Mary Sue, Gary Stu, Special Snowflakes and the like

[Moon Rabbit]

Now, I know a bunch of you probably came in here expecting a little ditty on how to deal with or get rid of characters labeled with these "types". Well, that's not what this thread is about.


What I'm actually here to talk about are the terms themselves. I know basically everyone uses them, and the general meanings of them are the same but....let's be real. The reality of it is, these terms aren't very good for anyone who wants to be taken seriously.


The only thing that can be agreed upon entirely by all people who use the terms is that the targets it is used on


a) are bad


b) Are "too perfect/overpowered/tragic/etc"


Honestly, that's a very broad thing and to try to keep characters you don't like out by saying "no mary sues" or whatever, is just plain silly.


Everyone has their own opinions on things, and all settings and genres and etc. etc. have their own sorts of guidelines for what is and is not acceptable.


There are characters we like, and characters we do not like. Some people may disagree with us on which traits we like or don't like in a charcter. Person A might say your character is a Mary Sue so you should get lost. But then you could take the same application over to person B and they would tell you how great it is and welcome you in.


Even actual canon characters from works have many "Mary Sue" qualities that people claim are awful, but are still greatly loved characters considered well-written and awesome by many, many people.


My point here is, Mary Sue and other terms like it are very broad, blurred lines terms that can mean totally different guidelines from one person to the next. In the end, they really don't mean much of anything other than "don't make a bad character", but they don't tell what "bad" is.


The terms are lazy. To tell someone their character is a "Mary Sue" and needs to be fixed is as bad as, or basically the equivalent of, telling them their character is bad and then not giving them any constructive criticism. "Mary Sue" is not constructive criticism, it means basically nothing.


These terms are lazy. Rather than use them, why not ACTUALLY think about what you don't like about a character? Think of what qualities you want to be avoided when people hand in applications to you.


Rather than say "This character is too Mary Sueish. We need you to try again" or "No Mary Sues!" try giving some actual qualities that will be an automatic no accept. Don't be lazy, actually put some substance into it!


In all honesty, when I see these terms on a board or list of rules I tend to steer clear of wherever they are because it usually means laziness, elitist, unfairness/bias, and/or control freaks are afoot.


Just thought I'd share, shed some light on my views, and let the topic up for debate/discussion

 

[Okami]

I understand where you’re coming from and I (mostly) agree with you, but I think you’re taking the generally accepted definition for what a “Mary Sue” is and swapping it with “characters I just don’t like.”


Since I first began writing, I’ve seen terms come and go. For most of that time, “Mary Sue” stayed pretty constant. Mary Sue characters were always a little bit more than just special snowflakes; they were (unbelievably) perfect and very loosely followed the rules of the established world. At least, that’s what they always were: “Look at me! I’m just sixteen and I’m already a billionaire! Everybody likes me and I can get any boy / girl I want!”


I think, lately, it’s evolved a little bit. It’s kind of a catch-all term for, yes, characters that are “bad.” But a “bad” character earns its Mary Sue status not because of the fact that it is “bad,” but for the reason why. I could write a totally mundane character with no “special snowflake” qualities to make it stand out, but if it’s not compelling and doesn’t fit with the world / story (which is important), it’s still a “bad” character. By definition, it’s not a Mary Sue.


I’d start getting into Mary Sue territory if I rebuilt the same character and assigned it traits that are generally considered “ideal.” Obscene amounts of wealth, incredibly attractive, the most tragic of backstories, etc. And I’m not saying that having an attractive character with lots of money and dead parents automatically means you have a Mary Sue on your hands. Again, the reasons why are more important than the traits themselves.


If you can’t reasonably explain why your character has these awesome traits without bending / ignoring the rules of the world, then you’ve got a Mary Sue. Even if you can explain why, if the trait exists only to make the character better / more appealing than others, you’ve probably got some Mary Sue qualities.


You’re right, though, when you say that there are published characters who have these unwanted Mary Sue qualities. It’s much, much easier to forgive those characters, because we aren’t interacting with them. When a character in an RP has these Mary Sue qualities, it detracts from the experience. What used to be a group effort (oftentimes) is now all about one character, because they’re “special.”


Is saying “No Mary Sues!” lazy? Maybe. I don’t consider it any more lazy than saying “No overpowered characters!” or “No overly tragic backstories!” It’s a descriptor and requires just as much explanation as any other.


Would you avoid writing with somebody if they asked for compelling, believable characters? Because that’s all the “No Mary Sues!” ruling means, really.

 

[Moon Rabbit]

In my opinion, saying that last bit is more acceptable than "No Mary Sue's". It isn't the same in that welcoming something is a different mindset than warding another thing away. If you are going to say "don't do this" I expect explanations, a bit of effort put into.


you SAY that Mary Sue is a specific sort of thing, but i have seen it used to turn away dozens of varieties of characters, many of which lacking the qualities you described.


I also not you say that it is easier to accept the famously written "Mary Sues" because they don't need to be interacted with, but that isn't entirely true. Famdom roleplayers pick up these Mary Sues for use constantly, often without expecting them to be altered and toned down for fair play with others.


Even in the novice writing of fanfiction, even if it doesn't apply to tp, it seems simply unfair to tag the word on a character someone else has written because no one else would have to interact with them, just read the story. Imwont go off too far on that tangent.


While many of your points are valid, a few are walking the line between truth and what it's supposed to be. And maybe that is a problem in and of itself: people misusing the term in such a way that it can't really be trusted?


I'm not saying I avoid ALL roleplays that say it, but I do scrutinize them a bit more before deciding to join in.


Anyways, thank you for your input @Okami , it certainly did help me sort out my issue in my head a bit. And, I have decided not to join the roleplay which made me join up in the first place, because, by your definition, their use definitely does not fit the bill and actually causes some inconsistencies.

 

[Okami]

If people are using "Mary Sue" to turn others down without any further explanation, it's a problem. I'm not going to pretend it's not. If it's being used in a constructive way (e.g., "You have traits X, Y, and Z, therefore you're approaching Mary Sue territory."), there's not really an issue.


And as far as fandoms go, I keep far away from them. I was talking about the character(s) as written in their stories. I won't say I know how people make these characters work in an RP (or even if they do), because I've got absolutely no knowledge of how fandom RPs tend to work.

[QUOTE="Moon Rabbit]And maybe that is a problem in and of itself: people misusing the term in such a way that it can't really be trusted?

[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the problem. If people don't know what it means, they're not going to use it correctly.


Anyway, I'm glad what I said made sense to you. Hopefully you won't run into issues like this too often.

 

[Ignitedstar]

What's a "special snowflake"? This is the first time I've heard of that term used for characters. Isn't everyone a special snowflake? Or I'm totally missing the point of the term... which must mean the term isn't very well thought out.

 

[Ixacise]

Mary sue is currently just shorthand for characters you don't like. Except when it isn't and refers to badly written characters that usually have an assload of focus, gimmicks, and general plot warping that accommodates to them, flaws that aren't really flaws or that end up as advantages. and a wish fullfillment aspect.


Canonical character examples would be: Ichigo, Batman, Shirou, and Elminster


Special snowflake is more of the same but with focus on the self-insert wish fulfillment in regards to the character exhibiting showy or very unique qualities which tend to be a rarity in the setting they inhabit. Tends to be used derisively in roleplays where a player makes an overly awesome and special character


Examples would be: The stereotype of that one D&D player that makes a Drizz't Clone/plays a hybridy hyrbrid, some very rare race and or class. Or Ichigo again with his hilariously dumb super hybrid thing of being like 5 different races.


Anyway reason people hate them, and rightfully so is due to the collaborative nature of roleplays means everyone should have equal shine on them since they're an ensemble. And character who exhibits these qualities take that shine away from everyone else by their very nature. Only reason they're "tolerated" in works of fiction is they're the main character which means all of the focus will be on them. And even then just cuz they have shitload of gimmicks and abilities doesn't make them an interesting character.

 

[JohnWolff]

Personally, I don't often use it as a critical term for judging characters; I think it merely expresses when a character has little to no flaws in his personality, and that's sometimes okay with me. I have plenty of characters that I like who are Mary-Sues and Gary-Stus, perfect little heroes who could do no wrong.


Take Shinichi Kudo from the Detective Conan anime, for example. If I were to generalize it, he can be considered a Gary-Stu, almost. He is this super-intelligent person who 'serves justice' and has little to no grey area in his morality (like, really, which real person has that kind of mentality), an incorruptible hero who can be really boring for some people due to his lack of character conflict. Character conflict is the most important thing in a story that drives a character's growth forward; without that, he is just blend. Fortunately, Shinichi does have these little quirks and bad habits that keep him from being a miraculous saint birthed from heaven, but I needed an example for comparison.


Now, of course, we all have our own measure of morality, and what's considered 'morally good' for one person might not be so for another. That being said, it's not really about 'morally good' or not, for me; it's about whether if the character's morality is questioned, if his 'wide-eyed idealism' is given the 'rolled eyes' by the more cynical companions. Above all, it's about conflict, and if a character gets to prance around with his 'Saving everyone is good' morality without being questioned, I would consider him a Gary-Stu - not that I have a problem with that since I am pretty lax around this sort of thing.


But yeah, as some of you point out, the true definition of this clearly isn't knowledgeable to everyone. I even once thought of Saber from Fate/Stay Night as a Mary-Sue before Fate/Zero came around.

 

[Poisoned Youth]

People tend to overuse these terms too often for them to really have that much meaning. Just a pretty, perfect character with no depth or flaws.


Very boring to read about...

 

[ayzrules]

yeah, what poisoned youth said

 

[Paeniteo Azrael]

I would say that these terms are overused, but ultimately they are still useful terms when used accurately.


The more important thing is fitting in with the world you are playing in/creating. E.g., Exalted is chock full of special snowflakes because every character is, by definition a special snowflake. Even then, though, being a Mary/Gary is lazy, shitty writing.


Essentially a character you don't like is a character you don't like - but a Mary Sue is a character that doesn't make any sense. They get everything they want, yet are oddly tragic. They are experts at everything they do, yet they never spend time bettering themselves. They are wealthy and moral, and never involved in ethical dilemmas, and on the off chance that they are, they are so otherwise perfect and martyred that they get a free pass.


Now, just because there is a Mary/Gary in a story, doesn't mean its poorly written. One of the most well known characters in Sci-Fi is an unbelievably ridiculous Gary Stu. Ender is, to a T, a Gary Stu. He is the smartest man on the planet, but you never see him studying. He is an expert combatant, able to kill people much older than he is - but he spends little time honing his martial prowess. He is violent and aggressive, and kills multiple people, not to mention the genocide - and yet he skates away scot-free ethically because the surrounding writing aggressively pushes the "woe is he, the most martyred of all the martyrs - for he must suffer the guilt of being forced to be immoral" line that people actually believe it.


Being a Gary-Stu isn't evidence of shitty writing - Ender's Game is very well written (though an ethical clusterfuck and incredibly manipulative), and numerous other stories have Mary Sues or Gary Stus as the center of their framework. They are, however, unpleasant characters to interact with.


Anyways, its important to have these terms, but its also important to communicate what they are. If you refuse someone's character, explain to them why - don't just throw a literary term at them.