Mary Sue is not your friend. No matter how much your Mom likes her.
by Anne R. Allen.
You can learn all you want about writing powerful prose, well-planned story arcs, lyrical descriptions—or any other aspect of fiction—but if you don’t have a protagonist your readers care about, none of the rest matters.
But “caring about” characters isn’t the same as liking them. The heroes of most novels aren’t people you’d actually want to bring home to meet the parents.
Unfortunately, when writers are starting out, we tend to write about ourselves and our own experiences. After all, we’re always told to “write what you know.”
But putting too much of yourself—especially idealized parts of yourself—into your protagonist can result in a character the reader may find annoyingly perfect or just plain boring.
The author stand-in character is what the fanfic community calls a “Mary Sue” or “Gary Stu.”
The problem with “Likeable” Characters and Writing What You Know
The problem is that readers don’t want heroes to be “likable” in the sense of “nice.” The most memorable characters in fiction are not people most of us would choose as our friends.
Certainly the most enduring fictional detectives are not sweet and cuddly. Hercule Poirot was comically vain, Phillip Marlowe and Sam Spade were drunks, Jane Marple was a pushy, nosy old fussbudget, and Sherlock Holmes bordered on psychopathic.
You’d find even worse candidates for your BFF in classic literary fiction: Scarlett O’Hara, Becky Sharpe, Jay Gatsby, Heathcliff, and Emma Woodhouse were pretty awful human beings. Pip in Great Expectations was selfish and ungrateful, and even Jo March could be embarrassingly strident for her era (and she was not very nice to Laurie.) And well, Mr. Darcy was proud and Elizabeth Bennet was prejudiced.
Would you trust any of the great epic heroes with your car keys? Not “wily” Odysseus (10 years, dude? It took you 10 years to get home to the wife?) Or Aeneas (who wasn’t much better, taking 6 years to get as far as North Africa, where he was such a bad boyfriend to Dido, he caused centuries of war between Rome and Carthage.) And Beowulf? He’d get monster blood all over the upholstery. I’ll bet even Atticus Fitch wasn’t much fun at a dinner party.
These are not exactly “likeable” folks. But we LOVE to read about them.
The person we don’t like reading about is Mary Sue.
Who is Mary Sue?
The first “Mary Sue” was indeed named Mary Sue, and she was the protagonist of a biting satire of Star Trek fanfiction written by Paula Smith: “A Trekkie’s Tale.”
Lieutenant Mary Sue was the 15-year old StarFleet officer (youngest ever!) who was the stand-in for every geeky Trekkie kid who wrote Star Trek fanfiction while wearing Spock ears and Star Fleet pajamas. It was a combination of hilarious cliché s and wish-fulfilment fantasies.
If you’ve read a lot of newbie fiction (or you’ve been in lots of workshops and or critique groups) you probably know Mary Sue well, if not by name.
She’s the author’s fantasy self, living the author’s fantasy life. And yes, I wrote some myself in my younger days.
Mary Sue kicks every ass, solves every case, and saves every day. No dragon is too powerful for her to slay—and absolutely no hero is too hot or high up the food chain to fall in love with her.
Mary Sue can be either gender—although the male version is sometimes called “Gary Stu”.
A Gary Stu is the middle-aged academic who has hot, quirky young art students throwing themselves into his pale, unbuffed arms. Or he’s the dorky teen who’s flunking 10th grade math, but somehow manages to figure out how to save the world from the asteroid when nobody else has a clue.
Garys and Marys are always adored by everybody.
Except readers.
The Aristotelian Tragic Flaw
Here’s the thing: “heroic” and “admirable” aren’t the same thing.
Memorable fictional characters are larger than life and severely flawed. Aristotle said all heroes must have a “tragic flaw” or Hamartia.
The fictional hero needs to learn something or change during the process of the story, or there’s no character arc. This is why you want to avoid characters who are too much like ourselves—or the idealized people we’d like to think we are.
Not only are nice guys boring on the page, but nobody can grow and change when they’re already perfect.
But NOTE: Accepted Character Flaws Depend on Genre
1) Chick Lit, Cozies, and Satire
The “grow and change” thing doesn’t work for the comic protagonist, who needs to maintain quirky flaws in order to sustain the comedy through a series. Lucy Ricardo seemed to have learned her lesson at the end of each episode of I Love Lucy, but the next week, she’d be back getting into the same kind of trouble.
And wouldn’t we have been disappointed if she hadn’t?
Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum is the same. And my Camilla. If Camilla suddenly became tough and realistic, or wore sensible shoes, the humor would be gone.
I have to admit I created Camilla because I was having trouble writing characters that didn’t seem autobiographical. So I decided to write about somebody who was 180 degrees from myself.
I’m a dumpy old hippie who lives in stretchy pants and Crocs and not only doesn’t use the right fork, but will probably end up using my fingers. And I’m an intellectual who doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
So I created a heroine who’s a dingy fashionista with impeccable manners who’s always trusting the wrong people. I wrote the first Camilla book at the beginning of the chick lit craze in the 1990s, and while she fits perfectly into the chick lit heroine mold, she upsets the readers of classic romance.
That’s because in chick lit, satire, and cozy mysteries, the protagonist can be something of a hot mess. Bridget Jones could only appear as an expendable sidekick in a classic romance. Ditto Stephanie Plum. And let’s not even contemplate what a romance reader thinks of the women created by George R. R. Martin.
2) Classic Romance
In classic romance and other aspirational literature—including some types of Women’s Fiction, like big family sagas and “glitz”—the heroine needs to be a stand-in for the reader’s idealized self. You don’t want a Mary Sue, who is a stand in for the author’s idealized self, but the romance heroine needs to be somebody the reader can aspire to be.
She can have unmanageable hair and be a bit clumsy, or even fail miserably a few times.
But she can’t have severe character flaws. (For more on the aspirational aspect of romance novels, see this great post by Jami Gold.)
I get reviews that complain that Camilla is “a brand whore” or that “she doesn’t make the right choices,” and that she “has terrible taste in men.” Which is, of course why she’s funny. As book blogger Julie Valerie said, “Camilla is equal parts smart, resourceful, tragic, and freaking HYSTERICAL”
That’s why I asked my publisher to put “A Comedy” on all later editions of my books, so the readers looking for the more idealized classic romance heroine wouldn’t buy them and be disappointed.
3) Domestic Thrillers and Nordic Noir
Male protagonists have always been allowed to have more severe flaws than females. (Unless the females are the fatale type that lure heroes to their destruction.)
It’s a classic trope that the male hero of a thriller or noir mystery has a colorful substance abuse problem or anger management issues. But such severe flaws were no-nos for women. They could kick posteriors and maybe even curse, but only if they were fundamentally good and had everybody’s best interests at heart.
But in the past two decades, that has changed.
The severely flawed female character has made a big splash in certain genres. Lisbeth Salander in the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is antagonistic and violent, maybe even sociopathic. The Girl on the Train is a raging alcoholic, and everybody in Gone, Girl is perfectly awful.
And readers can’t get enough of them.
But if you try to put women like that into classic romance or genre women’s fiction, you’re in big trouble. So pay attention to genre.
Reading a Personal Fantasy is “Like Getting Flashed in the Park”
No matter what genre you’re writing, no reader wants to read about Mary Sue. So writers need to be aware of her…and know she’s not your friend.
If you find yourself fulfilling your own fantasy in a scene, it’s probably time to hit delete. (As Ruth said in a post last month, the delete button can be our strongest tool.)
As Laura Miller said in a 2010 article in Salon: “What irks readers about Mary Sues is that telltale whiff of an ulterior motive.” To them, Mary Sue is “a daydream the author is having about herself. It’s an imposition, being unwittingly enlisted in somebody else’s narcissistic fantasy life, like getting flashed in the park. And just about as much fun.”
There’s nothing wrong with fantasies. We all have them. But we need to be aware they make lousy fiction.
So next time you meet Mary Sue, say “Bye Felicia.”
by Anne R. Allen (@annerallen) March 24, 2019
What about you, scriveners? Have you ever had trouble creating characters who are different from you? Has anybody every accused you of creating a Mary Sue? How do you feel when you encounter a Mary Sue in a novel?
Featured image: detail of “The Farewell” by 19th-century Italian painter Eugene Von Blaas
BOOK OF THE WEEK
On Sale until March 31!
The first three books in THE CAMILLA RANDALL MYSTERIES series:
Ghostwriters in the Sky, Sherwood, Ltd. and The Best Revenge. Three hilarious rom-com mysteries for less than a dollar!!
99c at All the Amazons
Also available at iTunes, and NOOK,
… and don’t get me started on the Mary Sue who needs to be rescued by Gary Stu. Not believable. Cliché.
So many romance novels are beyond predictable: Perfect and gorgeous Mary Sue and handsome, ripped Gary Stu start at the beginning of the novel with obvious feelings for one another, and no matter what happens, they end up together at the end. Where’s the mystery, the third or fourth person who complicates the relationship? Why do Mary and Gary have to end up together?
An intriguing character was Professor Severus Snape in the Harry Potter novels. He led me around by the nose. Was he really bad? Good? What were his motivations? An excellent example of the anti-Gary Stu.
Kathy–I know there’s comfort in familiarity, and some readers may like those cookie cutter romances, but I think most romance readers would agree with you. There has to be a character arc, and the characters can’t learn or grow when they’re perfect little Barbies and Kens to begin with. And yes, we need an Ashley Wilkes character or two to make a romance interesting
I love ambiguous characters like Professor Snape (Well, almost any character played by Alan Rickman. He was so brilliant.)
Great advice! Also always make your characters *smarter* than you are. 😉
Ruth–We do want our characters to be smart. As long as they’re not smug about it. 🙂
But couldn’t that smugness be one of their character flaws, to be triumphed over in the end, after the author has put him through terrible trials (many of which could be due to that very smugness), each trial worse than the last?
Guardians of the Galaxy is popular because every one of those characters is messed up. Same goes for Deadpool and just about all superheroes.
The lead in my series definitely wasn’t my fantasy. Dude had some serious baggage and issues.
Can’t make all the characters too horrible, though. I’ve read books and seen movies where all the characters are deplorable and I have zero empathy for any of them – and thus don’t care what happens to them.
Alex–That’s true of most superheroes, isn’t it? Except Superman. He’s kind of too perfect. Luckily Clark Kent isn’t.
You’re absolutely right about the all-horrible-people books. They’re kind of a thing right now. Like Gone, Girl. I enjoyed that book because of the puzzle, but I almost put it down a couple of times because everybody was so awful I didn’t care that much about them. .
:: finger on nose, points at Alex :: Game of Thrones, holla
Whenever I have really pulled out the stops and put my thoughts into the head of a character, it has appalled my beta readers.
What’s the word for when Mary Sue is actually (apparently) a monster?
Patricia–We need a word for that! A Mary-Sue monster. Actually, that sounds kind of cool.
Ah, the fantasy self. I’ve done my best to read any number of books featuring a Mary Sue or Gary Stu — and — what a surprise — I generally didn’t finish them. Thanks again, Anne (& for anyone out there who hasn’t met Camilla Randall on the pages of Anne’s books, now is the time. These days we all could use a good laugh.
CS–I think YA and MG fiction may have more than their share of Marys and Garys. I fear the writers are sugar-coating their memories of their own teen selves.
Thanks for the shout-out for Camilla! She does make people laugh. I think that’s why I’m happier when I’m writing a Camilla book than when I’m writing other stuff.
Another tremendous vein of insight you tapped today Anne. Thanks sincerely. I am pretty close to lost about character flaws and virtues- my characters seem to be just exactly who they are, impervious to my tinkering.
In epic fantasy, flaws are of the nuclear kind, as in bomb. Since in some way or other the entire world is at stake, their failings and weaknesses put everyone in danger.
If I’m successful at describing my characters, I think it would be to reveal their flaws in such a way that the reader yells “yabbut” and jumps to their defence. A flaw can sometimes increase the empathy the reader feels, just as it can make them laugh in other genres. In dramatic, warlike genres such as spy thriller, (non-cozy) murder mystery and heroic/epic fantasy, the presence of a character flaw should raise the tension level too!
Will–I love the idea of the reader jumping to your character’s defense.
It’s absolutely true that flaws create empathy. Indiana Jones’ fear of snakes immediately took him from generic action hero to real person we could care about. A masterful bit of storytelling.
We’re looking forward to your guest post next week about fictional World-Building!
Ooh, that’s right. I better get on that… ::grins::
Great information. Warning heeded! Thank you.
Ken–Glad it’s useful. 🙂
This is one of the problems I’ve seen with some indie fiction. The writer seems reluctant to give her/his characters any flaws, not understanding that people don’t want to read about perfect people. They want to read about people they can relate to or be fascinated by. Also too, have you ever noticed that stories with the Mary Sue type characters seem to also have that sort of bland tedious everyday conversation dialogue. “Hi Joe, how are you? Oh good, Mary, how are you?” Makes me want to bang my head on the table.
Although the other thing that your post made me think about are those books that are just trope fests – the ‘high concept’ or ‘action’ stories. The characters tend to be very flat, predictable, and wouldn’t know a character arc if it bit them in the butt. Do you think there is such a thing as a Mary Sue storyline?
Haha, maybe I’ve had too much cake today.
Annie
Annie–This is one of the curses of self-publishing. Everybody’s awful practice novel is out there in the marketplace. I wrote those stories too, but they stayed in a drawer. Sigh.
I think you’re onto something with the “Mary Sue Storyline.” Yes, there are definitely wish-fulfillment fantasy storylines, and we all write them if we start writing as adolescents. The romance where the heroine ends up with the teacher you have a crush on. And the mystery set in that place you’ve always wanted to go but know nothing about. Or that high fantasy novel where you get to be the poor commoner who turns out to be the rightful monarch. Haha!
Wonderful post! I love the point that acceptable character flaws depend on genre – it’s so true!
My strategy is to go anti-Mary Sue – instead of my characters being idealized versions of myself, I just dial my neuroses and foibles to 11 when creating my characters. Then there’s so much room for growth!
Irvin–We do have to write what we know to a certain extent, so writing the neuroses we know is an excellent idea! 🙂
Anne, the genre-specific insight on this already interesting topic is invaluable. Thank you!
But I have to disagree about Atticus Finch. I both like him and love his as a character. (And I read the book before I saw the movie, so it has nothing to do with Gregory Peck!)
I’ve actually debated within myself about Elizabeth and Darcy—who was proud and who was prejudiced. I have to admit they’re both proud, but it seems to me that they were both prejudiced too. I’ve never been able to figure out which character Austen intended for which titular flaw. Maybe both for both of them?
On shoes for ‘old hippies’: I’ve never used Crocs, but I doubt there’s a shoe or sandal as comfortable as Birkenstocks anywhere on earth. It’s all I use when I’m at home.
Tricia–Those characterizations were meant to be tongue in cheek. 🙂 I thought Atticus Fitch might get in an argument with dear old racist Aunt Lillian at that dinner party.
I’m sure Austen intended that ambiguity about the characters. And a bit of turn-about.
I love Birkenstocks, but Crocs are my go-to shoe now–especially when they have those nice fuzzy linings.
Hi Anne. First, I want to say I love the way you roll, stretchy pants and Crocs, wish I lived closer so we could drink wine in our writing attire LOL.
Great article as always, all nail heads were hit with your different genres of Mary Sue. And congrats on your Camilla character. Judging by the comments she’s a well fleshed out character, only the critic didn’t get it 🙂
And one more thing. Can you do me a favor and check your subscriber list to see if I’m still on it please? So weird, I’ve been visiting your blog for almost 5 years when I signed up for it. I’ve always received your emailed posts on Sundays and never did this week. I came over here the long way, lol to check if you had posted or not. Glad to see you’re here, but don’t know what happened to the email.
Thanks <3
Debby–MailChimp is on the fritz apparently. I have two lists there, and only one got the blog notice this Sunday. Barb’s been working on it and she thought she’d fixed it to go out today, but…no joy. So she’s trying to track down the problem. So it’s not you–a whole lot of other people didn’t get a notice, including me.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could get together for wine and a good long chat? Who knows, maybe some year you’ll take your vacation on the scenic Central Coast of CA. 🙂
Thanks for letting me know Anne. I did see that on FB after I posted here. Apparently, many big sites went through hacking last week including a few hosting servers so it’s no surprise Mailchimp caught something. It sure is a scary digital world right now. And, never say die, I hope to get to California one day when I start going back to the US. You know my stance. 🙂
Beautifully explained! I can’t tell you how many young aspiring writers in my college classes are writing themselves (only better) into everything they write. They appear shocked when I point it out. My fantasy writers are particularly prone to this.
And I was one of the ones who didn’t get the notification of this post, Anne – how odd! Thanks for leaving a message on FB about it. Terrific post.
Melodie–Feel free to share it with your students. There have been lots of arguments in Fanficland about what Mary Sue really means, but it all boils down to wish fulfillment fantasies. Most young writers fall into the pattern. I know I did. I remember the creative writing teacher who pointed it out. I was so embarrassed when I realized he was right.
We still don’t know what the problem is with my MailChimp account. Most people didn’t get the notice this week.
That’s why I like to write from the villain’s POV. So much fun coming up with their quicks and flaws, and almost no restrictions.
LD–Writing from the bad guy POV can turn a story upside down. It must be fun to see things from that perspective.
Hi and yes, I am one of those who did not receive my Sunday post from you that I always look forward to. So thank you for telling us what’s going on. And thank you for this fabulous post about flawed characters. It will help me in the class I’m currently taking to begin my next novel.
Patricia–I’m glad this post came at the right time.
You should have received an email from MailChimp telling everybody about the glitch. That one seems to have gone out to all our subscribers. We’re hoping it will be fixed by Sunday.
Hi Anne. I only received the email from you about the glitch with the link to this post. But maybe it’ll come later?
That’s all we sent out. I wrote a “thank you for your patience email. It was sent via MailChimp because that’s where my list is. We still don’t know what is causing the glitch, but Barb is working on it. If it’s fixed, you’ll get your usual notice on Sunday. We’re keeping our fingers crossed.
I think competence is a good shield against much of the trouble spoiling the Internet. Here, as the article reminded me of plenty of my flaws, and all the differences between ego and reality of marketing & sales.
I am only a hobby-author, and a prosaic one, not into literature. I consider it a different and more academic field of expertise for a reason. And I am used to criticism of overwhelming clarity. The first academic review I received made even several of my own bottom-feeder competitors admit that reading two or three of those 20+ pages made them find suicide a more compelling option. Literally.
To me it is publishing for the fun of it, and that decision will limit my chances to ever go bestselling 5 star author. Actually it means I will never even attempt to join that kinda club, as those achievements are beyond what my health and my skills would allow me.
My little victories were passing job application tests as a translator or text writer, and rising above trainee level. Proudly so, as I secretly did them unprepared, when just coming home from shopping, or after physical workouts. I prepared to get the job done, when I am not in optimum shape, as my goal was to be ready for it all the way.
I admire your style, sympathize with several of your topics, and a younger me would be envious about some of your achievements. A pleasure reading your works here.
Andre–Competence is not admired much in online culture, is it? Everybody wants instant gratification, and competence comes from patience and hard work.
There’s nothing wrong with being a hobbyist writer. As Hugh Howey said after his huge splash with his “Wool” series–everybody’s a hobbyist in the era of self publishing.
Writing fiction is a bit more like writing poetry these days. Most fiction writers need day jobs.
I wondered about the point – briefly made but it seemed important – that readers of some genres want to see their fantasy selves in the story, but (as in all genres) not the writer’s. What does the difference look like? How can writers achieve this?
Julia–Writing for the reader instead of for yourself partly comes from mindset. Are you imagining yourself in this role, or are you seeing your character as a whole, fleshed-out person who has her own ways of thinking and reacting to a situation?
Plausibility may come into play too. Ask yourself if it’s realistic in terms of your fictional world that a 15 year old would be a StarFleet captain. If the situation is entirely unrealistic, the reader won’t put herself in the story. She’ll be on the outside saying. “This is stupid.”
Thank you.