No mary sues.

[Jayngfet]

I've been planning a few stories and was wondering if anyone had advice for avoiding mary sue's.

I've made the only outright good looking character a B villan and split skills evenly among characters, anything else?

[Artemician]

Don't bother *actively trying* to make characters "Non-Sues". The only thing worse than a Mary Sue is a character that's been gone out of the way *not* to be a Mary Sue. Not only are they equally cliched, one feels stilted and unnatural too.

The best, and only way, to make a character not a Mary Sue is to well... make it a *character*. A character with a fully-fleshed-out personality cannot be a Sue.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I hate to say this, but most complaints about Mary Sues are mostly complaints about bad writing.

If you write well enough, nobody will care or notice your Mary Sues.


Outline the character and refer to that when deciding what the can do and what they would do. Sometimes I stat them out, though I cheat rolls.

While this isn't a complaint against doing this, I would advice to NEVER make a story based on a D&D campaign. Most of the things that make D&D fun won't translate and you'll end up with either a bad novel or a bad D&D campaign.

Giving characters RPG stats can be a bit too limiting as well.

[Weiser_Cain]

Outline the character and refer to that when deciding what the can do and what they would do. Sometimes I stat them out, though I cheat rolls.

[Stupendous_Man]

You avoid a Sue by making a compelling, living, breathing character with real strengths and weaknesses.

[FoE]

Avoid these traps:

1) Unless he/she is a villain and this is a comedy, your character should neither be "so beautiful that all men fall in love with her" or "so handsome that women swoon at his approach."
2) Neither should your character be regarded as ugly but later recognized as "beautiful all along."
3) Your characters should never be instantly good at anything they attempt, unless there's epic magic involved.
4) Your characters should never suddenly develop abilities or powers that it did not have before unless there was some foreshadowing beforehand.
5) It is one thing to have the plot centred on a protagonist; do not have the world within the story revolve around the character.

[Don Julio Anejo]

+1 @ FoE.

Also, balance out the character. If he's very smart, then he's either not very good looking or is a bad fighter. Don't deus ex machina using the character itself. If you absolutely have to have some kind of divine intervention for the plot to happen, make it happen some other way than your character suddenly turning into an avatar of a god and killing everyone....

This also kills any chance of doing a sequel, since you'll either have to continually "level" your character by giving him either increasingly badasser opponents or by inventing some plot reason why he can't use the power anymore.

Don't make your character the chosen one or make some kind of prophecies around him. It's too cliched. If you absolutely must make him the chosen one, at least make it seem believable. Don't have everyone in town treat him like he's the guy who just won superbowl for the town. And don't have all the women jump into bed with him right away just because he's the chosen one.

Yeah, also if your character is THAT good with women, balance it out and make it believable. As in, show him actually trying to get laid instead of every single girl he meets jumping on top of him with no initiative on behalf of your character.

Might help to, for example, read up a bit on a psychological type theory (e.g. the Myers-Briggs) and decide your character is one of the types and use it as a rough outline for his personality.

[sun_tzu]

Don't bother *actively trying* to make characters "Non-Sues". The only thing worse than a Mary Sue is a character that's been gone out of the way *not* to be a Mary Sue. Not only are they equally cliched, one feels stilted and unnatural too.

The best, and only way, to make a character not a Mary Sue is to well... make it a *character*. A character with a fully-fleshed-out personality cannot be a Sue.

Quoted for truth. There are characters out there that fit the Mary-Sue "mold"...but are too awesome for anyone to call them Mary-Sues.
Take "Girl Genius", for example:
The main character is an insanely talented "spark" (mad scientist), has the powerful heir to the Wulfenbach throne fall for her (and he's not alone), turns out to be the daughter of the great hero of the previous generation and the Big Bad villainess...
...But, since she's well-written and feels like a real person, nobody complains.

[Winterwind]

Another thing I'd consider important: Hold the character to the same moral standards as the rest of the world. Do not have her or him be right about everything or forgiven more easily for her/his failings just because (s)he is a protagonist.
And do not give the character arbitrarily "better" moral standards than the rest of the world. If the character grew up in a society in which slavery is common, the character is unlikely to despise the concept, unless there is explicitly some event in their life that makes them rethink their perspective.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Don't be afraid to let them be wrong or fail, if you want them to be likeable then fine but there will be people who don't like them, if they are smart then there will be things they can't work out etc. etc.

Put them on (at best) an even footing with their oponents. One of the reasons Agatha Clay isn't a Mary Sue is that (despite having all the mentioned qualites) her opoents are typicaly as good or better than her at the stuff they do. Also she has messed up, been kidnapped, etc quite a bit.

This page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits) is highly useful to you because, as it points out, while you can have some of these no-problem (see the "near-sue" point made by sun_tzu) if this starts to read like an itemisted list then you are in trouble. But at the end of the day there is no "Mary Sue-o-meter". Sir Gallahad, Granny Weatherwax, Aragorn, these are all characters who have many of the warning signs but are not Mary Sues (or indeed Marty Stus) because they are also a belevable character in a world that can hold them (also take note of how PTerry dealt with what could be seen (and was seen by some fans) as Granny Weatherwax's creaping into MS territory, she is now a mentor and background character).

Also read this (http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dark/1000/marysue.htm)(is short) as a bit of background reserch into the origins of Mary Sue is never a bad idea (note the story is infact satire of the type of character but is the origin of the term).

[Morty]

Apart from what the others have said, I'd suggest resisting the urge to base your character's traits on yourself.

[Lord_Gareth]

Quick question - Where did the term "Mary Sue/Marty Stu" actually come from?

A big part of avoiding them is giving them natural weaknesses that make sense. Kryptonite? Makes no damn sense. But if they can be cut, let 'em be cut if it makes sense. Or if your character's big into the idea of darkness (like one of mine is), what does light do to them (with mine, it starts melting her flesh. Rather painfully)?

This isn't to say your character has to be "balance" - this is NOT a D&D game, and you don't even have to "level up" your character. Just keep the story believeable and invest some in the protagonist.

(Also, in the real world, people get better at things through training, practice, and dedication, not bashing faces in).

[kamikasei]

Quick question - Where did the term "Mary Sue/Marty Stu" actually come from?

I do believe the original Mary Sue was a character of that name in a Star Trek fanfic who transferred to the Enterprise, wooed Kirk, wowed Spock with her logic, made the engines run better and performed open-heart surgery on Bones at the same time. Then she single-handedly defeated the Klingons and Romulans while singing with perfect pitch in a duet with her exotic animal companion.

Okay, not really but it does come from the name of the ur-example from a Trek fanfic in the sixties IIRC.

[Bryn]

Quick question - Where did the term "Mary Sue/Marty Stu" actually come from?

The name originated in a Star Trek fanfiction (http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dark/1000/marysue.htm) (as mentioned in this very thread :smalltongue:), back before the days of widespread Internet use. Rather than being the defining example, this was created to parody the increasing tendency that apparently existed in these stories to create what we now call Mary Sues.

Marty Stu, Marty Sue, Gary Stu, etc. were simply male versions of the name Mary Sue.

[Kish]

Quick question - Where did the term "Mary Sue/Marty Stu" actually come from?
"Ensign Mary Sue," in Star Trek.

I think it's too easy to confuse the important (which is to say, bad) aspects of being a Mary Sue with the trappings. So your character is beautiful, so your character is nearly omnipotent, so everyone loves your character...None of those things blocks a character being interesting and compelling.

What does, is when the world warps to revolve around a character. This tends to show up more with characters who are also supposed to be extremely special in some way, but the problem is not the specialness, but rather it not being earned within the story in any way (or, sometimes, simply not conveying what the writer means to convey--if the writer is thinking "this shows the character's wisdom," and most readers think, "the character's being an idiot here"--or worse yet, "a pompous, condescending twit," that's probably a Mary Sue.

[DomaDoma]

I really hope Daenerys Targaryen becomes a Mary Sue. Results of breaking the established rules of her universe include people being grateful for the good she does them and having a positive impact on the world that lasts more than three months.

Obviously, I think Artemician basically has it down, as Dany would fail any litmus test but is still an awesome, awesome character.

[Gavin Sage]

There is no true test for a Mary Sue. I submit to you The Sandman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_(DC_Comics/Vertigo)) as an example of defying Suedom. The main character has godly levels of power, comparable omniscience, and more then once solves things with all of a wave of his hand. Yeah pretty literally. Morpheus has even been remarked to look like his creator. Yet the series is widely regarded as one of the greatest comics ever made. There are other examples but I feel it pertinent to point out you do not nessecarily have to weaken your characters to avoid creating a Mary Sue. .

However a few things:

* Develop a whole cast of characters not simply a main character and say their significant other. Give thought to the secondary characters, and even tertiary ones. Then check to see if any of these characters totally dominate the rest of the cast. If the rest of the cast might as well be irrelevant, Sue might be running around.

* Never have any sort of speech or even sentence about a character is a 'rare and special person' or otherwise fantastic. And if a character actually 'deserves' such attention then there is an increased chance of Sue.

* Your character should not be described like a level 18 D&D character reading off their sheet of equipment and special ablities. Being a Wizard7/Incantrix4/IoSV2/Archmage2/Barbarian/Rogue with the Staff of Magius +3, True Robe of Vecna, Ring of Greater Invisiblity, Amulet of Natural Armor +4, Headband of Intellect +........ may be an awesome character to play in a game but vastly less likely to be a good character for a story. Note this is subjective compared to the setting involve. You can have lots of tricks and special traits, if this is the Justice League Unlimited cartoon and everybody has tons of special stuff coming out the ears. The key here is keeping things in proportion. You can have more stuff the more normal it is.

* Likewise your character's special appearence (if they have to have one) should not make them specially attactive. Oddly colored elves look a lot less sexy and super exotic in their own settings. Its going to be like seeing a Chilean or Thai person in Iceland, at most. And for all I know Iceland has subtanial minorities making it not unusual at all.

* In general the key is proportion. If one character has their every move described and each outfit detailed every chapter, while others get a vague sentence you have to be careful. If you want to get into specifics enough to draw from then be Robert Jordan and do it for everyone. (Which isn't to say over-detail isn't a potential problem in its own right, but that's different then creating Sue)

[ghost_warlock]

Polarization is another possible Mary Sue trait. If all the other characters either love or hate the character, it may be verging on Sue-dom. Characters who are completely disregarded, or not even noticed, by the other characters are rarely Mary Sues.

Of course, now someone wil make the Steath Sue.

"They couldn't see her, had never heard her voice, and didn't know her name; but they could sense she was beautiful, brilliant, and always sang pefectly in key."

[Lord_Gareth]

The difference in Sandman is that Morpheus is the lord of dreams; it makes quite a bit of sense for him to have that kind of power. An "ordinary" guy doing the same things? That's a Gary Stu.

[WalkingTarget]

The difference in Sandman is that Morpheus is the lord of dreams; it makes quite a bit of sense for him to have that kind of power. An "ordinary" guy doing the same things? That's a Gary Stu.

That and one of the major points of the entire series is pointing out his flaws (in particular his unwillingness, or possibly inability, to change). For all his overt "power" he's still a very flawed/interesting-to-study character.

[Mx.Silver]

"Ensign Mary Sue," in Star Trek.

I think it's too easy to confuse the important (which is to say, bad) aspects of being a Mary Sue with the trappings. So your character is beautiful, so your character is nearly omnipotent, so everyone loves your character...None of those things blocks a character being interesting and compelling.

What does, is when the world warps to revolve around a character. This tends to show up more with characters who are also supposed to be extremely special in some way, but the problem is not the specialness, but rather it not being earned within the story in any way (or, sometimes, simply not conveying what the writer means to convey--if the writer is thinking "this shows the character's wisdom," and most readers think, "the character's being an idiot here"--or worse yet, "a pompous, condescending twit," that's probably a Mary Sue.

Kish has it. This is generally what seperates a character from a Mary Sue: it's not so much their own abilities as how people react to them and how they use them.
An incredibly powerful being who defeats her opponents (most of whom are strong enough to present a threat or more powerful) through clever use of her powers (coupled with some determination and some support from friends) is probably not a Mary Sue. A character who defeats similar foes by virtue of them being deliberately stupid, vulnerable to things they should be able to ignore or by completely unforshadowed deus ex machina may well be.

A cunning detective who outwits the criminal mastermind and brings him down through a difficult and edgy game of cat and mouse is probably not a Mary Sue. A similar character who wins by freakishly lucky coincidences and bizarrely predictive wild guesses which rely on knowledge he couldn't possibly have had is much more likely to be a Mary Sue.


Generally though, if you're able to critically analyse your own work you'll probably be able to avoid creating Mary Sues. The key sign is when other characters or the world and its rules start going out of their way to ensure your protagonist's success, either through stupidity, flashes of insight or deus ex machina. If things always turn out so that the character is proven right (in your eyes at least) regardless of how things originally appeared, that's another sign.

Finally, make sure your characters have some weaknesses or limitations. Physically and in relation to thier personalities or emotional states. Characters in fiction are there to try to overcome obstacles and problems and you need have to have something there that can actually challenge them. For a Mary Sue, nothing is a challenge. Even events that are supposed to 'the most difficult battles of their lives' are already foregone conclusions as far the audience is concerned, because they'll know that victory will be inevitable whether as a result of idiot ball carrying villains, unrealistic forknowledge or something else. If you're able to step back and criticise your own work though, then you should be able to spot this happening and deal with.

[FoE]

A final note: every character within a story or novel is an extension of the author's personality to the degree, but a vast majority of Mary Sues take this to an insane degree and are often blatant fictional representations of the author, albeit with a variety of super-powers.

If your protagonist is a young squid-headed boy named "Jayngfet" who saves the world from a team-up of Cthulhu and Slaanesh and Unicron with the magical-powers-that-he-had-all-along-but-never-used-before, you've crossed into the Sueniverse.

[GoC]

This page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits) is highly useful to you because, as it points out, while you can have some of these no-problem (see the "near-sue" point made by sun_tzu) if this starts to read like an itemisted list then you are in trouble.

Raven from the Teen Titans animated series rightfuly scores an 83 in this test. She's also by far the most powerful character in the series and yet for some reason she was still my favorite. Huh.
I guess there really are no hard and fast rules...

[EvilElitest]

Don't always justify the heros actions, make it so that he can be flawed too.
from
EE

[Xallace]

Raven from the Teen Titans animated series rightfuly scores an 83 in this test. She's also by far the most powerful character in the series and yet for some reason she was still my favorite. Huh.
I guess there really are no hard and fast rules...

I think this supports the idea of a Mary Sue being more in the writing than the character. Raven was shown to have plenty of flaws, was defeated, proven wrong, etc. She was written as a character that numerous people could, to some extent, associate with.

All in spite of the fact that she was essentially a Win Button.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Let's be fair. The scoring system on that test is pretty harsh, and all the animated Teen Titans are at least a little irritating.

Something I've noticed, though, is that you can get away with a lot of Sueness if you're properly snarky and therefore an avatar for the cynical members of the audience, which Raven has in spades.

[EvilElitest]

Let's be fair. The scoring system on that test is pretty harsh, and all the animated Teen Titans are at least a little irritating.

Something I've noticed, though, is that you can get away with a lot of Sueness if you're properly snarky and therefore an avatar for the cynical members of the audience, which Raven has in spades.

Eddings can do this as well, through he does toe the line every once and a while
from
EE

[Stupendous_Man]

Raven from the Teen Titans animated series rightfuly scores an 83 in this test. She's also by far the most powerful character in the series and yet for some reason she was still my favorite. Huh.
I guess there really are no hard and fast rules...

Well, above all, Sues are annoying. If the character isn't annoying, there is hope yet.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Eddings can do this as well, through he does toe the line every once and a while
from
EEEddings's problem is being formulaic with an intentionally unoriginal formula more than Mary Sues. Of course, everyone in his books excels at snarky banter, so we forgive him for the first Xlogy or two.

[EvilElitest]

Well, above all, Sues are annoying. If the character isn't annoying, there is hope yet.

So Eragon and Dominic Deegan are doommed?
from
EE

[Oregano]

Yer, the test is kind of harsh, although I might be saying that because a character I plan for my story got 25, even though he does have some mary sue traits I will admit.

[Nerd-o-rama]

So Eragon and Dominic Deegan are doommed?
from
EEYes. To repeat, yes.

[EvilElitest]

Yes. To repeat, yes.

but...but.....but.......why. They aren't being perfect to annoy us, they are the authors showing us how we should truly be


Ok i'll stop being annoying
from
EE

[chiasaur11]

REX, THE WONDERDOG got fifty.

And he's pretty much the most well written fictional character ever.

So, yeah.

[Stupendous_Man]

So Eragon and Dominic Deegan are doommed?
from
EE

We'll only be able to tell if their authors vanish mysteriously after their creations are thrown into the fiery fires Mount Doom Kilauea.

[EvilElitest]

We'll only be able to tell if their authors vanish mysteriously after their creations are thrown into the fiery fires Mount Doom Kilauea.

Who will be brave enough to risk such a dangerous but needed task?
from
EE

[Stupendous_Man]

I shall bear the burden, though I know not the way.

(Nor the money...)

[EvilElitest]

I shall bear the burden, though I know not the way.

(Nor the money...)
huh? Is that blackadder
from
EE

[Evil DM Mark3]

I shall bear the burden, though I know not the way.

(Nor the money...)

Then you shall have my Snark.

[The Rose Dragon]

huh? Is that blackadder

Oh gods, you can't be that ignorant of popular culture and literature!

It's Lord of the Rings!

[hamishspence]

Fear the Snark. Because, you never know, it just might be a Boojum! :smallbiggrin:

[Collin152]

Then you shall have my Snark.

And my charm.

[Stupendous_Man]

Simply fabulous.

[EvilElitest]

Oh gods, you can't be that ignorant of popular culture and literature!

It's Lord of the Rings!

its the last part i don't get
from
EE

[The Rose Dragon]

its the last part i don't get

Not everything has to have relevance to the rest of the whole. You know, like your "from me" at the end of each post.

[chiasaur11]

And my charm.

And my hearty words of encouragement, from a safe distance.

[Drascin]

And my charm.

And my axe!

No, really, I do have an axe. Want me to bring it? Might be useful to keep them in line :smallwink:

[Collin152]

And my axe!

No, really, I do have an axe. Want me to bring it? Might be useful to keep them in line :smallwink:

Haha! I just knew someone would say that in response to mine!
How did I know? Well, that's the scary part. I just kind of said the line in the funny voice, and bam, here it is.

[Weiser_Cain]

If all else fails just make it really funny and or enjoyable to read and who cares if it is a ms.

[Jayngfet]

I checked my three main characters on a litmus test (http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm#Part4)

And the results are:

The protagonist getting the most screentime gets an 8.

The lancer gets another 8, but I checked off one that was debatable and left another out.

The action girl has a 6. Which is good because she had several attributes I was worried about(though I removed her magical abilities and turned her from the high priest's daughter into a lesser noble a while ago).

[Quincunx]

And my axe!

(shields a 40cm stack of Mary Sue fanfiction with her body)

Dude, put down the axe.

[Jayngfet]

(shields a 40cm stack of Mary Sue fanfiction with her body)

Dude, put down the axe.

Mary sue fic's?

*Grabs flamethrower*

Burn Mary burn, fanfic inferno.

Burn baby burn, burn that story down.

[chiasaur11]

Mary sue fic's?

*Grabs flamethrower*

Burn Mary burn, fanfic inferno.

Burn baby burn, burn that story down.

Ordinary flamethrower?

I think this may be a better idea:
Atom.

Bomb.

Just putting it out there.

[Weiser_Cain]

I checked my three main characters on a litmus test (http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm#Part4)

And the results are:

The protagonist getting the most screentime gets an 8.

The lancer gets another 8, but I checked off one that was debatable and left another out.

The action girl has a 6. Which is good because she had several attributes I was worried about(though I removed her magical abilities and turned her from the high priest's daughter into a lesser noble a while ago).

Again, it's entertainment value is more important in my opinion.

[Ravens_cry]

Mary sue fic's?

*Grabs flamethrower*

Burn Mary burn, fanfic inferno.

Burn baby burn, burn that story down.
No, not even a dragons fire will burn that pile of weasel testicles.
It was forged in the fires of FanFiction.net. Only there can it be unmade.

[hanzo66]

The proper name for Mary Sues that are still considered well-liked/beloved by fans according to TV Tropes is "The Westley (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWestley)" (NOT The Wesley, which is a Mary Sue who is a Scrappy), based off Westley from The Princess Bride.


My belief is that a "Mary Sue-ish" character can pass as long as the character itself is well-written enough. As one stated, Agatha Heterodyne has traits of Mary Sues but is still considered a well-written character. Eragon is a straight-up Marty Stu with poor characterization riddled with idiocy and Moral Dissonance (IE he's allowed to slaughter any footsoldiers in his path because he's the hero) and that's why he's hated. The character themselves, while they can be described as incredibly skilled at a specific craft (they're a master swordsman/can cause explosions with a fingersnap/Magnificent Bastards who can constantly find extraordinary ways to get out of troubles) must also have limitations/weaknesses that are pointed out by other characters (blind naivete that doesn't inspire enemies to do Heel Face Turns all the time, Idiot Heroism with a strong Honor Before Reason (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HonorBeforeReason) streak, blind hatred of specific races).

Also another thing about Sues/Stus is that the supporting cast must also be fairly well-developed and have their moments too (the hero cannot just go hogging every single Crowning Moment Of Awesome or else said moments become much less awesome). The Character cannot have a Shallow Female/Male Love Interest (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShallowFemaleLoveInterest) whose existence is merely there to swoon over them and/or a Lancer whose only existence is that of a Jobber/provide Ho Yay. One cannot have good and evil decided as "Whether or not they like the character" with some good guys decidedly getting annoyed with the character.


The basic line is that as long as the character (or at least the story) is itself interesting and well-written enough, Mary Sues are usually allowed to pass.

[Jorkens]

Lord Peter Wimsey is another borderline M-S who gets away with it basically by appearing in well written books. Is the defining characteristic actually just "character who is brilliant at everything" or is it more "character who is brilliant at everything in a story which is essentially written to show off how brilliant at everything said character is"?

Come to think of it, James Bond (in the films) is pretty much the latter, and manages to get away with even that....

[hanzo66]

Charisma is important. The character at the least should have some sort of unique style to themselves that the reader can endure them to/be impressed at. Accomplishing a certain task with some sort of flair (delivering an awesome line, playing around with the enemies, making creative use of powers and so on and so forth).


Characters like Eragon are what NOT to do with Marty Stus, IE having very flat (some say robotic) personalities and nothing unique about their character (aside from being seen as a bloodthirsty psychopathic moron from haters).

[Lord Seth]

big part of avoiding them is giving them natural weaknesses that make sense. Kryptonite? Makes no damn sense. How does Kryptonite make less sense than anything about Superman? I mean, the guy can FLY. I'd think that would be a lot less believable than Kryptonite being his weakness.

[Collin152]

How does Kryptonite make less sense than anything about Superman? I mean, the guy can FLY. I'd think that would be a lot less believable than Kryptonite being his weakness.

The guy is strong enough to be God, and his weakness is... rocks.

[Ravens_cry]

It's slightly less dramatic then what would the world be like without Hitler, but how would comics have fared if Kryptonite, which was invented on the RADIO show, because the Actor playing Superman had a COLD.
Makes one wonder.
This one anyway.

[Lord Seth]

The guy is strong enough to be God, and his weakness is... rocks.A specific kind of rock that's dangerous to his species. I still don't get why things like super-strength, X-ray vision, flight, and speed "make sense" but an extraterrestrial rock being dangerous to the guy doesn't.

Incidentally, regarding this test (http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm), I have to question its last question. While it probably lowers the chance of it being a Mary Sue, I think that viewing a character as a "tool" is generally bad writing practice.

[Jayngfet]

How does Kryptonite make less sense than anything about Superman? I mean, the guy can FLY. I'd think that would be a lot less believable than Kryptonite being his weakness.

I remember national geographic explaining all his attributes. Apparently flying is just surfing gravitrons to him.

[Green Bean]

The guy is strong enough to be God, and his weakness is... rocks.

Yeah, an incredibly powerful being with a weakness to a normally harmless material. How lame. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur) :smalltongue:

[Nerd-o-rama]

It's slightly less dramatic then what would the world be like without Hitler, but how would comics have fared if Kryptonite, which was invented on the RADIO show, because the Actor playing Superman had a COLD.
Makes one wonder.
This one anyway.To be fair, it was also the radio show that really started Supes's exponential power expansion, which was also ported back into the comics. In the beginning, he was just strong, tough, fast, and could jump hella high. Not invincible, the strongest humanoid in the Universe, flying, heatvision, etc.

[Ravens_cry]

To be fair, it was also the radio show that really started Supes's exponential power expansion, which was also ported back into the comics. In the beginning, he was just strong, tough, fast, and could jump hella high. Not invincible, the strongest humanoid in the Universe, flying, heatvision, etc.
Super-Weaving and Great-Wall-of-China-Repeair-o-Vision. of course, I have nothing against Rocks as weakness. My point is, without a chance incident on the production a on a licensed product, Superman, the original Super superhero, would have become far less interesting, far faster.

[Jayngfet]

Super time travel? Super ventriloquism? Physic?

[Oregano]

Superman's actual weakness is overconfidence, most of the time when Kryptonite is used he had to the chance to stop the villain beforehand but just decided to stand there and look impressive. That's what gets him into trouble Kryptonite's just the method, kind of.

Magic hurts him as well, but doesn't make him weak.

[chiasaur11]

Super time travel? Super ventriloquism? Physic?

Super static electricity, super whistling, super spitting, and super women's intuition.

Of course, those were in dream sequences, so they count for less.

[GrassyGnoll]

If a character is old or in a fantasy setting don't be afraid to make him racist. It's a real and underused flaw.

Non-evil warlocks, vampires, and werewolves are on probation. Give them a damn good reason for being good. And yes vampires need humanoid blood, no cheating.

Unless your character is an Alienist they are not "so insane they are sane", and even so only every so often. Jump on lateral thinking problems, but let the real academe handle the rest.

[Oregano]

If a character is old or in a fantasy setting don't be afraid to make him racist. It's a real and underused flaw.


I agree, too many people are concerned with being overly PC, as long as you make it clear you don't share their views, it's fine, even if they're not the villain.

[warty goblin]

I agree, too many people are concerned with being overly PC, as long as you make it clear you don't share their views, it's fine, even if they're not the villain.

Actually, I'd be careful about going to far to make it clear that you don't share the character's views, particularly if you are writing for an adult audience, lest the book come off as needlessly preachy. We really don't need two paragraphs explaining why racism/sexism/whatever is bad if the characters are well drawn enough to make the audience actually feel the effects of said. And if not, there's something wrong with the characters anyways.

[Oregano]

Oh yes, don't go over the top, maybe just put a disclaimer at the beginning that your view are not necessarily the same as the characters.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Oh yes, don't go over the top, maybe just put a disclaimer at the beginning that your view are not necessarily the same as the characters.

No way.

The reader shouldn't care what the author's views are.

You can't fix a problem in the text by putting a note in front of the text.

[Oregano]

I mean at the beginning over the novel, before the actual story begins. No during the narrative.

but readers do care about author's views and would berate them for putting a bigotted character in who goes without consequence.

[bluewind95]

Actually, just avoiding the portrayal of specific views as "morally superior" in the narrative should do. Characters may consider them morally superior, but the writer has to be very careful that his/her tone stays neutral.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I mean at the beginning over the novel, before the actual story begins. No during the narrative.

I know what you mean and it just doesn't work.

You can't get out having to write properly by adding supplementary details.

[Oregano]

So it makes you a bad writer if an amoral character goes unpunished?:smallconfused:

Personally I don't think it does and some readers will complain about racist/sexist/whatever characters that aren't shown as inherently bad.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Anyone who needs such a disclaimer is not a person who is likely to be able to properly grasp the concept of fiction.

Idiots are not a key marketing demographic.

[Weiser_Cain]

Why are you guys going out of your way to offend your audience in the name of 'realism'? If the story isn't about it, cut it out.

[Oregano]

I'm not saying purposely offend the audience, what I'm saying is if you're in a medieval world, you'll have medieval views, not modern; people do complain about the hero having modern views when they shouldn't, but some of them will also complain if everyone if your story, including the hero, treated women as objects which may be the social norm in the story, even if you don't condone it. Of course they may not and I might be totally worng, which from what everyone else is saying I am in which case you wouldn't need to clarify that it isn't your view in one way or another.

EDIT: That ended up as a rant.:smallsigh:

[Weiser_Cain]

Is fantasy, it's escapism. No one wants to read about true to life medieval europe, it's miserable and boring. And even then, racism hadn't been invented yet so all you have is classism, nationalism and religious persecution. And lots of rape, at which point who's worrying about mary-sue's when you have an atrocity on paper?

[Oregano]

No one wants to read about true to life medieval europe, it's miserable and boring.

I do, that's why I'm studying Medieval History, and we didn't limit it to fantasy.

It has become a bit derailed, I'll agree to that but the point is you shouldn't be afraid to have someone with views accurate of the setting, and my point was you shouldn't necessarily demonise them because of it. But then it became about the author making it clear he didn't agree(which I think is important because it's easy for someone to misinterpret it).

[Collin152]

racism hadn't been invented yet

:smallamused::smallannoyed::smallmad:
:sigh:
Sure it hadn't. Because people invent social concepts anyways,.

[Oregano]

Well there wasn't really a concept of "race" in medieval Europe, there was Religious prejudice however. There probably was some racial prejudice in Medieval society, but it wasn't widespread or that significant.

EDIT: If you want I can search my history notes for some sources.

[Silver2195]

It's interesting to apply "Mary Sue Tests" to canon characters. The linked-to Litmus Test gives Danyrhys Targaryen a 43.

Having 3 magical animal companions and being "the most beautiful woman in the world" probably hurt her.

Note that Dany also benefited from the relativity clause; I didn't check the "oddly spelling real name" box because every character in ASoIaF has a name like that.

[GrassyGnoll]

Is fantasy, it's escapism. No one wants to read about true to life medieval europe, it's miserable and boring. And even then, racism hadn't been invented yet so all you have is classism, nationalism and religious persecution. And lots of rape, at which point who's worrying about mary-sue's when you have an atrocity on paper?

It's a flaw. It's supposed to be something that makes the character miserable, to be around or to be.

Now if he was a rapacious, racist, who went around slaughtering everyone not from his village like they were animals then that's a villain (or at the very least, Stoneham).

Your characters are already racist against the evil races such as drow (and if they aren't that should raise eyebrows), so why not against the Lawful Neutral neighbors who screwed your nation over embargoes/colonialism/etc?


racism hadn't been invented yet

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj13/Lord_Of_The_Ducks/whatfrank.jpg

[bluewind95]

I didn't mean "leave the amoral guys unpunished". I just meant "do not, in the narrative tone, make them seem right/wrong compared to others."

Take the typical slavery example. If the character grew up in a place where slavery is a normal thing, and had no traumatic experience with the subject, he or she will NOT have a valid reason to oppose it. So if you get that character to, out of the blue, say that slavery is wrong, and not only that, but also convince everyone of this fact with ease, and even make some sort of revolution to free all the slaves, and rally everyone to his or her side for this... yeaaaah, that's kind of not being neutral about it. And that is where people will go and accuse you of sharing your character's views. I would think that if the character gave little thought, if at all, to slavery and went on his/her merry way and little attention was brought to this, people wouldn't accuse you of sharing the character's views. Mainly because they're consistent with the setting you created and therefore you're not using the character to preach anything. Now, if you went the opposite way and have your character live in a setting with no slavery, but easily convince everyone that slavery is right and even lead the fight to conquer some poor town to enslave... then I'd think you'd be accused of preaching through the character as well! Basically what I mean is... it doesn't matter what the character's views are. They just have to be consistent with the setting. Otherwise, readers will believe that you have completely derailed the character in order to preach at them. And that's what readers don't like. They want to live your setting, not listen to you preaching at them. :smalltongue:

[Stupendous_Man]

racism hadn't been invented yet
I believe racism was invented when the first Cro-Magnon man smashed his Neanderthal neighbor's head in with a club.

[Solaris]

I hate to say this, but most complaints about Mary Sues are mostly complaints about bad writing.

If you write well enough, nobody will care or notice your Mary Sues.

I write 'em (well, Gary Stus) all the time and somehow manage to pull it off. The trick there's to have a decent story in spite of Mary. And don't have them be hugely good-looking; it's a book, nobody cares.
As for modern morals in a medieval character (if'n that's what you're doing), figure out a way to explain it. Maybe he hates slavery because he was a slave. Maybe he's an egalitarian because his mother/sister/aunt/whatever was a big influence on him and raised him to be a good person despite an abusive father. Stuff like that.

[Jayngfet]

My characters are never described as pretty or ugly. I describe individual features unless said by a character.

[Solaris]

Ya. 'Pretty' and 'Ugly' are too vague.

Honestly, I don't think you're the type who has to worry about writing a Mary Sue. Judging by the first post, you've already done the legwork on making sure one character's not the ultra-super-special star of the show.

[Jayngfet]

I decided to set up guidelines for who can do what in the trio where characters shift in and out.

There's a bit of a language barrier, only one can be fluent in the other two's languages.

Only one can use long range attack with the ability to hit accuratley.

They can't be as good as another character in their speciality, thez can help or outshine by luck once but it will be obvious they got lucky

Only one person can have even lesser magic. That area should seem low power and a +1 mace is valuble.

[hanzo66]

I initially tried to make "Less-than pleasant looking" characters, one I gave a hooked nose, a bit of an overbite and a glass eye, the other I made bald.


Then again in my case I tend to try and slightly strike a balance between decent character and Rule of Funny. For example, I made a Neutral Evil Bard who was something of a Cosmic Plaything and as a result from trying to be overly optimistic ended up a Stepford Smiler with Smug Snake (crafty but lacks the charm/skill of a Magnificent Bastard) and Psycho For Hire tendencies. Skill-wise he was overall the weakest of his group though as the others got New Powers As the Plot Demands, he began to develop using some other branches of magic, though he is still overall weaker than the others.

For the most part if I make a character, I usually make them either based on the Rule of Funny or I try to make then satirical in some ways. Usually I like them being either Deadpan Snarkers, Jerkasses and/or Butt Monkeys.

[Jorkens]

I suspect that both strands of this thread could be seen as arguments for writing characters with well developed personalities and rich inner lives rather than arbitrary checklists of traits ("this guy is a good archer who is trustworthy and always loyal to his friends but racist towards dwarves, this girl is a beautiful rogue who has no compunctions about lying, cheating and stealing when it's neccessary but does have a fundamental drive to do good...)

[Stupendous_Man]

Is fantasy, it's escapism. No one wants to read about true to life medieval europe, it's miserable and boring.


Don't make sweeping generalizations.

_______________________________

[warty goblin]

Don't make sweeping generalizations.

Yeah, some of us actually do like our fantasy gritty, and even if you don't focus the story on that, not having it is just a cop-out.

[Stupendous_Man]

Indeed. Miserable and boring is GRIMDARK. And GRIMDARK appeals to some people.

[warty goblin]

Indeed. Miserable and boring is GRIMDARK. And GRIMDARK appeals to some people.
Well, there is that, yes. Now excuse me while I rightiously chainsword some heretics. EAT THE EMPEROR'S ROTARY BLADES OF DEATH!!!

Whew, that's done. Anybody know how to get heretic bloodstains out?* But beyond that, if you are going to set your story in a medival world, have the self respect to actually do it right. If you are going to set it in Happy Sunny Valley, fine as well, just don't confuse the two. Repeat, Happy Sunny Valley =/= Medival Europe.

If you want a world where people don't starve to death in the winter, the life expectancy's isn't about 35, and about a quarter of all babies don't die before their fifth birthday, do not use a medival setting. Create your own social order. Not only will you actually be doing something original, or at least not blindly following every other fantasy just 'cause, you'll actually have a chance of creating an actually consistant world.

*This post brought to you by Emperor's Shine, the cleaning agent for those too simple for doubt.
Having trouble getting those pesky bits of heretic innard out of your clothing? Don't let your fear deny your faith! Use Emperor's Shine cleanser today! Not only does it whiten, it actually santifies at the same time, so your clothing is clean as new and free of the taint of chaos! Emperor's Shine: Shielding your clothing with faith.

[Oregano]

Magic can be used to turn Medieval Europe into Happy Sunny Valley though, they'll still have medieval values but they could have the health care of the modern world and magically induced crops to prevent starvation.

In one of my settings I had an Empire with a rapidly aging population because of overuse of healing magic, hardly anyone was dying. Interesting thought really.

By the way, the life expectancy of 35 is artificially low, many people would live until their seventies or later but a lot of young people would die thus reducing the life expectancy.

I think that's right anyway.

[warty goblin]

Magic can be used to turn Medieval Europe into Happy Sunny Valley though, they'll still have medieval values but they could have the health care of the modern world and magically induced crops to prevent starvation.

In one of my settings I had an Empire with a rapidly aging population because of overuse of healing magic, hardly anyone was dying. Interesting thought really.

By the way, the life expectancy of 35 is artificially low, many people would live until their seventies or later but a lot of young people would die thus reducing the life expectancy.

I think that's right anyway.

Right, but there you are actually doing something to change the nature of the world from medival Europe to Happy Sunny Valley, which is exactly what I was talking about being an interesting and creative approach.

What I don't like is settings where you have a village that is mysteriously free of disease, famine, want, etc with no explanation.There's always enough food, and people don't spend all day out hoeing the beets or whatever it is that they grow, they don't sleep in the same room with the animals, and for some reason can afford absolute gobs of candles for illumination. Nobody ever dies in childbirth, well, excepting the main character's mother. But that will happen no matter the setting and so doesn't count. Its a cop out because it's easy and apparently actually getting it even close to right would distract too much from the awesomness that is the main character.

[Oregano]

Oh yes, that is dumb to say the least, they'd still face a lot of those problems. I had a really creative idea for illumination in one of my D&D game that I mihgt use in one of my stories, but it's only in one metropolis.And it's probably not that original.

And yes, that is changing it from Medieval Europe, which was half my point, it's probably too hard to do an accurate Medieval Europe setting. But I do agree with you.

[TheBST]

What I don't like is settings where you have a village that is mysteriously free of disease, famine, want, etc with no explanation.There's always enough food, and people don't spend all day out hoeing the beets or whatever it is that they grow, they don't sleep in the same room with the animals, and for some reason can afford absolute gobs of candles for illumination. Nobody ever dies in childbirth, well, excepting the main character's mother. But that will happen no matter the setting and so doesn't count.

But how else are we supposed to feel bad when the Baddies burn it down?

[Stupendous_Man]

Well, there is that, yes. Now excuse me while I rightiously chainsword some heretics. EAT THE EMPEROR'S ROTARY BLADES OF DEATH!!!

Whew, that's done. Anybody know how to get heretic bloodstains out?*
*This post brought to you by Emperor's Shine, the cleaning agent for those too simple for doubt.
Having trouble getting those pesky bits of heretic innard out of your clothing? Don't let your fear deny your faith! Use Emperor's Shine cleanser today! Not only does it whiten, it actually santifies at the same time, so your clothing is clean as new and free of the taint of chaos! Emperor's Shine: Shielding your clothing with faith.

Emperor's Shine, and it's closest competitors (Imperial Cheer, GothoxiClean and Aquilla & Hammer) simply can't compete with Exterminatox, for those most dire situations when you absolutely, positively need to purge your clothing with greatest vigor,

[warty goblin]

Oh yes, that is dumb to say the least, they'd still face a lot of those problems. I had a really creative idea for illumination in one of my D&D game that I mihgt use in one of my stories, but it's only in one metropolis.And it's probably not that original.

And yes, that is changing it from Medieval Europe, which was half my point, it's probably too hard to do an accurate Medieval Europe setting. But I do agree with you.

It doesn't have to be original, it just has to explain why something that otherwise would be the case, isn't. It doesn't even have to be that complex or even magical.

For example say I want the literacy rate to be a bit higher than would be the case in an actual feudal type society. Well, for this to be the case, I need two things- efficient writing and people having the time to learn to read. The first is easy enough, just have movable type be invented earlier. Not strictly realistic, but hardly brainbreakingly idiotic either.

The second is a little more difficult. Assuming most people are still engaged in more or less subsitance agriculture, the process needs to take less time but not actually have that great of an increased yield. Increasing yield dramatically would change the shape of society more than I want. So I hypothesize a more durable and adabtable beast of burden than the horse. Something like a pig in diet, making it easy for a poor family without access to high quality fodder to keep alive, but long legged and social enough to make a useful work beast.

This 'hoig' creature will allow most families to own a draft animal. .This in turn means that they can plow fields much more easily, move materials around more efficiently, and generally make life just a little bit easier. It does not fundamentally change the way in which food is produced however, so for the most part production levels are unchanged and the size of the liesure class remains the same. It can be fed on scraps and low quality fodder, and produces one or perhaps two offspring every two to three years. This makes purchasing a hoig possible for most familes, since there will be relatively large numbers of them, but not a common source of meat, since they do not reproduce quickly enough to be economical to eat.

This in turn leads to a slight increase in liesure time for the lower classes. They now have time to read. Books are available via the printing press mentioned earlier. Mission more or less accomplished.


@ Stupendous Man, you forget the WAAUUGH! on your 'ead, the 'aircare produkt fer orks. Pour some on, and feel your 'ead actually explode! Not recommended for use by none-orks. Has gained some popularity as a last ditch tool for removing the worst of corruptions from clothing however. The Inquisition reports this is a small but growing problem, with nearly two trillion executed for use of a non-approved cleaner this week alone.

[Oregano]

Warty, that is awesome, have you put a lot of thought into this?

The middle ages were quite bad compared to what most medieval-type stories and settings would have us believe. Another point in a world with tangible gods and stuff would the feudal system be reinforced or faulted? That might be worth exploring.

[Stupendous_Man]

@ Stupendous Man, you forget the WAAUUGH! on your 'ead, the 'aircare produkt fer orks. Pour some on, and feel your 'ead actually explode!

WAAAGH! On: Apply directly to the fore 'ead.

WAAAGH! On: Apply directly to the fore 'ead.

[warty goblin]

Warty, that is awesome, have you put a lot of thought into this?

The middle ages were quite bad compared to what most medieval-type stories and settings would have us believe. Another point in a world with tangible gods and stuff would the feudal be reinforced or faulted? That might be worth exploring.

That's about ten minutes work actually. Not trivial, but really not hard, which is why so much world building pisses me off. It's just plain lazy.

As to the tangible religion, I'm not honestly sure it would have that much effect for the most part, depending just how tangible we are talking. If tangible is 'gods undeniably exist and occasionally they do good yet small things for people, even quite publically' I really don't think it would do much. I mean sure being cured of boils by a shining figure descending from heaven would be a pretty inspiring experience, but remember, everyone and their uncle is pretty much without exception religious anyways. Thus they would like as not ascribe the boils going away on their own to the gods anyways. The religious sector of society might see a bit of a boost, even perhaps up to a permanent inquisition focusing on heretics, who would likely be conflated witih people who had never recieved obvious blessings from the gods, but not having a permanent worldwide inquisition is also just as plausible.

Now if by tangible religion you mean the high cleric rains fire from the heavens upon the enemies of the gods, then yes, feudalism is going to break down a bit. Probably be replaced by some sort of religiously centered but fundamentally similar system barring other changes, but any secular power would at best be a puppet figure.

[Oregano]

I kind of meant both and I think it would affect it because from what I know(which is not much) the reason Feudalism worked is because the oath of fealty they made was an oath to God and to break it was a big no no in the eyes of God.

EDIT: Which means if you could talk directly to the Gods they could actually tell you their opinion(ie. everyone is equal, follow your lord, etc.) or it could make the fear worse.


I think that's good for ten minutes really, it shows you at least thought about it in a wider perspective rather than just a quick fix up for the problem without thinking of the repurcussions. I need to be more like that when thinking of my worlds.:smallsigh:

[Closet_Skeleton]

Indeed. Miserable and boring is GRIMDARK. And GRIMDARK appeals to some people.

GRIMDARK (not that I would ever use this term when not quoting someone who is using it) is just the extreme version.

Star Wars is gritty but incredibly idealistic at the same time.

[warty goblin]

I kind of meant both and I think it would affect it because from what I know(which is not much) the reason Feudalism worked is because the oath of fealty they made was an oath to God and to break it was a big no no in the eyes of God.

EDIT: Which means if you could talk directly to the Gods they could actually tell you their opinion(ie. everyone is equal, follow your lord, etc.) or it could make the fear worse.


I think that's good for ten minutes really, it shows you at least thought about it in a wider perspective rather than just a quick fix up for the problem without thinking of the repurcussions. I need to be more like that when thinking of my worlds.:smallsigh:

why thankyouverymuch. I try. Also, on the hoic concept, I'd stipulate that hoics do not run particularly rapidly and generally make poor riding animals thus making them ill suited for mounted combat. Cavalry is the dominant military force in many ways in such a period, and due in no small part to the cost of maintaining warhorses was firmly in the hands of the upper classes. Giving Bob Peasant a viable military mount would play havok with this.

Ah, OK, now I see what you are getting at. Oaths to God were probably a big part of it. So however would be people's natural conservatism and adherence to the system under which they live (particularly when there's no awareness of something better), and the bit where rebelling was a good way to end up getting your arms and legs publically removed by horses moving in opposite directions.

Now if you could talk directly to the gods, and they answered, how much difference would it make? As I've said, I'm honestly not sure, because I think that most people at the time thought they could and were talking to whatever diety(s) they believed in, and most likely that they recieved some form of answer. Religion was, in that system and for the vast majority of people at the time, something that was already true and verified to be so. Making the gods clearly real to us the outside observer does not neccessarily change the system at all, because their reality is already apparent to those within the system.

This leaves us, the creators of these fictional systems, a few choices.
1) Do we in fact feel the need to make the truth of whatever fictional religion we insert into the world externally verified by the reader? We can have it be apparently real to the characters of the world, yet not neccessarily so to the audience.
2) If we do make it undeniably part of reality both to the characters internal to the world we create and the audience who reads it, what sort of gods do we use? How is this truth verified? Clearly it can't just be through what characters say, since even in the first case they'd explain the world in religious terms. Obviously we can monkey around with having 'good' or 'trustworthy' characters expouse one view, and 'bad' ones a different one, but that's preachy and boring, so I'm going to ignore that idea.

So that leaves us with events observed both by the reader and the characters in the world which cannot be simply or likely interepreted as anything but the existance of the gods of the world we created by the readers. The characters of the world, assuming a fuedal system, already believe before we started monkeying with things. This means we will use things like visions seen by lots of people, clear violation of the normal laws of physics (whatever they may be in our hypothetical setting), and similar. If we the creators are attributing these to a personified entity with desires for the world (aka a god), we now need to ask what sort of god this is. For the case of the effects of an externally apparent god on Feudalism, I'll confine myself to two very simple cases for brevity.

Case the First: The god is not in favor of the system. In that case you have to ask how such a system arose in the first place, since there is constant undeniably divine feedback being given to a bunch of people who believe in the gods already. It'd be like a TV showing Surivivor when you have it tuned to a station showing Firefly-the logic doesn't add up. Now you can do various things to create the feudal system in the first place, such as other gods, changes in divinity and so on, but there has to be a reason. Humans misinterpreting divine will is unlikely though, since the gods are in direct contact with humanity, it's a little hard to misinterprete a fifty foot tall fiery figure yelling "no more witch burnings!"

Case the Second The god is in favor of the system In this case the system is going to be very, very stable. Doubt of it is more or less impossible, since it is constantly verified by the gods, who are by construction undeniably real. So yes, feudalism would probably be extremified to the extent that it's extremefication is the communicatred will of the gods. If the gods are not in favor of drawing and quartering and constantly show up telling people this, expect a real drop in the drawing and quartering rate. If the gods are in favor of lots and lots of violent factional warfare, then there will be a lot factional warfare with little mercy, because the avatars of the gods is always appearing to Duke Whatsisname and tellling him it would really give him some afterlife Browny points for going and killing all of Count Hochamacallit's people.

In short if the gods are constantly directly appearing to people in a way that the audience of the story is also convinced is actually real and not just the characters being diluded or manipulative of the poor ol gullible populace, society is going to have to look more or less like the gods want it to, otherwise people are going to cry foul.

[Eerie]

Weird, but all fantasy I read had pretty realistic pseudo middle ages. Let`s see...

"Earthsea" by Ursula LeGuin. Not much country life there until Tehanu, and there it is quite gritty.

"Discworld". If you read the Witches series, they describe a quite gritty place (minus the witches, who help a bit).

"The Witcher" chronicles by Andrzej Sapkowski. :smallredface::smallamused::smallbiggrin: Where can I ever begin? The most cynical fantasy middle ages ever I ever seen...

You mates just need to read quality fantasy.:smallwink:

[Bryn]

"The Witcher" chronicles by Andrzej Sapkowski. :smallredface::smallamused::smallbiggrin: Where can I ever begin? The most cynical fantasy middle ages ever I ever seen...
Have you read the First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie? I haven't read the Witcher, so I don't know how it would compare in terms of cynical-ness, but I imagine that it's comparable.

Apart from that: Warty Goblin, have you written a book? If you have, I intend to buy it at the first opportunity. :smallamused:

[Closet_Skeleton]

"The Witcher" chronicles by Andrzej Sapkowski. :smallredface::smallamused::smallbiggrin: Where can I ever begin? The most cynical fantasy middle ages ever I ever seen...

I've only read the first short story collection and played the computer game, but they weren't that cynical. Okay, the game was (but it also took the piss out of one of the novel characters being a bit Mary Sueish due to being "a witcher, a sorceress AND a princess").

[Eerie]

Have you read the First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie? I haven't read the Witcher, so I don't know how it would compare in terms of cynical-ness, but I imagine that it's comparable.

Despite the fact that I like fantasy, I didn`t read that many books in this genre.

Let`s see...

"Dark Tower" by Stephen King. Not exactly fantasy, not exactly middle ages, but very realistic and gritty.

LotR. No peasant life described there at all. And hobbits are a lot more advanced than middle ages...

[Closet_Skeleton]

And hobbits are a lot more advanced than middle ages...

Not really. They have clocks (which started really getting going in the 13th century) and new world crops like potatoes and tobacco, which we don't need to worry about since there not being any reason why such things shouldn't be on middle earth. Apart from those 2 things they're pretty medieval.

[warty goblin]

Have you read the First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie? I haven't read the Witcher, so I don't know how it would compare in terms of cynical-ness, but I imagine that it's comparable.

Apart from that: Warty Goblin, have you written a book? If you have, I intend to buy it at the first opportunity. :smallamused:

Erm, no. Or at least not yet. I am writing a serialized (not actually published, I just write it like that) science fiction story though, and have plans for some more in-depth stuff when I actually have the time to write.

This actually brings me to a point I wanted to make earlier, but it didn't fit into the discussion.

If you are engaged in serious world-building, then coolness, or "I want to write a scene like this" is not sufficient justification for a scene or element's existance.

This is doubly true if you want to avoid accusations of Mary Suedom. Look at Eregon, a story and character which takes more heat for Mary Suedom than there were virtual Nazis killed in every WWII video game combined. Why? Because it's a character and world the author thought would be cool. Not logical, not interesting, not deep. Cool. Also boring as hell to everybody with a different concept of cool or who was interested in the world or side characters.

Now on to the serious world building piece of the point. Some stuff is perfectly readible and enjoyable yet does not create a consistant world. This is OK, that's not where the author focused, and if that focus instead went into good characters and dialog or something else, it can still be a good book, just not one with an interesting world. It also allows them to do cool stuff a lot more easily. Take Quidditch in Harry Potter, arguably the most idiotic sport ever made up. Doesn't matter, it's cool and leads to some good scenes, and is the impetus for some good character interaction. Would it be better if Quidditch was less nonsensical? Probably, but time and effort is finite, and I doubt the story itself would have been drastically improved by a more realistic Quidditch, since it's focus is never on the world, but on the characters and their interactions. It's not a work engaged in serious world building, it's OK for the world to not make sense.

If on the other hand you want the story to have a consistant and interesting world, are engaged in serious world building, don't do things just because they are cool. If they are cool and fit withing the logic of the universe, go right ahead, it'll be fun to read and fun to write. If it doesn't however, really please, please don't. Warning: Massive Spoilers for Banewreaker by Jacquiline Carey below. Take the scene where Calindor the dragon is killed. His mountain home has been besieged for a couple days, his people are running out of food, and he's known for all of this time that the relief army isn't coming. So he finally leaves his cave and goes to start laying some serious smack upon the enemy, just in time to get killed by the one person who has both the skill and the weapon capable of doing so, who just happened to arrive about three minutes previously. It's a legitimately cool scene, and one with a good deal of emotional impact, but it fails as an exercise in world building. Calindor knew that the siege was not going to be lifted, and the Sorceress whom he loved and who actually ruled the kingdom hated the war. Going out to fight immediately after finding out that the relief army was not coming would have made sense. Waiting until the walls were breached was not. Now this was wrapped up in a bunch of 'dragons are mysterious and in touch with the future' sort of guff, which only make sense if you understand 'mysterious' to mean 'stupid' and 'in touch with the future' to mean 'suicidal.' Bad world building, because it's a scene that makes no sense in the context of the world.

Here's another example from my own writing. It is sci fi but even though we've mostly been talking fantasy I think it's still illustrative of my general point. The planet on which my story had focused to date was being invaded by a bunch of nasty aliens, and I had originally purposed to write a very large tank battle across the northern tundra as the defenders tried to hold the line. The logic behind this was that by invading the poles, the aliens could bypass the defensive platforms in geosychronis orbit around the equator. The problem was that the defensive platforms were equiped with very powerful railguns and really good targeting computers. They would in short be able to attack a fleet moving towards the poles without moving, and then be able to bombard any forces landed on the surface. Since the poles were very cold they were also more or less uninhabited, so there wasn't any reason not bombard them. So the aliens would be attacking a part of the planet that is worthless to them in a way bound to lead to their destruction. The premise of my midnight artic tank battle in short made no sense. But it was a cool scene- kinetic weapons throwing up clouds of snow and ice, plasma weapons shooting through them with a sizzle of steam, casting weird reflections off of the shadowed white landscape.

Fortunately I was able to convince myself that doing this would be stupid, if really cool. So instead the aliens cut through the orbital defenses and landed much nearer the equitorial population centers, which they were going to bombard into rubble and then occupy in order to completely irradicate all traces of human life on the world.

This led to me needing to figure out the cities were built in order for me to decide how it was most sensible to defend them. So I reasoned that colonization is expensive even with faster than light travel. This means that space on existing worlds is at a premium, particularly on an agricultural world such as this one. Hence buildings would tend to be rather sky scraper like in appearence, aided by the existance of very durable construction materials. So the cities would be made up almost entirely of very tall buildings, since they are pretty much built by a corporation with a governmental mandate and a desire for maximum profit, and then inhabited, rather than evolving over time. The outside of the city would be more or less a wall of solid buildings, with few large access points. These would naturally be connected to major road networks. Hence one would want to stop the enemy as far from these points as possible. So my largescale tank battle was replaced by a small action by about sixty soldiers to hold the equivilent of a small village- three small towers housing the population responsible for working and maintaining the farms along one of these major roads (there were of course more than one such action, I just focused on one). Well what happened to the residents of the farming community? They had to be evacuated of course, which gave me a natural pick for my next viewpoint character- I knew I wanted to look at the effects of the war upon the common population, and I already had somebody in the city proper. So doing the non-cool thing turned out not only to remove stupidity from the story, but to actually strengthen my world and suggest where the story should turn next. The tank battle would have just been an action scene completely disconnected from the fate of most of the planet. This allowed me to show a character being evacuated and write an honestly pretty cool defensive action as well.

[snoopy13a]

By the way, the life expectancy of 35 is artificially low, many people would live until their seventies or later but a lot of young people would die thus reducing the life expectancy.



Yeah it is 35. However, that is an average based on when a person is born. Many people died young such as:

1) Infant mortality
2) Childhood and Adolescent diseases
3) Dying in war
4) Dying in childbirth (especially as women could have 10+ pregnencies)

If one survived until adulthood and didn't die in war or childbirth then they had a good chance of surviving to their sixties and beyond. Old people weren't rare, it is just a newborn baby had a less then 50-50 chance of reaching old age.

[Jayngfet]

I have all the ramifications made.

The lowest powered area(1 caster per 1000)has 68% child survival) the highest(1 in 250) has 91%.

No gods, demons exist in five types imp, succubus, dire animal, dragon(three subtypes), space whale. No always chaotic evil. Different magic from different types(no one knows about the whales)
.
Some more resilliant types of potato and wheat were bread.

The technology level is at the end of feaudalisim with necessary adjustments in most places, with a few tribes around.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Hell yes, space whales!

Why is that a type of demon...?


Some more resilliant types of potato and wheat were bread.Yes, that's sort of the point.

[Khosan]

A final note: every character within a story or novel is an extension of the author's personality to the degree, but a vast majority of Mary Sues take this to an insane degree and are often blatant fictional representations of the author, albeit with a variety of super-powers.

If your protagonist is a young squid-headed boy named "Jayngfet" who saves the world from a team-up of Cthulhu and Slaanesh and Unicron with the magical-powers-that-he-had-all-along-but-never-used-before, you've crossed into the Sueniverse.

Nit picky, but relative proximity to the creator's personality isn't necessarily a sign of being Sueish. What matters is wish fulfillment. Your main character could be a near carbon copy of yourself, but as long as you're not writing it in a way that gives them everything they want it won't come off as very Suesque.

Granted, it's still a symptom, but not the cause.

[turkishproverb]

Nit picky, but relative proximity to the creator's personality isn't necessarily a sign of being Sueish. What matters is wish fulfillment. Your main character could be a near carbon copy of yourself, but as long as you're not writing it in a way that gives them everything they want it won't come off as very Suesque.

Granted, it's still a symptom, but not the cause.

Bingo. On that noe, people are forgetting a major flaw

Psychological issues. Alot of otherwise Mary sue characters are made beleivable by virtue of psychological believability (Cammile Bidan comes to mind) Flaws, weaknesses and quirks of the mind can do alot to celear out what you know.

[Jayngfet]

Hell yes, space whales!

Why is that a type of demon...?

Yes, that's sort of the point.

Demons one defining trait is the ability to defy biology, ergo: Space whales, man sized and bigger flying lizards, people who can alter facial features, intelligent animals breeding with people...

It's also who has magic, casters are demon descend people. I'm trying to make it seem low powered.

[hanzo66]

I do remember trying to make characters based off certain aspects of my personality, but I usually base it off negatives more than anything else, just because it's usually funnier that way.

[Lord_Gareth]

I've applied the test to a few of my characters and found that either I screwed up on the first one or it wasn't meant for certain story types. The character in question has a lot of things on the list, but these traits are ones the other main characters share; magical power in a relatively non-magical world (well, sorta), the ability to slaughter armies, the like. These characters are not meant to be "reasonable" and are, indeed, intentionally well beyond what normal humans of their world are capable of.

Other than that, I heartily endorse it and continue to apply it to soem of my other characters.

- Miss Envy, my main character in Shadows and Spite, came out with a 15, though I think the attractiveness questions were unfair in this case; her sexuality is one of her most potent weapons in getting what she wants.

- Tyler Vici, of Sanguine, scrapes by with a 3.

- Brian Zeli of my religious pulp-comedy, Bless Me, Father, flips the test the bird with a 25 and continues doing whatever the hell he wants anyway.

I'd actually like to present these characters to you guys to see if the community thinks they're Sues/Stus - would anyone be interested in lookin' 'em over?

[Mx.Silver]

I've applied the test to a few of my characters and found that either I screwed up on the first one or it wasn't meant for certain story types. The character in question has a lot of things on the list, but these traits are ones the other main characters share; magical power in a relatively non-magical world (well, sorta), the ability to slaughter armies, the like. These characters are not meant to be "reasonable" and are, indeed, intentionally well beyond what normal humans of their world are capable of.

Other than that, I heartily endorse it and continue to apply it to soem of my other characters.

- Miss Envy, my main character in Shadows and Spite, came out with a 15, though I think the attractiveness questions were unfair in this case; her sexuality is one of her most potent weapons in getting what she wants.

- Tyler Vici, of Sanguine, scrapes by with a 3.

- Brian Zeli of my religious pulp-comedy, Bless Me, Father, flips the test the bird with a 25 and continues doing whatever the hell he wants anyway.

I'd actually like to present these characters to you guys to see if the community thinks they're Sues/Stus - would anyone be interested in lookin' 'em over?

Yeah, I'd be willing to look them over. One of their scenes from a source might also be useful in this could be useful too but if they're just still in the concept phase then don't worry about it.

[Lord_Gareth]

Alright, here's a few of 'em:

Tyler Vici - Sanguine
Position: Main character/narrator
Gender: Male
Species: Human
Blood Type: B-
Quote: "The line between love and obsession isn't just thin, it's mobile."

Physical Description: Tyler is mid-high and lanky in an underfed kind of way, with black hair that's usually a little greasy and green eyes that always have dark circles under them from lack of sleep. He dresses in black whenever he can get away with it, but he can't afford a jacket. His combat boots might have been a fashion statement once, but nowadays they're a testament to the curative power of duct tape.

Personality: Tyler is a cynic through and through; he no longer believes in people as good, in good luck or basically in anything positive - at least, he doesn't conciously. Far from being emo, Tyler is instead resigned to living his life as best he can and occasionally lending someone else a hand. He tends to be short-tempered and sarcastic, especially after working the Prancing Bones, a local nightclub. When he stresses out too much, he draws or plays his guitar.

Story Role: Tyler is the hapless fool strung along by a young and potent vampiress. Once he's turned into one of the walking dead, Tyler goes through a lot of change, both in his perceptions of humanity and his definition of what morality, sentience, and even love is.

Mystic Power: None as a human, but Tyler develops a talent for inducing visual/auditory hallucinations as a vampire; this is well within normal vampire kenning for the world.

Miss Envy - Shadows and Spite
Position - Main Character
Gender - Female
Species - Human (Changeling Child)
Blood Type - Miss Envy's blood is dangerous to give to ordinary mortals and universally compatible with faeries or changelings.
Quote - "Even goddesses die."

Physical Description - There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it - Envy is beautiful in a striking, exotic way. Lean, predatory, and sensuous, Envy draws stares when she enters rooms and holds them by seeming to pay attention to everyone at once with knowing glances, wry smiles, winks, and the occasional kiss on the cheek. She dresses in leather skirts and somewhat old-fashioned blouses, usually in black accented with pink, and prefers to go barefoot. Her hair - both head and body - is a bright pink color that she pulls of quite well, keeping it pixie-short and styled meticulously.

Personality - She might call herself Envy, but her signature emotion is hatred. Cold, calculating, bitter and vengeful, Envy hates the goddess she serves with a passion only the ageless can muster. For her vengeance, there is literally nothing Envy wouldn't do - sacrifice friends and family, betray nations, offer her body, or even sell her soul. Every now and again, she has an attack of conscience as she realizes what she's become, but she represses it quickly and goes back to the business of being a monster.

Story Role - In the overarching mythos of Dreavarr, Envy is the first mortal to ever commit deicide, and the story Shadows and Spite revolves around that. In a more metaphorical way, Envy is meant to represent what blind faith and zealotry creates; monsters driven by hate and jealousy of others.

Mystic Power - Envy's power is at the same time potent and limited. Envy can walk from one reflective surface to another, communicate through mirrors, and call other faeries to communicate with them under her own power, as well as being a skilled chemist/alchemist. However, her most potent ability is deals - while under mystic contract, Envy always has the power to ensure she can succeed, if she is clever enough and skilled enough. While Envy is unusually potent for a changeling, she is severely outclassed by other figures in the story/world for raw power.

[Ravyn]

Hm, interesting. They look decently well-rounded, though I don't have enough context to see them as people, just traits (and I'll admit to having a kneejerk reaction to female characters who use sexuality as a weapon, as I rarely see them done right).

Though I'd be just as interested in the reasons why they are what they currently are. Envy's level of hatred, or Tyler's cynicism, strike me as coming from somewhere.

[LurkerInPlayground]

There is no true test for a Mary Sue. I submit to you The Sandman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_(DC_Comics/Vertigo)) as an example of defying Suedom. The main character has godly levels of power, comparable omniscience, and more then once solves things with all of a wave of his hand. Yeah pretty literally. Morpheus has even been remarked to look like his creator. Yet the series is widely regarded as one of the greatest comics ever made. There are other examples but I feel it pertinent to point out you do not nessecarily have to weaken your characters to avoid creating a Mary Sue. . .
The thing is that writing a part of yourself into a character isn't necessarily a bad thing, since all people are in some ways like other people and therefore even one person's situation can be universalized.

Morpheus has "indicators" for Mary-Sueishness, but doesn't actually go there because Morpheus is like Neil Gaiman but still avoids being a self-insert of Neil Gaiman. Morpheus in no way given a free buck to be the best at everything regardless of the storytelling continuity.

Which is to say that Dream actually has negative traits and feels the consequences of them, and not in a disingenuous way. He can be petty, vindicative, rigid, arrogant and cruel; and it all comes back to bite him in the ass. Yes, he's also lordly, honor-bound and forceful but at a significant cost to his personal life. It even kills him. And he doesn't go out like a heroic Messiah.

And for being one of the anthropomorphic manifestation of a universal principle, he's still significantly weaker than some of the characters of of other mythologies which are supposedly an extension of his domain (i.e. Lucifer of the Judeo-Christian worldview). He's even significantly "less wise" than a lot of the women in his life (Death, the Three Furies, the Hecate, assorted lovers, etc).

Morpheus is also partly a meditation on the kinds of power that a professional storyteller (or writer) has and the kinds of moral duties they possess to other people. As in many cases, there are many villains and antagonists, including Morpheus himself, who use their myth-making powers cruelly and exploitatively (i.e. the "Cereal fans" and Richard Maddoc). So in a way, it's expandible to all people with a few choice snipes at writers in general. It does communicate some of the things that worry Gaiman: Which is to say that he's actually worried about becoming a bad writer and an irresponsible adult.

If anything, it could be said that Sandman is about a protagonist who is trying actively to avoid being a Mary Sue.

[ghost_warlock]

Morpheus has "indicators" for Mary-Sueishness, but doesn't actually go there because Morpheus is like Neil Gaiman but still avoids being a self-insert of Neil Gaiman. Morpheus in no way given a free buck to be the best at everything regardless of the storytelling continuity.


I just wanted to note that even a direct self-insert of the author into the story doesn't necessarily qualify as a Mary-Sue. If this is done in a realistic manner, and doesn't just turn out to be about wish-fulfillment, it can actually make for interesting speculative fiction.

Yeah, as has been noted earlier in the thread, wish-fulfillment is probably one of the core, and most grating, Sue characteristics.

[Jayngfet]

Hmmm ...I've been working on another, actioner story, mind if I post that here?

[ghost_warlock]

Hmmm ...I've been working on another, actioner story, mind if I post that here?

If you're posting the story, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8740) (Creative Writing Showcase) might be a better place. But you can certainly link it here. :smallsmile:

[Lord_Gareth]

Though I'd be just as interested in the reasons why they are what they currently are. Envy's level of hatred, or Tyler's cynicism, strike me as coming from somewhere.

They do!

In Tyler's case, he's stuck paying the debts of a stepmother he hated; she died and left he and his father with the financial responsibilities, and his father turned to drugs and drinking to get away from it all. Tyler works two jobs, gets maybe four hours of sleep a day, and the people he generally interacts with are the dregs of society - the hopeless, the gangs, the dealers, the druggies, or the drunks.

Envy, on the other hand, is the monster of someone else's creation. She was born in extreme poverty to abusive parents, but she had a plan for her life. Her sister (now going by the name Greed) cut a deal with a goddess to ensure that neither of them would ever be poor or hungry again - thus enslaving them both to a sadistic deific entity that hates humans for destroying her children. When the gods and other supernatural beings retreated from the world, Envy and Greed went with them, spending more then five millennia as the miserable playthings of this goddess. Envy hates the goddess, but not nearly as much as she hates her sister.

It is important to note, once again, that Envy is not to be sympathized with - she is a horrible monster, and she makes no excuses for it. However, people aren't just sick in the head for no reason.

[snoopy13a]

Don't many popular protaganists share qualities with Mary Sues such as Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Wolverine, Captain Kirk, etc?

Isn't the main difference between a heroic protaganist and a Mary Sue is that the Mary Sue isn't written well? Look at Kirk, he was the youngest ever captain in Starfleet, alien women throw themselves at him, his gut instincts are pretty much always right, his crew loves him and he always seems to outsmart whatever villian comes his way. Granted, he needs advice from Spock from time to time and he needs Scotty to keep the ship together sometimes but overall, he seems quite "Sueish". The difference is that people like Kirk.

[hamishspence]

Wouldn't that be The Westley?

[Jorkens]

I just wanted to note that even a direct self-insert of the author into the story doesn't necessarily qualify as a Mary-Sue.
Semi-autobiographical fiction springs to mind. Portrait of the Artist, anyone?

[Jorkens]

Isn't the main difference between a heroic protaganist and a Mary Sue is that the Mary Sue isn't written well?
Yes, I think so.

The TV Tropes definition talks a lot about bad fanfic. It seems to be more about "and she was magic and brilliant and everyone loved her except big meanies and even they loved her after they realized how magic and brilliant she was and..." than just having a well written and believable character who just happens to be good at a lot of stuff.

[ghost_warlock]

Wouldn't that be The Westley?

The Westley Wesley and Mary-Sue can have some overlap. The principle characteristic of a Westley Wesley is that the creators of the fiction love the character despite that the fanbase hates the character. Mary-Sue is about wish-fulfillment on the part of the author.

[Jorkens]

The Westley and Mary-Sue can have some overlap. The principle characteristic of a Westley is that the creators of the fiction love the character despite that the fanbase hates the character. Mary-Sue is about wish-fulfillment on the part of the author.
That's the Wesley (as in Wesley Crusher) not the Westley (as in The Princess Bride), I think.

[BRC]

The Westley and Mary-Sue can have some overlap. The principle characteristic of a Westley is that the creators of the fiction love the character despite that the fanbase hates the character. Mary-Sue is about wish-fulfillment on the part of the author.
Not necessarily. I define a sue as a character who is given all sorts positive traits without those traits being justified.

Example: A person who has a large number of friends is not always a Sue. If we see that the character is a nice and sociable person, then it would make sense for them to have alot of friends. If however they simply walk into a room and everybody is friends with them, the only explanation given is that they are nice (We are told this, not shown this) then they are sueish.
Intelligence is trickier, but they must be shown to be intelligent in a way the audience can recognize and respect. This is why Wesley is a Stu, they show us his intelligence by having him look at a problem and know to reverse the polarity in the drive conductor, cross the beams, and reroute power cord 23-Zeta. We have no idea what any of those things mean, we are TOLD this is a brilliant solution, but we don't know why. Contrast this with, say, Ozymandius from Watchmen. He looks at a problem and comes up with a solution, I won't spoil things, but you can follow his logic when coming up with the solution, we arn't simply told that it is brilliant.

[Jorkens]

And conversely, I personally don't find it much more interesting when a character is inexplicably good at one lot of things but has carefully been made inexplicably bad at another lot of things to make them 'balanced' and avoid them turning into a Mary Sue.

[ghost_warlock]

That's the Wesley (as in Wesley Crusher) not the Westley (as in The Princess Bride), I think.

Yeah, I just caught that and was about to edit the post... :smalltongue:

Compare/contrast:

Wesley (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWesley)
Mary-Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue)
Westley (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWestley)

[BRC]

And conversely, I personally don't find it much more interesting when a character is inexplicably good at one lot of things but has carefully been made inexplicably bad at another lot of things to make them 'balanced' and avoid them turning into a Mary Sue.
Oh defiantly, you can't have a character who oozes charisma, is an expert swordsman, speaks fifty languages,is strong enough to bench press an ox while being fast enough to outrun a horse. And then make him really bad at math so as to avoid him being called a Stu.

I think the problem with a Stu (or sue) is that they are generally, not very interesting characters. A Prime example is from Discworld in the form of Captain Carrot. Origionally Pratchett intended Carrot to be the main character of Guards Guards, and no matter which way you look at it, Carrot is pretty stu-ish, his main flaw being naivety (at least in Guards Guards). However, he quickly switched the focus from the strong, nice, charismatic, Hereditary King Carrot to the hard bitten, self-loathing, cynical, Omniracist (That is, he is equally racist against everybody, though perhaps a bit more so against Vampires) Vimes. Carrot is still in the other books, and despite his Stuishness he's able to be a good character, primarily because he dosn't receive the focus. The Problems arn't solved by having Carrot try to solve them, instead he shares face time with the fat stupid Colon, The dirty petty theif Nobby, Vimes (already mentioned above), Angua, Detritus, and countless other characters.

[ghost_warlock]

Oh defiantly, you can't have a character who oozes charisma, is an expert swordsman, speaks fifty languages,is strong enough to bench press an ox while being fast enough to outrun a horse. And then make him really bad at math so as to avoid him being called a Stu.

I think the problem with a Stu (or sue) is that they are generally, not very interesting characters. A Prime example is from Discworld in the form of Captain Carrot. Origionally Pratchett intended Carrot to be the main character of Guards Guards, and no matter which way you look at it, Carrot is pretty stu-ish, his main flaw being naivety (at least in Guards Guards). However, he quickly switched the focus from the strong, nice, charismatic, Hereditary King Carrot to the hard bitten, self-loathing, cynical, Omniracist (That is, he is equally racist against everybody, though perhaps a bit more so against Vampires) Vimes. Carrot is still in the other books, and despite his Stuishness he's able to be a good character, primarily because he dosn't receive the focus. The Problems arn't solved by having Carrot try to solve them, instead he shares face time with the fat stupid Colon, The dirty petty theif Nobby, Vimes (already mentioned above), Angua, Detritus, and countless other characters.

You've got a good point about Carrot. He would be pretty Stu-ish if he was given as much focus as Vimes usually does. The respect/love he effortlessly gets from pretty much everyone is reminiscient of Marty Stu; it's actually one of his primary plot-driving features. Although, he did suffer his fair share of failure in the Fifth Elephant, but the cards were really stacked against him.

[Jayngfet]

Wouldn't that be The Westley?

Speaking of which, is there an exact opposite character trope? Someone the author hates and constantly makes the situation worse for and is berated for slight actions? There was a thread with an extensive list of characters like that a while back.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Butt Monkey, although those are usually played for humor.

[Jayngfet]

I mean it's played serious. You get the feeling the drowtales team has mommy issues when two altogether positivley portrayed characters raise a child with unprovoced torture and rape and that child is a villan for rasing the protagonist and making an effort to teach her something with a slap(she reads drow fantasy novels instead of trying) and killing an animal introduced a week ago. While Ariel gets away with murder out of anger of Yafien not going shonen hero and saving the mesterious girl he just met.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Yeah, I've heard of Drow Tales and try to avoid it. As an example, Neon Genesis Evangelion has a Butt Monkey treated seriously, but that was intentional and the driving force of the plot, rather than solely author jerkishness and parental hatred...although on second thought, that came into it too.

[hanzo66]

The Westley (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/main/TheWestley), as mentioned before is a case of an obvious case of Mary-Sueism, but usually the character is also done with a well-written character with a fair amount of depth, charm and/or just more interesting than "Chosen One", proving that as long as the character's written well-enough then the Sueing is usually overlooked/tolerated.

[Ravens_cry]

And there, in a nutshell, is the difference between a Mary Sue and a Westley. The audience, for whatever reasons, actually LIKE The Westley. They find his/her adventures entertaining. Mary Sues, rub people the wrong way.
Of course, Results Will Vary, some may find a Mary Sue to be a Westley and visa the versa. But its the only real difference I can think of. For all I know, someone may read My Immortal for the characters. Though, what kind of hell spawned child of the damned would create such a twisted parody of a mind is a troublesome thing to think about.

[Calyx Asgard]

Would I be wrong if I said in essence that a character becomes a Mary-Sue if it has these traits:


Either has way too many or too few positive traits.
The story as well as the other characters always seem focused on that character.
The story only seems to exist to showcase the character.
The writing/acting is somewhat sub-standard.
When you read the story, you quickly feel a need to stop reading before the you start bringing up bile.

Then the chances are, you were reading a Mary-Sue.

[turkishproverb]

Would I be wrong if I said in essence that a character becomes a Mary-Sue if it has these traits:


Either has way too many or too few positive traits.
The story as well as the other characters always seem focused on that character.
The story only seems to exist to showcase the character.
The writing/acting is somewhat sub-standard.
When you read the story, you quickly feel a need to stop reading before the you start bringing up bile.

Then the chances are, you were reading a Mary-Sue.


Hm.. 1st one is a bit weak, by virtue of overly vague language. Other than that I tend to agree.

[Calyx Asgard]

Hm.. 1st one is a bit weak, by virtue of overly vague language. Other than that I tend to agree.

I made the first one a bit vague because the upsurge of the Anti-Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiSue) and the Suetiful All Along (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuetifulAllAlong) tropes.

[turkishproverb]

I made the first one a bit vague because the upsurge of the Anti-Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiSue) and the Suetiful All Along (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuetifulAllAlong) tropes.

Fair point, fair point.

[Calyx Asgard]

Fair point, fair point.
So are you a Troper as well?:smallbiggrin:

[turkishproverb]

So are you a Troper as well?:smallbiggrin:

I dabble. I'm a fan of Mauve shirts myself.

[Calyx Asgard]

I dabble. I'm a fan of Mauve shirts myself.
Is this the main forum you hang out at?

[JeminiZero]

The writing/acting is somewhat sub-standard.



This is somewhat subjective, and lousy writing does not necessarily equate to poor characters (and hence Mary-Sueism).

[turkishproverb]

Is this the main forum you hang out at?

mostly. I'm on a few others, why?

[Calyx Asgard]

mostly. I'm on a few others, why?
I'm not sure why I asked now, I guess I was just making conversation.


This is somewhat subjective and lousy writing does not necessarily equate to poor characters (and hence Mary-Sueism).
I know that alone isn't the case but when was the last time you came across a Mary Sue fic (that wasn't a parady) which was well-written?

[The_Snark]

[COLOR="darkred"]I know that alone isn't the case but when was the last time you came across a Mary Sue fic (that wasn't a parady) which was well-written?

I believe he meant it the other way around—namely, that it's possible to have lousy writing without any trace of a Mary Sue.

As for well-written Mary Sue fiction, that depends on the definition. Your definition seems to include "not well-written", so obviously by your standards, you don't come across well-written Sues. Other people sometimes define it differently, usually saying that any character who has incredible power, lacks significant flaws, and (most importantly) is the center of the story, often to the degree that other characters and the rest of the setting feel like they're only there to interact with the Sue. By those standards, it's possible to have a Mary Sue character who is nonetheless well done enough to get away with it; generally, these are mild Sues at best, and don't feel like the setting revolves around them and only them.

[An Enemy Spy]

Mary Sue's always win. They can typically do it all by themselves because they're good at everything.
Making other characters fully fleshed is just as important as doing it with the main character. Everybody in the world has a story. Let these guys have one too.
Also, good characters are not perfect. Everybody has flaws, often big gaping ones. I once wrote about a guy who had been in slavery for 9 years. He was seeking revenge against the guy who captured him and horribly mutilated his wife and left her to die. When he finally got his revenge it didn't feel better. He died at the end of the story after failing to beat the main bad guy. By the way, he was the main character.

[hanzo66]

So are you a Troper as well?:smallbiggrin:

Who isn't in this board nowadays?

[Jayngfet]

I'm not.

I'm lying.

[Stupendous_Man]

I'm not.


Not yet, anyways.

[Jayngfet]

You know my anti wesly should be a trope. Hell I can name it if necessary.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Take it to You Know That Thing Where..., I guess.

[snoopy13a]

Nit picky, but relative proximity to the creator's personality isn't necessarily a sign of being Sueish.

Especially since quite a few great authors, Hemmingway is the clearest example, have semi-autobiographical protagnists.

[warty goblin]

I'm not.

I'm lying.

Neither am I.

And I'm telling the truth

[turkishproverb]

I'm not sure why I asked now, I guess I was just making conversation.

Its cool. Just curious.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I believe he meant it the other way around—namely, that it's possible to have lousy writing without any trace of a Mary Sue.

As for well-written Mary Sue fiction, that depends on the definition. Your definition seems to include "not well-written", so obviously by your standards, you don't come across well-written Sues. Other people sometimes define it differently, usually saying that any character who has incredible power, lacks significant flaws, and (most importantly)is the center of the story, often to the degree that other characters and the rest of the setting feel like they're only there to interact with the Sue. By those standards, it's possible to have a Mary Sue character who is nonetheless well done enough to get away with it; generally, these are mild Sues at best, and don't feel like the setting revolves around them and only them.
Well the bolded part might indicate "poor writing" anyway. It's pretty hack-rate work when your narrative is given over to worshiping the idea of your protagonist.

This isn't to say that the story might have redeeming qualities, but it can be argued that it could have nonetheless been handled better.

[Calyx Asgard]

For Tropers and non-tropers alike, reading this below should make what a Mary-Sue a lot easiler to understand;

TVTropes take on Mary-Sues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) :smallbiggrin:

[Jayngfet]

Well, I'm trying not to make the story too heavy on one character.

[Calyx Asgard]

Well, I'm trying not to make the story too heavy on one character.
A clear sign of Mary-Sueness in a fanfic is when the Original Character pretty much steals the spotlight for just about the entire fic.

[Trazoi]

Well, I'm trying not to make the story too heavy on one character.
I don't think it's that much a problem if your story does focus exclusively on one character. That can still work, and it doesn't necessarily mean your protagonist is a Mary Sue.

My take on the whole Mary Sue thing was that the only true litmus test for a character was whether the universe they reside in seems to revolve exclusively around them. This is different from if the story revolves around them - if the story feels like it's just a slice of what's going on in the world. But if the only way the story's universe would work would be if the secret Book of Laws that govern how it works has whole appendicies written for this one character, then you're dealing with a Mary Sue. Basically, they're a universe breaker.

And of course, there's exceptions to rules of Mary Sues and to whether they work. Take Carrot from the Discworld series - he's got a large number of Mary Sue traits; he's universably likeable, learns names and languages just like that, can punch out a troll, is secretly royalty etc.. But he isn't the focus of the stories (it's usually Vimes) and doesn't come across as a universe breaker.

In short, I wouldn't worry too much about avoiding a Mary Sue, lest you end up with the worse Anti-Sue.

[Zarrexaij]

well, the problem isn't Mary Sues. It's quite possible to make a Mary Sue and yet retain good writing ability and have that character be interesting. The problem is that Mary Sues are often unintentional and occur often in bad writing.

They also tend to be self-inserts.

[almyki]

I was really into avoiding Mary Sues a few years back, when I was really into writing but just sort of starting out. Read reams upon reams of articles on Mary-Sues, characterization, etc. and how to avoid them, and they totally captivated me. They were helpful, but now when creating characters I don't even think about it. When it's somehow brought up and I look at my characters again, I realize "Huh, these guys aren't anywhere near Mary-Sues at all. Sweet." and move on.

I think it's the sort of thing that comes with your attitude or approach in creating and defining your characters. With Mary Sues, it is a fantasy that revolves around dreams for yourself, I think, even if you don't realize it. As a kid, I always daydreamed about all the things I wished I could be, wished I could do, and in my fantasies those were the qualities that tended to pop up in my characters (which I thankfully never wrote).

Now though, I'm much more interested in the characters as if they were real people, and rather than tack on various aspects, like sticking accessories onto a doll, most of the character's personality is made up by their basic root design. I'm not sure how to explain it... but I think you'll know when that happens. It's like... you see your character as this person with this certain personality and background, their current situation, a 'basic design' idea, and from that you understand this character so well enough that their conflicts, their potential growth, their beliefs and feelings, their reactions, inner likes and dislikes, possible fears, all eventually come, and so easily and naturally. And then, when you've got a good idea of this character, if you were to look at it and think "Is s/he a Mary-Sue/Marty Stu?", you'd be able to immediately think ":snort: Yeah right" with no doubt in your mind, and every reason to believe it to be so.

They will not overpower other characters, they will not be flawless, they will not be flat, they will not be completely useless. They should have very human qualities, and you should be able to feel and understand that by looking at any aspect of their personality or character and being able to trace it to why they are that way, how it effects their reason, how it effects the people around them, and how it creates both virtue and conflict.

Well, I think that's how it works for other people... maybe not, I dunno'.

But also, I don't think that having beautiful characters, incredibly intelligent characters, or incredibly talented characters necessarily make a Mary-Sue. So long as the beauty, or the talent, or the intelligence, or whatever else has a purpose that preceded the need for that aspect, go for it.

For example, a character of mine named 'Mi-hi' is meant to be extremely beautiful and lovely, and is highly talented in music, arts, dance, and poetry. However, I made her beautiful because she was meant to be a character that embodied femininity and the beauties of the country that she came from, as well as to make a plot-based important connection between her and another important character. Her talent in the arts, dance, etc. is based on similar reasons, as well as to show an aspect of her character as loving beautiful, fun, and positive things that poorer or more practical people, not of royalty or riches, would find frivolous and wasteful. Also, because all female nobility is meant to be trained in these arts, which is again plot-important. All of these points preceded making her beautiful and talented, and she still has plenty of internal conflict, flaws, and looots of potential growth. Initial contact with her in-story would paint her as a divine creature of beauty and grace, but quickly as she became further exposed, the reader would realize that she is in fact a simple and naive young girl, unsure of how to deal with the responsibilities or painful burdens of adulthead and ugly realities.

A Mary-Sue would just be beautiful first because the author wanted her to be a beautiful character, just because she can and also to woo all those near her, and then she would tack on talents and such for the same or similar reasons. To be able to beat the bad-ass, because it's awesome, etc.. And throughout the story, these flashy shows and this divine veil of awesome would never fall, except maybe to show some tragic past or other to allow the audience to sympathize. Sorry, but I've read a looot of Mary-Sues in my day, and that's all actually so very sadly, pathetically true.

<3 ali

EDIT: OH!! Also, another thing I realized about when I create characters, is that I tend to keep in mind "What role do they play in this story? What do they add story-wise, relationships-wise, flavor-wise? How do they effect things? What significant features are they meant to add to this?"

[Zarrexaij]

Not all Mary Sues are self-inserts though.

Most are, but not all.

[snoopy13a]

But also, I don't think that having beautiful characters, incredibly intelligent characters, or incredibly talented characters necessarily make a Mary-Sue. So long as the beauty, or the talent, or the intelligence, or whatever else has a purpose that preceded the need for that aspect, go for it.



Of course not. If someone goes out of their way so their character isn't special, then there is a risk of creating a dull character. Many popular protagnists have special traits. If they are going to accomplish heroic deeds then there needs to be a justification for it.

[DomaDoma]

You know, judging by all the Airy Ooh debates I've been in, the definition of Airy Ooh has gotten all out of control. Some of the definitions I see:

- Narrative Black Hole, where the universe bends itself to pay attention to the character in question.
- Rulebreaker, where the very rules of the universe bend themselves to allow the character through.
- No Challenge, where you know any obstacle they face will be no contest.

Those are the three really legit definitions, as I see it.

Next up, the ones that probably aren't good ideas, but are not Airy Oohs:

- Hate Litmus, in which everyone who dislikes the character is a villain. A flaw of general characterization, not the character in question.
- Boringified, a reaction to the Mary-Sue witch hunt who consequentially has no meaningful place in the story.
- Stealth Dog Kick, where the narrator mistakes cruel behavior for something commendable.
- Overrated: Characters with Informed Ability - particularly bad if it's intelligence or writing skills.

A trait that's often associated with being an Airy Ooh, but can work really well:

- Overly Statted, where the character has lots of possessions and favorable/cool attributes.

And lastly, the just-plain-persecuted characters:

- Manstealer, whose love wrecked someone's OTP.
- Replacement Scrappy, dedicated to a few of the people I've had Press On Or Turn Back In The Red Glare debates with.
- Effective, an original character who had the gall to do something in fan fiction.
- Non-Canon, an original character who had the gall to exist.

Phew.

[Lord_Gareth]

I think I'm gonna make a thread specifically for having the community serve as a Mary Sue litmus test; anyone else think that might be a good idea?

[snoopy13a]

I wonder how many mary sues are created during this:

http://www.nanowrimo.org/