What is the issue with this trait?

It's not really news that Sue litmus tests are hardly a set in stone indicator of whether a character is a 'Mary Sue' or not. But sometimes it feels like on these tests people make a big deal of something that is done by people who write Sues, but a lot of other people too.

The biggest one that confuses me is

"The more common practice is to give the Sue a name that the author really, really likes."

Maybe it's just me but,the author really liking the name seems rather useless as an indicator of a character being a Sue because well a lot of people give their mains names they like or really like. Especially their main character. It seems about as useless as listing "is the character the same gender as you"

Sure, plenty of 'Suethors' give their character the same gender as them, but plenty of people in general like to write a character who shares a gender with them.

I mean maybe if you only give ONE character a favored name, then that's a sign you're doting. But depending on how someone names characters, they could have a bunch of names they like.

I think this trait should be conditional based on how the author names the other characters. But simply choosing a name one particularly likes shouldn't be that much of a cause for alarm.

edited 22nd Dec '15 5:09:06 PM by JewelyJ

Hating because of names? That's news to me.

Not to get bogged down by semantics, but I would've guessed that any given named character in a story has said name because the creator liked it enough — which is pretty much what you've gotten at here. Granted, there's a line that should't be crossed when it comes to names; if a person's moniker fits contextually, then it's fine. If it stands out like a cactus in Antarctica — i.e. it's much too complex or esoteric for the setting — then it's probably time for a revision.

Also, it's probably worth keeping in mind that a creator is (presumably) creating for more people than just him/herself. That magical thing called an audience is the one that determines the quality of a story — so even if the creator likes a name, someone in the audience can declare that it's a load of hot garbage. Personal preferences and backgrounds are going to influence reactions just as much as the content of the actual story.

Speaking personally? The main guy in my story is named Arc, a shortened version of Archie (and Archibald, even more so). Why did I give him that name? Because he's a character with a cool feel, so I wanted to give him something cool — and also reference the video game company that helped inspire the story in the first place. I can imagine people taking issue with the name, because it's not exactly something you'd see on the average birth certificate; then again, he shares a space with people named Coil, R4, and Flay, so strange names aren't quite in short supply.

So yeah, it's a weird thing to get hung up on (unless the name is seriously pushing it). But the important thing is that the character is actually good, not that he/she has a name that struck the creator's fancy.

Well, look out- Katfeete's Mary Sue litmus test asks about that exactly, and also asks if the character shares a sexual identity, age group, race/ethnicity, height/weight/build, and hair/eye/skin color with you. I tried the test with my Cute Ghost Girl character, a dark-haired, light-skinned Austrian girl who died when she was eighteen. I'm a twenty-year-old ISO standard Chinese girl. Because she matches my skin color, hair color, gender, age group, and sexual orientation (heterosexual), the tally-thing at the end flagged the 'similarities to author' section as a danger zone.

You already addressed here that it's really only a problem to name a character something you like if nobody else in the cast has a name you care about, but there's something important to know about Mary Sue litmus tests that I think needs to be restated here.

In fact, I noticed while writing this comment that Katfeete literally just asks if your character has any kind of superpower that goes beyond human, not whether if it is out of the ordinary, which makes me think the test was written with Tolkien-ripoff fantasy in mind, where magic is very rare. If you're writing in a very high-magic world and your character has just a couple more cool traits in addition to would-be standard powers, the test will very easily flag your character as a Sue. Again, not something a young, immature, newbie writer is likely to realize and take into account.

Addendum: I am a (hopefully reformed) 'Suethor'. I know that some people think the term 'Mary Sue' should just go away entirely, but the fact remains that I've written characters who fit the true essence of the whole concept- they were never allowed mess up in a way that mattered, look foolish, or be anything other than cool. I used to roleplay those characters with a friend and would get pretty flustered whenever her characters found them stupid, cowardly, or some other undesirable trait. But I wouldn't have tripped over questions asking about my personal feelings towards a character's name because I can't think of any point in my life where I've wanted children. Even if I did want kids, I still wouldn't have tripped over them because I associate my characters' names with them so strongly, and most of my names originate from conlangs. My hypothetical kid would be made fun of.

As with any Mary Sue test, it's just looking out for and counting up the red flags. Heck, many parts of the test look like this:

> Character has psychic abilities, exceptional strength, magical powers, a healing touch, or any other power that we would consider superhuman.

>> More than one special power.

>> No one else in the story has similar powers. ((She DID ask if the powers are out of the ordinary!))

So you'll get additional points if you fall for additional pitfalls.

Also, a character could share little similarity to their author, precisely because the character is the author's fantasy. What the author wants to be could be very different from what the author is.

edited 22nd Dec '15 11:41:37 PM by hellomoto

JewelyJ, I'll tell you this: any tests of that sort are aimed towards people who wouldn't know if they wrote crap characters because for them the characters are amazing and their wish fulfilment and come on what is there not to like. So basically young beginners to the art of writing stories who do not yet have the knowledge and experience to write believable tension and believable character development.

Thus, the names and similar stuff are checked too; not because they somehow mean the character has to be a Mary Sue, but rather because if enough of those things are actually the case with a character there's a high chance that the character is too much of a self-insert and wish fulfilment thing and will end up being a Mary Sue, thus alerting the person who is running the character (through the test) that maybe they should pay closer attention to it or get a professional to check it or something.

Because, to be honest, none of the traits of Mary Suedom are inherently bad. Mostly, it's the combination of too many of them being present, along with the author not having enough of an ability to limit themselves when writing the story, thus resulting in ... badness.


Edit: On that note, if you ran a typical hero character of any given game through this particular test, you'd probably get it marked even if it's clear to anyone who plays the game that the character is not that perfect and fails often enough and at significant enough things. So this particular test is ... likely not the best one there is, to put it mildly. Though I've seen the same note on other tests of this kind, too; the one about name, that is.

edited 23rd Dec '15 11:03:17 AM by Kazeto

I've seen another Mary Sue test, but it's rather lengthy and says a lot of "if it fits the context of the story".

Such tests are for beginner writers, really. After all, experienced writers would be able to judge by themselves, or have a circle of friends already.

I like most of the names I give characters or at least try to make them fit. I tend to avoid names I detest - even for the antagonistic characters - and devote time to finding names that suit them: culture and era of origin.

The Katfeete litmus test does at least distinguish between Author Avatar and Mary Sue

OK, Wolfe's surname is a variant of my preferred forum name but his first name is one that I chose as being "ordinary" and "common" in his time and place and "down-to-earth" and is nothing like my own.

Teri - another name I like - (short for Teresa), the African-Cockney bird, scored 19 and she's a better singer and dancer than Wolfe.

Both them are major protagonists. Both have names I like - as do James, Karl, Kris, Peggy and Archibald (not that I'd name a child Archibald, but for a person of his culture and era it's appropriate and not unpleasant).

Even Aubrey - who starts off as an annoying dick and is the work's main source of conflict for quite some time - has a name that I don't hate and was picked as appropriate to his time and place of origin.

Incidentally, for comparison, Aubrey got 14 on the Katfeete test.

Thanks for all the input. I know the whole thing about Mary Sue tests themselves being bunk, but...I was more confused by why people treat that particular thing, choosing names the author likes and has a positive association with as a bad thing that should be discouraged. Other things I can often sorta see why people warn against them, but for this the only arguments for why it could be bad that I can think of seem weak. For occasions where there is a problem the name is very clearly not the real issue here. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.

Huh that's interesting it does.

It's weird...I've always liked the Kaftee test because I can understand their scoring algorithm more then the UMSLT.

I apologize if it seems hypocritical but...lets see if I can explain. With the Kaftee test it's divided into sections which....I kinda see as being for the most part separate parts that add up. When it asks about gender it's in the context of the 'self insert section'. I feel like when it asks it's not saying "this means your character is a Sue" and more measuring how similar the character is to you. Less a danger zone and more a thing to be aware of if you aren't already. Just like the questions like "was your character abused, or or an outcast in their society" are not saying these traits are bad but they are just measuring just how dramatic your character's background is.

Also, Kaftee's questions altogether and the diagnosis at the end really help me understand why they're asking these things. They add up all the components in the sections and make a decision based on that.

Based on my run through of the test I've found that you can make that character similar to you, have a lot of "cool traits" and a fair few "destiny" traits,but come out at worst "this character is a bit stifled and needs room to be themselves" but not completely hopeless so long as you avoid the traits on the last page "Momma loves me best". Really the sections "Momma loves me best" and quite a few of the "destiny" section are where the real trouble is because some of those are about giving special treatment to the character, and elevating them above the rest. Which really, isn't that what the whole Mary Sue thing comes down to?

It's certainly not flawless but I feel like it cuts closer to what Mary Sue really is than any other test I've seen.

Maybe this is my personal opinion but I don't really like the UMSLT because I feel like it tries to cover too much, doesn't entirely differentiate "Mary Sue" from "character with lots of cliches" You can have a character that does technically hits quite a few cliche points but isn't a Mary Sue at all. Some of the things it nitpicks seem arbitrary to me.

(which is a nitpick I have with some of Springhole's stuff in general)

Anyway for the name question I feel like a better way to put the question would be more "does this character have a handpicked name you really like while no one else has the name?" Which is hitting more where the problem is. Personally I feel like aside from "the name doesn't fit the context of the setting. Or the name is the same as yours making the character an author avatar" names, really names don't make that much of a difference. I mean if there's a problem with the character the name seems incidental and won't mean anything on an otherwise well written character.

Also, I am aware that the Springhole Ego Mobile test has since been hidden, but I bring it up because it adds a layer of context to possible reasoning behind some of the questions and point values. The creator of the UMSLT once had a test to test whether your character was an "ego mobile" The first question was

"Does your character have your name [this one I can understand].a name you wish you had or a name you like and would give a child" with a note underneath about how names should be picked randomly and you shouldn't take more the fifteen minutes. I've complained and ranted about this before but now that I'm older and have had time to think, I have realized what my problem with that question and comment is.

It's making an assumption about the author, their motivations and reasoning based on the test maker's opinions. And then telling the person "if you do this, this is egotistical".

(also I took issue with "your characters are your tools and that's all". I sorta get what they're trying for but at the same time a person's feelings with their art are different from person to person. It seems really judgy and cruel to say "this is how you should feel. If you feel something else you're wrong and also the character is just a vehicle for your ego. Like it wasn't even a checkbox test like the others, it was just a list of 'all of these things make your character an egomobile'. It felt like an opinionated judgement disguised as writing advice.)

Thanks for your input. I understand the purpose of these tests but sometimes I feel like with some things and some traits people do have a bad habit as assuming about a method/approach to aspects of writing or to a trope and ascribing attitudes or motivations to the author that aren't exactly there.

And I am glad I got a chance to explain and realize why the katfeete test works for me where the UMSLT does not.

Heh, as has already been mentioned, that's because way too many beginners actually do have those attitudes to some degree. So people who are more capable are simply trusted to be capable on their own, whereas for those beginners there's no benefit of the doubt there because that would given them a loophole through which they'd be able to pretend it's not about them when it actually would apply.

Also, while I don't agree about the name choosing thing (I spent enough time naming every single one of my characters—of those whose names are actually given—because the world of the story has its own language and thus the names are also not the same that we have, similar at most but not intended to be the same as names we have), I do have to say that many beginners just give random names to most characters but spend a lot of time picking the name for their favourite one or give that one their name or one they really really like. So it's an "all or nothing" thing, and the unproven are simply not yet trusted to do "all" properly, hence the chastisement to do "nothing" instead.

But yes, names don't make that much of a difference. Mostly, it's just possibly yet another red flag for the people who are already swimming in red flags.