Mary Sue
I’ve been writing fanfiction for a few years, and the concept of the Mary Sue, or Gary Stu, tends to crop up a lot in discussion. The concept, or troupe, is something that tends to be hard for some people to grasp. I hope here, to write something helpful and informative, to help make it easier to understand, what a Mary Sue is exactly.
What is the definition of a Mary Sue?
Wait, people are asking for definitions of a Mary Sue now? True enough, there are people who aren’t happy with the fact that they can’t find what they call, a clear definition of the term. Some people refuse to use it, or even begin to discuss it, unless they happen to have a definition, that they can go ahead and say, yes or no, true or false. They say, that no clear cut definition actually exists, which constitutes their argument that the word should not be used.
So then, is it impossible then to define what a Mary Sue is? Well, first off, I have to say, that nearly every site I’ve seen that has been well written, and given good information about Mary Sue’s, have said the same thing, that a Mary Sue is a poorly written character in fiction. Is this not then, a clear-cut definition? Sure, the different sites say it in different words, and cover it different ways, but it is still a solid definition and tells what a Mary Sue is.
What then is the definition of poorly written? This is where the problem lies, as some people think that to judge something as poorly written is based solely on like, or dislike. Truth of the matter, whether a piece is good or not, can’t be simply defined by this, as what is termed poor writing, is subject to what is known as the limitations of definition. It is something that is as wide and varied as good writing, thus one can expect a Mary Sue to be so too.
In other words, it is never something that can simply be answered in a yes or no question. It’s the kind of thing that happens to need to be addressed in a way that uses analytical thought, and knowledge of what the concept, or troupe is. This is why, whenever I critique Mary Sue fics, I tell them what makes the OC (original character) one, and why in this case it doesn’t work. Especially since it is common knowledge, while some things are stereotypical of Sues, a good writer can turn around and make then not a Sue.
What then is a Mary Sue?
For this, I am going to use the current wordage on Wikipedia. This will help me frame how I am going to frame out, a good deal of the frame work. The reason that I am doing this is, a lot of the questions about what a Mary Sue is, have arisen from the following wording.
Wikipedia: A Mary Sue (sometimes just Sue), in literary criticism and particularly in fanfiction, is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader. Perhaps the single underlying feature of all characters described as "Mary Sues" is that they are too ostentatious for the audience's taste, or that the author seems to favor the character too highly. The author may seem to push how exceptional and wonderful the "Mary Sue" character is on his or her audience, sometimes leading the audience to dislike or even resent the character fairly quickly; such a character could be described as an "author's pet".
What does it mean, to lack noteworthy flaws?
One of the things that is constantly said, is that a Mary Sue is a character with no flaws at all. This makes some of the writers and readers of an actual Mary Sue character to wonder, why a character that clearly has flaws, happens to be still labeled to be a Mary Sue. Truth of the matter is, the idea that a Mary Sue is a character that lacks flaws, is a false conception.
The false conception comes from the fact that, one of the pieces of advice that writers have given, has been to tell writers of Mary Sue’s that have no flaws, that flaws in fact need to be added in, to make the character more believable. Because of the way the advice is typically worded, the idea has come to the mind, that any flaw will do, no matter how it is used. This is actually false.
Pay close attention to the fact that the word noteworthy was attached to the word flaw, it doesn’t simply say, that a Mary Sue lacks flaws. This means that one can’t use the idea, that because a character has flaws, that they aren’t a Mary Sue character. The flaws the character has, for them not to be one, need to have some sustenance to them. Flaws that are noteworthy, tend to be called fatal flaws, while the ones that play no role, are informed flaws.
An informed flaw, is simply having the audience know about this flaw. It plays no part in the storyline to actually hinder a character, which a fatal flaw actually does. Thus, simply making a character clumsy, or moody isn’t enough. The clumsiness also has to land them in some sort of trouble that isn’t a minor kind, that simply serves as a spring board for the people around said character, liking them even more. This is what it means by an over idealized and hackneyed character.
Over idealization - The thing to keep in mind, for idealization is, every story out there, is going to have some level of idealization to it, and it just doesn’t rely on flaws and perfections. An idealization can be formed by the plot events and what end up happening. It becomes over idealized, when the situation isn’t believable. Some argue that because something is fiction, it doesn’t need to be believable, which I plan on touching on further in another blog entry. However, this is refuted by the concept of “willing suspension of disbelief”. In other words, not true and not real, doesn’t mean, not believable.
Hackneyed mannerisms - To have hackneyed mannerisms, means that the writer is using stereotypes, rather than generalizations. Each character needs to be an individual, not a stock character. For example, while children with autism and other special needs have similar traits that tie them together, if one were to spend any amount of time with different children with autism, they would find that each is an individual. Same with people who have depression in some form or another. I can say this for sure, as I have known a bunch of people with autism, and the same goes with depression.
When is wish full thinking not all right?
This is actually something that I wish to cover more fully, in another entry. However, the first thing that I will say is, some amount of wish fulfillment is all right. It is great fun, to imagine oneself as the characters, and that we are going somewhere, seeing places. What would it be, to live the life of a pirate, or a super hero, or live the life of a villain.
The point that wish fulfillment crosses the line, is when the only reason, or the main purpose, is the wish fulfillment. One tends to see this most in the romance genera, specifically because that is what people tend to wish more beyond the scope of what might possibly believable. Who wouldn’t want to have the perfect boyfriend, or the perfect girlfriend, or live the perfect life.
Something I tell quite a few authors who write fanfiction is, what is the purpose of the story. Is the only plot getting the two characters together? Or is there another plot that is going on, for example, in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, the plot isn’t so much about getting the two lovers together, as it is for her father to be reconciled with those who betrayed them. The romance is an extra goody, to add to the story. There is a difference between the two.
Not that something that is completely wish fulfillment isn’t a good read, it is the fact that they tend to not have any depth to them, more than that. In other words, balance the candy reads, out with the reads that happen to have some meat to them.
What does it mean to have an overly ostentatious character?
The first thing I want to get into, ostentatious, this wonderfully big word, does not mean obnoxious. It simply means that the character is in fact, showy. That means that the author is favoring them in a way that they really shouldn’t, above the other characters. Or, it means that they are treating the character in an unrealistic way.
Every character should go through hardships. Nothing should be handed to them on a silver platter. Every character will react in different ways to things, but unless they are really dumb, or have some sort of special needs problem that has it so that they have problems grasping logic, or something similar, they are going to handle things in a logical way.
What if the character is liked or disliked?
I know of many liked characters that were Mary Sues, and many disliked characters that were not. The fact is, this labeling comes about, because of the fact that people are using mere opinion, and not just facts and analysis, to determine whether a character is a Sue or not. I have met a Gary Stu (a male version) that I have liked. Problem was, he made a sensible girl like Hermione faint.
The same thing goes with disliked characters. Simply to label them a Sue because of dislike, isn’t a good thing, though it does merit to examine the character at a closer depth then one might normally go for, to see if it is such a character or not. And, if there seems to be a dislike by some people, it is a good question, to ask why this is.
That would be because, even if the character isn’t a Sue, there might be some underlying factor, like simple misinterpretation of a character, or the fact that a person happened to not be aware of some cultural or time differences that happen to be in there. One of my professors, would call this chronological snubbary.
Case in point, I had to watch the first Lord of the Ring’s movie, with three thirteen year olds, snickering at the scene where Aragorn goes and closed the eyes of Borimer, and followed what was considered proper practice during that time period, and they thought it was gay, simply because that is how our culture sees it. Stereotypes should be avoided, and generalization used.
Is it a bad thing to write a Mary Sue?
No…
1.) A Mary Sue can help a novice writer become better at writing.
2.) A Mary Sue can also relieve stress and dark, angsty moods.
However, there is something to be noted about this. Not everything that one writes is going to be worth publishing on the net. In the case of point one, some things are not of a high enough quality… I mean, I don’t expect someone who is under thirteen who has sixth grade or lower education and English to have a high enough level of quality, typically. I also feel that some of the stuff for number two, are mondo private, and should be kept out of the public eye, as they are. Some can be edited and rewritten for publication.