TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Mary Sue litmus test

Go To

Majormarks What should I put here? from Britland Since: Jul, 2013
What should I put here?
#326: Sep 18th 2013 at 2:47:43 PM

[up] I'm just not sure I see the issue. I mean, obviously they're not perfect, but they'll quite neatly point out a character which probably shouldn't exist.

People who use these tests as anything more than a minor piss take are the problem, not the tests themselves. I doubt we'll be seeing "PROTAG SCORED ONLY 7 ON MARY SUE LITMUS TEST" on the back of books any time soon.

I write stuff sometimes. I also sometimes make youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/majormarks
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#327: Sep 18th 2013 at 5:15:44 PM

Published literature is one thing, but a lot of amateur internet authors (particularly the ones who actually do need help with writing good characters) do take these tests completely seriously, and I think that does real harm. Plus, the bit about "internet vigilantes", while worded somewhat facetiously, was entirely serious: the subculture of writers that has dedicated itself to hunting down and exposing anything they consider a "Mary Sue" - a term which has lost virtually all meaning in large part due to these people - is something that really does need to be fought.

edited 18th Sep '13 5:16:29 PM by nrjxll

Majormarks What should I put here? from Britland Since: Jul, 2013
What should I put here?
#328: Sep 18th 2013 at 5:18:20 PM

People overdo everything. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with going around and pointing out "Mary Sues"; a term which I agree is overused, but retains its meaning.

I write stuff sometimes. I also sometimes make youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/majormarks
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#329: Sep 18th 2013 at 5:19:21 PM

Well then I guess I have nothing further to say to you. I've given up on trying to stop other people from continuing the Mary Sue police culture, but that doesn't mean I have to participate in it or interact with the people who do.

edited 18th Sep '13 5:34:11 PM by nrjxll

DeviousRecital from New York Angeles Since: Nov, 2011
#330: Sep 18th 2013 at 6:07:53 PM

At any rate, I do think that having these "tests", no matter how questionably accurate they are, is better than not having them. It encourages people to examine their characters and how they fit within the stories they're writing. It's an attempt to get people to write better, which I think is admirable, even if the execution leaves something to be desired.

imadinosaur Since: Oct, 2011
#331: Sep 18th 2013 at 6:23:31 PM

It's not an attempt to get people to write better, really, it's an attempt to mock bad writers. Or so it seems to me.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
CrystalGlacia from at least we're not detroit (Living Relic)
#332: Sep 18th 2013 at 6:36:25 PM

Some Mary Sue litmus tests have been created with an agenda in mind. These tests may include questions that claim the author's Pet Peeve Tropes- which may not be objectively bad to use -are Mary Sue traits in order to convince test-takers that they should be avoided.

As imadinosaur said, some tests may have been created in jest or with the expectation that test-takers will take their advice with a grain of salt.

In addition, a number can't quantify how a character is written or portrayed.

Seriously, just take all writing-related tests, whether Mary Sue litmus tests, that Rinkworks Fantasy Novel Exam, or whatever with a grain of salt.

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#333: Sep 19th 2013 at 11:42:07 AM

I tend to fall more on nrjxll's side of the equation, but not completely.

The tests are basically satire, and when consumed with that in mind there is nothing wrong with them - indeed, they serve as a good reminder to authors not to let their characters go off the rails...especially in long-running series, which I think all can agree is a common problem.

However, the trouble with satire is when the consumer lacks the sophistication to see it as that...when satire is taken seriously, problems result.

when these tests are taken seriously by budding writers still trying to figure their shit out, they do a lot of harm; they promote a narrow-minded way of thinking, they close writers off to possibilities, and worst of all they promote the idea that what you do is more important than how you do it - when the exact reverse of that statement is the truth.

And yes, as others have said...they are always written with an agenda in mind. Usually they are just a thinly veiled attack on whatever story elements the architect of the test doesn't like, or just to attack genres or works which are easy targets. Example; most of the Mary Sue test failures target the Romance genre specifically, a subset of literature everyone likes to beat up on. I mean come on, who here hasn't mocked bodice-rippers at one time or another? I know I have.

But the fact remains; Romance is a genre of fiction consumed by millions of people, and probably sells more books than genres we take as more "legitimate".

So yes. When taken as a joke there's nothing wrong with a Mary Sue test. It's when people view them as something to base their writing around that problems happen, and too many young authors do this. Instead of combating the tests - which is an impossibility, the internet being what it is - more established writers need to remind their younger brethren that the tests are just a big fucking joke, and to treat them as such.

edited 19th Sep '13 11:56:42 AM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
DeviousRecital from New York Angeles Since: Nov, 2011
#334: Sep 19th 2013 at 12:00:05 PM

Well, even if potential writers do see it as satire, the mere fact that they're looking at things like litmus tests means they're doing their research. I can't think of any writers I knew that took one test and stopped there. I know I didn't, even in my younger, more impressionable days as a writer.

Ultimately, though, Mary Sues are indeed not something you can judge by a collection of traits alone, even if a number of them on a character is a good indicator. And even then, it still might be that the author's going for Escapist Character and not their own fantasies, or deliberately creating a Sue to play with the concept. I doubt that all these tests are made with satire in mind, but even the ones that are not ultimately aren't doing much to help. But I wouldn't say they're exactly harmful either. Anyone taking the tests for serious is trying not to create a Mary Sue in the first place, and if they can understand the concept, they'll probably succeed, or at the very least be good at hiding it.

edited 19th Sep '13 2:31:15 PM by DeviousRecital

MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#335: Sep 19th 2013 at 12:08:04 PM

I will always maintain that the concept of mary sue serves as an important reality check for starting out writers, especially ones that can't initially grasp the more complex dynamics that go on when you write characters. At the very least, when dealing with people who are casually creative, but don't actually want to be a writer, it can help.

Read my stories!
Ninjaxenomorph The best and the worst. from Texas, Texas, Texas Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
The best and the worst.
#336: Sep 19th 2013 at 1:45:36 PM

Me and my friend have run a bunch of our characters through it. Mine scored relatively high (30s), while hers were REALLY high. Also, apparently, on the Springhole one, for RPG characters, being a competent wizard will jack up your score a LOT. Multiple languages, shapeshifting, flight, good at things, etc. My Mythic PF magus was at 67 before taking drawbacks.

edited 19th Sep '13 1:46:08 PM by Ninjaxenomorph

Me and my friend's collaborative webcomic: Forged Men
MaxwellDaring Unearthed Horror from Interzone (Ten years in the joint) Relationship Status: Desperate
Unearthed Horror
#337: Sep 19th 2013 at 8:18:50 PM

Everything was going well, although I was racking up some points because my Power Trio already had a lot of experience under their belts at the beginning. When running Colonel Geist through, I ran into this:

Does your character frequently carry knives, daggers, or other little sharp pointy objects concealed within xir clothing for no other reason than that they might come in handy?

Really? Geist is from New Pyrrhius. People from there consider shotguns holdout weapons. The Extended Disarming is practically their trademark. I get a freebie for that one.

edited 19th Sep '13 8:20:28 PM by MaxwellDaring

[I LIVE AGAIN]
aurora369 Since: Jan, 2001
#339: Sep 20th 2013 at 2:38:32 AM

I was bored and ran Daenerys Targaryen from A Song of Ice and Fire through this test. You know what? She clocks at 57 proof. That's, a mighty fine example of a Sue.

m8e from Sweden Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
hermiethefrog Since: Jan, 2001
#341: Sep 20th 2013 at 10:20:48 AM

[up][up] I'm not familiar with Song of Ice and Fire, but there's no listing of that character for any Mary Sue tropes on the YMMV page. There aren't any Mary Sue tropes listed at all, in fact.

My guess is that she'd have some traits that could be considered Sue like, but I can't know for sure since I don't know how she's executed in the story. Given that the YMMV page doesn't list her, my guess is that she has reasonable conflicts or that she isn't shilled in the story.

Wow. It's almost like the litmus tests are completely useless without the larger story surrounding the character. Who knew?

(me. hence my "who necro'd this" comment. I thought we'd established that Mary Sue is a practically useless label. You guys. Stop worrying about this shit. Worry about other stuff in your writing.)

dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#342: Sep 20th 2013 at 10:23:43 AM

I'm with nrj - it isn't a list that should be taken seriously.

I actually didn't know that the list was supposed to be satirical. I mean, I knew Fantasy Novelist's Exam was, but not this one.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#344: Sep 20th 2013 at 10:28:47 AM

That's what Drunk says. I can believe that.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
hermiethefrog Since: Jan, 2001
#345: Sep 20th 2013 at 10:34:49 AM

Looking at the post, I don't think he meant the tests were written with the purpose of being satirical. I think he meant it like the tests are as useless as they would be if they were written to be satire.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#346: Sep 21st 2013 at 2:31:19 AM

I went back and looked through the test linked in the OP again...I'll be honest, it had been a while since I'd seen it. The test is not a bad example of the type, and is probably less satirical than examples I've seen more recently. I do still believe there's an element of satire in the concept of the Mary Sue Test, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Satire is simply a form of humor designed to make us think; it examines what we take for granted and twists it just enough to get us to ask why we take it for granted. It's tough to pull off, and the downside is some people taking it seriously...or simply concluding that the concept being satirized is worthless simply because it can be made fun of. Satire is designed to point out flaws, illogic and silliness...but a concept being flawed or on occasion illogical does not render it useless. As Aristotle said, "Humor is the best test of gravity, and gravity of humor."

Having looked at the test again, I think one idea - for the "good" tests at least - is to get a writer to recognize the difference between legitimate use of a storytelling tool and base exploitation. Take the concept of abuse as back-story for example; its a legitimate storytelling tool, and no one can argue that the concept does not exist in reality. People are abused, abuse creates conflict, and conflict is the basis of all storytelling. When done right, use of that tool can create drama and resonance with the audience.

However, simply tossing in abuse in a character's back-story without an understanding of how it happens or why it resonates is exploitative; it leaves an audience feeling manipulated - because that's exactly what the author is doing - and any individual consumer of that media who has suffered that kind of abuse will feel insulted, rightfully so. Their very real emotional pain is being clumsily co-opted to sell a piece of media. Who wouldn't get offended by that?

A good many of the other questions simply reference cheap tricks to make a hero seem "unique"; they all are clumsy ways to tell a reader "this person is one of a kind and you should pay attention to them". Even the hypercompetency - the defining trait of a Mary Sue, even under the original definition if memory serves me - falls under that classification. After all, heroes are supposed to be competent, so a character who is good at everything is even more heroic, right?

Which brings us to the meat of the Mary Sue, as well as his/her origins...at bottom, Mary's a wish-fulfilling power fantasy for the author. Most of the traits discussed in the test fall into two classifications...

  • A: Evidence of the author indulging in the wish-fulfillment/power fantasy thing.
  • B: Cheap excuse-spackle pedestrian authors have learned to spread over A, so they can pretend they aren't doing what they're doing.

Lots of ink - magnetic and otherwise - has been spilled over the difference between a Mary Sue and a powerful character (whether good or bad). I'd assert that the difference is in how the author felt when writing the character, not anything about the character itself. If they were thinking about the audience reaction, they aren't writing a Sue...sure that's no guarantee of competency, but if the author was thinking of the audience at least their heart was in the right place. However, if they were writing with the notion of simply fulfilling some unmet need within themselves to be powerful and awesome, then the character is a Sue, no matter how much said character might appeal to some people.

The tests - at least the legit ones - are simply attempts to divide one from the other...and in the process remind us authors not to get our heads too swelled up about what we're doing. Fiction is about entertainment. We aren't saving the world, we aren't curing cancer, and we aren't teaching moral profundity...we're simply trying to give people something interesting to do with their evening. MS tests mocking the shit out of the cheap tricks we're always so tempted to reach for is, at some levels not a bad thing.

The MS tests are neither checklist nor handbook; they're simply a signpost, and writers need to learn how to pay attention to signs without blindly following them. There's nothing wrong intrinsically with writing about rape survivors, people with unusual hair colors, or unusual racial hybrids. But writers need to be aware of the minefield they're stepping into when they include shit like that, and know they'd better bring their A-game if they want their audience to do something other than boo and hiss.

Want to avoid writing a Mary Sue? Take your time, think of your audience, do your damn homework and leave your power-fantasies in your imagination where they belong. The tests might or might not help with that, but try not to take them too seriously.

Try to take them just seriously enough.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
DeviousRecital from New York Angeles Since: Nov, 2011
#347: Sep 21st 2013 at 4:37:30 AM

I always approach the process of writing my characters as being either deliberately as different from myself as possible, an antagonist with exaggerations of my own (self-perceived) traits, or both. But more than that, I attempt to avoid writing a Mary Sue through the context of my stories themselves: I don't present any of my characters as being more "right" or "wrong" than any of my other characters, including antagonists. Or at least, I try to, anyway.

This raises the kind of question that these tests neither ask nor answer: is it possible for someone to write a Mary Sue when both sides of the story conflict are intentionally at the same place on the scale of morality? Even if one character's a blatant power fantasy, it's clear that his victory may make things worse or that it was wrong to begin with.

This is why these tests still aren't really good for anything but an indication. Without any sort of context of story to go by, there's only so much they can do.

JewelyJ from A state in the USA Since: Jul, 2009
#348: Sep 22nd 2013 at 6:33:21 PM

My heart used to start racing when I saw a Mary Sue test because I had this horrible feeling of what if I failed it? I actually do good on those tests nowadays. Also I encourage people to actually read the De Suiefiers. One time I actually seriously went through them.

Many were basically "does your character screw up / don't something wrong /do something petty / do something human"? And the mental disability question. I heard someone saying your character has to be "fat ugly and retarded" to pass. Eeeeexcept mental disability "with nothing to make up for it" does not mean "retarded" . If someone has OCD they're not retarded. They're anxious if anything.

Yeah I agree that the test is highly flawed in some points. But......well.....the desuefiers are basically "make your character human" . I mean If your character cannot be fooled or manipulated without mind control or drugs or some sinister magic....that might be a problem.

edited 22nd Sep '13 6:34:00 PM by JewelyJ

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#349: Sep 22nd 2013 at 6:55:38 PM

@Jewely: Well, its like I said above...the better tests point towards cheap tricks we writers are always tempted to use but shouldn't, because they've been overused. Also, the points toward the path of self-awareness; as in, shows us when we're using our writing to live through our characters.

I think the trouble comes with the term "Mary Sue" mutating from an objective descriptor into an insult. Plenty of very well-rendered characters in original fiction can be legitimately classified as Mary Sues under the "wish fulfillment/power fantasy" definition, and plenty of cardboard cutouts are not.

An example; Jack Ryan is Tom Clancy's Mary Sue, even though he doesn't fit a lot of the obvious indicators at first glance most of them end up applying if you consider the views/life position of the author. Does this mean Clancy's a shitty writer, or that the Ryan series isn't worth reading? I would say "no" to both counts, and there are millions of people who would agree with me.

People shouldn't worry about these tests so.

edited 22nd Sep '13 6:56:17 PM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
DrStarky Okay Guy from Corn And Pig Land Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Staying up all night to get lucky
Okay Guy
#350: Sep 22nd 2013 at 7:12:45 PM

I don't think Mary Sue was ever an "objective descriptor".

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

Total posts: 378
Top