Trying to avoid my main lady character becoming a "Mary Sue"

[THX1138]

I don't think so. He's not the protagonist or even a secondary protagonist, which I think by definition a Mary Sue has to be. Plus he does make some serious errors of judgement.

And he is not the main character, but the voice of wisdom for Bilbo and Frodo.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I wouldn't worry too much about the Mary Sue label. When I read a novel, I expect the protagonist to be better than normal. Lee Child's Jack Reacher would fit all of the characteristics of a Mary Sue, but he's sold a bajillion books. I suggest the following checklist for characters.

1. The writer must believe in the character and know how the character will act and react in every situation. If the writer isn't engaged with the character, there is no way the reader will be.
2. The character must be competent in some aspect of his or her life. Only seeing character failures or successes through luck make a character who fails to engage the reader.
3. Allow other characters, main or secondary, to have a hero moment. The main character doesn't need to solve every problem.
4. As a writer, have a full backstory for the character, but only give the reader a brief hint at it. Dwelling on his or her past makes a character feel whiny.
5. Optionally, give the character a shortcoming, if not an actual flaw. Seeing the character do dumb things, on only a few occasions, can make the character likable.

 

[The Big Peat]

I'd suggest there's two questions here. Mary Sues and female warriors, because they aren't the same thing.

1) "Is it even worth having a female warrior type when you know how certain loudmouths are going to dismiss her straight away?"

Well, there's a few ways to look at this.

One is that there are no choices you can make that won't result in dismissive loudmouths. Another is that it's a good thing for publicity to rile certain loudmouths and that while I am against riling people for publicity, it is a nice bonus for something you were going to do anyway.

One could also take the point of view that a move that worked for some of the following fantasy authors - *deep breath* Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, CL Moore, Mercedes Lackey, Robert Jordan, Katherine Kerr, Tanith Lee, David Gemmell, The Eddings, Weis and Hickman, Kate Elliott, Terry Pratchett, Scott Lynch, Joe Abercrombie, RF Kuang, Leigh Bardugo, Sarah J Maas, Raymond E Feist, Holly Black, Andrea Stewart, RJ Barker, John Gwynne... *breath starts to trail away*

I do, of course, apologise to everyone I left off of that list, but I hope the point that it is an absolute staple of fantasy is clear. Commercially successful critically acclaimed fantasy no less.

And one can also take the point of view that to not include such characters is a disservice to the many women who probably could do the one vs fifty thing against the respondents to this thread, from modern martial artists like Samantha Swords and Kyra Gracie, to historic warriors such as the Dahomey Maidens and the Gaulish wives observed by Ammianus Marcellinus.

Whatever reason one prefers, there is good reason to include them, and most of the reasons not to are bad.

2) So the Mary Sue thing. A number of people have point out what makes a Mary Sue already and allowing for the vagueness of the term they are right, but I like Teresa's point about wish fulfilment characters most.

For me, the Mary Sue label is one I generally avoid precisely because of conversations like this. It has become twisted up with worries over and complaints from people who cannot talk about powerful female characters without snide comments.

But if we are to talk what constitutes the sort of wish fulfilment character that was constitute a Mary Sue, and whether they're a good thing -

For me, we are talking characters with no visible imperfections worth talking about. Not just abnormally competent, but abnormally free of incompetence and flaw and bad luck. Their path is charmed.

If they think they are somehow plain, the most eligible bachelor in town will assure them they are not. If they are untutored or not that bright, their impulsiveness will turn out to be the right decision anyway. Gauche or socially awkward? People will be charmed by it.

Their mistakes are always for the best. Their weaknesses are beloved.

And you can be a highly respected successful storyteller with them. I usually don't like them, I often complain vociferously about them, but goodness do they do well. Forrest Gump is a good example.

I wouldn't say I consider Harry Potter one as his anger issues, the deaths resting on his conscience, and frequent periods of being ostracised don't fit into that. Harry's weaknesses are real and painful.

And I will say that while you can do great things with protagonists who have it easy, the most successful art always involves protagonists who struggle.

 

[Paul J. Menzies]

I think there has been some conflation of Mary Sues and archetypal characters in this thread. Which is unsurprising as the Venn diagram does like to overlap. Unlike Mary Sues, there is nothing wrong with writing archetypal characters; it's done all the time.

I personally did not get the impression from the OP that he was describing an archetypal character. He was described his story as an ensemble piece, and ensembles do not feature one, single archetypal character. They can be a group of archetypes where the archetypes have (usually) been established in their own works of fiction and now brought together as a supergroup crossover-type story. MCU stuff. And in those situations, we still often find writers monkeying with the characters, because it's impossible not to have these egos in the same milieu and not bump up against each other. Oh look, a romance has popped up. What are the odds of that...

I know most of you know this, but to keep things clear, an archetypal character is one that represents the same way throughout the story---that is little to no arc---and is commonly found in episodic story-telling, where the consumer will want the same main character showing up in every episode. James Bond is an oft-used example of an archetypal character. Typically they exemplify archetypal values too. Harry Potter is another example. Please note that both these archetypal characters still do suffer setback and loss. Sherlock Holmes is an "all-powerful" archetypal and while he was also clearly not flawless and had his demons, when did he become most interesting? When he was also given a nemesis that could match him. A nemesis without those flaws and demons he had.

The important takeaway---and many above have already pointed this out--- is that this isn't simply about powers. It's about being unflawed and unmatched and unbelievable. That set-up is going to work even more poorly in an ensemble plot where guts and glory have to be rationed out so that readers have a chance to gravitate to an important character that resonates with them. Some fairness is required.

The fighting to the death every week and winning every single time no matter the luck, the opponent or the challenge, is simply not believable for any character, male or female. It would have to be fed to the reader very early, during max-suspension-of-disbelief time, and hopefully have some in-world physics justifying it (mutation, modfication, blessed by the gods, magic weapon etc).

Because such a character has little stakes at risk---they're a guaranteed win every time they trot out in the arena---the reader is not going to care about what they do and will in fact be bored by them because the action is pointless. We know the outcome before they enter the arena. That's the problem with Mary Sues, not their powers per se. The lack of real tension, real conflict, real stakes...

Now, a writer can ignore this as some have suggested---it's fantasy, we can do what we want---and to a certain degree they're right. But if we want readers to engage in the stories we tell, Mary Sues are a legitimate concern that highlights the need for proper character and plot creation... and really those things should be a major part of our craft, no? We're not here solely to invent stories, but to tell the stories we've invented and have them find and resonate with an audience. And I'd say that requires we give appropriate weight to legit reader concerns.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

Is it even worth having a female warrior type when you know how certain loudmouths are going to dismiss her straight away?

Is it worth giving loudmouths veto power over your writing before they've even had the chance to read it?

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

Besides - on the day they start bleating and carping, you'll know that they've been reading your work.

 

[msstice]

Forrest Gump is a good example.

I think how we receive lucky characters is very individual. I liked Forrest Gump because in real society he'd be the one failing and being taken advantage of. He is kind of an archetype of a secret wish a lot of us have that the humble, disadvantaged good guys become the millionaire and win the girl, in contrast to what happens IRL. What doesn't work for most of us, I think, is when the lucky person is evil, greedy, not innocent or simply normal.

 

[Swank]

Forest Gump isn't a Mary Sue type at all. The appeal of the story is the incredible coincidences and good fortune that makes a person destined for obscurity into an icon. That's the plot, not the character. You wouldn't make a series of Forest Gump films.

That's probably a really important point in discussing characters - are they unlikely characters in conventional stories? Or are they characters transformed by incredible events or storytelling? Arthur Dent has a charmed life - he's not even vaguely Mary Sue. But his story is a series of absurdly incredible events connected mainly by the coincidence of his presence.

Or we could have a character that sets off to do something with no expectation of performance and surprises themselves with how well they do.


The best stories are the ones that create the character rather than use the character. I would rather see a character turn into a warrior than just show up ready to rumble.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

There is also the risk of the "NOT A MARY SUE!!!!!"

A quick glance at TV "drama" over the last decade, it is filled with "flawed characters" that [fill in blank] _solve murders_ when they aren't busy obsessing over their personal drama.

If you want to tell the story of a flawed person obsessive over themselves - go do that. Enjoy.

If you want to tell a sci-fi or fantasy story, then tell that story. Let the protagonist(s)' flaws and problems reveal themselves as the story unfolds. But you don't need to even tell the backstory. We don't want or need flashbacks. Think of your favorite tales. Think of your favorite characters and how they were revealed to you.

I liked the series Firefly. They did do flashbacks but they let us get into the story before the flashbacks came up AND when they did the specific flashbacks were relevant to the events of the episode. In general. Instead of showing a character explaining to the other characters what had happened to them before they all met, [that was relevant right now] the audience got to see it in flashback.

 

[Paul J. Menzies]

@msstice

Gump is an interesting type case.

I'm not a fan of the movie, I didn't like it at the time, and I think it has aged even more poorly. But I also think it was a rare experiment from Hollywood and interesting failures are far more important IMO than formula successes. It is deserving of our attention.

I think one reason it works for many is because he clearly does have flaws, ie his handicap. That essential underdog feeling you describe. And unlike most stories, his flaws are ones he can do nothing about, except the one thing he does do---have a positive worldview. The starting point of a character like this is going to be well-received in the hearts of every audience member in possession of an actual heart.

Those unchanging flaws are then sort of held out as a white space, or a backdrop, so that we can see the effect of that positive attitude... which also needs to be static and persistent, because the change is placed in what he does and the effect he has on the world. So I consider him to be an archetype. An agent of change rather than a changing agent. And he might well be the only archetype of his sort.

Problem is that conceit---the static, archetypal, good-attitude, not-as-blessed, soldiering-on hero demonstrating change around him---strips the drama from the movie. That's why it desperately needs those life and death scenes. Nam was key to telling the story, as was Jenny dying.

I find it really sappy and unrealistic and the message delivered with a bludgeon (Hollywood's preferred intellectual weapon). It's intended as inspirational myth-making, so realism doesn't matter much, I admit. Still, the physics jar me. I do think it's decent if taken as a kid's movie. It's not a movie that suffers thinking deeply about it's story and message well.

But I do think it is a movie that suffers structural analysis well.

One such question is, would it have worked better if he had to overcome serious challenges along the way? But how would you navigate him through those challenges? What would he overcome in himself? Would it be fair to position the audience to criticize his decision-making? And that's all part of the problem. They never made him a real person in the first place, struggling with the imperfections we all have within us, handicapped or not.. But do that and now you're distracting away from theme of overcoming things out of your control AND you'll look like your beating up on your defenseless main character and asking the audience to come with. So the creative team was addressing a writing dilemma. What we see was their solution.

And that was a tough call for the writer-director-producer, I'm sure. I'm glad they tried. Every project like this one helps light the way forward for those coming after, whether as cautionary tale or roaring success.

 

[DAgent]

You are right that certain people will condemn a woman warrior straight away, however you choose to portray her, and especially if she is very good at what she does. But should you let these people influence how you write your books, even to the point of deciding it is not "worth having a female warrior type"?

But a true Mary Sue is not just over-powered in whatever it is that she specializes in. She is a wish-fulfillment character, and thus she is remarkably good at everything she undertakes, exceptionally beautiful, and all good people that she encounters absolutely adore her.

From your description, it sounds like your character only excels at the arts of war, and if that is so, she is a long way from a Mary Sue. Also, the scars you mention take away from any physical attractiveness she may have had in the beginning, so that's another point in her favor.

That's the main idea, she's good at fighting because she's going to have concentrated so much on simply surviving each fight that certain things are outside her comprehension, such as trust, friendship, romance, simply because she's been a slave for so much of her formative years. She might have some basic skill in maths, mainly subtraction and division ("5 down, 2 to go, oh there goes his head! 1 left") If anyone did try the old "You are beautiful" act on her, she simply wouldn't get it, beyond thinking it's some sort of trick, even if the person is genuine. She will, eventually learn those skills and values, that would be part of her overall arc.

I think my main concern about the nay sayers about strong woman characters, is how quickly their bile can spread, not just among their fans but people outside their fans who might not share their opinions on female warriors and similar, but might end up convinced the story is crap because of the nay sayers have torn it apart.

I mean, you can see plenty of examples of "reviews" on youtube (sometimes several hours long) where the title and thumbnail make it very clear the reviewer isn't being objective, but their fans would all claim they are. I do tend to avoid those "reviews" simply because I can spend my time doing far better things.

 

[DAgent]

I may have misunderstood, but my first impression is that you are stating you have a problem with the audience in general and not with your writing. You seem to be transferring arguments from two stories that are not your story onto your own character. Pre-judging reader criticisms before they even have a chance to peruse your work. It sounds like a long-winded defense intended to sidestep any criticism before it lands.

So I have questions:

1. Is power fairly balanced among this group that meets? Offset with different talents and different challenges etc.
2. Does this female fighter have any major vulnerabilities or flaws?
3. Is there anyone in this fictional world that can beat her at what she does (another way to say. are there any real stakes at risk)?
4. Is she on a collision course with this nemesis in a way that highlights the story's themes?

It's something I've noticed in many reviews that if you have a female warrior who is even slightly competent at what she does, then somehow it's a lighting bolt for some very strange men (and even women) to complain about. And given how some complaints about ROP Galadriel being such an effective fighter that did make me pause to consider my own warrior woman introduction. You can call that straw manning if you like, I see it more as a warning of what might end up happening with a certain group of people who might read the tale.

If it was a movie, we might see a montage of her previous fights to set up her backstory and show how she developed her skills, this isn't a movie and while we could have her reminisce about old fights, the very fact that she is going to be competent enough to take out her opponents, will no doubt piss some people off. I'm just trying to figure out if there is any way at all to negate that.

1. Everyone will have different skills, at least two of the characters will be utterly out of their depths but have some form of natural talents, and they will all have mentors, but not all of these mentors will necessarily be particular good teachers.
2. She'll be very good at fighting, and as a result of how she's spent her youth in slavery she'll have plenty of limitations. She won't trust people, at least not easily, she won't understand concepts like friendship or romance, and she certainly isn't invulnerable. Her scars are a testament to that.
3. There will be plenty who can give her a run for her money in one on one fights, and several far more experiences in actual warfare. There are after all limits to her fighting experience as she's never really fought outside the slave fights she's been trapped in.
4. Everyone is, but not all will necessarily meet the Big Bad.

 

[DAgent]

"...people who complain that a woman cannot do these things" Good grief, do you really care about readers who have that attitude? Well maybe, since you've designated this female warrior "your main lady character." Get with the program and write her strong and " *** 'em if they can't take a joke."

I don't really care for that kind of opinion at all, but I do care about the damage such people can cause. There's quite a few reviews I've seen where they clearly have an issue with a woman being able to fight, or do other things, but they try to hide that that is their real beef and try to convince people their issue is something else.
Sometimes the best giveaway is when they bark out something along the lines of "ThIs iS wOkE sh*t!"
And frankly I don't bother watching ANY reviews online these days because of this behaviour.

 

[Toby Frost]

I mean, you can see plenty of examples of "reviews" on youtube (sometimes several hours long) where the title and thumbnail make it very clear the reviewer isn't being objective, but their fans would all claim they are. I do tend to avoid those "reviews" simply because I can spend my time doing far better things.

I agree. There are some accounts on Youtube (some of them with millions of followers) that are just extremist propaganda disguised as pop-culture commentary. And on the internet, he who shouts loudest tends to get the most attention.

There also seems to be some genuine debate about what women physically can and cannot do - I get the feeling that there's a generational element to the sides people take. Personally, I think you'd have more difficulty writing the mindset of someone who's spent most of their life in captivity than making a woman a convincing fighter.

 

[DAgent]

As an example Roman gladiators would fight 3-5 times a year, and usually would be lucky to survive more than 10 encounters. One of the most famous being Flamma, who lived into his 30s, having fought 34 times, winning 21 of them.

As for your second point about a character seemingly doing something without explanation, this can either be the fault of the reader or of the author - or a little of both. As an author, you may look at Rey and say to the viewer "hey, I've shown that she can ride a speeder, I have shown that she knows her way around spaceships, and she's also strong in the Force" - join the dots. Whilst the viewer may respond "just because someone can ride and fix a motorbike or car, or can scavenge spare parts off an aeroplane doesn't mean that they can get behind the wheel of a 747 and fly it like an experienced pilot."

So I would say to give your character flaws, make her beatable, believable and relatable to the reader. Give the reader a reason as to why she is the way she is; and if they still have a problem, then that's life - you can't please all the people all of the time.

First off all I have no idea at all how Roman Gladiatorial fights really went, I kinda figured they wouldn't be like most of the Hollywood movies though. A quick google and I've just found out that some MMA fighters fight up to 5 times a year, with higher ranked MMA fighters having maybe 2 fights a year, but when I've heard fans talk about MMA matches they talk like the same fighters are having bouts every other week! I guess that's something to take into account, and might require a re-write on my part, but I was trying to cover the idea that these slave fights she was involved in weren't happening all the time.

The reason I brought Rey up here, is that the same people who complained about her flying the Falcon, seemed to ignore that Luke was able to fly an X-wing despite only seen piloting a speeder earlier on. Both even state they know how to fly before they are seen flying. It just seems a convenient detail people choose to ignore so they can trash Rey, even people point out the things they are ignoring or maybe genuinely missed one of the dots.

She will have flaws, some will be obvious from her scars, others only notable as the story progresses. Other than her fighting skills, she'll have basically been in a state of arrested development.

 

[DAgent]

Sounds like a female barbarian, a She-ra type. There are Sholin and Taoist nuns that were known to be quite the fighters with a fist full of knowledge/experience in pre CCP China. Even in Japan and Korea, this type of Female Warrior has come up in lore. I would look at her from this point.

And the kind of person I'm worried about, would probably deny those woman ever existed. I can vaguely recall seeing a kids TV show in the 80's where the present travelled to different countries and spent time at a Shaolin temple and asked if there were any nuns, and the monk said there weren't any. I'm not sure if he meant there weren't any in general or just none at that temple.

TBH, in role playing games like D&D, Rune Quest or the World of Warcraft there are many of these types of characters. As long as you stay within your world building logic or stay kind of close to a known world, like Conan the Barbarian, you should be fine. Just as an example.

The problem with Rey in Star Wars is the character does not stay within the world of Star Wars. An end all, be all, know it all type character kind of takes away from the adventure and suspense. There is no cliff hanger because the Rey will save the day. (I blame this on Disney myself. JMO. )

I never got the feeling Rey was a know it all, at least not in her first two movies. By the third movie she kinda has a reason for maybe being a know it all, being a lot more force powerful, but that third movie was something of a nightmare in all regards... Being Palpatines "grandaughter/clone" does give some reason why she was so naturally powerful after all, but is totally at odds with what the previous two movies were doing with her.

I would make this character stronger than most men, of course, and a very fast fighter with extended endurance. Can see quality goods and knows when she is being lied too, epically when purchasing items. She would know basic street skills (street wise) and have survival/fighting/hunting skills. And knows some foreign customs/traditions/languages/laws (Goes with street wise.) Wants to be 'One of the Guys' type but knows she doesn't know everything or can do everything. (The group compensates for where she lacks. The more skilled the group, the more she lacks but has or starts to develop leadership skills. Have her develop this skill to show character growth.)

I'll agree those are all great skills to have, and she might very well end up developing them later, but given her history being stuck in a slave pit for most of her life so far, she can't have those skills just yet. Her MO at this point is more "how can I end this quickly? Preferably without getting hurt." The others she ends up working with would have some mix of those skills, one is a smuggler, another a trader, so they would be naturals for a lot of what you mentioned. But she could certainly learn those skills.

BUT, she is still a woman with female feelings. Have her appear to be emotionally stronger than she real is. And when she is away from the group and alone, let the emotions and some insecurities come out. (Potential character and or plot twist maybe?)

Have you got access to my character profile for her?

 

[DAgent]

If someone said she’s a Mary Sue (or whatever) would you care/rewrite her? I suspect not.

Actually, they'd be even more pissed off when they found out her skin wasn't white. They'd probably argue that the text means she's got a tan, which is hard to see given she's been hidden away in the slave pits for most of her life.

In that spirit, then, just write the story and if any tweaks to characters are needed, do it once the story’s complete; it’ll be much easier to problem-solve then.
Don’t forget also that your warrior may be held up as inspirational by some readers.

Editing seems to be the thing I've done the most to almost all my tales at some point But I would like her to be an inspirtion for some.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Actually, they'd be even more pissed off when they found out her skin wasn't white. They'd probably argue that the text means she's got a tan, which is hard to see given she's been hidden away in the slave pits for most of her life.

With respect, and please don’t take this the wrong way, but this statement really worries me in regards of your ability to write this character.

 

[DAgent]

If you want a Mary Sue type who is anchored in reality to some extent you might try Kate Macer in Sicaro or Rita Vrataski in Edge of Tomorrow. But if you're looking for a female ninja in the superhero class then don't let reality hold you back. It's already an established trope. And don't forget to make the men around her useless betas.

Oh I'm not looking to make superhero per say, more a very efficient fighter, and there will be some of her team mates who are basically useless, but only because they lack any experience in what they are doing, or trying to do.

But at least ensure she's relatable. Galadriel in Rings of Power is awful - she has a terrible personality. She completely lacks empathy for others and has a borderline psychotic ego. And she achieves things that would clearly require Marvel superpowers which the series does not make clear she has. How come she can kill a troll so effortlessly when her companions - elves like herself - are flattened by it?

I think what they tried to do with Galadriel's personality was interesting, but just incredibly poorly executed. Not to mention the wholesale rewriting of the history of Middle Earth that annoyed everyone.
And it's that latter element of taking out the troll with ease that irked a lot of people. I don't mind the idea of a character being able to one shot an enemy, but should something as powerful as a troll be so easily taken out? And that's the kind of thing in comparison to my own character I want to avoid doing, she Is going to be good at what she does, because she's experienced enough to do so.
The challenge I'm facing is making it believable that she can fight as well as she does.

 

[DAgent]

The internet sometimes feels full of sad little men, especially in the last few years, who cannot deal with this because of their own psychological weakness. That's their problem, not yours. Most readers are better than that.

Most yes, but it's just those incredibly loud, screaming bloody blue murder types that seem to hate anything that's not their idea of a hero, being the hero.
Those just tick me off. And I know they would love to tear apart a story like mine for that very reason. I just want to try to minimise their luck wit trying, while still trying to write the tale I want to tell.

While it is entirely possible for a woman to be a very skilled fighter (the spy Nancy Wake once killed a Nazi stormtrooper with one blow of the hand) some of what your character can do will depend on the rules of the setting. Is this the kind of "heroic" setting where one hero can defeat fifty enemies at once, or a more realistic one where exhaustion and blood loss will wear any fighter down? (See @paranoid marvin 's point here. It's incredibly unlikely that anyone could survive fighting to the death every day of the week for long.)

It's going to be a mix of realism and fantasy, because magic will come into play eventually, but no one will really know what do with it.

We live in a time where people continually look for tropes. People seem keen to define any character, but especially women characters, by a set of stereotypes, but that's not the point. What matters is what your version of such a person is like. As others has pointed out, being a near-invincible fighter doesn't make you a perfect person, by a very long way. The point is that she shouldn't be the winner in everything she does, and if she fails in something, she shouldn't fail in a way that makes her look good (hello River Tam).

Yeah, that's one of things that irks me a lot about some "criticisms" that basically boil down to: This story is crap because they used the trope where X happens and this trope is massively overused/Pure Evil. She certainly won't be winning at everything, in fact she probably won't be any good at a number of things that she's never seen inside her old life.

The other thing I would advise anyone writing someone like this is to write them realistically, not as cute or sexy but as a convincing rounded person. I would also be wary of giving her a "girly side" made of stereotypical (weak?) female traits, but to be honest, I think this comes down to good writing.

I think a lot of the flaws she's going to have are going to be down to her only identity having been fighting for her life almost all the time. She won't have, or know what social niceties are, someone trying to playfully pat her on the arm might end up with a blade pointed against their neck. I've certainly got no desire to dress her up sexily or try to be cute, partly because she won't even know what those things, and when she does find out about them she won't even see the point or worth in them.