The HFIL is a Mary Sue?

[Miskatonic]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[glutton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Ok, so Brian, have you found your answer?