Jump to content

So how do you write a book where the main charecter isn't a Mary Sue?


Crazydog7

Recommended Posts

[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]
I just finished rereading the Count of Monte Cristo and though I thoroughly enjoyed the book, several Gary Sue traits were apparent. I've put him through the test a few times and can't get under 30.

His names, physical attributes (pointed out numerous times), skills, languages, learning, wealth, history, reactions of those surrounding him etc rack up some serious points. I even gave him credit for several de-suifiers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tomfoster' post='1518839' date='Sep 15 2008, 13.18']Can't stop loling at the thought of a sue-ified Hercule Poirot :cheers:[/quote]

"Poirot tossed his hood back and let the sun shine on his raven tresses. Just watching him move made Ariadne feel intoxicated. He turned to look at her, and his perfectly trimmed mustache framed a beautiful, pearly-white smile.

" 'Now, we shall solve the mystery,' he said in a melodic tenor voice. 'Consider what we know. We know that Mrs. McGrath said that the mysterious stranger was speaking Finnish, but I myself heard the stranger speak, and I am fluent in Finnish. The stranger was speaking Estonian.'

" 'Why, of course. Mrs. McGrath is an idiot. She should have asked you right away.'

" 'It's an easy enough mistake to make. The Uralic language all sound similar. Unless one has done as I have, and served as an ambassador to all of the Eastern Block countries during the cold war, it is hard to tell the difference. We must make allowance. But as I was saying, since I am also fluent in Estonian, I understood what he was saying when he spoke about 'the lost knife.' I had my telepathic pet fox sneak into his room and he gave me the following information...'

"As Poirot explained how everything the fox had found fit perfectly into his solution of the mystery, Ariadne felt lightheaded. She knew that she could never have figured out all of this, and she didn't think any other human being could have either. Poirot would have been head of Scotland Yard, Interpol, MI6, the CIA, the FBI, and the Men in Black, except that he was far too modest to accept any honors. 'Let others take the credit and salvage their pride,' he always said. 'I want nothing more than to know that justice has been done.' "
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i was just reading some Poirot books i missed in my omni-devouring Agatha Christie phase, this is fun.

I'd like to point out that Hercule already is a Gary in his own head.

The trouble is, he is right. If i was a murderer, and Poirot walked in the room, he would be the first one to get it.

Just for kicks this is from wikipedia.

"By 1930, Agatha Christie found Poirot 'insufferable' and by 1960, she felt that he was a 'detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep'. Yet the public loved him, and Christie refused to kill him off, claiming that it was her duty to produce what the public liked, and what the public liked was Poirot."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're so bad a writer that you [i]can't[/i] write a serious novel without including a Mary Sue, then maybe literature isn't for you. You might have more fun playing with dolls; then you can have your perfect Barbie Doll and your perfect Ken Doll pull the heads off of your Lego dinosaurs all day long without tricking anyone else into buying your book and wasting their money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved the Gary Stu version of Poirot with emphasis on the part that he's 'too modest to accept any honors'.

[quote name='Serious Callers Only' post='1519058' date='Sep 15 2008, 18.50']"By 1930, Agatha Christie found Poirot 'insufferable' and by 1960, she felt that he was a 'detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep'.[/quote]
That was Sherlock Holmes. I've always liked Poirot, because he really cared about helping people. Especially if they were beautiful women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='DeliriousEdd' post='1518991' date='Sep 15 2008, 17.10']I just finished rereading the Count of Monte Cristo and though I thoroughly enjoyed the book, several Gary Sue traits were apparent. I've put him through the test a few times and can't get under 30.

His names, physical attributes (pointed out numerous times), skills, languages, learning, wealth, history, reactions of those surrounding him etc rack up some serious points. I even gave him credit for several de-suifiers.[/quote]
It's been a while since I read it, so your count is probably more accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: @ the Poirot.

Ariadne is clearly Christie's self-insert; elderly female crime writer who hates her main (annoying, European) detective character but just couldn't kill him off... not a real Mary Sue though, as it was clearly deliberate (and the character is just a minor one and far from perfect)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just ran my all-time favourite, self-created RPG character, that I love to bits and use everywhere that I possibly can in games, through the test, and came out with a 6 for her.

But then I really like flawed, average, normal characters (I'm a Catelyn fan), so that makes sense, I guess. I like my fantasy to be [i]realistic[/i], goddammit!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam from Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light scored a 31 on the test which means he is a Gary Stu, mainly because of the unique and extremely powerful ability he has (and gains later on). The test is obviously dumb.

Sam has the super-cool abilities...so does every other god. *shrugs* I don't think this test is valid for original sf or fantasy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='L'Sana' post='1519030' date='Sep 15 2008, 17.36']"Poirot tossed his hood back and let the sun shine on his raven tresses. Just watching him move made Ariadne feel intoxicated. He turned to look at her, and his perfectly trimmed mustache framed a beautiful, pearly-white smile.

" 'Now, we shall solve the mystery,' he said in a melodic tenor voice. 'Consider what we know. We know that Mrs. McGrath said that the mysterious stranger was speaking Finnish, but I myself heard the stranger speak, and I am fluent in Finnish. The stranger was speaking Estonian.'

" 'Why, of course. Mrs. McGrath is an idiot. She should have asked you right away.'

" 'It's an easy enough mistake to make. The Uralic language all sound similar. Unless one has done as I have, and served as an ambassador to all of the Eastern Block countries during the cold war, it is hard to tell the difference. We must make allowance. But as I was saying, since I am also fluent in Estonian, I understood what he was saying when he spoke about 'the lost knife.' I had my telepathic pet fox sneak into his room and he gave me the following information...'

"As Poirot explained how everything the fox had found fit perfectly into his solution of the mystery, Ariadne felt lightheaded. She knew that she could never have figured out all of this, and she didn't think any other human being could have either. Poirot would have been head of Scotland Yard, Interpol, MI6, the CIA, the FBI, and the Men in Black, except that he was far too modest to accept any honors. 'Let others take the credit and salvage their pride,' he always said. 'I want nothing more than to know that justice has been done.' "[/quote]

lm*f*ao!!!



OT, but has anyone here read a story that casts Poirot as a sufferer from paranoid schizophrenia who lives in an inner world and invents the crimes he "solves" as a way of reconciling the conflicting images in his mind. Hastings is his carer. It was floating around the internet about five years ago, but a google search doesn't seem to bring it up. It's actually very moving, especially as Hasting's good-natured bumbling is re-cast as indulgent humouring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Peadar' post='1518215' date='Sep 15 2008, 05.08']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.[/quote]

Both Harry and Honor could have been vastly better characters if they were seriously de-suefied and their books would have only gained from it. I ran Harry through this program and he racked up 160 points! Maybe I am unsympathetic, but I just couldn't see how he'd come under 120 even if he is given every benefit of doubt.

[quote]Even from an artistic standpoint, Bakker's Kellhus character is more than sufficient proof that this test serves no purpose whatever.[/quote]

I reserve my verdict on Kelhus, because so far it is not clear where his arc leads. Still, personally I found this aspect of his character and some other characters, which have it to lesser degree, repellent enough to almost stop reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phedre in Kushiel's dart got 64. Ouch. :P

Harry has some Stu like attributes, but overall, he is not shown to be perfect. He is often shown to be good, but not perfect. Hermoine beats his grades, Ron beats him in chess. It is often pointed out how much he is carried by having a good team, which is something Voldemort fails to understand. Plus Harry, Hermoine and Ron aren't "hawt". :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maia' post='1521422' date='Sep 17 2008, 06.38']Both Harry and Honor could have been vastly better characters if they were seriously de-suefied and their books would have only gained from it.[/quote]

The major reason why I liked the early Honor books better than the later ones. In the first few, she has her admirers and detractors, and while she is always shown to be the good guy, those who don't like her occasionally have a point. Later, though, once she has won every of award from every society in the alliance and has enough planets revolving around her to start her own solar system, the series goes way downhill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I reserve my verdict on Kelhus, because so far it is not clear where his arc leads. Still, personally I found this aspect of his character and some other characters, which have it to lesser degree, repellent enough to almost stop reading.[/quote]

Heh, I'd argue that Kellhus is in a very real way a deconstruction of the Mary Sue (and the Messiah of course)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1521535' date='Sep 17 2008, 09.08']Hermoine beats his grades, Ron beats him in chess. It is often pointed out how much he is carried by having a good team, which is something Voldemort fails to understand.[/quote]

It is typical of Sues/Stus to have supposed "flaws" that a unimportant in a large scheme of things. Neither chess nor grades matter in that world. Harry is supposedly worse than Hermione at learning spells, yet he always can do magic he needs for his scheduled triumph even if he only saw it once previously or not at all - typical Stu.
Also, while he is carried by the team, he gets all the credit and adoration - another Stu trait.

[quote]Plus Harry, Hermoine and Ron aren't "hawt". :P[/quote]

Nevertheless they attracted the most desirable partners and girls were thronging to ply Harry with love potions.

I also disagree that those are "children's books" and hence Sue/Stu is more permissible. The last 4 or so are clearly YA. And it is people who grew up with this who go for it in the adult fiction too.

Honor, oh yes. I'd say that she was a Sue from the start, in an entertaining overblown way, but of course it got so much worse. And really it would have been a lot easier to craft interesting and plausible adventures for her if she wasn't suefied to the max. Only shows one how destructive Sues really are to a series.
Oh and BTW - Honor also has "flaws" - she is supposedly bad at maths, but of course it never prevented her from inventing totally novel spatial manoeuvres on the spot. And she is supposedly plain, only she totally isn't. Etc.

Re: Kelhus, I am not sure whether the deconstruction will actually happen to a satisfying degree. So far he is an unpleasant Stu, but Stu all the same. And a few other characters are lesser Stus. The second trilogy will show, of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maia' post='1522689' date='Sep 18 2008, 04.42']It is typical of Sues/Stus to have supposed "flaws" that a unimportant in a large scheme of things. Neither chess nor grades matter in that world. Harry is supposedly worse than Hermione at learning spells, yet he always can do magic he needs for his scheduled triumph even if he only saw it once previously or not at all - typical Stu.[/quote]
Bull, near half of the books are composed of Harry studying the spells he has to use for his 'scheduled triumph' and he studies with the assistance of both his friends, who learn along with him. He doesn't 'magically' (pun intended) have the ability to cast the spells he needs, it has been consistently shown in the books that Harry studies very hard, just for the sake of staying alive. He has never defeated a big enemy in a fight either, Voldemort killed himself for instance because Harry was protected, the only person he ever took in anything like a duel was Malfoy, who if you've read the series is not particularly impressive.

In fact you could also say Harry was manipulated by circumstance, the adoration he has earned isn't deserved and he is aware of that fact, and a lot of it was generated by Dumbledore who has been blatantly and admittedly manipulating Harry and his life since he was born.

Harry's reputation and everything about him has been in one way or other a result of the machinations of Dumbledore.

Which isn't to say Harry is devoid of Stu-ish traits, just that he isn't as blatant a Stu as you make it sound.

On an separate note, these tests aren't a good measure for abilities within fantastic stories, as they rarely take into account the fact that fantastical abilities would often be the norm for many people within these worlds, or at least for a percentage of the population.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nous' post='1518681' date='Sep 15 2008, 10.53']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.[/quote]
Don't you mean Rothfuss? ;)

Litmus tests are fun and all, but only as a guideline; some parts of the test that I took (Original Fiction Mary Sue LT) clearly grasp at straws: giving a character a point for having a nickname or moniker is just thoroughly absurd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1521535' date='Sep 17 2008, 16.08']Phedre in Kushiel's dart got 64. Ouch. :P[/quote]

But Phedre belongs to a whole nation of Sues!! relatively speaking she's only slightly, okay average-ly Sue-ish :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maia' post='1522689' date='Sep 18 2008, 03.42']Oh and BTW - Honor also has "flaws" - she is supposedly bad at maths, but of course it never prevented her from inventing totally novel spatial manoeuvres on the spot. And she is supposedly plain, only she totally isn't. Etc.[/quote]

The flaws I was thinking of were her temper and her inability to politic. You're right that the math thing and her supposed "not even pretty" looks don't count, but losing her temper with civilians or superiors costs her something in the early books, as does her inability to play the political game. Maybe even back then she would have scored high enough to qualify as a Sue, but she did have real flaws. Later, of course, she learns to play politics (while still being honorable, of course) and her temper disappears as if it never existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...