Avoiding "Mary-Sues"

For those who don't know...

Mary Sue: A fictional character, usually female and especially in fanfic, whose implausible talents and likeableness weaken the story. (The name "Gary Stu" may be used to describe a male Mary Sue).

I'm sure you've all encountered one before while reading something or other. As I read over and prepare to edit my novel, one thing I'm seeing is the need for more distinction between my characters and more development. I thought, in that spirit, I'd share this with my fellow writers in case anyone feels the same way:

http://springhole.net/writing/marysue.htm

I found this while surfing the internet for character development advice. It's a test to see if your character is in danger of "Sue-ness." It's important to read the instructions first, because it provides disclaimers for how your results might get skewed. (For example, "if your character is a role-playing character and the only reason you can answer 'yes' is because of other players acting of their own free wills (IE, everyone has their characters throwing themselves at your character's feet and you've done nothing to force this) do not answer yes to the corresponding question."

Don't freak out if you DO get a "Mary-Sue" result, because of course this test's results aren't entirely accurate, but I think it's fun to play around with, and it might raise some red flags that would have gone unnoticed otherwise. Ultimately though, I think it's better to use your own evaluation as well as evaluation from honest friends to determine whether or not your character is believable.

For those who are writing a fantasy or sci-fi with sentient non-Human races, this is also a good test to take, which will help evaluate if said race is too perfect: http://springhole.net/writing/marysuerace.htm

There's a lot of contention over the concept of Mary Sues and the abuse of the term, especially in fanfiction. I don't quite understand it, because I've always felt that a Mary Sue is so blatantly obvious that it makes your teeth ache. She's the character who can't be beat, who always swoops in to save the day just in the nick of time. Everyone loves her, despite her obvious "flaws".

This doesn't mean that every hero is a Mary Sue, or that your character is a Sue because s/he saves the day at the end of the story. It's the implausible aspects that make them a Sue. Your character has never picked up a sword in their life, and the first time they do, no one can beat them; that's not just beginner's luck, that's improbable. So unless part of your plot is why they have that sudden talent, flag it for editing and make it credible.

It's hard to catch Mary Sues in original fiction, but if you're reading through something and you know the character is going to come out on top at the end because they always come out on top, then where's the conflict? It's one thing to assume they'll come out on top because they're the main character, but you may still end up biting your nails halfway through when they face off against the Big Bad because they've never faced such a big challenge before (think of Luke's lightsaber battle with Vader in Empire Strikes Back; he's got these awesome new powers and a cool weapon, but Vader is stronger than he is, and it's obvious that Luke is struggling. And then he loses.)

It's more obvious in fanfiction, I think; she's the original character who's friends with all the canon characters, or replaces one of the canon characters completely and is better at whatever that canon character was known for. They have a habit of ending up in romantic situations with the main characters, even if the main character is in an established relationship. They overshadow the canon characters and steal the story from them and make it about themselves.

An original character in fanfiction is not automatically a Mary Sue. And even a "perfect" character is not automatically a Mary Sue. It's more about how the character is implied; this is why you can have canon characters who get turned into Mary Sues (in some ways, I think Hermione became a Mary Sue for the extent of the third movie, but that's just my opinion).

I had never even heard of this "Mary-Sue" phenomenon, and thank you greatly for pointing it out. I really appreciated the de-Suifiers.

I find it so fascinating and found the responses to your post slightly off-kilter after taking the quiz. Just to test the above claim that Harry Potter would score through the roof, I put Harry Potter through it [of course, I had to skip questions that asked whether JK Rowlings wanted to sleep with or be or dress like Harry], which was quite easy.

Thanks to the -15 points worth of De-Suifiers, Harry Potter came out with a score of 20 on the following scale:

"0-16 Points
Most likely Not-Sue. Characters at this level could probably take a little spicing up without hurting them any.

17-21
Probably not a Mary-Sue, although a character can go either way at this point. Fanfiction writers should pay attention to ensure that their characters aren't getting too Sue-ish. For an RPG or original fiction character, however, you're probably perfectly fine.

22-29
Some definite Sue-like tendancies here. A little polishing might be in order to put original fiction and RPG characters back into the balance, especially if Kirking is involved. Fanfiction characters should probably have some work done.

30+
Fanfiction authors beware - Mary's on the loose. There's still a chance you can save this character with some TLC, though. Role-players and original fiction characters, you should also strongly consider giving your character a workover.

36+
Fanfiction authors, you might just want to start over. Role-players and original fiction authors, at this point your characters are likely to provoke eye-rolling and exclaimations of "yeah, right!" from your readers. (Well, at least from me.) Immediate workover is probably in order.

50+
Kill it dead. Or make sure you read the instructions properly (some people don't do this, which causes freakishly high scores) and take the test again."

I've got an orphaned farm boy who lost his family before his very eyes, who was then adopted into noble society, and who becomes a knight, but he got a very low score on the test -- quite simply because this character gets his butt kicked all the time. He's also not that good-looking; his girlfriend likes him more for his sense of humor.

I wouldn't say I think of my characters as tools rather than friends. If I start to think of characters as tools, then my story falls apart, because they start doing things because the plot demands it, not for any logical reason. And then I hit a block because I can't justify what's happening; they need a reason to do it. I lost an entire scene last November because of that. So I cannot think of characters as tools. I need to think of them as people -- well, like friends. I'm hanging out with them a lot. If I don't like the characters, then I like the story. That's just the way it works with me.

So, I think the best way isn't to fret over a score on a silly on-line test. It might prove amusing, but it's not a clear benchmark or indicator. Just think of your character as a person, one with motives for actions, relationships, talents and weaknesses, likes and dislikes.

I have another character who is simply gorgeous, has incredible eyes, and is an amazingly accomplished sword fighter. He's also sometimes quite callous and has a hard time opening up and trusting people.

I know of Mary Sues, but really, I find that if my characters come anywhere close to being anything in any form like a Mary Sue, I'm utterly bored with writing them and soon something happens to make them not a Mary Sue. Whether that's them vanishing from the story completely or getting a drastic personality makeover, they don't stay Mary Sue for longer than oh, maybe half a scene at most? If that.

It seems the problem with looking for 'Mary Sue' or 'Gary Stu' is that there are so many, many, many traits that are listed as being a Mary Sue trait, that any strength or advantage that you give your character now makes it a Mary Sue. Attractive? Mary Sue. Rich? Mary Sue. Good with a sword? Mary Sue. Clever? Mary Sue.

My personal opinion in a 6-billion opinion universe is to just write your character as you envision it and see how the story plays out. You can always tone your MC down, but if you're so worried you might have a Mary or Gary, you may inadvertantly damage an otherwise charming and interesting plot by not letting the characters be who they are. And sometimes having a 'perfect' character in an otherwise imperfect setting can be fun for the other characters...

One of the challenges to me is that there's a huge difference between an authorial self insert and a "character the reader is meant to identify with".

If we just go with a"slightly over idealized (and/or bland) character who exists to facilitate reader identification", a massive percentage of characters in literature are Sues. Harry Potter. Bella Swan. That girl in Rebecca I'm forgetting the name of. Ishamel. There are a *lot* of bland characters who are genuinely meant to be bland so that the reader can identify with them. There's nothing wrong with that. (In fact, if your story is about a guy who's weird obsession is killing a large white whale, it's probably just as well that the story isn't told through his somewhat alien perspective.)

But then there's the "authorial insert", where the author basically creates their dream self and gives him/her the best possible life ever. (Okay, so this isn't always anathema to readers. Larsen/Blomkist did quite well despite using his alter-ego as the hero. Just saying...) But it doesn't tend to be all that interesting, as the main character is just bland. And if they defy the laws of the world you've just created (i.e. most ghastly fan fiction), readers are going to roll their eyes. Readers will forgive a bland character, I think, but not one that they feel is either *not* them, or is defying logic left and right.

That said, this all depends a bit on the reader. But you can get away with a lot, as long as you're consistent.

Avoiding a Mary Sues is fine, I suppose, but I wouldn't fret overmuch. The problem when you try to avoid one is you end up with just as worthless character in the anti-Sue. Just inverting the traits normally considered to be sue-ish doesn't mean your character isn't going to end up as one.

Model your characters after real people, with real flaws, interesting backgrounds. Don't just slap a couple of problems on them just to keep them from being sues.

I answered as myself and apparently I'm not believable as a person.

I scored a 53 on the test answering as myself.

I scored pretty high as myself.

Apparently, this test doesn't take certain things into account (ie. quantity, quality of events or traits).

For example, a character could be viewed as attractive by only one other person, or a character could have superhuman powers, but isn't always effective at using such powers (among other abilities, powers and limitations).

If quantity and quality would count, I would probably score well under 10.

Limitations don't seem to be taken into account, at least not that much.

Also, people with superpowers/magical powers (superheroes, wizards) would naturally score higher on this test.

Well, I have read some of the bigger posts in diagonal, but I think this hasn't yet been said: Mary Sues are more a problem of approach from the writer than a problem with the character itself. You Sue-fy a character when you are dangerously in love with them - you probably don't know them all that well and you wouldn't bear them for more than a week, you won't marry them, but for now you are completely oblivious to... well, everything.

My fail-proof system to identify Mary Sues is how much I care about how they are named. Too much time on behindthename.com means I'm in trouble.

Heh...I scored in the "Kill it dead" range as myself. Good thing the test says I'm so freakishly awesome or I might get insulted...

Sometimes I think there should be a larger category of which Mary-Sue is the extreme. I would call it the "wish-fulfillment character."

This very much overlaps with "character for the audience to identify with." And it's not always bad, but I feel like if you're doing it you need to know that you're doing it. Actually, I'm against it myself, but I feel the need to acknowledge that it's not always bad, because a lot of the time it WORKS.

My prime example is Jake Sully in Avatar. I think it was done on purpose there. Jake's very "identifiable": an ex-Marine, straightforward kinda guy who just wants his legs back and to be strong and respected and cool and be with a beautiful woman. Very kind of Everyman, if Everyman had paralyzed legs. He basically spends the whole movie pursuing those things he wants (with, from my point of view, a really problematic lack of concern for others till danger's basically on top of them) in conjunction with fighting the Bad Guys, and at the end he gets them to the max: he's a N'avi now, really tough & strong & cool with legs that work & a huge dragon-thing, he's the big war hero, he's got the girl and it's implied he's going to be the new leader. Also he is never really blamed for the things he did wrong. That's the wish-fulfillment character right there: he's just like *you*, and then he gets everything that *you* want.

And the truth is, that's super common in movies. Just really, really common. Because it works. But I honestly don't think it's good. I mean, when you look at the not-very-good kind of Christian fiction, the exact problem is that the author made the Christian in the book the wish-fulfillment character. And that can give you a feel for how it feels to read a book where the wish-fulfillment character is *not* like you, and it turns out it can kinda stink. My way of dealing with this phenomenon is: make the character "like you"--an everyperson--and give them *some* wish-fulfillment, but *blame them for what they do wrong*, and make them see it and suffer for it, and for their wish-fulfillment too, so they actually achieve some growth. That way lies balance.

On an interesting side-note, I've read a lot of arguments and discussions about race and gender in fiction, and people can get really worked up because it seems like "they're never satisfied." Like there's more and more minority characters out there and writers try to do them "right" but the people on the lookout for racism can find problems with all of them, like "oh, that African-American character is sympathetic and smart, sure, but he's just there to serve the white character's needs." I think this is the reason for this insistence, the true problem: *the wish-fulfillment character in an American movie is almost always, always white.* And most of the time he's male, too.

And that is, in fact, legitimately *very* annoying.

I don't know if some or a lot of wish fulfillment is the problem, per se. It has more to do with making an uninteresting, shallow character that is never wrong and has no real flaws; flaws that should have an effect on the story and the character.

I suspect a big problem people have with Mary Sues is that they're usually used to get all up in someone's fandom. You know all those characters you liked? My character is way better and is going to show them how it's done. I remember this generally not-very-good series of Warcraft novels in which the writer, rather than use characters from the games, made up his own main characters and shoved the actual established canon characters off to the side. At one point his Totally Awesome Obvious Wish-Fulfillment Wizard character (white, yes, and male) taught this one super-powerful game character how to use magic in the past. YOUR SELF-INSERT TAUGHT ILLIDAN HOW TO MAGIC? WELL OKAY THEN. And that was actual licensed fiction. I can only imagine the writer got away with it because he's besties with the Big Head Creative Guy at Blizzard.

So it's far less...offensive, for lack of a better term, in original fiction, because it's not showing any disrespect for established characters that your reader may be attached to and respect. The example of Jake Sully in Avatar is a very good one, but even then, since it was an original universe, it was less blatant and less painful. So don't worry too much. In original fiction, your character has a right to be important and powerful and game-changing, so long as you're realistic about consequences.

Both my MC's COULD be Mary Sues/ Gary Stus.

My FMC is the likeable one, while the MMC has way more problems, but grasps swordplay in one 12-hour lesson.

*is a cracked, dry voice* Need... to... EDIT!

actually, i think that characters that are just over the Stu/Sue line tend to be really, really popular so long as the fantasy being fulfilled is a common one.
the thing is that the farther into Sue/Stu-dom you get the more irritating the character becomes because at some point it violates suspension of disbelief and if the reader does care about characters other than the Sue/Stu MC, it will be frustrating to see the other character constantly getting sidelined and shown up.

so it's a personal preference to a degree. some of us are more irritated by such characters than others and make more of a point to keep those types of characters out of the story - but it's hard to keep track of every detail while writing. the test are just sort of a guideline to say 'you've given your character a lot of angst and/or special powers - consider carefully what purpose they serve'.

that's how i see it anyway.

I sort of think the whole Mary Sue concept is a little bit hateful and negative. Sure, there are some awful characters out there (and some very deserving of the appellation), but when taken to the level it has been, it becomes a witch-hunt. Don't worry about whether your character is a Mary Sue. Worry about whether your character is good, and odds are they won't be a Sue anyway.

I'm worried about the Mary-Sue/Gary-Stu-ish of my FMC and MMC since both are literal inserts of real people. (My FMC is essentially me, my MMC is my ex.) A lot of other characters are also inserts of real people. (I'll admit that this story was a bit of a coping thing for me more than actually writing a novel.)