I believe she can be workable if the author really tries, though a single article created in her defense does little to alter my opinions that she is mostly a narcissistic literary device and is rightfully scorned for spawning many uninteresting fanfics, even if they are well written.  If you want an original character to steal the show so badly, make your own original work. 

People can do what they want, but I am by no means swayed.  It's an alright alternative viewpoint but it doesn't make a strong argument.

I'm a little confused as to how the author is defining Mary Sue.  Is it an original character with no perceivable flaws, an original character who gets to sleep with a male member of the cast, or simply an original female character?  Is she defined by her ultimate goal of being a self-insert for the writer?

I guess I always saw "Mary Sue" as a term for something irredeemable, because the writer's motive was flawed: instead of trying to write a good story, they were more interested in writing about an idealized version of herself to live out their fantasies.  The author of this article suggests that writers should try to add more depth and realistic flaws to their characters.  But as soon as an author does that, I would question whether isn't still a Mary Sue character?

My own definition might be outmoded, though.  Especially after communities like pottersues on LiveJournal became popular, it seems like the term Mary Sue is used to define any female OC, regardless of quality or motive.

(I also don't really read fanfic, though.)

Last edited by Alexa (02-19-2010 12:41:34 PM)

There are many different types of Mary-Sues and many of them are a combination of types, but in the end, the main reasons they usually suck boils down to two things:

1/ Plain old bad Writing.

2/ In the end, the Mary-Sue is just the author's 'personal wank' with nothing to offer the readers.

Naji, I believe what you are ultimately refering to when you talk about good Mary-Sues are Self Inserts and Author Avatars which are writtrn well enough that readers would want to relate to those characters as they read about them.

When a character scores high on the Mary-Sue Litmus Test but due to great characterisation and writing, the readers love it anyhow, they become an Escapist Character.

Tamago wrote:

Naji, I believe what you are ultimately refering to when you talk about good Mary-Sues are Self Inserts and Author Avatars which are writtrn well enough that readers would want to relate to those characters as they read about them.

Oh, no, not at all, as I see it. My language may be gentle, but the things I identify as Mary Sue fiction are things I would never, ever want to be forced to read. In my ideal world, people who needed to start off through the Mary Sue format would do it, get some constructive feedback from those with strong stomachs and then destroy the abominations. But the world ain't perfect. All I can do is stay away or try to address this issue that isn't really anyone's fault.

Which isn't to say that there aren't those who refuse to grow past Mary Suism! Some people submerge themselves in the format and won't leave it alone. That's kind of dysfunctional, but is probably still a victimless crime. And though it may feel more obnoxious, I'd still opt to live and let live.

I liked the author's point that Elizabeth Bennet is, to a close approximation, a self-insert on the part of Jane Austen.  That was an effective way to make the point that a good writer can use self-insertion without creating poor writing.  I'm not big on fanfics in general, but I agree that self-inserts don't have to cheapen a fic (or an original work).  Mary Sues probably do cheapen a fic, but I like Naji's view that just because a fic is cheapened doesn't mean it can't be serving a purpose, such as helping the author develop his or her style.

Yeah, I just can't see the Mary Sue in a good light. I've encountered plenty of original characters (as well as published ones) who did not have any huge character flaws to speak of, but I don't necessarily consider them to be Mary Sues. To me, a traditional Sue is not only someone without flaw, but someone who also has an exceptional "talent"-- not just, like, playing an instrument or something, but the ability to 'heal' the emotional wounds of the good guys, to make the bad guys see the error of their ways, to show the popular girl what's what and win the adoration of every guy in school... that is what makes a character static, boring, and unrealistic.

In the case of girls like Bella Swan, they may also have a "flaw" that could be considered cute, endearing, or moe. She's so clumsy! That's awful, but adorable!

Alexa: I guess I always saw "Mary Sue" as a term for something irredeemable, because the writer's motive was flawed: instead of trying to write a good story, they were more interested in writing about an idealized version of herself to live out their fantasies.

I find it fascinating that an author (especially new ones) can write a Mary Sue without picking up on the fact that it is a Mary Sue (as in it is the author in thinly-veiled disguise). So in a sense they're not writing Mary Sue (although they are!) in that they don't know that this idealized and absolutely perfect character is in fact them. Even though it's speaking like them, dressing like them, changing the original character's name to be a nickname which is the author's etc etc etc...

In such a case surely it's okay to point that out? I'm always champing at the bit to review and tell them, but at the same time it can feel cruel. Sometimes I just review what I like instead. But then what's the point of constructive criticism, and can it even exist in the world of fanfic (or fic for that matter) where authors have fragile egos that you want to protect cos you want them to keep writing! There must be a way to tell them that's a bit more kind. I suppose the reason for unveling a Mary Sue would be the hope that the writer can develop past it and produce some decent fanfic (and being such a rabid fan of fanfic I'm happy for anything at all to happen to improve quality-quantity).

Tamago, you're spot on about Escapist characters! That link just goes to show how you can write a Mary Sue and still make the big bucks. I think I read a quote by C. S. Lewis once saying that as readers when we read escapist fiction it's kind of the equivalent of masturbating and it's an immature phase that we have to move past.

Although I like a lot of what he writes...I'm in no plans to move past my own escapist reading/watching habits. However I will say they're normally not as fun/stimulating overall as reading non-escapist stuff, so thank goodness for that.

I definitely am someone who ends up using Mary Sues as a comparison of what not to do. For instance, after sitting through a few pages of twilight, I saw an unrealistic, annoying character(s) that I thought only the author could like. But through that example of poor characters, I soon realized many other characters in other fiction had similar traits, and I soon became more critical of what I read because I wanted to find good characters.
I agree with OiTL, the reader is the one who should be immersed in the character.

I have some questions for writers out there regarding Mary Sues:

I'm writing my first story right now(original fiction), and I've been pretty fearful of creating a Sue in any form. While I've changed personal traits in both physical and mental states, is it Sue-ish to add conflicts that I've faced with myself, such as phobias, experiences, and moral conflicts, etc into my character?

Is the entire concept of infatuation vs. true love and finding power in yourself a worn theme, or is it not used enough?

Do you find the Mary Sue Litmus test to be a useful tool to 'check' your character for Sue traits?

(sorry if they go off topic, I wasn't sure where to ask.)

Last edited by Setsuna (02-19-2010 08:16:01 PM)

This is suuuuuuuch an interesting debate. Because, well, like listed in the TV Tropes link up-top, there's little separating Mary Sues and an Escapist character. I realized this the other day while watching Hellsing Ultimate and the fact that Alucard has no weaknesses. While you could argue that being bound to Integral is a weakness, given that all this usually means is that Alucard gets to fuck shit up for her and enjoying it very much...I don't see it really hindering him. She doesn't even seem to really care that he created another vampire on a whim, and thus another employee she has to look after. Alucard pretty much gets free reign.

But Alucard works because A)you wouldn't actually want to BE him unless you're right out of your goddamn mind; you just love watching him fuck shit up and being a scary mofo, B)Characters react to him in the way they should. When he does something that's fucked up, Seras doesn't fawn over him and tell him that they tooooootally deserved to be impaled and eaten. And that's not something you see of the darker variety of Mary Sue(usually a 'Sue for the bad guys, likes to show how hardcore she is) who usually do terrible things to people and only the people we're clearly supposed to hate call her out on it.

It's a question not only of author skill in rendering a rounded character, but having the ability to make characters move beyond black and white. Other characters can hate them without being vilified, and its not just the result of some terrible misunderstanding. Your just starting out writing(or not *coughanitablakecough*) and you want to make the BEST hero ever that EVERYONE likes except for the MEANIES and that'll make them the BEST character ever, right?!

Yeah Alexa, I think reviewing always helps as opposed to not reviewing, but it's so hard to strike the right balance. Be constructive I mean, as opposed to ummmm non-constructive. *scratches head*

Side note: I was thinking about how much I liked Sweet Valley High as a teenager and I sorta think Elizabeth Wakefield is a possible Mary-Sue character...isn't she? I mean...she's 150% perfect, and she always redeems the cruel/superficial/more-human characters (everyone else including her own twin) through the power of her own sweet nature (combined with stunning looks ). Her faults aren't true faults (since her "dowdy" purity and innocence is what redeems people).

But I loved her! She was definitely my fave character...aw, hell, I still like her. Even though I can now see she is very badly written. As is SVH for that matter.

To think you can make so much money out of commercial fiction (and SVH was created by Francine Pascal but written by various others for pay) that doesn't have a whole heck of a lot separating it from what is supposed to be a fanfiction trait...