In Defense of the Mary Sue Litmus Tests...

Hello, this is my first time entering the forums and actually talking to people on any site other than Youtube's comment section.

Hippity-freaking-ray.

Of course, like any sane individual, my first introduction to this huge place full of strangers will be tackling a [[YMMV controversial topic]], because that's what all the smart people are doing, right?

This Is Gonna Suck

Well, seeing as I'll never be able to leave this site after it stole my soul, I might as well stick up for something I believe in that's being spat at, Mary Sue litmus tests, or at least the Springhole.net one.

This one.

People generally haven't taken these things too seriously at the best of times and outright hate them at the worst. I'm here to state my views and hopefully have a proper discussion/debate about it.

I'll list some pointers on why they are hated and point out flaws in such reasoning. I will do this with a numbered list. I will use the Enter key far more times than is really needed.

I do this for extra readability and partially because I hate the Wall of Text trope.

Now then, no more delaying.

1. Nobody can actually agree on what a Mary Sue is.

The Mary Sue is a complex trope. There are so many different flavors of awfulness to choose from that it's difficult to pin down the "truest" form of it. Many would say there is no "truest" form of it.

All TV Tropes has to say about it is, "...The best way to describe the phenomenon is by example of the kind of character pretty much everyone could agree to be a Mary Sue. These traits usually reference the character's perceived importance in the story, their physical design and an irrelevantly over-skilled or over-idealized nature."

My personal take on it is that, if a character can be likened to a baked potato, with personality and overall character being the potato and specialness, super-powers, and respect are different toppings, then a Mary Sue is a tiny potato that might not even have been cooked that has been drowned in cheese, onions, salt, and pepper to the point where there is no true "taste" or "substance" to it, merely toppings, with the different types of Mary Sue being the different flavors of awfulness achieved by the end product.

While the old version of the term was, "Special female character I didn't like," that definition is fairly unhelpful as all characters have some specialness to them and can be disliked by someone. As such, the definition has been refined to what it is today.

How does this apply to litmus tests for Sues? Two ways.

The first is that the people who write these tests are, in fact, people with their own opinions on what the term means, just like you. The tests often make more sense after you've read what they define a Mary Sue as. Springhole is pretty good about this, having multiple pages devoted to the topic. (http://springhole.net/writing/whatisamarysue.htm)(http://springhole.net/writing/mary-sue-subtypes.htm)(http://springhole.net/writing/powerful-not-sues.htm) (http://springhole.net/writing/before-declaring-other-characters-mary-sues.htm)

The author of the test has more or less the same definition to our own site.

Everything in her test has to do with the characters being special in one way or another, and while the test suggests that you should have at least SOME points (Between 5 and 21), it's main purpose is to highlight exactly how much stuff you've given your character and help you find ways to trim the fat. It's a suggestion that hey, maybe you don't need to give your OC for a mostly normal story blue hair.

To round things out for this part, also remember that your idea of a Mary Sue may conflict with their idea of what it is. Don't commit the Erosion of Definition fallacy by stating that, because a Mary Sue is X and the test wasn't built around X that it is not helpful in finding out whether or not your character is a Mary Sue. Check and make sure what they think a Mary Sue is first and check around to see if that follows the general description given by TV Tropes. If it does, then the test is working just fine.

2. Sometimes, people jump right into the test without reading the fine print. They're asking why their characters ranked so high on the test and claim that it doesn't care for things like justifications or [[Lampshade lampshades].

The first is linked to a misuse of the test, the other is linked to a faulty excuse.

To paraphrase a tidbit from the Springhole instructions-manual, "Answer 'yes' if the question applies, even on a technicality, but ONLY if it makes your character stand out from the crowd in one way or another."

If a test asks you if your character wears a trench-coat, what it's really asking is if your character wears a trench-coat just because you thought it would be cool, or it helps him in some way that is different from the norm (ie hide a pair of katanas). If your character wears an outfit of that style because he lives in the desert and it helps defend him from the environment, then that doesn't count because that's a common practice and doesn't make him different.

As for the second argument, by lampshading your specialness you aren't doing anything but acknowledging that what you're doing is stupid/cliche/irrelevant/wrong, you know it's stupid/cliche/irrelevant/wrong, but you're going to do it anyways.

A Parody Sue is still a Mary Sue. You're just acknowledging that it's a Sue and writing around it. If you want to not have to put in points for this in a test because you are aware that it's tacky, slam it with a good ol' deconstruction! Your character has a silly, hippie-style name? Have them picked on for it! Your character got random superpowers out of nowehere? Have them fumble around with them for a while until they learn how to get it under control! They don't even have to have figured it out before the story has ended! Your character is acting like a jerk? Either play up the Jerk Sue trope until it turns out the suitors weren't interested in anything but their body, or just roll with the fact that the audience will probably hate this character and write accordingly.

3. The tests rapidly become less useful the better you are at writing. Yes, as you get better you will be able to write better and better characters who are more fun and believable than before, but remember to never, ever go in thinking you know whether or not things will work out.

If you think the character is perfect, run it through and see if it thinks you've added too much. If you think the character is too flawed to be a Sue, run it through and see if you've added too little, or if the flaws don't actually [[Anti-Sue do anything to hinder the character in the long run]].

You'll know you're really good enough to make a character without running them through if you can answer a bunch of character-building questions easily, almost as if you were interviewing them and they had a life of their own.

So, overall the tests (at least, this one) are actually viable and helpful. People just aren't using them correctly.

So, what do you think? Do you have a several-paragraph response that's been worked on for an hour or so, or are you just going to cut the middleman and say, ''NoSpoilerz, you ignorant slut!'? Either way, I expect to remain here for a lo-o-o-ng time.

I know that this is old, but I wanted to put my two cents in. I think that we can apply Tropes Are Not Bad to the tests, because really they're counting the annoying traits that Mary Sues tend to have in common. The desueifiers are a limited selection of tropes that are actually the opposite of common Sue cliches, but there's nothing to say that you can't find other flaws that the test didn't take into account.

Dang, five years. How did you even find this thread?

I might have googled "tropes Mary Sue Litmus Test"

But that's such a niche thing. Did you already know this was here?

It's like the one ring,it wanted to be found

Dear god.

I was actually expecting a tropes page about the tests. Achievements in Ignorance?

Edited by Kelekona on Aug 11th 2020 at 3:27:12 AM

Also, holy cow, I'd forgotten this test even exited. Man, fun times. I think I spent more time running characters I knew weren't Mary Sues through it just to see what the end result was anyway. It's interesting, looking back now, that the more I just wrote a story, the less I even remembered this was a thing.

>I expect to remain here for a lo-o-o-ng time.
>literally not a single reply for five years

lol

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Aug 12th 2020 at 10:02:27 AM

Hope springs ETERNAL

Good things come to those who wait.

Though I feel I must add that most of the rest of the forums frown on necro'ing old threads. Its a good way to get a lock and a lecture. Take a look at the timestamp of the last post when you stumble upon a thread.

i clicked the link, and it turns out the test itself is now depreciated, in favor of questions that can be used to see if your character is someone who works within the story you are trying to tell. It also gives tips to help improve a character and your writing outside of "remove these traits".

Nice to see it's evolving with the times.

And I was beginning to seriously consider using this now that I know it exists.

Sometimes things just pop out after the rain?