A new Mary Sue test

Okay, got it. So the typical Pokemon trainer would rack in about 3-4 points.

I think with a Sue it's not so much what they can do as how the story treats them. That's why sections 4 and 5 are worth more weight.

Yeah, it would be about 3 points. The Springhole test has you rack up a point for each animal companion (also for each language spoken, a question I omitted), which IMO is unfair to characters with those strengths. I don't think anyone should get vaulted into Sue territory based on a single trait, however pronounced.

The exception being names, because as you add more and more silly features to a name, it gets exponentially more ridiculous.

Even if it's Played for Laughs?

Parody Sue is still a Sue.

edited 30th Sep '11 12:42:47 PM by animemetalhead

I think he meant like in the manner of an over-bearing, arrogant Blue Blood who has an overly-intricate name followed by a long list of pretentious titles, though those would get enough de-sueifers to balance it out.

Fine, be rational, see if I care.

I think that might fall into the category of "characters a test like this cannot accurately assess."

"Things to actually use your brain on."

All a test can do is come up with a rating for that character's coolness points and wish-fulfilment qualities; it can't assess whether it works in the context of a story. All a test can do (and this does) is give something of a guide next to the scoring of how to interpret the score in different contexts.

Someone told me that my character is definitely a Mary Sue because he's omnipotent, even though he's incompetent and unsympathetic. Is that true?

No.

Arthur Whitney is not a Mary Sue.

I was pretty sure of that myself, just trying to get more confirmation. Thanks.

For the sake of bumping this, I'm going to score Qrlil from the Character Development Threads (and, originally, my comics). While I'm not concerned that she's a Sue, she is the character I've been writing the most recently.

Section 2: 15, 16, 16a, 18 (while no one tells them so to their face, the qrtxians are pretty widely disliked), 19 (the qrtxians aren't exactly evil, but they certainly aren't very pleasant)

10

Section 3: 28, 28a (by the end of the story), 32 ('expert' is a little much, but she's quite good at a few unrelated things), 35

18

Section 3a: 36, 36a, 39, 41, 42 (I don't really see scales qualifying, but I try and grade these fairly harshly), 43

24

Section 4: 51 (who "chose" her and why are another story, but it still counts)

27

Section 5: 69 (after Character Development), 76 (really not sure about this one - it's not "modern" views, but she's certainly more progressive on tolerance then most qrtxians. Not sure if it counts as being "specifically about the conflict" either - it's hardly the whole plotline, but it does play a major role in her individual character arc), 76a (see previous), 77

39

Section 6: 85, 85b (sort of - while still preferring heterosexual relationships, she is more open to same-sex relationships then I am), 91, 91a, 92, 92a, 93, 93a, 94, 95, 96, 96a, 96b, 98, 100.

24

Sounds accurate, and does put her right on the edge of the "some Sue traits" section, which is quite accurate in my setting (many other characters with more of a combat role fell into that section).

Has this been HTML-ized?

Not to my knowledge - I did it manually.

It ought to be HTML-ized. The test is better than any I've seen yet. Sure, there's wiggle room here and there but you need that. However...

This ought to be worth more negative points, IMO. Since something like this can disconnect a reader from a character, most authors aren't going to try it. Also, Sues never fuck up like that.

I was htmlizing it and then got way busy with work. Plan to spend some time on it this weekend.

But yet again, it depends on what counts as "villainous".

Where is this going to be hosted, anyways? It would be cool to have this on TV Tropes among the Toys section.

I was gonna put it up on my own webspace but since the page is self-contained (all the calculations are in javascript; there's no back end application) it could go anywhere.

It would be "villainous in a way that loses audience sympathy". Something like an intentional Moral Event Horizon, and I've had yet to see an author who intentionally means for the audience to lose sympathy for a Sue.

edited 15th Oct '11 9:17:35 PM by tropetown

I still think there should be points off for if other characters are constantly talking about your character in every scene when said character isn't there. That's usually a major sign that said character has high-jacked the plot, since obviously every other character has nothing better to do but talk about how awesome or how strong said other character is, or said characters problems. They have no issues of their own to distract them.

Noir, I think that depends on what exactly they are talking about. In Swords I have the main character's adpoted father talking to his teacher, while the kid is elsewhere. The father is looking for advise since he's never had a kid before.

In the end, it always comes back to how the story treats the character.

So, wait, do we have an HTML'd version of this?

Noir, see 62a.