"Is my character a Mary Sue" thread

I'm not sure what you mean by that, risingdreams?

I'm kind of worried I annoyed people by creating this thread. I just thought it could be useful. -_-

But the tests, I think it was a very bad idea linking them. I don't even care much about 'em.

The topic is kinda inevitable — writer's groups online always seem to have threads about these things. So don't feel too bad.

Do we get points off for intentionally writing a character as Sue-ish to underscore their creepy other-worldliness?

If we don't, I'm in trouble...

...I think that's the main problem with these tests, right. And I don't even know if a character intended as a sue should be considered a regular sue (which includes Parody Sue). If it makes any sense.

If you're writing a character as sue-ish, why would you want points off?

Errr... You're right. Then the idea would have as much as points as possible, right?

But you're aware of how ridiculous it is and utilizing it for an actual purpose, not blindly stumbling ahead with a collection of traits you thought sounded cool.

Still has those traits, though.

Bing a Sue is not an inherently bad thing, although it is extremely difficult to pull one off.

I think it'd fit in the last bit, maybe take off two-three points at most.

Yes- off the how you treat the character part, probably, not the character traits themselves.

Heh, just tried fiddling with the test with mythological/religious figures.

... I mean, if God doesn't score enough Sue-points, you'd be kinda worried for the story, right?

Lerady: Problem is, the world is flooded with Parody Sues. There's just too many of them these days.

My opinion is that too many tropers spend much too much time thinking of subversions and parodies rather than going out and writing a good story. Cleverness doesn't beat quality, and too much focus on it by a beginner is a bad thing. It's writerly masturbation.

That is a very good point, and something that has occurred to me many times.

I am also guilty of it. I try to defend it by saying I came up with the story first, and then realized certain characters followed certain archetypes, but that's just an excuse.

In short— listen to Morven. A parody or subversion does not inherent quality make, and can sometimes be just as bad as something played straight.

The story itself trumps everything else.

Don't focus on the subversions, the parodies, the deconsruction; focus on the story itself.

I have a setting that started out entirely as "let's subvert common JRPG tropes!" The main characters would have been a 30-something black man and a Badass Grandma, both of them with actual military experience.

After several years of brainstorming, sudden inspirations, random ideas cribbed from various places, and — perhaps most importantly — dreams, the setting is now nothing like how it started out, and is better off for it. Subversions or no, it was still a pretty typical and boring fantasy setting at first. Those two characters are still around, but they have fairly minor parts now.

edited 11th Apr '11 8:33:39 AM by Zudak

I agree with the statement to not base an entire work around a trope or tropes in purpose. Sometimes I look at tropes that are relevant for my character and see if I can find a couple of things in there (sometimes major) that will help me figure out the charcter further, but that's different. I'm looking at tropes that specifically apply to the already established character, and try to avoid cliche's and see what will work for those personality types.

Really, I could assign many tropes just on characterization for each of my characters.

We were talking about this on your thread the other day.

There is nothing inherently wrong with playing with tropes, deconstructing, or creating characters off of established archetypes. People have done it before, and the results can be good or bad. I think that issue is that you are writing in the shadow of someone else's creation. I understand that tropes are sort of common domain for writers now—kind of like put down puns for comedians—but when we rely on the too much the our originality, narrative styles, and voice is sort of stopped in order to get a certain goal accomplished.

And wondering whether or not your story contains a Mary Sue or creating one on purpose is just managing the reader's expectations, which isn't the best path to take.

One way you limit yourself by parody or deconstruction is that you are restricting your audience to those who'll get what you're doing, or at very least you're making a fairly large part of your story only understandable in that context. Unless you're parodying or deconstructing something that's really common, your audience is going to be smaller. If you're going to be parodying, say, sword-and-sorcery fantasy, that's one thing. A bunch of your audience has probably read some.

The other problem is that the first successful parody or deconstruction of a genre eats up a lot of the market. The second or subsequent attempt will just be seen as an imitation of the first, unless your story is truly remarkable. There's a lot more tolerance of covering the same ground in straight, non-parodic works.

I feel that playing with tropes is fine, but works where their reason for existing is to deconstruct/parody a trope are hard to pull off. Like Evangelion is known mostly for being a deconstruction, but there are other elements to it besides that that actually make it enjoyable, rather than just a creative exercise/showing off.

Now, an actual character for submitting (or discussing, I suppose): I've tried writing with Satan as a Villain Protagonist a few times. Do you guys feel that he'd pretty much have to skirt the MarySue line, otherwise he wouldn't feel right? I usually characterize him as being extremely attractive, very powerful, and more experienced than most beings. However he can also be petty and doesn't take losing very well.

I try to portray him in a semi-sympathetic light, but ideally I'd want to leave it ambiguous, the reader can decide for him/herself whether Satan is sympathetic and/or justified. I am a bit concerned about this though—I'd need a reason for his rebellion that isn't unambiguously justified/unjustified. If it comes to it I think I'd rather lean toward the unjustified side though, because otherwise that'd be a little Draco in Leather Pants.

I suppose how he he comes off depends on the execution, hmm?

Well I'm just saying to see what you can use from tropes (this is what I do), not copy them (this is what I don't do).

Example: I found out my character fitted said trope pretty good, it has traits X, Y and Z that would fit consistantly with my person. Trait X he already had before I looked at the trope. Trait Y might work, so I toy with the idea. Trait Z won't work. It doesn't fit him. I try out new trait Y, and see if it would work. I'm not even actually copying parts of the trope per say, I'm looking for an idea to see if I didn't think of anything. About 1/5 tropes I look at have at least one little thing I didn't think of, but sometimes some major brillant idea comes to mind when I read an aspect of characterization I didn't even think of at all.

So I am not copying tropes, I am seeing what from them I can learn. My character could fit under this trope with traits X and Y, but he is not based on the trope, he just can loosely be tied to it with it being a good explanation/definition of an aspect of him.

Though, I did find one character that largely fit two tropes. But that was an exception.

Does that sound like I am copying tropes?

edited 11th Apr '11 10:45:24 PM by jasonwill2

Sort of, but not really.

I do not know if that is good or bad.

Anyway, back on topic. I took the one test someone here (I don't remember who) made about half way through the topic. I scored really low, let's just say, oh, about -35. Though I excluded a couple of things I wasn't sure how to answer. At any rate, even with those other things stacked up I would still be well within the safe limit; I found that test much more well made out than the originally put up tests. I was gonna mention it earlier but just forgot to.