Today I bring you cool links from the internet.
Holly Black talks about the overuse of Mary Sue.
[quote cite="Holly Black"]One thing that I believe is a big part of the Mary Sue problem is the origin of the term — in fanfiction, Mary Sue was used specifically for an original character, often closely resembling an idealized version of the writer, who was inserted into a world and caused the world turn upside down and reconfigure itself around her center. As in: Spock gets a long-lost daughter with purple eyes who’s an even better doctor than McCoy and when she arrives, Kirk instantly falls in love with her and makes her captain in his place. She takes them to the planet of the Sparkle Ponies where she defeats Khan with her beauty and that of her new glittery equine friends.
The problem with using this term outside of fanfiction is simple: the world of a novel has always configured around main characters. They are at its center and, often, they are the best at stuff. Kirk is, for example, is the best with romancing the green-skinned ladies. He’s also the best at leading. Spock is the best at being smart. Scotty is the best at keeping the Enterprise from being blown to pieces by the actions of both Kirk and Spock. Their skills are important and it’s unlikely that anyone is going to come along and be better at those things than they are. [/quote]
I also like windfalcon’s take on it.
Mary Sue – How to Tell by *windfalcon on deviantART
Dear Author discusses the rise of anti-heroes.
[quote cite="Jane"]Let me be clear. I am not saying that the morally ambiguous character or even villainous characters can’t be the main protagonist in a romance book. What I am suggesting is that the use of hero or heroine to characters who are not heroic imbues qualities upon them that they do not possess. Perhaps hero and heroine have become ubiquitous terms that simply stand for male and female leads. Alternatively, the terms may be taking on new meaning.[/quote]
Terence Clark of Huffington Post talks about writing and fame.
[quote cite="Terence Clarks"]In an essay in The Spectator in 1711, Sir Richard Steele wrote that it is “the worst way in the world to Fame, to be too anxious about it.” For almost all of us who took up writing in order to be like Ernest Hemingway, this is good advice. The Hemingway goal hasn’t worked in my case or, I suspect, in that of most others who have had so markedly specific an intention. Perhaps all others. This is so because such a goal has nothing to do with writing well. It has an awful lot to do with churlish envy, as well as what we know about Hemingway, that he marketed himself almost from the beginning in order to get where he got.[/quote]
One of the reasons I no longer hang out at some of my past-favorite message boards is because cries of “Mary Sue” are like the new Godwin’s Law, and it’s annoying as heck. If you look hard enough — or in just the right way — you can find evidence to support claims of Suism for EVERY character. The term is overused.
While I agree that the term is overused, it is also sometimes fitting. Bela is a mary sue, she is widely believed to be an idealized version of the author, whom everybody loves for no apparent reason. I would also argue that James Bond is Ian Flemming’s Mary Sue. A cold murderous borderline sociopath who is misogynistic and completely incapable of forming attachments to other human beings, especially the women the uses. James is rich, handsome, cultured but beyond that, essentially lacking in any redeeming human qualities.
I see your point, and would generally agree as someone who’s seen more of the movies than read the books. However, I do feel that in the more recent movies, which are supposed to take place just as he earns his 007 status, are doing a lot better job of exploring his flaws and weaknesses and how he became the James Bond that everyone knows (but not everyone loves). Not everything can be explained by this, obviously, but I thought it was at least a try at setting up why he doesn’t want to care too much about women and why it’s a new one every time.
apparently the author ian fleming used his (and his teams) missions for the james bond series…but he had to water them down a LOT for public consumption O_o
not exactly a rousing endorsement of his own character! XD
IDK about very little redeeming qualities. I’ve read the books and I agree with your description of James Bond, but you forgot he’s also a patriot to his country, which says something, if nothing else. YMMV.
Roger Moore is still my favorite JB even if he isn’t anywhere near what JB is in the books.
meh, personally I really don’t like patriotism when its in the vein of “I’ll kill/die for my country”. That I find just ridiculous. So having that as Bonds redeeming characteristic? nah. Suaveness and charm maybe instead? XD
This is a very interesting post. It makes me wonder how many of us who like dabble at writing want fame. I know for me fame is not anything I have to worry about, I write out of love for fiction and a desire to share that with others who feel the same way.
I don’t think the term is merely overused. While that would be annoying, I don’t think it would create as great a reaction in myself (and apparently Nifty) if that were all that we found objectionable about it. Unfortunately, I think the cry of “Mary Sue” has become a new way of looking down your nose at a character and author. It’s become a dismissive term, which can be infuriating–think “just a child”, “just a woman”, “just a Mary Sue” and you’ll get my point.
The other factor is, of course, that I *like* a lot of Mary Sues as long as they’re not too absolutely ridiculous. They’re the superheroes of a story. A character that it is easy for the reader to swap themselves with, bringing them into the story. I feel downtrodden enough IRL that it is occasionally nice (and escapist) to be a superhero of some sort. To feel that you can accomplish just about anything.
However, I think that it does take a good author to round out a Mary Sue character. The more “human” you can make them without sacrificing that superhero quality, the better the reader can identify with them. Too often the cry of “Mary Sue” lumps all these types of characters together, preventing discussions of merits/demerits by the simple statement of their archetype. Which is not fair to the author or the character, IMO.
You bring up a good point, Ilona and I were discussing it this morning and there is a double standard, where female characters are more often described as that, than male characters who could also fit the bill. The kids and I watched the first Harry Potter movie recently and they both remarked that Harry was a bit Mary Sue-ish. He is rich and famous and almost universally loved.
See, I don’t see why “rich, famous, and universally loved” is the definition of Mary Suism.
As another poster pointed out, Anita Blake is the ultimate Mary Sue, but I say THIS because the author has shared so much of her personal life on the web and in the forwards of her books — her history, her romances, her philosophies about love and religion and morality, her hobbies (guns and martial arts), etc. — and we can clearly see how Anita (the author’s creation) is the fictional, idealized manifestation of the author’s personal life.
In my opinion, THAT’S what a Mary Sue is. It’s not just about being rich and famous and universally loved — or rich, famous, good-looking, and talented — it’s about being an idealized and exaggerated manifestation of the author.
I think Harry is a universal Mary-Sue: every child wants to be Harry.
He has mystical powers, everyone knows his name, those who like him are good, those who hate him are bad, adults listen to his opinion and his actions alter their lives. He is special, significant, and important. He excels. Children almost universally – and teenagers especially – feel powerless in a world of adults. In that regard, Harry is the ultimate expression of wish fulfillment for everyone who had ever felt he or she didn’t matter.
All fiction, by nature, is wish fulfillment.
Joan Acocella has written fabulous reviews of the Harry Potter series in the New Yorker. I don’t want to misstate her opinions but she basically believes that the appeal is much as Ilona has summarized – the books help kids feel powerful at a time when they are powerless and help them to work (allegorically) through big questions of good and evil and the “right” thing to do. I would argue that all good mythology does this.
There are definitely more female characters identified as a Mary Sue type than males, but a lot of that is a perception thing, I think. There are a lot of male sues that are simply identified as heroic — it was completely normal to have these type of characters as protagonists fiftyish so years ago, so their characteristics don’t tend to stand out as much. The role of females in our culture has changed a lot more than the role of males during that time span, so I think it is just more noticeable.
It is not the male/female thing that bothers me as much as the whole dismissiveness.
Oh, and another famous male Mary Sue? Sherlock Holmes. And I LOVE those stories!
I like a lot of Mary Sues, too, Jenny. And a lot of times a strong character starts out as a Mary Sue and develops into something more, which is my personal favorite arc. But I also like the Mary Sue Reverse, like Buffy, the superhero who wants to be just the normal girl.
The only fail for me is if someone is Mary Sue all the way through the story. I dislike an MC who is merely the foil for everything else.
Ditto! If a character undergoes growth and change during the process of the narrative, then I will enjoy the story. The characters who don’t change, stretch, or otherwise grow are the ones I don’t care for, and so will not spark my interest. This reason is probably why I like Ilona and Gordon’s writing so much
I agree Carol and Laurel. A character definitely has to go on a personal journey or it gets real old real quick. Some of the longer series have developed this flaw, unfortunately. They rush all the development of their main character in the first few books, then nothing much happens for the next few…which is where they lost my interest. I understand why this might happen in a publishing-type sense, but it is a bit short-sighted of an author not to have some contingency plans for their character if a series does continue beyond what they were anticipating.
I’m a little confused…is the term “mary sue” that is overused and it refers to fanfic? I’ve personally never heard this term used before.
Thanks for asking, I was just about to say the same thing. I have not read any fanfic, perhaps that’s why.
Here Bre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
I read somewhere that Bela was a successful character because she doesn’t have any personality, so readers can put themselves in her place–a mary sue for all seasons. I haven’t read the books, so I can’t judge.
It has been a long time since I’ve read Ian Fleming, but I believe I disagree. I think one of James Bond’s few strengths was that he genuinely liked women, which is why so many of them went out of their way to save his skin. I guess he’d have to be a kind of sociopath, but a patriotic one.
Mary Sue is way overused, though. However: ‘Anita Blake’.
The thing about James and his women, other than their unfortunate names, see Pussy Galore and Honeychilde Rider, are that yes he seems to love them and be in love with one at the end of every book and movie, and then at the beginning of the next one, they are gone. Like magic, and rarely ever mentioned again. He loved Tracy but that was it.
I’m remembering this from a long time ago, and as a young teen, but I don’t mean he married women or loved women, I mean he saw them and treated them as full human beings. An awful lot of men (even married ones that remember anniversaries) don’t have any interest in women as people. Some do, of course, but it isn’t a given.
the stripper names seem kind of funny to me, but I remember actually having to figure out what they meant, so there was that element of learning
The stories are about James Bond, so we don’t see it, but who’s to say the women aren’t with different men every time they have an adventure too?
I never read Ian Fleming, but in every Bond movie I’ve seen the casualness of the relationship seemed mutual to me. That’s why it never offended me, I guess, and I never looked for any deeper meaning to his encounters.
Of course, it’s all so over-the-top it almost seems intrusive when they start delving into James’s feelings and motivations. Just blow something up already! JMO.
I’ve seen too many people use the term “Mary Sue” to describe any female character they don’t like (and, I think, to make themselves sound like they are “in the know”). I love the link to windflacon’s illustration. Perfect.
It’s a good point about the terms “hero/heroine” – thanks for the link to Dear Author. The next time I write about the male/female leads, I’ll be thinking about this.
kindle-aholic recently posted..Must-Have-Books Coming Soon
I’ve stopped calling them hero/heroine in my reviews unless there is real heroism involved. For the most part I just call them male and female leads.
I guess I’m one of those ignorant people who didn’t know about Mary Sue either. Oh well.
And now I feel ignorant because I didn’t know “Mary Sue” was a term for characters from fan-fiction. I understood the term, and have used it to describe a character or two or few in my time.
I never thought of “Mary Sue” as overused.
I do like the Mary Sue – How to Tell Guide. Very nice.
I really admire people who can write good books ’cause I can’t help thinking there’s a little bit “magic” in the act. There are so many things that can go wrong… When a book is well written and has the ability to touch us in some way, I really think that it doesn’t matter if the character is a Mary Sue or not. Lord of the Rings, for example, is an awesome book and most of its characters are too good or too bad…
Well I spend my days daydreaming about being this amazing person with a completely different life to mine, usually with some kind of cool magical power, and then this daydreaming turns into a story, and then I have to write it down.
So I guess all my characters are mary-sues if you put it like that, which I personally dont see a problem with.
The description of a Mary-sue which I do have issues with, is when the character is way too good to be true that I cant relate with the character at all.
I end up having similar day dreams. I think of basically fan characters a lot of times, and insert them into the stories. I never write it down for a couple of reasons – it’s not my world in most of these, and I know my character is too strong, too perfect, too nice, etc. usually. I do usually give them some kind of crippling fear, inability, or problem of some sort to try to combat that, but they still end up being pretty Mary-Sue-ish. They aren’t good at EVERYTHING, they’re just usually super awesome super special at at least one thing that is usually thought of as being very difficult.
Lol. nice to know I’m not the only one doing this too XD
I don’t write either, for just about the same reasons…and I don’t like writing, I love reading though!
I wanna go to the planet of Sparkle Ponies…
I guess it does depend on how you define “Mary Sue”. I mean I honestly wouldn’t call Bela a Mary Sue. I think Bela is simply a poorly written character. Now I have tons of opinions about why I think she’s poorly written but to me she doesn’t embody ANY character traits, she is the ultimate BLANK SPACE. I do get the comparison with Harry Potter…so I guess I wonder is a Hero or Heroine who is indeed truly heroic a Mary Sue? I mean I kinda agree with the person who mentioned Lord of the Rings…filled with iconic White Hats and Black Hats. Very little grey in that world…but are those characters Mary Sues? Thanks for all the links…really good stuff.
Miss Bliss recently posted..LOCKED
I always felt that the Mary Sue/Marty Stue term is applied, in non-fan-fiction formats, when authors fail to fully explain/flesh-out/show their characters abilities. Is there always an element of the “Main character gets all the good stuff!” in each novel? Yes, of course. But that should be tempered with the authors own ability to show (not tell, damnit) their characters strengths and weaknesses, relationships, and abilities.
As for people using it as a dismissal, of course. The literary world runs on snobbery. Plus, everyone likes their book to be the bestest!
I also think the term Mary Sue took off like a firecracker the more authors became prolific in interacting with fans via blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc. The more details readers got about the creation of the characters and the authors own personal information the more people made connections between author and character.
Again, it comes down to definition of the terminology but I believe that many genres lend themselves to Mary Sue-ism easily and authors set themselves up by opening up too much about their process.
You could liken Mary Sues to romance novels as the new red headed step child of the literary world. People love to hate them, then they secretly go into the bathroom and read them on the sly.
This is my first time hearing the term as well. I grew up with online RPing and am much more used to the term God Moding. It seems to me that the easiest way to determine a Mary Sue character is to look at the effect they have on the world or story. If they’re a prepackaged solution to all the world’s problem with no struggle or growth required, that may be more Mary Sue-ish than an overpowered character that has to claw his way through the story to survive and find a happy ending. Just my opinion though.
I would have to agree with you about the struggles or character development mitigating the Mary Suishness of a hero. One of my favorite characters is Harry Dresden, a borderline Mary Sue. I do sometimes wish him to be just a little bit mean!
I would think that Harry Dresden makes too many mistakes to be considered a Mary Sue. I mean, in Changes he SPOILER ALERT!!! killed the mother of his child (sorry to any who haven’t read it) in order to cast a spell that acted as a genocidal agent. Seems a bit harsh to me!
I heartily agree! I love characters who are capable and flawed etc, but not Mary Sues, especially main characters who have me shrieking.. “dumbass, that will get you killed!”, or “just keep talking and you will get the info you need”…. and that is why I like your books so much – self aware, evolving strong believable characters
shannon recently posted..Queen of clean
Is this Bela people keep referring to the character in the Twilight books? I read the first before the explosion of popularity and cannot say I liked it. Mainly because I didn’t like the main character, Bella Swan.
I also had never heard of Mary Sue, however my sister’s name is Mary Susan and we often called her Mary Sue or just Sue Sue. This was very educational. Thank you. Do I sound stupidn asking who is Bela?
Just had a second thought is Bela in the “Twilight” series of books and movies?
Yep.
Thanks, I have never read any of the books or seen the movies, but you can’t miss the ads.
I was reading customer book reviews earlier this week on Amazon for a book a friend recommended, Discovery of Witches. A lot of the reviewers said that the main character was a Mary Sue. At the time i didnt understand the reference lol. Thanks for clarifying.
As far as Anita Blake as a Mary Sue i would have to agree with the later books. Not so much with the earlier ones. Anita has a ton of flaws but they are just glossed over as no big deal which has turned me off to her character a lot. I havnt really enjoyed a LKH book since Obsidean Butterfly.
Well I have never heard of a mary sue but if I understand this correctly from reading the given links, it comes from fan fiction where character is made up and inserted into an existing world that someone else created, and this character has attributes that are unrealistically positive.
I don’t see how Bond or Bella or Potter or Sherlock fits as they are original worlds and each is the protagonists of those said worlds. I mean aspects of those character may be too good to be true, but how frequently do you have novels set around normal, average people? I mean where do you get drama from if these people don’t standout for some reason?
If you want to say the character is unoriginal and unrealistic, why not simply say it?
I don’t think people mean ‘unoriginal and unrealistic’. I think sometimes people respond to a character and get pissed off–like wesley in sttng–because they feel manipulated. That character was created to draw youngsters into the show and encourage them to study science, so the people who were annoyed were correct (and I’ve heard people who say they are scientists because of watching him in the show).
Also people do jump on the authors they don’t like–Tanya Huff’s Vicki Nelson looked rather like her, by the author’s own admission shared some mannerisms and originally lived in an apartment the author lived in, and is loved excessively by two iconic romantic types, but I’ve never heard anyone accuse her of marysueism. On the other hand the ‘how to tell a mary sue’ list is actually based on Anita Blake.
When you can predict what major milestone happens next in an author’s personal life because of what was in the last book, or predict that the main character in the book will do something based off of a blog post that was WAY inappropiate to post for the public to see, then that’s when the line has been crossed and the character is a Mary Sue.
I think that whenever you give a main character some kind of strength, they have the potential to become a mary sue. It’s through making that character be relatable and realistic in their strength that they don’t become one. I’m a huge fan of urban fantasy, so I’ve read many books in which the main protagonists had similar abilities (e.g. magical), but it was how the author wrote the protagonist that made it different. Some authors just decided to get the protagonist solve everything, with the token fight in the end., and some just get everything *suddenly* solved in a miracle, that was somehow related to the protagonist. While others (and, in my opinion, the good ones) made the protagonist have to work with others in order to combine their strengths for the final showdown–which happened to show their weaknesses, thereby not making them mary sues.
For me, there are too types of mary sues: The ones that solve everything, and are all-powerful (e.g. the later Anita Blake), and the ones that get everything handed to them on a silver platter (e.g. Bela). Of those two, I think the latter is the worst–because it’s the blandest character the author could make, where everything happens TO them, and they don’t make it happen, so the reader (or author) can just replace the character with themselves easily.
I don’t know. I’m not a writer, so I wouldn’t know for sure. But I love these sort of discussions.
I personally think that if the plot is solid enough, a lot of “Mary Sue’s” are forgivable. If they accomplish something outside of their own personal self love (Bella being an example here of Omg edward, omg we love you for no reason), then the richness, the uber powers, etc. are sometimes forgivable. I think what really defines a Mary Sue to me is if their only point is to prove how uber powerful they are and how as a reader you have to love them because they’re perfect and you as the reader WANT to be them because the author “tells” you to and doesn’t “show” you. We all have flaws, while it’s nice to escape, you need to have something that is believable. I would argue that Superman was designed to be perfect, something to aspired to, but he’s still loved and not considered a Mary Sue. Why? Because even Superman has issues.
I think plot becomes vital. If you have a good plot, you may hate the mary sue, but you’ll still read the book just to hope that Mary sue gets killed off. It’s when the plot gets redundant, repetitive, and all about the main char’s whining about above issues, that I think people start to get frustrated and whip out the Mary Sue term. Instead, should probably call it what it is. Bad plot with lack luster writing/characterization. (This is what killed the Anita Blake series for me).
I once read that every character is a piece of that author, be it embellished or the opposite of them, but there is some aspect of them that makes them appeal to the author to write them. Just like actors. I like to think that’s true, so I would think it would be kind of hard to accuse a character of being a Mary Sue just for an author putting a piece of themselves into it. (Just never the whole thing lol).
I don’t have a problem with authors creating idealized versions of themselves in their books.
It’s the way that they express that character and choices concerning the character’s attributes, plot, setting, and character interaction that makes a character a “Mary Sue” or not.
Ok – take Bella (Twilight), she IS a Mary Sue, not just because she is an idealized representation of the author.
The real problem is that at some point in the idealization process Bella became a character that interrupted my suspension of disbelief.
People love her universally for no apparent reason, the only one’s who don’t are eaten up with jealousy (again, for no apparent reason) or are evil.
At various points in the text characters talk about positive traits Bella is supposed to have that she never truly exhibits through action. She is ‘special,’ but the nature of her specialness is never pin-pointed. There is no reason/ability, significant character growth, or important sacrifice to set her apart from any other girl. She is ‘special’ because she is Bella, and we just have to take it as read.
Now I’d like to think I have a flexible imagination. One that embraces even sparkly vampires, if I may say. But I just can’t believe in Bella, not even in a fantasy.
A Mary Sue is a character that the reader cannot, in context, believe to the point that it weakens and disturbs the flow of the overall story.
These characters TEND to be idealized representations of authors, but are not always – just as not all idealized representations are Mary Sues. IMO.
I’m not a fan of the Mary Sues, so I’m not trying to defend it. I certainly agree that the Anita Blake books fit this stereotype, particularly those following Obsidian Butterfly. But wow, I cannot believe all the posters hating on Bella. I’m really missing something, because I don’t understand why so many people believe definitively that this Twilight character is a Mary Sue. Other than the fact that she had multiple high school boys pursuing her, I don’t see the Mary Sue symptoms she’s presenting with? I don’t know about your high school, but any decent looking new student got automatic “special” status from almost all the everyday kids at my high school—and not just for a lousy two years. I grew up in a small town, and that was just the norm.
Bella isn’t rich, she gets fired from her job, she drives around in an old truck; she’s considered a freak (after Edward leaves her) and not just by the jealous girls). The wolves consider her a blood sucker lover. Bella has plenty of people hating on her. She has weaknesses: Clumsy; things impacting her rather than her having an impact; there is nothing special about her—as she points out herself in the beginning of the books.
The only thing that makes her special is the love of the two boys who want to love her. Not because she’s great in bed, not because she is the most beautiful teen available, but because either would choose a future with her if she would have him. She’s an average girl given extraordinary opportunities with regard to her love life.
I’m sorry, but having the opportunity to love extraordinarily is a gift I wouldn’t bypass. I may not be a beauty queen. I may not be a cheerleader or a rich girl. I may not get the jock, and I may not possess a superpower, but I don’t think it’s a lot to ask that I have a chance to be with someone who wants to be with me badly—who believes that I am the ultimate answer to his fantasy.
Bella IS obsessed with Edward; but Jacob is obsessed with Bella. Why aren’t posters hating on Jacob? He’s more of a stalker than Bella is a Mary Sue. Had it not been for Jacob’s obsession the Twilight series would be a run-of-the-mill teen paranormal romance.
I agree with Tammi G.
If a mary sue is a character who’s ‘too perfect’, or unbelievably talented at too many things, or ‘too idealized’, then Bella really doesn’t fit that description at all. As an ordinary human, she’s useless in the fights against the other, superpowered characters. And in New Moon, she goes into severe depression, avoids her school friends and suffers from auditory+visual hallucinations of the guy who dumped her. How is that ‘too idealized’?
It seems like a lot of people start calling a character a Mary Sue when they decide that they don’t like them. Someone mentioned Superman, and said he’s not a Mary Sue. Why not? He seems to fit the ‘too-perfect/idealized’ thing far more than Bella from Twilight. But people like Superman, so he can’t be a Mary-Sue.
Or perhaps I don’t really understand what a Mary Sue is. It seems like there’s a few different interpretations of what it means, anyway.
I’ve never read any Anita Blake novels though, so I don’t know if I might agree on that or not.