#writingtips #writing #creativewriting #fictionwriter #characterdevelopment #marysue The term "Mary Sue" gets thrown around a lot. What are they, and why are they bad?
Not sure why the algorithm served up your videos to me, but I'm grateful it did! I haven't thought this much about creative writing since college. Your videos have inspired me to start drafting again, and I'm looking around for a local writing group that clicks with me. Thank you!
There's an alternate definition of Mary Sue out there which is worth considering - they are not characters who exist within the story so much as they are black holes which warp the story around them. Other individuals fall out of character and behave senselessly when interactions support the Sue, physics and logic rewrite themselves on the fly to make sure the Sue is right, plot threads appear and vanish as suits the Sue's personal non-arc, canon and worldbuilding evaporates to make exceptions for her. This definition also suits your case studies... The cruel soldier from an oppressive regime gets warped into a shamefaced and essentially harmless bully because the Sue's presence warps the threat out of the situation. The scientist outsmarts his rival in a technobabble-off because their canon relative intelligence is suppressed by the effects of the Sue. Curing Suedom therefore means having a well written character, but it also means securing the story against being turned into a tool for the gratification of this one character. Which can be easier or harder, depending on the situation.
I do like that explanation because it helps visualize the sheer amount of damage a Mary Sue causes. I know some people who shrug and say it’s the character they want and they’re not interested in doing anything about it.
@@KlulessKitsune Yep - I have friends who say the same. And if the character is handled sensitively and the world doesnt give them breaks or easy wins, then ithat character tends to be a whole lot more bearable and easier to work with.
This right here is the true definition of Mary Sue. It's not that the MS is written badly, it's that everything else is written badly and only exists to cheerlead the MS on. I've been saying that since the Mary Sue litmus test was a (terrible)thing, but it really only seems to have caught on since Red from OSP did a video on it.
Another banger of a breakdown Kitsune!!! I would love to see your take on how to write good character interaction/dialogue? LOVE THE VIDS MAN KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Great vid! I like the term "fake characters", takes emphasis off of shitting on female characters and focuses on bad writing as a whole. You've got nice, calm delivery, too. Cool avatar as well! Keep it up.
Thank you! Yeah, I think the main reason discussions around the whole Mary Sue archetype are so gridlocked is because some people call every single female protagonist a Mary Sue, which in turn makes other people think they have to defend Mary Sues because they’ve come to believe doing so protects female protagonists as a whole.
Just because the story is an issue of a social allegory doesn't mean it's well written, can you explain? And I'm still unsure how to understand if I have a Mary sue. Or if it's always a bad thing?
To the first question, what I was trying to explain is that a story can't JUST be an allegory for a social issue. It has to be a story in its own right first and foremost, and if it also as a message, the story has to give that message without coming across as if the message is the only reason the story exists. The reason is because if a story is only an allegory, the characters tend to just follow the archetypes associated with the intended message and it loses nuance and balance. To the second question, a Mary Sue is always bad, but they're not hard to avoid. Basically, just make sure your character is a person and not a stereotype or model for a pedestal. They have to be able to make mistakes and deal with real consequences, and other characters have to sometimes be stronger/smarter/wiser/etc. instead of the protagonist doing and saying whatever they want without consequence. Thank you for the questions!
not sure why i was shown this but i tried to give it a watch but its yet again a narrow minded view on what writing and characters "have to be". and another purposeful misunderstanding of reys character
The success of a story is dependent on objective facts about developing characters and plot. Writing a character REQUIRES the character to be written with characteristics that are in common with actual people. This includes flaws and learning through the course of unfamiliar situations. In what way am I “purposely misunderstanding” Rey’s character when she lacks those features? How am I being “narrow minded” about teaching a fact about creative writing that has been well known and accepted for decades?
@@KlulessKitsune "The success of a story is dependent on objective facts" LOL if that where true writing would be a science and not an art form. different stories cater to different people. would a character written for a power fantasy story be written in the same way as a character in underdog story? no they would not, and you are being narrow minded by trying to say they would be. character flaws are a garnish to expand the character, not the character its self. i have read many stories where character flaws have ruined the story and read many where there is no character flaws for the MC. in the "iron druid chronical", the author was so focused on writing a flawed character near the end of the series it became more character assassination than anything with the side characters making illogical actions based on what they needed to do to the MC and not what their own personalities would have dictated them do. the opposite would be "Beware of Chicken", the MC is basically a normal guy who is just a farmer with no "character flaws" that can not be attributed to just being a human. yet the story comes from this normal guy interacting with the world around him and the world interacting with him. any "character flaws" added to him would just ruin the flow and change the story being told as for rey, she has those features but you purposefully ignore them or misconstrued them to fit your narrative. for example, her struggle with the dark side you brush off as "not important to the story" when its literally one of the main narratives.
@@monkeyking9863 The very fact you laugh at one of the most fundamental parts of fiction is proof enough that you know far less about this subject than you think. Let me take this opportunity to educate you, and maybe you’ll begin to appreciate the craft of writing. The rules and structure of fiction are not meaningless restrictions or attempts to make fiction “scientific”, as you put it. The rules of fiction exist to guide writers into understanding the very nature of storytelling: movement and growth. There is no need to reinvent the wheel; there is no need for every writer to learn the hard way what works and what doesn’t. Every art has its own rules that operate in the same way. Yes, the rules can be broken, but you have to know WHY the rules are there in the first place to understand how to break them in a way that serves the art. One cannot call themselves an artist if they disrespect the very art they claim to love. To do so is amateurish. Sure, a writer can technically do whatever they want. But if a writer wants to grow beyond the ocean of self-published, non-peer reviewed work, they will have to learn the craft enough to put forward something strong enough to be actually published. Character development is one of the core parts of that learning process. Robert McKee likes to explain repeatedly that storytelling is always about movement in two ways: externally (plot) and internally (character). Both must always be present. Every scene must push both forwards. Internal character movement is through the character being forced under pressure to make decisions in increasingly difficult dilemmas. That movement is meaningless if there is nowhere for the character to grow, and a character will not grow if they are without flaw. You say I’m purposely ignoring Rey’s character. You are purposely ignoring why I’m not as well as the very way fiction works.
@@KlulessKitsune sorry to break this to ya but i was laughing at the fact that you think opinion is objective fact. or are you trying to say 15 shades of grey has the same writing style and audience as Lord of the Rings? "The rules and structure of fiction are not meaningless restrictions" no they are not, but they are also not hard core rules that must be followed like you are trying to tell people. as i stated it all depends on the story you are trying to write "there is no need for every writer to learn the hard way what works and what doesn’t. " but thats the think about ART, there is no telling what will and will not work. how many writers have copped J.R.R. Tolkien and never succeeded while new writers who write their own style can suddenly boom with success? writing is not a science, you can not just follow a guide line and expect it to come out the same every time. "Both must always be present" no they do not. as i have been saying, it all depends on the type of story you are writing. what is the point of "character development" in a slasher/horror book where all the people die? or what about a story about military commanders facing off in battle? yes there are stories with character development you can tell with those but forcing character development into a story like that will more often ruin the story . if i pick up a military fiction book the last thing i want in the story is the military commander learning to be a better husband, what i picked the book up for the battle plans and strategic story telling. "character gets stronger" is only one of several different ways to tell a story and people like you are only cripling future writers by suggesting its the only way to tell a story did you really just try and pull a "no i dont, you do" argument on me? lol, dude like or hate the writing of the sequels rey's struggle between the light and dark is a far larger part to her story than it was to luke's and yet funny how no one calles him a mary sue for that
@@monkeyking9863 This isn't my opinion. I’m speaking from the authors I’ve interviewed. I’m speaking from one of my college degrees. I’m speaking from the books studying the craft of writing. You are not understanding me. I literally said in my previous comment “Yes, the rules can be broken, but you have to know WHY the rules are there in the first place to understand how to break them in a way that serves the art.” You then elected to say I claimed they are hard rules that “must be followed”. Can you not see that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, or do you lack all self awareness? Yes, writers all have their own styles. I am not discussing style. Flat characters are not style, it’s a lack of experience. Character development is not “forced” into storytelling because it IS storytelling. There IS character development in horror and military fiction. If you can’t see that then that’s a problem with you, not the craft. Finally, who said I like Luke? I don’t. I only brought up Rey in the video (mind you, for less than a minute) because she’s the one constantly being argued about today. If Luke was the one everyone fought about, then he would have been the one I mentioned in the first place.
Not sure why the algorithm served up your videos to me, but I'm grateful it did! I haven't thought this much about creative writing since college. Your videos have inspired me to start drafting again, and I'm looking around for a local writing group that clicks with me. Thank you!
Thank you! I’m glad you’re getting back into it! I hope you find a good group!
There's an alternate definition of Mary Sue out there which is worth considering - they are not characters who exist within the story so much as they are black holes which warp the story around them. Other individuals fall out of character and behave senselessly when interactions support the Sue, physics and logic rewrite themselves on the fly to make sure the Sue is right, plot threads appear and vanish as suits the Sue's personal non-arc, canon and worldbuilding evaporates to make exceptions for her.
This definition also suits your case studies... The cruel soldier from an oppressive regime gets warped into a shamefaced and essentially harmless bully because the Sue's presence warps the threat out of the situation. The scientist outsmarts his rival in a technobabble-off because their canon relative intelligence is suppressed by the effects of the Sue.
Curing Suedom therefore means having a well written character, but it also means securing the story against being turned into a tool for the gratification of this one character. Which can be easier or harder, depending on the situation.
I do like that explanation because it helps visualize the sheer amount of damage a Mary Sue causes. I know some people who shrug and say it’s the character they want and they’re not interested in doing anything about it.
@@KlulessKitsune Yep - I have friends who say the same. And if the character is handled sensitively and the world doesnt give them breaks or easy wins, then ithat character tends to be a whole lot more bearable and easier to work with.
This right here is the true definition of Mary Sue. It's not that the MS is written badly, it's that everything else is written badly and only exists to cheerlead the MS on. I've been saying that since the Mary Sue litmus test was a (terrible)thing, but it really only seems to have caught on since Red from OSP did a video on it.
Another banger of a breakdown Kitsune!!! I would love to see your take on how to write good character interaction/dialogue? LOVE THE VIDS MAN KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Thank you so much! I can definitely do a video on that soon!
See also: basically any main character played by Steven "doesn't actually know Aikido" Seagal.
Great vid! I like the term "fake characters", takes emphasis off of shitting on female characters and focuses on bad writing as a whole. You've got nice, calm delivery, too. Cool avatar as well! Keep it up.
Thank you! Yeah, I think the main reason discussions around the whole Mary Sue archetype are so gridlocked is because some people call every single female protagonist a Mary Sue, which in turn makes other people think they have to defend Mary Sues because they’ve come to believe doing so protects female protagonists as a whole.
help dazai is so close to being a mary sue
Hm, I haven’t read that manga. Is he close?
@@KlulessKitsune i mean he always seems to know everything in advance until fyodor and has unbelievable plot armour xD
I'm currently in the process of writing a very complex story, I will be using this video to figure out how not to write a character
Nice! I’m glad it was helpful!
Just because the story is an issue of a social allegory doesn't mean it's well written, can you explain? And I'm still unsure how to understand if I have a Mary sue. Or if it's always a bad thing?
To the first question, what I was trying to explain is that a story can't JUST be an allegory for a social issue. It has to be a story in its own right first and foremost, and if it also as a message, the story has to give that message without coming across as if the message is the only reason the story exists. The reason is because if a story is only an allegory, the characters tend to just follow the archetypes associated with the intended message and it loses nuance and balance.
To the second question, a Mary Sue is always bad, but they're not hard to avoid. Basically, just make sure your character is a person and not a stereotype or model for a pedestal. They have to be able to make mistakes and deal with real consequences, and other characters have to sometimes be stronger/smarter/wiser/etc. instead of the protagonist doing and saying whatever they want without consequence.
Thank you for the questions!
not sure why i was shown this but i tried to give it a watch but its yet again a narrow minded view on what writing and characters "have to be". and another purposeful misunderstanding of reys character
The success of a story is dependent on objective facts about developing characters and plot. Writing a character REQUIRES the character to be written with characteristics that are in common with actual people. This includes flaws and learning through the course of unfamiliar situations. In what way am I “purposely misunderstanding” Rey’s character when she lacks those features? How am I being “narrow minded” about teaching a fact about creative writing that has been well known and accepted for decades?
@@KlulessKitsune "The success of a story is dependent on objective facts" LOL if that where true writing would be a science and not an art form. different stories cater to different people. would a character written for a power fantasy story be written in the same way as a character in underdog story? no they would not, and you are being narrow minded by trying to say they would be. character flaws are a garnish to expand the character, not the character its self. i have read many stories where character flaws have ruined the story and read many where there is no character flaws for the MC.
in the "iron druid chronical", the author was so focused on writing a flawed character near the end of the series it became more character assassination than anything with the side characters making illogical actions based on what they needed to do to the MC and not what their own personalities would have dictated them do.
the opposite would be "Beware of Chicken", the MC is basically a normal guy who is just a farmer with no "character flaws" that can not be attributed to just being a human. yet the story comes from this normal guy interacting with the world around him and the world interacting with him. any "character flaws" added to him would just ruin the flow and change the story being told
as for rey, she has those features but you purposefully ignore them or misconstrued them to fit your narrative. for example, her struggle with the dark side you brush off as "not important to the story" when its literally one of the main narratives.
@@monkeyking9863 The very fact you laugh at one of the most fundamental parts of fiction is proof enough that you know far less about this subject than you think. Let me take this opportunity to educate you, and maybe you’ll begin to appreciate the craft of writing.
The rules and structure of fiction are not meaningless restrictions or attempts to make fiction “scientific”, as you put it. The rules of fiction exist to guide writers into understanding the very nature of storytelling: movement and growth. There is no need to reinvent the wheel; there is no need for every writer to learn the hard way what works and what doesn’t. Every art has its own rules that operate in the same way. Yes, the rules can be broken, but you have to know WHY the rules are there in the first place to understand how to break them in a way that serves the art. One cannot call themselves an artist if they disrespect the very art they claim to love. To do so is amateurish.
Sure, a writer can technically do whatever they want. But if a writer wants to grow beyond the ocean of self-published, non-peer reviewed work, they will have to learn the craft enough to put forward something strong enough to be actually published. Character development is one of the core parts of that learning process.
Robert McKee likes to explain repeatedly that storytelling is always about movement in two ways: externally (plot) and internally (character). Both must always be present. Every scene must push both forwards. Internal character movement is through the character being forced under pressure to make decisions in increasingly difficult dilemmas. That movement is meaningless if there is nowhere for the character to grow, and a character will not grow if they are without flaw.
You say I’m purposely ignoring Rey’s character. You are purposely ignoring why I’m not as well as the very way fiction works.
@@KlulessKitsune sorry to break this to ya but i was laughing at the fact that you think opinion is objective fact. or are you trying to say 15 shades of grey has the same writing style and audience as Lord of the Rings?
"The rules and structure of fiction are not meaningless restrictions" no they are not, but they are also not hard core rules that must be followed like you are trying to tell people. as i stated it all depends on the story you are trying to write
"there is no need for every writer to learn the hard way what works and what doesn’t. " but thats the think about ART, there is no telling what will and will not work. how many writers have copped J.R.R. Tolkien and never succeeded while new writers who write their own style can suddenly boom with success? writing is not a science, you can not just follow a guide line and expect it to come out the same every time.
"Both must always be present" no they do not. as i have been saying, it all depends on the type of story you are writing. what is the point of "character development" in a slasher/horror book where all the people die? or what about a story about military commanders facing off in battle? yes there are stories with character development you can tell with those but forcing character development into a story like that will more often ruin the story . if i pick up a military fiction book the last thing i want in the story is the military commander learning to be a better husband, what i picked the book up for the battle plans and strategic story telling.
"character gets stronger" is only one of several different ways to tell a story and people like you are only cripling future writers by suggesting its the only way to tell a story
did you really just try and pull a "no i dont, you do" argument on me? lol, dude like or hate the writing of the sequels rey's struggle between the light and dark is a far larger part to her story than it was to luke's and yet funny how no one calles him a mary sue for that
@@monkeyking9863 This isn't my opinion. I’m speaking from the authors I’ve interviewed. I’m speaking from one of my college degrees. I’m speaking from the books studying the craft of writing. You are not understanding me. I literally said in my previous comment “Yes, the rules can be broken, but you have to know WHY the rules are there in the first place to understand how to break them in a way that serves the art.” You then elected to say I claimed they are hard rules that “must be followed”. Can you not see that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, or do you lack all self awareness?
Yes, writers all have their own styles. I am not discussing style. Flat characters are not style, it’s a lack of experience. Character development is not “forced” into storytelling because it IS storytelling. There IS character development in horror and military fiction. If you can’t see that then that’s a problem with you, not the craft.
Finally, who said I like Luke? I don’t. I only brought up Rey in the video (mind you, for less than a minute) because she’s the one constantly being argued about today. If Luke was the one everyone fought about, then he would have been the one I mentioned in the first place.