TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

A new Mary Sue test

Go To

Night The future of warfare in UC. from Jaburo Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
The future of warfare in UC.
#176: Sep 25th 2011 at 4:14:33 PM

Did we ever get this HTML-ized?

edited 25th Sep '11 4:14:46 PM by Night

Nous restons ici.
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#177: Sep 26th 2011 at 5:21:30 AM

I just have to incorporate the most recent set of changes and it'll be done.

A brighter future for a darker age.
Merlo *hrrrrrk* from the masochist chamber Since: Oct, 2009
*hrrrrrk*
#178: Sep 28th 2011 at 5:00:43 PM

What's the status, Morven?

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...
JuiceBoxHero from the butthole of Texas Since: Aug, 2009
#179: Sep 29th 2011 at 4:01:03 PM

Does your character have a familiar or animal companion?

Does this count for the Pokemon universe, where almost everyone has at least one monster bodyguard and it's more unusual for someone not to have one?

Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#180: Sep 29th 2011 at 4:12:12 PM

I'd imagine that, like most such, it either doesn't count or counts less if everybody has one.

I'm still working on the web/JS version of the test, will let you all know when I get it up.

A brighter future for a darker age.
JuiceBoxHero from the butthole of Texas Since: Aug, 2009
#181: Sep 29th 2011 at 4:15:25 PM

I guess in that case it would rest more on the rarity/coolness of the Pokemon. Something like an Eevee or a Dratini or six legendaries would be Sueish, but not a Bidoof.

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#182: Sep 29th 2011 at 6:24:27 PM

Why is section 3a so difficult for everyone? You score 1 point if it's normal for your universe but not normal for the real world. Ergo, Pokemon animal companions score one point (plus an additional point for not being real animals).

Perhaps the real inherent weakness of Mary Sue tests is that, regardless of what the instructions say, everyone will try to justify their way out of every single point.

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#183: Sep 29th 2011 at 6:27:47 PM

I think the problem is the "one point even if it's normal for your universe" thing that's getting to people - for instance, the previous concerns about how nonhumans automatically rated as more Sueish simply for being nonhuman. And while the statement that there can be entire Sue races is true, it also seems rather ridiculous that a character would automatically get two points for simply being in the Pokemon universe.

MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#184: Sep 29th 2011 at 6:30:20 PM

Getting 1-2 points is not a bad thing, guys. [lol]

Read my stories!
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#185: Sep 29th 2011 at 6:32:29 PM

Not really, no, and I'm not necessarily complaining about it myself - I'm just explaining why I think that part of the test is drawing so much criticism.

BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#186: Sep 29th 2011 at 6:34:17 PM

Presumably owning a Bidoof would get you the two points (animal companion +1 for normal in-universe, supernatural animal +1 for normal in-universe), while owning something like a Dratini would get you three (animal companion +2 as owning a Dratini is abnormal both in-universe and IRL, supernatural animal +1 for normal in-universe).

Of course, most Pokémon trainers would also receive an additional point for owning more than one Pokémon.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#187: Sep 29th 2011 at 7:27:41 PM

I think the problem is the "one point even if it's normal for your universe" thing that's getting to people - for instance, the previous concerns about how nonhumans automatically rated as more Sueish simply for being nonhuman. And while the statement that there can be entire Sue races is true, it also seems rather ridiculous that a character would automatically get two points for simply being in the Pokemon universe.

But two points is nothing. And most people who have taken this test have scored very low indeed—virtually always under 30 and often under 20. Some people have grazed 0. So I'm just getting vibes of "I don't wanna score points just for that!"

If people want to make a compelling case for why I should change the scoring for section 3/3a, cite some examples of characters from published works (ie, works not by you) that score unreasonably high based on those sections in particular.

MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#188: Sep 29th 2011 at 7:28:44 PM

And I got all sues, and I never had to check the animal guide! grin

Read my stories!
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#189: Sep 29th 2011 at 7:34:08 PM

I think the test is actually plenty lenient. It does seem to punish fantasy characters more than characters from realist/slice-of-life/mundane contemporary fiction, though that may be by design, I don't know.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
KillerClowns Since: Jan, 2001
#190: Sep 29th 2011 at 7:38:46 PM

[up]Find me a Mary Sue test that doesn't do this, though, excluding ones that are built for a specific genre/fandom. It's the result of building a test that can cover everything from High Fantasy to Slice of Life.

Teraus Awesome Lightning Mantra from The Origin of Dreams Since: Jul, 2011
Awesome Lightning Mantra
#191: Sep 29th 2011 at 7:42:15 PM

Well, Fantasy does tend to have a lot more wish-fulfillment than Slice of Life...

"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#193: Sep 29th 2011 at 7:50:00 PM

Plus (or related to that point), characters in any genre of fantasy tend to be larger-than-life.

alethiophile Shadowed Philosopher from Ëa Since: Nov, 2009
Shadowed Philosopher
#194: Sep 29th 2011 at 8:05:52 PM

The traits of a Sue in fantasy tend to be more obvious; you can give them ten thousand things that kinda-sorta fit in-universe. Realistic-fiction Sues are subtler, hence harder to test for.

Catch-phrase advice #2: Nothing substitutes for thinking.

Shinigan (Naruto fanfic)
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#195: Sep 29th 2011 at 8:41:32 PM

Yeah—I don't want the test to score fantasy characters higher than realistic-fiction characters, but it may be unavoidable, given that there are a lot of possible questions that might apply to fantasy characters but not realistic-fiction characters and almost none of the reverse.

Do people have any suggestions for appropriate questions that are more applicable to realistic fiction? "Does your character have a cool vehicle?" comes to mind.

Merlo *hrrrrrk* from the masochist chamber Since: Oct, 2009
*hrrrrrk*
#196: Sep 29th 2011 at 8:44:33 PM

I think they've mostly been covered already—being popular, having lots of relationships/romance, inexplicably always having enough money, wearing clothes the author picked for the cool factor, Awesome McCoolname, being goffik.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...
FrodoGoofballCoTV from Colorado, USA Since: Jan, 2001
#197: Sep 29th 2011 at 9:06:21 PM

A couple of possible thoughts on the "points for something that would be extremely rare if not physically impossible in Real Life, but completely normal in the character's setting" thing:

There will be an occasional escapist or godlike character that gets a sue-ish score but isn't a Sue (consider Superman, or Gandolf). The trouble is, inexperienced writers often can't tell the difference when it's their own character.

Also, consider the 25-40 borderline category. In a gritty, realistic Slice of Life story, you may want to keep your characters all under 25. In a Fantasy Kitchen Sink world, characters in the 25-40 category may not be particularly uncommon. So if the test scores fantasy characters higher, maybe that's OK.

edited 30th Sep '11 1:07:26 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

JuiceBoxHero from the butthole of Texas Since: Aug, 2009
#198: Sep 30th 2011 at 12:57:23 AM

The thing I don't get is: do we do one point for each animal companion or one point for the whole damn thing?

BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#199: Sep 30th 2011 at 4:28:38 AM

Assuming all are normal in-universe, it's one point for an animal companion, another point for more than one animal companion, and another point if any of those animal companions has supernatural abilities.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Teraus Awesome Lightning Mantra from The Origin of Dreams Since: Jul, 2011
Awesome Lightning Mantra
#200: Sep 30th 2011 at 6:59:12 AM

There will be an occasional escapist or godlike character that gets a sue-ish score but isn't a Sue (consider Superman, or Gandolf).

Gandalf is definitely not a Sue. About Superman, though, I'm not so sure...

edited 30th Sep '11 6:59:28 AM by Teraus

"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."

Total posts: 334
Top