I'm assuming those who read this forum know what the term "Mary-Sue" is as it seems to be a pretty common saying amongst fiction writers. For those of you who don't know, generally it refers to a character that is too perfect and has little to no flaws whatsoever - sometimes even it could just simply be a wish-fullfilment thing for the authors.

I recently did one of those "Mary-Sue" tests, using the main heroine from my fantasy novel. I was quite careful to select how I answered the questions, only to discover that my character was 80% Mary-Sue! However, going back over the test, I noted that it automatically added on a lot of points if they had superpowers and/or magic powers and were a martial artist, which my character is.

Thing is, I disagree with the way this test is marked. Of course, I guess I shouldn't take it too seriously, but I don't think that automatically giving a character superpowers makes them a Mary Sue. After all, Superman has a lot of superpowers and is pretty much invulnerable, but he does have weaknesses and ways of being stripped of that power.

Personally, I think a character is only a Mary Sue if there is no conflict with the character, ie, they win every fight, know everything in the whole world, can solve any problem, etc. For me, a hero has to suffer during their course, because it allows the audience/readers to sympathise with their struggled and make them want to succeed. If they can just solve anything under the sun, then why should the audience care?

I'm interested to know if anyone else has an idea of what a Mary-Sue is, and maybe with some examples.

Ok, first of all, step away from the tests

Seriously, if your character is a well-rounded "real" individual then it doesn't really matter what some internet test says. And if your character is a wooden cutout then that's not necessarily diagnosable. Having said that, most of those tests work on identifying common Mary Sue stereotypes, so if your character is conforming to LOTS of those, then perhaps you should be looking at the originality of the character/plot.

Secondly your comment:

"Personally, I think a character is only a Mary Sue if there is no conflict with the character, ie, they win every fight, know everything in the whole world, can solve any problem, etc. For me, a hero has to suffer during their course, because it allows the audience/readers to sympathise with their struggled and make them want to succeed. If they can just solve anything under the sun, then why should the audience care?"

I'm not sure this is the crux of being a Mary Sue (at least for me).

For me, the problem is when "weaknesses" are only used to make the character more adorable. For eg, maybe she's clumsy, or headstrong, or impulsive, but this only serves to get her into scrapes where she has to be rescued by a love interest who immediately falls for her.

Or maybe (this is common in YA fiction) she's a lone human in a supernatural world, and therefore physically weak compared to the other characters, but her fragility is what gets all the guys in the story battling to protect her.

Or maybe the character is a prickly bad-ass who comes across rather unpleasant - but maybe this is only because s/he's had a traumatic past. The love interest can see past this stony exterior to the heart of gold beneath, and the MC's tortured behaviour is only used to emphasise how terribly they've suffered.

In other words - they may have "faults" on paper, but every fault is a virtue in disguise in that they're only used to endear the character to other characters and readers.

Maybe, which is worse, they have real faults, but the author is apparently unable to see these (eg they unceremoniously dump their friends when the love interest turns up, but this is never referenced or resented by anyone). I think that's what pisses people off. When the author is SO invested in their MC that they can't see anything wrong with the MC's behaviour, even when it would clearly be obnoxious by any unbiassed standards.

Hope this makes sense...

You've raised some good points there, Flora. And you're right about the tests. Tbh, it was only out of sheer morbid curiosity that I did it. Personally, you don't need an internet test to see if your character is a Mary-Sue or not. Just look at the kind of Mary-Sue archtypes there are in fiction and it gives you an idea of what to stay away from.

Coming back to what you said, I agree to an extent what you said. But I still think that (for me anyway) the main character needs to go through a little conflict for the readers to really identify with them. It makes them wonder how they will solve or escape a situation.

I have to say I do agree entirely with you on the last point you raised. I also hate when that happens. But what I hate MOST is when the MC also doesn't care about anyone else. One example is the recent Resident Evil films - the MC is an overpowered, butt-kicking warrior woman who promises to defend everyone - yet one of her team dies she doesn't give a crap!

I guess it's entirely subjective at the end of the day and everyone has their own thoughts on what makes a rounded character/Mary Sue.

"But I still think that (for me anyway) the main character needs to go through a little conflict for the readers to really identify with them. It makes them wonder how they will solve or escape a situation."

Yes - I absolutely agree with that - after all there is no plot without conflict and struggles.

But my point was not that the MC shouldn't struggle. My point was that the main character can have all the struggles in the world and still be a Mary Sue. Just because they don't have an easy ride, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a rounded character.

In other words - they may have "faults" on paper, but every fault is a virtue in disguise in that they're only used to endear the character to other characters and readers.

There is a physical appearance version of this that really annoys me when I come across it in teen/ YA fiction. I remember the Princess Diaries in particular being guilty of it!
The narrator will say something like: "I'm not pretty. I'm too tall and too thin, and my eyes and mouth are too big and my nose is too small, and my hair is always a mess." In other words, stating they're not attractive and then actually describing themselves as being extremely attractive.

Going off topic slightly, is it possible to create Mary-Sue characters as by way of a parody?

I remember a tv series called Garth Marengi's Darkplace (which was a parody of 80's horror) and the main character of that was deliberatly set out to be a Mary-Sue, mainly because he was written as a wish fulfillment fantasy for the fictional author of the show. He was just so over the top and silly (and obviously good at everything) that it was impossible to take him seriously. In that respect it works.

Does anyone else know of any examples where the Mary-Sue archtype has been used as a parody?

<Added>

Going back on topic, I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of Mary-Sue arctypes in Manga, at least a lot of the ones I've seen recently. One character I can mention straight away is Sakuke from Naruto. He's popular with the ladies, is dark and uncarring (and generally and arrogant ****) and, what's more, he has the ability to copy any martial art ability in seconds. Admittedly, later editions do try to limit his powers and make him a bit more of a rounded character, but at the beginning he was just a k**b!

Sadly, there are more than one examples of this in manga, they are chock full of characters that are overpowered, full of magic, overly beautiful, and generally just annoying as hell. However, they also have some brilliant series where they have well developed characters, amazing stories and superb backdrops. If you find a good one, I swear you will be hooked on it, but like anything, you have to do a bit of searching to find the good stuff.

Also, (and I'm sure FloraPost will back me up on this ) a perfect character is fine if they are foil to imperfection. Flora Post is perfect. I want to be Flora Post (the character not the WW member!) The woman has no faults, thank goodness, as she needs to be perfect to set the miserable motley crew of Cold Comfort Farm to rights.

Oh god Leila I know exactly what you mean. They might as well have massive blue neon arrows pointing to the paragraph going "D'ya get the point? See she THINKS she's not pretty but really she IS. Did you get that? Yeah? Didja?"

crossed with Cherys! For a moment there I thought she was talking about me [sob].

But yes I agree, Flora Poste (the CC character) literally can do anything and solve anything AND all half the male characters fall for her, and she gets her man at the end.

But it's ok because it's so humorously done, and she's so exasperated at everyone else's crapness that you laugh along with her instead of thinking "just shut up you perfect old cow."

The thing is, I think most characters (in commercial lit anyway) are wish-fulfilment on some level,especially the really classic heroes and heroines. The trick is whether they are also living, breathing people.

James Bond is a classic Gary-Stu or whatever the male version is. He can do anything, there is no skill he cannot master, all the women fall for him. He's quite clearly Ian Fleming living out all his fantasies of being a high level shag-agent. And yet he's also an incredibly vivid character who is instantly believable in some indefinable way.

Nancy Drew is an UTTER Mary Sue. But it hasn't stopped her from being a fairly kick-ass heroine and one of the most popular female characters of all time. (Though actually thinking back, I do remember being annoyed even as a 10 y.o. that she was so perfect at EVERYTHING. Maybe we'll take her off the list )

Or what about Buffy - is there anything she can't do? But I still love her and find her totally believable.

This is what I meant about stepping away from the questionnaires - they can flag up if you're conforming to certain stereotypes a little too much for comfort, but that doesn't tell you much at the end of the day. What counts is whether your character leaps off the page and breathes - and no survey can tell you that. Only readers.

Flora, in regards to what you said about James Bond... THANK YOU! I felt the exact same way about him (can't believe I didn't bring him up before actually). Personally, I don't like James Bond, for the reasons you mentioned. Also, I kinda found him a little bit of a p***k.

However, I have to disagree with Buffy being a Mary-Sue. Admittedly, I haven't seen EVERY episode of Buffy, but I always found a rounded character that, even with a lot of superpowers, she still had enough human weaknesses to make her relatable.

Two variations of the Gary/Mary Sue that I can think of are He-Man and She-Ra (yes, I did watch those shows). Those two had no weaknesses whatsoever, they turned into superhumans and kicked ass. In fact, I can't even remember an episode where they ever lost a fight. I'm sure there was, but I can't remember.

Going back to what you said about the test, yes you are right. Thankfully, from the few reviews/feedbacks I've got from my book, the readers seem to like my heroine and haven't mentioned her being a mary sue. So I guess I can take some comfort in that.

<Added>

Following on from my above post, I've heard some people say that Edward from Twilight is a bit of a Gary Stu. At the risk of offending any Twilight fans, I do have to kinda agree with them - although saying that my knowledge of Twilight is limited to the first film and a little of the first books. So techonically I can't include him on the list as I don't know a lot about him. Maybe I just can't get over the whole vampire sparkling thing, but hey ho.

I would call a Mary-Sue any character that has too much talent, too beautiful, too good to be true. So if they are angsty or worried about anything it doesn't ring true; they would come across as far too spoilt & self-centred. It's better to give them just enough talent to make them survive, but not enough so they don't have to struggle.
In you specific case, Dwriter, you say that your character has both superpowers AND is a Martial Arts expert, so one has to wonder why they need martial arts if they've got superpowers? It's too much talent; pick one or other.


- NaomiM

In you specific case, Dwriter, you say that your character has both superpowers AND is a Martial Arts expert, so one has to wonder why they need martial arts if they've got superpowers?

Whilst I see where you're coming from, I don't automatically think making them a martial arts expert and have superpowers automatically makes them a mary sue. After all, just because your an expert in something doesn't mean you get it right all the time.

In my heroines case, she has superpowers, but they are very limited and she actually doesn't use them unless she has to. Yes, she is a martial arts expert but that doesn't mean she wins every fight. In fact, she loses as many fights as she wins because her enemies are able to expoit her weaknesses (ie, her friends and family) and get the better of her.

Baring in mind my novel is a fantasy story, I have gone in for a little flourish with the characters, which I think you need to in fantasy to an extent. Although I've been careful not to make them TOO perfect, as Terry Pratchett once said, just because they live in a fantasy world, doesn't mean your characters can't be believable and human. Or something like that.

James Bond is a classic Gary-Stu or whatever the male version is. He can do anything, there is no skill he cannot master, all the women fall for him. He's quite clearly Ian Fleming living out all his fantasies of being a high level shag-agent.

I take it you're talking here about the film character, rather than the one in the novels?

The one in the novels has a great many weaknesses (starting with an absolute abhorrence of killing someone in cold blood - something which almost gets him killed at the end of The Man With The Golden Gun), and comes across as totally believable. His only faults, really, are a tendency to occasionally become a mouthpiece for Fleming's own prejudices. The film character, on the other hand, started off as much more of a womaniser and cold-blooded killer, and gradually morphed into something rather ridiculous. By the end of the Pierce Brosnan incarnation, it had become so extreme that, if he had pulled open his shirt to reveal a Superman suit, it would have made him more believable.

Alex

Actually I was talking about both really - I have read the books and I agree he's not the same almost super-human shag-machine he is in the films, but a more rounded character. He is much more fearful in the books, I think, and I agree about the hatred of killing in cold blood.

But at the same time, this is what I was talking about when I mentioned faults-on-paper in my 13.34 post. Bond's "weaknesses", even in the book, are mainly used to portray him as a more honourable, feeling man than his enemies. The hatred of killing in cold blood is a classic example, it makes him a worse agent, true, but a far better human being and is really a virtue under the guise of a fault.

And his fear is actually used to illustrate his courage - there is a terrible scene in (I think?) Casino Royale where he is horribly tortured by beating his genitals. This is really viscerally described, along with Bond's absolute animal terror, but the effect is to actually make the reader admire him more because he still doesn't give out any information to his captors.

And his misogyny and general promiscuous behaviour is partly clear wish-fulfilment, and partly used to show that he never got over Vesper Lynd in the first book - who we are led to believe he still loves throughout the series. Which is a classic have-your-cake-and-eat-it Mary-Sueism; ie he gets to screw everything that moves but really it's not because he's emotionally shallow, it's because he loves too much.

So basically they aren't really "faults" at all.