The HFIL is a Mary Sue?

[FifthView]

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

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

 

[FifthView]

Don't even get me started on Sookie Stackhouse.

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

 

[Drakevarg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

 

[Drakevarg]

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

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

 

[Miskatonic]

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

 

[WooHooMan]

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

There are exceptions of course - Bucky into Winter Soldier, Robin into Red Hood - but usually when someone tries to make a change, it's inevitably reverted a few years later. Spider-Man was no that didn't happen mephi-stofo-what? I don't know what you're talking about Not an example of a Mary Sue, but an example of how the comic book industry lives and breathes status quo, which combined with and rooted in fanboy idolization makes a veritable breeding ground for Mary Sues competing who can be the greatest and bestest at everything, which only exacerbates the problem.

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

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

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

 

[Drakevarg]

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

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

 

[A. E. Lowan]

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

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

 

[Devor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[vaiyt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Drakevarg]

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

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

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

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

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

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

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

 

[WooHooMan]

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

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

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

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

 

[Drakevarg]

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

 

[Devor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that work a little better?

 

[Miskatonic]

No seriously, I keep seeing people call x-character a Mary Sue. (The present popular belief is that Rey from The Force Awakens) From what I understand a Mary Sue is supposed to be a self-insertion character that is over idealized. Yet, I keep seeing people mention idealized characters (like Rey) to be Mary Sues. So now I am a bit perplexed. So, tell me, what in the Home for Infinite Losers is a Mary Sue? Because now I have no idea.

Thought I recognized a DBZ quote.

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

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

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

No man, however tough he appears to his friends, can help portraying himself in his autobiography as a sensitive plant. W.H.Auden.​

Hope I'm not taking a useless tangent, but...Auden used the above sentence to close a paragraph in which he contrasted how we view ourselves vs how we view others:

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

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

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

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

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


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