Why is it bad to give a character a name you really like?

I noticed this in the listing of Common Mary Sue Traits.

I understand when say the character is a Spotlight-Stealing Squad ,Chosen One and all around Author's Darling and has a name the author really likes. But is it really that bad to name a normal character like the protagonist something you really like- and still make them flawed realistic characters?

My protagonists were named something that I would name a boy child. Yet many tests seem to act as if this means I'm "desperately unhealthfully obsessed with my character"?

What do you think?

edited 3rd Jul '11 5:00:21 PM by JewelyJ

I suppose people asociate it with obnoxious or made up names.

I dunno.

That's how I choose most of my protagonists' names, honestly. Just...stuff I like.

Though to be fair after writing about them for so long the idea of using that name for a child becomes a bit awkward.

There's a difference between naming a character, say, "Chloe" after a character you really like and naming her Star-Raven Precious Mc Fairchild. One is a name you happen to like and the other is a name most people (namely your audience) can't take with a straight face.

I don't think most of the traits on that list are bad on their own. If the character's already tilting towards Mary Sue-dom, more evidence that the author is in love with their character gives more weight to the tilting scale of Sueness, though.

^^I know.

Why assume that a name the author likes is necessarily an outlandish name. For the longest time I have really liked the names Elliott and Timothy. Therefore I gave them to my protagonists.

I'm not talking about outandish names made up on the spot.

From the Universal Mary Sue litmus:

From the springhole Egomobile test

Personally I would plan on giving my kid a name (while reasonable) that I really liked. I don't see how this means you have an ego or plan to write a world warping Wesley. It just means that you're choosing a name for a main character that appeals to you.

^Ah I see.

edited 3rd Jul '11 5:21:46 PM by JewelyJ

Emotional attachment. It's a symptom. Not a cause.

A little bit of emotional attachment is almost necessary though. I mean, how hard would it be for someone to spend all the time to write a book about characters they don't care about one whit.

Well, I wouldn't name a character anything I really liked, or after a person I really liked, because it seems like it would mess up the associations I had between that name and people. Also, if the name doesn't stand out, I don't think anybody would notice.

It's a cumulative thing.

Mary Sues do not have a single trait, or even just a few traits on that list—they have most to all of the traits. You can have a Mary Sue named Jane Smith, and a perfectly normal character named Disgleirio Cadwalader.

Personally I think it takes only a handful of things to be a Sue, world warping/breaking rules of the universe, gaining abilities unrealistically quickly with no reason or effort and lack of flaws that effect them.

You can have a an annoying or unaffective OC that is stll not technically a Sue. Just uncreative. I don't see the point of warping the term Mary Sue to cover all term for any less than stellar OC.

I just hate how when the character has anything to do with the creator other than the creator creating them people's minds jump to "oh God no, self insert"

edited 3rd Jul '11 5:34:45 PM by JewelyJ

I've said it before and I'll say it again - most Mary Sue litmus tests are 90% useless, and that's being generous. Why? Because they focus exclusively on the symptoms rather then the problem, leading to people thinking that a character having Common Mary Sue Traits is what makes them a Sue. Giving characters names you like is just one example of this - there is absolutely nothing bad about it on its own - okay, maybe not for things like Star-Raven Precious McFairchild, but how many real Sue names are like that anyway?

In other words, and to answer the thread title question: it's not.

For the record, I have failed to write a single protagonist that has not passed the Mary Sue test (passed as in confirmed as) with flying colors. I tend to make my characters very larger-than-life and quite a few are Author Avatars. However, from what I'm told, this helps to make my characters believable and human, because I don't revolve the existence of my entire universe around them.

To me, Black Hole Sue is the only one that really means anything. A Sue is a character who basically changes the coherency of the story (characters, narration, plot, mechanics and all) just by existing. For example, Bella Swan (though I'm sick of picking on Twilight at this point) and everything that makes her special. For some reason, vampires can't resist her, telepathy is useless on her, everyone loves her, and everyone desires her (whether for good or ill). She changes the rules and characterizations of everyone she meets, even without even trying.

I think God-Mode Sue means something too. A Sue is bad because they don't face a real challenge, IMO.

Well, you can look at stories like All Star Superman, where Superman never really faced a real challenge, either. The story is still widely acclaimed (of course, your opinion can vary), but it's just an idea of how God-Mode Sue can be used to tell an acceptable story.

I name my characters with names I love all the time. Doesn't stop me from planning to do terrible things to them anyway.

And it's all about the story involved. In All-Star Superman (and most other Superman stories), the conflict doesn't come from the threat of the harm to the protagonist, but the threats that can harm the supporting cast, those that Superman cares for.

Probably just because a name you would give your child is presumably a name you consider really special, which indicates that you consider the character really special and, specifically, more special than the non-baby-named characters. But yes, as people have mentioned, it's about underlying causes, not superficial traits.

Of course I'm quite keen on naming a son John or Jonathan, so this rule is a big liability for me.

If I do not like a name, I will not give it to a character. It's as simple as that.

I define Mary Sues as characters who are given special concessions by their authors. Nothing more. With that definition in mind, any traits that follow should logically be ones that the author thinks are cool.

I believe that most lists of Mary Sue traits consist at least partly of traits that the author of the list personally finds annoying or stereotypical, such as, in the case of katfeete's test, wearing leather. Never in my entire life have I found leather inherently Sueish or cool enough to give to a Mary Sue.

I was thinking naming my main character Joyann which is my middle name.Would that count as mary sueish?I also was planning to give her the Japanese name Sachiko as a nickname by my japanese character.

No, giving a character a name that you like or even your own name is not inherently Sueish, though the latter's kind of pretentious, to be honest.

The thing is I was making my Japanese character be kinda of a nicknamer for people who have non-japanese name and give them a name that corresponds with their names meaning.

Calm down. That's perfectly okay. It is not inherently bad or Sueish at all.

I give my characters names I like, meaningful names, unusual (but still believable) names and even variants on my own name all the time - even ones who aren't author avatars or like me in any way other than being human. It's what you do with the characters that determine whether they are Sues.

I have a strong dislike of meaningful names - it's just too much of a Contrived Coincidence for me - but I certainly don't think there's anything Sue-ish about them.

And I certainly agree that you should not give characters names you dislike because you're afraid anything else will look like a self-insert. That sort of "Sue paranoia" is just one more reason to hate the litmus tests.

I named one character Stacy Lisbon just to make a gloatingly obscure reference to a ridiculously small-time scholar who predicted a plot twist in the 'verse I'm playing in, but in a context where that twist makes no sense whatsoever. Fanfic is my way to vent that kind of impulse.

I also named another character Stanton Jacques - Jacques to indicate that he's going a little overboard with his political movement there, and Stanton to lampshade that I'm not exactly going for subtlety.

Hey, it beats the names of the werewolves in Harry Potter any day.