Critique on Essay on Mary Sue
I found the following article, called Help! I have a Mary Sue! , thanks to Pottersues. I agree with some of the things the writer says, but not everything.
Internet communities often lash out at writers who create Mary Sues.
I actually agree with this, as my first experience with Mary Sues was when someone from one of these internet communities decided to label the character as a Mary Sue simply because there was an OC in the story, and then proceeded to post the story to a forum so they could mock the writer, and the author. I decided to dig into what a Mary Sue was, and found a safe haven at Pottersues, as bullying Suethor's sis against the rules.
Declaring the writing below their standards, they proceed to punish the creators.
Uh, no.
For someone to critique they must have some kind of standard by which they review by. One of the things I've called writers out for is the fact they post hot-off-the-press stories, or their stories break the site rules. This in itself is a standard, and I am effectively telling, or declaring that what the writer is posting is below my standards. The writer of the article is pretty much saying that we shouldn't tell the writers the truth.
Of course, this also isn't what the writer of the article means. They're specifically I believe referring to Mary Sue communities like the one I first found, from which the standards uses are a joke. For example, I still remember the phrase “they wore the same expression” being used in the fic, and the writers mocking the writer by saying, “and they couldn't afford their own expression”. How the hell the readers missed what was meant by the phrase still to this day makes me roll my eyes, and that was ever so long ago.
They mock the characters, verbally abuse the writers, and write hyperbolically about how much they wish the characters would die.
The only problem is the part about “verbally abusing the writers”, which doesn't include by the way things like calling the writer out for misconceptions they have, or calling them out for bullying other people when you catch them in the act of doing so. Attacks on the writing, and thus characters within said writing are not personal attacks against the writer.
Now, this isn't to say that mocking the characters and wishing they would die is never a bad thing. Take for example the site where I first learned what a Mary Sue was. In this particular case the critique wasn't legit, and thus the mocking of the character and the wishing that said character would die actually did turn into an attack against the writer, but the reason was because the criticism wasn't legit in the first place.
In places like Pottersues the character gets mocked when we know that's not how someone would act in real life, and we'll point out things like how a three year old don't act the way they are in the story, or how sadly the character's behavior is explainable only by the character having a learning or social disability. The times we wish the character to die are when the story is really bad, and/or the existence of said Sue means another character is being mistreated, and we want justice for said character.
Bullying writers (who may be very young) is only going to make them afraid to write-and therefore improve-or share their work.
First, don't assume that these Mary Sue writers are young writers. The worst offenders I've seen are actually the adults who write Mary Sues, or older teens you know should know better. The type of Mary Sue young writers write are filled with innocence, and naivety that has a particular charm to them that can easily make you fall in love with said Mary Sue, because they're just so adorable.
As for making them afraid to write, yeah, sites like the one I first discovered would definitely turn a writer off. Flaming does that to people. I don't believe it's fair to lump the sites that critique, and those that flame into the same venue though.
Not only that, but it discourages other writers from speaking for fear of public mockery, and it may silence the voices that could someday become great.
If you're referring to the other site, then yes. However, this should not be confused for the writers who think simply voicing their opinion about how mean the people labeling their story is a Mary Sue, or using poor logic in defending their story as not being bad, well, we're talking about something different. That's not a public mocking, but an individual doing something embarrassing on their own accord.
I actually like this article, What is NOT Bullying?, as a good resource. A lot of the arguments made as to why critique, or the Mary Sue sites like Pottersues constitute bullying are actually on the list of things that don't count as bullying. This said, I do agree entirely with the next paragraph full heartily, but then we get to their list of what to do should someone say your character is a Mary Sue, and it's really not good advice.
1. The term Mary Sue is subjective.
No, it is not. I know a lot of people think there are a multitude of definitions for Mary Sues out there, but there really aren't. First, let's make it clear that using different wording that means the same thing doesn't count as two different definitions. Second, you can divide the definitions into two groups: the definitions made by people who don't know what they're talking about, and those who do. You'll find that those who know what they're talking about will use the same wording, over and over again, and that the criteria is quite objective.
I would surmise the definitions in my own words as, “a character who breaks willing suspense of disbelief”.
2. People who tell you that your story stinks are jerks. No, I don't care if they were “trying to be helpful.” They're still jerks.
Funny, number seven on the lists of what isn't bullying says, “expression of unpleasant thoughts or feelings regarding others”. It goes on to say, “in every communication there are disagreements and some form of judgment about each other's attitude and behavior”. This actually includes judgments based on a persons writing. It's one think when the person is making the blanket statement of “your story stinks”, but if they're going into detail, and said details aren't comprised of what we call logical fallacies, they're not being jerks.
It doesn't matter how much hearing those words hurts your feelings, they are not a jerk. According the Merriam, the definition of a jerk is “a: an annoyingly stupid or foolish person, b: an unlikable person; especially: one who is cruel, rude, or small minded.” The person whose actually being the jerk is someone who decides to slap the jerk label on someone simply because they're feelings got hurt, or you think they're being rude to you. If you take a step back, you'll find they aren't.
Actually, I think this is one of the important issues here. Most of the writers who get scared off by critique don't do so because the person critiquing them was in the wrong, but because the writer refuses to take a step back and look at their work objectively. That, or they were only writing because it was the latest fad for them, and their real aim is gushing reviews filed with praise that they didn't have to work for.
3. Having an item or two on a list does not make your character a Mary Sue.
I'm going to argue that it does. The Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test is one of the few tests I use, and one of the things the writer points out is that you're not supposed to answer yes if “the item mentioned is so commonplace in the universe you are writing for that it doesn't really make your character remarkable or unusual.” They to point out that “most good characters have and should have at least some of them”, but I wish to add here that while this is true, the traits the character should have, are not the same as a trait which is added just to spice things up, but more on that in a bit.
Number four and five though are ones I preach constantly.
The first thing the writer does is place hair color, and singing voice into the category of mere symptoms of being a Mary Sue, but I'm going to say that these aren't just mere symptoms. If someone is able to identify one of these two traits in your story, then you've got a Mary Sue. Here is why. None of these traits are ever checked off simply because they exist, but they are checked off by the person doing the critique for a reason.
For hair color it's having a hair color which doesn't exist in the fandom, and there is no logical explanation for it, and for singing voice it's having a perfect singing voice with no practice what so ever. Yes, Snow White has a perfect singing voice, as do most of the Disney Princesses, but she didn't get to have a perfect singing voice right away. Song is also a mainstay of Disney movies because they are Musicals, and as such will incorporate song into their works.
You though writer are not writing a musical, so song should only come into play when the story you know, actually needs it. Moving along...
If your character is the main character, it's natural for him/her to be present when an important things are happening. The story is focused on your character, after all!
Wrong.
- First, what does it actually mean to be a main character?
- Second, should your character actually be a main character?
One of the misconceptions I see floating about is that there is only ever one main character to a story. No, Dramatica's definition of “the character through whose eyes the audience experiences the story, the very personal, “in the trenches” point of view,” is not an accurate definition. Actually, don't use that site at all, as I've found they like to put their own meaning on things which does not add up with what is actually taught outside of their site.
First, it really depends on the story. A story which involves a romantic pairing for example will be the story of two main characters, not just one. The Avengers series focuses on a group of characters, rather then just one. Add to this your villain is also a main character for your story. In most cases there is not one character that can be defined as a lone entity in the story.
So then, why if in most cases there is not one character that can be defined as a lone entity in the story, why should your OC be an exception to that rule?
The answer is, they shouldn't be. Your OC needs to have a supporting cast that has equal weight to her in the story, and preferably it should be more canon characters rather than you making up more OCs to run around with your OC. The question though also comes up whether your OC should be a main character. I'm not saying an OC can't be a main character - I mean, I've certainly written a few myself. You've got to though make the readers believe said OC is actually important to the story, otherwise as a writer you fail.
It is though a learning process. One thing for sure is I like how this article goes into depth about what you should be on the look out for, but I bring up what I said before because one of the issues I see with Mary Sue characters is the writer mistaking just how important their character really is. My favorite Mary Sue characters I think are also the ones that make the other characters important despite Mary Sue still being the super flawless character she's presented as being. Then again, this may be one of the easiest types to fix as well.
I also love this line.
Take a moment to consider whether the plot serves your plans or your character.
The main problem with Mary Sues is that decisions are made to favor the character, and not the plot. While some stories are very much character driven, that doesn't mean the stories actually focus around one character. In particular a character driven story will focus on more then one character, and focus on having the characters act in a logical manner. The sections “My character is extra unusual” and “My character is flawless” are well written as well.
I feel there is an important point missed in the second “My character is superior,” though.
Is it possible a canon character could already fill the role?
Bleach already has quite a few resident geniuses, and the child genius is Hitsugaya Toshiro. Thus it is really odd to see a character who, well, became a child genius at a younger age, and outclasses him, who is supposed to be paired with him, but ends up with a very childish personality that would not only drive Toshiro up the wall, but the fact she's better then him at everything, well - here comes Toshiro's known complexes kicking in to the point he wants to go off into a corner and hide.
Most of the issues with this article? Clarification. That's it.