Advice related to the MS litmus test.

The mary sue litmus test has asked me whether my character has an unattractive physical deformity. My character has black sclera, and though I find it attractive( at least, not too creepy), I'd like some feedback.

examples of what I mean(minus the evil overtones.)

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackEyesOfEvil

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackEyesOfCrazy

I tend to find them cool.

Okay, I'm going to be blunt here: do not pay attention to those tests. I don't like to say Completely Missing The Point, but... well I said it. All Mary Sue litmus tests, everywhere, make the glaring error of focusing solely on the external symptoms of a Sue rather then on what actually makes a character a Sue - and that's assuming that any given test is written in good faith rather then just listing character traits the author dislikes.

In fact, I would argue that they go beyond useless and into actively harmful - new authors freak out about their character happening to have some trait the test's creator found "Sue-ish", while those actually writing Sues simply change the external traits of the character while still leaving them the same plot-warping, Willing Suspension of Disbelief destroying abomination they always were (see also: the Anti-Sue). Really, the entire Mary Sue meme has been a toxic influence on online writing communities, but the Sue litmus tests go above and beyond any other aspect of it in causing far, far more harm then good.

/rant

^THIS ALL OF IT

Though occasionally I have used the MS Litmus to decide whether I really needed some trait otherwise I wouldn't think on it too much. The best Sue test is just talking to an honest friend. You can't really tell if a character is a Sue by giving a list of traits because a Sue is defined by their place in the story.

edited 12th Sep '11 1:58:09 PM by JewelyJ

In my experience, MS Litmus tests are better used for entertainment value than serious literary feedback. I print them out anyways just so I have something to do in case I'm bored at school and not allowed to be on my school-issued MacBook.

But even then if I was questioning something semi-serious about my work, I would seek out at least three MS tests and take them all instead of just using one, for the same reason why you don't just take a single data point in a scientific experiment.

MS Litmus tests are good for people who cannot write.

Some people here cannot write, but most can write somewhat well.

It doesn't matter what you think about the character's eyes; how are they received in the story, by the other characters?

I don't think eyes count as a physical deformity because cool/unusual eyes are themselves a common sue trait.

But what everyone else said. If you're quibbling over whether one question applies, you're putting too much stock in it.

I must say that every time I see a reference to MS litmus tests I cringe. They can be humorous to play with but must never be taken seriously. They list character traits and characteristics but never tackle the real signs of being a Mary Sue - the Universe-Warping behaviour and the ways that other characters behave around a Mary Sue that destroy Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

There have been many perfectly valid interesting characters that have been blatant Author Avatars with unusual traits who don't break the story - characters that would "fail" the MS litmus tests but in the contexts of their stories work quite well and don't evoke a desire to hurl the book across the room.

One character I'm working with at the moment would trip so many points on MS litmus tests that it's not funny - yet, in his universe, he's not anything overly "special" and the other characters don't react to him as characters do to Mary Sues.

You can make your character as interesting as you like - it's your character and a certain amount of Author Appeal is expected - so long as you write your character in such a way that other characters' reactions are realistic in context. How are people going to react to someone with black sclera? Some are going to be creeped out, others are going to assume the character is evil, some may like it (possibly even find it attractive), others won't care one way or another. Those who are creeped out or assume it's a sign of evil (or associate it with a racial type for which they have prejudices) are going to react badly and will need some serious work to convince them otherwise.

Not a big problem.

If your character's running around the place and people fall over themselves to be helpful (or want to fuck the character, regardless of sex and sexual preferences) because (s)he has such wonderful black eyes or, conversely, all the character's problems stem from the fact that people can't get over his/her "evil-looking eyes", then we're getting into Mary Sue territory - from the way the other characters are behaving.

I will agree with those saying that they have some entertainment value. Just don't take the results seriously. (I apply this same principle to every test I take for my characters, really).

I think MS litmus tests have some value for those who are trying to tell if a character that they haven't thought about before is a Sue, because they (at least, the good ones) do enumerate traits that tend to show up in correlation with the plotwarpiness of a Sue. However, they're only very minor helpful things, not the be-all and end-all of the discussion; in particular, if you're thinking about whether a character is a sue, and you aren't sure, the answer is not going to hinge on their having or not having any name, deformity, physical appearance, or whatever. Sues tend to be unrealistically attractive, but being unrealistically attractive doesn't make a character a Sue; what would make a Sue is every character thinking that they're the epitome of beauty, and either loving or hating them for it.

Any value they might ever have is only with characters not written by someone aware of Mary Sue tests. It's like metrics of employee productivity; they work when people aren't aware they're being judged on that attribute, but as soon as they are aware, it's bullshit, because in both cases they are counting common symptoms that correlate to what they're really trying to measure, but both are gameable.

Madrugada, have you ever for your amusement put Jame through one? She scores in the "kill it with fire!" range, but actually works as a character because the author is smart enough to put her super-powered dark alter ego in situations where she's actually challenged, as well as giving her real flaws that cause her real in-story problems.

I've run Jame through several, and gotten the same result as you: "Ack, Sue! Sue! Kill it, throw it out and start over! Ack!". I also ran Belgarion from the Belgariad through several, and got either "Dangerously close to Sue" or "Ack, Sue! Kill it, kill it." depending on whether there were de-Sueifier questions or not.

Out of curiosity (and morbid fascination), can you all give me links to the particular tests you're using?

It's true most Mary Sue tests are crap, though I must say that I actually tend to find this test to be quite good at really giving you a decent idea of whether your character is a bit over the top mary-suish. I've written cool characters, who were by no means boring or underpowered who passed easily, and yet it does pick up on the very sueish trends.

And black sclera, actually are pretty Sueish especially, if he's the only who has them, it's probably okay if he's a part of a (well known by other characters) species or something where everyone has them, but eh. It really is a 'cool' thing, and it's an appearance thing that probably wouldn't effect the plot much, so it's obviously something people will zero in on as something the author chose based purely on Author Appeal and Rule of Cool.

Also I have to contradict something Madraguda said way up there. While it matters how the other characters treat and react to things, you can't rely only on something like that to convince your audience. This is where you get Angst Dissonance and Cursed with Awesome. Other characters treating super-awesome angel wings like they are hideous signs of impurity is really not going to make people feel bad for said character who has them and acts like they are ugly because of it. "Oh I have super awesome wings, woe is me!" No one is going to take that seriously. That's just Angst pure and simple.

Also I find Jame extremely Suish, so that example didn't really disprove my thoughts, I don't need a test to tell me that. really what makes those books isn't Jame, I'd rather read about her brother, actually. It's the mythology, world and symbolism.

edited 13th Sep '11 12:52:25 AM by NoirGrimoir

Is there a reason for the character to have black eyes in-universe?

Poor Belgarion, all those Suish traits and yet he gets dragged from frying pan into fire, recursively, continually embarrassed, never has a damn clue he's the Chosen One until it almost literally drops on his head, and then gets sat with more responsibility than is fun, and has to marry a Princess who decides she hates him. Eddings was a good writer. I wish he had branched out a bit more later on; he squandered his talents a bit in terms of telling very similar stories, but he understood story structure and trope, and playing with and deconstructing them, as well as anyone. He also wrote dialog that a TV writer would envy, full of snap and sass and yet appropriate to the scene.

Mary Sue tests don't deal well with the epic-scale hero or heroine in general. In part, that's because most were originally intended for fan-fiction authors; it's generally a bad idea to have an OC who fills such a heroic role, because that means the story revolves around them, and in someone else's universe, there's already such people (or the story is defined as not having them).

@Noir Grimoire: Which then goes to show that Suishness is a very subjective thing, right? I have long thought Jame made the most sense viewed as a comic-book superheroine; very few such are completely free of Suishness and wish-fulfilment, and Hodgell was a heavy comic-book fan in younger life. There's quite a bit of, say, X-Men in there; the trope of naive but tough girl with potentially world-destroying powers who is shunned by those she grew up with and wider society is an old, old one in comics.

For me, the challenges, internal and external, are sufficient to keep Jame on the right side of Sue, but I can see how that's a matter of the reader's subjective judgment and how they personally approach the work. It's definitely the case, though, that Jame's most challenging opponent is herself and the only real restraint on her is her desire to remain a good person in a world where there seem precious few reasons to bother, and frankly very little daylight between her and a fall into evil, because she does get frighteningly close at times.

But since you, me and Maddy are probably the only ones here who know what we're talking about, probably best to take this semi-digression elsewhere if you want to.

These two articles go in detail about everything that's wrong with these tests.

The first article was good. The second (the question-by-question analysis) does a far better job of displaying the author's hatred of the tests than what's really wrong with them. (But that may be my bias showing: I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they declare something like "Medieval people went days, sometimes weeks without washing!" Without taking an immersion-bath, quite possibly, but not without washing, and if you know how to do it, a basin wash-up is quite sufficient.

There were the places and times where people got all convinced that bathing was an expression of vanity, and vanity a sin, and so they stopped bathing much, but that was neither widespread nor long-lasting.

But "didn't bathe" doesn't mean "quit washing entirely".

God help you if you try to create a superhero character and put them through one of these litmus tests.

Does it count if it's Fail O Suckyname?

... making your character part of an identical legion really cancels out a lot of these questions.

edited 13th Sep '11 7:17:53 AM by Merlo

When I was younger, I took them (too) seriously. Now, I find them only a fun diversion, because I've worked on my characters extensively. They've each passed the MS litmus tests I've taken since.

I agree with others: the tests overemphasize the importance of physical attributes, and not internal characterization (emotional attributes, mental, etc.). And they cause unnecessary worry, I think.