Welcome to Gaia! ::

Mary Sues are a constant worry for the amateur writers here on the WF...but they shouldn't really be a matter of concern at all. People have a lot of different definitions of Mary Sues, but the generally accepted definition here on the WF seems to be "A character with a large amount of unrealistic traits that would make them seem perfect in general. Generally, they are the product of some sort of wish fulfillment on the writer's part". Seems rather fine and dandy right? The problem lies in the determination of what characters are considered Mary Sues: traits alone.

A lot of times, Mary Sues are determined by only what sorts of traits they have. For example, if they're extraordinarily pretty or happen to have accomplished an extraordinary feat in a short amount of time (being the ultimate swordsman at 13 years old or something like that). However, the issue with that is that all of these supposedly forbidden traits can be pulled off depending on the context of the story and the actual writing itself. The reason I say this is because there are characters in published, well-accepted literature that could be considered Mary Sues. The reason they work often is because the writer simply can write well.

The important thing to consider when developing a character is not the traits you give them. All traits are capable of being good or bad. The Mary Sue traits are simply traits that most young writers don't do well because they're inexperienced. What you really need to watch out for is how you are portraying the character in the story. Your character has a horrible terrible horrible past? Instead of making them angst about it all the time, show some of the deeper psychological effects a past like that would have on a real person. Your character was the number one ninja in the fleet at the age of 5? Instead of making them awesome, try thinking of what sort of training one would have to go through to get to that point in such a short amount of time and consider some of the possible side effects it would have. Your character is a representation of you? Instead of making it a super idealized version of yourself, ask some of your friends and family about your flaws and put them in your character as well; think of the character as just another flawed human being (or whatever race it is), 'cause that's what you are.

An example of why its wrong to judge based on traits alone is this line from a Mary Sue Litmus test:
"Shai has psychic abilities, exceptional strength, magical powers, can heal with a touch, or has any other skill, talent, or power that we would consider superhuman."
Now, I had to check this off because, well, the character does. The character is a robot maid, of course she's going to have superhuman abilities. But that'll probably add up to the score of being a Mary Sue although within the context of my story, its completely believable and normal.

So really the term you should be using instead of "Mary Sue" is "poor characterization and development". The problem is in the execution, not the traits. When you look at just the traits of a character, you are missing an whole other part of it: the story. And this leads to characters mindlessly being called a Mary Sue even when they are well characterized.

Also......Mary Sue is technically for fanfiction only.....

EDIT #1: I think its important to point out that I'm not saying that one should not care about the development of their characters. Far from that. Instead I'm saying that we should teach that instead of focusing on traits one should focus on improving the execution. I see Mary Sues focusing too much on the traits and often times, when used outside of describing characters in a story, it is inaccurate and incorrect.

However I have also realized that "poor characterization and development" is probably too technical a term for amateur writers. Eventually, they should be taught that term, but when starting out using that term can make them feel belittled. So "Mary Sue" is sorta like a very, very unprofessional word that can convey the same thing as the proper term when used in the right context.

So I guess I should probably be stressing appropriate use of the term Mary Sue, not completely ejecting the word from all of our vocabularies, lol.

This is something that seems to be gaining momentum lately...this utterly ridiculous idea that you have to be harsh, mean, and rude in order to give someone a good critique. I don't know when being a civil person started going out of style...but you most certainly do not have to be mean in order to correct someone and get them to improve themselves. That's wrong. If you want to be a jerk, then just say you want to be a jerk. Don't try to make excuses for it by saying that its the only way they're learn. In fact, it is psychologically proven that discouraging people and being mean to them while trying to correct them is not usually the best way to go. So prepare for a psychology lesson here!

There are many ways to get someone to learn something. This case, I believe, is specifically operant conditioning, which is when you strengthen or weaken a behavior by applying certain kinds of stimuli. These stimuli are broken into two categories: reinforcement (basically rewards) and punishment. And they are further broken into subcategories but that is rather irrelevant (but for the curious, its positive - to add - and negative - to take away - for both of them). Both of these have their pros and cons, but the cons of punishment, which is basically what you are doing when you act like a d**k because someone made a mistake on their story, is far worst. I'm pulling this right out of my psychology textbook Essentials of Understanding Psychology; Seventh Edition:
"Punishment often presents the quickest route to changing behavior that, if allowed to continue, might be dangerous to an individual" (187). But since when is messing up on a story dangerous to an individual? Basically, it means that if you might not get another chance to prevent a behavior, punishment is the best way to go. But that is the only real cases where punishment is better than reinforcement. "For one thing, punishment is frequently ineffective, particularly if it is not delivered shortly after the undesired behavior or if the individual is able to leave the setting in which the punishment is being given" (187-88 ). That means that punishment through forum websites where there's often a gap between the writing and the posting and your critique and where they are able to leave permanently or simply block you from speaking to them. Also, "Punishment can also reduce the self-esteem of recipients unless they can understand the reasons for it" (188 ). If you're just going on and on about what they did wrong, without alerting them what your purpose is in telling them what they did wrong, you often run the risk of discouraging them, breaking their confidence, and stopping both the undesired and the desired behavior all together. To sum it up: "reinforcing desired behavior is a more appropriate technique for modifying behavior than using punishment" (188 )

Basically, punishing people is not the best way to go. However, both reinforcing and punishing is very, very useful. Which leads me to the "sandwich method" of criticizing. It is a method which is taught to all leaders and bosses before they are in positions of supervision. I know this because it was taught to me in AFJROTC. What you do is give them compliments, reinforce the good skills they already have and soften their defenses. Then, you tell them what they did wrong, which is, I suppose, a form of punishment. Finally, you end it by giving more reinforcements and suggest what things they can do to stop the bad behavior themselves. This is the proper way to critique someone. Constructive criticism, by very definition, is criticism which builds people up (hence the word “constructive”). If you are criticizing someone with the intention of bringing them down or in a manner that obviously would cause someone to be brought down, you are not constructively criticizing them no matter how good your advice and points may be.

For those who don’t believe me: did your teacher ever put you down and go “this is trash, what were you thinking on this test! You did this, this, and this wrong!” Probably not because they aren’t allowed to. That’s generally accepted as mental/emotional abuse…better known by the term “bullying”. The reason you can probably see this a lot in impersonal relationships between adults is because people often turn the other way when it comes to adult bullying and assume that because the person is an adult, they should be able to get over it. But that is a gross misconception and is completely false. It is still wrong and it is still abuse.

So if you want to critique people, just be nice about it. It’s not lying. It’s not sugar coating. You can still be harsh and nice at the same time. I mean, if you just want to be mean though, go right ahead. Most of the people here deserve it because they don't know the difference between a flame and a critique. I know I'm mean and harsh and rude most of the time. But here's the thing: I don't try to pretend like I'm helping them by doing such. I do it because I'm a bitter, jaded old woman in a sexy girl's body.

Here's a cute little saying for you: "Do it right, be polite!"

(NOTE: You can argue against this if you want…but unless you have references that say that being mean promotes healthy growth and development in skills or in general, I’m going to regard what I said as the ultimate, factual truth and what you say as simply an unfounded opinion. So if you want to change my mind on this one, you’ll have to do a bit more than argue me down since I gave references to back up my point. Sorry, but that’s how debating goes.)

Sometimes it seems like people on the WF are expecting writers to be pros when it comes to what they’re writing. I’m all for research and I think its very important in the writing process, even when you’re writing something that you have personal experience with. However, its nearly impossible to get everything accurate all the time. Especially when it comes to outside cultures where you don’t really know what’s different from your culture so you don’t really know what to research.

If one has to practically be a pro on something before they can write it and do highly extensive research on the topic like they’re writing a research paper…then when exactly would we write what we wanted to write? All you have to do is research the things that are important to the elements in your story; you don’t have to do extensive research at all. An example: Japan, the country no one here wants anyone to write about without having been there themselves (hypocrites…but that’s a different rant for another time). Did you know that traditional Japanese toilets are merely holes in the floor? Chances are, you didn’t and you probably never even considered it. Now, if someone is writing about a story in a more traditional Japan, they’d have to have toilets like that in the story in order for it to be truly accurate. But who’d think of the toilet being different? We focus on the glaring differences and forget the smaller ones. Did you know that in several places, nodding your head means no? Unless you’re from that place or visited that place, I’m willing to bet that you didn’t and probably didn’t consider it. Its impossible to get every detail of something you aren’t experienced in accurate.

But if we relied on only accuracy to write things, we’d never write anything outside of our own lives and experiences. And what fun is that? So basic knowledge is enough to write a fairly accurate depiction of something you don’t know; you don’t need to go extremely in depth with it.

NOTE: This is NOT saying to just dive head first into something you don't know. No, no, no! Its just saying that while doing research, just focus on the aspects of the element that is going to be used in the story and don't worry about knowing every single little itty bitty thing about it.

Here's the place where I add things I might have forgotten, things that aren't as popular, or things that other people suggest. Feel free to contribute anytime...but if I don't agree, you'll have to debate for your right to be up here! wink

Reserved

Heh. I know you said this would probably take awhile to read, but I was frankly reading as you were posting, and I've got to say thank you for some of this. The criticism bent of this forum whenever I drop in (can't say I'm a Gaian regular anymore) in paticular annoys me, so thanks for the fodder next time I come up against it.

Anyway, in the realm of Part 4, the point about logic instead of scientific explanations reminded me of a Jane Yolen quote that I have found in a writing guide. (The book was "Writing and Publishing Children's Literature" if I remember correctly, but nfortunately I do not have it with me right now, so I will not be quoting verbatium) to the point that fantasy may have to be one of the most logical genres if only because we're trying to wrap our minds around the rules of a new world: "If a river flows uphill on page 4, it must also flow uphill on page 400." There's no scientific explanation whatsoever for defying the laws of gravity, but if you set up a rule, it's the consistency that matters.

Then, fantasy is my genre of choice, and I've been asked so many "whys" before that the answer has devolved down to "Because the supreme goddess (me) has an odd sense of humor!"

Anyway, I don't have much to add just yet, and mostly wanted to say thank you for part three.

Cheers!

Funny, I read the whole thing through and found that I disagreed with most of it. Predominately, I suppose, with your statement that the WF propagates most of these 'lies'.

1. I think you SHOULD worry about whether or not your character is a Mary Sue. And yes, that includes (and is predominately) character development and characterization. And I see that reflected in 'Is my character a Mary Sue11!!?1" post replies as well, things like "Are other peoples' reactions to her appearance unrealistic, considering your world?" "She does have a lot of outstanding powers/suffered/etc. but from the way you write you seem well aware of the [insert stuff] so you should be fine," etc.

I also see most of WF disregarding most Mary Sue Litmus tests (which I think can serve as indication, but not final judgment by any means) as identifying Sues.

2. Similar with the 'I don't see the WF doing this a lot' thing. Generally, with the 'is my idea cliche', I see 'Yes, write it anyway,' 'No, write it anyway', or 'Who cares? Write it anyway." responses.

3. I don't generally wander the critiquing forums, so I don't have much to say about this except for the fact that I've never experienced this when I did post stuff for critique.

4. Frankly, I've never seen this either. And considering how many writers in the WF are writing in the sci-fi/fantasy genre, I'd be surprised to see a lot of it. "What's the REASONING behind that?" however, I think is a perfectly valid question and should be asked to and by every writer regarding their own work.

5. Have not experienced this, cannot really comment.

Interesting to note: I did, and do know that Japanese toilets are essentially holes in the floor. China and Taiwan are like that too. x] I find them rather annoying to use.