Robert A Heinlein

Apparently, around here, Robert A. Heinlein is known for his use of mary sues but is still considered a mary sue. His works are listed on the thirty mary sue pileup page. So how can he be a good writer when a mary sue is supposed to be a result of godawful writing?

I haven't read his stuff, but what I can say that just because someone has Mary Sues doesn't mean he's a bad writer; sometimes it's just so entertaining that you don't notice or don't care.

Also, Mary Sues are mostly subjective.

But mary sues are supposed to be really bad writing. I do believe that mary sues can be objective.

Because as annoying as the S(t)ues sometimes are, they don't blot out the other characters in his stories, the casts of which are full of great characters. And, sometimes, the Stu is actually pretty interesting too.

The Rolling Stones, Tunnel in the Sky, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Magic, Inc., —And He Built a Crooked House—, Waldo… All of them have superb characters that act as accompaniments for the protagonist, and a protagonist that's interesting enough to warrant all the attention in the first place. Even the stories with his more annoying Stus like The Puppet Masters, The Doorway into Summer and (especially) Time Enough for Love have tons of interesting characters, not to mention lots of great and imaginative plotting.

If, maybe his characters aren't all that sueish since hogging all the attention from other characters is one of the defining sueish traits.

Sues are generally found in Fanfiction. Calling a main story character a Sue is even more highly subjective and really revolves around the reader's ability to maintain Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

Many of Heinlein's characters satisfy the classic criteria of a Sue: they are incredibly good-looking (rugged, what have you), attract members of the opposite sex like flies to honey (despite, in the male case, often being misogynistic, gruff loners), are gifted with extraordinary intellect, health, or other traits, and have a tendency to singlehandedly solve their respective plots.

Heinlein's strength, however, was his ability to place these characters in situations that were literally unknown in fiction at the time. He used them as a vehicle for all kinds of social, political, religious, and scientific commentary, often engaging in what we would now call deconstruction, but at the time was amazing and new. His stories are tight and fast-paced and his dialogue is memorable.

In short, his works are perfect examples of how to make a Mary Sue work.

Even shorter: Tropes Are Not Bad.

wait, you're implying that a mary sue can not be a bad trope ? But a mary sue is supposed to be godawful writing. Maybe' s heinlein's character are not mary sues at all.

It's more of a red flag of bad writing than a cause.

Or an ironclad "If you have this, your writing sucks" indicator.

Black King, you're really on the wrong track here. Just because a Sue is present does not mean a work is bad. At least, not according to the definition we use on TV Tropes. Suedom is a very strong indicator that you might have a bad work on your hands, but is by no means definitive. Some of the greatest and most memorable characters in fiction are Sues by most definitions.

Among fandom, the Mary Sue concept has been elevated to the point where it's considered death to a work to accuse it of containing one, a classic example of a destructive meme. I mean, if you want to be pedantic, you could say that Sue == bad, therefore a good work cannot have a Sue no matter how many Sueish traits its characters may have, but that creates a useless tautology.

edited 28th Jan '10 2:26:43 PM by Fighteer

A Mary Sue definition debate? This is bound to end well.

Just because someone has Sueish characteristics does not automatically make said person a Sue.

Morpheus the Sandman is filled with angst. He gets away with whatever he does, and is quite literally a god.
But people love him. Do you know why? Because he's not a Sue. The story is not him. He is a powerful, charismatic character at the center of the story, but not the story. In metaphorical terms, Morheus is the elephant's trunk, but the trunk is not the elephant, only part of it.

Perhaps the stories don't as much revolve around Heinlein's protagonists (again, no experience), but as much as rotate while they stand.

Let's put it this way: A Sue is always bad, and always makes every story they're in worse, BUT they can't singlehandedly kill any story and aren't always completely worthless characters. A story which contains other elements which are good can still be a good story overall in spite of having a Sue. Furthermore, just because a character is a Sue doesn't mean that they lack other, non-Sue-ish traits that are appealing, and contribute to the quality of a story.

Well, if that's the definition (and again I must point you at Tropes Are Not Bad), then Heinlein's characters are not Sues, since they are in fact good characters.

You can't have it both ways.

Your Mileage May Vary as always, then?

I just don't see why so many people have settled on this silly fallacy.

"If it's got the Common Mary Sue Traits then it's a Mary Sue."
"Mary Sues are Bad Writing."
"Therefore if a work has a Sue, it sucks."

It's so puerile and is absolutely worthless as a tool of criticism.

edited 29th Jan '10 6:42:47 AM by Fighteer

Exactly.

There's a lot of complexity not being addressed in this topic. First of all, which Heinlein works are we talking about here?

I haven't read much of Heinlein's later works, which contain significantly more Author Appeal ...Or So I Heard, but one prime example that could be called a Mary Sue is Jubal of Stranger In A Strange Land. He's a rich, patron-like figure with three beautiful secretaries and a free-love attitude. But he's clearly not the main character, and his lifestyle is glorified as he shapes the plot and the other characters with his ideas.

It can be argued that this sort of character is the Heinlein Mary Sue. But it's unlike the common definition due to Heinlein's unusual ideas. The Heinlein characters accused of being Sues are sexually relaxed, libertarian, extremely wise men who impart their views to other characters.

Which, in keeping with the spectacularly clear and universally agreed-upon definition of a Mary Sue, either A. isn't, or B. is a Sue, depending on whether you A. base it on the character's traits and personality, or B. their impact on the story.

If anyone can pull off a Mary Sue, then it would be Bob Heinlein. Yeah he's sexist, yeah some of his characters are a little too perfect, but he's still a darn good writer, especially in terms of tight prose. Check out Starship Troopers or The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress; they're considered some of his best work.

Was there a Sue in Starship Troopers? If so, I missed it. Ditto The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Many of the accusations of Suedom seem to be leveled at his later works, like Time Enough For Love, when he was clearly engaging in some Author Appeal.

Edit: I just realized I was leaving out Jubal Harshaw in Stranger In A Strange Land, but I don't see how anyone could argue that he detracts from the novel. However, unlike the classic Sues, he does not solve the plot all by himself; he acts as the vehicle for Smith to Become a Real Boy.

edited 8th Feb '10 1:31:07 PM by Fighteer

All of Heinlein's stories carry a hostile, condescending, and even paranoid attitude of arrogance that defines the insecure narcissism behind a Mary Sue author; he's seemingly trying to make all of his characters externally perfect, despite being one-dimensional and aggressive (unless they're so perfect that they they're non-aggressive because they don't have to be); meanwhile their adversaries are mostly straw idiots, whichever side of the spectrum they're on. And of course, he's got a two-bit answer for anyone who doesn't agree with his black-and-white philosophy either. This would explain why it's a favorite among maladaptive teenagers and arrested-developed adults, but few others: i.e. the first group doesn't know any better, receiving validation from Heinlein's works... and the second one simply grew out of it, like most normal folks.

edited 18th May '10 7:26:38 PM by Gringodingo

Wow, somebody's looking at things through Jade-Colored Glasses. You should go refresh yourself by reading the Mary Sue page again. I even potholed it for you.

The irony is that he's talking exactly like one of Heinlein's Straw Loser villains. :-)

Mary Sue is only an instant story killer when the definition of a Mary Sue is limited to Black Hole Sue.

"This would explain why it's a favorite among maladaptive teenagers and arrested-developed adults, but few others: i.e. the first group doesn't know any better, receiving validation from Heinlein's works... and the second one simply grew out of it, like most normal folks. "

Uhm: I'd like to submit this as a blatant bit of trolling against Heinlein fans.