The Order of the Stick

The art's looking very pretty these days.

RE: Kender
RE: Mary-Sues: Here is how I personally judge if a character is a Mary-Sue. First, subjectively, I have to dislike the character. Second, I have to have the impression that the author, opposite of my opinion, likes the character and seek to portray them positively while I see them negatively.

Mary-Sues, therefore, require dissonance between my opinion and the authors on any given character.

Now me, personally, I don't dislike kender. Not yet, but I might be getting there. Other people dislike them, that is apparent. The creator's of the Dragonlance setting, however, seem to like them a lot. That the other characters in the setting dislike them is irrelevant. They are, by my definition, Mary-Sues, at least to a lot of people.

Interestingly, when it comes to Dragonlance's interaction with Spelljammer, Krynn's gnomes are nigh-universally rejected by other gnomes. Kender, on the other hand, are accepted as honorary halflings.

That definition is so broad as to be useless, though, and really doesn't match up with any of the more traditional definitions of the term. I mean, by that definition, I'd define Ron from Harry Potter as a Sue. I don't think I could find another person on Earth who'd agree with me on that if I didn't then explain your definition of a Sue to them.

@Mr. Ego: Actually, I'm fairly certain that's the definition of The Wesley, unless The Wesley has been merged into the Sue by now. :/

Wait, no Wesley is now Creator's Pet, I think; the definition of a Mary Sue is a character that is liked by all the other characters and solves everything on their own and faces and beats unrealistic odds with no effort; whether or not the fans like her is, ostensibly, irrelevant.

...I think. I'mma have to check both pages now.

EDIT: Also, Mary Sues are supposed to be unique to fan-fiction, at least technically. Calling the Kenders a race of Creators Pets is fair in my mind, though. As for Ron, I think it'd be a hard case to make to say that he is either thing.

edited 14th Oct '14 7:03:27 PM by Knowlessman

Our Mary Sue article outright says that no one can agree on a definition. So it has a few sub-articles for the most common definitions.

Personally, when I hear "Mary Sue", I first think of the definition from Black Hole Sue.

A Mary Sue (which is a very charged term) originally refereed to female characters that where so perfect and excellent at everything that the reader could not connect them or be in engaged with them.

By now it's been so bastardized as to just be short hand for "I don't like a character".

edited 14th Oct '14 7:06:06 PM by LMage

This. It's 'I Don't Like this Character' Masquerading as real critique.

From Creator's Pet:

Well, I can see where I made the mistake.

Also, I never got the impression that Rowling particularly favored Ron Weasely very much.

edited 14th Oct '14 7:50:34 PM by God_of_Awesome

Your definition didn't say anything about favoring them, only that they were portrayed positively when you viewed them negatively.

I've seen the "Mary Sue is just a term for female characters I don't like" line around a whole lot more than that usage of the term.

"Second, I have to have the impression that the author, opposite of my opinion, likes the character and seek to portray them positively while I see them negatively."

likes the character

Were those not the right words?

Dang, I need to get back to reading Lackadaisy.

The first time I heard Mary Sue, it was defined as 'a character that's basically supposed to be the writer and therefore liked by everyone, regardless of whether or anyone actually does'.

edited 14th Oct '14 8:54:23 PM by Gilphon

^^^ No, they weren't. Liking =/= favoring.

Oh, well, that's how I meant it.

Basically, it seems like the author favors/likes this character while I disfavor/dislike this character. The dissonance is a problem. The wiki calls it Creator's Pet but I've been calling it Mary Sue.

In many cases, what's being described as a Mary Sue is in fact a Creator's Pet. There's a significant difference. To be a Mary Sue, the character must not just be disliked by a large number of fans and shilled by its creator, but it must also have the idealized traits that are part of the descriptions of the various Sue types.

edited 14th Oct '14 9:17:57 PM by Fighteer

Oh well, see, than I guess I've been doing it wrong.

The definition I use is "a character that warps the entire story around them". Basically under this definition main characters can't be sues, but otherwise gets to the heart of the issue with all variations of Mary Sues.

I avoid using the term whenever possible, but if I do that's basically the definition I use.

A Sue/Stu, in my mind, is a character who seems to be going through the story on Super Easy Mode - they overcome obstacles with a minimum of effort, because their own skills are so vast or because other characters bend backwards to accomodate them or whatever, and experience few if any setbacks or personal hardships on-screen (tragic backstory is fair game). Basically, it isn't a problem with the character, inherently, so long as the plot they're in is kicked up to match - which is a big part of why it's critically useless, because it puts all the attention on a relatively minor part of the problem.

Discussions about Mary Sues? Hmm.. interesting. There was an interesting quote about how the difference between a Mary Sue and someone who is just plain old the main character is that the story revolves around the main character whereas the world revolves around the Mary Sue .

A Mary Sue is very difficult to pin down in canonical works, because the author of the work is, by definition, creating the narrative that their characters move around in. Mary Sue, classically, distorts a plot to be about her and her goals even when it doesn't make sense. If you recall, the Trope Namer is a Star Trek parody fic about "Ensign Mary Sue", who beats Spock at science, McCoy at medicine, Scotty at engineering, solves every problem effortlessly, gets everyone to love her, then ascends dramatically to a higher plane of existence because she's Too Good for This Sinful Earth.

Claiming that a canon character derails a story is very tricky, because you're judging it solely against your own expectations for the work, not necessarily the writer's intent. Canon Sues are more likely to arise in continuities that have multiple writers, with particular writers showing blatant favoritism towards their pet characters.

edited 15th Oct '14 6:45:36 AM by Fighteer

I think sequels can easily have Mary Sue-like characters too, as long as they properly displace the existing cast. I think a large part of the problem is the feeling the audience gets when the setting and characters they've become invested in are rendered irrelevant.

A big part of it, I think, is how the other characters react to them. If everyone likes them, or those who dislike them are presented as horrible even if they have legitimate reasons, and people's competence and agency tends to drop around them in order to let them save the day, those are pretty good indicators.

I think it's also important to wait for a story to be finished before declaring a Canon Sue. I've seen characters declared to be Canon Sue for events that really just amounted to the pride before the fall.

As mentioned, a Sue must warp the story around them. Most characters do this when they first enter the story, as sort of an introduction to the new guy. It's not Sueish for the story to be all, "Look at the new character, let's all be excited!" It's only Sueish if it never stops.

edited 15th Oct '14 7:57:32 AM by TobiasDrake

That's why I say "suelike" or "suetastic". That way I just point out that the character shares some of the traits that make sues bad, without the need to conform to the definition which doesn't actually exist.