA adaptation to a shallow schooldrama manga.

Then, I think in Yukiteru from "Mirai Nikki". It's bearable since his annoying personality is well built and compliments Yuno's personality. While he is the passive, awkward (and cocky) character and she's the psychopath stalker, strong and likable in a twisted way. Well, I still wanted to Yukiteru to die, but I could bear him.


P.s.: Not always all the other male characters are mean, but it happens often. Yes, in this case somehow it makes sense the smoking hot girls falling for the awkward guy, hahaha.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 11, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I think you have a very specific definition of Mary Sue



Well, it's a pretty specific type of bad writing. 

Heck, some people argue it is exclusively a fanfiction phenomenon - you introduce an original character in for example Star Trek, and suddenly all the established characters start acting wildly out of character, and you just go: "There is _no way_ Captain Picard would hand over command to a fourteen year-old ensign in the middle of a space battle just because he has 'a good feeling' about it!"

I've seen it done plenty of times in original fiction, though, so my definition is actually a bit broader.



> and anytime someone says the phrase "Mary Sue", you get a little worked up over their chosen semantics



That's true, I don't deny it. But that's only because I feel this is a very important issue. You can't just pick and chose your own definition of a term, because that just leads to fuzzy wishy-washyness and before you know it, you have people who argue that: "This character is a Mary Sue, hence she must be badly written" rather than the other way around.

And _that's_ when you get morons who look at your perfectly legit MC and go: "Dur, your character sucks, because this here test tells me you writed it wrong!"

Believe it or not, some people can't subjectively tell the differance between good and bad writing and end up using arbitrary rules and lists of traits to evaluate fiction. These people must _not _be encouraged.



> My semantics say that a Mary Sue is a character in which the author has created themselves as they wish they could be and how they feel others would/should react to them. Regardless of if this is healthy or not, to me, a Mary Sue character can be good or bad. To you, what I am saying is not a Mary Sue character. To you, a Mary Sue has the dissonance phenomenon you described,



Your definition is actually pretty decent - better than a lot of others. My one concern would be that it doesn't say anything about the quality of writing. You're just using it as a synonymn for "self-insert." Self-insertion is someting you should be very careful with, bit it's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Mary Sue, on the other hand, is almost universially regarded as something bad.

You may disagree, of course, but I think you will find yourself in the minority.

Basically, I' say what you describe _can _be a Mary Sue. (And, indeed, frequently is.) I just think it's wrong to say that's _always _a Mary Sue.



> to me that is called "personal opinion".



Yes, well, "opinion" isn't the same thing as "subjective." Even a personal opinion can still be objectively true or false. That's why we have discussions.



> Question:
> I tend to read the manga my fiancee likes, and she reads manga written for girls quite a lot. In those manga, there are usually characters (male love-interests) that are ridiculously popular (character popularity polls are a common thing in manga, but they are also popular within the world of the manga). I sometimes feel that those characters are absurd and am annoyed by their very existence, let alone their actions and the gut-wrenching reactions of the female protagonists to them. According to your definition, they would be Mary Sues?



Under my definition, it would depend on wether you find these characters to be absurd because they themselves are unrealistic, or if the absurd thing is how unrealistic the narrative treats them, or both.

I mean, if a character is unrealistically likable, that may not in itself be good writing, but at least there is a solid reason everybody like that character.

Still, going by the shoujo, etc, I have read, I doubt these characters are Mary Sue. More like... idealized dream princes? They are designed to appeal to over-emotional teen girls (I'm going to assume you don't belong to that particular demographic) so they can be pretty unrealistic. Sorta like that perfect girlfriend teenage boys dream about that obviously does not actually exist.

For that matter, one should keep in mind that anime and manga uses _a lot_ of highly stylized character archetypes. Complaining about that is sorta like complaining about the stereotypes in Comedia Del Arte. It's basically expected of the medium. 

Anyway, I don't want to generalize and entire genre down to a simple "if they are like this, are they that" question. Since I regard Mary Sue to be something rather specific, you pretty much have to decide it on a case-by-case basis. 

That's sort of my point: You can't really go by broad definitions and lists of common traits.



Nihal said:


> All this manga talk reminded me of the other kind of "Sue" character, often present in romantic (and ecchi) mangas. The awkward hero/heroine who isn't special in anyway... supposedly. For absolute no reason the most perfect characters (now I'm looking at these super popular and pretty manga boys/girls) fall for them and often some happy accident make those awkward penguins highly popular.



Eh. It's a fantasy of gratification, just another kind of gratification. 



> This kind of clumsy but (artificially) likable character is usually the author's avatar.



I'm not sure about "usually", though that certainly happens. Keitaro Urashima from Love Hina is pretty blatantly based on Ken Akamatsu as a young man, and the creator of Tenchi Muyo, Misaki Kajishima, actually went as far as naming the main character after himself.

I wouldn't say that's a bad thing in itself, though. It comes down to wether or not the writer has enough skill and sense of self-irony to pull it off well.



> They shouldn't be perfect, being seeming plain at first sight but being amazing somehow. It's so badly overused that I often want them to die gruesome deaths.



Well, that's fair enough, I guess. But again, anime and manga does this _a lot,_ and it's much more accepted than it is in western literature. Quite often, it's an established part of the genre itself - you can't really have a harem comedy _without_ making the main character ludicrouly popular with the ladies/boys. It's really more of a stylistic thing.


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 11, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> The first comment made me laugh aloud. I've never heard of Dorohedoro before—any good? (To keep on topic, any Mary Sues present )



If you saw that picture before I was link-blinked, you may have noticed that the characters are in a forest of mushrooms. In fact, one of the characters has an enormous knowledge of magic, but all his magic is mushroom related. The mushrooms should be a big hint.






_Here it is anyway._

I can't even begin to describe it, so my advice is just to read the first chapter. Once you get into it, it's quite clever, but it's easily the most ****** up manga I've ever read. To enjoy it, you need to be the type of person who believes that it's okay to laugh at things like head trauma in the context of fiction. If you're thinking "head trauma is never funny; it doesn't matter if it's real or not", then Dorohedoro is not for you.

I use the example of head trauma because my favorite character, Ebisu, suffered several blows to the head early on, and from that point is so mentally handicapped that she needs someone watching her at all times lest she accidentally harm herself or others.






_Or, in some cases, allow herself to come to harm because she doesn't realize she's being eaten by a zombie..._

As for Mary Sues, I don't think it has any.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 11, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I
> As I've said before, power fantasies aren't the same thing as a Mary Sue, because power fantasies can still be well written. A Mary Sue is bad writing by definition.



I disagree. Going by the generally-accepted definition of a Mary Sure character, at any rate. I find your definition to be too limiting.


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 11, 2013)

I'd like to direct everybody's attention to the latest front-page article (at the time I posted this). It's not directly about Mary Sues, but it's about how flawed characters are the ones we like more.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 11, 2013)

I like flawed characters more. In fact, for my tastes, the more flawed the better. I don't think I'd be willing to claim that everyone feels the same. There are "non-flawed" characters that have captured audiences over the years.

I never worry about "Mary Sue-ness" in my characters. I do effort to make them distinct from one another. I labor to have realistic or at least plausible characters and actions. Keeping that frame of mind will go along way towards avoiding the types of characters people here are warning against.

Edit: in retrospect, I suppose most characters have at least some flaws. I'm referencing major characters flaws.


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 11, 2013)

My favorite kinds of characters are anti-heroes/anti-villains. One of my favorite themes is when the big bad and his trusted lieutenant are best friends. It leads to some interesting moments.






_I burned down that village for friendship._


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 11, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> That's true, I don't deny it. But that's only because I feel this is a very important issue. You can't just pick and chose your own definition of a term, because that just leads to fuzzy wishy-washyness and before you know it, you have people who argue that: "This character is a Mary Sue, hence she must be badly written" rather than the other way around.


Isn't that what you're saying though? That Mary Sue's are always bad writing? 



Anders Ã„mting said:


> And _that's_ when you get morons who look at your perfectly legit MC and go: "Dur, your character sucks, because this here test tells me you writed it wrong!"
> 
> Believe it or not, some people can't subjectively tell the differance between good and bad writing and end up using arbitrary rules and lists of traits to evaluate fiction. These people must _not _be encouraged.


I get that you really object to the test, and I agree with your objections for the most part, however, it seems like you are coming up with this arbitrary rule ("no Mary Sues as I, Anders, define them") and saying that causes or is symptomatic of bad writing. 



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Your definition is actually pretty decent - better than a lot of others. My one concern would be that it doesn't say anything about the quality of writing. You're just using it as a synonymn for "self-insert." Self-insertion is someting you should be very careful with, bit it's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Mary Sue, on the other hand, is almost universially regarded as something bad.
> 
> You may disagree, of course, but I think you will find yourself in the minority
> 
> Basically, I' say what you describe _can _be a Mary Sue. (And, indeed, frequently is.) I just think it's wrong to say that's _always _a Mary Sue.


Well, this is more progress than what I was expecting. That is reassuring. I think specifically there needs to be this negative relationship between the reader and the character along with the self-insert, but yes, this is mostly correct. This is what I am saying. 

So it's not always a Mary Sue because it can be done well, and you've added the "all Mary Sues are bad" clause to the original definition of dissonance between the narrative's presentation/reaction to the character and your reaction to the character that you originally had. 

So by your definition, if a pseudo-Mary Sue character is done well, then by definition it can never cross over into real-Mary Sue-ness, since all Mary Sues are bad. 

I think this is an overly limiting definition. 

In mathematics, we tend to have this practice that we define things not just on exactly what they are, but also in a way that is useful for us; something that will give us power instead of limit us. (This is why I disagree with the, hopefully, minority definition of a trapezoid, by the way). I think your definition of Mary Sue as this dissonance that is also bad writing, is a little too specific now that you've added this clause. It disables us from being able to use the term Mary Sue in a way that is really useful. For instance, if you are critiquing someone's writing and they utilize a Mary Sue character as you define it, you would probably just say it is a Mary Sue and move on, expecting the person to understand all of the fiery wrath that term entails. Yet, the author would go, "wait, what? What about it is bad writing that is creating a dissonance between how the character is presented and how you react to it?" because it seems as though you're saying the character itself is not a Mary Sue, but rather the reactions to the character are the markers telling us it is a Mary Sue.

I was OK to go along with your definition being this dissonance thing and you thinking my definition is incorrect, but adding that it is always bad writing seems too much of a stretch even to agree to disagree.

Finally, "almost universally reviled as something bad" is a bit of a stretch when I think you mean the internet has lots of people saying it's bad. If you have "+1 this is you hate X", where X is anything and the +1 is anonymous, then you will get hundreds and thousands of people to say they hate it.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 11, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> So by your definition, if a pseudo-Mary Sue character is done well, then by definition it can never cross over into real-Mary Sue-ness, since all Mary Sues are bad.



Kind of a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I'll just stick with the generally-accepted definition. That has changed a little over time, but is still a good definition of what constitutes a Mary Sue, in my opinion.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 11, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Kind of a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy.
> 
> I'll just stick with the generally-accepted definition. That has changed a little over time, but is still a good definition of what constitutes a Mary Sue, in my opinion.



That's a cool fallacy, and does seem relevant. Which is your accepted definition?

Wiktionary: 


> A fictional character, usually female and especially in fanfic, whose implausible talents and likeableness weaken the story



Wikipedia:


> In fan fiction, a Mary Sue is an idealized character representing the author
> 
> ...
> 
> "Mary Sue" today has changed from its original meaning and now carries a generalized, although not universal, connotation of wish-fulfillment and is commonly associated with self-insertion. True self-insertion is a literal and generally undisguised representation of the author; most characters described as "Mary Sues" are not, though they are often called "proxies"[6] for the author. The negative connotation comes from this "wish-fulfillment" implication: the "Mary Sue" is judged a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting



or Urban Dictionary's:


> A female character who is so perfect that she is annoying.



or another?


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 11, 2013)

I tend to go with the evolved version of the Wikipedia definition, namely the character that serves as wish-fulfillment of the author, whether or not through self-insertion. For any given instance of a Mary Sue, the character could still be well done or effective, but most of the time they aren't, probably because the author isn't aware of what he is doing.


----------



## Jess A (Feb 12, 2013)

Perhaps we could list the character traits (in context of certain plots etc) which turn you off a book? That might be interesting to discuss.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 12, 2013)

Jess A said:


> Perhaps we could list the character traits (in context of certain plots etc) which turn you off a book? That might be interesting to discuss.



Might be appropriate here: mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/6849-what-your-storytelling-pet-peeves.html


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2013)

Everytime I read the title of this thread, I think, "How can a character possibly be too awesome?"  I realize that's not the point of the argument, but there it is just the same...


----------



## PlotHolio (Feb 12, 2013)

Skill with writing can only go so far. Someone mentioned a Tolkien character that was a "Mary Sue", but I don't agree. Yes, she did a lot of impressive things, but within the bounds of the universe she is a believable character. I'd consider Aragorn more of a Gary Stu, because his only real flaw is that he doesn't want to fulfill his destiny and be the King. That's the kind of thing that most of us would hate if it came from a whiny character. Aragorn isn't whiny, though. He's a skilled swordsman who gets to hang out with Liv Tyler no matter what Hugo Weaving says about it.

(Before you say anything, I have read the books. This is just my way of poking fun at the characters.)

Aragon is one case where good writing makes up for a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character. However, what if Tolkien made a new character...

His name is Stuamir, brother to Boromir and Faramir. In addition, he's also Theodred's adopted brother, which makes him a Lord of Rohan as well. He was tutored by Gandalf, so he knows fifteen different languages and some magic. He can also match Aragorn in skill with a sword. Oh, and he dual-wields.

During the Battle for Helm's Deep, he killed more orcs than Legolas and Gimli combined (for those of you who only saw the movies, _for shame_, Gimli actually won that one by killing two more orcs than Legolas).

He held Osgiliath alongside Faramir and his elite Citadel Guard unit, The Wijgeisjahya (which is a Valar word and means "Those Who Kick Ass"). Therefore, the Battle of Pelenor Fields never happened, and he was able to beat down the Black Gate with Grond (which he proceeded to ride through the breach) just as Frodo dropped the ring into the Pit of Doom.

I almost forgot about Frodo. Why is he the main character, anyway? Stuamir is better.

By the way, he totally hooks up with Eowyn at the end, and in the movie he's played by Kit Harington.







_For Frodo..._


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 12, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I tend to go with the evolved version of the Wikipedia definition, namely the character that serves as wish-fulfillment of the author, whether or not through self-insertion. For any given instance of a Mary Sue, the character could still be well done or effective, but most of the time they aren't, probably because the author isn't aware of what he is doing.



Ehhh, wish fulfillment =/= Mary Sue. I prefer the definition that requires the character to be perfect in a way that weakens the story or annoys the reader. Without a stricter definition,  all of the following are Mary Sues: 

Lion-O
Optimus Prime
Mary Poppins
Mickey Mouse
Batman
Tavi from the Codex Alera
Peter and Lucy from the Chronicles of Narnia 
GI Joe (all of them)
The Power Rangers (all of them) 
Every Bruce Willis character ever
60% of all superheroes 

All of the above exhibit some level of perfection, super-competency, or both. And nearly all of them are wish fulfillment in some way. But what saves them from Sue-ness is that these traits work for rather than against the character and the story.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 12, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Ehhh, wish fulfillment =/= Mary Sue. I prefer the definition that requires the character to be perfect in a way that weakens the story or annoys the reader. Without a stricter definition,  all of the following are Mary Sues:
> 
> Lion-O
> Optimus Prime
> ...



I think it has to really be symptomatic of a negative relationship with your character, and without interviewing the creators, it is nigh impossible to definitively define a Mary Sue by the reading unless it is done poorly, breaks the fourth wall or possibly in some other way. Maybe this idea is closer to Anders's definition then in that the only Mary Sue you can KNOW is one that is done badly. Still, we can estimate that certain characters are Mary Sues.


----------



## Devor (Feb 12, 2013)

Once a work of fiction is in the hands of a reader, it really isn't about the author anymore, and speculating too much about the author's intent or desires feels feeble to me.  It's not really a _story_ element.  The wish fulfillment definition also doesn't really make sense.  I've always wanted to skydive, so if I write about a group of skydivers in order to imagine the thrill of the experience - does that make them a Mary Sue?

I don't like the definition about weakening the story, either.  That doesn't really isolate the character and it's traits.  What if Superman's laser eye beams ruin one story, because the supervillain plot was developed in a way which made them feel like a cop out, but that same trait works just fine in the next story?

I would rather propose a definition like:

_A Mary Sue is either a character whose flawless traits and abilities strain credibility to the point where they risk breaking immersion *or* a character who is presented by the narrative as having flawless traits and abilities which are unfounded from the character's actions._

That's what makes sense to me.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 12, 2013)

Devor said:


> Once a work of fiction is in the hands of a reader, it really isn't about the author anymore, and speculating too much about the author's intent or desires feels feeble to me.  It's not really a _story_ element.  The wish fulfillment definition also doesn't really make sense.  I've always wanted to skydive, so if I write about a group of skydivers in order to imagine the thrill of the experience - does that make them a Mary Sue?
> 
> I don't like the definition about weakening the story, either.  That doesn't really isolate the character and it's traits.  What if Superman's laser eye beams ruin one story, because the supervillain plot was developed in a way which made them feel like a cop out, but that same trait works just fine in the next story?
> 
> ...



Now we're making some real progress.


----------



## Jess A (Feb 13, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Might be appropriate here: mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/6849-what-your-storytelling-pet-peeves.html



Oh yeah I remember this thread! Cheers.


----------



## TheTdroid (Feb 13, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Oh God. Not that thing.
> 
> Look, that test has been around for quite a while and it's basically useless for evaluating characters. It's heavily scewed to punish characters for having any kind of admirable or impressive traits and it only barely takes any kind of context into account. The only way to get an acceptable score out of it is to make your character about as interesting as a piece of cardboard.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I got the impression that many non-Mary Sue characters would be classified as such under this test. And the character I fed into it, which is designed to be pretty powerful(important background character with a lot of strings attached), was merely an undecided on that list. My weaker characters(the main ones) would have scored much higher, even though they are "inferior", so to speak. Makes no sense.


----------



## Devor (Feb 13, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Look, that test has been around for quite a while and it's basically useless for evaluating characters.



I'm inclined to agree.  I'm moving this thread to the Writing Questions forum.

While the test started up an interesting discussion, Writing Resources should really be more useful as reference material.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 13, 2013)

Devor said:


> I'm inclined to agree.  I'm moving this thread to the Writing Questions forum.
> 
> While the test started up an interesting discussion, Writing Resources should really be more useful as reference material.



So now our personal biases are deciding our resources?

I don't necessarily object, but am trying to understand the criteria for inclusion in Writing Resources a little more.



			
				Black Dragon said:
			
		

> This forum is for sharing your favorite writing resources with our community.



To me, this sounds like if it is a favorite resource recommended by one of our established members, that it belongs in Writing Resources. 

My evaluation of the resource in the initial post and the subsequent Mary Sue tests was that they were somewhat useful (unless like Chilari was at a young impressionable age you took their defining your character as a Mary Sue as being handed down from on high with a giant, "You stink.").

I think it is worth mentioning that if you accept any advice, rule, or resource as being absolute that it has the potential to wreck your writing.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 13, 2013)

When you talk about breaking immersion you have to realize that readers have a wide range of tolerance for what does or does not break immersion. One reason so many Mary Sue-type characters nevertheless make for popular works is that a lot of readers have a very high threshold for breaking immersion, so long as they are being entertained. If the definition of a Mary Sue is based on reader reaction, then the next question is "which reader?"


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 13, 2013)

An interesting debate with a lot of good points touched on.  My thought, after reading all the comments, is that taking the Mary Sue concept out of its original fanfiction context and applying it to original writing does not appear to be helpful.  There is just too much disagreement about what a Mary Sue actually is (outside of fanfiction) to make it useful for writing guidance.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 13, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> An interesting debate with a lot of good points touched on.  My thought, after reading all the comments, is that taking the Mary Sue concept out of its original fanfiction context and applying it to original writing does not appear to be helpful.  There is just too much disagreement about what a Mary Sue actually is (outside of fanfiction) to make it useful for writing guidance.



Yes, I feel like it is one of those issues that appears only on writing forums and is mostly a trap, in the sense that new writers can start rethinking or even abandon a perfectly good character because someone on a writing forum told them it was a Mary Sue (usually parroting commentary they've also read on writing forums). Of course, I feel the same way about "show don't tell" when it is just advice provided without much thought or analysis, as often happens.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 13, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, I feel like it is one of those issues that appears only on writing forums and is mostly a trap, in the sense that new writers can start rethinking or even abandon a perfectly good character because someone on a writing forum told them it was a Mary Sue (usually parroting commentary they've also read on writing forums). Of course, I feel the same way about "show don't tell" when it is just advice provided without much thought or analysis, as often happens.



I agree mostly, although I think it is useful to know about them and thoughts on them since speculative fiction writers tend to intersect with geekdom a lot more and those fans can be the most knowledgeable and critical of our works. Pays to be prepared when you're eventually in a Q&A at a con and a fan/hater stands up and asks, "Why do you feel your Mary Sue characters are so successful?"


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 13, 2013)

> Pays to be prepared when you're eventually in a Q&A at a con and a fan/hater stands up and asks, "Why do you feel your Mary Sue characters are so successful?"



1) I look forward to that day! 

2) I think you would say to the fan/hater that people didn't hate Mary Sue in the original fanfiction context because she was super-awesome.  Kirk & Spock were pretty awesome themselves.  They hated her because she was a *new, non-canon* super-awesome character, made the canon characters the fans knew and loved behave in ways that were completely out of character, and made the canon characters the fans knew and loved play second banana to her awesomeness.  None of the above applies to original writing.


----------



## glutton (Mar 24, 2013)

My heroine who's so scarred up that children run away from her in fear got a 51 mainly for being the best warrior in the world.


----------

