-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
How much awesome is too much awesome?
- Thread starter Scribble
- Start date
Abbas-Al-Morim
Sage
This all comes down to your definition of Mary Sue. My definition comes from my roleplaying experience (internet, not pen&paper) and there a Mary Sue is defined as an over-the-top cliché character that is too perfect (and has no flaws) and that is just a paradox in itself.
The character is a walking paradox. The writer wants to create the perfect character. Not only is she perfect at everything she does, she has a tragic past and faces a lot of problems we do too. That's why we must sympathize with her. Of course this is impossible. If your character really has such a tragic past then she won't be carefree all the time. She'll have issues. Most of the time, the writer then completely drops the ball writing her. They ignore the tragic past (except when they need pity points) and always hug the spotlight. The lights go out in the school? No problem, they'll shove aside the janitor with a working knowledge of electricity because of course they, the queen bee cheerleader with the tragic past, have learned how to fix the plugs that one summer when she was on international exchange and stayed at an electrician's house. There's a talent show coming up? Instead of performing one of their many talents, they'll invent a new one because they need to show how different and unique they are. If someone (just one person) doesn't like them, they'll start crying and have a breakdown about their past so the other person has to like them. They're everything the author could ever hope to be.
And most of the time, in roleplaying, they're played only to get the love interest (usually the handsomest male character on the forum). Because how can he not love her if she's perfect?
EDIT: I only roleplay Fantasy and of course this character has an equivalent (a male equivalent as well) in every genre.
The character is a walking paradox. The writer wants to create the perfect character. Not only is she perfect at everything she does, she has a tragic past and faces a lot of problems we do too. That's why we must sympathize with her. Of course this is impossible. If your character really has such a tragic past then she won't be carefree all the time. She'll have issues. Most of the time, the writer then completely drops the ball writing her. They ignore the tragic past (except when they need pity points) and always hug the spotlight. The lights go out in the school? No problem, they'll shove aside the janitor with a working knowledge of electricity because of course they, the queen bee cheerleader with the tragic past, have learned how to fix the plugs that one summer when she was on international exchange and stayed at an electrician's house. There's a talent show coming up? Instead of performing one of their many talents, they'll invent a new one because they need to show how different and unique they are. If someone (just one person) doesn't like them, they'll start crying and have a breakdown about their past so the other person has to like them. They're everything the author could ever hope to be.
And most of the time, in roleplaying, they're played only to get the love interest (usually the handsomest male character on the forum). Because how can he not love her if she's perfect?
EDIT: I only roleplay Fantasy and of course this character has an equivalent (a male equivalent as well) in every genre.
Last edited:
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Okay. I can agree with that to an extent. I'm not a big definer of Mary Sues kinda guy.
wordwalker
Auror
Yeah, "tragic past but carefree" makes it clear the complete Mary Sue is a contradiction.
Or, would be if not handled correctly. And, the real sign of a Mary Sue is that the writer came up with enough touches to try to win our respect --pure wish-fulfillment-- but didn't write them well enough. A Mary Sue is a gimmick, a good idea that's only barely explored; a Kvothe type is (to me) an idealized character seen in such detail that he becomes a great read.
But, how about Superman?
Yeah, the guy everyone admires... and then backs away from and says he's too perfect to relate to. Unless you've got one of the writers that understands he's only almost perfect, and that the weight of everything he does is a challenge for any godling.
"Awesome" makes it easy to get attention, harder to write a story -- but if you do know how to pull it off, anything can work.
Or, would be if not handled correctly. And, the real sign of a Mary Sue is that the writer came up with enough touches to try to win our respect --pure wish-fulfillment-- but didn't write them well enough. A Mary Sue is a gimmick, a good idea that's only barely explored; a Kvothe type is (to me) an idealized character seen in such detail that he becomes a great read.
But, how about Superman?
Yeah, the guy everyone admires... and then backs away from and says he's too perfect to relate to. Unless you've got one of the writers that understands he's only almost perfect, and that the weight of everything he does is a challenge for any godling.
"Awesome" makes it easy to get attention, harder to write a story -- but if you do know how to pull it off, anything can work.
NellaFantasia
Scribe
A good writer can manipulate a Mary Sue or a cliche to be workable and likeable. The idea behind Mary Sues and cliches have such a negative light that most try so hard to stay away from them, go down a list of what they shouldn't do, and end up with a mess. Cliches aren't inherently bad; it's the execution.
And since it's been brought up, I'll go ahead and use Kvothe as an example character. I've talked with people who didn't like The Name of the Wind because they thought Kvothe was too perfect, which is understandable. Patrick Rothfuss created Kvothe as a portrayal of the classic legendary hero, so the character walks a fine line between "realistic, likeable character" and "predictable, boring cliche".
However, I think Rothfuss took an overdone character idea and made it different by adding a few elements to the mix. Kvothe may have some of the definitions of a fantasy hero, but instead of wielding the magical sword of instant victory, he works hard to get where he wants to go, makes mistakes that cost him and/or other people, and sometimes fails at his goals. This in turn makes him relatable to the reader and the story a little more unpredictable because you don't know if Kvothe's choices will affect the world around him in a good way or a bad way.
And since it's been brought up, I'll go ahead and use Kvothe as an example character. I've talked with people who didn't like The Name of the Wind because they thought Kvothe was too perfect, which is understandable. Patrick Rothfuss created Kvothe as a portrayal of the classic legendary hero, so the character walks a fine line between "realistic, likeable character" and "predictable, boring cliche".
However, I think Rothfuss took an overdone character idea and made it different by adding a few elements to the mix. Kvothe may have some of the definitions of a fantasy hero, but instead of wielding the magical sword of instant victory, he works hard to get where he wants to go, makes mistakes that cost him and/or other people, and sometimes fails at his goals. This in turn makes him relatable to the reader and the story a little more unpredictable because you don't know if Kvothe's choices will affect the world around him in a good way or a bad way.
I agree Nella. It's all about the execution.
I might have given the impression that I don't like the character. On the contrary, I'm a big fan, despite my opinion of him being a Mary Sue. Honestly, I could care less about cliches or tropes...if it's interesting, that's enough.
I'm gonna drag up Harry Dresden again, because he's awesome.
He starts out fairly wimpy but over the course of fourteen or so books he grows to become a stupendously awesome magician. It's done over time and little by little. This makes it easier to go with it and accept the awesomeness of the character. After all, it's Harry and you know he's done things almost this cool before, he can reach a little further and be even more awesome (because he always does).
He's just a guy though. He still has his other issues he can't deal with or which he can't handle very well. Mundane everyday issues any regular guy can have and relate to in one way or another. He's worried about his cat and trying to figure out how he feels about the women in his life and so on. Being a powerful magician doesn't really help with those things.
Dresden becomes more and more awesome in some way. But, more importantly, in other ways he's just as inept and incompetent as I am (or, well, almost). As a reader I can relate to him. I think that makes his awesome things more awesome.
In contrast, the Iron Druid series tries to do the same thing, but doesn't really pull it off. The MC there is too awesome and cool from the get go. Instead of having abilities and contacts that are just a little bit cooler than I am, he's leagues ahead of me in the things he does and the people he hangs around with. Too much contrast.
He starts out fairly wimpy but over the course of fourteen or so books he grows to become a stupendously awesome magician. It's done over time and little by little. This makes it easier to go with it and accept the awesomeness of the character. After all, it's Harry and you know he's done things almost this cool before, he can reach a little further and be even more awesome (because he always does).
He's just a guy though. He still has his other issues he can't deal with or which he can't handle very well. Mundane everyday issues any regular guy can have and relate to in one way or another. He's worried about his cat and trying to figure out how he feels about the women in his life and so on. Being a powerful magician doesn't really help with those things.
Dresden becomes more and more awesome in some way. But, more importantly, in other ways he's just as inept and incompetent as I am (or, well, almost). As a reader I can relate to him. I think that makes his awesome things more awesome.
In contrast, the Iron Druid series tries to do the same thing, but doesn't really pull it off. The MC there is too awesome and cool from the get go. Instead of having abilities and contacts that are just a little bit cooler than I am, he's leagues ahead of me in the things he does and the people he hangs around with. Too much contrast.
Plus, the writing isn't as good as Butcher's.
Dragev
Scribe
I've only read the 5 first Dresden books, no spoilers please! 
But I agree that even in those, the "awesome" ramps up bit by bit, which makes it more interesting. A perfect example of "too much awesome" would be Dragon Ball Z; I can't stand the bloody thing. In the first story arc (if memory serves), the MC faces off against a guy who can DESTROY THE EARTH AWMAGAAAWD. Where do you go from there? A guy who can destroy several planets at once? That's ridi - Oh, apparently, they do, my bad...
From there, it just gets boring; Goku (or whatever the hell his name is) dies and is revived several times, the Earth is destroyed and rebuilt (again, several times) and the whole thing ultimately feels like an arcade fighting game with a string of increasingly ridiculously overpowered antagonists that the MC eventually defeats (somehow...) in increasingly drawn-out battles. San-whatever can defeat Thor, Morgoth, God, Satan and Cthulu all together as long as he's angry enough...
But I agree that even in those, the "awesome" ramps up bit by bit, which makes it more interesting. A perfect example of "too much awesome" would be Dragon Ball Z; I can't stand the bloody thing. In the first story arc (if memory serves), the MC faces off against a guy who can DESTROY THE EARTH AWMAGAAAWD. Where do you go from there? A guy who can destroy several planets at once? That's ridi - Oh, apparently, they do, my bad...
From there, it just gets boring; Goku (or whatever the hell his name is) dies and is revived several times, the Earth is destroyed and rebuilt (again, several times) and the whole thing ultimately feels like an arcade fighting game with a string of increasingly ridiculously overpowered antagonists that the MC eventually defeats (somehow...) in increasingly drawn-out battles. San-whatever can defeat Thor, Morgoth, God, Satan and Cthulu all together as long as he's angry enough...
Last edited:
oyler44
Dreamer
Holy crap, that makes so much sense.
Jabrosky
Banned
I always understood "Mary Sue" to mean simply "perfectly flawless character", and the conventional wisdom goes that these kinds of characters are boring. That said, I want to offer a different perspective on the concept of flawed protagonists, or at least morally flawed ones.
When I was a kid, I used to dislike it whenever the protagonists did something that wasn't the morally right thing to do. Take The Lion King for example. I felt let down when Simba disobeyed his father by going to the elephant graveyard and getting himself into trouble. I felt that since he was the story's leading good guy, he was supposed to always do the right thing. Doing the right thing is what the good guys, by definition, are supposed to do. The concept of a good character doing a bad thing did not make any sense to me whatsoever.
Now that I've grown up a bit since childhood, I'm more accepting of a certain degree of fallibility in heroes, but I still have a psychological need for moral differences between the protagonists and antagonists. Even grayer heroes like Conan need to stand on a higher moral ground than their opposition. I am not a fan of total moral ambiguity.
When I was a kid, I used to dislike it whenever the protagonists did something that wasn't the morally right thing to do. Take The Lion King for example. I felt let down when Simba disobeyed his father by going to the elephant graveyard and getting himself into trouble. I felt that since he was the story's leading good guy, he was supposed to always do the right thing. Doing the right thing is what the good guys, by definition, are supposed to do. The concept of a good character doing a bad thing did not make any sense to me whatsoever.
Now that I've grown up a bit since childhood, I'm more accepting of a certain degree of fallibility in heroes, but I still have a psychological need for moral differences between the protagonists and antagonists. Even grayer heroes like Conan need to stand on a higher moral ground than their opposition. I am not a fan of total moral ambiguity.
I'm open to either approach in terms of morality or lack thereof. Didn't Conan once pummel a woman into unconsciousness (well, I think it was one punch) because she wouldn't go into a cave with him?
Jabrosky
Banned
I don't remember that scene, but I did acknowledge that he was one of the grayer and less perfect heroes.
My understanding (from the role-playing and fanfic communities I frequented) was that a Mary Sue was the author's wish fulfillment character. The character never really has to try because the author just hands everything to them on a silver platter. It's boring because we know the character is going to "win" at everything, so there's no real tension. But the definition of Mary Sue, and if it's important to even consider, should depend on its usefulness to you, I guess. If it's helpful to think of your character in terms of having enough flaws/imperfections, then use it.
I do think "awesome" is a balancing act. You have to have enough things that are "cool" in order to garner interest, but if you scale it up too much, then the "awesome" gets bland. Dragon Ball Z, mentioned above, was a good example. They had to keep amping up the characters' powers to top the last one. Superheroes, especially the ones who have been around for a long time (Superman comics have been going for something like 75 years), can easily run into this problem. The superhero is so strong that he needs to be challenged by a supervillain, and then they just end up punching each other endlessly because neither one can be beaten.
I like characters who are a bit ordinary but end up in extraordinary circumstances. You know that one day where you ended up being in the right (or wrong) place at that particular time, and suddenly you were caught up in something bigger than yourself? That's the kind of story that I can relate to. I don't think of myself as an awesome person, but a few times in my life I've gotten the opportunity to do awesome things, and they stand out for me even years later.
I do think "awesome" is a balancing act. You have to have enough things that are "cool" in order to garner interest, but if you scale it up too much, then the "awesome" gets bland. Dragon Ball Z, mentioned above, was a good example. They had to keep amping up the characters' powers to top the last one. Superheroes, especially the ones who have been around for a long time (Superman comics have been going for something like 75 years), can easily run into this problem. The superhero is so strong that he needs to be challenged by a supervillain, and then they just end up punching each other endlessly because neither one can be beaten.
I like characters who are a bit ordinary but end up in extraordinary circumstances. You know that one day where you ended up being in the right (or wrong) place at that particular time, and suddenly you were caught up in something bigger than yourself? That's the kind of story that I can relate to. I don't think of myself as an awesome person, but a few times in my life I've gotten the opportunity to do awesome things, and they stand out for me even years later.
Helen
Inkling
I think it misses the point, which is that a story is always two stories (at least).
You're going to have the awesome "got to rescue the Princess, steal the treasure while the dragon's asleep" type of awesomeness, the cgi, the explosions, Bruce Willis shooting villains etc.
But underneath that, there's always the human story.
So it's a false choice. You're not choosing between depth and awesomeness, it's both.
You won't have sacrificed depth for awesome, you'll just have left out the depth (human) part.
- Thread starter
- #36
Scribble
Archmage
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I shoot for both, but I'm not sure that the "should" is correct. There's room in the genre of fantasy for pure adventure. Sometimes the reader just wants a good shoot 'em up. Nothing wrong, imo, with authors serving that market.
wordwalker
Auror
All true. It's all about good writing and knowing what you want.
I would say, the OP does make me think that writers might let "separate awesomes" pile up for their own sake, and the number of them makes the story seem crazier and harder to manage.
Of course sometimes someone with one background does have a whole bag of tricks-- or, there's the problem of a character after several books having more options than you can do justice to. But if you start a story out by thinking of terms of how many kinds of awesome your character has in his utility belt, you might be on the wrong track.
I would say, the OP does make me think that writers might let "separate awesomes" pile up for their own sake, and the number of them makes the story seem crazier and harder to manage.
- In D&D-inspired tales it might be having everything from sword to shoelaces its own talisman;
- the sillier Superman tales play up super-breath, super-ventriloquism, and who knows what;
- in urban fantasy it's how many blood traits, Power Gifts, and then alliances the heroine discovers from different mythic races.
- (Or just think of the prince's rescue from Sleeping Beauty: wouldn't "Here's a magic shield-- and a magic sword" have sounded better as just "Here's a magic sword"?)
Of course sometimes someone with one background does have a whole bag of tricks-- or, there's the problem of a character after several books having more options than you can do justice to. But if you start a story out by thinking of terms of how many kinds of awesome your character has in his utility belt, you might be on the wrong track.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
This quote is an interesting one, but the focus of the thread thus far has really shifted to Mary Sues. I'd like to discuss this a bit:
Why is the pathetic character seen as the favorite?
I don't think it's because the awesome characters are awesome. Frankly, I want to read about characters who are awesome. I want them to have super powers and be extraordinary.
I think it's because the pathetic character struggles more. Tension is formed by struggle. It's the attempt to achieve a goal and having the reader doubt that the goal can be achieved. Tension is a driver of interest.
It's hard to be interested in a character if there's no tension associated with that character.
If I'm right, the key to this situation isn't about making your characters too awesome or not real enough. It's about making sure they struggle despite their awesomeness.
Bruce McKnight
Troubadour
Nobody likes perfect characters, but Drizzt Do'Urden sold a lot of books and Chuck Norris sold a lot of movies.
I can't figure it out, either...
I can't figure it out, either...
Similar threads
