Young Writers Society

Well, the Mary Sue Litmus Test may not be killing our characters directly (that's the job of the villains, right?), what it is doing in encouraging writers to create perfectly average, mildly attractive, IQ of 102 characters. While these characters usually aren't Sues or Stus, they're boring.

You can have an extraordinary character. You just have to be careful not to overdo it. See here.

Let's say your heroine can somehow control fire. Fine. If she can speak three languages, okay. It's when you start piling on things like incredible beauty, skill with every musical instrument, and instant perfection at everything she does, and have the story hand her everything on a silver platter with no work or sacrifice, that the character starts turning into a Sue.

Think of the Mary Sue traits like garlic when you're making pasta sauce. A little garlic can make that sauce taste a lot better, but add too much and you won't want to have anything to do with it.

Even a lot of things that people consider Mary Sue traits really aren't. A lot of the "traits" on Mary Sue tests either; could apply to any character or real-life person, have nothing to do with the story itself, or are taken completely out of context and ignore any justification the story provides. Here are a few examples from popular tests and my comments.

"Does the character have a name you really, really like?" - In most cases, yes. I control the names of the characters. Why would I give them names that I didn't like?

"Does the character have a nickname or pseudonym?" - Last I checked, most everyone has a nickname. My full name is Maxwell, but lots of people call me "Max", "Max-o", or even, "Maximus". Oh no, I'm a Gary Stu!

"Does the character play a musical instrument well?" - Oh no, my dad's a Gary Stu too! This would only apply if the character learned how in a very short amount of time.

"Does the character have a physical handicap that does not hinder her/him significantly?" - I'm near-sighted. But I wear glasses, and even with them off I can still see well enough to not get myself killed. And to think that adds 6 Stu points to my record.

"Is your character top of her/his class?" - But... every class has a top. Are all of those people Sues?

"Is the character bullied for her/his sexual orientation, skin color, intelligence, poverty/wealth, looks, clothes, background, etc." - That's actually fairly common, and shouldn't be a Sue trait unless the character uses it as a cheap excuse to angst.

"Does the character use Japanese words in conversation, although she/he does not live in Japan?" - "Shut it you baka! This is so kawaii, desu!" While people like that may have problems, they aren't Sues. Also, por qué en la tierra is it only Japanese words?

"Is the character fluent in more than two languages?" - What if the character is a translator, or an ambassador, or a trader who travels around a lot? Also, there are a lot of immigrant families out there whose kids speak both the language of the new country and that of the old for communicating with older relatives. Are they all Sues?

"If not a cross-breed, then at least cross-cultural?" What? Do these people have any idea how many people out there are cross-cultural? I'm Russian, Romanian, German, Norwegian, and French Canadian, with a few other things probably mixed in. Am I a Stu?

"Is the character rich or well-to-do, although she/he doesn't work?" - One word: Inheritance.

"Is the character astonishingly good at something that is not her/his profession?" - There are a lot of people who are good at things that aren't their profession. I'm deadly accurate with a Nerf gun, but my job certainly doesn't have anything to do with guns. (For those who are curious, I work at a newspaper)

"Does the character talk about anime frequently or have lots of anime clothes, collectibles, etc.?" - I don't see how this is a Sue trait. The person has a hobby, albeit a slightly obsessive one. Who cares? And why is it only anime? I think that the person who wrote that particular test has some odd hatred of Japan.

Get this in your heads, people. Subjectivity. Context. Justification. Logical sense. These seem to be foreign terms to the people who make the tests and those who swear by them. Don't make a character boring (or worse, all flaws and no good qualities) so that you score a few points less on some lame test.

Having magical powers does not immediately equal Sue unless the character is the only one with said powers or is freakishly strong for someone of his or her age or experience level.

Having a certain color of hair does not equal Sue, unless the character has a natural hair color that is physically impossible for that character's species.

Being able to fight with a sword or other weapon does not make a Sue unless the character rose way too high, way too fast (such as a character being able to defeat all of his vastly more experienced teachers after just a few weeks or months of training).

Being beautiful or handsome does not equal Sue unless it is taken to an extreme level. Examples would be a character so attractive that they cause traffic accidents, one so attractive that everyone either wants to kill them or date them, or one so attractive that they can make anyone fall in love, even someone who is asexual or sworn to never fall in love.

Being highly skilled at something does not equal Sue unless the character reached that level in a very short amount of time or it is very unlikely that the character would ever have had the opportunity to learn it. For example, a rich girl who's an expert hacker would make sense, as she probably has a lot of spare time and money and probably not too much parental supervision. A person living in a poor neighborhood who works two jobs just to make ends meet and doesn't have a computer, not so much.

Heck, even Tragic Pasts are subjective. They're generally only Mary Sue traits if they're only used as cheap excuses for the character to angst or let the character get away with crimes or other bad deeds. ("Oh, it's okay that you accidentally pushed the general into the volcano. It was clearly caused by the trauma of your Tragic Past.")

I would recommend reading this analysis of a Mary Sue Litmus Test. (Link updated September 6th, 2010)

You may be wondering what I consider to actually be legitimate indicators of Mary Sues. Well, here you have it:
1. Characters who look exactly like the author or an idealized version of the author (ex. 6 inches taller and with an 8-pack).
2. Characters who have no physical flaws (except for sexy X-shaped scars on their face) or personality flaws.
3. Characters who are instantly perfect at everything they do and never make major mistakes.
4. Characters who never have to struggle or sacrifice to get what they want.
5. Characters who have amazing powers and abilities, far beyond what is considered normal for the story's universe, and that have few or no downsides or limitations.
6. Characters who are instantly loved by everyone else, even the most cynical and jaded characters. Their plans are always favored over those of people with far more experience and they are always forgiven for mistakes.

Numbers 2-6 are the ones that I think are instant indicators of Mary Sue status. However, there are only five of them. And I daresay that most writers are better than that.

So don't be afraid to create a character with the logical prowess of Sherlock Holmes, James Bond's fighting skill, or Christine Daae's singing voice. Don't be afraid that people will call you a Suethor the second your character actually does a good job at something or gets off his butt and does something cool.

http://maxhelmberger.com/thoughtsmarysuefear.html

Hey Merlin! I really enjoyed this post. The first time I did the Mary Sue/Gary Stu litmus test, I thought it was downright hilarious, because I'd definitely encountered characters (mostly in bad fanfiction) who fit the bill exactly. Then I filled it out for one of my own characters and it just annoyed the snot out of me, for exactly the reasons you point out. I go to school with a girl who is a Division 1 athlete, a double major in English and Economics, and speaks functional Chinese (after studying it for a year and a half), Spanish, and German (because she lived with her family in Germany for two years). She's a perfectly healthy, normal, non-Sue-like person; in fact, she's just an interesting person. And we writers have a right to interesting characters.

Thanks for the post!

After doing the whole Litmus test once, and scoring something like a 54, I was too fed up with them to every do it again...though looking back on things...the test may have been right in that case.

But you're right. Bite me, Litmus test! My characters shall be as interesting as I so deem them to be!

Great post, Merlin! I agree. Ultimately, I don't think any character can be simplified down to his or her individual character traits--it's the character on the page with the fully developed personality that matters. I've taken the Mary Sue Litmus Test a few times and have been bothered by a lot of the things you mentioned--especially the language thing, as knowing lots of languages is commonplace in my characters' society. The test is certainly not the best way to determine whether your character is a Mary Sue, but I still think it's amusing. And it does open your eyes to some of the ways in which characters can start to slip into Mary Sue-dom. So, it has some redeeming value. But it's certainly not a test to be taken as the final word.

And I like your criteria for Mary Sue's. ^^

I like this. A lot.

I agree with you nearly all the way. I do seem to remember there being a disclaimer somewhere on the page about the test not being foolproof, but your points still stand. Too many writers see these things that, with a sense of humor and an understanding of tongue-in-cheek, could be amusing and somewhat-useful tools and instead treat them as the gospel truth.

At the same time, however, many Mary Sues do indeed exhibit many of the traits listed. Giving a fledgling writer some things to avoid helps them find other things to explore and when they understand how to make a character, then they can go back and do whatever the heck they want. Once you learn the rules, you can break them in as many creative ways as you can think of.

The Litmus Test itself doesn't do a good job of really explaining this concept, however, and I like your list much better in its specificity.

I think this would be a fine addition to the Knowledge Base. *hinthint*

This was a great post. I see the value of defining Mary Sues and how to avoid them for beginning writers, who use writing as a self-serving escapism, but want to improve.

However, at a certain point in a writer's life, they need to abandon the idea of the Mary Sue and avoiding interesting characters. Because not doing so can lead to commonplace, dull characters or worse, random trait assignment. Mary Sue-phobic authors can start seeing character makeup like an equation that needs balancing. They start creating characters and thinking "Oh, I just gave X a really interesting trait! Now I better give him some flaws to make up for it...."

This can be just as dangerous as a Mary Sue. These equation creations have a messy plethora of flaws and strengths, haphazardly patched together in an attempt to make them 'real'. They are nothing but a mimicry of well-developed characters.

Characters need to be cultivated so that their nuances make sense, and I find that introspection can often guide me in this process. I like to focus on what I know about a character, and then ask "why?".

For example, me. My friends know that I'm loud and impulsive when I'm around them, but teachers would identify me as clever and studious. I've realized that this dichotomy of myself stems from my somewhat narcissistic desire to be well-liked and the focal point of other people's attention.

It's a messy sort of example, but hopefully it helps bring your attention to proper character development, which should stem from delving deeper into the character's personality through questions rather than random trait assignment.

I certainly agree with your idea that a character should not be considered a Mary Sue just because they have one Sue characteristic. However, so does the creator of the Mary-Sue Litmus Test.

I'm not sure what version you use, but the one I use has a nice long disclaimer at the start of the quiz, explaining basically what you've said here.

As long as you read the disclaimer and don't take the test too seriously, I think it is a useful tool in helping to steer authors away from overused ideas (particularly for writers with less experience, because they probably haven't developed the instincts necessary to figure out when they've gone too far).

I think I took the test once, but I pretended that I was the main character. I got in the 80s or 90s. So! I'm a total Mary Sue, lol.

Thanks for the post!

Thank you for making me realize I should stop Mary-Sue testing every MC I make.

One of the Mary Sue(how did they come up with that name anyway?) had a disclaimer that it wouldn't be accurate. It said that Bono was very Sue-like, so one should use it only as an indicator.

Good topic.

The problem with Mary Sue tests is that they attempt to root out Mary Sues by traits. But, there are no "Mary Sue traits," as you pointed out in your post. Extreme swordsmanship does not a Mary Sue make. Nor does purple hair. Nor does the name of Star.

Which is why the tests go off combinations of traits: A character named Star with purple hair who is an extremely good swordsman (and female) is more likely to be a Mary Sue.

But, you can also have a character who scores a 2 on that test, and that character could be a Mary Sue. And you could have (in theory) a character who scores 70, 80--and not be a Mary Sue.

There are no Mary Sue Traits. And I'd go so far as to say that there are no Mary Sues. Not really.

Mary Sue and Gary Stu is an attitude an author has toward xer characters and xer story. An attitude that can boil down to, "I want to have a more exciting life, so let's live vicariously through my characters" and means characters who are perfect and flawless because the author doesn't want to insert xemself (3rd person singular gender-neutral reflexive pronoun) into a rounded character. That'd defeat the point of wish-fulfillment!

It's an attitude that means that character gets all he or she wants, that she wins in the end, that any character who crosses xem will come back crawling to apologize (and the "Mary Sue" will either forgive or not, depending), etc.

It's an attitude that leads authors, when they first come into contact with notion of a Mary Sue, to take the test, realize they have a "Mary Sue" on their hands, and then go through and assign flaws--"See, look! She's not perfect! She's stubborn, see! Or, she's got this scar!" and miss the point.

I've been around young writer writing (my own included) for years now, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard the "I got a 62 but she is not a Mary Sue! See, she's got flaws. She's well-balanced. I assign all my characters flaws" spiel.

If you're still assigning characters flaws, you still need Mary Sue litmus tests. When you stop assigning characters flaws as if they're just amorphous masses of adjectives waiting to happen, and start treating characters as characters, as units of being with motives and emotions and bad days and good days, where the presence of one thing explains another or contradicts it--you get it, and the tests are worthless to you, other than as an occasional source of amusement.

(I, for instance, always enjoy running my characters through, if for no other reason to remind myself of my roots.)

But Mary Sue Litmus Tests do have their worth. They help lots of writers realize that there's more to writing than simply making your own life more interesting, that storytelling is an art and thus requires practice and technique, etc. Sadly, even some published writers don't seem capable of moving beyond the middle stage between full Mary Sue and real characters. And, equally as sad, some writers get so hung up on making sure their characters aren't Sues that everything's boring.

You guys think about this stuff way too much. I'm going to eat dessert and not think about it at all.

I know what you mean... but I think that the Mary Sue Litmus Test is not really meant to be a quiz at all -- it's meant to enlighten (through its questions) the type of things that are really Sue-ish. I agree with RachaelEg also; the Mary Sue traits are symptoms, not the disease, and like all symptoms, may mean nothing.

EDIT: I also think that the test, although ostensibly designed to "examine" existing characters, is better to be kept in mind when creating characters and stories.

Awesome post!
And it proved that Jack isn't a Gary-Stu. Or he isn't so far. So, he's color-blind. That's more common in males than females, so ha! And, unsurprisingly, he isn't fashion forward so...
And Mirabella can be vain and still get the attention of two guys, because, well, they both know her well. She isn't drop-dead pretty, but she makes herself look nice.
And, well, I don't even have to worry about Ann. She has problems with English (which is her native language) and doesn't know what a seagull is. Brain-washed would be the key term.
And Tatiana is a vindictive witch, no matter how "pretty" she is and no matter if she can speak Russian (her family is Russian) and English (they moved to America). Of course, she was brain-washed into thinking what is deemed "normal" by our society is illegal, so that's not too surprising and it has nothing to do with her being Russian.

Oh, and I'd agree--they do seem to have a bias against Japan. How odd.

Awesome. I feel wildly better. Thanks.