Welcome to Gaia! ::

DarknessofHeavenandDreams's avatar

5,650 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
XxXI DA HOXxX
No.

Even the Universal Limuis or whatever its called is not that great for determining a sue/stu.

Here's some things to think about:
-Is your character overly beautyful for no reason and no one else can come close to matching her/his beauty?

-Does every character love/admire her/him and the only ones that hate him/her are just jellous for no reason?

-Do all the girls/guys fight over her/him for no reason?

-Does she/he break the rules that where astablished in the story for no reason?

-Is her/his ONLY character flaw is his/her clumsyness?

-is she/he the only one to get spechal treatment from cops, teachers/bosses, etc... for no reason(or cause she's/he's hot/amazing/popular/ect...) Or does she/he get away with cheating/attacking/killing/whatever for no reason?

-Is she/he just spechal for no reason?

Thats basicly it. A characters name could be God(though not a good idea), and depending on how she/he is wriiten, she/he could proably not be a Sue/Stu. Also, there's nothing wrong with baseing a character off of you. It can make a character seem more real and relateable. Though if her only purpouse is wish fulfillment, then thats where it's bad.

Also, it's not always bad to have a Stu/Sue. Take Harry Potter for example. He's pretty much a Gary Stu, though despite all that, he still got some chatacter in him and got some fans with him. Also, Mary Poppins was a fun women that a lot of people irl loved, even though she's a Mary Sue. Just write what you want and don't worry about things like Gary Stu/Marry Sue.
While I don't agree with the other guy, this is just as bad as any sue test. No context is addressed.

What is 'no reason' for those? Can they be jealous because the other character is prettier or flirting with their lover, or do you mean random jealousy that has no context and shows up arbitrarily? What if they're jealous, but don't act on it?

Why is clumsiness bad? Sure it's often a symptom of a Sue, but not only Sues have it. Does the character have parkinsons? Are they of a completely different rank or occupation of the other characters? Do they have vision, balance, musculatory, or bone problems?Are they just a klutz more than others?

The last one has more of an issue with sues, but remember, many stories have issues where characters have bent the rules of the universe, not broken them. The boundaries need to be more established.
Klaark's avatar

8,150 Points
  • The Perfect Setup 150
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Conversationalist 100
They're all crap. The entire concept is crap. Forget it and grow as a writer.
I am The Compendium's avatar

Learned Gaian

4,200 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Member 100
  • Cart Raider 100
Growing as a writers means acknowledging and getting rid of Sues. Characters need to fit in the story and learning when they do and don't and why is an important skill to hone.

Just don't blow 'em out of proportion. Lot of things don't fit immediately, not just characters.
DarknessofHeavenandDreams
What is 'no reason' for those?

I'm guessing no reason, means exactly that. There really isn't any justification for the characters to be behaving the way they are. They just do, because the author wants them to.
DarknessofHeavenandDreams
Why is clumsiness bad?

Well, in and of itself? It isn't. It's just when a character has no flaw then things start to get annoying.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Maltese_Falcon91
DarknessofHeavenandDreams
What is 'no reason' for those?

I'm guessing no reason, means exactly that. There really isn't any justification for the characters to be behaving the way they are. They just do, because the author wants them to.
DarknessofHeavenandDreams
Why is clumsiness bad?

Well, in and of itself? It isn't. It's just when a character has no flaw then things start to get annoying.

I hope those are true (though why 'clumsiness' is always the only or defining flaw in a character, you probably have an entirely different problem). They aren't always when it comes to these kinds of tests. 'Because they're prettier/smarter/have powers' ends up qualifying as 'no reason' for some people.
I_Write_Ivre
I hope those are true (though why 'clumsiness' is always the only or defining flaw in a character, you probably have an entirely different problem). They aren't always when it comes to these kinds of tests. 'Because they're prettier/smarter/have powers' ends up qualifying as 'no reason' for some people.

Well, those powers need to be explained, right? Take Mass Effect: 2. It's never really explained how they bring Sheperd back from the dead (they do in the third game, but honestly, their explanation probably creates more problems than it solves), or how his body survives entering a "thick atmosphere of methane and ammonia" to the point where they're able to recover a least part of him. That's just bad writing, because we have no idea how this resurrection machine works, and we never really see it working, so the whole thing comes across as a huge contrivance. The writers needed some way to get Sheperd working for Cerberus, so they just killed him, and brought him back to life in the first ten minutes of the game.

Even when he's out and about, he never really seems to react to the fact that he's now augmented, and nobody else does either. The whole thing just reeks of bad characterization.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Maltese_Falcon91
I_Write_Ivre
I hope those are true (though why 'clumsiness' is always the only or defining flaw in a character, you probably have an entirely different problem). They aren't always when it comes to these kinds of tests. 'Because they're prettier/smarter/have powers' ends up qualifying as 'no reason' for some people.

Well, those powers need to be explained, right? Take Mass Effect: 2. It's never really explained how they bring Sheperd back from the dead (they do in the third game, but honestly, their explanation probably creates more problems than it solves), or how his body survives entering a "thick atmosphere of methane and ammonia" to the point where they're able to recover a least part of him. That's just bad writing, because we have no idea how this resurrection machine works, and we never really see it working, so the whole thing comes across as a huge contrivance. The writers needed some way to get Sheperd working for Cerberus, so they just killed him, and brought him back to life in the first ten minutes of the game.

Even when he's out and about, he never really seems to react to the fact that he's now augmented, and nobody else does either. The whole thing just reeks of bad characterization.


All true. But there is a difference between 'no reason' and 'the person who made this test is stupid.'

Example of a 'no reason' someone claimed years ago:
Greta is jealous of Lisa because many boys think Lisa is pretty. Lisa just rolls her eyes and ignore boys who fawn over her. It turns out Lisa is a boy whose straight and didn't want to deal with the other boys about it.

Person threw a fit over Greta being jealous of a guy attracting other guys doesn't count because it's a guy, not another girl.

I'll wholeheartedly defend 'no reason' for reasons that just push a character as 'speshul', but it has to be 'no reason and actually 'speshul.' I wanna check here, since 'clumsiness' wasn't given 'no reason' but was just there. Seems odd.
I_Write_Ivre
All true. But there is a difference between 'no reason' and 'the person who made this test is stupid.'

Is it a universal test that will always be accurate? No. Is it a test that will usually be accurate...? Probably not. Though I would argue that, for a young writer starting out, it might be worth their time to look it over, and understand that while they might find their super awesome wish fulfilment character totally radical, it might just annoy other people.

It's not really applicable to people who know what they're doing. I mean, Dune's Paul Atreides would fail pretty much any test, and he's one of the most tragic and sympathetic characters I've ever seen.
I_Write_Ivre
Example of a 'no reason' someone claimed years ago:
Greta is jealous of Lisa because many boys think Lisa is pretty. Lisa just rolls her eyes and ignore boys who fawn over her. It turns out Lisa is a boy whose straight and didn't want to deal with the other boys about it.

Person threw a fit over Greta being jealous of a guy attracting other guys doesn't count because it's a guy, not another girl

Well, that sounds more like general homophobia to me. Not people complaining about a narrative contrivance.
I_Write_Ivre
I'll wholeheartedly defend 'no reason' for reasons that just push a character as 'speshul', but it has to be 'no reason and actually 'speshul.' I wanna check here, since 'clumsiness' wasn't given 'no reason' but was just there. Seems odd.

So... um... yeah. You lost me. Can you rewrite that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Maltese_Falcon91

So... um... yeah. You lost me. Can you rewrite that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

It means I'm going to adamantly agree with someone who knows 'no reason' from 'homophobia or just plain idiocy'.

The question about 'are they the only clumsy person' is making me wonder if they know the difference. People are clumsy in real life. Why? Because they're clumsy. If they're the only one, why does that matter? Why doesn't context apply in this case?
I_Write_Ivre
It means I'm going to adamantly agree with someone who knows 'no reason' from 'homophobia or just plain idiocy'.

Oh, okay. Makes sense.
I_Write_Ivre
The question about 'are they the only clumsy person' is making me wonder if they know the difference. People are clumsy in real life. Why? Because they're clumsy. If they're the only one, why does that matter? Why doesn't context apply in this case?

Because poor motor skills are something that's incredibly common, and don't require any sort of justification for the reader to accept.

On the other hand...
XxXI DA HOXxX
Do all the girls/guys fight over her/him for no reason?

Apparently Naked Bacon thinks that every romance story ever has had all the cast lust over one specific character, without any thought to why they're attracted to them. But whatever. If I read a story and that happened, then I would need some sort of justification for that. Maybe the character has mind control powers, or emits pheromones or something. If there was no reason for it, then it's just an illogical, artificial story, with incredibly bad characterization.

So yeah, there's a difference between the two.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

17,050 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
I_Write_Ivre

It means I'm going to adamantly agree with someone who knows 'no reason' from 'homophobia or just plain idiocy'.

The question about 'are they the only clumsy person' is making me wonder if they know the difference. People are clumsy in real life. Why? Because they're clumsy. If they're the only one, why does that matter? Why doesn't context apply in this case?


I think people bring up clumsiness in the Sue debate because it is seen a lot in Sue characters, like purple eyes. Clumsiness gets used so the author can say "See? She's really NOT a perfect character!", but the clumsiness never comes into play at any important time, and seems to mostly exist so the character can fall and the hot guy will catch her. But it's one of those "correlation does not equal causation" types of things. Having purple eyes or being clumsy are traits common in Mary Sues, but having those traits does not make a Sue.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Maltese_Falcon91

I_Write_Ivre
The question about 'are they the only clumsy person' is making me wonder if they know the difference. People are clumsy in real life. Why? Because they're clumsy. If they're the only one, why does that matter? Why doesn't context apply in this case?

Because poor motor skills are something that's incredibly common, and don't require any sort of justification for the reader to accept.


Exactly my point. I know it's common for Sues, but as Marshmallow pointed out, it doesn't mean they're a Sue. Is it just to fall on a hot guy, or is it just there? If you're going to ask it, it still needs to address whether the context is 'contrivance that shows up once' or 'because people can be clumsy'.

But again, IF you even need to ask. Why even ask if the character is clumsy at all? It looks like a test by some who doesn't know Marsh's point of correlation vs causation.
I_Write_Ivre
Exactly my point. I know it's common for Sues, but as Marshmallow pointed out, it doesn't mean they're a Sue. Is it just to fall on a hot guy, or is it just there? If you're going to ask it, it still needs to address whether the context is 'contrivance that shows up once' or 'because people can be clumsy'.

Well, keep in mind there's a world of difference between writing someone who is clumsy, and writing someone who's:
Quote:
ONLY character flaw is his/her clumsyness?

See, every person ever has flaws, it's part of what makes us human. If your character only has like, one trait that can be easily identified as negative, then you've created someone who is boring, and even worse, annoying.

EDIT: Whoops. I meant: "If your character only has like, one minor trait that can be easily identified as negative..." My mistake.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Maltese_Falcon91
I_Write_Ivre
Exactly my point. I know it's common for Sues, but as Marshmallow pointed out, it doesn't mean they're a Sue. Is it just to fall on a hot guy, or is it just there? If you're going to ask it, it still needs to address whether the context is 'contrivance that shows up once' or 'because people can be clumsy'.

Well, keep in mind there's a world of difference between writing someone who is clumsy, and writing someone who's:
Quote:
ONLY character flaw is his/her clumsyness?

See, every person ever has flaws, it's part of what makes us human. If your character only has like, one trait that can be easily identified as negative, then you've created someone who is boring, and even worse, annoying.

EDIT: Whoops. I meant: "If your character only has like, one minor trait that can be easily identified as negative..." My mistake.


That's horrible writing, but I'm not sure if it's a Sue. I'd need more info.
I_Write_Ivre
That's horrible writing, but I'm not sure if it's a Sue. I'd need more info.

Well, in this fantasy project I've been toying with, there's a character named Razad Snakespeaker, the guy was a prophet and led humanity out of slavery and into a new golden age. Then he screwed it all up and made everything worse. And he was born with Proteus Syndrome (if you don't know what that is, don't look it up - take my word for it), so he was pretty much always a social outcast, even at the height of his power he kept himself secluded away inside his temple.

But! What if...

Instead of being a disfigured, social outcast who eventually fell prey to hubris and loneliness and destroyed the very city he fought to build... he was kinda clumsy.

Would he be a Sue?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games