Death to Mary Sue! (and her boyfriend, Gary Stu)

[Finefrenzy__]

 

Death to Mary Sue.

 

We know her and we try desperately to avoid her. But sometimes she can still sneak in to our writing, despite our best efforts.

 

But first, a little history lesson. The term 'Mary Sue' originates from a character of the same name from Paula Smith's 1973 Star Trek parody, "A Trekkies Tale". It is a term that now has become generalised with the characteristics of being too perfect, skilled, beautiful and ultimately one-dimensional in writing. Her male counterpart has hence also been dubbed Gary Stu.

 

Do you catch yourself writing a Mary Sue, or her male counterpart, Gary Stu?

Flaws are one way of avoiding Mary-Sueism. What are your strategies for avoiding them in your writing? What do you always like to include?

There is argument that this sort of character can work well as a protagonist.  Do you agree and think there are times that a Mary Sue can work within your story?

Is there a flip side where in avoiding a Mary Sue, you actually create her alter-ego, Dark Mary Sue? Someone who hates the world and hated by nearly all?

Many have stated that they think Ginny Weasley is classed as a Mary Sue? Do you agree/disagree? Why?

Are there any Mary Sue's that stand out for you in literature/film/tv?

[beyond the rain]

I don't think I agree that Ginny Weasley was a mary sue. Mainly because I don't look at characters as a okay what are their "good" and "bad" characteristics. Rather, I try to give them personalities and traits that are subjective. 

Some people could like Ginny because she's pretty, she's confident and she's clever. She's also loud and a bit in your face - or at least she is in the films. She feels like she has to do things a certain way because she grew up with six brothers, struggled to get attention, etc. Etc. 

 

Because she's never been fully explored by JK herself, I personally see Lily Evans as a mary sue...which is why I'm not too fond of her. 

I live for imperfect characters, that aren't necessarily unique or stand out in a crowd, but rather their own lives are individual. 

One of my OCs Clara, was intelligent and good looking...but she's incredibly paranoid and has low self esteem. I think what's important is to make a character that isn't completely aware of their flaws. Clara is aware of her low self esteem, but thinks of herself as diligent and very aware of her surroundings. In actual fact, she's pretty paranoid. 

 

Another OC of mine, Aurelia, is sharp, witty, and has the best sense of humour. She's also incredibly manipulative, demanding, and rude. I don't see her as flawed or a bad person because she's loved for who she is. Some people hate Aurelia because of her personality and background - others adore her for it. 

 

I think the problem with Mary Sues really is the characters seem to know best and get the best. For me, it's a lot more fun to write characters that think of themselves as Mary Sues...but in reality they couldn't be further from the truth.

[scooterbug8515]

Ah, Sues.  One of my favorite topics.  Sues/Stu's are a very interesting topic.  You need to be sure they aren't too perfect but at the same time not so imperfect that you have a dark-sue.  Balance is key a character who is flawed making mistakes both loved and hated at the same time and yet not loved by the classic golden trio and hated by all snakes.  That goes into Sue territory.   Also one needs to beware of the Canon-Sue.  This would be the classic thing where Hermione suddenly has all the curves in all the right places, has silken smooth hair and perfectly scorns and attracts, Ron, Draco, Harry and Snape.  Changing the men for better or worse due to her rapier wit and their love for her. 

 

There are some classic sue traits that a well rounded character can have just make it real and make it filled with flaws.  A good resource in my opinion is the the Mary Sue Litmus Test please note that if you flat out plug a character in, even Harry Potter himself fails the Sue test.  There is a guide at the top that explains how the test can be abused and even gives further notes on what defines a Sue.  It was really good back in the day.

 

Now, if you don't want a detailed thing on what Sue's are may I take a moment and recommend the Sparklypoo Comic?  This is a witty and amusing comic that addresses Mary Sues quite well.  Please note that if your character has some traits in common with the Sues in the story does not always mean you have a sue on your hands.  A Sue is not only defined by her appearance, her heritage or her name.  I think the largest indicator of a sue is how she reacts to the characters in the story.  If you look at the comic the key Sue moments can be seen when Draco is on the scene, at least that is my opinion.

(Links are rated no higher than Teen)

[MrsDarcy]

Dear old Mary Sue - she is sneaky I agree 

I'm not sure minor characters can be classified as a Mary sue, such as Ginny, since the story doesn't revolve around them. If we're strictly speaking too-perfect characters, then i think JKR's intention was to make Ginny very attractive, although I certainly see her very snarky behavior in HBP as a flaw that isn't acknowledged, but actually praised. This makes her rather unlikable in my opinion and she's one of my least favorite characters. 

I think when writing characters its important to be realistic - the opposite Mary Sue isn't exactly ideal either. Fleshed out characters doesn't just have a set of strengths and flaws, but, in my view, more like a behavioral pattern. I think one of the most important things to a character is growth - to overcome some of their weaknesses, showing true strength. At least if you're dealing with a hero. 

One of the things I hate the most about the Mary Sue isn't necessarily that he/she is supposedly perfect, but that everyone seems to put them on a pedestal for apparently no good reason. It's important to tell and not show who your character is - if someone says "wow, x is just so clever and compassionate", I want to see proof of this before I believe it. I think some might call Harry a Mary Sue, but I see him more as a blank character that is easy to relate to. A character with a very 'specific' personality might not be raletable to everyone. Some will love them and some will hate them. It's risky business and a blank character can definitely work better sometimes. The risk of using a blank character is that they're often unmemorable and I have yet to find anyone who thinks Harry is the best. 

On another note, I do wish to see more varied protagonists in fiction, especially female, who are often clever, sassy, bad-ass and pretty. I certainly can't relate to this and even though she also has flaws, a strong female character can come in many shapes and sizes 

One last thing: I think flaws need to have consequences - if a character is clumsy or snarky as their flaw, then they need consequences such as a broken leg or people thinking they're somewhat unlikeable. If the other characters think their clumsiness is endearing and their snarkiness makes them strong-willed, then it's not really a flaw. 

[Guest Rumpelstiltskin]

There are so many things surrounding those "Mary Sue" and "Gary Stu" typecasts that I really appreciate as a writer in that being able to recognize a Sue/Stu can help you further develop your character-creation skills. When you're looking at protagonists without a flaw, you're not relating to your writers or yourself because you are not representing the true nature of people. While you might not be able to relate to the character, you're starting to try to relate to the idea of perfection. Understandably, especially in a world where we as people are told to strive for this perfectionism, it might be easy for a writer to write a Sue/Stu because that is what they want to be. 

I also think that Sues and Stus go farther than just initial physical appearance/skill/intelligence level/etc. If a Sue has a scar which makes her "less beautiful" (which is entirely subjective in it of itself), she can still be a Sue, she is just a Sue with a scar. Given those thoughts, it's my opinion that a Sue can still have a single flaw and still be a rather flat and Sue-like character. I think, for me, what makes a wholly interesting character is relatability, which is why I believe a lot of writers wind up imposing at least some bit of their own flaws onto their characters. This is certainly a decent starting point to creating characters with depth and is something that can be grown upon to achieve true, human, believable flaws.

I largely agree with the above comments regarding Sues in regards to balance, relatability, and having the ability to grow a character (because nobody should ever be perfect as a character...if there is no room for growth, they are certainly a Sue/Stu). 

11 hours ago, MrsDarcy said:

Fleshed out characters doesn't just have a set of strengths and flaws, but, in my view, more like a behavioral pattern.

I wanted to comment on this in particular because this is a magnificent point and largely a part of battling Sues and Stus, in my opinion.  Any good character will act and react in specific ways as is appropriate to their characterization and any outside factors influencing that action or reaction. That being said, a character should not always be able to say and do things perfectly every single time they do anything. 

Also, as a quick aside, I believe that characters established flaws should not be blatantly ignored. It's easy to say or imply that your character has a certain set of flaws, but if you do not adhere to those "rules" you've established for your character, they can quickly fall back into a Sue/Stu-like state. For example, a character who is inherently clumsy will probably not be able to perform disciplined martial-arts-style combat without incident unless there is a significant contributing factor as to why they can do those things and have overcome their flaw.

I also don't think that a character who has one or two of the things that fall into the red-flag list of possibly makes them a Sue/Stu will automatically make them a Sue/Stu. For example, a character can be extremely beautiful so long as there is something to balance that and make them more like a human being than an ethereal being (unless that character is an actual ethereal being, in which case there may be different rules of the road). In fact, I think that a character can be beautiful, intelligent, and generally well-liked, so long as there is a reason for those things and that they have some sort of inherent relatable flaw set of behaviors that are going to humanize them. Another example is one of the big Sue "red flags" in that the character is the "CHOSEN ONE" (hey, it's Harry Potter). And it's okay to be a chosen one, so long as we have something to balance that "chosen one" mindset. And while Harry did have a scar, we can probably say that one of his largest flaws was not that but instead that he generally had little idea of what he was doing at any given moment during the series, hahaha!  

A character who is flawed and relatable is going to be more interesting to readers than a character who is perfect, for better-or-worse. Also, and probably more importantly, a character who can be ordinary and flawed and normal who can save the day or perform an amazing feat is going to be more amazing to people than a person who isn't a believable person doing amazing things. One of the reasons that I clung to The Lord of the Rings as a child was because that Frodo was just an ordinary hobbit who went on a big adventure and was tested and suffered and ultimately overcame and was successful in his mission. He was an unexpected hero who didn't always do things the right way, especially not on the first try. 

As far as when it is "okay" to have a Sue or Stu present I think has a lot to do with reason and perspective. I believe that it is perfectly fine to have Sues/Stus present within a story if they are that way through the eyes of an unreliable narrator. For example, if a character is in love, their love interest may initially be presented to the reader as a perfect being. The same goes for a mentor-type character, as presented to the readers through the eyes of a character who idolizes them. I would expect to eventually be shown these characters flaws, but as far as initial presentation goes, I'm totally fine with a perspective-driven idea. A knight in shining armor who saves the damsel is fine (and even more fine if you swap those gender roles, but that is neither here nor there), so long as that knight might also have saved the damsel on accident and is actually just a dude on a horse who was in the right place at the right time, and whoopsie-daisy knocked the cart of apples over and buried the bad guy (and that is purely a spin-off example that came to my rambling mind). 

 

In the same sense, when we are talking about Dark!Sues, we can't have an antagonist that is ALL flaws and bad things.  Voldemort starts to lean on this in the HP series, especially towards the end and I don't think it was intentional on the writer's part, in my opinion. It might be easier for a writer to accidentally write a perfectly imperfect antagonist than to accidentally write a perfect protagonist. Voldemort falls into a lot of the "red flag" categories in this instance where he's mercilessly and wholly evil with very little motive for doing so. While one could argue that he thought he was doing good in his actions, there's a fine line when it's leaning heavily on his superiority complex.  He is expressly described with inhuman (or "ugly") features. He may have been attractive prior to the Second Wizarding War, for all we know, but we do know that during the main timeline, he moderately resembles a snake.  He is extremely powerful and extremely feared. I think that one of his redeeming qualities is that he was pretty gosh darn clever (er, which is also debatable) and the fact that he has fears (like Dumbledore and Harry Potter). 

 

Alright, for the sake of stopping myself from rambling all day, because I can do it (I'll just ramble circles around myself), I'll see myself out now. O/

[Finefrenzy__]

Trust you Rumpels to write an essay, haha. Love you for it though 

 

I try very hard to avoid writing anything resembling a Mary Stu/Gary Stu, probably to the point of paranoia and stress, which results in the need for constant affirmation and reassurance from others.  I love to read stories were it reflects what the dark side of life can really be like. Depression, anxiety, addiction and mental health/disorders... All the nity-grity stuff. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I live for it.

 

Vanessa, my main character in Golden Girl has a tragic past, and could easily be in danger of becoming a Mary Sue. So a strategy I use (and this is true of most, if not all my characters), is to give them something to loose. Break 'em down, build them back up. Through a characters own actions, bad decisions, a helping of internal conflict and a drizzle of some mental health illness in varying degrees... Bundle all that together and hope it doesn't come out a mess. It isn't necessarily a neat and tidy way of doing it, but it's a system that works for me.

 

I do think, that if done well, a Sue can work as a protagonist . I should stipulate that I don't think this works all the time, and certainly not for every genre or theme. I think it is more geared towards a teenage, YA, coming-of-age type angst or drama. And certainly, like Rumpels said, if done through the eyes of an unreliable narrator. When I think of Dark Mary Sue, Elizabeth/Daisy from Meg Rosoff's How I Live Now comes to mind. In my opinion, she's a detestable character, and fits that role well. I could say a lot more, but it will just go down hill from here.

 

[MrsDarcy]

8 hours ago, Rumpelstiltskin said:

I believe that it is perfectly fine to have Sues/Stus present within a story if they are that way through the eyes of an unreliable narrator. For example, if a character is in love, their love interest may initially be presented to the reader as a perfect being. The same goes for a mentor-type character, as presented to the readers through the eyes of a character who idolizes them. 

 

I've never thought of this, great point!

About Voldemort, then I honestly liked him a lot better when he was a handsome, clever student that all the teachers doted on. Somehow this made him a lot more scary than when he had no nose and no mercy. I think all antagonists should be capable of some sort of humanity in order to be compelling. 

 

Rhi - I don't think you need to overthink whether your character is a Mary Sue or not - rule of thumb: if you can relate to her then she's probably not a Mary Sue. Having read Golden Girl, I don't think Vanessa is at least 

[Margaret]

I'm not a great fan of using strategies to avoid a Mary Sue. Basically, in my mind, a Sue is a badly written unrealistic character who other characters appear to know is the protagonist of the story. By the second part, I mean that everybody else seems to exist only to revolve around him or her. Often they form a chorus line. All the guys fancy her (what? None of them are gay or asexual or just have a different "type"), all her classmates are jealous, all her teachers either love or hate her. The reactions are almost always the extreme too. Where are the people who barely know she exists? 

Just as Rumple said that characters can have some Sueish traits and yet not be Sues, I think a character can have few Sueish traits and yet arguably be a Sue. I have a character I created when I was a teenager and if I test her, I get things like "the anti-Sue" or "definitely not a Sue. Why are you even testing this character?" She had no special abilities (it wasn't fantasy or a thriller or mystery or superhero story or any kind of world in which people were likely to have special abilities) beyond having above average (though not genius or straight A type) intelligence, she wasn't exceptionally good-looking, she didn't have a boyfriend at any point in the story and anything she did achieve was done with a lot of pressure on her mental health. But everybody liked her and worried about her and placed her problems before their own concerns, characters were almost defined by their relationship to her - selfish characters took advantage of her, sympathetic characters tried to help her, etc. People who shouldn't even have thought about her problems did. I think there may have been a scene at her sister's wedding where her sister was thinking about the main character's feelings/reaction to the wedding, when realistically, that probably wouldn't have been her focus at that time.

In my opinion, if you write fully fleshed out characters and think about how all characters are likely to react and about each one as an individual, you'll most likely avoid Mary Sueish.

I don't think Ginny is a Mary-Sue, by the way, as other characters don't constantly focus on her, she isn't the focus of the story and she doesn't have abilities or other traits that are entirely inconsistent. When something does seem inconsistent - her having skills the main characters didn't know about - it's generally because they weren't interested enough in her to find out and the story doesn't focus enough on her to show us the details. This is the opposite of a Sue. 

Yeah, the fact that so many guys seem to fancy her is a bit Sueish, but on its own, I don't think it's enough to make her a Sue. If she were a Sue, everybody would spend Chamber of Secrets speculating on her crush on Harry, even ignoring the danger from the chamber in favour of berating Harry for not returning her affections. After she was found to have been possessed by Voldemort, everybody would worry constantly about how she was dealing with that, even people who really shouldn't care.

I also wouldn't call Lily a Sue because not only does she not dominate the story, but we don't really know all that much about her, only what people tell Harry. I'm pretty sure most people would seem like a Sue if they had died when their child was a baby and we knew of them only from what people told that child as he or she grew up. Nobody is going to tell a teenager "the mother who died saving your life was kind of annoying/bossy/a pathological liar/selfish." They are going to focus on her good traits. This is back to what Rumple said about unreliable narrators. I don't think a character who doesn't actually appear in a story can be a Sue because we only know what others tell us about them and they could well be biased or lying. A character who seems perfect because the main character sees them that way is actually a really interesting concept. 

I don't think "adding flaws" is a good way to avoid Mary Sueism. If a character is realistic, they should naturally have flaws. Just deciding to add flaws in order to avoid Mary Sueism can fall into the trap of traits that don't fit together. "She's a bully but everybody likes her." "She hates school and never does her homework but all the teachers still love her and she gets top marks." "She's lazy and never puts in any practice but is still the best player on the Quidditch team." "She's stubborn and never listens to anybody else's advice, but somehow that never leads her into danger or causes her to make poor decisions." "She has a temper but that never causes her to say stupid things and lose arguments even when she's in the right because she's too upset to argue her point effectively." Or for the flaw to appear inconsistently as the author has to actively think to include.

Also most traits aren't entirely "good" or "bad." Being stubborn is good when it causes you to stick to your guns when somebody else might be bullied into changing their mind. It's bad when you really are in the wrong and you should know it but you refuse to change your mind anyway. A stubborn person should both be stubborn in situations where it's a good thing and in situations where it's a bad thing. Being brave is good when it lets you stand up for yourself or others. It's bad when you take unnecessary risks or don't take proper precautions. Being ambitious is good when it gets you where you want to go in life. It's bad when it causes you to ignore others' needs in order to get there. Being cautious is good when it means you don't jump to conclusions. It's bad when it means you ignore opportunities because you don't want to take a risk.

And yes, I do think that a character who everybody hates, who has no redeeming features and whose malice sometimes even seems to go against their own aims (the bully who is supposed to suck up to all the teachers bullies somebody in a situation or place where they are likely to get caught) is just as unrealistic and annoying as the character who everybody loves, who has no flaws and who has abilities they couldn't possibly have learnt. In my mind, it's really the same issue, a character who just isn't realistic.

I think whether or not such a character can work well as a protagonist depends on how you define a Mary Sue. The way I define it, no. I don't think an unrealistic character whose traits don't fit together and who dominates the story to the point that the other characters act like a chorus line and appear to have no independent thoughts or any reality except in relation to the main character makes a good protagonist. However, there are certainly types of stories in which it makes sense for the main character to have some traits considered Sueish.

Rather than asking "how do I avoid this character becoming a Sue?" I think it is more helpful to ask, "how do I ensure this character is realistic and well-developed?" Given her background, education, personality, etc, what skills would she be likely to have acquired? What insecurities would she have? What gaps would there be in knowledge?" And also to think from the point of view of other characters and think, "given this person's own unique personality, his or her background and his relationship to the protagonist, what would he think of her? Given his relationship with her, his personality and his own prior experiences, would he care about this problem she comes to him with?" And to remember that all the characters are individuals and avoid having everybody have the same reaction to her or even everybody except a small number of people she's close to have the same reaction.

[nott theodore]

The discussion in this thread is fascinating and there's some really helpful comments in here about writing fleshed-out characters.

This is kind of taking me back to when I first started writing fic and joined the old forums and learnt what a Mary-Sue/Gary Stu actually was Now, avoiding those characters isn't part of my writing process, which I think it was at the start, out of fear of falling into the trap.  Like Margaret said, though, I think it's much better to think about how you can write a well-rounded and realistic character than actively trying to avoid writing a character who falls into that category.  I try quite hard to make my plots and characters realistic, and I think that's one of the main ways I've grown as a writer.  There was certainly an element of wish fulfilment/wanting that perfect happy ending in the stories that I wrote when I was younger, whereas now I think it's much more interesting to write and read about characters who are flawed and who have to face the challenges life throws at them.

I also agree that minor characters can't really be Mary-Sues.  Suggestions that someone like Ginny's a Mary Sue probably come from the film, where her character's even less fleshed out than the books, and also the fact that we see her through Harry's eyes.  Of course she's going to seem perfect to him - he always likes her, first as Ron's little sister, then as a friend, then in a romantic sense.  They never have a proper argument when they're together in the books - it's all the honeymoon period that we see.  So I think that there's definitely an element of perspective in whether a character is a Mary Sue or not.  You could have a minor character that's hated by the protagonist because they seem to be a Mary Sue (think Miss Popular, loved by everyone in school etc.), but that's still just a front the character's presenting to the protagonist - without knowing the full story, it seems a little shallow to brand someone as that.  Isn't that what fanfiction's all about, after all - finding the characters who haven't had the same chance to have their story told and exploring them?

[shadowycorner]

I totally agree with @nott theodore about minor characters not being mary sues since unless we see a lot of their choices and behaviors, not just a limited version of them, it’s hard to judge.

I had terrible Mary Sues when I started writing. It started with awful self-inserts, then very negative yet secretly perfect bitch characters, and then I went the other way where I tried making all my characters so flawed and miserable they weren’t at all likeable, so this is a real struggle actually :D

When it comes to adding flaws, like Margaret said, they actually need to have consequences for the character, they shouldn’t just be a tick on a list of bad traits to give a character so they’re not a Mary Sue.

We are all human and so what we are mostly looking for in characters is the ability to relate and identify with them. I can’t identify with someone who is perfect, neither with someone who is always mean and heartless and prides themselves on it.