Aug 05 2008
Manuscript Killers: Mary Sues
Mary Sues are characters that are overpowerful, self-insertions of the author. This article will help you identify and fix some of the biggest problems with Mary Sues.
1. Mary Sues are overpowerful.
Dramatic characters face threats. Will the hero overcome the obstacle? Whether he does or not, that’s interesting. But Mary Sues are so powerful that they rarely face threatening situations. The author never lets the character get beaten. He just sort of breezes through the story, which is neither impressive nor fun.
Mary Sues are also boring because their authors rarely explore the negative consequences of their actions. A Mary Sue’s plans never backfire. If she gets punished for something, it’s not because she goofed up but because her parents and bosses are nasty (and possibly jealous). As an author, you should give your character chances to fail. It will make his journey more complex and satisfying. It will also make the hero look more impressive. Whenever your hero fails, that will give you an opportunity to show us how tenaciously and cleverly he tries to fix his mistake.
2. They’re insufferably perfect.
If you build a character that is marvelous and widely adored, your readers will probably despise him. Perfect heroes generally come off as unbelievable and obnoxious. One sign that you’re writing a perfect character is that your story doesn’t allow anyone to disagree with the hero without coming off as a jerk or jackass. Additionally, a Mary Sue hero will generally lack any notable flaws. If he has any, it’s probably that he’s “too virtuous.” For example, Superman’s main “flaw” is that he’s too virtuous to kill anyone. Ick.
Another warning sign of insufferable perfection is that the hero may have political or religious beliefs similar to the author’s. Two-bit sermonizing usually follows.
3. They’re like cooler versions of the author.
Mary Sues are usually like super-powered, idealized versions of the author. The character’s background typically combines two traits: awesomeness and normality. The character will be “awesome” because he’s a half-dragon or a badass cyborg, etc. The character will be normal because he was an innocent farmboy until he was called to greatness or whatever. I’ve read seven or eight manuscripts where an unassuming teenager finds out that he’s a half-dragon. Reptilian carnage, elven chicks and angry readers usually follow. Additionally, it’s rarely wise to make your protagonist an author or poet of any sort. Publishers want authors they can work with, but they might conclude you would resist their revisions more if it seems like you’ve written yourself as the main character.
How to save a Mary Sue story
You need to build distance between yourself and the character. Give him some traits that you find genuinely unappealing. Let him make some mistakes that you wouldn’t. Have other characters call out his flaws in a well-intentioned way. The character doesn’t have to be perfect. He shouldn’t be. Readers typically prefer characters that overcome flaws than ones that are perfect. Flaws give them personality.
You may also find it useful to rethink the character’s motivations. Usually, Mary Sues go through half-assed revenge plots (“the bad guys killed my parents!”). I’ve read some good revenge stories, but most are hackneyed crap that fail to develop the character in any meaningful way. If you are a beginning author, I’d recommend avoiding revenge as a dominant motivation because it may be hard for an inexperienced author to determine whether his story is too cliched to sell. Also, using a different motivation will probably encourage you to better develop your characters.
Yeah. It isn’t any less cliche when it comes from a mutant alligator.
If you’re not sure whether your character is a Mary Sue, please take this test.
I recommend this Mary Sue test:
http://www.katfeete.net/writing/marysue.html
I use it for all my characters to test them.
I love that test, Retardised Whovian. The part on the characters’ clothes was absolutely hilarious. When I was testing Agent Orange, the clothes questions made me burst into laughter. “Does your character wear… sunglasses? Leather? A trenchcoat?” Wait a second, that sounds familiar.
Agent Black also got Mary Sue points for his clothes because he wears black, which is a color badly associated with badass-wannabes. But he’s an IRS agent! Even though he wears black, it’s hard to imagine anyone less badass than that.
In total, Agent Black ended up being slightly more of a Mary Sue because he shares more demographic traits with me than the mutant alligator did. (Go figure). In actuality, I think that Agent Orange is far more of a Mary Sue hazard than the wholly uncool and unexotic Agent Black.
I guess black is associated with badasses because they can sneak around the shadows and be less likely to be spotted. But only real men wear pink.
And Kawasaki green!
But on a more serious level, I think that comic-book designers are a bit afraid that using any color besides black or brown in their costume will make their hero “kiddy.” No! In real life, no one thinks of firefighters as goofy or childish even though they wear bright, crazy yellow. It works for firefighters because their uniforms are very functional– they need to be visible in smoke-filled environments. Their uniforms also avoid needless ornamentation.
That’s an awesome car.
I was thinking primary colors on black, but the colors would definitely pop for Aadrello even though he has purple skin
Oh, this test is very good, too. It’s purely for original characters, so the questions are relevant. I like the list of superpowers most, but Isaac only has three of them, telekinesis, flight and super-strength. Super-strength not so much, he’s stronger than your average teen but can’t pick up a bus. (I wasn’t sure what his mental blasts came under, so I ticked telekinesis)
http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html
Ah, damn it! I posted a comment that didn’t appear here! Oh well, here it is again.
I found a good Mary Sue test.
http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html
It’s for original fiction. Isaac got 27, but that’s in the middle of the borderline sue category, so he’s quite safe.
I already tried posting this, but it didn’t appear. Sorry if this shows up as a double (or triple!) post.
I found another Mary Sue test.
http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html
Isaac and Tristram got 27, Requiem got 28 and Sentry got 13. I’m not worried about Sue/Stuness for any of them, seeing as even though Isaac, Requiem and Tristram are borderline, they’re in the middle of the borderline category and can be executed well enough (I hope).
Technically not a Mary Sue question.
I used an anagram of my name, not as the name of my character, but as my pseudonym. Is this okay? Or is it too clever?
Your thoughts?
Brett, I don’t think that it’s inherently problematic to do so, but it really depends on how effective the anagram is. For example, I could have rearranged most of the letters of my name into Ken McBrazen, but I think that’s a bit cheesy.
Hmmm… s’cuse me for the random and verbose first comment. =P
There are several definitions of a sue, and while one is a self-insertion character, another is simply a character who is too perfect or too special. A lot of characters are sure-fire sues who have nothing in common with the author at all.
And then things get really sticky when you start getting into the sues who don’t display any of the obvious sue traits – they don’t have magical birthmarks, secret powers, or naturally sparkly purple hair, but there’s still something grating about them that’s distinctly sue-like.
From what I’ve seen, there’s one common denominator between sues – the story’s world and all it’s characters are built mostly just to accommodate them.
For instance: There’s an ancient prophecy, no one has mastered this skill for 5,000 years, the country is suddenly threatened, and so on and so forth – not because these things naturally grow out of the history of the world, but solely so this character can step up and be seven different kinds of special.
There are lots of bullies, there’s severe racial prejudice against her, daddy beats her, and her puppy got hit by a car – not because anyone had any motivation, but just because the author thinks that the character suffering like crazy will make her more endearing. Yet despite all this trauma in her formative years, she never acts like someone who has actually gone through said traumas would.
If she believes something, it’s true. If anyone disagrees with her, they’re wrong. If anyone dislikes her, they’re evil. If anyone’s indifferent to her… well, actually, NOBODY is indifferent to her. If they act like they are, it’s because they’re “jealous”.
So I think the real problem is an issue of how the character relates to the rest of the story. The world is not a real place with a real population, and this real person plunked down in the middle of it all – it’s a big shiny display case for your big shiny hero. That’s more what defines a mary-sue, I think.
In terms of tests, a human reader will always be better at identifying sues, but here’s two tests that are pretty good:
http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm
A “Universal” test – has sections for fanfiction, original fiction, and RPG characters. Very, very thorough. (Read: Long. You might wanna plan on doing that one over two or three sessions.)
http://katfeete.net/writing/marysue.html
Much shorter and provides a good overview, but may be a bit too lenient whereas the previous one may be a bit too harsh. I’d recommend taking both to get a well-rounded sense of how your character is doing.
http://springhole.net has a good Mary Sue test.
My main character is, in fact, an unpublished author, but it’s mentioned once or twice that his work tends to be one cliche after the other.
I gave him some interests and traits similar to mine because early on I couldn’t relate to him, but I didn’t want to change his entire character. Especially because I’m a girl, and I’ve spent a lot of time trying to make a believable, older teenage boy.
As long as he doesn’t spend all of his time brooding about how attractive he is, I think that sounds good. Heh heh. I think it could be really funny that his work tends to be hackneyed. Just be careful; the character that corrects his writing the most could come off as a Mary Sue himself.
I just took this test for all of the Specials:
Meg: 92.5%
Ian: 97.5%
Pierce: 87.5%
Connor: 92.5%
Jazz: 92.5% (wow, that’s a lot of 92.5s)
Darren: 92.5%
Pierce had the lowest score simply because of his past (traumatic) and the way he dresses (Pierce is badass). Ian’s was the highest because he’s a rather flawed character.
- Wings
I’m not even 20 pages into The Realm but I kinda have it planned out so (springhole Mary Sue test thing):
Chloe: 18
Amanda: 14
Jareth (oh noes the super tough guy he’s gonna get bashed, I bet): …. 25 LOL I KNEW it. It’s cause he’s Viempr.
He’s SUPPOSED to be attractive, and a (this is the one time I’m gonna swear) badass fighter it’s the way his kind are … :/ eh well. And it’s a threat because well, it’s scary. Like vampires. Which is also why he is despised … everyone is (and for good reason) afraid of him (and all his kind).
*Veimpr
Okay, I ran Gladiator (also known as Martin Luther Desmares; named by his father in honour of Martin Luther King Jr.) through this test. He’s the single most powerful main character in my story, so I figured I might as well shove him through it.
Questions I apparently got wrong (and the rest were right);
‘Was this character born with an impressive supernatural talent, like magic or The Force?’
His powers are mystically inherited across his bloodline, from a very complex origin story that goes back as far as the Pyramids. Very literally, in fact, as it deals with an Egyptian slave in the earlier Roman Empire who was granted powers by Atum-Ra to escape the slavers. These powers went down the bloodline and his whole family has this as a major point, but they’re not ‘chosen ones’, merely ‘gifted ones’. It’s just how he received his powers.
‘Does the character ever make a decision readers will probably find unintelligent? For example, Harry Potter recklessly flew a car to Hogwarts instead of telling an adult when he missed the train.’
I answered no because he’s a mature, responsible adult who’s actually known for his being the intelligent one. He’s very clever, though is also autistic so while he will do the smartest thing, he won’t always do the *right* thing.
‘Are your other characters generally impressed by this character?’
One of the most powerful people in the United Kingdom, physically imposing, and the son of one of the world’s most iconic superheroes. It would be weird if he *wasn’t* in some way impressive.
‘Does the character have political or religious beliefs similar to yours?’
Yes, he’s an atheist who supports scientific advancement. As he’s a scientist, I felt that this would be the most logical way for him to be. I merely line up with that to some extent.
‘Is this character very modest?’
For all of his power, Gladiator is socially awkward due to higher-functioning autism and has been accused of quite a bit of arrogance in the past. Because of this, he actually started overcompensating and has withdrawn into himself somewhat.
‘Is this character notably good-looking?’
In an iconic, superhero-style fashion, he’s noted to be attractive.
And what are some mistakes this character would make that you wouldn’t?
Also, I don’t think that autism feels kind of tacked on here. It doesn’t seem to fit in all that well with being the most mature, intelligent person on the team.
‘And what are some mistakes this character would make that you wouldn’t?’
I’m not sure if it’s a mistake, but he kills the villain in the end. He doesn’t defeat or arrest the villain, like in most superhero stuff; he kills them and puts an ultimate stop to them. I’d arrest them, myself, and throw away the key. I actually oppose the death penalty.
‘Also, I don’t think that autism feels kind of tacked on here. It doesn’t seem to fit in all that well with being the most mature, intelligent person on the team.’
Trust me on this; I know how to write someone with an autistic spectrum disorder, I know how someone with autism acts, and I know how someone with autism ought to be. I know because I happen to actually have a variant on autism myself, and on some level this character is one massive poke in the eye to every single negative stereotype I’ve ever encountered. But on another level, he’s a father who’s trying to keep the world safe for his daughter (yes, autistic people, as awkward as they are, can marry and can have children; my father is a primary example), and he’s basically trying to do the right thing, but he’s more utilitarian and objectivist than most.
Hmm. I feel that this character has a lot of potential for Mary Sue problems. It sounds like you share a lot in common with him (the autism, the atheism, etc). I’d recommend taking him in a direction that you’d feel a bit uncomfortable with, to help distinguish him from you. I think that the climactic execution is a good start.
Gladiator’s in very little danger of it; outside of the atheism (not important) and the autism (a political statement – even the nature of his autism differs), he and I are very dissimilar. I’m not a superhero, for one, and would consider that it makes his viewpoint quite different; he has to deal with issues that I don’t. As an unemployed student, all I have to worry about is getting essays in on time, not the literal fate of the world. It’s not something I have to worry about.
I’m also an outright and overt socialist, while Gladiator is actually, on some level, a wee bit of a conservative. Of course, he’s an odd character in the context of the story as he’s not actually a member of the team, and is actually a member of MI:20 (commonly known as Section 20 or the Metahuman Security Service); the major UK superhero team. He’s also rather military and scientific in style, while I’m actually a bleeding heart liberal artistic type who loves poetry.
I get the impression that he is, in a few important ways, like a cooler version of you. Self-insert characters– or characters that seem like self-inserts– are generally hard to publish.
I think that authorial distance might be a problem for this character. In particular, the autism raises that possibility. Umm, as a rule, I recommend that a fiction author not draw on a mental illness or condition he has.
It seems like you have a goal to deliver “one massive poke in the eye to every single negative stereotype I’ve ever countered [about autism].” Ok. Will readers want your opinions about autism stereotypes? It might be a tough sell (both to publishers and readers). How will taking on autism stereotypes fit into the rest of the book? (Specifically, what does autism have to do with coming to grips with an abusive childhood? That’s the protagonist’s main goal, right?)
…
If the character is kind of conservative and you’re not, one way you could help build authorial distance is to make something conservative about him one of his defining traits. For example, maybe he starts the book with a nagging suspicion that rehabilitating criminals is a mostly fruitless endeavor. That’s sort of political, but probably not so political that you have to be a Cameron supporter to sympathize with the character. (How’s that for UK localization?)
‘I get the impression that he is, in a few important ways, like a cooler version of you. Self-insert characters– or characters that seem like self-inserts– are generally hard to publish.’
Actually, he’s himself. He’s similar to me in exactly three ways; only one of those three ways is a focal point of the character, and that’s the general ‘wanting to do what is perceived as the right thing’. It’s a trait that a lot of people in general tend to share, so why not? I know full well how to distance myself from my characters; I’ve been writing for years, after all. And Gladiator’s ‘coolness’ is more or less just the awe-inspiring nature of his power, and that he’s a six-foot-four bloke who’s built like a Greek titan.
It’s a pretty shallow sort of coolness if you have to rely on superpowers and the fact that you’re bigger than everyone else.
‘I think that authorial distance might be a problem for this character. In particular, the autism raises that possibility. Umm, as a rule, I recommend that a fiction author not draw on a mental illness or condition he has.’
I would state that the sort of autism I have is not a mental illness, and is more a general set of traits that affect how someone perceives the world. I do not personally count it as a disability. I’m just me, he’s just him.
‘It seems like you have a goal to deliver “one massive poke in the eye to every single negative stereotype I’ve ever countered [about autism].” Ok. Will readers want your opinions about autism stereotypes?’
My way of delivering a poke in the eye is to create a character who has such a condition and is non-stereotypical. I have quite a few stereotypes that I’m poking in the eye, from albinism to the general behaviour of a rottweiler. I like to do so, it’s my general *thing*.
‘It might be a tough sell (both to publishers and readers). How will taking on autism stereotypes fit into the rest of the book?’
As with Silverstar, he’s just one character in an overall cast. It fits into the rest of the book by being part of the overall group of characters’ general (and perhaps a wee bit more subtle) theme of being a little bit different and that it’s actually okay to be different. That’s actually a very easy sell to many, many, MANY readers and many, many, MANY publishers. ‘To thy self be true.’
Split across two comments;
‘If the character is kind of conservative and you’re not, one way you could help build authorial distance is to make something conservative about him one of his defining traits.’
I actually have an old article I wrote on character building on my livejournal, in which I put forth the concept that a single defining trait is a bad idea. It creates a certain level of archetype and stereotype. Note that I am in no way new to writing, and I’ve been writing various pieces of fiction for quite some time, here’s some more recent stuff;
omniverseone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=39 (poetry)
omniverseone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=360 (Word of Angels, abandoned novel)
omniverseone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=314 (Sympathy for the Vampire, abandoned novel)
omniverseone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=311 (Of Men and Monsters, a vampire vignette)
omniverseone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=236 (Kindling, a vignette featuring )
‘For example, maybe he starts the book with a nagging suspicion that rehabilitating criminals is a mostly fruitless endeavor. That’s sort of political, but probably not so political that you have to be a Cameron supporter to sympathize with the character. (How’s that for UK localization?)’
The irony; David Cameron himself actually fully supports rehabilitation, and is more of an economic conservative than a social conservative. The major things that Martin is particularly conservative on are generally resistance to social change and that ‘we have always been like this, and it’s worked so far, why change it?’ He supports a lot of scientific advancement, though, as he is himself a noted government scientist (he *does* need a day job, after all). He’s also mellowing out with age, and is perhaps more liberal than conservative; I don’t know, I’m all the way here in Marxist territory, so either way is practically far-right in contrast to me.
To be quite honest, I don’t see why every single character ought to be completely and fully detached from the author when it’s nigh impossible to not put at least a bit of an element of yourself into your characters. It’s how one relates to them as an author. You need at least a basic element of common ground with your characters in order to use it as a stepping stone to get into their heads.
Or at least I do.
“My way of delivering a poke in the eye is to create a character who has such a condition and is non-stereotypical. I have quite a few stereotypes that I’m poking in the eye, from albinism to the general behaviour of a rottweiler. I like to do so, it’s my general *thing*.”
Do you think you could accomplish a similar goal with a different condition? That might enhance the level of authorial distance. I think that authorial distance is usually regarded as an asset because identifying too closely with a character can lead to strawman villains, Mary Sues, a lack of obstacles and setbacks for the character, a failure to evaluate the negative repercussions of the character’s actions and a variety of other problems with plotting.
Also, authorial insertion might bring the author’s flexibility into question. All other things being equal, I think an acquisitions editor would rather deal with someone that appears open to the possibility that the publisher might want to remove a minor and potentially problematic element. Then again, I’ve never been an AE, so that’s just my intuition…
…
“That’s actually a very easy sell to many, many, MANY readers and many, many, MANY publishers. ‘To thy own self be true.’ ”
If “be yourself” means doing something anodyne and uncontroversial, I agree. However, I’d be a bit more cautious about evaluating the mass-appeal for a book that deals (even secondarily) with child abuse, autism and homosexuality. For better or worse, I think this clearly isn’t just another “be yourself” book. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t work, but I think that publishers will worry more about the size of the target audience for your book than a Disney-like, banal “be yourself” story.
I said originally…
You responded…
I don’t think I suggested giving him a single defining trait. The phrase I used was “one of his defining traits.” As a rule, if the hero is just another member of a fairly large main cast, I’d probably recommend giving him two main assets and one defining flaw. If you want to develop 3+ characters to a roughly equal degree, time/space and audience-focus will probably limit your ability to add more facets to each character.
‘Do you think you could accomplish a similar goal with a different condition? That might enhance the level of authorial distance.’
Almost certainly I could accomplish a similar goal. I’m very good at this sort of thing; but the question really is, however, do I *want* to accomplish a similar goal with a different condition? Or do I want to accomplish *that* goal. I’m making a statement; the statement loses what it is if I don’t use said condition; my goal is to make an autistic character who is not a stereotype. I do not want to make the character
‘I think that authorial distance is usually regarded as an asset because identifying too closely with a character can lead to strawman villains, Mary Sues, a lack of obstacles and setbacks for the character, a failure to evaluate the negative repercussions of the character’s actions and a variety of other problems with plotting.’
I don’t think that strawman villains are ever really a problem for me. I love writing properly fleshed-out villains and very morally grey areas wherein the villains aren’t actually evil. They’re greedy, selfish, don’t consider all the consequences of their actions, and often tend to hurt people, but they aren’t evil. There’s no such thing as someone who’s genuinely evil; just sick, short-sighted, greedy and sometimes just a little bit antagonistic. I write what I like; and I like moral complexity.
As a sidenote; you listed Mary Sue (or the aspects thereof) no less than thrice, so I’ll look into those all at once. Quite frankly, I enjoy writing repercussions; they lead to plot devices and can sometimes actually help me write the heroes into even deeper trouble than they’re already in. I come from the odd area where I enjoy being cruel on at least some level to my characters, often just thinking ‘what’s the worst thing I can do to X without going overboard?’, and I even plan to have one of my characters get literally and brutally torn into pieces by one of the villains. I enjoy danger, and I enjoy peril.
‘Also, authorial insertion might bring the author’s flexibility into question. All other things being equal, I think an acquisitions editor would rather deal with someone that appears open to the possibility that the publisher might want to remove a minor and potentially problematic element. Then again, I’ve never been an AE, so that’s just my intuition…’
I’m not inserting myself as a character into my story. I merely have an occasional thing in common with some of my characters; this is something that almost every writer tends to have. Every writer tends to colour his or her writing with his or her general experiences, as well as his or her own general ideas. We write what we know, after all, and we also write what we *like*. It’s something that writers tend to do.
‘If “be yourself” means doing something anodyne and uncontroversial, I agree. However, I’d be a bit more cautious about evaluating the mass-appeal for a book that deals (even secondarily) with child abuse, autism and homosexuality. For better or worse, I think this clearly isn’t just another “be yourself” book. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t work, but I think that publishers will worry more about the size of the target audience for your book than a Disney-like, banal “be yourself” story.’
The problem here; I don’t care. I want to tell a story. I don’t want to tell a specific type of story to please the masses, and the masses can go and molest themselves roughly with a large stick. And I don’t think that controversy is ever going to be much of a problem in the UK; we tend to call such things ‘edgy’. There’s nothing that this country loves more than doing things which qualify as edgy and controversial, and it’s insanely popular. But I’m not doing it to be controversial, I’m not doing it to make money and I’m not doing it to get published, though I’ll admit that the latter two would be very nice to have on some level.
But I’m not writing for a thing. There’s been no material benefit for me in the many years I’ve already been writing, but there has been that one thing; the fact that I, personally, enjoy writing. I love writing stories, I love making complex and flawed characters, I love watching the scenes unfold as I write them, I love the nuance and subtlety behind each and every word, and I love to paint a picture with them. At a very fundamental level, I write for almost the exact same reason that a fish swims; there is absolutely no other way I could be.
I really don’t care what ends up of it. I do it because it’s what I do.
‘I don’t think I suggested giving him a single defining trait. The phrase I used was “one of his defining traits.” As a rule, if the hero is just another member of a fairly large main cast, I’d probably recommend giving him two main assets and one defining flaw. If you want to develop 3+ characters to a roughly equal degree, time/space and audience-focus will probably limit your ability to add more facets to each character.’
I don’t actually have ‘a’ hero. I don’t work like that; I deliberately try not to over emphasise the importance of a single character, as (more than anything else) that *does* lead to the dreaded Mary Sue. And it leads to her far faster than most other methods. Simply put, stories are always about power relationships between various individuals, and the person with the most power (in a social sense) is the one who’s likely to fall into the Sue trap. It’s all about who influences who, and why. Subtlety and nuance helps a lot in developing characters. Simple decisions and why one would actually make them says more than enough about an individual.
And while you didn’t actually say single defining trait, my point was along the lines of avoiding too many limiting traits and making at least primary characters who are fleshed out and complex.
wow so meny big posts i can’t keep up
In my personal opinion, if this character does not become a Mary Sue, I’ll be extremely surprised and impressed. Half because he’s really exhibiting Mary Sue traits, and half because of how defensive you’re getting of him, even when someone as reliable as B. Mac advises against it.
[quote]In my personal opinion, if this character does not become a Mary Sue, I’ll be extremely surprised and impressed. Half because he’s really exhibiting Mary Sue traits, and half because of how defensive you’re getting of him, even when someone as reliable as B. Mac advises against it.[/quote]
In my personal opinion; B. Mac’s advice is actually flawed in this instance. No offence, but I’m using the character to make a specific point, and to change the character too much would be to undermine the point I am attempting to make. It’s not an overtly stated point, but it’s a point nonetheless. Gladiator himself doesn’t actually appear all that often, and is intended to be a side-character. And my defensiveness towards my work is simply because I don’t really like to change aspects which are particularly and personally important to me.
Making the autism point against organisations like Autism Speaks and Cure Autism Now (who, I point out, would really like nothing better than to strap me down and inject me full of psychoactive drugs to correct a perceived malformation) is quite important to me. The point that people with autism, Asperger’s syndrome or savant tendencies are not always going to be completely unable to function.
Would you have told Jane Austen to tone down on the feminism? No. So why would you tell me to change to a similar point when part of the reason behind writing the character is to make that specific point? That the point is personal should have no bearing on that. Hell, it should mean I actually have more of a right to make it. And ultimately, to tell you the truth, I don’t know much about what B. Mac has written outside of a random comedy webcomic, so I don’t know how much value to put on his word either way.
I can understand where you’re coming from, Daniel. If you’re writing this story just because you want to, then please feel free to ignore everything we say. In fact, feel free to ignore everything we say full stop. However, if you do want to get this story published, an editor might well make a similar point. By choosing another, um, “mental disability” (you seem to dislike the term), you could probably show just as well that people can function well with autism/Asperger’s/other but also add in author distance.
That said, if you are confident that you can distance yourself from this character regardless of similarities, I think you should go for it. I think he sounds very interesting. The author distance issues are still a concern, though. You could possibly ask somebody you trust whether they feel the character is too much like you (preferably someone who won’t see ‘autistic’ and say “Yes”. Your father, perhaps?).
On an utterly random note, judging by your political beliefs you seem to be a male me with high-functioning autism. Are you perhaps communicating from an alternate universe?
Alright, if you insist.
I just know that few people outside of those who’ve experienced it firsthand would care to read a story that hammers down a point on Autism. Jane Austin’s feminism spoke to every single female who read her stories. How many autistic folks are going to read your story?
I, as a reader, hate to be told what to think or believe by a book I picked up to read for fun. I know that most other readers are the same.
For the record, this website gets a thousand viewers daily. If B. Mac weren’t right the vast majority of the time, would people keep coming? And he has something like thirty people who consistently e-mail him for help, as well as some random and occasional others.
And one final point: It’s generally considered ‘bad form’ to post your ideas on a website devoted to help and advice, then argue and tear down everyone who says your ideas aren’t an instant bestseller. ;D
I have to say, I’m with Daniel. It doesn’t appear as though the character is a mary sue, he shares a few traits with the author (which is to be expected) but differs on others. He doesn’t sound overpowered, nor does it seem as though the story will set itself up to let him win. I can see your reasoning for including the autism and I don’t see why it should ruin the story. I personally say go ahead.
Apart from the webcomic, B. Mac has written hundreds (?) of articles about writing advice as well as several other projects. I’d say he’s fairly reliable as people are still using this site to bounce ideas of off him and to get ideas for where to take their work. Of course, this does not mean you have to listen to him and, while in this case I disagree with him, I think it’s unfair to dismiss his criticism and advice as being valueless.
“And my defensiveness towards my work is simply because I don’t really like to change aspects which are particularly and personally important to me.”
Have you thought about self-publishing? Normally, I wouldn’t recommend it for a first-time author, but I think that you would really, really not enjoy working with an editor. The editor’s ass is on the line if the book sells poorly, so the editor really has to make the book sell. I get the impression that you care about the art/message much more than sales, so I think it would be a very unhappy relationship. Also, a new author has very little leverage against an editor… if your editor feels strongly about something, it’s his call more than yours.
Self-publishing will probably not make you much money– in fact, it might even cost you money if sales are poor. But self-publishing is one way to guarantee 100% editorial control over the book’s content.
“Half because he’s really exhibiting Mary Sue traits, and half because of how defensive you’re getting of him, even when someone as reliable as B. Mac advises against it.”
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think it’s important to evaluate how my advice (or anyone else’s) applies to your work. For example, most of my advice is meant for authors that want to publish professionally and maximize sales. I think it’s pretty good advice in that regard (150,000 readers and counting!), but not everyone cares about sales or getting published.
Also, Marissa, it seems to me like you’ve misinterpreted the idea behind the autism. I didn’t get the impression that he was forcing radical beliefs down our throats. It sounds like an intelligent portrayal designed to show that autistic people are not all the same antisocial, super intelligent teenage boy that I think is the common stereotype. It’s not preaching to the autistic people anymore than Jane Austin preached to women, it’s aimed at educating the people who stereotype and judge.
Another important point, Daniel did make clear that he was not in this to get published or make money, so complaining that the readers you know won’t like something seems irrelevant to him. It would be much more productive to point out logical flaws and general things that could improve the story.
Alright, perhaps I misinterpreted. I never thought he was forcing ‘radical’ beliefs down our throats, I just thought it was along the same lines as how Christians have a tendency to put awkward-feeling spiritual references in their novels. Sure, what he’s saying about autistic folks is totally true, but most people pick up a superhero book to read about superheroes, not a self-inserted character with the main purpose of educating readers.
However, the second point is totally valid. If he’s not intending to publish this, none of my advice really stands anymore, so I suppose I’ll leave this discussion where it lies.
That was to Mr. Brit, but the second part applies to your post too, B. Mac.
Holliequ: “On an utterly random note, judging by your political beliefs you seem to be a male me with high-functioning autism. Are you perhaps communicating from an alternate universe?”
Superhero Nation isn’t just a superhero writing advice… it’s also apparently a dating site for European socialists.
Early on, I attempted to convince BM that putting an American flag in our banner would scare away international readers, particularly ones with socialistic leanings. He might have gotten the better of me on that one. [And every other one-- B. Mac]
There’s an American flag in the banner?
lol, in all seriousness, I only really registered recently the flag in the background. It simply didn’t occur to me at first.
I figured that the flag was iconic and public-domain. It also helps advertise that I have a better handle on publishing inside the US than outside. US publishers differ in at least a few important ways from publishers in the UK, Canada, Australia, et cetera, so I think that being upfront about my perspective helps readers evaluate and apply my advice.
Why is it that whenever I post anywhere, I mean *anywhere*, I wind up causing controversy and causing some massive philosophical debate. Just insert coins to add yet another layer of controversy.
‘On an utterly random note, judging by your political beliefs you seem to be a male me with high-functioning autism. Are you perhaps communicating from an alternate universe?’
Hah. I’ve often wondered if I’m some sort of reject from a mirror universe. I certainly don’t fit in this one!
Of course, the fact that I don’t fit may have something to do with the high-functioning autism (Asperger’s syndrome, specifically). Maybe. It’s far more philosophical than I’m willing to go into at the minute.
‘Alright, perhaps I misinterpreted. I never thought he was forcing ‘radical’ beliefs down our throats, I just thought it was along the same lines as how Christians have a tendency to put awkward-feeling spiritual references in their novels. Sure, what he’s saying about autistic folks is totally true, but most people pick up a superhero book to read about superheroes, not a self-inserted character with the main purpose of educating readers.’
I’m working extremely hard to avoid making Gladiator a self-insert. While he does have one or two similar traits, his difference in politics, taste in music, dress sense, ethnicity, cultural background, current social status and type of education might set him apart. He does like Doctor Who in a similar fashion to me, but then… who the hell in Britain doesn’t? It practically comes with the nationality. His autism is likely to be mentioned only once, but it won’t be focused on, it’ll just be part of his character – which is how I intend to display my point. Passive eye-poking, if you will. It’s part of my cleaving VERY much to ’show, don’t tell’; I have someone with autism, but rather than *say*, they’re not a stereotype, *show* that they’re not a stereotype without soapboxing about it.
I shall now get off of the soapbox because this is hardly conductive towards making the ‘I shall avoid soapboxing’ point.
Also, about the ‘want a book about superheroes’; I’m not going to disagree on that front. When I pick up a superhero comic or novel, I want to read a comic or novel that’s actually about superheroes. There’s just one little thing I’ll point out; making a point, and telling a superhero story, are not mutually exclusive. I’ve already begun thinking of half a dozen different ‘interesting fight’ villains, as well as a charismatic sort of criminal to be leading the drug-smuggling ring.
As for self-publishing? I do intend to get published properly, but I am well aware that the first publishing house I go to isn’t necessarily going to like my work. So I’ll go to several. I’ll go to a lot.
Sort of a similar story here, actually; I noticed it, but really didn’t pay it any real mind. The symbol’s that ubiquitous across the internet now that I really just don’t pay any attention to it. It’s a bit irritating at times, the over-Americanisation of culture. But meh, it’s being taken over by the Japanese.
Speaking of which, there are a few other things to note that you’re missing in your Manga/Comics article. A few very important and VERY prominent differences.
Hmm. Except for a few conservative blogs, I can’t think of any sites that use a US flag prominently. Even GI Joe doesn’t use a flag above the fold! (They do have a modified version halfway down the page, but it looks more like France’s than ours).
Umm, please understand that I mean this in a well-meaning way, but you do seem unusually argumentative. And sometimes you seem very attached to opinions that are empirically questionable. When people disagree with you, you often present it as them overlooking something or making a mistake. When people without Asperger’s communicate, they usually find it more polite to express criticisms as a matter of personal opinion or a question like “what would you think about adding X?” or “why not include X?” rather than “You’re missing X.”
I think that all is especially important in this situation because, umm, I don’t get the impression that you follow comic books all that much. Focusing on Shakespearean literature more than comic books is entirely respectable, but it does sort of limit your ability to provide credible advice to comic book writers.
‘Umm, please understand that I mean this in a well-meaning way, but you do seem unusually argumentative.’
I didn’t actually come here for the advice, but to actually try giving some out on some level.
I get that sometimes. I tend to be protective of my decisions and opinions for reasons that I will not go into here, but let’s just say that I’d qualify for Mary Sue points based on on my past alone.
‘And sometimes you seem very attached to opinions that are empirically questionable. When people disagree with you, you often present it as them overlooking something or making a mistake. When people without Asperger’s communicate, they usually find it more polite to express criticisms as a matter of personal opinion or a question like “what would you think about adding X?” or “why not include X?” rather than “You’re missing X.” ‘
It’s because I’m a wee bit arrogant, actually. I’m not sure if it’s Asperger’s syndrome related, but I am actually a certified genius and I’m unfortunately in full knowledge of this. I qualify for Mensa. The problem is, primarily, that I know it and it sometimes leads me into being arrogant, most especially with people I don’t really know. But I do mellow out after a while, just don’t try and contradict some of my important-to-my-story plot points and we’ll get on fine.
‘I think that all is especially important in this situation because, umm, I don’t get the impression that you follow comic books all that much. Focusing on Shakespearean literature more than comic books is entirely respectable, but it does sort of limit your ability to provide credible advice to comic book writers.’
Except for, perhaps, the possibility that characterisation can transcend genre and medium. This is most notable since Shakespeare’s been adapted into Graphic Novel format quite often and usually done very well through it. I actually have the Hamlet manga (yes, manga) somewhere. And it’s more fair to say that I’ve only recently started delving into comics; I do actually follow them quite a lot at the moment, it’s just that I read my first proper graphic novel about eighteen months ago. Sandman, by Neil Gaiman. Easily one of my favourite pieces of literature, regardless of medium.
Also, however, I have decided to run the aforementioned Silverstar through the test, and she’s scored a ‘very good’. Actually lower than Martin/Gladiator, but I did once or twice actually press the wrong button, so… I’ll tackle her in the next post. With explanations.
Certified genius, eh? Join the club. I know of at least two others here, myself included, and I don’t see the rest of us causing problems. Even geniuses are wrong sometimes. A lot of the time, actually. Perhaps you should consider that the fact that only one person out of an entire website is agreeing with your arguments might just mean you’re mistaken this one time?
Sorry, I knew I said I’d stay out of this, but… I just really don’t like that you use the fact that you’re a genius to back up your superiority complex. And I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely are, even though 75% of people who claim to be geniuses over the internet actually have a completely average IQ. Not that IQ is everything, of course.
Okay, Silverstar;
‘Generally impressive’; I answered ‘yes’ on this, but really shouldn’t have. She’s only really impressive in that she has a high amount of physical strength, can fly, and has the ability to shoot blasts of energy. Other than that, she’s actually more worrying to most people than impressive, being a couple of steps down from all-out anarchistic self-loathing punk.
‘Moral decisions’; I don’t plan for her to make any moral decisions that the reader will disagree with, but that’s only because I couldn’t think of any really important plot areas where it would come up. This is quite simply a plotline-related absence and does not preclude the possibility that she *would*, but I answered ‘no’ regardless. But this is all preliminary, and I may think of something as I write.
‘Problems with authority figures’; I answered ‘yes’. And would have put ‘lots’. But then, she’s acting out as part of a combination of her trauma and her realisation that she has superpowers and can thus get away with more, so this isn’t really to be unexpected.
‘Notably good looking’; it’s a superhero thing, like the ‘Most Common Superpower’. Let it slide either way as visual appearance really isn’t all that important to prose work and doesn’t have much bearing either way on the plot. Though she fits the cute mode regardless, being 5′2 and pretty petite. Mostly because I thought the idea of a tiny woman smacking someone with a bus would be a fun mental image during a fight scene.
‘Particularly traumatic backstory’; abusive father as part of background. She has more than a wee bit of angst in her backstory, but then that’s how the character really came about in the first place. I developed her originally from the concept of someone who, as an abused child, invented the heroine to escape into, and actually developed such superpowers afterwards. If I remove this, I wind up removing the whole character.
‘Abusive parents/guardians’; see above. It’s part of her storyline. However, they’re not encountered directly, and this is all second-hand, so they won’t be appearing very often. I won’t have a problem with this sort of thing selling in the UK, however, or even anywhere at all. An abused child with special powers is already actually the star of the single most popular book series on the planet. Or did you not notice Harry Potter?
‘Ever raped or tortured?’; tortured yes, by her drunken, abusive father. The rape is something I’m going to be completely and utterly ambiguous on. I’m not going to say it did happen, but I’m not going to say it didn’t. And I’m not going to actually decide either way as it’s going to be one of those ambiguous and ambivalent things that you’re just going to have to work out for yourself as a reader. I like including such things as ambiguity, it’s fun.
‘Overwhelming guilt/no fault’; this I answered yes to, provisionally. It depends on whether I make her have some sort of self-loathing, having invented a series of ‘valid’ reasons for her traumatic abuse. However, this is not a finally-decided thing, and I will consider it carefully. Each and every single thing I write is first weighed, measured, ratified, verified, described in a poem by William Wordsworth, later signed in triplicate and then, in a full ten percent of instances, put into practice. I’m very, very picky.
Anyway, in merely answering those, I don’t feel they need all that much justification. They’re fully necessary elements of her character without her being a Mary Sue, which is important because it has such elements without actually needing to have them. Though I didn’t add, because it didn’t ask, that she’s a punk who actually doesn’t have any tattoos or piercings, just… not for lack of trying. Invulnerability presents a minor obstacle in that it’s actually pretty much fully impossible for her to actually get piercings or a tattoo. This may or may not be used as a plot point at a later time.
‘Certified genius, eh? Join the club. I know of at least two others here, myself included, and I don’t see the rest of us causing problems. Even geniuses are wrong sometimes. A lot of the time, actually. Perhaps you should consider that the fact that only one person out of an entire website is agreeing with your arguments might just mean you’re mistaken this one time?
Sorry, I knew I said I’d stay out of this, but… I just really don’t like that you use the fact that you’re a genius to back up your superiority complex. And I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely are, even though 75% of people who claim to be geniuses over the internet actually have a completely average IQ. Not that IQ is everything, of course.’
I would mention my far more valid reasons for arrogance and my overcompensation when it comes to my self-esteem (usually suicidally low), but I find that painting myself as comically (and jokingly) arrogant was less painful to do. It’s true that I certify as a genius, mind, but I don’t consider it important. I haven’t led a very happy life, so I tend to try and overcompensate for that fact, and sometimes I do a pretty decent job of it. Most of the time, actually. But I’m allowed to have bad weeks. Or weeks where I’m not fully concentrating because I’m busy mentally composing (and later typing out) a 5,000 word essay for my class on European culture at the local university.
My IQ is actually 164-ish, last time it was tested. (Top 0.3% of the population was the figure given.) It doesn’t really mean anything and I’ll be the first to state that IQ is the single most worthless measurement you could possibly use. I only ever bring up the fact when I’m attempting to be be comically arrogant (and, evidently, failing; I *did* try to use a ’silly’ emoticon there, though!), or when I’ve just done something very clever and feel justifiably arrogant. I will admit that I do come across as being very arrogant, though, and that’s mostly because of the way I tend to have a mild problem with separating facts and opinions in the way I speak. Mostly because I feel everyone ought to know what counts as one and the other, so I don’t feel I need to say ‘I think X’ or ‘I feel X’ as opposed to just saying ‘X’.
Ok… if you feel that you’re a bit arrogant, it might help to tone it down a bit. Arrogance is off-putting for anyone, but especially rookies. Everyone makes mistakes, but an arrogant person that makes mistakes will probably come off like Emma Czikai from Britain’s Got Talent. (There’s that UK localization again!)
In contrast, Susan Boyle is a genuine superstar that let her talent speak for itself. I think that audiences were very impressed by her graceful and cheerful approach to a hostile panel and audience.
In general, I think that audiences and publishers tend to appreciate self-confidence but not arrogance.
…
I don’t think IQ matters to a writer. Ahem… it’s not a test of writing talent. I think that the people that focus on intelligence tend to underplay the hard work and sweat and emotional strength that are required to do extraordinary things.
“I didn’t actually come here for the advice, but to actually try giving some out on some level.”
Have you thought about blogging? If readers are interested in your advice, that could help you develop an audience. I can assure you that superhero writing advice with a literary twist is a completely empty niche.
I think blogging might be more effective for you than posting on other people’s blogs. For one, you have a very particular, literary approach to superhero stories that probably isn’t well-tailored to the teen writers that dominate our audience. There are probably many readers interested in a literary take on superhero stories, but I doubt you’ll find them here.
‘Have you thought about blogging? If readers are interested in your advice, that could help you develop an audience. I can assure you that superhero writing advice with a literary twist is a completely empty niche.’
I do actually have a rarely-updated livejournal that’s accessible if you click the name I have here. It actually has a bit of (universal) character-building advice on it already, and I do intend to put something on avoiding purple prose up. The irony of it being an ‘empty niche’ is that many writers in superhero comics (at least since the beginning of the 1980s) have already begun looking at the superhero through a literary method. Alan Moore, Mark Millar, Warren Ellis, etc. are just a very short list of superhero authors who seem to have taken a literary approach
‘I think blogging might be more effective for you than posting on other people’s blogs. For one, you have a very particular, literary approach to superhero stories that probably isn’t well-tailored to the teen writers that dominate our audience. There are probably many readers interested in a literary take on superhero stories, but I doubt you’ll find them here.’
Perhaps widening your site to include a literary approach would actually bring in a wider audience? Just an idea from me to you. Just because your typical audience is a group of teenagers trying to write superheroes (when I was a teenager, I actually wrote more sword/sorcery style fantasy, much of which is abandoned and lost to the recesses time) doesn’t mean that you can’t appeal to others. Far too many people seem to think that works ought to have a target audience, while far too few people realise that well-written fiction has an almost universal appeal.
Look at Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings, for instance. They’ve got massive, [i]massive[/i] audiences.
I actually wrote more sword/sorcery style fantasy, much of which is abandoned and lost to the recesses time)
I’ll have you know I’m wrighting a sword/sorcery story, people still love them.
Trust me there not lost there alive and well if you care to look.
I didn’t say I’d abandoned the whole lot of it, and I’m still working on a big epic and pretty damn ambitious fantasy series. I’m just going to use a series of smaller stories to get my foot in the door.
“I’m still working on a big epic and pretty damn ambitious fantasy series.”
Please, I beg of you, make the action interesting. I’m currently reading works by Raymond Feist and the action is so dry. I can hardly tell when an action scene is action scene. I suspect this won’t be a problem for you, but a reminder never hurt. In my opinion, too many fantasy stories get so bogged down with backstory and locations that they skimp on the action. I’m not saying that the story has to me totally action-centric, but if I’m going to read about how the army of X did all these things at Y and Z, at least make it worth my time.
Hmm. I think that’s a matter of opinion, RB. Do you mean that we’re seeing the tactics behind a war? Personally, I would much rather read that than a battle. It depends if you like action stories or not. I’m not sure if Feist’s books are action-orientated (or supposed to be), but I know that my mum loves them and she is typically not an action fan.
Daniel, no matter how much B. Mac ‘widens his site’, you will get nothing but the same response. We have fantasy writers, superhero writers, and other sci-fi writers alike here, with no problems whatsoever, no thoughts of the site being ‘too narrow’. It’s just specific people with their specific stories and their specific attitudes that tend to trip over this specific response.
Really now, you don’t expect him to tailor his entire site around your whims, do you? Most of the time, if someone just can’t seem to fit in somewhere, they move on and find somewhere they do fit, not try to force the puzzle piece where it doesn’t belong. This being said, I also suggest the blogging idea. If you start your own blog, you’ll find an audience that is much more receptive to your knowledge/opinions, and in turn, much more willing to accept them.
(-facepalm- And here I thought I’d finally convinced myself to pick my battles.)
‘Daniel, no matter how much B. Mac ‘widens his site’, you will get nothing but the same response. We have fantasy writers, superhero writers, and other sci-fi writers alike here, with no problems whatsoever, no thoughts of the site being ‘too narrow’. It’s just specific people with their specific stories and their specific attitudes that tend to trip over this specific response.
Really now, you don’t expect him to tailor his entire site around your whims, do you?’
Point out where I said ‘too narrow’, please, because I can’t quite remember where I actually suggested that the site was too narrow. I only suggested that he look into the literary angle as a way for him to bring in more people; I would actually be willing to contribute an article or two so we could put them all in one place for the benefit of other aspiring writers. I was merely saying that he could get more popularity by catering to other areas and other crowds.
And I would never ask anyone to tailor a site around my whims; I would offer what I feel would be an idea to consider, and that’s all I was doing there.
I don’t really have an interest in literary superhero stories, so I doubt that I could offer quality advice about how to write one. However, it sounds like you do have an interest in literary superhero stories, and you want to provide advice as well. If there is a market for a literary take on superhero advice, you have a better shot at it than I do.
…
My impression is that having a target audience really, really matters. Most comic book and novel publishers explicitly require that the author’s proposal describe the target audience. A well-done target audience section can show that an author has realistic notions about selling and marketing his work.
If an author says his target audience is “everyone,” that’s pretty much an instant rejection. That’s not realistic. A publisher would love to deal with the next Harry Potter, but the cold fact is that 99.999% of published works aren’t universal hits. A work that is written for “everyone” is more likely to appeal to no one.
For example, the submissions page for Image Comics says:
On topic with the Mary Sue thing, I would point out that having one or two very minor Sue-ish aspects does not actually make a character a Mary Sue. Simply put, as much as common Mary Sue traits can be ascertained, one has to remember that the Mary Sues are *always* the sums of their parts, and not just the one or two aspects. A character can have a royal background, be pretty attractive, and be a generally impressive sort of individual (follows on logically from being royalty) without being a Mary Sue, after all.
They’re also *always* relative to the story. I’d strike the whole ‘royal background’ area as counting to begin with if the story was focusing on the political intrigues of a royal family. Just about *every* major character there would be royalty!
As for the target audience thing, it’s not a major thing with me, and I don’t make a story with a target audience in mind, but I could imagine who would like the story. I’d imagine the sort of story I’m telling would be popular amongst the 15-40 year old (male) nerds of the world. But others would probably also enjoy it. While a target audience might be important, I would say that one ought to decide on who it is *after* the fact, not *before*; if I have any universal non-literary tip here, try to focus on just telling a fluid story before you worry about who’s going to read it.
“Hmm. I think that’s a matter of opinion, RB. Do you mean that we’re seeing the tactics behind a war?”
No, the tactics are important, too. I’m talking about the actual action, though. Maybe it is just me, but it feels dry to me. For example in The Transall Saga the action felt well-paced and well… interesting.
“On topic with the Mary Sue thing, I would point out that having one or two very minor Sue-ish aspects does not actually make a character a Mary Sue.”
Of course not, Daniel. It’s very much a symptom to syndome type of issue. You can have a few symptoms of Mary Sue-ism and be just fine. Too many, though, and you’ll have a syndrome. No one wants a syndrome.
I’ve just run Dr. Proletariat (an anti-hero or anti-villain; sort of a non-evil mad scientist, though he did formerly go against all of the world’s governments) through the test, and I’ve gotten four questions ‘wrong’. Now let’s look at them;
‘Languages’; I put down five-plus, but his power is literally his being hyper-intelligent to the point of insanity, and his linguistic skills are an extension of that, with his being able to fluently speak almost any language after a week’s worth of study.
‘Political/Religious Beliefs’; he was based off of my own set of political beliefs being exaggerated into a recovering super-villain. Basically, they’re views I hold, but not nearly as strongly as he holds them, being that he’s an outright Marxist.
‘Raped or Tortured’; the latter is how I intend for him to die. Possibly. He’s slowly and brutally tortured to death, or to the point of being left for dead from which he can be brought back as a cyborg – so I can explore the themes of dehumanisation. It depends what I feel like when I write up to that point. Even if he does survive, likelihood is that he’ll be severely physically disabled for the rest of his life.
‘Problem with Authority Figures’; former super-villain. Pretty much a given.
Okay, let’s give a run through with the other main member of the team (those being Silverstar, Proletariat and White Rose); White Rose is the most experienced of them, and the only one over thirty years old. She’s a retired superhero, and the result of a British super-soldier project back in the 1970s. She’s strong and durable in the same fashion as Captain America, is extremely quick and nimble, and is able to teleport (sort of; I’m still deciding what her powers are). She was born Albino, and was actually born with at least one of her abilities, and that’s part of what inspired her to join the project and become a soldier. She wanted to prove to herself, and others, that she wasn’t a fragile thing to be kept in from the sunlight.
She’s also scored at about 85% right, 15% wrong. So let’s go through;
‘Older Than She Looks’; a deliberate effect of the super-soldier treatments. Though not for the purposes of keeping her appearance; she ages slowly so she can remain at the level of her physical prime for a longer period of time.
‘Named Weapon’; she happens to utilise Cortana, one of the mystical swords from the same mythology as Roland and Charlemagne. I do this because I like old myths and legends. I just don’t see how this qualifies for Mary Sues…
‘Immortality’; she can’t die of old age (via the power of SCIENCE!), but you can still kill her and she’ll still die in a nasty car accident
‘Born Into Powerful Position’; born as Lady Elizabeth Blackeney, Baroness (and is at the moment called Lady Elizabeth Nicholson after her late husband). This does occasionally happen in the UK, you know… we do actually have a royal family and landed nobility.
‘Date Elf/Royal/High-Class’; she was born into the upper-classes and socialises in them, so this is really not much of a surprise. She married one Lord Albert Nicholson, and inherited his title after his death; they have one unnamed child who is currently attending a private secondary school.
‘Use Sword/Blade In High-Tech’; Cortana, again. Though she also mixes it up by using guns and other such weapons; she prefers the sword because it can cut through tank armour like a hot knife through butter, and it also actually happens to make her rather more durable than she’d usually be. Explanation; it’s magic.
And that’s more or less it. She gains Mary Sue mostly for her noble background and her use of a magical sword as her primary weapon. I’m not going to count them against her because she’s far from a typical Mary Sue, and I made her in an area of society that I don’t actually like the existence of. I’m a staunch supporter of the idea that all men and women are born equal.
Hmm. Of the four, I think the one that feels the most potentially problematic is the political beliefs. If a super-intelligent guy has your political beliefs (or similar political beliefs), it’s not very hard to pick up a subtextual message that “intelligent people think like I do.” For example, the atheist elves of Eragon came off as Mary Sues because it looked like they were meant to make the author’s views about religion seem intelligent and refined.
It might help to play the character in a direction you disagree with. I hate referring to my own work when I don’t think that the reader is familiar with it, but Agent Orange is a pretty good example of a character that shares some of the author’s political beliefs without becoming a spokesman for them.
Here are a few more Mary Sue issues that could possibly apply to either character.
Dr. Prole
–Is there anything we’re meant to find unlikable about him? One thing I’d be careful about here is that a traumatic backstory is often used to justify traits that would otherwise be unlikable. If the author tries to justify a trait, it’s probably not meant to come off as unlikable.
–Political/religious conversions. Does he ever convert another character? Do you ever use him to sway the reader in a more socialistic direction? Is the reader ever meant to disagree with his political beliefs?
–He has a particularly traumatic backstory. Yeah, torture gets counted twice.
–Is there any way he’s meant to come off as less impressive than a typical human? (For example, Batman’s social skills are seriously questionable and Spiderman has a really hard time holding down a job as a pizza-boy).
–Are we ever meant to question the wisdom or intelligence of one of his actions or decisions? (For example, Reed Richards is supersmart but not very wise. Sometimes he misses really basic things).
White Rose
–is she a rebellious member of a high-class family? (Ahem… going into the military is sort of an unusual move for a countess, right?).
–political conversion? It sounds like you’re trying to use her military background to deliver an author tract about women in the military and sexual equality in general.
–does she ever make an unintelligent or unwise decision?
–are we ever meant to disagree with her?
–does she have authority problems with her family or the military?
–is she less impressive than the typical human in any way?
–is there anything about her readers are meant to find unlikable?
PS: I think that a magical sword does not fit really well with a scientific supersoldier origin. It might help to make the sword a marvel of military technology instead.
I’d reccomend renaming Dr. Proletariat as Dr. Prole, or at least have him referred to as that most of the time, since Dr. Proletariat is a very long-winded name. Kinda like how Ultra-Humanite is usually shortened to… what was it shortened to again?
Dr. Proletariat:
‘–Is there anything we’re meant to find unlikable about him? One thing I’d be careful about here is that a traumatic backstory is often used to justify traits that would otherwise be unlikable. If the author tries to justify a trait, it’s probably not meant to come off as unlikable.’
No traumatic backstory, but he’s mostly meant to represent the funny one. He’s the one who who tells most of the jokes, and does most of the crazy stuff that involves laser beams. But I don’t really think all that often in terms of an audience; I write a character and let them be interpreted in whatever way by the audience.
‘–Political/religious conversions. Does he ever convert another character? Do you ever use him to sway the reader in a more socialistic direction? Is the reader ever meant to disagree with his political beliefs?’
Non-applicable. He’s mostly there because I thought a highly socialist ex-supervillain would be an at least amusing character, not because I want to sway anybody’s own political beliefs. If it happens, it happens, but I am not here to make an author tract; I’m here to tell a story that happens to have a socialist ex-supervillain.
‘–He has a particularly traumatic backstory. Yeah, torture gets counted twice.
’
It *doesn’t* count if it’s actually the current and actual story wherein he gets tortured. Backstory is what happened before, and he wasn’t tortured before. He was arrested before, but was released some short time after he accepted an offer to start working for the government in beating up evil people.
‘–Is there any way he’s meant to come off as less impressive than a typical human? (For example, Batman’s social skills are seriously questionable and Spiderman has a really hard time holding down a job as a pizza-boy).’
Not particularly; though outside of his heightened intelligence, he’s not really all that much above a typical human either. I don’t count character flaws as counting in this area since every typical human has them, and I don’t actually count those two as being anything that a typical human couldn’t suffer from.
‘–Are we ever meant to question the wisdom or intelligence of one of his actions or decisions? (For example, Reed Richards is supersmart but not very wise. Sometimes he misses really basic things).’
He’s reckless, ruthless, and a former supervillain. You do the mathematics on that front.
White Rose:
‘–is she a rebellious member of a high-class family? (Ahem… going into the military is sort of an unusual move for a countess, right?).’
It’s an unusual move, but it’s hardly what I’d count as ‘rebellious’. She actually had the blessings of her parents because her metahuman powers would be a boon in this regard. Especially since it’s from a line of superheroes that go as far back as the Napoleonic Wars, actually even before the line acquired metapowers.
‘–political conversion? It sounds like you’re trying to use her military background to deliver an author tract about women in the military and sexual equality in general.’
That one honestly didn’t occur to me. I actually just imagined her as a bit of an Emma Peel type with albinism and teleportation abilities. Needless to say, I put very little thought into feminism one way or the other; it just sort of worked its way into the main characters somewhat.
‘–does she ever make an unintelligent or unwise decision?’
Yes, but due to lack of information; she’s a highly-experienced combatant so would not make any uninformed decisions.
‘–are we ever meant to disagree with her?’
Nope. She’s the Words of Wisdom in the story, for many areas.
‘–does she have authority problems with her family or the military?’
In the former case, most of her family are dead due to various reasons; she’s not the last-surviving member (I can name at least one cousin of hers), but she’s very much loyal to her family name. In the latter case, she *is* an authority figure, and sort of the de facto leader of the unnamed team that they form.
‘–is she less impressive than the typical human in any way?’
I haven’t put any thought into that area. But then, I have more of a fluid way of going about making characters, which is how they make themselves known to me; though to be honest, I find ‘less impressive than the typical human’ to be a pretty bad way of going about the whole character-making business. I find that it’s far better to make them have one or two ties to normal humanity, so that the audience can relate.
‘–is there anything about her readers are meant to find unlikable?’
I’ve told you already that I don’t think in those terms; I present a character, and I don’t try to influence whether or not people like her. Though I’ll point out that if a reader doesn’t like your main character, the reader doesn’t like your story; I, for one, absolutely hate Catcher in the Rye because of Holden Caulfield’s constant whining.
‘PS: I think that a magical sword does not fit really well with a scientific supersoldier origin. It might help to make the sword a marvel of military technology instead.’
Actually, the British metahuman projects in my setting are well known for mixing of old-fashioned mysticism and cutting-edge military technology. It’s actually one of my setting’s primary trademarks, with a mix of magic and science being one of the main focuses. The other primary super-soldier (and one of the two leaders of Section 20) Excalibur, currently wields, uh… well… Excalibur. I may swap White Rose’s sword for Durandal, though. Maybe.
‘I’d reccomend renaming Dr. Proletariat as Dr. Prole, or at least have him referred to as that most of the time, since Dr. Proletariat is a very long-winded name.’
He’s typically referred to by his real name, actually. That’s provisionally James Watt; after the Scottish inventor/engineer of the same name, though I’m working on trying to find an engineer that isn’t called Alexander or Graham for the sake of avoiding the use of my own middle name (well, my first name is hyphenated, and James is the second half… maybe… my family suffers a bit of confusion on that issue). Much harder than you’d expect, as James is a very common name in Bonnie Scotland; and I exist partially as proof!
Most of my characters tend to use their real names, as a note, when they’re not on duty. White Rose is usually Liz, Silverstar is usually Emily, etc.
Hm, it’s possible to write a Mary Sue, if the author can write brilliantly. Take Dream from the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman, for example. I took the test for the character, and he scored under 40%. Despite those results, the Sandman series are considered one of the best comicbooks out there. Mary Sues are possible to write about, but not everyone can write as brilliantly as Neil Gaiman.
Question: How can I incorporate unethical experimentation on a character without making it seem too…angsty?(Unethical experimentation is another common angsty backstory excuse for Mary Sues, alongside rape, torture, and abuse).
I just realized today after trying to add subplots to my concept story that experimentation might be intersting. I know it’s been overdone(Cloak and Dagger from Spiderman, Bionic Woman, Cat from Confidential Assassination Troop), but most experimentation backstories give characters powers or reasons to b*tch about anything.
It occurred to me that my character Kir is a tabula rasa. She is a parasite that invaded a human host’s brain, and took over the host’s conciousness. Parasite Kir is the protagonist of the story, and her main objective is to fully understand human nature in order to adapt to the host’s surroundings. I have a better description of her in the List of Superpowers article, and I don’t feel like repeating it to the fullest extent…
She is a tabula rasa because she has no concept of morality, and she cannot recognize or distinguish between good or evil. Tabula rasa experiments are almost impossible to conduct, since most people were taught ethics since babyhood. Feral children are usually subjected to these kinds of experiments. What makes parasite Kir a valuable candidate is that she is a tabula rasa and not a feral child. She knows linguistics from the host’s residual memory, which are essential for the tester to communicate with the subject in the experiments.
Notes(this is just a subplot, just to remind people):
-While there are other parasites in the host, Kir is the dominant parasite since she had infected the brain, therefore being able to control the whole body. Most parasites reside in bodily fluids, such as blood.
-Kir has the ability to restructure her DNA. She can instruct parasites in the body to mutate the host’s DNA for desirable traits(heightened senses, strength, different facial structure). The parasites can also be instructed to speed up the host’s mitosis levels to restructure injured body parts, aka regeneration.
-If parasites are expelled out of the body in fluids(e.g. blood), the blood will start moving rapidly since beserk parasites prioritize in finding another host. Will usually infect hosts by entering an open wound.
-In order to control parasite populations in the host, Kir infects her enemies with blood. If her enemies happen to draw blood from Kir, her blood will start moving rapidly into an enemy’s wound.
-After infecting so many enemies, the parasites were eventually discovered and documented scientifically.
-Kir is hunted down afterwards, scientists initially try to find out if the parasites can be used to speed up regeneration in people. Eventually, they find out that parasite Kir is a tabula rasa, and the experiment’s objective changes into redesigning morality to infected people.
The only type of testing I’ve thought up so far is the Clockwork Orange style. Strapping down Kir onto a chair, making her watch video clips of people doing evil and good acts. She is subjected to videos of how people emotionally react to certain events as well, since parasite Kir hasn’t adapted to emotions previously.
“Take Dream from the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman, for example.”
Hmm, I must disagree. Dream is most definitely not a Mary Sue. He’s nowhere near perfect (he sent his lover to Hell for dumping him). His actions and personality do have consequences, which ultimately, lead to his own death because of his stubborness. He suffers alot through his series and doesn’t always make the best choices. I agree that Neil Gaiman is an amazing writer, but I don’t think Dream counts as a Mary Sue, despite some of his perks.
I wouldn’t say any of the Endless were Mary Sues. They’re incredibly complex and deeply flawed. Incidently, which one was your favourite? I always liked Desire.
They are deeply flawed, but Dream had a lot of Mary Sue symptoms, like…
Multiple names/nicknames? Dream aka Morpheus aka Oneiros, aka…he had a lot of them.
Unusual eye colour? He had jewels/stars for eyes.
There were other attributes, but you’re right, he’s very flawed in a sense. Like I said, Mary Sues can be done, as long as the writer can write well.
Hm, Delirium was my favorite of the Endless. But I did like how the artist and author stylistically drew and characterized Satan from the part where Dream had to go to Hell…
Definitely Death. I love the idea of a little goth girl coming to collect my soul. She was hot, too, at least in book one she was.
I too liked Satan, I also like the portrayal of Hell.
On the Mary Sue test Adrian scored 85%, I’d say that’s pretty good for a character whose mostly a self-insert. I think scarves are badass, so I answered yes for that question. And Adrian and I do want the same job. And when it asked me if he changes species, I answered yes because he becomes alien. I don’t think this a part-time dragon, though. He has to change in order to use his powers like the Hulk, he will only rely on the water control armlets for a short time. And the human’s ability to turn into aliens is a major plot point.
Hi. I have this idea going on in the back of my head for a fantasy novel– I’m not going to get to work on it just yet because I’m occupied with something else, but I’m wondering about it.
I have few details yet, but one thing I’m concerned about is the main character. She’s part of a magical nation (it’s complicated) that are basically psychologists taken to the logical extreme- they magically remove all the bad emotions and the pain and dispel it safely. However, the problem arises because they are too pacifistic. When an enemy army attacks, they have literally no idea of how to react, and within a matter of a few days or weeks, some are dead, most are enslaved, and a tiny portion escaped the city. She’s one of the escapees, and ends up growing up on the streets with a group of street kids and escaped slaves.
My problem is this: her characterization. I don’t want her to come over as overly virtuous and perfect, yet her background would suggest she should be exactly that way.
I’m considering the idea that her time on the streets has jaded her and made her more unsympathetic to other people, but another idea would be that she, just as her people, is too pacifistic and doesn’t stand up for herself.
Any thoughts?
Hello, Husher. Here are a few things you could consider.
–She’s probably skillful at many things– I imagine she’s well-educated, for one thing. But I suspect that she will be less than competent at living on the street. I’m kind of interested to see how someone that is very smart but not particularly tough survives in a situation that is very physical and rough.
–Perhaps she overreacts to the war and becomes overly macho and/or paranoid and/or aggressive. Some people that are bullied later become bullies. Even if the war doesn’t do that to her, I am pretty sure that she will become tough when she has to live on the street. I kind of like the fish-out-of-water idea better, though.
–One way you can keep her society from coming across as a Mary Sue-topia (an overly idealized utopia) is to show that they were not merely pacifistic but irrationally pacifistic. They ignored the many signs that their neighbors were about to attack, they had many chances to arm themselves and were overly confident in their own ability to convince the aggressor to back down. Now they’re all paying for their mistakes.
Yes, your third point is the one that I wanted to come across as the main part of the society. They don’t even actually have an army, and when they were attacked, they believed it could all be sorted out by talking it through. I suppose a point of the story would be to show that extremes don’t work and the idea of a perfect pacifistic society is nice, but won’t work out in all situations.
I like the idea of a fish out of water, but after seven years on the street (she’d be ten when the war erupts, seventeen when the story starts properly) is it really feasible? I think I’d like her to develop throughout the story and start standing up for herself and taking more of an active role.
And yes, I imagine she’d be very well educated. Maybe the education she’s been given is good, but not practical.
Oh- and thank you. ^_^
Hmm. Ten years would give her quite a lot of time to adjust. What would you think about shortening that by making her get driven out of town when she’s a bit older? I think that would give you more leeway to show both aspects of her life (the educated, comfortable side vs. the tough, hellish one).
Hm, maybe. I’m figuring that most of the story will be focused on the aftermath of the war. Maybe if she were twelve, or in her early teens? (thinking) The important thing is, she’s been a runaway for so long that when she meets up with a boy she knew before the war, they don’t recognize each other for a while.
And so begins that Darkstar Mary Sue Test Program:
The PonyLandPress Test (http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html): 16 (11-20 points: The Non-Sue. Your character is a well-developed, balanced person, and is almost certainly not a Mary Sue. Congratulations!) (Yay.)
The Universal Mary-Sue Litmus Test (http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm#Part4): 5 (0-16 Points
Most likely Not-Sue. Characters at this level could probably take a little spicing up without hurting them any.) (How can this be…)
More later-got to go.
- Wings