Mary Sue Doesn't Live Here Anymore

by AstralFire - 29 January

Those of you who know me personally are likely aware of the fact that I engage in something called 'roleplaying,' a sort of entertainment in which one essentially 'plays pretend' with other presumably grown adults. And it is likely that many of you perusing this enjoy reading amateur fiction on the internet from time to time. In both communities, there exists a rather popular phrase: "Mary Sue," and its synonym "Gary Stu," for the sake of gender equality.

If you asked a random sample of people to define the term, you would get a large variety of definitions. A recurring theme (and the one most likely to be picked upon) in the supermajority of definitions would be that a Mary Sue is a 'wish-fulfillment' character - a version of the author's own self, with either idealized traits and/or at the string of a center of extraordinary events. A person that the author wishes they could be like, in personality or achievements. One description that has long stuck in my mind is "building a character out of too much 'specialness'." For a quick primer on the Mary Sue in action, I suggest seeing this video for an intentional example of a Sue. In any event, the phrase is a purely negative pejorative and Mary Sues are actively discouraged. To this end, supposed 'litmus tests' exist for novice roleplayers and writers to check for the dreaded flaw of being wish-fulfillment. Entire websites are crafted to showcase their follies.

For the most part, there is good intention in these actions; the proliferation of better writing will always be a net positive, all other things being equal. (I will choose to avoid discussing those who have a burning need to showcase superiority and have social approval of ridicule to those they deem lesser writers.) The effort is misguided, however, because the 'wish-fulfillment' or 'special' is what is continually measured and challenged, and not the quality.

First issue: It leads to characters being written that are just as poor at resonating with their audience as the Sues. Many novice writers who attempt to avoid the Sue by reducing 'specialness' simply make a story and character that reads blandly - this is not an improvement over being hackneyed. Others will try to write a character he or she does not know or understand simply because the character is radically different from the author's self. An author who is writing what she or he doesn't know or find interesting lacks the confidence and comprehension to make their audience find it interesting. This issue is not helped by the fact that many features given as 'sure Sue checks' will flunk at least a handful of major literary figures.

Second issue: There is a distinct difference between "this character concept is bad" and "this character concept is difficult to write." The former can almost always be more accurately substituted by the latter. Taking on challenges is a core feature of the history of humanity's achievements, and the successes prove to be what most intrigues us, time after time.

I present to you the case of a privileged young man gifted with swordplay and engaged in a close relationship with a beautiful princess. His parent is murdered, and he is sent on a life-long (and eventually, life-ending) quest for vengeance and rage which consumes him as it also consumes everyone around him. His relationship with the princess becomes strained as she fears for him, and after an explosive confrontation, she dies of a broken heart.

I have described both Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark and a man who hates sand because it is rough and gets everywhere.

What do I ask you to take away from this? Obviously, this post is long-winded, but brevity is the soul of wit - and communication. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to go through such an exhaustive explanation everytime a newbie asks about the subject. If you must be brief when giving advice to a novice writer, it is this simple: "Don't worry about not being a Mary Sue. Worry about not being bad." They will seek out more information on what 'bad' may be at their own pace, and we can let the phrase, in all of its inaccuracy and misdirection, move on... to the next dimension.

Addendum: Large roleplaying communities with no ability to self-regulate have an additional concern with 'special' - there can only be so many people who single-handedly negotiated the end of a major war or commanded armies. This, however, should be filed under social consideration more than poor writing, and must be separately addressed; in an open situation where there are dozens or hundreds of individuals engaging in roleplay as the fancy takes them, it is best to be cautious about having a character assume widespread fame or impact.

Ooh. No good.

by AstralFire - 29 January

Hot on the heels of that article comes an actual piece of news - Domochevsky's computer is completely exploded; it is definitely going to get either fixed or replaced as it is under warranty, but we're not certain of time or the ability to press the replacement computer into service drawing. Gonna toss around some ideas of how to compensate; if you are interested in submitting any fanart or collaborating for a brief few panels in the universe, contact me as AstralFire at the gmail dot com.

We're going to do our best to compensate, so I would say check back here on Monday morning for the comic, but it'll probably be late by a day if we have one at all this week.