# Mary Sues and Gary Sues



## Rune (Dec 5, 2015)

How bad is it really to write a main character as a Mary Sue/Gary Sue?
I write these sorts of characters, and the storyline is probably fine, and the other characters are likeable from what I understand, but for some reason there are people that say Mary Sues are not good characters.

I kind of have the ability to detach myself from my main character more than I used to, so maybe I can write some non-Mary Sues now, but I've noticed that Elizabeth Hayden is a celebrated author that wrote an amazing story with a likable Mary Sue.. her character Rhapsody.

Also sort of related:
I've been wanting to write some.. erm.. scripts.. for Pathfinder games I was going to run.. but I always struggle with how to write a story without the main characters even having made their first appearance.
I feel like I have to write a complete novel for an idea of what sort of adventures they'll be going on with the villains as stars, so that they can become my villains antagonists. and then as we play the story out with the game rules, my main villain/villains would become THEIR antagonist/s.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 5, 2015)

Mary Sue/Gary Stu's are considered bad characters because they are "too" everything. I first heard the term while writing fanfic (as far as I know that's the origin) and it was used to describe "wish fulfillment" on the part of the author to become part of the fandom's world. The character often became the love interest of the author's favorite canon character, and/or could outdo the canon characters in everything and anything, often coming to their rescue. Now, I can't see where this latter part would come into play in "normal" fiction, but too perfect characters in general don't work. Rather than inspire empathy or sympathy, they tend to bring derision. Kinda like celebrities who seem to have it all - people love finding dirt about them. Not exactly the way a writer would want readers to view their characters, I should think.


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 5, 2015)

Depends on what definition of Mary Sue you're using, because there are several that people general toss around.

The real issue with honest-to-goodness Mary Sue characters is that they are flawless and tend to solve their problems far more easily than a real person could. They are the best-self of a character with absolutely no drawbacks: beautiful, smart, capable, krav maga master, also likes to volunteer at the home for the elderly on the weekend in between dating the most handsome guy in town and doing her homework. Oh, and she can save the world next week no sweat.

What it means is that you've got a character who's not relatable for the reader, and a character that's unrelatable is flat out boring. Why should I read about a character that I don't care about? Why should anyone spend their time reading about a character that is just going to blow through any obstacle and make it home in time for dinner?


If you're talking about the author-insert kind of Mary Sue then that's a bit of a different story.

Author-inserts are commonly associated with Mary Sues, but they're not precisely the same thing nor always found in conjunction. Author inserts tend to stand out because of their implausibility. You write a story that is about someone just like you, has some of the same habits as you, looks a bit like you, except that they're the funniest, strongest, smartest person around and everyone depends on them AND members of the opposite sex throw themselves at his/her feet.

The problem with author-inserts is that they stand out and often look ridiculous. Bella from Twilight is an author/reader-insert character. She's frequently described with traits that millions of people might be able to identify with, including being a bit plain and not the prettiest girl around, but has to beat the boys away with a stick and, in the end of the story, manages to get absolutely everything she wants despite the vast power of her enemies.

But an author-insert isn't inherently bad. If I wrote a book where the main character was me turned up to 11, then surely my flaws would be turned up as well and it would be entirely possible to write the story so that NotMe was a believable and interesting character. After all, stories are written about extraordinary people or situations, so there's nothing wrong with the main character being extraordinary. As a writer you just need to be cautious of not stepping over the line between extraordinary and flawless.


----------



## Sam (Dec 5, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Mary Sue/Gary Stu's are considered bad characters because they are "too" everything. I first heard the term while writing fanfic (as far as I know that's the origin) and it was used to describe "wish fulfillment" on the part of the author to become part of the fandom's world. The character often became the love interest of the author's favorite canon character, and/or could outdo the canon characters in everything and anything, often coming to their rescue. Now, I can't see where this latter part would come into play in "normal" fiction, but too perfect characters in general don't work. Rather than inspire empathy or sympathy, they tend to bring derision. Kinda like celebrities who seem to have it all - people love finding dirt about them. Not exactly the way a writer would want readers to view their characters, I should think.



To be specific, the origin is a piece of _Star Trek _fan-fiction written by a woman called Paula Smith (could be a pseudonym) back in 1973. The piece was only ten paragraphs long. 

The character was Lieutenant Mary Sue and was way too idealised and perfect. Mary was the youngest lieutenant in fleet history (15 years old) and was on speaking terms with the ranking officers, to the point where they sought her out for advice. Her 'wisdom' saved the day in Smith's short story. 

The word has become synonymous with a perfect character, as Shadow pointed out, and the reason why it's deemed bad is because perfect characters are boring. When you have a character who is a black belt in Jujitsu, an expert in close-quarters combat, and possessed of an intelligence that is better than anyone else s/he ever comes up against, there is never a sense of danger or suspense. You know they're going to win because they never lose. 

That's not a good character. Good characters have flaws, because real people have flaws. Have you ever had a friend who was good-looking, charming, and confident? The kind of person who people just wanted to be around no matter what? Did you like that person? I imagine you didn't, because from your perspective it appeared that s/he was perfect. It created resentment and envy, perhaps. That's what a perfect character in a book does. Nobody can relate to them because nobody _is _like them. Your friend may have looked to have everything, from your perspective, but in reality they had their own fears, doubts, and flaws because every single one of the seven billion people on this planet have them. 

You want to create characters that mean something to a reader. You don't do that by creating a Mary Sue or a Gary Stu/Marty Stu (that's the correct term for a male Mary Sue).


----------



## Minu (Dec 5, 2015)

As popsprocket says there's a variety of Mary/Gary Sue "definitions" running around. However, in the long run they're all the same thing. A typically flat character that is unrealistic one way or the other. 


*The do-nothing-wrong, will-never-die, always-comes-out-on-top Mary/Gary Sue. 
*
These are the sort of characters that win every time, can be as big a jerk to their friends yet they never loss said friends, and almost always ends up surviving to the very end. Ichigo of the manga/anime BLEACH is a prime example of such a character. A large number of manga/anime follows the same mindset [Inuyasha for example]. 

The read is oftentimes painfully dull because after the first two or three death defying events that the main character keeps surviving, or the horrific errors that they best, the reader gets bored. Why read the entire thing through when ultimately the character is going to be "okay" at the end. Anything that they've come across - and which could be rather terrible in real life - is beaten. _*Yawn*_


*Author inserts 
*
There's actually three versions of author inserts. The poor "me" and the perfect "she/he" character. And the "shape shifter". The difference I've found is this:

Poor mes - are oftentimes downtrodden. The unlikeable geek with huge glasses sitting in the corner whom at the end of the story turns out to be the world savior. Percy Jackson is an example of the poor me Mary/Gary Sue. 

Perfect "she/he" character - these are the "cool" kid Mary/Gary Sues. The ones that the author thinks is the most appealing for them or in general. Christian in 50 Shades is an example of this; he comes from a sexually deviant background [and applies it], however, despite and his rather all-round unlikeable character (can't deny if he tried some of that stuff in real life he'd be arrested for intimidation & stalking to begin with; break and enter too) he is painted in a near-perfect light. 

The shape shifter - Bella of Twilight. She verges between the poor me - a "plain Jane" - and the perfect "she" - she gets the guy in the end and lives a "dream" life. This is the more agreeable of the Mary/Gary Sue author-inserts, however, they fall flat because the author puts too much "effort" into making the character agreeable. The issues that plague real life don't exist in any great detail except for fleeting [her plain jane appearance for example is meaningless]. If Bella had had more issues with "getting the guy" and not been so "shallow" [her whimsy with Jacob, etc.] then she'd have been a more balanced and likeable character. 



The thing is, Mary/Gary Sues abound in YA books and not-difficult / non-complex adult books [50 Shades]. If you are wanting to write for a more well balanced / more advanced audience stay away from the Mary/Gary Sue aspect.


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 5, 2015)

Pops pretty much nailed it, but let me add one additional thought: the fear of writing Mary Sues should in no way deter you from writing. In a real way, becoming aware of the phenomenon and why it's considered a problem is a big step in developing one's craft. I suspect that those who possess the awareness and insight to ask about Mary Sues are not immune from the problems such characters bring, but they are far more likely to fix the problems during revision at the very least.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 5, 2015)

> When you have a character who is a black belt in Jujitsu, an expert in close-quarters combat, and possessed of an intelligence that is better than anyone else s/he ever comes up against, there is never a sense of danger or suspense



I don't like simple statements like these. They restrict creativity and mislead people to think that elements of a story have an inherent effect, which in the first place is wrong anyway.

You can, for instance, have a character start the story demonstrating how they've got no problems with the biggest bad guys in the world. They beat everyone up, always save the day, and the world thinks they have their perfect hero and protector. But you can then put a single thought into their head and plunge them into a conflict that can be infinitely filled with danger and suspense: 'I'd kinda like a wife'.

The trick - and Pixar keep using this again and again to great effect - is often to actually make your character stand out as strong in some regard, but weak where it actually 'matters' to the story. Our character could be an overpowered god-like hero, but we can't pass judgement on the quality of his character until we see the thing that characterizes him most in the story - his conflict. And if that's changing diapers, we may be in for a bumpier ride than his super-strength otherwise led us to believe.

Good characters have flaws, but a flaw only exists in relation to what the character has to pursue in the story. A weakness can at another time be a strength, and vice versa; it's all about what the character chooses or is forced to apply themselves to.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 6, 2015)

We all write a bit of ourselves into our characters, there's no way to stop that. And I'd be lying if I said my characters weren't a slight form of wish fulfillment, as I'd love to be doing what they do (Well, most of the time...). But the Mary Sue-ness comes about when the character so obviously represents a fantastical fulfillment for the writer, to the point where realism vanishes. I read 50 Shades, and felt a deep sense of Mary-Sueness. There's a character who believes she's ugly, plain, and stupid, despite every other character falling in love with her and being jealous of her, and telling her she's amazing, and let's face it--nothing really BAD happens to the MC of that series (save the highly abusive relationship).

On the other hand, Stephen King often writes about writers and authors, and I never feel it's bordering into that territory of him wishing to be his character. I honestly feel like it's the old "write what you know" idea, and King's just suiting them to the story well.

So you can write wish fulfillment WITHOUT it becoming a Mary Sue. But just know there's a dangerous line between writing what you know and self-gratification.


----------



## Minu (Dec 6, 2015)

Sam said:


> When you have a character who is a black belt in Jujitsu, an expert in close-quarters combat, and possessed of an intelligence that is better than anyone else s/he ever comes up against, there is never a sense of danger or suspense. You know they're going to win because they never lose.



I didn't notice this till Cadence brought it up. 

My supervisor when I was doing security to help pay for my education was a former college / university football player. Huge guy. He was a trained martial artist. He did close protection security in the US. He had the scars to prove it. He tangled with a small woman, barely 5 feet in height, who was hoped up on some drug. She took him down like a sack of potatoes with one very well aimed kick. Even skilled martial artists know fear. As my Japanese friend said, and he is a *skilled* martial artist - black belt, he trains other people and has competed internationally - _only a fool knows no fear. For it is fear that will keep you alive. _If you go into any conflict cocky, no matter how skilled you or your character is, they will underestimate their opponents and that'll kill them as easily as if sending some toddler to do the work. 

Those sorts of Mary/Gary Sues put me in hysterics because they are so unrealistic the book isn't even worth the paper it is written on.





Bishop said:


> We all write a bit of ourselves into our characters, there's no way to stop that. And I'd be lying if I said my characters weren't a slight form of wish fulfillment, as I'd love to be doing what they do (Well, most of the time...). But the Mary Sue-ness comes about when the character so obviously represents a fantastical fulfillment for the writer, to the point where realism vanishes. I read 50 Shades, and felt a deep sense of Mary-Sueness. There's a character who believes she's ugly, plain, and stupid, despite every other character falling in love with her and being jealous of her, and telling her she's amazing, and let's face it--nothing really BAD happens to the MC of that series (save the highly abusive relationship).
> 
> On the other hand, Stephen King often writes about writers and authors, and I never feel it's bordering into that territory of him wishing to be his character. I honestly feel like it's the old "write what you know" idea, and King's just suiting them to the story well.
> 
> So you can write wish fulfillment WITHOUT it becoming a Mary Sue. But just know there's a dangerous line between writing what you know and self-gratification.



See that's the difference. 

50 Shades is Mary Sue, Twilight is Mary Sue, and all those sorts are Mary Sue. In a couple years, once another big-hype Mary Sue [Divergence] comes along people will forget about such Mary Sue books because there is very little if not nothing that stands out about them. They are the old dime-a-dozen paperbacks. They are near carbon copies of one another. They may sell quickly but ultimately the hype doesn't last. 

King, Brown, Patterson, etc. don't write Mary Sues. King, in some of his earlier books were Mary Suey and they never did as well as his later books. The non-Mary Sues last. People will talk about King for years, there are people that still get hyped up about finding a King in the library / bookstore. Twilight on the other hand has been overshadowed by Divergence, the new Mary Sue. 


I've always looked at it this way - and no insult to anyone, just observations - but Mary Sue characters mark writers that are lacking in skill. They fall back on author inserts and never-die Sues because they lack the talent to make characters with depth.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 6, 2015)

Mary Sue or not, as long as the reader enjoys it, it's fine by me.

Captain James T. Kirk, Superman, Nancy Drew, Indiana Jones, James Bond, Tony Stark . . . the list goes on and on. Mary Sues and Gary Stus everywhere.

Even J.K. Rowling said that Hermione Granger was written as an idealized, borderline-genius version of her younger self.

For all the flack they get from writers, Mary Sues (and their male counterparts) seem to be quite popular with the general public. I only consider them a bad thing if the reader (or the audience) doesn't enjoy them. Otherwise, it's all good.

I thought Brendan Frasier's Gary Stu character, Rick O'Connell, made _The Mummy_ all the more fun to watch. :encouragement:


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Dec 6, 2015)

I am so glad this topic is being discussed. I'm a bit confused on the issue and wasn't even sure how to broach the subject.
In all of my years of writing I've been told that Mary Sues and Gary Stus are bad and you won't get published. The problem I see is that these are the very books that ARE getting published.

I've not read or seen Divergent but I wonder- how different is the lead female from Katniss of Hunger Games?

And then there's the most recent Mary Sue book (the sequel hits stores this month) Zodiac: A Novel
The book left me wondering- did she look at a Mary Sue Litmus test as 'this is how  the lead character should be"?

I put the MC female of my YA series against a Mary Sue Litmus test and she passed with a score of 13. Which, according to that test, was 'ideal'. Anything over 50 was red alert- Mary Sue on the premises. 

All of this leads me to wonder why- if writers are told / warned away from Mary Sue and Gary Stu- then why, in all confusion, are these stories getting publishing?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 6, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> All of this leads me to wonder why- if writers are told / warned away from Mary Sue and Gary Stu- then why, in all confusion, are these stories getting publishing?



Well, for one, I don't believe there are all that many being published. But of those that are, it's more than empathy - the reader sees themself in that character. The wish fulfillment of the author is the same for the reader. 

Not to mention that there are other reasons than the character that makes people want to read them...


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 7, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> All of this leads me to wonder why- if writers are told / warned away from Mary Sue and Gary Stu- then why, in all confusion, are these stories getting publishing?



They aren't getting published. What you're seeing is books starring reader-insert characters, which isn't precisely the same thing as a Mary Sue. The lead characters of all these YA books star people who are vaguely described so as to be similar to a wide range of readers, and they share many of the positive traits that people can convince themselves they have, and many of the insecurities they have. It's a bit like cold reading where you make broad statements that people instantly connect with even though the statement might apply to millions of people just the same. There's a term for the phenomenon that I've forgotten.

They are simply characters who are easy for _lots _readers to identify with, and they're able to solve problems without always coming out on top.


----------



## Sam (Dec 7, 2015)

Cadence said:


> I don't like simple statements like these. They restrict creativity and mislead people to think that elements of a story have an inherent effect, which in the first place is wrong anyway.
> 
> You can, for instance, have a character start the story demonstrating how they've got no problems with the biggest bad guys in the world. They beat everyone up, always save the day, and the world thinks they have their perfect hero and protector. But you can then put a single thought into their head and plunge them into a conflict that can be infinitely filled with danger and suspense: 'I'd kinda like a wife'.
> 
> ...



It's not realistic, Cadence. 

You say Pixar does it, but Pixar creates animated movies. Animated characters are often exaggerated caricatures of real people, which means they can get away with being Mary Sues/Gary Stus. 

And having a character who's amazing at everything but has some weakness inherent to the story you're telling -- that comes off Supermanish to me. He can defeat everyone, but his one weakness is Kryptonite. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never once felt the kind of fear that Superman might die (in any movies or shows about him) as I have that another character from one of my favourite television shows might die.


----------



## Minu (Dec 7, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> They aren't getting published. What you're seeing is books starring reader-insert characters, which isn't precisely the same thing as a Mary Sue. The lead characters of all these YA books star people who are vaguely described so as to be similar to a wide range of readers, and they share many of the positive traits that people can convince themselves they have, and many of the insecurities they have.



I disagree. Author inserts *are *Mary Sues. As mentioned above Granger was a supersized, super special Rowling. For every other geek - Granger is the "super me" for them and that _*is*_ a Mary Sue. The fact that despite being a "Mudblood", despite being utterly ignorant of the magical world, despite being utterly unlikeable due to her know-it-all personality she gets steady fast life long friends [Potty & the Weasel], despite being demeaned and considered worthless by most of the magical world, despite being tortured by Black, despite this and that... Granger came out on top. That *is *a Mary Sue. 

As I said Mary/Gray Sues abound in YA and the reason why is simple - young adult books are aimed for highly emotional readers [youths]. They are looking for places to belong, proof that despite how downtrodden their life seems there is a silver lining to a cloud [even if their idea for such belief is but a book showing that a geek will come out on top and best those nasty old jocks], and ultimately simplistic writing where characters with any depth greater than surface are dragged backwards through the bush, shot, and shoved in a shallow grave by the end of chapter 1. 

King is the only YA-ish author that was risen above the Mary/Gary Sues. He straddles the line between YA and full adult and that is what makes his books such enjoyable reads for everyone. When Rowling, I believe, tried to make a more adult based book, some crime novel, if it wasn't for her reputation that book would have sat on the shelves for years on end because it was an utter joke for an adult-based read as she put the plague of YA [shallow depthless characters known as Mary/Gary Sues] in an adult read. Brown & 50 Shades is written for a YA audience - the characters are author inserts, Mary/Gary Sued through the roof, and as shallow as a tiny puddle after a spring shower.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 7, 2015)

Minu said:


> I disagree. Author inserts *are *Mary Sues. As mentioned above Granger was a supersized, super special Rowling. For every other geek - Granger is the "super me" for them and that _*is*_ a Mary Sue. The fact that despite being a "Mudblood", despite being utterly ignorant of the magical world, despite being utterly unlikeable due to her know-it-all personality she gets steady fast life long friends [Potty & the Weasel], despite being demeaned and considered worthless by most of the magical world, despite being tortured by Black, despite this and that... Granger came out on top. That *is *a Mary Sue.



I'd disagree. Mary Sue's are universally loved and admired, have few if any faults and those are absolutely forgiven by the other characters because she's so wonderful otherwise. Granger was a flawed human being who overcame obstacles with normal (well, considering the magic as 'normal') human effort and with the help of her friends. That's not a Mary Sue.


----------



## Stormcat (Dec 7, 2015)

AH the mary sue, I once had an English teacher named Mary Sue. I was the only one who found that hilarious.

Anyway, I used to write a lot of these characters when I was young and inexperienced. I think they are primarily caused by inexperienced writers attempting to create a character for the first time. I once tried to help a young writer who wanted to write a fanfic... wherein his character somehow shared parentage not only with his love interest, but also with several other characters across multiple fandoms. I honestly tried to convince him that that would be an impossibility, but he wouldn't listen. At least he accepted "incest is bad". The kid was like twelve, so There was no need to be too harsh.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Dec 7, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> They aren't getting published. What you're seeing is books starring reader-insert characters, which isn't precisely the same thing as a Mary Sue. The lead characters of all these YA books star people who are vaguely described so as to be similar to a wide range of readers, and they share many of the positive traits that people can convince themselves they have, and many of the insecurities they have. It's a bit like cold reading where you make broad statements that people instantly connect with even though the statement might apply to millions of people just the same. There's a term for the phenomenon that I've forgotten.
> 
> They are simply characters who are easy for _lots _readers to identify with, and they're able to solve problems without always coming out on top.



I disagree- the latest YA book I read is classic Mary Sue. Yes, it's entertaining to read and I would read the sequel but the MC Rho is a classic Mary Sue, 

She has the writer's love of the drums, perceives something differently than all the other characters, has 2 guys pining for  her- one is love, the other is lust, has all of  her friends backing her, supporting her, seeing no wrong in her, and even thought she's only 17 she's the only one who can save the galaxy. Also- both of those guys give her gifts, the love one lets her keep something that was borrowed which was precious to him. Other gifts are rare or costly to find. And the scene describing the make-over just screams "look at me, looks how beautiful and sexy I am." 

THAT to me says Mary Sue and this book was published. This is proven by that Mary Sue Litmus test a friend linked me to.

In contrast- the MC Female in my own YA has a line that sums her up nicely. "I don't want to save the world, just my sister and our friends."
Granted she is the 'top qualifying cadet' in the academy however and there are 2 guys pining for her- however, that's where 'The Mary Sue Syndrome" ends.
She's not certain she wants to 'conditions' that come with the award, and she does not want / is not destined to save the planet. Ultimately, she's just a girl who wants to get through to graduation and get back to the thing she loves most- what she sacrificed when she was placed in boarding school- equestrian sports, specifically stadium jumping.

The challenge I've given her is the role of 'disrupter' it's up to her to intervene and help her sister and best friend out of the jam that they're in.


----------



## JustRob (Dec 7, 2015)

Gosh, this thread seemed so confusing that I found little benefit in reading it. Author insertion, wish fulfilment and self-gratification? Are they so bad? Do I care? I think I'll just put a disclaimer in my books, "I wrote this story to gratify my own needs. Any enjoyment that the reader experiences from reading it is entirely coincidental. Also any similarity to any persons living or dead is coincidental. I never intended to make my characters seem that real." Will that cover it then?

Honestly, did Ian Fleming write his Bond books because he was actually a frustrated desk worker in the secret service rather than a field agent? Quite possibly, but let's thank him for doing that. Was it actually film makers who turned Bond into the Gary Sue character, not him? Would it have been better for him to have written about an entire collection of agents instead of ensuring that just one always survived? Well what a brilliant idea, the Bond band, a family of brothers who all work for the secret service but are fallible enough to get themselves killed off at intervals. No Gary Sues there then, so much better. For heaven's sake. Don't we just long for that bit in the Indiana Jones films when the theme music kicks in and we know that he's going to tackle the challenge? Doesn't it hark straight back to the Popeye cartoons when he swallowed the spinach? Personally I write Fiction with a capital "F". When people start telling me that they see what I am attempting to do in my writing and how I could do it better, then I'll start believing that I need to make make my stories more sophisticated, but that hasn't happened yet.

Got appointment now, so no time to review this post unfortunately. Treat it as a first draft then.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 7, 2015)

Of course authors put parts of themselves, their dreams, into their stories. It's when it becomes nothing except that, when the stories become so unbelievable, so self-indulgent, that it becomes a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. Like everything else in writing, when it becomes "too" _anything_, it's not a good thing.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Dec 7, 2015)

I fully admit to putting a little of myself in my characters but not to extremes. IMO there should be a limit.

In the Zodiac Chronicles for instance, one character is a Libra ( okay this was a given, I couldn't help but have one to " complete the circle" so to speak ) and I just happen to be a Libra. She's also an archaeologist, which is something I had at one point considered being- thanks to the previously mentioned films. 

Virgo is a marine biologist who works at a theme park / research center in Tampa Florida. Being a marine biologist was the first thing I can recall wanting to be. After having visited Sea World in Orlando as a child, I wanted to work with the sea otters. I grew up in Largo Fl. across the bay from Tampa. The similarities end there.

Gemini- I can't imagine anyone not wishing they had mad skills with tech like Garcia in Criminal Minds or Harper in Andromeda.

Taurus went military then became a cop - which was my official Plan A (and it didn't happen).

In my YA series, the MC is a military academy cadet- when I was young my parents quarreled over sending me to New York's Military Academy. I wanted to go. I didn't because well, Dad passed away. This meant there was no money to ship me out. She also has a love of horses and the saxophone.

Each character I work with has a bit of me in them, as should be so the writer can relate to their character. There is a point though when it's overload and a character is essentially the writer in print. It's what I call the fictional auto-biography.


----------



## Minu (Dec 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I'd disagree. Mary Sue's are universally loved and admired, have few if any faults and those are absolutely forgiven by the other characters because she's so wonderful otherwise. Granger was a flawed human being who overcame obstacles with normal (well, considering the magic as 'normal') human effort and with the help of her friends. That's not a Mary Sue.



That example is the basic Mary Sue. There are many more Mary Sue versions than that. Most author inserts are Mary/Gary Sued because the author is making a "super me" or a "super mate" as their character. They are aiming for the top - imaginary character - that in real life you could search the globe and never find. Granger is a Mary Sue because 9 out of 10 people if they ever found themselves in such a situation would give up. 

Besting "insurmountable odds" is the definition of Mary Sue. Shallow characters are the definition of Mary Sue because they have no flaws, etc. Granger was flawed from day 1 - neither witch, neither Muggle - and yet she's holding the oyster's pearl. 





shadowwalker said:


> Of course authors put parts of themselves, their dreams, into their stories. It's when it becomes nothing except that, when the stories become so unbelievable, so self-indulgent, that it becomes a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. Like everything else in writing, when it becomes "too" _anything_, it's not a good thing.



So someone writing about a dragon as the main character - Eragon - dreamt of being a dragon? Farley & Sewell alike dreamed of living as horses? Melville of hunting whales, London of mushing dog sleds, Dickens of living in poverty and either being a child labourer or a thief? Tolkien must have dreamt of being a shape-shifter to give us such wide ranging characters. 

In all actuality the really talented authors do not integrate themselves into their stories. They separate themselves from their characters, maintaining an impartial viewpoint, because emotional attachment to a character means that you will put too much "effort" into making them likeable. That comes from my mother's cousin, who is a very skilled author in his own right.


----------



## JustRob (Dec 7, 2015)

Don't all writers base their characters on people whom they've known? In that case there must be a good chance that one or more is based on themselves. Having been around for a good few years now there is every chance that my characters are based to a large extent on aspects of myself and my angel at various times in our lives. Between us we have in our time been a lot of people as we've played the different roles that life has thrown at us. In fact it would be difficult for some writers to devise characters who _didn't_ reflect some aspect of their own lives. If such characters happen to win out against the odds that's just the story line, isn't it? How can we tell whether the plot determined the character or vice versa? That's why I make the distinction between a Mary Sue _character_ and a Mary Sue _event_. One derives from the character profile and the other from the plot. The end result may not identify which applied during the writing though. If all Mary Sue events happen to involve the same character one may get concerned about that character though ... but not if she's based on my angel of course. Angels are above that sort of thing.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 7, 2015)

> Besting "insurmountable odds" is the definition of Mary Sue.



In that case, every good victorious character is a Mary Sue, because every good victorious character must lead the reader into the impression, during the climax of the conflict, that they 'cannot win'. That's what makes it exciting when they do.

The definition of Mary Sue is 'irritatingly perfect'. There are sub-types, including those that best 'insurmountable odds' _in an irritating way_, but all those sub-types go back to the original definition. We don't need to redefine it any further.



> So someone writing about a dragon as the main character - Eragon - dreamt of being a dragon? Farley & Sewell alike dreamed of living as horses? Melville of hunting whales, London of mushing dog sleds, Dickens of living in poverty and either being a child labourer or a thief? Tolkien must have dreamt of being a shape-shifter to give us such wide ranging characters.
> 
> In all actuality the really talented authors do not integrate themselves into their stories.



You're way off the mark here. All those authors did indeed dream of doing all those things; else they would not have put them on paper. We inhabit characters/scenes in order to get in their heads, and 'dreaming' is one of the best analogies for this. 

Also, many many more 'really talented authors' (do feel free to keep painting a target on the head of your argument) explicitly put themselves into their stories. Who are Dorian Grey and Lord Henry? Who talks to us when the story 'pauses a little' in Adam Bede, and then proceeds to talk to Adam Bede? Stephen Dedalus? _The Bell Jar_?

We _are _all shape-shifters in narrative, especially when we use free indirect style, the pinnacle of narrative perspective. So this:



> They separate themselves from their characters, maintaining an impartial viewpoint, because emotional attachment to a character means that you will put too much "effort" into making them likeable. That comes from my mother's cousin, who is a very skilled author in his own right.



is frankly bullshit.

'Dreaming' yourself into a character is not 'emotional attachment'. It is complete emotional overhaul of the self, thinking as they think, feeling as they feel. You become guided by their goals and struggle with their conflicts. You use that stance to get the most out of their role in the narrative. Then, after you've drafted, you edit the prose to make the narrative focus more controlled. _That's _when you have distance from the characters you write. You may 'put too much"effort" into making them 'likeable' at first, but if such a thing is discernible, then it is discernible by the author once they have let their manuscript rest for a while and have returned to it for editing. And besides, being 'in' your characters can also contribute to balancing out the likeable and dislikeable traits better, as you strive to see everything else through their perception, so as to be less affected by the preciousness of everything that you feel after making it. You may love your villain, but if you're in your hero's head - if you've 'dreamt' yourself into becoming him - you're going to write like he's the obstacle to success, which he is, and that will net you a stronger sense of plot. How else do actors do their work?

There are of course, many other stances to take when it comes to character, including this one of separation. But don't preach yours as some sort of gospel that all 'really talented authors' (including your cousin, who you must suddenly rank with Joyce, Eliot, Dickens, etc. to use his advice over theirs) follow. To 'dream' into character is a noble pursuit of both human nature and self-consciousness, and that can naturally bleed into narrative in many fruitful ways.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Dec 7, 2015)

Cadence said:


> In that case, every good victorious character is a Mary Sue, because every good victorious character must lead the reader into the impression, during the climax of the conflict, that they 'cannot win'. That's what makes it exciting when they do.
> 
> The definition of Mary Sue is 'irritatingly perfect'. There are sub-types, including those that best 'insurmountable odds' _in an irritating way_, but all those sub-types go back to the original definition.




It's one thing when the character is say 30 or 40 something with the training and skills to achieve the impossible.
when it's a 16 or 17 year-old that achieves the impossible / implausible- that's when it's a Mary Sue / Gary Stu.

Examples:

With Catniss from Hunger Games, ( I've been told she's a Mary Sue) I grant her leniency with her weapons- because maybe she spent her childhood learning to use that bow and arrow. 

With Rho however, her biggest problem was getting people to believe her claim, she's only 16 (turns 17 in the book) and things turn in her favor only after another planet is attacked and that leader steps up to say she believes Rho. A character that's 300 something years old.


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 7, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> I disagree- the latest YA book I read is classic Mary Sue.



I'll take your word for it. I don't read widely in YA and I don't think that you should be subjecting it, as a genre rather than a market, to the kind of literary standards that abhor Mary Sue characters. YA largely serves the purpose of being introductory fiction and it ostensibly caters to an age group who don't know any better. It's actually the thing that makes YA an interesting study, because the literary world says it's terrible and still books sold to the market perform exceedingly well.

Basically a Mary Sue character in YA is par for the course and suits well the intended age bracket where the readers haven't read widely enough to be able to spot cliches and conventions that might be considered problematic in adult fiction.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 8, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> YA largely serves the purpose of being introductory fiction and it ostensibly caters to an age group who don't know any better.



I believe you're thinking of Middle Grade fiction. Like _Charlotte's Web_, _Winnie the Pooh_, _The Indian in the Cupboard_, et cetera . . .

Or even younger, like the _Stepping Stone_ books, where children are first introduced to stories with chapters in them (I remember loving _Aliens for Breakfast_ when I was in the third grade. )

Young Adult fiction generally focuses on (or involves) things that are relevant to an adolescent reader—such as teenage relationships, sex, possible experimentation with substances, discovering one's independence, and other coming-of-age experiences.

The way I see it, it's not about catering to readers who "don't know any better." It's about working with themes and subject matters that the readers can relate to. :encouragement:


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 8, 2015)

I'm not talking about themes.

All I'm saying is that, technically speaking, YA fiction caters to an age group who have had little chance in their lives to become well-read and as such have a higher tolerance for conventions and cliches that literary fiction thinks itself above.


----------



## Sam (Dec 8, 2015)

No one is saying you can't use a Mary Sue. It's your work -- do whatever the hell you want. 

But let's not kid ourselves here. There's a reason why a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character is universally bad. Lack of originality, no relatability, and very little reader empathy. 

Humans love to build people up to tear them down again. We often don't like people who we imagine as having perfect lives. So, as a reader, reading about someone who is a billionaire, saves the world, has women/men hanging off their arms, and is brilliant at everything they turn their hand to -- there is nobody in the world like that, which means no reader is going to relate to the character. In fact, they're going to hate them.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 8, 2015)

Sam said:


> So, as a reader, reading about someone who is a billionaire, saves the world, has women/men hanging off their arms, and is brilliant at everything they turn their hand to -- there is nobody in the world like that, which means no reader is going to relate to the character. In fact, they're going to hate them.



And yet for some reason, Batman is still popular...

I _really _dislike superheroes.


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 8, 2015)

Bishop said:


> And yet for some reason, Batman is still popular...



Because he's the hero we deserve, just not the one we need right now.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 8, 2015)

Well, I think superheroes are a bit different. People expect superheroes to be, well, superhuman. That's different from having a purportedly "normal" human character who just does everything perfectly.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 8, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, I think superheroes are a bit different. People expect superheroes to be, well, superhuman. That's different from having a purportedly "normal" human character who just does everything perfectly.



While I don't disagree on any particular point, I still feel like that's basically saying "It's okay for THIS group, because they're SUPPOSED to be perfect." Doesn't make it any less lame if you ask me.

It could be this: When I start a novel, I honestly don't know if our main character is going to survive. I have no idea what's going to come, save maybe some expectations if I know the writer or if it's following certain genre tropes.

But with supers, you know what's going to happen. That's not to say the mold hasn't been broken by superheroes in the past, but for the most part, Batman's going to save Gotham, Superman's going to save Lois Lane, and the Green Lantern will continue to use his power in the least creative way possible. It's the same with those Mary Sues. The reason they're boring is because there's no challenge, no surprise, it just happens and everything works out for our hero.

Obviously, judging by box office sales, I'm in the minority on this thinking, but I prefer something where there's a real depth to the challenge and the true possibility of failure.


----------



## JustRob (Dec 8, 2015)

Just two observations.

First, on the subject of author insertion and in general the extent to which a character reflects the author, while I need to place myself within a character's mind to write in my subjective style I am very much only an observer rather than a controlling influence. At most I could be regarded as the character's subconscious pushing them in a particular direction, but in practice they don't always go that way. They represent people with whom I am closely acquainted, no more. This view also explains how it is that some of my characters seem to suspect that I exist, for that is how some people see their own subconscious, as an outside influence. Well, that's clarified something for me at least.

Second, perhaps the Mary Sue phenomenon arises from a character's abilities permanently being on a plateau above any demands made of them. This is in a way unrealistic as it defies the generalised Peter principle, that mankind exploits _every_ resource to its point of exhaustion. Even a superhero would be overwhelmed by the demands that humanity made of him eventually according to this principle. My central character never reaches that plateau despite believing that he may have because life always finds another surprise to spring on him. Each time he learns a little more and believes that next time he will get things right, but the next time is never quite the same. That's why my story extends to a trilogy of novels, because success is merely a stepping stone to the next failure. The more confident and apparently knowledgeable he becomes the more others trust him and hence the greater the risk that he will let them down. In a way I did base this aspect of his experiences on my own, but I could never make the story a wish fulfilment by allowing him to succeed outright because the Peter principle is always there. If anything he does what I did, destroys his own reputation to break the cycle prematurely and allow himself to resume his life at a different level. In my own company I know of at least one real person who actually applied for demotion to break the Peter principle cycle as there really is no other way out of it. The Mary Sue who is always ahead of the cycle is unrealistic. No resource remains only partially exploited in real life. The right person for the job is inevitably too busy already to do it and anyone who exceeds their own previous abilities on one occasion will simply be obliged to meet greater demands in the future.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 8, 2015)

Bishop said:


> But with supers, you know what's going to happen. That's not to say the mold hasn't been broken by superheroes in the past, but for the most part, Batman's going to save Gotham, Superman's going to save Lois Lane, and the Green Lantern will continue to use his power in the least creative way possible. It's the same with those Mary Sues. The reason they're boring is because there's no challenge, no surprise, it just happens and everything works out for our hero.


Depends on the writer, though!

With me at the helm? Batman will fail to save Gotham. Superman will watch Lois Lane die in his arms. And the Green Lantern will have his ring destroyed.

To me, superheroes are great characters to write, not just because of their enhanced abilities, but because they also have so much to lose. :encouragement:


----------



## Bishop (Dec 8, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Depends on the writer, though!
> 
> With me at the helm? Batman will fail to save Gotham. Superman will watch Lois Lane die in his arms. And the Green Lantern will have his ring destroyed.
> 
> To me, superheroes are great characters to write, not just because of their enhanced abilities, but because they also have so much to lose. :encouragement:



There's absolutely many exceptions--I try not to speak in generalities, but I often do despite my efforts. I loved _Watchmen _specifically because of its bleaker realization of "supers" (even though there's really only one "super" in that graphic novel). But, alas, they ruined it with a bad movie. In any case, I have no doubt that it can be done well--anything can be done well, with the right mind behind the helm. But the mainstream superheroes we're fed all too often drive me insane.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Dec 8, 2015)

Huh.

So a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character is eeeeeeevvvvilllll to write. Yet, one of my favorite characters  Dirk Pitt, falls into that category much more often than he doesn't. His plans almost always work and when they don't he can improvise on the fly. He always (with only one exception I can think of) gets the girl and everyone around him loves him.

But, that doesn't stop me or hundreds of thousands of others from enjoying the novels Clive Cussler writes about him.

That would lead me to believe that the characters in question aren't quite as universally hated as one would think from reading the posts here.


----------



## Sam (Dec 8, 2015)

Because Clive Cussler's name sells, and thrillers sell, but they don't sell as much as anything by Clancy or Ludlum, both of whom have strong, interesting characters that avoid falling into the dreaded Sue/Stu category.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Dec 8, 2015)

But, after a while, if the Pitt (Gary Stu) character was that bad, wouldn't Cussler's sales have started dropping off? I mean, don't you think that someone who has bought the majority of the novels would have gotten bored with the character and stopped buying?


----------



## JustRob (Dec 8, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Depends on the writer, though!
> 
> With me at the helm? Batman will fail to save Gotham. Superman will watch Lois Lane die in his arms. And the Green Lantern will have his ring destroyed.



But with me at the helm Superman would then turn back time and bring Lois Lane back to life ... Oh, he did that in one of the films already, didn't he? Okay then, I will turn back time and have that idea before they do. When exactly did they make that film? Oh, I can't be bothered. It's bedtime anyway, clocking off time, but when one mental clock stops another may start. Who needs to write stories to achieve wish fulfilment? Dream on.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 8, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> But, after a while, if the Pitt (Gary Stu) character was that bad, wouldn't Cussler's sales have started dropping off? I mean, don't you think that someone who has bought the majority of the novels would have gotten bored with the character and stopped buying?



Haven't read the books myself, but is it perhaps the James Bond thing going on? I think sometimes the MS/GS thing can be accepted because readers don't take it seriously - the character is almost a cartoon within the more "serious" storyline, or because the storyline itself is 'lighter' (seriously - Goldfinger?). Like the readers are rolling their eyes but smiling at the same time. Just a thought, because as I said, haven't read them myself.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 9, 2015)

JustRob said:


> But with me at the helm Superman would then turn back time and bring Lois Lane back to life ... Oh, he did that in one of the films already, didn't he? Okay then, I will turn back time and have that idea before they do.



Such a ridiculous (and yet simultaneously historic) cinematic moment.


----------



## JustRob (Dec 9, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Such a ridiculous (and yet simultaneously historic) cinematic moment.



Yeah, you wouldn't catch Hermione Granger turning time back to solve an insurmountable problem. What, she _did_, did she? Oh well, enough said then. 

It's probably a debatable point whether anything like that happens in my stories. It all depends on just how one perceives time in the first place. Time distortion is a bit like juggling with soup, that it's a lot easier if you keep it in the cans. Many writers don't.


----------



## Sam (Dec 9, 2015)

Here's a question for people who support having Mary Sues/Gary Stus in their work: 

How is the character meant to grow/develop if they're already brilliant at everything?


----------



## JustRob (Dec 9, 2015)

Sam said:


> Here's a question for people who support having Mary Sues/Gary Stus in their work:
> 
> How is the character meant to grow/develop if they're already brilliant at everything?



To be pedantic (How unusual for me.) does being brilliant at _everything _encompass growing/developing or is that an exception? So, is the question _how_ or _whether_? Do we have a brilliant writer to provide an answer?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 9, 2015)

I've never felt that characters _have _to grow or develop. We, as readers, get to know them better throughout the story, but that doesn't mean the character changes. Characters, like real people, may change based on things they go through - but they don't have to. It can be just an addition to their knowledge base versus a "turning point" in their lives. What happens in the book may just confirm that the character is "getting it right". Recurring character books can go for quite some time without the character changing, and readers don't necessarily want growth or development or change. We know and like the character(s) and, like a good friend, don't want to see them change. We want them to be "dependable", so whatever happens to them doesn't turn them into a character we don't like as much (and I've seen that happen too often).

Sometimes it's important, sometimes it's necessary. But it's not mandatory.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 9, 2015)

JustRob said:


> Yeah, you wouldn't catch Hermione Granger turning time back to solve an insurmountable problem. What, she _did_, did she? Oh well, enough said then.
> 
> It's probably a debatable point whether anything like that happens in my stories. It all depends on just how one perceives time in the first place. Time distortion is a bit like juggling with soup, that it's a lot easier if you keep it in the cans. Many writers don't.



Oh, I don't find time distortion silly if it's given a plausible explanation. Spinning the earth backward to disrupt the space-time continuum, though? Fun idea, but total nonsense, too. The earth's rotation has nothing to do with time.

Still, it was fun to watch!


----------



## Newman (Dec 10, 2015)

Rune said:


> How bad is it really to write a main character as a Mary Sue/Gary Sue?
> I write these sorts of characters, and the storyline is probably fine,  and the other characters are likeable from what I understand, but for  some reason there are people that say Mary Sues are not good characters.
> 
> I kind of have the ability to detach myself from my main character more  than I used to, so maybe I can write some non-Mary Sues now, but I've  noticed that Elizabeth Hayden is a celebrated author that wrote an  amazing story with a likable Mary Sue.. her character Rhapsody.



The Mary Sue thing is kinda moot.

The issue is that your story will involve change, right and wrong choices, lessons, message and so on.

You  can have a Mary Sue that makes wrong choices or influences the character making the choices (thus that character then becomes the  focus and the Mary Sue becomes  some kind of role model / mentor type).

In the end, the debate  isn't about whether you can have a Mary Sue or not, but about where exactly the change is and Mary Sue's role in executing it.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Dec 12, 2015)

Here's a question on Mary and Gary in YA. Are we not doing a disservice to young readers by giving them these character types when we don't like them in stories for older readers?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 13, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> Here's a question on Mary and Gary in YA. Are we not doing a disservice to young readers by giving them these character types when we don't like them in stories for older readers?



Great question. I am not exactly sure what Mary and Gary Sues are. Was Ulysses (Odessey) a Gary Sue? But they have an almost universal appeal in all genres, it's just that after a while they can get boring. So we would expect them to predominate in the young Y/A -- Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, etc. No one has claimed it is a disservice to present them.

If you are talking the high school years, the nonfantasy Y/A is more likely to focus on problems. It usually takes the whole book to solve some the main problems, so the main character can't be that clever.

Twilight wasn't a "problems" book, but even Bella was never described as beautiful, she downgraded herself, she was physically incompetent, and I can't think of anything clever she did. That she "gets the guy" doesn't make her a Mary Sue any more than solving the crime makes a detective a Gary Sue.


----------

