Best definition of a Mary Sue Ever

[CowardlyPaladin]

I wish I could take credit for this, but this was my friends definition. A Mary Sue is not the greatest fighter, or the prettiest, or the strangest character. A Mary Sue is a character whose perception of reality matches with the author's perception of reality. The key from seeing if somebody is a mary sue or not is if they have an internal observation which is contrasted with the "objective" reality within the work. What do you think?

[Anderlith]

Hands down Richard Rahl is the biggest Mary Sue ever.

[The Glyphstone]

Technically, Mary Sue is the biggest Mary Sue ever. You can't get more pure than the 100% original, after all.:smallbiggrin:

[ThirdEmperor]

Hmm. That's definitely a concise summary of a big aspect of Mary Sue-dom, but I wouldn't say it's the definition. Originally, Mary Sue meant an author insert of any kind. Simply agreeing with the author isn't quite enough. They'd also have to take all the same actions, etcetera etcetera.

As the term is more commonly used today though, a Mary or Marty Sue is someone who is treated as objectively right within the setting. If someone disagrees with Mary Sue they are wrong, not because their argument is wrong, but because they disagreed with Mary Sue. If Mary Sue says something, then it is right because Mary Sue said it.

[Malak'ai]

Hmm. That's definitely a concise summary of a big aspect of Mary Sue-dom, but I wouldn't say it's the definition. Originally, Mary Sue meant an author insert of any kind. Simply agreeing with the author isn't quite enough. They'd also have to take all the same actions, etcetera etcetera.

As the term is more commonly used today though, a Mary or Marty Sue is someone who is treated as objectively right within the setting. If someone disagrees with Mary Sue they are wrong, not because their argument is wrong, but because they disagreed with Mary Sue. If Mary Sue says something, then it is right because Mary Sue said it.

And you can't better a Mary Sue in anything.
Hit them in the head with an axe and they miraculously dodge, or their hair turns harder than than the axe blade.
Have a hundred year old kung fu master who's trained all his life to be the best and a Mary Sue will wipe the floor with his butt after 10 seconds of engaging him.
A Mary Sue will instinctively know how to hack the Pentagons computer security system when even the best hackers in the world fail time and time again.

They're just "The Bestest" at everything.

[ThirdEmperor]

Well, that's simply an extension of being right. If a Mary Sue decides they're the best they are. Always. No matter how stupid or contrived.

[snoopy13a]

I wish I could take credit for this, but this was my friends definition. A Mary Sue is not the greatest fighter, or the prettiest, or the strangest character. A Mary Sue is a character whose perception of reality matches with the author's perception of reality. The key from seeing if somebody is a mary sue or not is if they have an internal observation which is contrasted with the "objective" reality within the work. What do you think?

How would you differentiate characters in works told from a limited first-person narrator? In those works, the only reality is from the observation of the narrator. There is no "objective reality" because there is only one viewpoint. By this definition, all of these characters would be "Mary Sues."


Hmm. That's definitely a concise summary of a big aspect of Mary Sue-dom, but I wouldn't say it's the definition. Originally, Mary Sue meant an author insert of any kind. Simply agreeing with the author isn't quite enough. They'd also have to take all the same actions, etcetera etcetera.

As the term is more commonly used today though, a Mary or Marty Sue is someone who is treated as objectively right within the setting. If someone disagrees with Mary Sue they are wrong, not because their argument is wrong, but because they disagreed with Mary Sue. If Mary Sue says something, then it is right because Mary Sue said it.

The author insert definition is absurd as well. Nick Carraway is an author insert of F. Scott Fitzgerald. Jake Barnes is an author insert of Ernest Hemingway. Scout Finch is an author insert of Harper Lee. Faramir is an author insert of J.R.R. Tolkien. Hermoine Granger is probably an author insert of J.K. Rowling*.

In the third definition, I'm not sure what is meant by "objective" or "wrong." Still, there are characters who represent morality in a sense. Often they are supporting characters like Aslan or Gandalf. For protagonists, on the other hand, is a character like Fanny Price a "Mary Sue" because she is moral? No, there is nothing inherently wrong with a character that acts as a vehicle for the author's moral views.

I believe that most people define a "Mary Sue" as a protagonist they do not like.

*To be fair, Hermoine Granger and Faramir are not protagonists. It is debatable whether Nick Carraway is a protagonist (although he is a narrator)

[Jayngfet]

How would you differentiate characters in works told from a limited first-person narrator? In those works, the only reality is from the observation of the narrator. There is no "objective reality" because there is only one viewpoint. By this definition, all of these characters would be "Mary Sues."



Well there's the obvious fact that even characters with first person narration can be proven wrong. They still observe the world and are capable of showing themselves as being fallible and human.

[snoopy13a]

The key from seeing if somebody is a mary sue or not is if they have an internal observation which is contrasted with the "objective" reality within the work.


Well there's the obvious fact that even characters with first person narration can be proven wrong. They still observe the world and are capable of showing themselves as being fallible and human.

There is nothing in the above statement about right or wrong, just about the character's observations versus an "objective" reality. However, in a first-person narrative, we are only seeing the story through the narrator's eyes. There are no other character viewpoints.

Now, if one wants to define "objective" reality as the reader's interpretation of the work, then, of course, the narrator's observations will be different from the reader's interpretation. However, that's going to be the case with every work of literature.

A reader certainly may, and almost certainly will, interpret the events in The Catcher of the Rye differently than Holden Caulfield. But Holden's viewpoint is the only one we have. There is no internal objective reality to measure against in a first-person narrative, only the character's observations and the reader's interpretations.

[CowardlyPaladin]

How would you differentiate characters in works told from a limited first-person narrator? In those works, the only reality is from the observation of the narrator. There is no "objective reality" because there is only one viewpoint. By this definition, all of these characters would be "Mary Sues."

The key phrase there is "LImited" in that most good LImited first person narrations have something in them that indicates that what the narrator sees is not exactly what is true, that the audience can see past what is being said. If the character makes mistakes, makes incorrect judgment errors, or has misconceptions about the world then they cannot be a Mary Sue


Also for everybody else, no the definition of an Auther insert is...an author insert. I mean Dante is literally in "Dante's Inferno" and he certainly doesn't show himself as correct in the Divine Comedy, in fact in Paradiso he gets called out ALOT. Inserts can be Mary Sues, but aren't always. Now not all characters you don't like are Mary Sues, many people don't like Drizzt, however he isn't a Mary Sue by this definition, he just has alot of other traits people find annoying (I don't really mind him but whatever). Nathan Drake from Uncharted would be a Mary Sue though in that nothing ever phases the slimy little git and all of his observations are totally correct.

[Kitten Champion]

My definition of a Mary Sue is fairly simple. A Mary Sue is a character whose significance is inflated to the point that it diminishes the quality of the narrative or development of the other characters. This is apparent in fan fiction when the author spends half the time telling us every irrelevant detail they've invented about their protagonist/antagonist but underwhelm you with basically every other character's description, or the author has every character prattling on about their opinion of said character, or the plot pretty much bends and breaks under the weight of the character.

For instance, Batman can be a Mary Sue or not. Some writers clearly adore Batman, to the point that Batman being glorified is the reason the story exists, with the "Batman can beat everyone because he's Batman" approach to things. While other, better writers can make him a layered and sympathetic character whose actions are understandable and supported by the progression of the plot.

I would have to agree, Richard Rahl is the worst Mary Sue outside of fan fiction, because the whole universe exists to prove he's awesome to the point that everything around him becomes drab 1-dimensional cardboard backdrop to ensure the spotlight is so firmly on him that even when he writes an entire novel from the perspective of another character it's just there to reflect him, like the full moon reflecting an incandescent sun that is Richard Rahl. More than just a Mary Sue, he's a complete author avatar, the paper thin sublimation of Terry Goodkind. Honestly, it's like reading a role play where the PC and DM were the same, extremely narcissistic, person.

It's not his endless stream of Dues Ex Rahl victories and ever-increasing legendary status that's important, there are many similarities between Richard Rahl and Jordan's Rand al'Thor or other Arthurian archetypal epic heroes and I wouldn't describe them all as Mary Sues simply because they exert world-shattering influence at some point. It's that everything else in the universe is squashed cartoonishly flat to make room for him. The villains are strawmen, the kingdoms are strawmen, most of the supporting cast are strawmen, and that leave two characters in a multi-volume fantasy epic which I can describe as having personalities. Guess what they do? Mostly push the story forward amid absolutely agreeing with or fretting endlessly about Richard Rahl.

The original Mary Sue, and most fanfiction in general, did not go to the lengths that Goodkind did to make you know just how sexually, politically, morally, and intellectually superior their character is in every conceivable way.

[Hopeless]

So Honor Harrington but in a limited degree since she has been hurt in her stories?

This runs particular true in rpg's where the gamemaster values their prized npc more than running the game.

[CowardlyPaladin]

John Galt was a worse Mary Sue

[Morty]

The term "Mary Sue" is massively overused these days, to the point where it's lost a lot of its meaning. People slap this label on every character they think is too successful, popular, powerful or smart in their fictional world. Personally, I'm very wary of applying it to any character outside of fanfiction.

[Kitten Champion]

John Galt was a worse Mary Sue

Rahl is John Galt, only extended over a dozen fairly long and tedious books.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Technically, Mary Sue is the biggest Mary Sue ever. You can't get more pure than the 100% original, after all.:smallbiggrin:

Except in 1974 Lt. Mary Sue was a parodying the already stock and mocked fanfiction author self-insert perfect character.

More things change....

[Closet_Skeleton]

The term "Mary Sue" is massively overused these days, to the point where it's lost a lot of its meaning. People slap this label on every character they think is too successful, popular, powerful or smart in their fictional world. Personally, I'm very wary of applying it to any character outside of fanfiction.

But they do so for two reasons, 1. is that they've heard the word and are just using it so show they're part of the group, eg it was a fad on the internet once. 2. is that despite the loss of meaning it is actually a useful term that they feel is in a specific circumstance more appropriate to describe their thoughts than any other.

2. is valid anytime anyplace anywhere, fanfiction or not, even if the meaning is limited.

[Jayngfet]

There is nothing in the above statement about right or wrong, just about the character's observations versus an "objective" reality. However, in a first-person narrative, we are only seeing the story through the narrator's eyes. There are no other character viewpoints.

Now, if one wants to define "objective" reality as the reader's interpretation of the work, then, of course, the narrator's observations will be different from the reader's interpretation. However, that's going to be the case with every work of literature.

A reader certainly may, and almost certainly will, interpret the events in The Catcher of the Rye differently than Holden Caulfield. But Holden's viewpoint is the only one we have. There is no internal objective reality to measure against in a first-person narrative, only the character's observations and the reader's interpretations.

Sure a first person narrative can have the main character be wrong.

I mean, if a character says "there is a fluffy mattress under this window", then they jump, then they hit a mailbox or something and break their legs, they're obviously wrong. This is an extreme example but outside the most delusional characters and people eventually their viewpoints are going to clash with reality, or they're going to screw up and have to pay for it.

I mean let's take a look at Harry Potter in like, the Goblet of fire, because that's the first example that springs to mind. We only know the world through Harry. We see what he sees and the only thoughts we know are in his head. However, he's no infallible and it's shown time and again because he screws up. If he doesn't bother looking for the clue in the egg until he blows off most of the time he has to solve the puzzle, he's called on it. If he's wrong but manages to win anyway, we know it's from circumstances beyond his control that may bite him later. If he manages to get something right on his own or have his morality rewarded it's not assumed and even his good nature, while portrayed as a positive thing, is called into question by the other characters(saving the other hostages in the lake, even though they most likely would have been fine otherwise).

We only have Harry's viewpoint to go off of, but we can still tell he isn't a Mary Sue, because he doesn't just ignore the world around him whenever it's inconvenient, and the world doesn't just bend over backwards to hand him everything on a platter. He takes his lumps for making mistakes, has to learn from his flaws to get better, and the circumstances for how the plot of the series work so that it's not just assumed he'll win the big contest of the book by default.

Compare this to like, one of the ten million first person Harry Potter fanfictions. In a lot of them, Harry is suddenly infallible, or else he's a villain with the wrong viewpoint, or else he's shoved aside for a custom made Original Character who has everything he says proven true, or else has everything work out anyway with no work put in and no consequences, all the time.


The term "Mary Sue" is massively overused these days, to the point where it's lost a lot of its meaning. People slap this label on every character they think is too successful, popular, powerful or smart in their fictional world. Personally, I'm very wary of applying it to any character outside of fanfiction.

Characters can exibit mary sue traits outside of straight fanfiction. This is actually a distressingly huge problem with modern comics, which at this point have become the same thing anyway. I mean when Hal Jordan becomes the greatest green lantern and the mustache twirling villain is suddenly his best friend and he gets powers from a bunch of shiny original characters and is now prophacized as being the greatest lantern ever by a character who's been massively rewritten to be a dark gothy looking leather clad version of his old self, so I think it's totally fair to say he's become the canon equivalent of a Mary Sue.

When a book gets picked up by later writers and is still considered canon to the old stories I judge it by the exact same metric I judge fanfiction. Books by one author can have similar problems and we can label it as being Mary Sue out of convenience, but it really needs to have it's own term.

[The_Snark]

Mary Sue is a hard term to define; sometimes it seems like everyone has their own slightly different definition. Common elements include 1) a character that warps the narrative, setting, and/or other characters, often to the extent that the story revolves around her; 2) a character who is immensely powerful and/or has few to no weaknesses; 3) a character who has few to no moral failings, especially if the text makes a big deal over this fact; 4) a character that you, the person applying the term, dislike.

I think all of these points have some validity, except maybe the last. But it's hard to pin down an exact definition. The old quote regarding pornography comes to mind - "I know it when I see it."

[Jayngfet]

I think all of these points have some validity, except maybe the last. But it's hard to pin down an exact definition. The old quote regarding pornography comes to mind - "I know it when I see it."

The obvious problem is that the definition of what "it" is changes over time. That definition in and of itself changes so often specific examples have been booted out and roped back in under the definitions a hundred times over the years, regardless of the creators intentions. Even under the current legal distinctions a number of pieces pretty much change definition depending on largely arbitrary circumstances.

When putting any kind of definition on something you didn't make and weren't involved in, you need to know as much as you can about the specific example in terms of where and when it was made, what the standards for that criteria(or it's nearest equivalent) were then compared to now, how the piece compares to both standards, how every element reinforces or discredits the argument, what the creators intentions were going into it(assuming they've written it down somewhere or else you can guess from other stuff they've said or put down), and how it compares to similar pieces.

The problem is, unlike that there's no history of legal or academic definitions to fall back on when discussing the Mary Sue(or at least I think so, I was never a lit major so anyone who was feel free to correct me). That's probably for the best though, considering academic analysis tends like that can often lead to laughably petty arguments that can be stupid even with proper context.

[The_Snark]

The obvious problem is that the definition of what "it" is changes over time. That definition in and of itself changes so often specific examples have been booted out and roped back in under the definitions a hundred times over the years, regardless of the creators intentions. Even under the current legal distinctions a number of pieces pretty much change definition depending on largely arbitrary circumstances.

Oh, it's definitely problematic. Nonetheless, I think it's impossible to establish an objective standard of Mary Sue-ness, so a certain amount of personal judgment is required. Knowing a lot about the work and what went into its creation is a good idea, especially since the term Mary Sue criticizes the creator's intentions as much as the story quality.

[Doctor Foreman]

Defining "Mary Sue" is like defining free will. There's no objectively true answer and personal belief complicates things way too quickly. If we're talking about a character who's a wish-fulfilment figure, just call them that. If the character's a transparent author avatar, call them that. Et cetera.

If I were to use the term to describe a character, which I'm not sure I would, I'd use it to mean that the author/creator is invested in the character's positive attributes to the detriment of realism and good characterization. A beneficiary of narrative favoritism.

[Kato]

I myself am rather guilty of applying Mary Sue to many characters who are probably much more just Boring Invincible Heroes or such. In that regard, I guess while a Mary Sue is not limited to fanfiction most decent authors tend to not have their author avatar or author stand-in be that simple and always right/winning. Still, one of the rare occurence where I am rather willing to defend a canon character as Mary Sue/Stu are the main protagonists of Gundam SEED... :smallmad:

But in general... yeah, there's a lot of personal opinion on when a character qualifies as a Mary Sue and arguing over it is not worth it most of the time.

[Morty]

But they do so for two reasons, 1. is that they've heard the word and are just using it so show they're part of the group, eg it was a fad on the internet once. 2. is that despite the loss of meaning it is actually a useful term that they feel is in a specific circumstance more appropriate to describe their thoughts than any other.

2. is valid anytime anyplace anywhere, fanfiction or not, even if the meaning is limited.

It's not a useful term. It's loaded, emotional and derogatory. Calling a character "Mary Sue" tends to hamper debate, because it's a complete condemnation of both it and the author. Are we so pressed on time and wordcount that we can't use actual criticisms anymore? Do we have to reduce everything to short labels?

[warty goblin]

I personally find my operational definition of 'character the speaker does not like' to encapsulate pretty much all the meaning I can ever take from the term.

[Mordar]

I believe that most people define a "Mary Sue" as a protagonist they do not like.


The term "Mary Sue" is massively overused these days, to the point where it's lost a lot of its meaning. People slap this label on every character they think is too successful, popular, powerful or smart in their fictional world. Personally, I'm very wary of applying it to any character outside of fanfiction.


Mary Sue is a hard term to define; sometimes it seems like everyone has their own slightly different definition. Common elements include 1) a character that warps the narrative, setting, and/or other characters, often to the extent that the story revolves around her; 2) a character who is immensely powerful and/or has few to no weaknesses; 3) a character who has few to no moral failings, especially if the text makes a big deal over this fact; 4) a character that you, the person applying the term, dislike.

I think these three have really hit the nail on the head, and in a nicely sequential fashion.

I personally think the "dislike" clause is the most important and actually leads to people applying the label, while others argue that they dislike Character X because he is a MS.

Further, I'd suggest that some people apply the MS label to the main character of any book by an author they dislike, or a fandom they dislike.

See Dresden, Harry vs. Potter, Harry and watch the fur fly :smallamused:

- M

[Doctor Foreman]

See Dresden, Harry vs. Potter, Harry and watch the fur fly :smallamused:


Does anyone actually think of Harry Potter as a Mary Sue? He has fairly well-defined character flaws (impulsive, not academically inclined, socially inept), isn't an author avatar (the closest would be Hermione), and a lot of the time it's not him who saves the day (he talks about how it was mostly dumb luck and other people's help, plus book five ends in horrible tragic defeat because of his screw-ups etc.).

I can see why readers might dislike Harry - I prefer Ron, myself - but I don't see how he fits any definition of Mary Sue.

[Mordar]

Does anyone actually think of Harry Potter as a Mary Sue? He has fairly well-defined character flaws (impulsive, not academically inclined, socially inept), isn't an author avatar (the closest would be Hermione), and a lot of the time it's not him who saves the day (he talks about how it was mostly dumb luck and other people's help, plus book five ends in horrible tragic defeat because of his screw-ups etc.).

I can see why readers might dislike Harry - I prefer Ron, myself - but I don't see how he fits any definition of Mary Sue.

Sadly, yup. Lots of people (or at least lots of posts) on this forum have posited Potter as a author wish-fulfillment character. Don't forget that a author-insert need not be gender (or even race/species/planet) matched, and I have seen this suggested much more broadly than GitP.

My guess is that the overwhelming majority haven't actually read the series and are just taking shots, because your points are (mostly*) dead-on and they don't even address the whole "parents horribly killed" aspect of "Why life as Harry Potter isn't a bed of roses".

- M

* - I think he's actually reasonably "ept" socially, and while he's not Hermione, he seems to manage his classwork fairly well.

[The_Snark]

Sadly, yup. Lots of people (or at least lots of posts) on this forum have posited Potter as a author wish-fulfillment character. Don't forget that a author-insert need not be gender (or even race/species/planet) matched, and I have seen this suggested much more broadly than GitP.

My guess is that the overwhelming majority haven't actually read the series and are just taking shots, because your points are (mostly*) dead-on and they don't even address the whole "parents horribly killed" aspect of "Why life as Harry Potter isn't a bed of roses".

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: a tragic past doesn't preclude being a Mary Sue; in fact, it's often regarded as a key ingredient. I suspect people accusing Harry Potter of MS-dom would cite his status as The Chosen One, his celebrity status at school, his tragic backstory, and his habit of breaking rules and escaping the usual consequences a student would face.

And yet - he doesn't feel like a Sue to me. He feels like a pretty realistic character, a teenage boy thrust into strange situations. Yes, he's the center of the story, but he's the protagonist, so duh. Yes, he's special in a lot of ways, but some people live extraordinary lives. The fact that people on the Internet write wish-fulfillment stories about such things does not automatically make them invalid choices for every author ever.

It goes to show how slippery the term is. A character can exhibit all kinds of potential Mary Sue symptoms, but still come across as a solid character to the reader; another reader, more annoyed by the character or predisposed to dislike the author, will disagree. Conversely, a character can be designed with traits to prove she's not a Sue (she's totally clumsy! She's trying to learn the piano and she sucks at it! She's chronically depressed!) and still feel like one. You cannot cite facts to prove someone is or is not a Mary Sue; it's too subjective.

I'm thinking Morty is right when he says the term is too vague and inflammatory to be of much use anymore. If you think a character is a Mary Sue, figure out exactly what you mean by that, then say that instead.

[Anderlith]

John Galt was a worse Mary Sue

As Kitten Champion put it. Richard Rahl, is John Galt, with a super-omega magic sword, & super-omega wizard powers.

[Jade_Tarem]

It goes to show how slippery the term is. A character can exhibit all kinds of potential Mary Sue symptoms, but still come across as a solid character to the reader; another reader, more annoyed by the character or predisposed to dislike the author, will disagree. Conversely, a character can be designed with traits to prove she's not a Sue (she's totally clumsy! She's trying to learn the piano and she sucks at it! She's chronically depressed!) and still feel like one. You cannot cite facts to prove someone is or is not a Mary Sue; it's too subjective.

Absolutely, and not only that, but even the presence of a Mary Sue doesn't mean that the work they exist in is terrible or even bad. Honor Harrington - absolutely a Mary Sue by most measurements (highly skilled at pretty much everything, being objectively wrong is an extremely rare event for her, no one in the story has any real longevity unless they learn to like her or at least respect her as a worthy opponent, recovers from most setbacks in such a way as to end up twice as awesome as when she started) - has already been mentioned. Yet the series she's in is still worth a read if only to see all the awesome space battles, hard sci-fi (significantly harder than most Space Opera, anyway), tricky political maneuvers, and the excellent interplay between the three. On top of that, some of Harrington's antics, Sue or not, are really entertaining.


I'm thinking Morty is right when he says the term is too vague and inflammatory to be of much use anymore. If you think a character is a Mary Sue, figure out exactly what you mean by that, then say that instead.

I'm not so sure about this, though. We create labels as shorthand, yes, but while the accusation of Suedom doesn't mean much coming from one source, it should at least give an author reason to consider if maybe their character has become too all-around excellent to be interesting or likeable. And it's used commonly because writing a Sue is a common trap - authors, and especially new authors, will tend to write about characters that they relate to - which means a main character that would probably agree with most of the author's views. But they also get to control the story and the details of the character, and in an effort to make the character capable of tackling the plot's challenges, it can be easy to go from spicing up the character's abilities to deleting all but a few superficial flaws and blatantly venting personal biases into the story.

It might be a subjective label, but so is "CAUTION: HOT!" - it gets to the point quickly and, if it makes the viewer (which in this case can be the author of the story or the audience/readers) think about what's going on for a second, it's done its job even if it didn't actually apply. Ideally, intelligent discourse would follow, but not everyone can provide it at a level the author will appreciate. I can't tell a baker exactly what might be wrong with his cake, either - I just don't have the practice or experience - but I can tell whether or not it tastes nasty. In the end, the broadening of the Mary Sue term might be a good thing if more people are able to distinguish that 'bad taste' and invest in better stories.

[Tvtyrant]

Hands down Richard Rahl is the biggest Mary Sue ever.

Like when he fights an entire army without magic for several paragraphs, and they only manage to win by litterally pushing together until he cannot move due to the corpses?

Or how he quickly becomes the best at anything by simply putting his mind to it? "I am the greatest sculptor on earth! And swordsman! And magic user! And kung-fu guy! And woodsman! Fear my ability to quickly master complex tasks and surpass experts in their own field!"

[Morty]

Absolutely, and not only that, but even the presence of a Mary Sue doesn't mean that the work they exist in is terrible or even bad. Honor Harrington - absolutely a Mary Sue by most measurements (highly skilled at pretty much everything, being objectively wrong is an extremely rare event for her, no one in the story has any real longevity unless they learn to like her or at least respect her as a worthy opponent, recovers from most setbacks in such a way as to end up twice as awesome as when she started) - has already been mentioned. Yet the series she's in is still worth a read if only to see all the awesome space battles, hard sci-fi (significantly harder than most Space Opera, anyway), tricky political maneuvers, and the excellent interplay between the three. On top of that, some of Harrington's antics, Sue or not, are really entertaining.

If the work she appears in is well-written and her perceived Sue-dom doesn't detract from it... is she really a Sue? That's my point - a character who's too talented, successful, lucky or what have you doesn't merit comparing to a blatant authorial self-insert in a fanfic, which is what the term originally meant.


I'm not so sure about this, though. We create labels as shorthand, yes, but while the accusation of Suedom doesn't mean much coming from one source, it should at least give an author reason to consider if maybe their character has become too all-around excellent to be interesting or likeable. And it's used commonly because writing a Sue is a common trap - authors, and especially new authors, will tend to write about characters that they relate to - which means a main character that would probably agree with most of the author's views. But they also get to control the story and the details of the character, and in an effort to make the character capable of tackling the plot's challenges, it can be easy to go from spicing up the character's abilities to deleting all but a few superficial flaws and blatantly venting personal biases into the story.

It might be a subjective label, but so is "CAUTION: HOT!" - it gets to the point quickly and, if it makes the viewer (which in this case can be the author of the story or the audience/readers) think about what's going on for a second, it's done its job even if it didn't actually apply. Ideally, intelligent discourse would follow, but not everyone can provide it at a level the author will appreciate. I can't tell a baker exactly what might be wrong with his cake, either - I just don't have the practice or experience - but I can tell whether or not it tastes nasty. In the end, the broadening of the Mary Sue term might be a good thing if more people are able to distinguish that 'bad taste' and invest in better stories.

Can't we do this without using such loaded and belligerent terms? If you call a character a Mary Sue but you mean it as a warning rather than a condemnation, you're going to have to explain your point. So why not just do it instead?

[Mordar]

If the work she appears in is well-written and her perceived Sue-dom doesn't detract from it... is she really a Sue? That's my point - a character who's too talented, successful, lucky or what have you doesn't merit comparing to a blatant authorial self-insert in a fanfic, which is what the term originally meant.

But...I think self-insert was only half of the definition, and actually became the less-important part (the other being "...that eclipsed the established characters in the universe"), particularly as the label was applied to non-fanfic.

- M

[Tanuki Tales]

Harry Potter only becomes Sue-ish, to me, in Deathly Hallows. It's just so awfully convenient that there are these super awesome magic artifacts of power and Harry always had one of them from the beginning and he ends up with the other one just in time to save the day and to one-shot Voldermort.

I don't know if it's because Deathly Hallows was the worst written book out of the whole series or if it was because I began to read good British writers (Tolkien [in depth], Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett) around when I read Deathly Hallows, but I think it was absolute dreck. And it read like she just ripped off every fanfiction she could get her hands on.

[SuperPanda]

I have to agree that the term "Mary Sue" gets used quite a bit more than it probably applies.

Still I can't see this thread without thinking of the comic Ensign Sue Must Die (http://www.interrobangstudios.com/potluck/index.php?strip_id=989)

earlier in the thread it was mentioned that the original Mary Sue was a Parody of mary-sues elsewhere, and that just makes the comic funnier (and more relevant).


The definition used inside part 2 (Ensign 2 the Wrath of Sue) was:

Kirk: "The should all exhibit reality warping powers... Fantastically and unbelievably capable. Playing by their own rules with little to no consequence and doing things that just shouldn't be possible.

Bones: You describing yourself there Jim? :smallbiggrin:

[tomandtish]

As many have already indicated, the problem is that the term has grown beyond the original use and has spawned numerous variations. As originally used, it referred to a fan fiction character (non-cannon) added in who overshadowed the cannon characters in every way.

However, it has certainly started being used for other characters, including cannon characters. As many have indicated, it is sometimes best to identify characteristics that may make up a Mary Sue.

Note: No one of these characteristics automatically mean you have a Sue, and there are undoubtedly others that apply. However, these all seem to be common threads in characters that are commonly referred to as Sues. Give additional weight if the character is completely non-cannon (added in fan-fic), or is added later in a work in what is supposed to be a supporting role.

All Must Love Me: The beauty and charm of the character is acknowledged by everyone. Anyone who doesn't love the character is automatically a villain, or ridiculed/mistreated by the others. Example: Bella Swan.

I am Always Right: The character's actions are always justified, even when contradictory. For example, this character will freely engage in actions that they kill others for, and NO ONE will point out the contradiction. Example: Anita Blake.

I Can Do it Better: The character regularly can do tasks outside their alleged area of expertise better than the regular character whose job it is normally. Example: Wesley Crusher (actually a common Star Trek theme).

Please notice my "Flaws": The character either has no flaws, or any so-called flaws are not actually flaws (or are extremely minor and never used in the plot). Characters may stress about physical appearance (while everyone else raves about their beauty). They may be clumsy (but always in an endearing way). Example: Anita Blake again.

I'm Every Where: The character is so loved by the creators (or publishers) that they show up everywhere despite obvious timing issues. Even in places you'd never expect them. Example: Wolverine.

Again, these don't automatically make a Sue. But if you have one of these elements, it might be time to take a look. If you have 3-4, you're probably in trouble.

The best example might be "The Most Interesting man in the World" from Dos Equis commercials. That's probably a Sue if there ever was one (which also goes to show that you don't necessarily have to hate a Sue).

[Tanuki Tales]

I'm Every Where: The character is so loved by the creators (or publishers) that they show up everywhere despite obvious timing issues. Even in places you'd never expect them. Example: Wolverine.


Hehe, this reminds me every time of that awesome "Month in the Life of Wolverine" bit which explained all that.

[Kitten Champion]

I think the "All Must Love Me" aspect could be expanded to include "It's all about me" where if the story actually focuses on any other character's perspective for a scene, it's to further explore the greatness of the Mary Sue.

You think you might be getting meaningful plot progression or development of the secondary character, and instead you learn that every other character in this world is just an accessory for the Mary Sue to wear.

[Doctor Foreman]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: a tragic past doesn't preclude being a Mary Sue; in fact, it's often regarded as a key ingredient. I suspect people accusing Harry Potter of MS-dom would cite his status as The Chosen One, his celebrity status at school, his tragic backstory, and his habit of breaking rules and escaping the usual consequences a student would face.


To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate: Dumbledore basically tells Harry that the prophecy has no value outside of how hearing it influenced Voldemort's actions, most of the people who actually know Harry don't treat him like a celebrity, and the whole favoritism towards Harry thing kind of backfires on Dumbledore in book five.

[Jayngfet]

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate: Dumbledore basically tells Harry that the prophecy has no value outside of how hearing it influenced Voldemort's actions, most of the people who actually know Harry don't treat him like a celebrity, and the whole favoritism towards Harry thing kind of backfires on Dumbledore in book five.

Not to mention that, as I said, his actions do have consequences. The whole Triwizard cup was specifically rigged so that on the outside it LOOKED like Harry was a chosen one who gets to break the rules and do whatever he wanted, but it was a setup that comes back to bite him HARD by the books end. It's made abundantly clear that if he or the others had paid a bit more attention or asked a couple of different questions the whole thing would have gone a whole lot better. That's why Goblet of Fire is basically my favorite book, it essentially deconstructs the idea of having a magical Mary Sue protagonist and shows just how little control Harry actually has over his situation.

[Kislath]

Is Wesley Crusher a Mary Sue, or something else? I have to admit that I always thought he was, but after reading all of this above, I'm not so sure.

Should we invent a new description for a certain character type and call them Wesley Crushers?
Is a Wesley Crusher even worse than a Mary Sue, or not even half as bad?

[Kitten Champion]

Is Wesley Crusher a Mary Sue, or something else? I have to admit that I always thought he was, but after reading all of this above, I'm not so sure.

Should we invent a new description for a certain character type and call them Wesley Crushers?
Is a Wesley Crusher even worse than a Mary Sue, or not even half as bad?

I think it would depend on how the writers treated him in each episode. Sometimes he's overbearing in his presence and his technobabble solutions run roughshod over any interesting conclusion, especially with his lack of genuine personality and the "Wesley is second coming" plot thread they kept building up. I think this was Roddenbery's brainchild, and it just didn't work like much of season one.

Eventually they started writing him as a human being and giving him a more fleshed-out and sympathetic character that was far less intrusive. Combined this with Wil Wheaton's maturing into the role - he ceased to be a Mary Sue and more became a means of exploring a different perspective from the main cast. I suspect at that point however, much of credibility among Trek fans was lost and they not-so-gently pushed him aside to appease the hatedom. Again, that's speculation.

It's similar to Janeway in Voyager, one writer there clearly loved her character to the point that every Janeway episode was bending over backwards to praise her and put her in heroic positions which didn't really gel with the other writers conceived of her. It got seriously tedious, especially if you watched the first two or three seasons of the show.

[Morty]

But...I think self-insert was only half of the definition, and actually became the less-important part (the other being "...that eclipsed the established characters in the universe"), particularly as the label was applied to non-fanfic.

- M

It did become less important than the "common Mary Sue traits". My point is that it's the reason why this term is so overused and worn out.

[Emmerask]

Harry Potter only becomes Sue-ish, to me, in Deathly Hallows. It's just so awfully convenient that there are these super awesome magic artifacts of power and Harry always had one of them from the beginning and he ends up with the other one just in time to save the day and to one-shot Voldermort.

I don't know if it's because Deathly Hallows was the worst written book out of the whole series or if it was because I began to read good British writers (Tolkien [in depth], Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett) around when I read Deathly Hallows, but I think it was absolute dreck. And it read like she just ripped off every fanfiction she could get her hands on.


I´m fairly certain that the books where completely planned from the first book to the last before writing even began. And the artifacts actually where never that important, the thing that was important was wand law.
Which kind of came out of no where and one might think that this would be a subject at school^^

What kind of had a mary sueish taint to it was Harrys sudden insights at the "station" with Dumbledore however this could also have numerous explanations from Dumbledore memory imprint to the idea of death giving you more insights while becoming a being of different "level".

Overall I think the last book was pretty good especially since fantasy is pretty notorious for bad endings imo

[Kish]

I wish I could take credit for this, but this was my friends definition. A Mary Sue is not the greatest fighter, or the prettiest, or the strangest character. A Mary Sue is a character whose perception of reality matches with the author's perception of reality. The key from seeing if somebody is a mary sue or not is if they have an internal observation which is contrasted with the "objective" reality within the work. What do you think?
Mm...I have a problem with the idea that no character can possibly have an objective perception of reality without being a Mary Sue. And, for that matter, with the idea, "Just make your character deluded about something, and you've guaranteed you don't have a Mary Sue!"

I would say, rather, a Mary Sue is a character who has reality warp around that character. Mary Sues can be evil, can be deluded about something or about everything, but they can never move out of the center of the universe.

[truemane]

I've said this before when this debate starts up, but the trouble with defining a Mary Sue is akin to the trouble with defining pornography. Both are less a matter of specific elements and more a matter of tone.

Something becomes 'pornography' at the point were the narrative becomes about the sex itself, and everything else exists to serve the sex. There might be dialogue, a story, a plot, well-defined characters, whatever, but it becomes porn when all those other elements, no matter how good or bad they are, exist to serve the sex. It's a hard line to draw, and not everyone is going to agree where it is. And there's no way to actually put it into a concise definition. Sometimes sex is porn, sometimes not. Sometimes not. But when the narrative is about the sex, it's porn.

Similarly, you can list lots of characteristics that Mary Sues tend to have, but none they need to have. And you can list lots of ways that Mary sues tend to act, but no ways they always act.

But, when the narrative starts to exist for he sake of the character, when the story exists solely for the 'benefit' of the character, you're into Mary Sue territory. It's a fine line, a people will disagree on where it is, because it's a matter of tone, and therefore hard to define.

[Jayngfet]

I've said this before when this debate starts up, but the trouble with defining a Mary Sue is akin to the trouble with defining pornography. Both are less a matter of specific elements and more a matter of tone.

Something becomes 'pornography' at the point were the narrative becomes about the sex itself, and everything else exists to serve the sex. There might be dialogue, a story, a plot, well-defined characters, whatever, but it becomes porn when all those other elements, no matter how good or bad they are, exist to serve the sex. It's a hard line to draw, and not everyone is going to agree where it is. And there's no way to actually put it into a concise definition. Sometimes sex is porn, sometimes not. Sometimes not. But when the narrative is about the sex, it's porn.

Unless it was made sometime before about 1945, at which point the grand highest gods of culture descend from on high and declare it to be "art". At which point it becomes more valuable than gold itself and what was once an old-timey pinup must forever be locked away in a vault, less someone actually see it and get the wrong idea about your "great artwork".

[tomandtish]

Is Wesley Crusher a Mary Sue, or something else? I have to admit that I always thought he was, but after reading all of this above, I'm not so sure.

Should we invent a new description for a certain character type and call them Wesley Crushers?
Is a Wesley Crusher even worse than a Mary Sue, or not even half as bad?


I think it would depend on how the writers treated him in each episode. Sometimes he's overbearing in his presence and his technobabble solutions run roughshod over any interesting conclusion, especially with his lack of genuine personality and the "Wesley is second coming" plot thread they kept building up. I think this was Roddenbery's brainchild, and it just didn't work like much of season one.

Eventually they started writing him as a human being and giving him a more fleshed-out and sympathetic character that was far less intrusive. Combined this with Wil Wheaton's maturing into the role - he ceased to be a Mary Sue and more became a means of exploring a different perspective from the main cast. I suspect at that point however, much of credibility among Trek fans was lost and they not-so-gently pushed him aside to appease the hatedom. Again, that's speculation.

It's similar to Janeway in Voyager, one writer there clearly loved her character to the point that every Janeway episode was bending over backwards to praise her and put her in heroic positions which didn't really gel with the other writers conceived of her. It got seriously tedious, especially if you watched the first two or three seasons of the show.

TV Tropes has a term for it: “Creator’s Pet” (formerly called “The Wesley” after this character). By their definition, the Creator’s pet must be:
• Hated by fans
• Loved (or worshipped) by the writers
• Put into big scenes for no reason
• Talked up by the other characters

Wesley certainly met these criteria in the beginning (substitute Roddenbury for the writers). He did gradually change, but too little too late.

Creator’s Pet can be a Sue and vice Versa, but they are not always the same, since a Sue will ALWAYS be the main focus, and Wesley wasn’t.

A big problem is the inherent illogic with having someone that young and that poorly trained on the bridge of the flagship. I always felt sorry for the poor crewmember who had worked their butt off going through SFA (and probably other postings) to get there, only to be bumped by what appears to be the child of the woman the Captain wants to sleep with.

Incidentally, Wil Wheaton's blog talks about how this role affected him and his career and how he came to terms with it. It is an interesting read, and the only blog I follow.

[Metahuman1]

Harry Potter only becomes Sue-ish, to me, in Deathly Hallows. It's just so awfully convenient that there are these super awesome magic artifacts of power and Harry always had one of them from the beginning and he ends up with the other one just in time to save the day and to one-shot Voldermort.

I don't know if it's because Deathly Hallows was the worst written book out of the whole series or if it was because I began to read good British writers (Tolkien [in depth], Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett) around when I read Deathly Hallows, but I think it was absolute dreck. And it read like she just ripped off every fanfiction she could get her hands on.

But he didn't beat the BBEG with super awesome Artifact. In fact the BBEG was using super awesome artifact against him at the time. He won by having greater insight into how the BBEG worked on several levels, how the basic tool of the wizards and witches in his world worked, and the lore specific to the artifact, and how these three things interacted with one another, gained through study and travels and mis-adventures and instruction over the course of the books up to that point, and the tacked on benefits of a near death experience that he went into fully expecting to actually die to end the BBEG.

And they actually explained why it was something so few knew. The artifacts were considered little more then Fairy tales akin to snow white or red riding hood, and the culture of the Wizards and Witches had, over long centuries, grown very arrogant, a theme explored at a number of points before hand in the books.

[Fiery Diamond]

One thing I always notice in these discussions is that no one ever acknowledges that author-inserts can be done well in fan fiction. In original fiction, we have plenty of examples (some of which were mentioned earlier in this thread) where author-inserts worked fine. It is certainly possible to write a fan fiction with an author insert viewpoint character that doesn't meet the "tone" requirement that others have recently mentioned being the essential part of a Mary Sue. One of my all-time favorite fan fictions (I don't read much fan fiction, since most of it tends to be horrid) is just such a story. For those who like Tales of Symphonia, I strongly recommend "New Reality" by noa748 on fanfiction.net.

[Mordar]

One thing I always notice in these discussions is that no one ever acknowledges that author-inserts can be done well in fan fiction. In original fiction, we have plenty of examples (some of which were mentioned earlier in this thread) where author-inserts worked fine. It is certainly possible to write a fan fiction with an author insert viewpoint character that doesn't meet the "tone" requirement that others have recently mentioned being the essential part of a Mary Sue. One of my all-time favorite fan fictions (I don't read much fan fiction, since most of it tends to be horrid) is just such a story. For those who like Tales of Symphonia, I strongly recommend "New Reality" by noa748 on fanfiction.net.

Heck, something like 90% of Stephen King novels have author-inserts. When done well, it provides us a relatable character in a situation, setting or condition that would otherwise seem too foreign, replete with flaws and strengths all their own. That's part of why I always use the "better than everyone at everything" as my MS defining characteristic.

I'm guessing the majority of established, well-received professional fiction authors use inserts of either themselves or close companions with great regularity, and most of the time we don't even notice.

- M

[The Glyphstone]

Does it count as an author-insert when the character is explicitly the author themself (King in his Dark Tower books, for instance)?

[McStabbington]

Does it count as an author-insert when the character is explicitly the author themself (King in his Dark Tower books, for instance)?

He was a character in his own Dark Tower books, but I don't think that's quite what is meant by author insert. If you look, for instance, at Salem's Lot, the character of Ben Mears is a bookish, somewhat thin guy with glasses and dark hair whom makes his living as an author. To me, that strikes me as far more an author insert than does Stephen King himself in the Dark Tower series, where he's really not much more than a MacGuffin that the primary character of Roland Deschain, the titular gunslinger, has to take care of.

To the main question, though, I think that there's no reason why both the "one essential trait" school of thought and the "cloud of related concepts" schools of thought can't both be right when it comes to Mary Sues. Mary Sues do, in my estimation, do have one essential characteristic that always shows up: they are at the end of the day always right because it is the Mary Sue that is making the point. Beyond that, though, there are a constellation of related concepts, like being more skilled than experts, being younger than everyone else, having other characters break off established relationships for you, etc, that will often recur but are not necessary to be a Sue.

That is, in essence, what I think separates a character like Janeway from a character like Garak (or for that matter, Season 1 Wesley Crusher from the Wesley Crusher of The First Duty). Janeway and Garak both share some decidedly Sue-ish traits: they are both characters that are well-versed in multiple fields, they're both portrayed as highly intelligent and clever, and they both pull off gambits that by rights should not work. The difference, however, is that Garak was never portrayed as being infallibly right, despite the fact that his business is information. He's often wrong about others like Odo, and on occasion he's wrong about himself. Janeway, by contrast, was famously able to justify completely contradictory actions with the same logic, and never once was the show willing to call her out on this fact.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I wish I could take credit for this, but this was my friends definition. A Mary Sue is not the greatest fighter, or the prettiest, or the strangest character. A Mary Sue is a character whose perception of reality matches with the author's perception of reality. The key from seeing if somebody is a mary sue or not is if they have an internal observation which is contrasted with the "objective" reality within the work. What do you think?

William S. Burroughs? :smalltongue:

Really, though, I can't say I agree with the definition or even understand how one would come to it. Then again, I have a generally pessimistic attitude towards the term, which is less of a "term" than it is a meaningless pejorative; in my experience — and apparently that of several others in this thread— a Mary Sue is any character the speaker happens to dislike.

[tomandtish]

William S. Burroughs? :smalltongue:

Really, though, I can't say I agree with the definition or even understand how one would come to it. Then again, I have a generally pessimistic attitude towards the term, which is less of a "term" than it is a meaningless pejorative; in my experience — and apparently that of several others in this thread— a Mary Sue is any character the speaker happens to dislike.

The problem is that it can't just be a character that you hate. We all have characters that we hate. That doesn't make them Sues. I guess the biggest trademark of a Sue is this: The reasons you end up hating them are the reasons the character's creator thinks they are great and makes sure that nearly everyone in the work thinks they are great as well.

Let's use the example of Bella Swan. By the writer's definition, her flaws include "Clumsy" and her thinking she's not attractive (despite every male around thinking she is).

She starts ignoring human friends except when she wants something from them. Anytime someone calls her on this, they are painted as in the wrong. Cullens and Quilete can do no wrong (even though they have certainly done plenty and talk about doing more), but any human who expresses concern about wolves are vampires is immediately portrayed as monster.

Similarly, anyone questioning or criticizing her relationship with Edward (who incidentally exhibits 8 of the classic 10 signs of a stalker). When she comes back from a trip with him significantly banged up and offering no explanation, her father is seen as the one in the wrong for not wanting her to go out with him anymore.

In short, Bella's views and beliefs are right because they are hers, and everyone who disagrees is wrong AND IS VIEWED THAT WAY by most of the main cast. Despite how illogical or even dangerous they are, the majority of the main cast supports her and agrees with her, and anyone who doesn't is obviously ridiculed or dismissed. So we have 1) Character many of us don't like… that 2) We are expected to love… because of 3) Characteristics that are flaws but presented as positive traits.

That's a pretty good example of a Sue (a Cannon Sue in this case).

As has been stated by many before me in this thread, YMMV. But hating the character isn't enough. There are some guidelines for a Sue. We may not all agree on what they all are, but there are some.

And yes, I'm a 44yo male who has read all 4 books. My Grandmother knew I played D&D, knew I liked fantasy, so got them for me. I read them for two reasons. 1) I'd heard how bad they were and wanted to see if it was true (and I don't believe in criticizing work I haven't read). 2) I'm not gonna lie to my Grandmother and say I read them if I haven't. She'd kill me. Literally. She knocked me out once when I was 17 (she was 60).

She is a book fan herself however so I took great pleasure in giving her a review. She apologized for days.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The problem is that it can't just be a character that you hate. We all have characters that we hate. That doesn't make them Sues.

While I'd like to agree, I can't say that that's been my experience with the term; its (mis)use as a generic, empty pejorative is so widespread and pervasive as to have essentially eclipsed any other, more meaningful denotation. Sure, people will posit definitions, some of which may even overlap, but at the end of the day, the term conveys no information beyond the speaker's negative opinion for the character in question. In short, having guidelines that "we may not all agree on," is, essentially, the same as not having them at all.

[Rater202]

The problem is that a character can meet several Mary Sue traits but not be a sue themselves. to give an example I turn to one of my favorite fan fics. Hogyoku ex Machina. (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6437275/1/Hogyoku-ex-Machina). this is a bleach fic, that was ritten before the Fullbringer arc, and has spoilers up to the end of the Deicide arc. one of the most common Sueish Bleach storylines is having Ichigo get super powerful, then travel back in time to the Soul society Arc. an other common trait is having a cannon character gain a second Zanpakuto( for those not in the know, a Zanpakuto is a Sentient sword that contains part of the wielders soul). Hogyoku ex Machina, however, did both of those storylines, and the general consensus was that that particular version of those stories was done well.

the trick is to give valid reasons for the character to be able to do something, and to keep the conflict. If your character could fix the problem easily, change the problem. to Quote less Wrong (http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2269863/Less-Wrong)( whos own story is an example of a non sue with sueish traits) " . You can't make Frodo a Jedi unless you give Sauron the Death Star".

[CowardlyPaladin]

Rahl is John Galt, only extended over a dozen fairly long and tedious books.

So exactly the same as John Galt just a few books longer

I do agree that John Galt and Rhal are the most obvious Mary Sues ever. Going by my personal definition, that a Mary Sue is somebody whose actions are supported by the narrative/objective reality of the world, both of those fit the cake perfectly.


On definitions, the word Mary Sue is out there and people are going to use it, so I think it would be in the best interest of everybody to have a singular definition. Mary Sues aren't just characters I dislike, or badly written characters, both can exist without being sues, they mean something very specific. People say Sue are author self inserts, but thats not true either, Dante in the Divine Comedy is a self insert in the most literal sense, and the best parts of the narrative are when the characters turn to him and go "hey by the way, you suck". Its not a super powerful character, because Achilles despite being the greatest warrior EVAR is not a sue because he is a deeply flawed character whose flaws effect the story. Haza Summarai is literally the center of the universe and even she is not a sue because she is egotistical and foolish. John Galt is a mary sue because in addition to being perfect in every single way, he is also always correct, when he makes a judgement about somebody it is proven to be right. Now by this logic Holmes might be a Mary Sue, and indeed in MANY of the spin off Holmes novels he is, but in the stories proper he has many flaws and does in fact make mistakes. He is also kinda stupid in certain areas.

What i'm saying is, like any part of story telling, Deus ex Machina, foreshadowing ect, there should be clearly defined rules, and the Mary Sue is no exception. Banning the word entirely isn't useful because when people first started to use the term, they were referring to something specific. Its a "type" of character which drives people crazy and for good reason

[Kitten Champion]

What i'm saying is, like any part of story telling, Deus ex Machina, foreshadowing ect, there should be clearly defined rules, and the Mary Sue is no exception. Banning the word entirely isn't useful because when people first started to use the term, they were referring to something specific. Its a "type" of character which drives people crazy and for good reason

I agree. Many terms used in literary or artistic criticism are subjective, owing to the nature of the medium which they criticizing and critiques in general being difficult to fully separate from one's own experiences or ideology.

That said, you can still condemn a character for being flat, a stereotype, underdeveloped, etc. so long as you have some level of analysis to support your language and opinion. Of course some people will challenge meanings of well established words since there's a degree of imprecision to the whole exercise.

The Mary Sue character is a reoccurring flaw in fiction. It may have become synonymous with fan-fiction but only due to the hyperbolic nature of the amateur and their use of another's work for source material. This makes it much more obvious when a writer is overemphasizing a particular character as it's either exaggerating the original author's characterization or introducing their own character which stands out like a sore thumb regardless of what it may do. These are fans after all, as in fanatics. I have seen how original works with professional authors can fall victim to the same conceit though. They should be called out on it, and I don't think another term so encapsulates this phenomenon so well.

It's undoubtedly a neologism which can be misused, but then most criticism on the internet seems to rely on the brevity of "this sucks" rather than expanding on why or what "sucks" means in this context. Judge not the word, but how its used in the context of the critic.

[3WhiteFox3]

Being a Mary Sue is not necessarily bad. If you have a Mary Sue in a good story or interesting things are being done with that Mary Sue, it doesn't necessarily change the fact that the characters has the qualities typically associated with a Mary Sue. The reason it's used in such a derogatory way is that Mary Sues are, 99% of the time, awful and terrible. It takes a skilled author to make them work.

I've found that understanding that, allows the definition of a Mary Sue to remain broad, while leaving room for the exceptions made by great writers.

[Rater202]

Being a Mary Sue is not necessarily bad. If you have a Mary Sue in a good story or interesting things are being done with that Mary Sue, it doesn't necessarily change the fact that the characters has the qualities typically associated with a Mary Sue. The reason it's used in such a derogatory way is that Mary Sues are, 99% of the time, awful and terrible. It takes a skilled author to make them work.

I've found that understanding that, allows the definition of a Mary Sue to remain broad, while leaving room for the exceptions made by great writers.

You seem somewhat confused. a Character who has sue traits, but is written well and adds to the story is not a Mary sue.

[snoopy13a]

What i'm saying is, like any part of story telling, Deus ex Machina, foreshadowing ect, there should be clearly defined rules, and the Mary Sue is no exception. Banning the word entirely isn't useful because when people first started to use the term, they were referring to something specific. Its a "type" of character which drives people crazy and for good reason

There doesn't have to be clearly defined rules in literary fiction.

One of my favorite novels is Slaughterhouse-Five and that has, well, time travel, aliens, nazis and explosive diarrhea*. Vonnegut played by his own rules.

*This description is intentionally taken out of context. As for the diarrhea: In one scene, a group of American POWs are temporarily housed with a group of English POWs (much of the novel is set during the end of WWII). Due to a clerical error, the English POWs had been given a surplus of food and supplies by the Germans, which the English stockpiled. The English welcome the Americans with a huge feast. Unfortunately, the Americans were half-starved before arriving at the feast, and the food is too rich for them.

[Forum Explorer]

Being a Mary Sue is not necessarily bad. If you have a Mary Sue in a good story or interesting things are being done with that Mary Sue, it doesn't necessarily change the fact that the characters has the qualities typically associated with a Mary Sue. The reason it's used in such a derogatory way is that Mary Sues are, 99% of the time, awful and terrible. It takes a skilled author to make them work.

I've found that understanding that, allows the definition of a Mary Sue to remain broad, while leaving room for the exceptions made by great writers.

See that doesn't really fit the definition. Mary Sue traits isn't something like being half-vampire, or having a unicorn for a best friend. It's how the universe responds to you. If the universe goes out of its way to prove that you are the best and most important thing in existence and is essentially never wrong, then you are a Mary Sue.

[Scowling Dragon]

I get reminded of Captain Carrot every time the question pops up. I guess the idea is that the stories are Self Aware?

[CowardlyPaladin]

Being a Mary Sue is not necessarily bad. If you have a Mary Sue in a good story or interesting things are being done with that Mary Sue, it doesn't necessarily change the fact that the characters has the qualities typically associated with a Mary Sue. The reason it's used in such a derogatory way is that Mary Sues are, 99% of the time, awful and terrible. It takes a skilled author to make them work.

I've found that understanding that, allows the definition of a Mary Sue to remain broad, while leaving room for the exceptions made by great writers.

I agree, I think any trope CAN be worked well. Its a matter of technique.

[Felhammer]

Marry Sues are projections of the author. Marry Sues stand out as being very adept at multiple tasks, even if their age or experience would seem to indicate otherwise. Marry Sues never die, they always find some way to survive.

[CowardlyPaladin]

Marry Sues are projections of the author. Marry Sues stand out as being very adept at multiple tasks, even if their age or experience would seem to indicate otherwise. Marry Sues never die, they always find some way to survive.

Some can die in wholesomely tragic manner serving as Matyrs who all of the other characters look too and respect.

[Felhammer]

Some can die in wholesomely tragic manner serving as Matyrs who all of the other characters look too and respect.

Every time I've seen that, they pull a Jesus and rise from the dead because the world just wasn't awesome with out good ole' Marry.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

I get reminded of Captain Carrot every time the question pops up. I guess the idea is that the stories are Self Aware?

Discworld stories basically run on self-awareness, so yeah. Carrot is what happens when a character is destined to be a Mary Sue but decide they'd rather not be one.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

There doesn't have to be clearly defined rules in literary fiction.

One of my favorite novels is Slaughterhouse-Five and that has, well, time travel, aliens, nazis and explosive diarrhea*. Vonnegut played by his own rules.

What I think he meant wasn't that there are certain rules that literature itself has to follow so much as there ought to be rules for the terminology of literary discourse to follow. In other words, things like "foreshadowing" and "in media res" should have rules not in how those techniques are used, but rather in what the techniques are; for instance, compare Slaughterhouse Five to Kubrick's film of Lolita, both of those to One Hundred Years of Solitude, and so on. While each of them begins somewhere in the middle of the story and only returns to the events of the beginning sometime later, each of them mobilizes that technique in very different ways and uses it for altogether different reasons.

[snoopy13a]

What I think he meant wasn't that there are certain rules that literature itself has to follow so much as there ought to be rules for the terminology of literary discourse to follow. In other words, things like "foreshadowing" and "in media res" should have rules not in how those techniques are used, but rather in what the techniques are; for instance, compare Slaughterhouse Five to Kubrick's film of Lolita, both of those to One Hundred Years of Solitude, and so on. While each of them begins somewhere in the middle of the story and only returns to the events of the beginning sometime later, each of them mobilizes that technique in very different ways and uses it for altogether different reasons.

That's fair.

My problem with "Mary Sue" is that no one can agree on a definition. My argument is that it is a subjective and indefinite term that conveys no more information than "a character whom I don't like."

Plus, I'm not sure how universal a term it is. I have two close friends who were English majors with one holding a M.A. as well. I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them has heard of the term.

[The Glyphstone]

It's not something that usually gets addressed in English degree courses, mainly because it was invented as a piece of terminology within the last century or so.:smallsmile:

[Olinser]

On a side note, can we stop mentioning John Galt in the thread? I just notice that whenever he's brought up, the discussion usually dissolves into a political argument.

[Olinser]

Generally, a character is a Mary Sue if they cannot be wrong -even if they make an action DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY to their previous 'right' action, they still cannot be wrong. Their flaws are superficial if they exist at all, their very presence solves every problem imaginable (even when they by rights should have no knowledge or ability in that particular area), and in their absence suddenly every other character loses the ability to competently do anything. If they ever make mistakes or morally questionable actions, they never face any real consequences.

Season 1 Wesley Crusher is pretty much the quintessential example. In the first season, he pretty much cannot be wrong, does anything better than the actual expert whose job it is, has an insufferably arrogant attitude, and the show insisted on having him save the ship multiple times in increasingly contrived situations that generally involved requiring the other Starfleet personnel present to become low-functioning morons.

However, keep in mind that Mary Sues need not necessarily be main characters in the overall setting. They quite frequently appear in long-running 'verses that involve multiple writers.

I think a good example of this is Kyp Durron from Star Wars. In the book series he was introduced in, he was portrayed as massively more powerful than Luke Skywalker (quite the Mary Sue himself, to some), is able to fly a starship and navigate through a black hole cluster without any kind of training in either piloting OR Force abilities, and quite literally killed an entire solar system because he got mad. Yet despite killing literally billions of people, he gets 'forgiven' by Luke, who quite conveniently got given the power to determine his fate. Despite being a mass murderer, not once in the book series is he portrayed as anything other than, 'oh he's just rightly misunderstood, we can still 'save' him'.

[Porthos]

Here's something to consider when it comes to Mary Sue/Author Self-Insert.

One of the main pieces of advice that is drummed into many authors' heads is: Write What You Know.

Well what do people know more about than themselves?

The difference between good writers and bad writers is that when they start to write (aspects of) themselves into their work it can be all to easy for it to become idealized versions of themselves. That is, they're not really writing themselves, but an idealized version of themselves and what they wish they could do in some situation. By being idealized, this can mean that they can have flaws-that-aren't which are easy to overcome.

Now take Steven King. He has written versions of himself into many a work. But if they are his Wish Fulfillments, I think he needs to see a shrink ASAP. :smalltongue:

When judging whether or not something is a Mary Sue, I focus more on the wish fulfillment angle more than anything else. It ain't perfect, but I find it is a better guide than other definitions.

For instance, take the very first Herald of Valdemar book Arrows of the Queen. It is absolutely chock full of Mary Sue tropes left and right. It can be hard to read at times. And yet, there is enough real writing talent that is buried in the book that caused it to become popular. And as the series went on, it became less and less Sueish. Maybe as soon as the second book in the series, as a matter fact (opinions can vary).

That doesn't mean that Mercedes Lackey is now a great writer (opinions can vary there as well). But I think if one compares even her first two books, one will see a night and day difference. And for most authors who have characters who are Sueish, they never refine their talent in writing and stay at the level of, to put it somewhat coarsely, mental masturbation. They are writing to please themselves first and foremost.

Of course many writers write things that they want to enjoy. But I think there is a difference between indulging in an empty calorie meal that is nothing more than a glorified sugar rush and one that has a bit more heft to it. And it is that empty calorie meal combined with wish fulfillment that truly makes something a Mary Sue. Perhaps, at least.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

That's fair.

My problem with "Mary Sue" is that no one can agree on a definition. My argument is that it is a subjective and indefinite term that conveys no more information than "a character whom I don't like."

Plus, I'm not sure how universal a term it is. I have two close friends who were English majors with one holding a M.A. as well. I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them has heard of the term.

Yeah, exactly. I said almost the exact same thing, myself, a page or so ago. While there is some overlap between some of the proposed definitions, there isn't nearly enough overlap as to make a definition which is not so broad as to be useless.


It's not something that usually gets addressed in English degree courses, mainly because it was invented as a piece of terminology within the last century or so.:smallsmile:

Hey, we learn lots of terms from the last century. Mary Sue just can't compete with "phallogocentrism" or "différance."

[McStabbington]

See that doesn't really fit the definition. Mary Sue traits isn't something like being half-vampire, or having a unicorn for a best friend. It's how the universe responds to you. If the universe goes out of its way to prove that you are the best and most important thing in existence and is essentially never wrong, then you are a Mary Sue.

I like that. A lot. Kaylee Frye was, at least according to Joss Whedon, never wrong. Not a Sue, though, because no one, least of all Joss Whedon, thought that she was anything more than a really sweet woman with a gift for mechanics. Garak was a super spy who single-handedly tricked a great power into fighting a war that wasn't in their short-term self-interest. Not a Sue, though, because everyone on that show regarded him, at best, as their untrustworthy bastard, and that was generally seen as the wise thing to do, even by Garak himself. Grand Admiral Thrawn was a super-tactical genius without a crippling flaw or blind spot that could be exploited. Not a Sue, though, because even he made what turned out to be fatal miscalculations.

Suedom isn't about traits. It's about whether the universe around you affirms those traits as the bestest and superest traits that anyone could possibly have, and how dare anyone for not seeing that.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In this thread alone, Mary Sue has about as many definitions and/or "essential" rules as Jean-Claude van Damme movies have close ups of Jean-Claude Van Damme.

[Forum Explorer]

In this thread alone, Mary Sue has about as many definitions and/or "essential" rules as Jean-Claude van Damme movies have close ups of Jean-Claude Van Damme.

I've really only seen three in this thread:

1. Someone the viewers hate.

2. Someone who is presented as objectively correct by the entire universe

3. A meaningless Internet term.

oh wait I missed one

4. Author Avatars.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

1: "A Mary Sue is a character whose perception of reality matches with the author's perception of reality."

2: Any kind of author insertion whatsoever.

3: " Mary or Marty Sue is someone who is treated as objectively right within the setting. If someone disagrees with Mary Sue they are wrong, not because their argument is wrong, but because they disagreed with Mary Sue. If Mary Sue says something, then it is right because Mary Sue said it."

4: A Mary Sue must be the best at everything.

5: "A Mary Sue is a character whose significance is inflated to the point that it diminishes the quality of the narrative or development of the other characters."

6: "A character who has few to no moral failings, especially if the text makes a big deal over this fact"

7: "The beauty and charm of the character is acknowledged by everyone. Anyone who doesn't love the character is automatically a villain, or ridiculed/mistreated by the others."

8: "The character either has no flaws, or any so-called flaws are not actually flaws (or are extremely minor and never used in the plot). Characters may stress about physical appearance (while everyone else raves about their beauty). They may be clumsy (but always in an endearing way)."

9: "I guess the biggest trademark of a Sue is this: The reasons you end up hating them are the reasons the character's creator thinks they are great and makes sure that nearly everyone in the work thinks they are great as well."

10: In addition to some or all of the above, must be inherently bad; "a Character who has sue traits, but is written well and adds to the story is not a Mary sue."

11: A character disliked by the speaker.

12: An even more meaningless term than 11.

13+: Various exclusive combinations of the above.

Consider, as well, that most of the definitions I'm quoting occur in the context of responding to another definition with an addition, correction, or alternative; while there is some overlap between definitions, a lot of the overlap explicitly rejects other proposed elements.

[Thunndarr]

Is Bella Swan a Mary Sue? (If you haven't read the books/seen the movies I don't blame you.) Once the Twilight thing hit full swing I decided to see what the fuss was about. I made it half-way through the first book and couldn't handle it anymore.

[Rater202]

Is Bella Swan a Mary Sue? (If you haven't read the books/seen the movies I don't blame you.) Once the Twilight thing hit full swing I decided to see what the fuss was about. I made it half-way through the first book and couldn't handle it anymore.

according to everyone i have spoken to, yes she is.

[Kitten Champion]

Is Bella Swan a Mary Sue? (If you haven't read the books/seen the movies I don't blame you.) Once the Twilight thing hit full swing I decided to see what the fuss was about. I made it half-way through the first book and couldn't handle it anymore.

Most contemporary romances ( Shoujo Manga, The harlequin romance and quite a lot of paranormal romance) are based around heroines who are flat cardboard cut-outs with highly sympathetic but intentionally undeveloped characterizations. That is to say, they are designed so the reader can feel comfortable with slipping into that fantastic position while the majority of the attention is put on the love interests who try to generate as much general appeal as possible. This is roughly the same for the somewhat rarer male-oriented romance, like harem manga, where the bland protagonist is a staple.

You can extend this further, superheroes were intentionally vats of blandness. Only they're power instead of romantic fantasies. DC, Marvel, and Archie comics were working in a character-development-free industry for decades, and it utterly trivialized them. Then there are action movies and video games with blank protagonists doing manly things for generic reasons.

Bella Swan fits this role, of the block of wood protagonist you can whittle into your own image. The differences between Twilight and those other examples is three-fold.

1. Twilight has received more attention and pop-culture popularity, particularly among teen-aged girls, than similarly poorly written paranormal romances. People unfamiliar with the tropes of the modern melodrama and only seeing "vampires are ruined forever" or "it's fun to hate things" tend to not recognize what's going on here, or they don't care. I think it upsets me that the internet derides Bella Swan with such force, when Master Chief is just as stupid. A lack of perspective, is what I'm getting at.

2. She's not well written. I'm not talking from a literary critical standpoint, that her character is implicitly flat as again I recognize she's supposed to be, but from the perspective of someone who's read trashy romances. The major intrigue in these sorts of stories is supposed to be who the protagonist ends up with and all the related melodrama of misunderstandings, betrayals, and secrets which ping-pong the character back an forth. However, here all I wanted was grievous harm to come to her. You'd almost think Bella was trying to be the Emma Bovary of the paranormal romance until you realize how straight this is being played. I can't identify with someone who is so wrapped in misogyny, amorality, and sheer stupidity. If you've role-played a character you don't like personally, it's a lot like that - only in addition to this your character is also rigged to win every potential contest along the way making it extremely boring as well.

3. Bella Swan is pretty much Stephanie Meyer. I tend to avoid intentional fallacies, of reading too much of the author into the work, I knew nothing of Meyer upon reading the first book. Then I got to some disturbing themes, and I was wondering if they were merely the indirect result of poor writing and my mind's desire to connect dots to form a more prejudicial picture, or sincere views of Meyer's clumsily inserted into the work. Unfortunately it was the latter, and the fact that Swan was an author insert is maddeningly obvious. This make the Mary Sue factor pretty heavy, it also exemplifies an utterly lack of creativity.

When say, Meg Ryan, performs a cardboard cut-out romantic female lead in all of her movies she's capable enough of evoking sympathy and affability while still being bland enough to not ruin the fantasy for those who want the Hugh Jackman/Tom Hanks/Nicholas Cage/Mel Gibson to sweep them off their feet. You compare the two and you can see how Meyer's version is lacking, and it's entirely due to Meyer's egoism in my view. It would still be pretty bad regardless, but just less author avatar and more treating her as a fallible human being and it would've been tolerable. The Host (novel, haven't seen the movie) for instance, which is stupid certainly and simplistic verging on insulting, but it doesn't leave quite the same taste in your mouth.

Stephanie Meyer is upsetting. I don't want to dislike her, but she fills me with this cynical disdain for writing, that "if this can be popular then surely I could do better." Rather than, "this is something I can aspire to."

[ThunderCat]

http://rainrune207.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/stephaniemeyer1.jpg

I still think Richard from Sword of Truth surpasses Bella in terms of Mary Sueness. His magic power is literally to be better at everything than anybody else, and the only mistakes he makes are things like not realising his own righteous awesomeness fast enough.

[Emmerask]

His magic power is literally to be better at everything than anybody else, and the only mistakes he makes are things like not realising his own righteous awesomeness fast enough.

Funny and true :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Zaydos]

Going by most of the definitions here, Bella is a sue (at least in the first book as I've only read it). she is objectively correct about everything (except her on place in the universe), an author avatar, and people love to hate her.

My problem with Bella, though, was that she seemed to lack the capacity for empathy, was completely self-involved and just down right unlikable. The fact that the book tried to pass these negative traits off as not existing is part of why she feels like a Sue and part of what made her even more unlikable.

That said Twilight didn't bother me any more than Interview with a Vampire, which turned me off vampire fiction for a while (and I never did read the sequels which the people I talk to who did read the series say the first book is bad/horrible but the sequels were good). Some of that might be a difference in expectations going in to the book (I liked the movie version of Interview and was in the middle of a teenage vampire craze, while the only expectations for Twilight I had was that it would be hilariously bad and it was not as bad as I had been informed... which was less fun).