Is Your Character Too Awesome?

[Zero Angel]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Now we're making some real progress.

 

[Jess A]

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

Oh yeah I remember this thread! Cheers.

 

[TheTdroid]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"