In fandom, and increasingly out of it, a character too perfect to be believed, whom all the good guys love and all the bad guys fear, usually with a tragic past, is called a Mary Sue.
Everyone who knows the term despises Mary Sues. A quick glance around the internet will show you everything from rants against them to lists of the ones that got through, with reams of advice on how to avoid them and even tests for your characters if you’re not sure.
For instance, here’s one.
Eve scores 117.
71 points or more: Irredeemable-Sue. You’re going to have to start over, my friend. I know you want to keep writing, but no. Just no.
Well, shit. That’s a hell of a thing to find out seven novels in.
Lucky for me, the test is wrong. Eve is a well-rounded, well-developed character who happens to fit the Mary Sue mold. My betas are librarians and grad students and other intelligent, educated people, and none would call Eve a Sue.
If you read the fine print on that page, both above and in the results after the test, you’ll see the writers admit that their test, any test, is going to be flawed. The problem is too many beginning writers are going to believe the large print, and may not even read the fine print.
No “litmus test” can diagnose a Sue. All it can do is make you doubt yourself. So don’t. Keep writing. If you’re writing a Sue, eventually you’ll learn enough to see it and change it.
Which leads me to my next bit of advice:Â No writing is ever wasted. So don’t throw it away, even if you know you’ve written the dumbest thing ever. (Because you haven’t. If you think you have, I’ll send you my “steal Han Solo, give him a new name, remove Chewie, reshape the Falcon, and give “Jorb” a self-insert Mary Sue to fall madly in love with” story from Lo! these many years ago.)
Even if you have written a Sue, you’ve grown in writing when you figure it out. Write on to the end, then fix it.
We all gotta start somewhere.
Yeah, I think a lot of what happens with so-called Mary-Sues is what one does with them. I tend to put more reliance in the tests than some other people would have to, because I’m not quite at the stage where I can take a collection of clichéd traits and make a real, believable, worthwhile character out of them. Of course, they become clichés because they’re enjoyable to read about when done well, but… am I making sense?
But even when I am going through the tests, I admit there are some places where something I’ve done really is a legitimate exception. The so-beautiful-it’s-a-curse thing, for example, in everything I’ve ever seen is a “nuke it from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure”. And yet, that’s Aiaria–not in such a distilled form, and never mentioned, but I’m sure she thinks it. But–in my opinion–it works. So if I know it works, I ignore the tests; and if I don’t then I think about it.
I dunno. *wanders off*
Yeah, I think that’s a problem too–if it’s a strong, likeable character, especially a female one, odds are that she’s going to be called a Sue. Amelia Peabody and Miles Vorkosigan both would probably score pretty high.
And we know about them. ^_^
If you apply all the Mary Sue tests to the main character of any wildly popular movie of the day, guess what… entertainment is literally abounding with Mary Sues. I have one prime, and timely, example of this: Twilight. And, apply the same to Gary Stu’s: Harry Potter.
But, if you take a hard look, tv shows and movies that have die hard underground/cult/fandom followings tend to be the anti-MS. Buffy. Underworld. Xena. All very Sue-ish but NOT in some very important ways.
There is a decided difference between a Sue, (which, in all honesty I do not find a valid term) and indepth characterization. The definition of a Sue is too unrefined, subjective and just… mean. If you do not like someone’s character it is all to easy to whip out the Sue insult to ensure proper interpretation of your disdain. I find ‘Mary Sue’ a petty phenomenon thrown around much to loosely to have an validity as a critique.
Now – self insertion is another matter all together. If your character looks like an idealized you, the story centers around her and only her, the hottest male character is tragically drawn to her and, quite possibly the second hottest male character is a rival for her affections, you are writing what I feel should be the sole definition of a Mary Sue. Wow – that sounds incredibly like the plot of one aftermentioned movie… so, apparently, Mary Sue’s are not only viable for publication but for multimillion dollar movie deals as well.
Any single term that can cause a creative mind to doubt itself needs to be eradicated. You, Miss Diehard Fandom Critic who is the ultimate authority on characterization: Who died and appointed you the Mary Sue police? If you can do better then by all means…. shut up and write. What? You don’t write? Then kindly sit your ass down and shut the hell up.
Oh yes. It’s way too easy to fling “Mary Sue” about. A person would have to read to learn of bad plotting or clumsy transitions, but a quick skim of the first few paragraphs would give one enough ammo to call a character a Sue.
And have I mentioned lately I love the way you express yourself? 😉
Awwww… such a dear…
Ya know, I have written and posted so little I’m not sure I really qualify for an opinion. And, with a couple dozen reviews, I’m not sure I have the right to be bitter either. Especially since I’ve never had the dubious honor of being flamed. I’ve risen to the defense of others who have been flamed, solely on principle. But my ire is stoked even by the positive comments sometimes.
Case in point: I had one review where the girl proclaimed that I should be ‘worshipped for writing (character X) correctly’. I should be happy, right? The girl offered WORSHIP. Apparently, I’m a fickle deity.
Who is to say I did or did not write a fandom character correctly? Said fandom, left said character wildly undefined. There was never enough background to establish a firm characterization in the first place. It is one of the most attractive things about it. I felt insulted for all the other writers who tackled the character differently because all of their POV’s are potentially ‘correct’.
In short, I did not attack the poor girl as I felt she needed to be. I’m a benevolent deity as well, I suppose. Willing to suffer fools but only because teaching fools their lessons can be extremely satisfying.
Where was this leading?… oh yeah… Mary Sue. It is first cousin to ‘That was hot.’ and ‘Damn, that was the SMEX.’ Usually the Sue comment in reviews is attached to a bit more thought than those poor, brainless, hillbilly cousins. It suggests that there is some intelligence at work but upon closer inspection you can dechiper it for the sham it is.
If you don’t like a story say… “I didn’t like it… for reason A, B and C.” It is okay to not have a taste for the story on a personal level. Most authors will understand that. It is not okay to not like a story and try to come up with ‘technical’ reasons why you think it sucks. Ergo… ‘mary sue’ should not be a technical reason. Give an author a critique – something constructive they can work with to help improve their craft. Criticism is the weapon of small minds trying to prove themselves better than the hillbilly cousins.
No one ever failed a creative writing class for Mary Sue-ism. They fail because they cannot write.
*steps off the soap box*
Heh, I don’t think they get failed for that even, anymore. In a world where you can get a bowling trophy merely by being on the team, and have a graduation ceremony complete with robe and diploma when you go from pre-school to kindergarten, who actually cares if you can write? Up till the moment you want to get published, anyway. THEN someone finally informs you that more is required than showing up.
Amen on no writing being wasted.