I don't mind if this Mary Sue issue crops up every now and again. Until I joined this forum, I wasn't aware of the concept at all. Rather than deliberately creating a 'perfect' character, I always used to devise ways for my characters to accomplish things. I gave them a set of talents and character traits that would help (or hinder, in some cases) them through their situations. And before long, I was creating ...Mary Sues. It's easy to do if you're not aware of the concept. In a desire to make your character likeable and competent, you can make them so likeable and competent that they aren't convincing. That can put a story's believability in jeopardy. Whether Mary Sues make good characters or not can be endlessly debated—and that's not really the point. Obviously some very popular characters in literature can be 'accused' of being Mary Sues. I just think it's a good idea to remind ourselves about the concept every now and again, so we don't unintentionally create them. Create them on purpose? More power to your arm!
I like that article. I like that you put so much emphasis on character growth, to assess the Mary Sue-ness of a character. Growth probably works in most cases. However, I've read some stories where the character doesn't grow or change while everything around them does. They end up exactly the same kind of person at the end as they were at the start. That can sometimes be the point of the story, and isn't necessarily a story weakness, nor is that character a Mary Sue. In fact, sometimes this is the character we most dislike or feel annoyed with. A Mary Sue is never a character whom we're supposed to dislike, or think is foolish, or stubborn, or totally out of step. We're supposed to love Mary Sue characters and root for them without question (or at least that would have been the author's intention.) So, a lack of character growth isn't the only pointer to determine if a character is a Mary Sue. But it is a good one. Definitely one of the things to consider when writing a story. Does my character grow or change? If not ...why?
The reason we dislike Mary Sues* so much is that they are un-American. Mary Sues are the opposite of movers. A mover is someone who puts things into motion and makes things happen--someone who starts from the bottom and forces his way to the top. Walter White from the show Breaking Bad was a mover. Jay Gatsby from the book The Great Gatsby was a mover. They struggle against an already established system and they fight, using their own merits, and many times they lose. A Mary Sue is the incarnation of royalty and privilege. Their very existence is cause enough for them to succeed. And they always succeed but only from the hard work of other characters, who are there to roll out the red carpet. All the Mary Sue has to do is walk. Harry Potter is a Mary Sue. The scar on his head is a basically a royal birthmark. His friends are basically his servants who pave the way for his success. It's a royalty story. *using the commonly accepted definition, not the original
I think there are three categories of protagonist- Mary Sue, "mover," and superhero. A mover has to carve out his/her own place in the world while a Sue's place is waiting for them before they're even born. A superhero is a combination of the two. James Bond (movie version), Superman, and Beowulf are superheroes. Unlike the mover, they almost always succeed in their goal, and and because of their super abilities, they never meet with the same sort of resistance. However, also because of their super abilities, they generally don't rely on other characters to get them to where they need to be, which separates them from the Sue--instead, like the mover, they get there themselves. To me, the fundamental quality distinguishing sues from non-sues is whether the characters primarily reaches their goal on their own merits or the merits of others.
Superman isn't a Mary Sue. He's an interesting character because he's been written by so many different people over such a long time but at the core he's supposed to be a character you can look up to which isn't quite the same as being a Mary Sue. He is a hero, a paragon, but that's not the same thing. You could reasonably argue that Arnold Schwarzenegger typically played Mary Sue characters, but that misses the point that he's against impossible threats against the odds and while he (obviously) wins every time that's more a result of the form of an action movie. And it's the same for Superman. The hero always wins, eventually, but that doesn't speak to them as a character. If you want to talk about Superman then you need to talk about Clarke Kent; the non-heroic form of him where he's just a normal dude. I think a better way to put it would be to say that we don't like characters that have everything given to them; who have never built something themselves. We don't mind characters that start out high up than most of us could reach just so long as they build their empire or cure cancer or whatever off their own back; and that's a struggle and that takes hard work and that takes doubt and potential for failure. And that's something that we connect with no matter what; it connects our personal struggle theirs and allows us to understand them. Whether they are a bum on the street learning to read or Trump opening golf clubs, at least they aren't just sitting around doing nothing. They are not afraid to fail, which is a genuinely positive virtue and one that all of us aspire towards even if we can't manage it ourselves. A Mary Sue will never be in the position of believing they have failed. They have all this ability and looks and stuff and they kinda know that nothing can ever really cause them problems. They aren't human. This is the problem with Mary Sues; they lack a core component of the human condition because they lack a relationship with failure. They lack weaknesses and real challenges to face; something is only a challenge if you could fail. Even Superman has his weaknesses and not just kryptonite; under most circumstances if you come at him with a green rock and he'll just laser your fucking head off, but if you go after his family and his girlfriend, well, that's something else. And that makes him human. He is still weak, no matter how infinitely strong he might be. He can still be hurt. And Lex Luthor can still get the better of him. Humans fear failure and fear loss and fear rejection and a character without that is a robot.
I think most genre characters almost have to have some Mary Sueish traits, especially if you're writing something where the characters are going to be a little larger than life anyway. While the exotic beauty, kickass skills, brilliance above and beyond and tragic backstory/life etc etc etc can be the outward signs of an Mary Sue, they can also be used - judiciously - in a perfectly likeable character. To me, it's the moral/emotional Mary Sue that turns me off faster than lightning... the one that is simply and blatantly set up as better in every way that everyone else and more important than everyone else. In particular... 1. she understands (usually within twenty minutes tops) the main character/Author's favourites in a way that no one else does. 2. The good characters find themselves quickly confiding in/trusting the Mary Sue in a way they don't with people they've lived/worked with/known all their lives (this is particularly grating when said character is the sort who would probably prefer to cut his/her tongue out with a rusty knife before talking about (shudder) feelings. But in four pages flat they recognise the Mary Sue as a soul-mate and gush like an adolescent with a new cellphone.) What I think really makes a Mary Sue intolerable is her effect on the other characters - the sucking whirlpool of importance that makes her the centre of love and attention even where she shouldn't be, and impacts on the way we see the other characters in their own right.
That's an interesting one. Because while Laura (the character) considered Mary to be perfect, it was clear to the reader that Mary wasn't perfect at all. In fact, she had learned that being 'good' got her strokes, and she was quite subversively competitive with Laura (especially as children) in that regard. So Mary certainly wasn't a Mary Sue. I don't think too many of the readers liked her all that much, to be honest. And while Laura compared herself to Mary's supposed perfection, she never really aspired to it herself—probably because she had Pa's support and sympathy most of the time. Things changed a bit after Mary went blind. But before that ...no, Mary was a bit of a pain in the arse, and I think that subtle portrayal was intentional. There's a difference between being good because that's your nature, and being good because you know it gets you stuff. I've just been reading the annotated Pioneer Girl which sheds a lot of light on the real relationships Laura (the writer) had with her family, and it's clear that she fictionalised a lot of her story, to make it a better story and to direct the readers where she wanted them to go. While the Little House series reads like an autobiography, it actually wasn't. As Laura herself said, "What I wrote is true, but it's not the whole truth." This annotated version of Pioneer Girl clears up a lot of anomalies between Laura's reality and fiction, but it also underscores what a skilled fiction writer Laura Ingalls Wilder turned out to be.
I don't think it's fair to say that Mary Sues can't fail, they can. The difference is that whenever they do it's not their fault. Some stupid thing they could never predict happened where a rope broke or the bad guys didn't play by the rules, or the umpire called a strike when it should have been a foul. They don't ever have that moment where something bad happens and they have to say, "yeah, that was my bad. I totally thought we could make it and I was wrong." And there's literally no reason for it! She's always depicted as average looking, so it's not like they think she's hot or anything, plus her dialogue is usually just all whining and preaching. The kind of person where given the option, I would rather stab stab out my eardrums with the broad end of a fork than hang out with for too long. I guess this is why we see a good deal of them in YA, though. At an age where you're literally screwing up everywhere, or, you know, at least it feels like it, and you're probably insanely awkward. self conscious, not popular and have a difficult time with dating and relationships, I guess a but of escapism into the life of someone exactly the opposite of that would be appealing.
I think that's splitting hairs. You haven't failed if it's not your fault and that's the critical part. Yes, I agree that a Mary Sue doesn't always get everything their way but that's not the same as saying that they can fail. No-one says that you've failed at roulette if your number doesn't come up, or that you're a bad driver if someone else runs a red light and hits your car. The world can still do things that you don't like but again, you as a character aren't to blame. The audience never saw them fail, they saw them get hit by a tidal wave. The important part about having a relationship with failure is that you did something wrong. And that's what the Mary Sue type character is lacking. It doesn't matter that they can be swept away by circumstance; they aren't to blame and they need never judge themselves for it. Perhaps the most telling part of a Mary Sue character is their lack of self-awareness and self-reflection. They never have cause to wonder if actually they are kinda shit and stupid just like everyone else in the world. That's something that stops a character being relatable and in fact makes them feel just foul. Because they are robots; they lack the spark of life. Because it is a part of the human condition to fear that you aren't as good as you hoped, to think that maybe you can't cope with this, that maybe it's your fault everyone you love leaves you. That's part of what makes us people. And a Mary Sue doesn't think that. It doesn't matter whether they get everything their own way or not, it doesn't matter if circumstances sweep them away, what matters is if they look at themselves in the mirror and have to face up to the fact that it was their fault.
Okay, that may be a stupid question, but could anyone give me examples of particular Mary Sues? I've never encountered one in books, and once in my life I'd like to read a book with a stereotypical Mary Sue or Gary Sue to let me understand what you all are talking about
Dude, seriously? Frodo, Harry Potter, John Snow and the ridiculously fake blonde from Game of Thrones(this holds true in the books), Shadow Moon (I never finished American Gods so maybe he stops being a Sue...)
The most Mary Sue-ish character I've ever read is Ayla in the Earth's Children series. But she doesn't reach her full Mary Sue potential until the third book (The Mammoth Hunters) and I'm not sure how much sense it'll make to read #3 in isolation...
One of the most eye-crossing Mary Sues I've encountered in recent fiction was Kvothe in Patrick Rothfuss's Name of the Wind and the book that followed. I chugged dismally through the two books, hoping Kvothe would fail at something, ANYTHING. But after he perfected every art, science, armed and unarmed combat, and mastered every social setup AND learned several new languages in about a month's time, he then successfully bedded the fairy queen (whom nobody else ever dared approach, or something like that) or whatever she was—I gave up. You want to see a Mary Sue in action? I can't think of a more complete example. Oh yeah, and he can cover long distances in headily short times without the apparent need of food, water or rest as well. You should see what HE did on his summer vacation! And no, he's not a god. He's just a regular guy with impossibly red hair, and if memory serves me right, green eyes. What's not to love?
This is a surprisingly fair point because I've never come across a Mary Sue either, other than the original one (Lt Mary Sue from a Star Trek fanfic) and that I only read to see what the fuss was about. Perhaps that's because I don't read all that much and certainly don't read books just to see if I'll like them but I don't think that Mary Sues are as common as people make out. I think there certainly are Mary Sueish traits out there but really it's just become shorthand for "This character is a bit too perfect to be real". I don't think Frodo or Harry Potter are Sues at all. I think Frodo is part of a book that has some weird christian undertones to it and basically wins out because he's pure of heart enough to carry the ring but that's kinda core to the theme of the books. It's like saying that Aslan (or indeed Jesus) is a Mary Sue; that kinda misses the point of the books they appear in. They aren't normal people, they are inspirational paragons. Part of the point of LOTR is that all the races of men are fallible and corruptable to the power of the ring and even the Elves can't be trusted despite being all magic; even Gandalf doesn't trust himself with it. The only thing you can trust is the childlike, naive, bumbling hobbits to carry the ring. And the book shows that playing out. It's much the same for Harry Potter. Harry fucks up a lot. And he has to deal with that. Both in his romantic life and in his wizardly doings he doesn't just walk in and things work for him. Right from Philosophers Stone Harry depends on his friends to help him beat the bad guy and (again) he beats Voldemort because he has something inside him that burns to beat the bad guy more than for anything else so when he looks in the mirror he sees how to win. Yes, he's a 'chosen one' character, but I think Dumbledore is right that he was 'chosen' by Voldermort and that one day he would eventually necessarily create someone like Harry to destroy him because tyrants always do. And maybe in reality that's not quite true, but that's again central to the themes of the books. Especially as the books get more grown up Harry become less and less successful. He's good in a scrap but he is not the guy you want conducting covert missions because he's bullheaded and never quite trusts that anyone knows better than him. The majority of Deathly Hallows is them wandering around flailing and failing. Read a certain way Snape is the hero of the Harry Potter books; that's how ineffectual of a hero Harry really is. Snape is the reason why everything in the books happens the way that it does. Snape sets up Harry to be in the position to be the one to kill Voldemort; literally so. Snape's interventions in the last two books are literally the only reason why Harry could complete his quest. And Snape is a much more successful character than Harry. He's flawed, so he's not a Mary Sue, but Snape is definitely the guy you want to be doing covert, sneaky, morally grey shit. Snape is a legitimate operative and a dangerous man. Harry, by contrast, is just following the breadcrumbs that wiser and more powerful men laid out for him. He is Dumbledore's cats-paw much more so than he is doing his own thing. Now Dumbledore; that guy is a Mary Sue; so frikking smart that he created a plan that involved his own death that somehow miraculously enabled him to still win.
What can you say about an ill-defined derogatory character label? That it is totally meaningless. It's a way to disparage a characterization without bothering with actual reasons. And the fuzzy thinkers will nod vacantly and cackle, "That's exactly the problem! You've nailed it." Then everyone scurries on to the next piece of writing, secure in their superiority. Characters aren't perfect, and neither is their creation. One common but incorrect interpretation of a Mary Sue is a character who can do no wrong. Never the original meaning, which was indeed author self-insertion. But a flawed character in the sense of one which to perform the function the author intendedbrequires more than a dismissive label. It requires identifying why the character falls short, and working to correct that deficiency. In fact, the character may be just fine, because the author usually doesn't want a acharacter who always gets it right (and yet that may be exactly what the author wants). Some characters, especially female characters, get stamped with the red MS stamp because they make weak choices - just like real people. Real flaws are legion. A character may either be completely inconsistent in how he or she faces similar, although real people do that too. Or he or she may be TOO consistent for a reader to believe. He or she may be flat, lacking any perceivable complexity, any diverse facets. No label will fix any of these. A label merely dismisses. So forget about Mary Sue or Gary Stu. Don't bother with "critiques" that condemn characters so glibly. Character development is important, but doesn't mean your readers must love or approve of every character.
Well, as I understood the term from the definition in this thread, Mary Sues are characters that are perfect and don't fail in anything. They aren't real people, because they are too perfect to be real. By this definition, any character that has self-doubts and has to work hard to overcome them would be excluded. Frodo: Is terrified a whole lot of the time, but he tries to do what his heart tells him is the right thing. Harry Potter: May be a legitimate example but then I've never read the whole series. I'll go with I admit I enjoyed reading the first four books, because they were plain old fun. And Harry couldn't have achieved what he did without his friends. Without Hermione, Ron, and Neville, he wouldn't have gotten past the trap in book 1. John Snow: Mind I've only read the first book (and I've not watched the TV series), but in this book he comes over as someone who has a lot of faults, e.g. how he deals with being the illegitimate son. He attempts to run away from the Watch, and gets set straight by his friends. I've actually read the whole series (and regretted it by book five at the latest). Now Ayla has a whole lot of luck, but she struggles to overcome her difficulty in dealing with other people of her kind, up until book four. The last two/three installments (I forgot how many there have been) now are fair points, but she didn't start out that way and I got the impression that Auel gave up on the series and only wrote to get out of the contract with her publishers. This one I've not read yet. Maybe I'll do it. Thanks for the tip So, long post short: If the above characters are Mary/Gary Sues, then a skilled author can make them engaging to read about. It's all about execution, or am I wrong?
I think that people are very quick to judge about who is a Sue and who isn't. There's a tendency to call any mediocre hero a Sue simply because they eventually win. Harry Potter is a good example; I love the books but Harry is a mediocre character much less interesting than those around him. He's bland and not hugely well characterized (so the kids can project into him) and that can lead to him appearing to just be great at everything. Because he's good at school but not a nerd, he's good at magic including magic-fightin', he's fearless and won't be bullied, he's handsome and famous and so forth. And yet he riles against his fame and is awful with girls who don't talk about fighting dark wizards; he has a kinda touchy vanity to him that makes him push back against anyone who tries to get him to do something he doesn't want even when that's people who know much better than him. He isn't actually good at school; he's only good at the subjects he gives a damn about (a very relatable, very normal trait) and his ability with magic is a talent not a skill and he doesn't really think of himself as being some powerful wizard. In fact all his great feats of magic are the result of Dumbledore's machinations (twin wand cores, wand mastery, magical relics etc). Yes he does ridiculous things that he probably shouldn't. But he can't take Voldemort in a fight until right at the very end when he's spent 7 years underminding his power and growing his own. And that is, well, that's good character stuff. He grows as a character, undergoes challenges and trials and learns and improves while covertly chipping away at the dark lord's power and finally, finally Harry can take a shot at him when all the pieces are in place and suddenly Voldemort is very human and Harry can overcome him. And while I don't like a lot of how Harry is written (HE SHOULD BE WITH HERMIONE, FUCKING FIGHT ME!) because he is kinda bland and is a bit facile it's hard to argue that he is just perfect. Almost every time that the core group are in deathly danger in the book is Harry's fault; sometimes because he's bull headed, sometimes because he's not as smart as he thinks, sometimes because he didn't listen. But it's mostly his fault. Ron gets them into comedy hijinks by being awful. Harry's flaws are more damning because they are legitimate character flaws. Ron is bumbling, Harry decides he knows better. Now we can argue about how well written Harry is (pathcily IMHO) but that's not the same as him being poorly conceived. I can totally understand why anyone would say Harry is a crappy character that they hate. But it's hard to have read all the books and feel that he's some perfect angel who just waves his hand and always succeeds. There are Sueish elements to him, as there will be for every heroic character because heroes are always better than normal people and more successful than normal people. But again, this doesn't make him a badly conceived character. He grows, he struggles, he fails, he blames himself for Dumbledore's death (spoilers!) and he's right to do so because it is his fault, and he finally learns to trust what Dumbledore told him and do as he's told and that is what makes him a man because he goes out expecting to die. Sure, he's a hero. Metatexually no-one would believe a seven book epic ends with the hero being shot in the head and cutting to black (my seven book epic would end that way, just saying) but you can't take that knowledge of the form and say that there is no sense of peril involved here. Flaws alone don't necessarily make someone not a Sue, but flaws are a reasonable argument against that. And being poorly written is not the same as being a Sue either. Sue-ness comes from how a character was conceived, from their construction. No matter if you hate Harry but he is a flawed character and one conceived to be imperfect and grow into his ability and finally to win after much exertion, failure and growth. And again; that doesn't mean he's a good character, but it means he's not a Sue. Think back; would Lt Mary Sue, the youngest lieutenant in Star Fleet at fifteen and a half years old, would she solve problems by failing, admitting her weakness, growing and finally, eventually overcoming after much personal hardship?
I entirely disagree on Frodo and Harry Potter. I don't recall Shadow Moon or the Game of Thrones characters clearly enough.
Harry Potter and Frodo were both chosen for their tasks. They didn't earn it. Hey inherited it. Hey from his parents, Frodo from Bilbo. Harry's and Frodo's solutions to their respective major conflicts are likewise both inherited. Harry's mother's love and Frodo's ring. Finally, both Harry and Frodo are eschewed across a rather linear path tto reach their final destination. Harry has Dumbledore who explains everything, Hagfid who protects him, and Ron and Hermione who are always there for problem solving. Then there is the myriad of potter fans, who love him just because of his scar. Frodo has an entire fellowship at his disposal. His Dumbledore is Gandalf and his Hermione is Sam. Both ultimately succeed and live. Think of Fight Club. The MC builds his club on his own and his ultimate enemy winds up being himself, and at the end of the story, his cheek is blown off.
By saying 'author self-insertion' here, do you mean authors creating their own wish fulfillment? (If that's not what you mean, just ignore this comment!) That's a very interesting idea, actually, and may well be what's behind not only the creation of what are referred to as Mary Sues, but also why so many readers seem to like these characters. In fact, it's why a lot of us read books—to vicariously experience another life without getting our own ashes hauled. I guess Mary Sue-ness is only a problem when the wish fulfillment crosses into silly territory ...and silly will be, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
Just a slight niggle with your argument here. Frodo's solution to his major conflict isn't his ring. The ring IS his major conflict! Without the ring, Frodo would have just lived out his life in a happy hole in Hobbiton, no doubt being quite a Mary Sue. The ring is a huge hindrance and responsibility for Frodo, and the whole reason for his journey is to get rid of it before it screws up the world. Tolkien didn't give Frodo a ring of power to make things easy for him at all. In fact, Frodo is told by Gandalf near the start—and this is reinforced at the Council of Elrond as the Fellowship sets out—that he should never use it and must keep it absolutely secret. So it's anything but a magic aid to his progress ...and when he does use it as a last resort, he gets into grave difficulty with the Nazgul. Frodo has to fight the power of the ring nearly the whole way, and it drains him to a dangerous degree. A Mary Sue, on the other hand, would simply make his way by hook or crook to the Crack of Doom, chuck the ring in, and dust off his hands. Which isn't exactly what happens to Frodo, is it? In fact, he actually does fail in his quest, and somebody else has to take the ring into the fire. The only thing Frodo did to create that situation was to have spared Gollum's life. He originally wanted Gollum dead, and only changed his mind because of what Gandalf told him ...can you give life to those who deserve it? Then don't be too quick to take it away from those who don't. Only the wise see all ends. So Frodo can't even take total credit for his compassion, because Gandalf instilled it in him. Frodo doesn't quite get the happy ending we felt he deserved for all his effort, does he. After any major trauma, you can't just go back to the way things used to be, can you? I loved that scene in the movie, near the end, where the four hobbits are sitting in the pub, back in Hobbiton, and listening to the mundane conversations going on around them ...and they just look at each other. They have all been changed by their experience. That's something else that a classic Mary Sue doesn't do ...change.
This is incorrect for Frodo. Frodo fails in destroying the one ring; he chooses to keep it for himself in the end. It is Gollum in the book that destroys the ring. Also, Frodo might have 'lived' but his life is only a shadow of what it was. (This is why he HAS to go to Valinor. He's too tormented to stay in Middle Earth.) The Brilliance of the Lord of The Rings trilogy is the hero fails in his quest, and his 'punishment' is that he has to leave Middle Earth.
