For giggles, I did me. Writer's: 43, "healthy character". Ultimate: 19, "you're most likely perfectly fine".
Gee whiz I thought with a single notable skill, nonexistent lovelife, happy childhood and 60 extra pounds I'd score lower. Well, guess not.
Although I noticed something: as long as no one's talking about their beauty, the tests don't care how much other characters praise your character.
Such tests are fallible. I once ran myself through one of these tests and scored within Sue range.
I had a good laugh about that.
edited 17th Jun '12 10:13:59 AM by JHM
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.I did two characters, an Anti-Villain from a story I haven't started writing yet, and the main protagonist of a story that I am writing.
I guess I shouldn't really be as hard as I am at myself when it comes to creating characters:
Cain Stellark: "Cain Stellark is nothing like you. He may be popular, or he may not, but no matter what he's impossible to ignore; he stands out... just the way you always wanted to. He may have sometimes thought that he was special, or destined for greater things, but probably dismissed the idea as a fantasy. He's come in for his share of hurt, but gotten off with minor damage. And he's gotten no slack from you.
In general, you care deeply about Cain Stellark, but you're smart enough to let him stand on his own, without burdening him with your personal fantasies or propping him up with idealization and over-dramatization. Cain Stellark is a healthy character with a promising career ahead of him."
Total Score: 27
Adelaide Moon "Adelaide Moon is suspiciously similar to you as you'd like to be. She isn't really very cool: she blends into crowds, she hangs out on the fringes at parties, and wearing shades after dark makes her run into things. She may have sometimes thought that she was special, or destined for greater things, but probably dismissed the idea as a fantasy. She's got no emotional scars to speak of. And she's gotten no slack from you.
In general, you care deeply about Adelaide Moon, but you're smart enough to let her stand on her own, without burdening her with your personal fantasies or propping her up with idealization and over-dramatization. Adelaide Moon is a healthy character with a promising career ahead of her. "
Total Score: 35
Hilariously, the second one is SUPPOSED to be an author avatar of almost blatant extremes.
"Life is eternal; and love is immortal; and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight." - R. W. RaymondThat's not what I meant. What I meant was that the results are so often ridiculously bad - on this page alone, the poster directly above me passed with a character meant to fail, while real people were called Sues - that I'm left wondering at how anyone, anywhere can take these things seriously. And at least some people do.
edited 19th Jun '12 5:37:50 PM by nrjxll
That character was meant to be a blatant self-insertion yes, but a Sue? I saw no such claim. Self-insertions are cool as long as the plot doesn't include ret-conning the author's life or fulfilling their fantasies (especially those involving romance with canon characters). Or simply approach Sue levels of contrivedness and metagravity.
I wouldn't use the word "cool", but I agree that a self-insert character is not automatically a Sue. However, the tests don't, and that's what matters as far as my point goes. I mean, look at the first two sentences of your results:
While I don't entirely agree with your position anyway, it seems to be missing the point.
I'm not sure you've made the point clear then. You are directly trying to equate reality to fiction with the statement I took issue with; I see no other way to interpret it. Reality is, of course, not fiction, and the two resembling each other is often optional even for good works.
So I question why you'd bother doing so. This is intended to assist in the writing of fiction. Whether real people can pass or fail is utterly irrelevant to effectiveness at that.
edited 21st Jun '12 9:06:39 AM by Night
Nous restons ici.I probably didn't, so to elaborate: because real life is not fiction, any Mary Sue litmus test that calls real people Sues is an utter failure, because what makes a Mary Sue a Mary Sue is something that cannot exist in real life - the ability to warp the story around them. There is no "story" in real life, therefore there cannot be Mary Sues, and if tests are saying real people are, then it sounds like they're falling into the missing-the-forest-for-the-trees problem of assuming what makes a Sue is external traits.
edited 21st Jun '12 9:13:11 AM by nrjxll
This seems to be working backwards from a conclusion rather than forwards from what was actually put into the test and why, though. The test is meant to be applied to fiction where there is a story, therefore it is only applicable to things with stories.
Real people passing or failing would be irrelevant because the test was never designed to interact with real people.
edited 21st Jun '12 1:19:17 PM by Night
Nous restons ici.It's not something that's possible to test for with a set of "check-the-box" questions. It requires human judgment (we haven't developed AI yet that can do it) plus an experienced eye for such things.
Plus, not everyone even agrees on the definition.
All the tests do is look for common but superficial symptoms of the problem. None of these symptoms have a great correlation to Sueness, and especially not when the writer is aware of Sue tests and has learned to avoid the superficial symptoms without actually getting the point.
Then there's the argument as to whether Mary Sue even applies to canon characters at all, or only to fanfic OCs — that being the original use of the term. Me, I'd say even if it's not exactly the same, there's a problem noticeable in original fiction that's a close relation to Mary Sue, so one may as well call it the same thing.
A brighter future for a darker age.My only real problem with the test is its "either/or" nature...as in, the trait either "counts" or it doesn't. When running some of my characters through these tests, there were times when a trait technically applied maybe-a-little-bit-perhaps, and there were some that were closer to the spirit of the question than others. So, perhaps a structure where the answers are rated on a scale rather than a simple yes or no.
Of course, this still requires an author to exercise good judgment when taking the test (which if you have, you aren't likely to be writing a Sue anyhow), but it might make the test more accurate.
Thoughts?
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~Put my Real Life roomate in, why the hell an upper middle class white Pre-Med college freshman from Oregon got 66?
Because these tests are utterly wretched failures that are at best helpful only to completely new writers and at worst tools to perpetuate the existence of a clique of superficial and foul-minded internet vigilantes. Applying them to real people is just one way of showing their absurdity.
(Soapbox? What soapbox?)
![]()
I think you're more upset than you should be.
For the record, I got 1.
edited 18th Sep '13 7:28:24 AM by Majormarks
I write stuff sometimes. I also sometimes make youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/majormarks

When doing Mary Sue tests, I like to intentionally use characters it isn't designed for (gods, anthropomorphic personifications, various other powerful magical beings).
Jack, a dark magical being that has little effect on most of my universe (on account of a vast majority of his existence being spent nailed to a wall with a magic sword) rates a 34 on the universal litmus.