These are my results from the Mary Sue Test I took: https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/quizreport.php?title=is-your-protagonist-mary-sue&sid=166143256# While some things are legitimately bad to use for a character, I found most of it to be kind of unfair. Every other test tallied up the answers. This one just says whether each individual thing is good or bad. Most of these aren't bad by themselves. It felt pretty biased to me. And maybe I want a little angst in my story. I want some characters to have not-so-good back stories and get emotional sometimes. Is that really going to turn readers/publishers off that much? Maybe they're right?
Same here. But I'll say it anyway, I don't think it's a good test, because few of these are. Execution matters far more than concept, and a lot of "classic Mary Sue" traits can work just fine if they're part of a convincing and 3d character. Just put a bit of thought into the traits and don't go overboard trying to force the readers to like this character, and they'll probably be fine.
A Mary Sue is a character that sits at the center of the universe, and who the universe bends for. People use the term as an umbrella for everything they don't like. Often sexist.
I sure don't think some computer-generated test is the best judge of your characters. I would trust myself as a writer, before I went looking for something like this. Do you really need this? Even if you think you do need some sort of help something like that probably isn't the best place to get it. And if you don't like the answers you got, I wouldn't worry to much. I think something like that is more for fun than an actual writing tool.
This right here. It's funny how the descriptive internet undid what the prescriptive printing press started. There was a time - before the printing press - when semantic shift was perfectly normal. Words changed meaning quickly across geographic distances and through time. It's why the English word deception and the Spanish word decepción don't mean the same thing even though they have the same etymology. I remember being really miffed at the way news media took the word narrative and repurposed it to mean particular point of view, which took about two weeks to transform into opposing points of view, which turned into outright lie the other guy is telling about a week later. But, the linguist in me became fascinated with this return to organic word use. Mary Sue is no different. People take a particular aspect or set of aspects of the Mary Sue - aspects that may only be coincidental and not core - and assume the meaning is that. Repeat enough times and voilà, semantic shift.
This.... And basically let your character be natural, be human. And as humans they have flaws and learning processes to go through.
It also doesnt always matter. Jack Reacher is a classic example of a marty stu character who is clever and handsome and ripped, and charming, and practically perfect in every way , and the whole universe bends to his will, women fall at his feet, ne'er a perceptible flaw. "Men want to be him, women want to be with him" But it hasn't stopped him being wildly popular with readers - in fact his popularity stems from the escapism offered by the idea of such perfection in a world where so many heroes are flawed
I thought it was Gary Stu? as for this Reacher Character, sounds boring to me. Edit: Actually I kind of like Marty Stu Better because Marty is a gender neutral name.
Agreed in full. Another writing term that falls under this spell is polemic. We are constantly warned against the polemic. Thou shalt not attempt to teach a lesson to the audience nor present a biased opinion. Yet works written specifically as polemics are wildly popular to those who wish to ascribe to said ideology. The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, The Handmaid's Tale, every religious tome in existence... Whether one does or does not agree with or ascribe to the different messages in the above books is neither here nor there. They are polemics and they are very popular.
Also, moved to Character Development where it clearly belongs. Seriously, people, can you please look at the other headings in this section of the forum.
I remember someone once referring to Reacher as the American James Bond. I loathe the fact that they cast Tom Cruise for the role.
How about having read Interview With The Vampire and then they cast him as Lestat. All sex-appeal, right down the toilet. Stewart Townsend, on the other hand, in Queen of the Damned.... *makes sexy cat noise*
Yeah, because she got her ass kicked by everyone, blood bent, could hardly learn air bending, seeking out struggle in a world that is rolling without her, methyl mercury poisoning, and ended up in a wheelchair for twenty episodes while everyone asked her why she wasn't doing more. This is the opposite of a Mary Sue.
Its probably not unconnected to teeny tom owning the film company that makes them. I remember reading Lee Child's take on the casting where IIRC he said something like" I thought about my artistic integrity, and how I visualised Reacher, then I looked at the number of zeros on the contract and said yes" I can't blame him. Cruise would be completely wrong for my Dusty Miller character, but if he offered me that kind of cash ... rumored to be $250k per film, I'd snatch his hand off ... hell I'd take $25k ... or $2.5k
I did, but I guess I was overthinking it too much. Avoiding a Mary sue seemed more like general writing advice at the time. Sorry.
I wouldn't call Korra a mary sue. She's a terrible character for sure, but that's a whole other conversation. Anyways, the whole concept of mary sues is one that, while can be good to keep in mind, can be a pitfall for early writers. The main reason for that is no one seems to have an actual definition for it. It's mostly just a term thrown around to refer to skilled characters that the reader doesn't like. Now overpowered characters are a whole other type of conversation. Some can be absolutely annoying, and others have the potential to be some of the best characters in fiction (I think one of the best examples of this would be Meruem from Hunter x Hunter). If being overpowered is what determines a mary sue, then pretty much every hero from classic mythology would classify as such. Out of all the definitions I've heard of it, the best seems to be that a mary sue is a character who is the complete center of everything in the story, to the point that they warp the way that the characters around them think and act (for example, they're easily forgiven for a misdeed by a character who is known for be untrusting). Hope this helps.
Actually, Cruise as Lestat is one of my favourite of his roles. I didn't think he was sexy at all ...he was blooming scary because he didn't give a total shit about anybody. And he projected that demented energy that drove the character. I thought he was perfect for the role.
Just make sure to give your character a flaw, like being headstrong or overprotective of her friends, and you should be fine.
Ya see, Tiny Tom C. could never play my MC Marckus. Marckus is 6ft 4, intimidating, and not a Marty-Stu Though I have seen Tiny Tom miscast a few times. Alas Tiny Tom C. you are over the hill.
I think that based on the first couple questions (I didn't do the whole thing because I think I actually took that quiz before) all of those things put together make for a mary sue. Just because your weapon has a name doesn't make your character a mary sue, because come on, Excalibur people. And same with "does your character know their parents in the beginning." So yes, if you have a bunch of those things in one charcater, you might have a mary sue, but if you only have maybe three, you're probably alright.
I think that all those Mary Sue factors are useful for writers who may still think “My character can defeat whole armies and defines a new standard of beauty! That’s guaranteed to be fascinating, right?” Once you understand that flawless characters with immense power are actually boring, you’ve learned the main lesson.