This is an interesting topic for me. I've always had a desire to create "perfect" characters, and yet have always hated them. The conundrum has led me to ponder "why" for a long time, and these are my thoughts: Mary Sues are an ideal. That's why so many people love and hate them. In an ideal world there would be no disease, no hate, no selfishness, no destruction, no death, etc., and some people clung to that ideal, inventing the term "utopia." Other people feared a perfect world would also mean no struggle, which would mean no growth (ironically though, that would then not be a utopia) and they clung to an anti-ideal of the world being structured around the grime and dirt of living, inventing the term "dystopia." Mary Sues are like the utopia. They reflect the ideals of some people in a perfectly (good) way that never goes wrong. That's exciting for some, just as the opposite is exciting for others. The rising anti-hero seems to be the dystopia. Personally, I think the "anti-heroes" of late have become so popular thanks to the Mary Sue in superheros and other characters of the past. People get bored or disillusioned and the reigning ideal shifts, however, both will be forever loved. And both will also be forever radical by nature. Since both must be a reflection of ourselves (our ideals are shaped by beliefs which are limited by experience which is limited by what we are) they are inherently, irreconcilably (and humorously, imo) flawed. This being because our ideals are often radical and flawed, which comes out when we bend nature in writing to make them nature's truth. This also means when we read about the Mary Sue, unless we're in it for the blind action or sex scenes, we're "yes man"-ing ourselves. And when we write perfect characters, we're potentially stroking our own egos. Ultimately, the unrealistic natures of these "perfect" characters means both are anti-reality. For me, that makes them useless.
I thought Mary Sues could only be in fanfiction because they're characters made up by the writer who outshine established characters by the author of the original work. For example, say someone wrote a Naruto fanficion where there's a character who has a rougher past than the character Naruto, is more powerful, is smarter, and is just basically all-around better than Naruto in every way (plus she's gorgeous). That's my understanding of a Mary Sue: a made-up character who upstages established characters in the storyline that a fanfiction is about. Fanfiction invented the term, so doesn't it make sense that the term only fits within fanfiction?
To throw one more definition into the pot, I think the common trait of "Mary Sue" characters is that the author never has them look uncool, even if the character is nominally less than perfect. They can suffer and even die, but it'll be noble martyrdom. They can have flaws, but those flaws are presented to only make them endearing (workaholic, protective, too nice). If they get hurt or set back, it'll be to show how resilient they are. There's never a moment where they're intentionally unlikable or uncool.
So deep... @Elven Candy To expand, no it's not exclusive to fanfics. It started out as a term associated with fanfics, but over the years it's evolved to a term that basically means any spotless, immaculate "hero" who never faces challenges, always wins, changes the canon rules on a whim and obviously is an author insert/political statement. See: Rey or Captain Marvel, who have become almost synonymous with the terms in recent years, and who are basically godlike characters with absurd powers and skills who can do no wrong, designed purely to make a political statement or Wesley Crusher who, I would argue, is basically the archetypal version of the very concept--an impeccable, squeaky clean uber mensch who also happens to be a genius and is an obvious author insert. These three are kinda "extreme" versions, as they're basically the archetypes like I said, but perfect examples.
As seen by the number of differing opinions in this thread, there is no single be-all end-all definition to a Mary Sue. Even if we used your definition, that would not limit Sues to fanfiction because we have classical works in the public domain. I suppose you could call reimaginings of such works fanfiction, but unless you do then there is a valid place to insert new characters into existing works outside of fanfiction.
In the first version of my fantasy series the MC was a Mary Sue. This came about because of my desire to keep the MC the center of the story. In doing so I created a utility knife character. But, this was at the detriment of the other characters. The best friend became the 'side kick'; plucky and encouraging, and the other characters was solely there for plot progression and backstory. In version two of the series, I distributed the characteristics of the MC among the supporting cast. I am very happy that I did. All the other characters are now so much more interesting, and impotant. And guess what? The MC is still proactive, and at the forefront of the story. I wonder if creating a Mary Sue shows an author's lack of skill, an ulterior motive, or a lack of faith in the MC?
I've seen very talented and proven authors employ Mary Sues. It's a very seductive character trap, especially for certain genres.
Would you mind teasing that out some more for me? I'm not exactly sure what sorts of things you're covering with 'ulterior motive.'
When the MC becomes an allegory for a view the writer wants to express. The MC William Leadford in H.G. Wells' In the Days of the Comet come to mind. But, in my opinion, the whole book is about Wells' social views veiled as a story.
Isn’t that a lot of stories? John Truby defines theme as “the authors view of the right way to live with other people.”
I see somebody didn't read the OP. Regarding the discussion about Mary Sues, fanfic, and original work, I'll say that while the term has its place outside fanfic, it's been overused and lost a lot of its punch. I regularly see characters who have real flaws, face plenty of actual challenges, and make mistakes get called Sues. True Sues effortlessly breeze through opposition, destroying all dramatic tension. True Sues are always right; every character who agrees with them is portrayed as being good, and everyone who disagrees is portrayed as bad. The lack of flaws (or the narrative just ignoring them) makes True Sues obnoxious and eliminates avenues of potential conflict. Very few of the commonly cited "Sues" in original works qualify.
Words have meaning. And before it got bastardized into "character I don't like", Sues meant exactly what I outlined. A character that never has to struggle. A character that's always right. A character the narrative never allows to look bad.
That's true, but it doesn't support your point. Like it or not, Mary Sue doesn't have a universally agreed on definition. So in order to use the label productively in conversations one has to provide the definition they believe captures it best. Purple prose has a meaning, but it's largely subjective. I view Mary Sue similarly.
It had a nigh universally agreed upon meaning in the circles that used it. Which is my point. If somebody starts calling squares circles instead, that doesn't make their new usage worthy of consideration; it just makes them wrong.
I'm not convinced that's true. But even if it were, that's not much of a point. Like it or not, definitions can (and frequently do) evolve.
Sure, but these evolutions can end up in a contradictory mess that causes unnecessary confusion. "Factoid" is a good example. It has two definitions that mean the exact opposite of each other.
I do think everyone or most writers know what a Mary Sue character means and know to avoid having one. Sure, there are plenty of examples that can be given, but that doesn't change what a Mary Sue character is or that it's a pretty big no-no in the writing world. And, personally, I don't see how or why this definition would change. I think it's more important to realize why this kind of character doesn't work, rather than depending the use of it. It's a bad thing. Period.
I've been doing a bit of reading about the Mary Sue thing. Yeah, the definitions have changed a bit, but I think really only one of them is something I pay attention to, for writing purposes. I try hard not to make things easy (or predictible) for my characters. As far as reading goes, I have no objection whatsoever with 'author insertion'—depending on how it's handled—nor am I going to get sidetracked by Sympathetic Sue (a character who is chronically angsty and miserable) or a Snarky Sue (somebody who is sarcastic but loved by all, etc) or Smarty Sue (somebody who can figure out how to solve problems easier than most.) For me, a Mary Sue is somebody who is given too easy a passage through the story. Possibly this happens through 'special powers' (a term that makes me shudder right at the start), incredible good luck at every turn, an amazing penchant for pulling JUST what is needed out of the bag of tricks every time a problem arises, has a faultless sense of timing (always just happens to be in the right place at the right time), speaks every language under the sun (and moon) and and and.... These are characters who make a story bland and predictible. No amount of 'action' or pyrotechnics of any kind can compensate for a main character who never puts a foot wrong, and never comes to harm. They may be threatened by harm, but damn, they easily manage to escape it every time, don't they.
I think this character is a Mary Sue: Additional Spoilers: Spoiler She has a tragic past that she is unbothered by, except for curiosity about her role in the world. Her "flaws" are being too nice, naïve, loving conflict, but she is never punished for any of these. In one or two occasions, she inspires villains to be their better selves. The only battle she "loses" she took in order to force another character to do what she wanted. She found an upgraded body but the doctor wouldn't transplant her into it, so she got her old body destroyed in a battle, which she could have died from but people came to her rescue. The whole world revolves around her. She's got the last lost technology and the whole city starts trying to get it from her. If not, they start looking up to her and rooting for her. I feel like Alita qualifies as a Mary Sue in the important ways, but this movie is well received by audiences (which is what matters). Is she a Sue? Do people like her because she is a Sue? Should writers strive for better art than this, even if they like it, and audiences like it? Some people hate the movie. Professional critics are mixed, from okay to hate. This guy calls it "the 200 million dollar Mary Sue": https://society-reviews.com/2019/02/07/alita-battle-angel-review-the-200-million-dollar-mary-sue/ However the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is 94%, which is nothing to sneeze at. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alita_battle_angel Audiences are getting something that writing world people don't get. Distain for Sueness is probably at the heart of it. For the record, I don't think Mary Sueness is solely responsible for the low critic score. You also have to factor in sexism, the hatred of one person vs. the state stories, racism against the creator, and people with a low tolerance for the uncanny valley due to CGI (basically all bullshit reasons in my opinion). If the critics were able to tell it was art (notice that it creates an emotional experience for its target audience) then they would have given it higher ratings.
I agree that most writers & critics share a vague understanding of the label. But as soon as those groups (like us in this thread) attempt to unpack what it means to be a Mary Sue, their disagreements on the label's properties are often fairly substantial. Which is why there's so much debate around which well-known characters are or aren't Mary Sues. I think it calls the details of its properties into question. I don't like them in my fiction. But ultimately, I suspect it boils down to preference. Because I can't see how it wouldn't.
@Bone2pick -- I think it comes down to writing standards and writing abilities, not any sort of personal preference. A well-developed character is always going to make the story better than a generic, paper-thin character, lacking substance. I'm actually quite confused why anyone thinks differently. But, hey, go ahead and write Mary Sue characters if you want. I don't think it will do much for the story or publishing prospects.
