How to avoid Creator's Pet

One reviewer on Fanfiction.Net summed up Mary Sue as an accumulation of bad writing so maybe to term is grossly misused, a much more real danger is making a Creator's Pet.

What is the best way as an author to make sure no character becomes your pet? What pitfalls to look for.

1. Don't be afraid to screw over the character if the situation calls for it, especially if the alternative is getting them out of a scrape purely through plot fiat.

2. Don't suddenly have them be superior to other areas in their particular areas of competence. I.e., if Goku is acting brainier than Bulma, you're doing something horribly wrong.

edited 25th Sep '14 9:15:19 PM by EvaUnit01

Thanks! Really good advice!

Does it count if you're a horrible, sadistic thing addicted to Emotional Torque who's "pets" are "torture-pets?"

I find that bullet-point-type lists aren't very useful. General rule of thumb is your character should be a character, that is to say something resembling an actual person, rather than as a vehicle for cool stuff to happen.

@Penguin: There are probably other writers with more experience than I, who could also show up and grant valuable words of wisdom.

I... don't know how to answer that.

edited 25th Sep '14 10:29:48 PM by EvaUnit01

To be fair, Creator's Pet automatically happens if you happen to have a longstanding protagonist in certain genres, the key is to write believable scenarios that readers will enjoy anyways.

Reads the Creators Pet Page

Oh huh, I guess Protaganists don't fall under this line.

Best I can say is make your characters likeable. If you make them unlikeable, then treat it that way in Universe.

edited 25th Sep '14 10:39:36 PM by stevebat

The easiest way to avoid this is to occasionally take a moment to give everyone a laugh at their expense.

Kill your protagonist periodically.

Explain, please?

edited 25th Sep '14 11:23:23 PM by EvaUnit01

Quest thread protagonist, maybe?

From the Creator's Pet trope page:

In the majority of cases, it's perfectly okay if readers don't feel the same way you do about a character. On the rare occasion when you do need readers to see eye-to-eye with you, you can't do it by featuring character X more and having others talk about how character X is, if you leave every aspect of chracter X's personality and behavior exactly the same. If you want the character to be more liked, then make them more likeable—don't lecture your audience about why they should already like them.

I'd imagine if it's a work with multiple main characters, avoid having that one character take up most of the limelight. Try to focus more on the other characters if it's an ongoing series, but do not make the mistake of belittling the accomplishments of everyone else and giving the suspected Creator's Pet more plot significance.

Just to clarify, a Creator's Pet only has said definition if it's a main character that the audience dislikes but the creator believes should be popular?

edited 26th Sep '14 11:24:04 PM by ParadoxialStratagem

A Creator's Pet is often shilled in spite of the audience's dislike, without efforts to make them more likeable.

Probably be best to fit them into the narrative, share the glory with the other characters, to be the best you have to be better than everyone else and it's a bit of a long shot to think that a person whom you are writing about will just happen to be the best. (Yes for purposes of the work naturally we will make the protagonist the most interesting. But that's when the fourth wall starts creeping out of the story and we get New Powers as the Plot Demands and its kin.)

Have a power structure and find a place where your protagonist will belong, they're a character too after all and should be vulnerable to similar limitations.

My two cents.

A Creator's Pet is often shilled in spite of the audience's dislike, without efforts to make them more likeable.

Although most of the time, the authors will think that shilling is a real effort to make the character more likable.

Best way to avoid creator pet in my honest opinion, is by making sure the character stays in character, make sure that they aren't abused, praised, buffed, or have more screen time than the main characters (if said character is in every chapter and they aren't central to the plot, they're creator pets).

Also, consult others and listen to their input on what you are doing while you write.

THAT.

Very often, a creator's pet arises when the creators don't listen to their audience enough. Like in How I Met Your Mother when the writers went completely off the rails—first they listened to demand very well and made Barney and Robin a couple, which I was fucking ecstatic about because they were AWESOME.

And then the creators broke them up out of the blue, for stupid and irrational reasons that warranted my very first Rage Quit on a TV show.

And then they got Barney and Robin together again (though long after a lot of viewers quit anyway, so I don't know how successful that was). According to people watching, though, they were awesome again! And Ted found an awesome girl who was the long-awaited Mother as well!

Well, until the LAST FUCKING EPISODE where B/R divorced and the Mother died and suddenly Robin was in love with Ted again and they got together for... reasons? Cue the Rage Quit from what feels like EVERYONE.

I didn't even watch it, and I know that that last part is one of the most suicidal career moves you can do. Having an ending in mind is great, but you never want to railroad the plot to that point. When your viewers abandon the show because you've made it so abundantly clear that you don't give a shit about them, you might need to rethink your career choice.

On the other hand, pandering isn't good either. You have to find a balance between what you want and what your audience wants.

Yeah, Pandering to the Base could practically be defined as "Don't do what Glee did."

edited 27th Sep '14 7:22:13 PM by Sharysa

I have an idea, but for the uninitiated, what did Glee do?

edited 27th Sep '14 7:28:52 PM by mega-dark

Glee tried to pander to its IMMENSELY BROKEN fanbase. Imagine trying to please a mostly-united fanbase, but then scale it up to Glee's audience where every character has not only a rabid fanbase, but a rabid hatedom, and half of those factions hate each other.

I quit a bit into Season 3 because everyone was acting stupid, and now I just stay in the fandom and don't pay attention to anything past Season 2.

edited 27th Sep '14 7:41:25 PM by Sharysa

@ HIMYR
What the hell was that? I don't watch the show but sounds like bar-none the most clumsy and egotistical way to handle any plot line I've ever seen, much less the ending, why bother have B/R get together at all than?

If you aren't going to give a shit, go all the way!

An actor has to play the role they're given. They have to believe it's important. So if you give a guy a janitor with one scene role and he describes the entire thing as "it's about this janitor" then for him, that's true.

Don't be that way. You're the only person on the project, the director by default, so no matter how much one character may play the dominant role, it's not about the character. It's about the story you're trying to tell. Just as you have to associate to understand the character, you ultimately have to dissociate as well to write them in relation to their world.