When I watch TNG I make stories about what Miles O'Brian is doing off screen; guys a fucking war hero man, he deserves more respect. And it's definitely funnier if every time Wesley walks out of shot Picard is saying "Seriously though Beverly...". They would have gotten six stars from me if Wesley's parenthood became a plot point. And it's marginally nicer to presume Picard isn't just *ahem* enthusiastic to have a pliant youth on his bridge and everyone else is covering for him because Picard is a great man, dammit! Why would you lie Wesley!
Here's my question about that. Are there books out there that are like that? Can you think of some examples? What if someone did just that and it was written so well it was still good? Ignoring your sexual fetish remark. I think if it's done right it could still have the capacity to be a good story if that. I myself have nothing against Wesley's character. He doesn't really bother me even if the character is well not needed in the story. I don't mind his character. LMAO at this.
Not being much of a Star Trek fan, I always figured it was his kid (but then struggled with who Stewart is in real life in relation to that).
Having a freak out right now so I might disappear for a bit. My husband asked me where the piece of artwork that is in my avatar is. And I can't find it, T.T It was supposed to be framed....
Ultimately, you should write what you want, but realize that when it comes to selling for money, certain things are harder to sell than others.
After reading a lot of the posts on here, I think the word that differs a Mary Sue from any other written character is "effort". A Mary Sue does not require effort to accomplish their goals, and the plot rolls out like a red carpet before them. Whatever they want to do, they are able to do it, whether now or later. That being said, it doesn't mean that a Mary Sue always succeeds in their goals, but when they do fail, there is no growth in them as a character. They don't learn from their mistakes, they don't improve their ability or character, and they don't see the benefit in doing either. They might be angry and bitter or depressed and mopey, but the signature difference between the Mary Sue and another type of character, is that the other character will take those emotions and either move forward or backward. The Mary Sue does not move. Instead their character remains stagnant, and they are exactly the same as they were before the failure or success.
Honestly, none of these definitions, including mine, are actually the real definition of Mary Sue. We're basically just using our own preferences to make a category. The best way to do this is too look at specific works and find patterns in certain protagonists, and then use those patterns to come up with a useful definition. In the most general sense, most of us are ultimately saying the same thing. "These characters have it too easy." But the finer details vary widely.
Really Really Really Good News Guys! Guess what I'm glad my husband sent me into a panic to look for that artwork. I packed it away in a frame lol, but that's not the best part. I found more of my old writing pertaining to my story! I lost it in the move. It was in the same box! I'm calling good luck on that!
I'm a bit torn on this point because I really don't think a Sue is a matter of taste; it's bad writing which is a much greater sin. I agree that it's more of an art than a science in determining who you want to put the label on but I don't really feel like it's personal preference; it's more like arguing whether this shade of turquoise is green or blue. There's room for interpretation and many things might have some Sue-like tendencies and that makes it hard to divide something that's obviously a spectrum into black and white categories.
I think focusing on one character too much sometimes adds to the sue accusations too. What I want to do is make a heroic fantasy and follow multiple main characters and have them all grow. I want to write a side story for 3 of my villains. I want my readers to sympathize with all my characters and blur the right and wrong. Wow... that was shite writing... lmao ETA: Also interwork a complicated political love story in lol.
Ah, I see what you mean. The 'Chosen One' syndrome. Well, Frodo was certainly Chosen—remember Gandalf's remarks about how the ring was 'meant' to be found by Bilbo, and 'meant' to come to Frodo, and not by its original owner? I think this 'chosen' thing is connected more to the fantasy quest trope (with the eventual success of the quest built in to the storyline and expected by the readers) than it is to Mary Sue-ness. But I see what you mean. I do think we're using slightly different definitions of Mary Sue-ness, though. The Mary Sue who irritates me is the character who can amass more skills at a greater speed than anyone else, and has physical attributes and inborn talents we can only goggle at. That doesn't mean a character can't be a prodigy, but most real prodigies are usually only good at one thing. A child prodigy who could play the piano like Mozart at the age of five, do complicated math problems like Einstein at the age of six, at the age of eighteen can beat off every enemy with his bare hands like Jackie Chan's alter-ego (without ruining his ability to play the piano like Mozart), already has the life wisdom of Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama combined, brings Mother Theresa to the masses on EVERY continent while being most beautiful male dancer (with red hair and green eyes) and most coveted marriage catch in the world—that's a Mary Sue, in my definition. ........edited. Here's an intriguing twist. What if the above Mary Sue looks like he has all the above talents, wisdom, compassion and beauty, but in actual fact has a heart that is as dark as a black cat in a coal bin at midnight? Woo. Now that's turning Mary Sue-ness on its head. Think of the damage THAT kind of person could do.
Yeah. It's not black and white, is it? (Well, not usually ...) I think, as a writer, it's important to be aware of the concept of Mary Sue and make sure you're not unintentionally creating a blatant example of it. Roddenberry is dead, but if he wasn't, I imagine he'd be slinking along the wall towards the exit right about now.
https://www.writingforums.org/threads/battle-scene-sample-1-witch-battle-word-count-1388.153808/ So I finally watched this. And it seems almost every character out there breaks some or all of those rules to some degree at some point. Like everything I ever read lol. On another note, once again mostly bagging on female characters. lol So a lot of romance novels do the triangle thing whats wrong with that? Or having a James Bond character? Make it funny as crap! Like humiliating bar scenes XD puke on dates leg because to drunk.
I feel as if, again, you're assuming that matching even one of the problem criteria is supposed to make a character totally worthless and make the fictional work that they're in also totally worthless. And then arguing against that premise. But no one is saying that. Imagine that someone said, "Junk food is full of fat and salt," and someone else said, "But these fine dishes all contain some salt!" (Edited because the end made no sense.)
Are real-people-who-think-they're-ugly-but-are-beautiful also good at everything they try no matter how little effort they put into mastering it, universally beloved except by people jealous of them, possessing several unique traits that make them better than everyone else, and free of flaws? Nope. One trait does not make a Mary Sue. It's an amalgamation.
It's really important not to confuse any kind of predestined whathaveyou for Sueness though, especially not in fantasy where there is literally destiny. I think we can agree that predestined heroes are a bit of a cliche, but in a world where that concept makes sense in it's own terms that doesn't make a character into a Sue. All but the most facile and awful of writing plays somewhat with the sense of destiny and makes the character rile against it or find that destiny is less certain than we thought and, well, if we get to that point then it's a better developed character pretty obviously. I think that's a much better characteristic for a Sue; the omni-disciplinary expert who never really has to try. You take a character like the eponymous Buffy and even though she's destined for greatness and has vastly improved strength as well as preternatural martial arts skills she is a blunt object who needs the others to point her in the right direction and thus not a Sue. When a character can just magically acquire the skills they need on a moments notice (instead of cheating or brute forcing their way through the problem) then they are likely a Sue too. They definitely aren't a Sue though
It's even worse when it turns out they had these skills and talents all along, and just pulled them out of the hat when needed! (Oh, didn't you know, I taught martial arts before coming here, and also used to repair train engines for a living..?) Grrrrr....
I sort of agree. There definitely is a kind of Sue who if they were a Top Trump card they would have a 10 in everything, or at least in so many categories that you don't need any other cards to win. But I don't think that quite covers it totally. Yes a Sue needs to be hyper-competent in more than one aspect of their lives but you can write a character who is a fuck up in some areas who is still a Sue. Think about that specific kind of character who is obviously an asshole but who is just so damn brilliant that no-one cares how much of a bellend they are. I think that character is still a Sue, for being insufferably able of solving the whole plot by themselves and constantly coming up with new areas of specialized knowledge out of their ass. That character might be physically incapable or unattractive or have other personal problems but they clearly are the only person that we really need to solve the case (or whatever). They have flaws but in the end that's windowdressing; they'd have 10's in all your core top trumps categories, they've just been given a picture where they look a bit moody and troubled, while still being a 10 in everything. If anything it's more obnoxious than the 'everyone loves me' character because at least there legitimately are charismatic, charming people who most people like. They likely aren't amazing at everything else but at least that part of them makes sense. By contrast it does strain credibility that absolutely everyone is so wowed by your mind that no-one will even mention what a cunt you are. It plays well for comedy effect but in reality such people get informed by headbutt how much they are disliked. And, as it turns out, no-one is that smart and more often than not it's much more valuable to have someone less smart who isn't a raging cock. My point is that I think that Sueness is something that is really in the abstract of the character. A Sue can have flaws, they just typically won't ever stop them being amazing in the regards that actually matter to the plot. And that's what we really need to think about, the things that actually matter to the plot and the challenges involved with it. A Sue isn't someone perfect at everything, it's just someone who's good enough at the things that matter in that book. Think about all the brilliant detectives with a drinking problem and an awful love life in books where we never see their drinking actually get in the way of anything nor their love life become relevant to the case. What you end up with someone who is just a genius detective in disguise, someone who's only characteristics from the point of view of the whole plot are positive and no-one else is really needed. You can have a character who is gorgeous and charming and successful and intelligent who isn't a Sue; as long as the other parts of the character that are less than perfect are relevant to the plot. I want to see his ex-wife show up, his drug problem come to bite him, someone whose thunder he stole that bore a grudge coming back after him. That's someone who can fail and whose demons are right there in the story preventing him being as successful as he would like. That is, I think, where the core of Sueness truly lies. A Sue is someone who has the ability to handle everything, including all their own problems, and everyone else gets that and makes way for them to handle everything.
Quite. It's bad enough to see a montage where someone just learns some complex and impossible skill so quickly that they may as well just have always known, but it's so much worse when things just keep getting retconned into their background. It's fine that a character can be an expert in one thing but two is straining credibility. Even if you were a martial arts instructor it takes a lifetime to actually be genuinely good at it. Same for playing violin, same for most things. You can't dedicate your life to all these things simultaneously.
The tricky part is being able to make them all sufficiently different they feel memorable across a long period of a book without making them so uniquely memorable that the reader fixates on one and is annoyed when you cut away.
I was just kinda being lame there for fun. Sorry if I confused. I was going for purposefully contradictory. I probably should have left more detail in this sorry. I realize that. I wasn't going for the talents part so much as emphasizing one facet of human nature. Good point though. So how do you approach a god being? They are supposed to be perfect to an extent but what if you want to humanize them but at the same time make them feel like a whole other animal? Who would you suggest I go about that? Need some advice, dealing with main character mortals and immortals in different situations, not always in the same circles. Thank you. Question about this. What if I want a God character in my book that gets into trouble and is fractured into different pieces/persona's they have similarities but have major portions of those persona's that make them wholly different. One persona is dark with capacity for evil, another intentionally flat and lacking personality or free will, and another that is righteous and courageous? The goal, in the end, is to reunite itself as solving the original problem. They would have similar fighting styles/weapons and disciplines to carry that theme of it's the same being into perspective. This would be a male figure. Is that too similar? On top of which I want to represent it from a religious aspect in my series, showing the deeper meaning of self. Your thoughts?
I suppose we all know people whom we would describe as 'multi-talented' or people who seemingly can pick up something like a musical instrument and learn to play it easily. (Somebody like Chris Thile of The Punch Brothers.) These people do exist. (I know a few.) But there will be limits. And they won't be able to do everything to perfection.
