Comments on: The Dread Mary Sue

By: Sherwood

Sherwood — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:55:25 +0000

You are most welcome! (And remember, most of us =like= reading about heroic figures. But Mary Sue never grows or changes, and everyone else seems to exist just to talk about her and worship her.) Bet you are not doing any of that!

And thank you for the review–I don’t have the courage to look, but I appreciate any readers and what they say.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:08:36 +0000

Having just written a rather glowing review of The Fox on Amazon, I thought I’d try to find your website, and I stumbled across this instead. I love having a name for a phenomenon I’ve noticed, but never quite defined for myself–long live Mary Sue! (Or not.) Of course, I instantly started to analyze my latest manuscript, which I will cleanse of any Mary Sueness before sending it off to my publisher. I THINK my main character is sufficiently flawed. As for her growth, I’m going to mull that one over. Thanks!

By: Puzzled Writer

Puzzled Writer — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:46:15 +0000

Kate, Sherwood–thank you.

Love the advice here–I need to check back more often. : )

By: Sherwood Smith

Sherwood Smith — Sat, 12 May 2007 18:38:29 +0000

Puzzled Writer: I totally agree. I don’t want to read about dolts who sit around and complain–I can look in the mirror for that, or go to the coffee area of my job! Like Kate said above, a character who has some of these traits is not automatically a Mary Sue. A character who has most of them can avoid Mary Sueness if the writer doesn’t make not just the story revolve around that character, but all the other characters’ actions, thoughts, interests.

In a Mary Sue story, everyone exists to be in love with Mary Sue (or Marty Stu)–to talk about them, be saved by them, serve them, be fascinated by them, be knocked down by the bad guy until Mary can deck him with one punch, etc. The other characters are mostly little satellites revolving around Mary Sue’s sun, you don’t believe they have lives of their own.

By: kateelliott

kateelliott — Sat, 12 May 2007 18:20:35 +0000

There is a difference between a character who has or is various things, including competent, attractive, athletic, a master sword-fighter, etc - and a Mary Sue, who is “perfect” in a wishfulfillment way. The opposite of a Mary Sue isn’t a depressing dolt, it’s a well rounded realistic character.

My take, anyway.

By: Puzzled Writer

Puzzled Writer — Sat, 12 May 2007 07:23:50 +0000

Thanks for this informative essay on the “Mary Sue” character, your suggestions are helpful. Some author insertion is inevitable, I think, but it depends on how good of a spin a writer can put on the personal traits or experiences he/she inserts.

And…”My problem is this. Iâ€™ve seen writersâ€™ workshop people label as Mary Sues characters who are beautiful, or who are talented at something, leaving writers wondering if they are to people their stories with ugly clumsy dolts?”

ITA. What are we supposed to write about? Ugly, hopeless do-nothings? I suppose some writers and readers get off on that because it proves some deeply held belief that life sucks, but I’d like to read about and write characters who have *some* talents and skills and are going somewhere. If I wanted depressing dolts who sit around and complain, I’d just watch reality shows, ugh.

By: Sherwood Smith

Sherwood Smith — Wed, 02 May 2007 17:05:21 +0000

lotrlover: what, only 90 percent? I’m shocked, shocked! *g*

By: lotrlover

lotrlover — Wed, 02 May 2007 16:17:41 +0000

Another Gary Stu (my version of the male one) is Eragon, from Inheritence. He got a 90 on the Original Mary Sue Litmus test, the highest of any characters I’ve tested so far!

By: Gray

Gray — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:01:51 +0000

Hello, my name is Petro, I liked yours blog, can get acquainted and with mine

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:29:45 +0000

cool blog!