Naming the Sue

A flat, underdeveloped and unrealistic character around whom elements of the fictional universe (plot, other characters, etc) seem to rotate for no beleivable reason.

As I understand it.

An imbalanced character with the plot, for it's virtues and attention.

I think there's a lot of value in going back to the origin of the term, and thus confronting the fact that it was originally used about one writer creating a character for another writer's setting.

I'm actually tempted to say that it should be against the law to ever use the term Mary Sue outside of fan fiction, and that if there are non-fanfic characters that one has problems with, one is obligated to start over from scratch and coin a new term, with its own definition (and a definition that is as objective as possible), wholly independent from Mary Sue.

I sent a couple of my high-competence characters through a Mary Sue quiz ome time ago (last year, I think), and they both reported back to me that they scored very highly. Nevertheless, they're not Mary Sues. They're merely high-competence individuals, and if you're allergic to high-competence people (the person wrho created that quiz very obviosly suffers from such an allergy), then that's your problem.

I've got to agree with this. If you're writing a fanfic or otherwise playing in someone else's universe (e.g. Man-Kzin Wars) and your character waltzes in and warps the entire 'verse around them (other people's characters act out of character, rules of the universe are suspended/ignored, canon is broken etc all for the sake of your character) it's definitely a Mary Sue.

However, in your own universe - where you set up your own rules - an extremely confident and competent character is not necessarily a Mary Sue, even if it's baldly and obviously an author avatar. It's your universe, your protagonist, your antagonist and your supporting cast.

John Mc Lean, James Bond - pretty much any hero(ine) in a movie - cannot be Mary Sue or Marty Stu, no matter how frigging super fantastically "awesome" they are. They're the heroes, they're supposed to be like that.

If the lead character's so badly done that the audience gets an overwhelming desire to use the medium as a makeshift frisbee (e.g. the laws of the author's own universe clearly apply to everyone else but that character and it spends half its time expounding the author's own philosophies from a soapbox), it needs some name other than "Mary Sue".

But in your own universe you can get away with a lot more "Sueish" traits than you can when letting yourself loose in someone else's universe.

edited 25th Jul '11 1:58:12 AM by Wolf1066

I find that definition to be too self-serving. "It's not a Mary Sue because I made them up" isn't really invoking the spirit of the title. Bella Swan is pretty much a textbook example of a Sue in original fiction that very few people question.

Sure, it's more noticeable if you take someone else's work and apply it, but that's a separate issue.

edited 25th Jul '11 2:00:43 AM by KingZeal

And the Twilight stories are gobbled up by many people who really don't give a damn that Bella is an obvious wish-fulfilment author avatar and completely unrealistic.

A large number of protagonists in original works are just as obviously author avatars or completely unrealistic or pure wish-fulfilment or all of the above - doesn't stop many people from enjoying them, either, and it doesn't make them the akin to someone wandering into someone else's playground and magically being more significant than the original kids in the sand box.

edited 25th Jul '11 2:13:20 AM by Wolf1066

Which is why I never said that Author Avatar + Wishful Fulfillment + Unrealistic = Sue.

If that's all it takes, then the term has no meaning because it accounts for every superhero ever, starting with Superman and his Clark Kenting.

As I said before, the problem with a Sue is that it destroys the logic and/or consistency of the story through no effort of his/her own. The plot conveniently warps around the Sue, characters don't act like themselves, and real world logic doesn't apply solely for the Sue's convenience. That's a far less expansive definition than merely being an Escapist Character.

A Mary Sue is a character that violates the physics of the world.

Since authors who creates their own worlds get to define the physics, it is possible for them to make the world physics such that extremely competent characters can exist.

The argument isn't: "This character is not a Mary Sue because I created him".

It's: "This character isnot a Mary Sue, because I created the entire world of the story, and he's not violating its physics in any way".

I'm sure there's a huge amount of really low-brow crap fiction, as in movies and novels (and RP Gs), that take place in worlds that cannot be said to have physics, using the word in any meaningful sense. But that's not my problem. I stay far away from such intellectually offensive material.

Still not true. When you create a world of fiction, you are still establishing "rules" with every word/visual you show. For example, if the text scroll reads "Poland, 1937" and everything we've seen up that point indicates that it's a period piece, then you can't suddenly have your protagonist find a Harrier jet inside of a bunker to fight the Nazis with. Oh sure, if you suddenly wanted to invoke Refuge in Cool, then that's one thing. But, if the entire story has been a strikingly horrific encounter of Nazi life until this point, then using an Ass Pull out of nowhere does not help you.

I'm not saying there aren't ways this could work, but to say "this character is not a Sue because I made up this world and can make up the rules as I go" is not true.

There's a difference between competence and violating the laws of physics. When it's clear that the author is just giving out favors to a certain character, it's a Sue. Bonus points if such favors are deux ex machinas, only make the character look cool, or are things they had all along, just for one scene.

Th concept is undefinable as of now. There is no way everyone will agree with just one definition. We might as well create a new term.

Better yet, say what specific fault you find with the character.

It's normal for the heroes of certain classes of fiction to be hypercompetent, larger than life and desired and even suspend the laws of physics without so much as a handwave and be proven right all along when their superiors/peers are convinced that they are dead wrong.

If someone wrote a direct James Bond expy and inserted it into a fanfic of Star Trek or Babylon 5, people would call "Sue" but in James Bond's universe, written by Ian Fleming, James is merely the larger-than-life hero/author avatar with a generous side order of wish-fulfilment.

And people love him and the stories.

There are trope pages filled with examples of characters that would be "Mary Sue" in someone else's world but they are not "Sues" by virtue of the fact that their worlds are written with them as the heroes.

The Die Hard movies play as free-and-easy with the physical laws of our universe as Star Trek does. Any normal human would have died in minutes but John gets a couple of minor scratches.

Tarzan - in the books - is tough enough to casually smoke a cigarette whilst being shot multiple times (apparently it was nothing compared with fighting lions) and also taught himself to read from the books in his parent's hut and learned spoken French extremely quickly. In addition to being super strong, highly intelligent and inventive yada yada yada.

Do those things make him a Mary Sue? Or just the titular hero of a series of fictional books. (BTW, I read them when I was a young teen and was able to pick holes in them that he could have ridden his elephant through but I still enjoyed them)

Author avatars abound - Bella Swan, Hermione Granger, James Bond, Simon Templar and on it goes. Wish fulfilment is rife. Physics are ignored in favour of Rule of Cool.

But still people suspend disbelief and read the stories - if they are well written and engaging.

Nothing wrong with any of that. If you don't like the story, character, lack of realism or whatever, you put the book down or turn off the DVD player - but at the end of the day, it's the author's story. Their universe, their rules, their heroes and villains.

When it comes to fanfic, however, if you write a character that wanders into the Twilight universe and is better at everything than Bella (and has a cuter character flaw) and has all the Vampires and Werewolves fighting over her and even has Bella exploring the possibilities of lesbian love, you've got a Mary Sue.

The difference between James Bond and Bella Swan is that James Bond (especially the movie incarnation) is used to invoke Rule of Cool. While a Sue is certainly possible in this context, it's basically the same principle behind Dante from Devil May Cry. The reason why the story "works" for them is because it's not supposed to make sense.

John Mc Clane? Bad example. John is actually the benchmark for the "believable" action hero. John is a tough guy, badass and fearless hero, but let's compare him to Matrix from Commando. The latter is far more of a Sue. (Waltzes through waves of enemies, walks off being shot and takes a grenade like nothing.) Another example of a Sue is Rambo after the second movie.

Basically your point is "They are intentionally better than everyone else, and it's on the authors own universe, so they are not Sues."

But why should we have exceptions? "A character can't be a Mary Sue in his own work." Why? Yes, if the stories are engaging and well written people can still enjoy these characters. Who said that Mary Sues can't be enjoyable?

Tarzan, as you describe him (I never read anything with him in it) is a Mary Sue. This doesn't mean that these stories suck or that we shouldn't like him. But he is a Mary Sue, by having all the characteristics of a Mary Sue.

I think, if you were to outlaw the use of the term "Mary Sue" to describe an original fiction character, we'd simply have to find a new term for such characters.

And it's not being an Author Avatar that's the problem. It's dominating the story world to the point where it stretches credibility.

Debating this is like debating politics. It won't go anywhere.

I am trying to create an objective term with the same premise of Mary Sue. But objetive, precise and not respective

[[link to the YKTTW https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=qfdtz85msxucpndx6dtl26v0]]

Something that needs to be remembered is that not all terms can be simplified to a short definition.

Also, a term should not be erased simply because certain people misuse it or don't understand what it means. Instead, shouldn't more people step up and take the time to explain to that person what it means? It would save a lot of problems.

Last, while flame wars do occur and ther are people who have recieved critique they shouldn't have simply because someone doesn't like the story, those people who recieve such critique need to learn to brush the idiots off.

Other people, who have recieved critique they need, need to learn to accept that not everyone is going to pat them on the back and praise them and you can't tell a person not to tell you the truth. Some of these people who recieve critique and go off on it, don't always go off because their character is a Mary Sue. Some are called out for grammer or research problems, or having plot problems.

Going by the definitions of Mary Sue in this thread, my main character is a Mary Sue simply because he's (literally) omnipotent. However, despite this high level of physical power, he ultimately fails at just about everything he does because of his character flaws.

Actually, I have tried to argue (in this and many other threads) that how powerful a character is should have nothing to do with them being a Mary Sue.

I can beat that. I have an omnipotent character who is insanely competent, and completely unbeatable.

:D

The term "Mary Sue" started being used for canon characters pretty much immediately after its coining; I remember someone who worked for a SF/F publisher saying the slush readers started to use it as a two-word summary of why something sucked, for instance.

I also think trying for an "objective" definition of Mary Sue is missing the point.

Defining "Mary Sue" as being only valid for fanfic immediately leads to "We need a term for a Mary Sue in original fiction." There's definitely a thing there that needs a name, even if it's harder to pin down in original works. We've all, I suspect, found a work in which a certain character being the Author's Pet starts to harm the whole thing.

I think, a Sue is simply a character that breaks the suspension of disbelief, be it in their own world or another.

I find the best way to identify a sue is by asking a very simple question: why? If this question can't be answered clearly, reasonably, and in no more then three sentences, then something is wrong.

Welp, there goes the Mystery genre.

More seriously though I think that's a terrible method, as if you ask that question of a real person, how likely is the response to meet your guidelines?

Part of the problem and the nature of the Sue is that they are unreal for lack of a better term; they break suspension of disbelief by so being.

edited 2nd Oct '11 1:29:01 AM by Night

I'm not sure how this ruins the mystery genre. Just because the reasons aren't readily apperent, doesn't mean they aren't there.

Also, Sues, any characters really, isn't a real person. And if we treated them as such, we'd have stories that are rather random.