Zoë Sumra Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Ah. I just stuck to the Gospels. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krafus Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 I arrived at a score of 108 for the biggest Mary Sue I ever encountered in literature - Elizabeth Haydon's Rhapsody, from the Symphony of Ages trilogy. A woman so incredibly beautiful that nearly all males want her and can provoke crowds and disturbances when she wanders into a city... yet, throughout the entire trilogy, remains "innocently unaware" of her divine beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krafus Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 EDIT: Damn, my hypersensitive mouse has struck again. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 [quote name='TakLoufer' post='1517213' date='Sep 14 2008, 00.32']Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.[/quote] :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 I put the protagonist of my book through it and he got an 18, some of the points undeserved, in my opinion. However, I guess I will tell when I finally finish. Let's put Richard Rahl through this test... 120. He lost a point for admitting he was wrong in the fourth book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Sana Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 [quote name='The Pita Enigma' post='1517569' date='Sep 14 2008, 12.08']I put the protagonist of my book through it and he got an 18, some of the points undeserved, in my opinion. However, I guess I will tell when I finally finish.[/quote] I don't think you need to be ashamed of an 18. If a character scores too low on this test, I would start to wonder why anyone would bother to write a story about a character this boring in the first place. If your character has no unusual skills or exceptional abilities, is completely average in looks and personality, never saves the day, and never gets the love interest, then not only would I wonder why you want to write about them, I would wonder why anyone would want to read about them. My main character scored a 20, and I don't think I need to do anything about her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brienne the Beauty Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 The problem with Mary Sue is that she pushes the canon stars out of the way and takes over the limelight in a fan fiction, thus disappointing fans of the original work who wanted to read about the canon characters. Therefore a canon character cannot be a Mary Sue. In fact, the canonical star of any "action" oriented book like Sci-Fi or fantasy should really be a "Mary Sue" or else they are too boring to read about. Only in "literary" fiction can an author get away with writing about an average Joe. This is why ASOIAF focuses on the likes of Tyrion and Dany rather than the likes of Hot Pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 How about Corto Maltese and Rasputin (historical or from Corto Maltese). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasFoster Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Don't believe this test! My thoroughly rounded original character "Tim Faster, Super-cool Ninja Spy and International Gigolo!" scored 100% It's a load of rubbish ;) More seriously, try three questions: 1) Does your character espouse or prove, by her actions or existence, a point you believe to be both true and under-represented in the genre. 2) Does your character have a characteristic that is seen by other characters or by readers, as a positive thing that she nevertheless sees as a negative. 3) Does you character have a characteristic that is seen by other characters in world as a bad thing but which readers recognise is a good thing. Double points if she demonstrates to others in-world that the characteristic is positive. Bottom line though, there's no idea so cliche a good author can't make it work, and no idea so fresh a bad writer can't make it bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoë Sumra Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 [quote name='Brienne the Beauty' post='1517682' date='Sep 14 2008, 21.18']Therefore a canon character cannot be a Mary Sue. In fact, the canonical star of any "action" oriented book like Sci-Fi or fantasy should really be a "Mary Sue" or else they are too boring to read about.[/quote] Then I think we need another name for "canonical star who looks perfect, always saves the day and has everyone fall in love with them to an irritating and frankly unbelievable degree". There's a level of realism to be expected in SFF too. :) [quote name='Brienne the Beauty' post='1517682' date='Sep 14 2008, 21.18']Only in "literary" fiction can an author get away with writing about an average Joe. This is why ASOIAF focuses on the likes of Tyrion and Dany rather than the likes of Hot Pie.[/quote] In a way I agree. The tropes of action SFF demand a character close to the centre of the plot. However, this misses a couple of factors: 1) Non-action SFF - [i]China Mountain Zhang[/i] jumps to mind, also much of the output of Ursula Le Guin. 2) The ability of better SFF authors to create lead action characters who do not share these traits. For instance: a lot of Mary Sues are allegedly "flawed" because they are oh!so! devoted to their friends and/or moral compass and this is oh!so! big a problem for them. Well, false-ASOIAF-protagonist Ned Stark's honour really is a massive problem, because it kills him. In most cases, though, it isn't exactly a flaw, as someone else mentioned above. There is no reason on God's green earth or any other setting why even an action hero/ine needs to be physically beautiful and/or have a more overt sex life than the rest of the cast. It's about realism again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korr Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I just ran Gina from Street: Empathy through the test, and the strictest count gets me a score of 28. Mostly 'cause of her good looks, telepathic abilities (i.e. plot) and relationship with the main antagonist (also plot). The test could probably stand to adjust downwards for stuff that's essential to the story. Sometimes you weave in these Sue-ish elements just to do something unusual with them. That shouldn't hurt the score! :tantrum: Regards, Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peadar Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 [quote name='tomfoster' post='1517728' date='Sep 14 2008, 21.59']Bottom line though, there's no idea so cliche a good author can't make it work, and no idea so fresh a bad writer can't make it bad.[/quote] Amen. Once upon a time, it was enough to wash your hair once in a while. Then, advertisers spotted a gap in the market and started making people paranoid about all sorts of things that never bothered them before -- do I have teh [b]split ends[/b]? Do I have unsightly dry patches on the soles of my feet? Is my hair-colour the wrong one to suit my eyes? Paranoia, second guessing, secret feelings of inadequacy... I would advise my fellow writers to keep their characters away from all tests of the sort mentioned in this thread. Time and time again I have seen perfectly good stories stunted and crippled by "rules". The vast majority of readers don't analyse books according to tests such as these. If they did, Honor Harrington, Harry Potter and a dozen others would have been put into retirement aeons ago. Even from an artistic standpoint, Bakker's Kellhus character is more than sufficient proof that this test serves no purpose whatever. Maybe critics can play with it, and that's fine. But writers, don't start second guessing yourselves. A good character works on the reader at a gut level and you'll recognise them the same way when you create them. All IMHO, of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoë Sumra Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 Peadar, I agree to an extent, but I see it as a percentage game. The bad writer is more likely to create a Mary-Sue that is offensive to the "ears" of the reader, perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nous Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I'll try this test try this test for some characters from literature, as far as I can remember. Howard Roark: 18 Jean Valjean: 18 Petronius, the Arbiter of Elegance: 7 Alyosha Karamazov: 6 The Count of Monte Christo: 5 Hercule Poirot: -3 Consider that the two first in this list were [i]ideal men[/i], by the standards of their authors, the Count is a dashing avenger, Hercule Poirot is the world's greatest detective, Petronius is a great guy in his own amoral way and Alyosha is a Christ figure. It's quite possible to write heroes that don't fit into the Mary Sue mold. Something like them could well be written in a fantasy book; there is no need for fantasy to be unimaginative. Although it should be remembered that these characters come from books that have stood the test of time, as among the best of their era. Comparisons are bound to be unfavorable. And I also want my fantasy literature to include big damn heroes, regular ass-kicking, and the like. So sue me. Opposing Mary Sueism sometimes becomes opposition to heroism, ability, and competence--all of which I like to see in what I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastard of Godsgrace Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 [quote name='Nous' post='1518547' date='Sep 15 2008, 17.48']Although it should be remembered that these characters come from books that have stood the test of time, as among the best of their era. Comparisons are bound to be unfavorable.[/quote] Also none of them are from a fantasy novel which excludes all typical fantasy tropes like special abilities, nonhuman looks, alien blood, being foretold by a prophecy, being a rightful heir to the throne etc, which make up major part of the whole list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vethnar Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I got a score of 73 for Patera Silk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerol Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 In my non-genre book, my main protagonist pretty much has the perfect life going. And I begin tearing it all apart and his flaws keep him from fixing it. I figure this keeps Gary Stu at bay. I don't know if I would entirely call Harry Potter a Gary Stu. He definitely has his flaws, and doubts about his abilities. Until he starts up with Ginny, his attempts at romance fall flat. He often wins because of luck or the bad guy screwing up (Voldemort was pretty incompetent for a Big Bad). And Rowling says the character most like her was Hermione and that girl had her flaws as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Sana Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 [quote name='Nous' post='1518547' date='Sep 15 2008, 09.48']And I also want my fantasy literature to include big damn heroes, regular ass-kicking, and the like. So sue me. Opposing Mary Sueism sometimes becomes opposition to heroism, ability, and competence--all of which I like to see in what I read.[/quote] No, it's opposition to perfection. I like to see heroes. I like to see good defeat evil. I want to see the long lost prince pull out his giant sword of coolness and open the proverbial can of whupass on the forces of darkness. What I don't want to deal with is the long lost prince who not only has a giant sword of coolness but a ring of invisibility, an amulet of time travel, the secret ruby wings of flight, and a magic flute of talk-to-the-forest animals. It's great that he is a fabulous swordfighter, but does he also have to be the world's most graceful dancer, a philosopher on par with Socrates, and the inventor of the internal combustion engine? And while I get that he's handsome and charismatic, surely there must be one or two non-evil women who don't fall in love with him at first sight. The examples you mentioned are pretty good, but I'll talk about Poirot since he's the one I'm most familiar with. He's the world's greatest detective, yes, but that's ALL he is. He's not handsome, and he doesn't get the girl. He's vain to the point where it's hard for him to make or keep friends. He's not sensible in the choices he makes. Even in the field of detection, he can be fooled by a criminal who doesn't give him much to go on. None of that means that he doesn't have "heroism, ability, and competence," and isn't worth reading about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nous Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 [quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1518557' date='Sep 15 2008, 11.59']Also none of them are from a fantasy novel which excludes all typical fantasy tropes like special abilities, nonhuman looks, alien blood, being foretold by a prophecy, being a rightful heir to the throne etc, which make up major part of the whole list.[/quote] That helps. But they could be transplanted into a fantasy world without adding any points at all. Those tropes are not necessary. [quote name='L'Sana' post='1518599' date='Sep 15 2008, 12.37']No, it's opposition to perfection. [...][/quote] I didn't say it [i]is[/i] opposition to competence, ability or heroism; merely that that is what it sometimes becomes. Incidentally, my favorite Gary Stu is Kvothe from [i]Name of The Wind[/i], with 56 points. Sanderson pulls it off. I wouldn't like Kvothe to be less Stu-ish than he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasFoster Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 [quote name='Nous' post='1518547' date='Sep 15 2008, 10.48']I'll try this test try this test for some characters from literature, as far as I can remember. Howard Roark: 18 Jean Valjean: 18 Petronius, the Arbiter of Elegance: 7 Alyosha Karamazov: 6 The Count of Monte Christo: 5 Hercule Poirot: -3[/quote] Can't stop loling at the thought of a sue-ified Hercule Poirot :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.