Another example of a big-time Mary Sue: Conrad from Leo Frankowski’s Cross Time Engineer series.
Some of the current reviews on Amazon;
“The big weakness was that everything went so smoothly for Conrad, so there never was much tension in the plot. And the endless supply of young women who wanted to have sex with him became boring (even maybe to him!).”
“In a foreword Frankowski informs the reader that he began the book as a high school student in the 1950s. It’s too bad his more mature self apparently chose to finish it at the same level.”
Well, I learned something today.
I’ve always disliked Gladiator, but I couldn’t explain why – at least not well. I used to say that Maximus (or whatever his name was) was too good. JHC! His fucking name is Maximus (or whatever).
If you want to see a really badly written Mary Sue, in a badly written fanfic (but not author insertion - though a weird, creepy, obsession with teenage girls), look for Marissa fanfics by Steven Ratliff.
Warning: I’d only recommend the misted versions that can be found here, because pure Ratliff is … very bad.
Oh, god, Ratliff! I haven’t thought of him in years! I used to eagerly devour every MSTing of his stories.
The amusing thing about him is that he was an incredibly good sport about having his work essentially ripped to shreds. I think he liked the attention.
But yeah, they were bad. Really, really bad. Not quite *Eye of Argon *bad, but in the same zip code.
Infovore above makes a good point with Kim Possible, I suppose, but writing a strong female character that’s very masculine is much easier than writing one who is feminine. Why? A lot of “traditional feminine traits” are things like frailness, weakness, passiveness and the like. If you start stripping away the weak qualities, women start looking more and more like men with boobs because with adding strength, you’re also breaking traditional societal gender roles to a degree. Like I said, Infovore made a good point, but Kim Possible is a really special exception IMO, it’s typically very hard to retain much femininity above the token if you make them strong. Note that I’m not saying that women are inherently weak or frail or whatnot, simply that a lot of things that seem feminine require some traits that aren’t exactly helpful to making a strong female character, so it’s a lot easier to say “fuck it” and write a man with token female traits than it is to pick and choose from all the feminine traits out there and only pick the ones that can be used with a strong character.
Anyway, I think the defining trait of a Mary Sue is really how the story handles them, rather than the character itself. The story will treat them as perfect, regardless of the truth of their actions. Bella from Twilight is basically a Mary Sue. She can’t so much as breathe without having a life threatening accident Edward has to save her from, but the story is constantly reacting like she managed to solve all her problems. It’s the kind of character who can, somehow, burn water while cooking and everybody smiles and laughs and loves the character even more for it. It’s not necessarily a character with no flaws so much as a flawed perspective on the writer as to what a flaw entails. Where all the flaws are either so superficial such that they have no effect on the story, or somehow the writer overcompensates by making what is at best a minor flaw a Big Deal™, and everybody reacts like she overcame the Holocaust when she conquers her fear of raccoons on the way to the laundry room. Not only that, but the plot is usually rather narcissistic towards the character. If the plot isn’t a romance story that focuses on the character and there’s some greater goal at stake (like overthrowing an evil empire), the focus will rarely be on the conflict, but rather how awesome the character is for solving the problem.
Actually I thought of another one, though you have to go back a ways to get to her: Melanie Wilkes from Gone with the Wind. Yeah, Scarlett was strong, but she had much more masculine traits. Melanie, while seeming frail and weak and unassuming and very feminine, had a backbone of cold steel and did every bit as much to carry her family and friends through hell as Scarlett did. If you’ve read the book or seen the movie, there’s one scene where a Yankee soldier breaks in to their home while the two of them are alone. Melanie helps to kill him (because they can’t afford to allow him to steal their meager supplies) and she helps Scarlett drag him outside and bury him. I kind of went through the same transformation of feelings about her as Scarlett did: initially thinking she was a useless wimp, but growing to develop a lot of respect for her as the book went on.
Sorry, this is a bit off the topic (I wonder if Scarlett was a Mary Sue?)
Those aren’t traditional female traits so much as they are traditional female stereotypes. And I guess that leads to my point - the way to write strong female characters is to write strong characters.
One of the biggest selling points of Homestuck is the plethora of well-written female characters. This is in a world where ass-kicking ability is more or less irrelevant: everyone knows how to fight. But Hussie (the author of this webcomic) has given a lot of these female characters traits we don’t usually see in women and girls in mass media.
When was the last time you saw a woman who was a mad scientist? Not a mad scientist’s daughter, assistant, or love interest, but an actual mad scientist? When was the last time you saw a female who was a Chessmaster? How about a girl who was blisteringly sarcastic, independent, and intellectually curious?
And even his characters who have traditional female traits are still bad-asses. Kanaya likes fashion, gardening, and trashy vampire romances, but she still kicks ass. Nepeta acts like a typical pre-teen girl who is maybe a bit too enthusiatic over role-playing, but she hunts animals with bare tooth and almost bare claw. There are other females who are kind and nurturing, but you still wouldn’t want to fuck with them.
I guess the key to writing a good female character is to write a realistic person, period, and not a collection of stereotypes of what you think a woman acts like. Having your characters react realistically to situations and other people, and having other people react realistically to them is also a good way to avoid writing Mary Sues.
Recent technological advances have finally tackled that long-standing problem.
*
LAS VEGAS—The buzz at this month’s Consumer Electronics Show was all about a new breakthrough in the field of high-resolution 3-D graphics that has made it possible to render average-sized breasts on female video game characters …
*
I’d argue it works the other way. Writers unwillingness to give female characters actual flaws to work around, (either due to fear of being accused of sexism, the inablity to assign responsiblity to women, or because “girls need role models!”) combined with a desire to have them around (to show their lack of sexism, or to avoid shallow love interests, or because they like them) has created a lot of Mary Sues. Or at least Mary-Sueoids. Call it the Robert Jordan effect.*
A good litmus test is how the narrative acts when they’re behaving badly. Especially when it involves a target who’s a) vastly weaker than the hero, and b) just unpleasant, not an actual villain. When a superhero bullying adolescents (Avatar:TLA’s Kitara) or severely beating a very small annoying man (Mr. Incredible) is presented as evidence of their awesomeness, Mary Sue has been unlocked.
That said, as others have noted, there are at least three different and unrelated definitions of Mary Sue. Orthodox, (Too good for the world, dies tragically) Reform (Disproportionate worship by other characters and narrative, this is the **correct **one, dammit) and Converted. (Idealized self insert) That’s just too unstable, I suspect the term will eventually break up into the variousTVTropes sub-definitions.
–
This should not be confused with the OTHER Robert Jordan effect, which involves writing thousand page books with no story, just 500 quantum advances in 500 different plot lines. He gets two Effects. One is powered by the male half of fundamental writing problems, one is powered by the female half.**
** I like Jordan’s books rather a lot. Doesn’t mean they don’t have issues.
This is most definitely true. An author who writes with any sensitivity at all is going to have pieces of their personality in their creations. It is the level of originality, development, consistancy of thought and action, and entertainment value that determines how well a character is written. I think a lot of sneering about Mary Sues are simply prompted by jealous critics if the term is applied haphazardly. Authors shouldn’t be afraid of writing from their own experiences and perceptions. For god’s sake, what happened to “write what you know”?
Agatha Heterodyne. OK, to be fair, she is also the daughter of a couple of mad scientists, and love interest to two more mad scientists, but that’s background: If anything, it’s Gil who plays the part of “the mad scientist’s beautiful daughter”, since he’s sort of overshadowed by his father.
Well, self-insertion and author avatars are not necessarily Mary Sues, nor are Mary Sues necessarily author-insertion or author avatars. It’s just that (mostly due to fanfic), there tends to be a big overlap in that department.