The Original ANTI
Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test
© Novadestin

Email discussion with Syera, the creator of the original test.


This is posted WITH permission:

Below are two emails from Syera and my responses to them. These emails where exchanged over a previous version of the test, the one that I first used to make this page. While the test and opinions have changed, I decided to leave these up because discussion on Mary Sueism (why one person disagrees with another on what is or isn't Mary Sue) is a good thing and helpful to those trying to learn and discover what their own Mary Sue definition might be.

I have left these emails completely intact, including spelling errors and the like. To help others better understand them, I have included some color coding: Purple is me, Black is Syera, Orange is a test question, and Red is my thoughts on that question.


Email received on Sun, 15 Apr 2007:

I'm the creator of the Mary Sue test you... er... antied. I read through your page, and I definitely have to say you've brought up some pretty good points. I'm definitely taking some of your advice and putting it into the next version of the test. The gender and ethnicity thingamajig, I agree, should go, as well as the age bit. (This was more or less a hand-me-down from Dr. Merlin's test that I'd never really thought about, but yeah, it does need removed. There are other questions to catch characters who are way too young or old to be doing what they're doing.)

Some of the items you criticized are there because they're common elements used by writers as means to make their characters shinier, more attention-grabbing, or just Kewler in general. In a way, weapons can be considered an extension of the character, and describing a weapon in microscopic detail is very much similar to describing the character in microscopic detail.

Also, some of the traits listed aren't just cliches - they're excuses for angst and pity, which is a device used to bring more attention to the character. The most angst a Mary Sue has, the more it can hog the spotlight.

I also notice you disagree on my disapproval of Japanisms. Ordinarily, it wouldn't matter where the weapon came from. However, many young 'uns these days have a fascination with Japan, and inserting Japanese names and other goodies is part of their wish-fulfillment fantasy.

You also mentioned that my test pegs "every character as a Mary Sue." I've ran several characters through it (including some with angsty backstories and fiery attitudes) and had them come out at a non-Sue level. I'm a bit curious - what kind of characters are you testing?

Starfleet captains have been known to blatantly disregard orders now and then, but that doesn't make them Insta-Sues. On the other hand, Kirk seems to have been heavily criticized for disregarding the Prime Directive (the Starfleet code of ethics) and shaking up with every other attractive alien female. Amnesiacs can make for great mystery stories, but it's a pretty lame excuse for a character to hang out with the main cast. A horrific past for the amnesiac is generally something to give him or her something new to angst about.

Every character I can think of has a few of the traits on my test, but I don't consider them Mary Sues. Take the entire main character roster of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, for example - the captain is the child of an extratemporal alien and a widower raising a son, the first officer is a hot-tempered ex-terrorist, the doctor was genetically-engineered to be a genius, and the young and attractive science officer is, in a way, over three hundred years old. However, none of them are Mary Sues (even on my test) because they haven't been loaded down with bucketfuls of other MS-like traits. They have their oddities, but they aren't overdone.

Now that you bring it up, my test is overly anti-description. This is definitely getting addressed.

Do you describe your character's clothing by the stereotype it is most often associated with? - But ignore if this is because someone in the story is describing the character. This is just a lack of good writing as a good writer would be descriptive. I usually see this one done by teenlets trying to be cool by squidgling into their favorite stereotype. It's a form of wish-fulfillment.

Does your character have a particularly piercing, blank, or otherwise unusual gaze? What does this have to do with being a Mary Sue? Just because a character gazes a certain way does not make them a Mary Sue, at most it gives them a trait. You ever go along minding your business when you see a character who can "stare into your very soul with a piercing gaze"? *jibblyjibbly*

Does your character employ maverick or unconventional tactics? Completely useless. Everyone's tactics are unconventional to someone. *Laughs* Yes, it is useless. Honestly, I'm not sure why I've hung onto it this long. Snippity-snip!

This one really bugs me. At the bottom of this test there is an area that has "redeeming" questions that ask if your character is "honestly" fat, ugly, or stupid. Well wouldn't being mentally handicapped be a redeeming question? And I don't get why having any of these mental disorders makes a character a Mary Sue. Psychosis and split personality seem to be perceived as the "cool" mental disorders. I'm not sure why psychosis is considered cool, but I suspect some authors believe that their character having a split personality gives them an excuse to do bad things without being all bad.

The solid intimate relationship thingamabob seems to be more of a TV-Sue gimmick to give characters an excuse to play Kirk. Something to the effect of "he sleeps around with every girl on the block, but it's not really his fault because he has a problem that keeps him from forming a relationship."

How many animal companions does your character keep? This goes along with the one above, if animals "just love you" it is Mary Sue. But if there is a reason behind why they are there, like Luna is with Serena because she is an advisor then its fine. The only reason this one stays is because the more you have, the more Mary Sue it is, even though the exact number is iffy. (Ordinary, non-magical pets like cats and dogs do not count.) Why not? I've never seen an ordinary cat or dog used as a gimmick to make a character look spiffier, and in the case of some animals (such as fish, mice, or guinea pigs) some people keep quite a few of them.

I never even thought of Luna when writing this question, since I never think of Luna as a pet. She's obviously a cranky woman who just happens to look like a cat. Yeah. :-D

Bonded creatures do not count, so long as this is within a universe where this is perfectly normal and it is your character's one and only bonded creature. Why don't they count and why can they only have one? The answer to the second question is because the more there are, the more Mary Sue it is. But the first question is valid. For those who don't know, a bonded creature refers to having a creature take damage for you. Like if someone attacks you and hurts you, your health doesn't go down but the creatures does. With such a purpose I am curious why they don't count because it seems like they would make a character even more Mary Sue as the creatures would be willing to bond themselves to the character. I wrote this with the Pern novels (and related imitations) in mind. Riders get one dragon apiece and share a telepathic bond with their respective dragons. This should probably be reworded.

Does your character succeed at virtually everything he/she tries? Ding ding! The essential Mary Sue question! Why is it so far down? Probably because I've ended up arranging and re-arranging the order of questions quite a bit. I've tried to keep them together more or less by similar theme.

Is anyone envious of your character's talents and/or abilities? Its far to common for someone to be jealous of someone's abilities and almost everyone is jealous of something to do with someone else. True, but it's sometimes used as a device to once again rub in our faces just how cool a character is. It's not horrible in and of itself, but it's one of those things that can eventually add up.

...and it says that sentiment is not a logical reason...why not? Because sentiment is emotional, not logical.

Does your character have overprotective/restrictive parents/guardians? What do the parents have to do with the actual character? Because parents are generally depicted as being unfairly restrictive when Rebellious!Sue is in the scene. I could probably word this question a bit better.

Is your character a 20th/21st century Earth citizen transported to another time/world? This is a plot point not a character trait. Remember, just because its a time travel story does not make it a Mary Sue story. I had in mind the type of story where an ordinary Earth girl gets sent to Middle Earth to go travel with Frodo & Co. This should probably be moved to the Fan Fiction section.

Does a major villain have a personal fixation/obsession with your character? When does the major villian NOT have a major fixation on the author's character? When the villain wants to get rid of the hero just 'cause the hero's a pain. Nothing personal, just business and all that.

Does your character share tastes or a hobby with a canon character? Lots of people share the same hobbies. This does not make the character a Mary Sue. Not inherently. However, it's often used as an excuse for the fan character to start hanging out with the canon character. Again, it's one of those things that isn't bad on its own, but if stacked on top of enough Sue-like traits, can morph into a Mary Sue.

Or not sleep with a canon character because he/she 'isn't that kind'? I don't know why this is here. It doesn't make an "Anti Sue" or a Mary Sue. Because we know the character could have had him/her if he/she wanted.

Does your character make canon characters realize their romantic feelings for each other? This is more of a plot point then anything. When this happens, it's generally the result of a self-insert fixing everything up to the author's whims.

Does your character end up living with or especially close to any of the canon characters? This is a plot point and not a Mary Sue question. It's a sign that the story is a possible wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Is your character involved in a canon character's past somehow? This is a plot point. 'Tis the author trying to squidgle him or herself into the lives of the canon characters.

In a way that was definitely not in the original story? The character the author is writing about is not in the original story so of couse whatever happens is not in the original story! I'd meant it being in a way that was contradictory to the original story. This will be re-worded.

I have a big problem with this whole section in general. Why must a character "honestly" be overweight, ugly, old, yada yada to be redeemed? They don't have to be; it just helps. :-P Sorry if I made it sound that way.

Your character should be fine at this level. 7 or less boxes must be checked for this. I just clicked eight randomish boxes and got a 14. Still, I'll see about tweaking the scoring system a bit.

I've started work on editing the test. I won't claim it's perfect - and it probably never will be - but I do hope to make it a fairly useful tool.

-S

My response to that email:

I'm the creator of the Mary Sue test you... er... antied. I read through your page, and I definitely have to say you've brought up some pretty good points. I'm definitely taking some of your advice and putting it into the next version of the test. The gender and ethnicity thingamajig, I agree, should go, as well as the age bit. (This was more or less a hand-me-down from Dr. Merlin's test that I'd never really thought about, but yeah, it does need removed. There are other questions to catch characters who are way too young or old to be doing what they're doing.)

Like I said in the first email I honestly didn't know there was a "creator". I thought it was just some person who sat down one day and took little pieces from other tests and such. Not a big deal really, nothing against you as I am sure you understand :) I am glad you agreed with some of my points and I am also glad that I could help improve it.

Some of the items you criticized are there because they're common elements used by writers as means to make their characters shinier, more attention-grabbing, or just Kewler in general. In a way, weapons can be considered an extension of the character, and describing a weapon in microscopic detail is very much similar to describing the character in microscopic detail.

I agree completely. I just think that if the author explains things in the story (minus the microscopic detail of course) it voids Mary Sueism. Some authors love to make their characters center stage and that is not always Mary Sue, but its not always innocent either hehe. It is really hard to make a "test" that can detect such a thing because everyone has their own style and while one person writing about a character who is angsty and center can be completely Mary Sue while the next one is not.

Also, some of the traits listed aren't just cliches - they're excuses for angst and pity, which is a device used to bring more attention to the character. The most angst a Mary Sue has, the more it can hog the spotlight.

Having the spotlight does not make a character a Mary Sue, just makes them the character the story is centered around. However, the hotter the spotlight the more Mary Sue it is. I dislike writers who throw in things just to get their characters more attention because they think it will make the character more interesting or something, angst and pity being the two used most. While I do not view using cliches as making a Mary Sue generally, it is all in how the author does it.

I also notice you disagree on my disapproval of Japanisms. Ordinarily, it wouldn't matter where the weapon came from. However, many young 'uns these days have a fascination with Japan, and inserting Japanese names and other goodies is part of their wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Its not that I disagree per se, its that I dislike the idea that doing something like that makes a Mary Sue. It could be any culture and I would say the samething hehe. But yes I completely understand what you mean and I understood that was probably the reason behind it. It is a tough one because, as you said, ordinarily it wouldn't matter, but a lot of "younger" writers use it to create characters that are very Mary Sue.

You also mentioned that my test pegs "every character as a Mary Sue." I've ran several characters through it (including some with angsty backstories and fiery attitudes) and had them come out at a non-Sue level. I'm a bit curious - what kind of characters are you testing?

I was just generalizing really. I mean I took it as myself and got a 94, my friend took it as herself and got like 80 something. I did it with a canon character from something but I honestly character remember which as it was awhile ago hehe. But yeah I was just generalizing as all the results I was getting were well over the top score.

Starfleet captains have been known to blatantly disregard orders now and then, but that doesn't make them Insta-Sues. On the other hand, Kirk seems to have been heavily criticized for disregarding the Prime Directive (the Starfleet code of ethics) and shaking up with every other attractive alien female. Amnesiacs can make for great mystery stories, but it's a pretty lame excuse for a character to hang out with the main cast. A horrific past for the amnesiac is generally something to give him or her something new to angst about.

I know nothing of Star Trek hehe. Kirk is a Gary Stu yes, however I believe he probably does it more then the other captains (but I am just assuming hehe). As for amnesiacs, it is a lame excuse unless the author has a good plot, absolutely NOTHING makes a Mary Sue automatically. I don't remember at the moment what I said about amnesia, but I do know that having a "tragic past" with it is pretty rare. But isn't that the point of stories? To tell what you wouldn't normal find in real life? :-p *note sarcasm*

Every character I can think of has a few of the traits on my test, but I don't consider them Mary Sues. Take the entire main character roster of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, for example - the captain is the child of an extratemporal alien and a widower raising a son, the first officer is a hot-tempered ex-terrorist, the doctor was genetically-engineered to be a genius, and the young and attractive science officer is, in a way, over three hundred years old. However, none of them are Mary Sues (even on my test) because they haven't been loaded down with bucketfuls of other MS-like traits. They have their oddities, but they aren't overdone.

Which is the way things should be and are usually with expierenced writers at the helm. But I believe this test is more for those "tyoung 'uns" hehe. I completely agree with what you said. It takes more then one thing to make a character a Mary Sue...more then a few actually. A space captain is expected to have a "tragic" type past and that voids that as being a Mary Sue trait with him, however a writer can make it "overly" tragic and throw in that he is very handsome, the best in the fleet, yada yada...you know how it goes.

Now that you bring it up, my test is overly anti-description. This is definitely getting addressed.

Yes! That was my main problem with the test hehe. I believe wholeheartedly that if a person has good reasoning behind what they write then it should void the Mary Sueism. If a character has a Japanese name for no reason then it is a bit...yeah...but if they have it because for some weird reason their parents just happen to love Japan then its fine. However, to see that in most fan stories today would be a miracle.

Do you describe your character's clothing by the stereotype it is most often associated with? - But ignore if this is because someone in the story is describing the character. This is just a lack of good writing as a good writer would be descriptive. I usually see this one done by teenlets trying to be cool by squidgling into their favorite stereotype. It's a form of wish-fulfillment.

I must admit that I worked on this thing for like two days straight and sometimes I got a bit short with my opinions hehe. But I understand what you mean. Perhaps just a bit of rewording would work. Something about it being the authors prefered stereotype or something.

Does your character have a particularly piercing, blank, or otherwise unusual gaze? What does this have to do with being a Mary Sue? Just because a character gazes a certain way does not make them a Mary Sue, at most it gives them a trait. You ever go along minding your business when you see a character who can "stare into your very soul with a piercing gaze"? *jibblyjibbly*

I see what you mean, however you should really think about how often you find someone who can stare into "your very soul"? I think that should be more the question. Not just that they have a certain gaze but if it is often one that looks at the soul of a person or something.

Does your character employ maverick or unconventional tactics? Completely useless. Everyone's tactics are unconventional to someone. *Laughs* Yes, it is useless. Honestly, I'm not sure why I've hung onto it this long. Snippity-snip!

Well it can really seem Mary Sue as it goes with that whole "always being able to get out of trouble with some oh so random and intelligent idea that no one else would think of". But the point remains, everyone is different in their tactics. Even if two guys go to kill someone with the same gun and everything they will do it different and probably argue who had the better idea :D.

This one really bugs me. At the bottom of this test there is an area that has "redeeming" questions that ask if your character is "honestly" fat, ugly, or stupid. Well wouldn't being mentally handicapped be a redeeming question? And I don't get why having any of these mental disorders makes a character a Mary Sue. Psychosis and split personality seem to be perceived as the "cool" mental disorders. I'm not sure why psychosis is considered cool, but I suspect some authors believe that their character having a split personality gives them an excuse to do bad things without being all bad.

I so agree with you that far too many people thing these are "cool". Yet, just because they are the cool thing to do does not make them Mary Sue, it makes them cliche. Now if the author writes it in such a way that the character gets the "right kind" of attention from it then it can be Mary Sue.

The solid intimate relationship thingamabob seems to be more of a TV-Sue gimmick to give characters an excuse to play Kirk. Something to the effect of "he sleeps around with every girl on the block, but it's not really his fault because he has a problem that keeps him from forming a relationship."

*sigh* yes I hate that about tv, far to cliche. And when you put in that way it is Mary Sue because he is "getting awau with things that a normal person would not". Probably should word the question something like that.

How many animal companions does your character keep? This goes along with the one above, if animals "just love you" it is Mary Sue. But if there is a reason behind why they are there, like Luna is with Serena because she is an advisor then its fine. The only reason this one stays is because the more you have, the more Mary Sue it is, even though the exact number is iffy. (Ordinary, non-magical pets like cats and dogs do not count.) Why not? I've never seen an ordinary cat or dog used as a gimmick to make a character look spiffier, and in the case of some animals (such as fish, mice, or guinea pigs) some people keep quite a few of them.

Good point, but you should add that explaination in there. The whole "they don't count" and thats it makes me wonder hehe.

I never even thought of Luna when writing this question, since I never think of Luna as a pet. She's obviously a cranky woman who just happens to look like a cat. Yeah. :-D

Hahaha! Yeah sometimes I forget too, but then again she is a magical pet and far from ordinary.

Bonded creatures do not count, so long as this is within a universe where this is perfectly normal and it is your character's one and only bonded creature. Why don't they count and why can they only have one? The answer to the second question is because the more there are, the more Mary Sue it is. But the first question is valid. For those who don't know, a bonded creature refers to having a creature take damage for you. Like if someone attacks you and hurts you, your health doesn't go down but the creatures does. With such a purpose I am curious why they don't count because it seems like they would make a character even more Mary Sue as the creatures would be willing to bond themselves to the character. I wrote this with the Pern novels (and related imitations) in mind. Riders get one dragon apiece and share a telepathic bond with their respective dragons. This should probably be reworded.

I think this one should count because it goes along with the other one. The more creatures willing to die for you the more Mary Sue the character is. I mean only Snow White can be Snow White.

Does your character succeed at virtually everything he/she tries? Ding ding! The essential Mary Sue question! Why is it so far down? Probably because I've ended up arranging and re-arranging the order of questions quite a bit. I've tried to keep them together more or less by similar theme.

Theme is good, but some questions stand on there own.

Is anyone envious of your character's talents and/or abilities? Its far to common for someone to be jealous of someone's abilities and almost everyone is jealous of something to do with someone else. True, but it's sometimes used as a device to once again rub in our faces just how cool a character is. It's not horrible in and of itself, but it's one of those things that can eventually add up.

A valid point, so reword the question :). It is true that it is far to common, but in that sense it does have merit.

...and it says that sentiment is not a logical reason...why not? Because sentiment is emotional, not logical.

That is true, however a character who uses a sword because he is emotional attached to it makes logical sense to him. I guess it all depends on how you define logical in the question. I mean yeah its odd to us, but it is logical to the character.

Does your character have overprotective/restrictive parents/guardians? What do the parents have to do with the actual character? Because parents are generally depicted as being unfairly restrictive when Rebellious!Sue is in the scene. I could probably word this question a bit better.

Parents are hardly ever used in the actually story save for little tifts when the author wants to create conflict (most of the time). I do understand what you said though and I think it should be reworded. I do stand by my point that in true Mary Sue fashion, the parents usually have nothing to do with the character and she is just so great on her own :-P.

Is your character a 20th/21st century Earth citizen transported to another time/world? This is a plot point not a character trait. Remember, just because its a time travel story does not make it a Mary Sue story. I had in mind the type of story where an ordinary Earth girl gets sent to Middle Earth to go travel with Frodo & Co. This should probably be moved to the Fan Fiction section.

Yeah that is a wish fullment story, maybe move it and reword it a little. I still don't believe time travel stories make a Mary Sue though :).

Does a major villain have a personal fixation/obsession with your character? When does the major villian NOT have a major fixation on the author's character? When the villain wants to get rid of the hero just 'cause the hero's a pain. Nothing personal, just business and all that.

Yeah but then where would the conflict be? How would the story last for novel length? My response to that question was mostly sarcasm, but it still has value. The major villian will want to get rid of anything that gets in his way and without the author's character having some sort of way to annoy him, the story wouldn't be much of a story would it :).

Does your character share tastes or a hobby with a canon character? Lots of people share the same hobbies. This does not make the character a Mary Sue. Not inherently. However, it's often used as an excuse for the fan character to start hanging out with the canon character. Again, it's one of those things that isn't bad on its own, but if stacked on top of enough Sue-like traits, can morph into a Mary Sue.

I understand what your saying, but I think this one is still not really needed unless it is reworded. I mean a lot of people use it as a reason to hang with the canon characters, but that just makes it part of the plot line, not really a trait per se. Hobbies are not traits and they aren't really actions and thats what really makes a Mary Sue. I don't think using a certain hobby just so the author can get their characters in with the canons makes a Mary Sue because the character could just like the hobby based on other things in their personality.

Or not sleep with a canon character because he/she 'isn't that kind'? I don't know why this is here. It doesn't make an "Anti Sue" or a Mary Sue. Because we know the character could have had him/her if he/she wanted.

Ah yeah, didn't think about that part of it really. Should probably add that little explanation to it.

Does your character make canon characters realize their romantic feelings for each other? This is more of a plot point then anything. When this happens, it's generally the result of a self-insert fixing everything up to the author's whims.

In fanfiction, everything is ALREADY up to the author's whims, thats just something we readers have to deal with. There is the whole idea that some authors stick to the canon ideas and some go off and create their own. Some prefer that Harry and Ginny be together because it is canon, however with the last book not out and everything, people can create their own scenrios where perhaps they break up or something and Harry falls for Hermione. Its a hard thing to word, it is truly a plot point and doesn't have much to do with Mary Sueism, but it can have an impact on "everyone loving the character".

Does your character end up living with or especially close to any of the canon characters? This is a plot point and not a Mary Sue question. It's a sign that the story is a possible wish-fulfillment fantasy.

It is still a plot point and one wish fulled does not make a Mary Sue. But yeah, I can see where it can ADD to it. Perhaps you need a section for plot points that can add to Mary Sueism. I do not like plot points being usedto find Mary Sue's because the story happenings themselves are not the character, but sometimes thinks cross.

Is your character involved in a canon character's past somehow? This is a plot point. 'Tis the author trying to squidgle him or herself into the lives of the canon characters.

Its still a plot point and does not make a Mary Sue. No matter how much the authors character is a part of the canon characters lives, it still has noting to do with the actual character's personality and triats. The character can be a sister to a canon character that they didn't know about and they still wouldn't be a Mary Sue because it is plot not character. I understand the whole authors wish fulfillment part, but they are two different things. Now, like I said before, if there was a specific PLOT section then this one would be good to add. Plot, the events of the story, does not detect Mary Sue as it applies to everything, not just the author's character. However, plot and character will always be connected in some way and so can cause people to take notice. Its tricky.

In a way that was definitely not in the original story? The character the author is writing about is not in the original story so of couse whatever happens is not in the original story! I'd meant it being in a way that was contradictory to the original story. This will be re-worded.

Even if it was contradictory, it still wouldn't be in the original story for the same reason I put before. If the author creates an original character then nothing in the authors story would be like the original, same even if they used soley the canon characters. Nothing will every me like the original except the original. As for the whole being part of a canon's past which was not in the original story, this goes along with what I said above. In fanfiction, people can stick to canon or go off and make their own version. It is commonplace, expected, and doing so does not make the authors character a Mary Sue just because it is not like the original. I think I dislike the use of the prhase "not in the original story" as this is just pointless in the world of fanfiction.

I have a big problem with this whole section in general. Why must a character "honestly" be overweight, ugly, old, yada yada to be redeemed? They don't have to be; it just helps. :-P Sorry if I made it sound that way.

Its just that those are the only questions in there so it makes it seem that way. I think if the rest of the test is fixed up then that section won't really be needed.

Your character should be fine at this level. 7 or less boxes must be checked for this. I just clicked eight randomish boxes and got a 14. Still, I'll see about tweaking the scoring system a bit.

I didn't really feild check my numbers lol. I just guessed based off the fact that all the answers gave 2 points.

I've started work on editing the test. I won't claim it's perfect - and it probably never will be - but I do hope to make it a fairly useful tool.

When could a Mary Sue test EVER be perfect? Really? I am sure there will always be someone out there who will say something is wrong or what not, same with my opinions on the test as it is now. I think the idea of making a test to help people learn what to look for is a great idea and that you did a good job of finding everything that would make it "universal". Just needs a bit of tweaking really. Keep working on it and I am sure it will be great :)

I think I just have a probably with any test that rates me Mary Sue lol, but then again with using a real person, especially yourself, you always have far more details then you would another persons character or even one you created....how often do you read a story were someone actually sat down and thought out things really well? Tolkien like I mean.



Email recieved on Mon, 16 Apr 2007:

Like I said in the first email I honestly didn't know there was a "creator". I thought it was just some person who sat down one day and took little pieces from other tests and such. Not a big deal really, nothing against you as I am sure you understand :) I am glad you agreed with some of my points and I am also glad that I could help improve it.

This has been a pet project of mine for a few years now, actually. I will admit that it was inspired by a few other tests, but a good part of my material came from studying roleplayers and fanfiction writers.

Actually, it also seems that this test has inspired a few others - every now and then I look out for other Mary Sue tests to see what other people have done, and I've noticed a few questions that never popped up before I'd put them in mine.

I was just generalizing really. I mean I took it as myself and got a 94, my friend took it as herself and got like 80 something. I did it with a canon character from something but I honestly character remember which as it was awhile ago hehe. But yeah I was just generalizing as all the results I was getting were well over the top score.

Well, I'll be jiggered. I tested Terra Branford (Final Fantasy 6) and Vincent Valentine (Final Fantasy 7) and they were closer to the 28 mark. I also took it for myself and got a 13.

Which is the way things should be and are usually with expierenced writers at the helm. But I believe this test is more for those "tyoung 'uns" hehe.

Well considering that a good part of the inspiration for this test was about 13-16 years old...

I see what you mean, however you should really think about how often you find someone who can stare into "your very soul"? I think that should be more the question. Not just that they have a certain gaze but if it is often one that looks at the soul of a person or something.

I'll see what I can do here...

(On the bonded creature subject) I think this one should count because it goes along with the other one. The more creatures willing to die for you the more Mary Sue the character is. I mean only Snow White can be Snow White.

The only bonded creature I can think of who would die for the person she is bonded to is Saphira from Eragon. (Who seems to be a whale of a Sue as it is.) The type of bonded characters I've known of generally don't want to get themselves killed - not just because they don't want to die, but also because it would completely devastate the individual to whom they are bonded.

By "perfectly normal," I mean that it's something that's a way of life for a good part of the population. If this is the case, then a character with a bonded creature isn't anything special, and hence, it wouldn't count.

That is true, however a character who uses a sword because he is emotional attached to it makes logical sense to him. I guess it all depends on how you define logical in the question. I mean yeah its odd to us, but it is logical to the character.

And it just could work if we actually saw the guy seriously outmatched because he wasn't carrying appropriate weaponry (as would happen in real-life) instead of taking down guys armed with guns with his 1337 s\/\/0r|) ski11z.

In fanfiction, everything is ALREADY up to the author's whims, thats just something we readers have to deal with.

Part of the point of a Mary Sue test is pointing out the things that are most likely to annoy the reader. The more something is skewed away from its source material, the fewer people it will attract.

My sister and I have a philosophy on wish-fulfillment stories: they're like bubblegum. Chew on it all you want, but don't expect someone else to want to chew on it afterward.

(On the subject of ability-envy) A valid point, so reword the question :). It is true that it is far to common, but in that sense it does have merit.

Any suggestions as to how this might be re-worded?

(On the subject of hero-obsessed villains) Yeah but then where would the conflict be? How would the story last for novel length? My response to that question was mostly sarcasm, but it still has value. The major villian will want to get rid of anything that gets in his way and without the author's character having some sort of way to annoy him, the story wouldn't be much of a story would it :).

The type of situation I had in mind:
Underling: Sir, the troops are awaiting orders.
Overlord: Must... destroy... hero...
Underling: Sir?
Overlord: Destroy the hero! Must destroy the hero! He insulted me and stole the Beautiful Princess from me and scribbled graffiti on my bathroom mirror!
Underling: Sir, our forces in the Flaming Lands are suffering heavy damages and are waiting for backup. Shall I order the troops to go-
Overlord: STOP INTERRUPTING ME WHILE I'M OBSESSING OVER THE HERO!

Okay, that was a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea. And yes, it can work for the villain to have nothing personal against the hero. Sauron didn't have anything against Frodo per se; Frodo just happened to be carrying the ring. Norman Osborn had nothing personal against Spider-Man in the movie; Spider-Man was just in the way, and Norman's was pretty whacked, making him a dangerous villain. The only thing the White Witch had against the children in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe was that a prophesy foretold that four human children would overthrow her. There was no personal animosity involved.

Villains with personal obsessions can work. However, it can also be a sign that the world revolves around the hero, which can indicate a Mary Sue.

I didn't really feild check my numbers lol. I just guessed based off the fact that all the answers gave 2 points.

96 questions out of the test are worth two points. 162 are worth one point.

how often do you read a story were someone actually sat down and thought out things really well? Tolkien like I mean.

I don't think there's anyone other than Tolkien who has put that much work into a fantasy world. 'Tis a pity so many authors don't attempt to put at least a little more work into their worlds, though.

-S

My response to that email:

This has been a pet project of mine for a few years now, actually. I will admit that it was inspired by a few other tests, but a good part of my material came from studying roleplayers and fanfiction writers.

Well you did a good job :)

Actually, it also seems that this test has inspired a few others - every now and then I look out for other Mary Sue tests to see what other people have done, and I've noticed a few questions that never popped up before I'd put them in mine.

Thats to be expected though.

Well, I'll be jiggered. I tested Terra Branford (Final Fantasy 6) and Vincent Valentine (Final Fantasy 7) and they were closer to the 28 mark. I also took it for myself and got a 13.

lol maybe I am just more angst then you are xD. I think game characters are harder because you don't know as much about them as book characters, although with final fantasy I could be wrong because I have never played.

Well considering that a good part of the inspiration for this test was about 13-16 years old...

I knew that and maybe a little note should be added because the test is geared more towards them then it is experienced writers. I mean just look at me (nothing saying I am experienced lol) but I took it and got all high scores xD.

I'll see what I can do here...

I think the two go together quiet well. I know quite a few people who have a "certain gaze or look" to them but hardly anyone who can look into my soul with it.

The only bonded creature I can think of who would die for the person she is bonded to is Saphira from Eragon. (Who seems to be a whale of a Sue as it is.) The type of bonded characters I've known of generally don't want to get themselves killed - not just because they don't want to die, but also because it would completely devastate the individual to whom they are bonded.

Eragon is a bit tricky though because thats how it is, meaning of course the dragon would die for the rider because thats how the connection works. Kind of like they have no choice as that is what they were born for. As for the other point, that is true that it would "devastate" the person, but the creature would rather die then have their owner die. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have "bonded" in the first place.

By "perfectly normal," I mean that it's something that's a way of life for a good part of the population. If this is the case, then a character with a bonded creature isn't anything special, and hence, it wouldn't count.

Ah yes, good point.

And it just could work if we actually saw the guy seriously outmatched because he wasn't carrying appropriate weaponry (as would happen in real-life) instead of taking down guys armed with guns with his 1337 s\/\/0r|) ski11z.

Since when is most ficition based on real life circumstances? How often is magic real? hehe anyways I understand what you mean, that would be wrong, but I was just saying its not illogical for him to use it regularly. Say when he is torturing someone or something I don't know. However, in situation like that it would be completely Mary Sue.

Part of the point of a Mary Sue test is pointing out the things that are most likely to annoy the reader. The more something is skewed away from its source material, the fewer people it will attract.

Very true, but there are always those weirdos... xD

My sister and I have a philosophy on wish-fulfillment stories: they're like bubblegum. Chew on it all you want, but don't expect someone else to want to chew on it afterward.

Ha! love it!

Any suggestions as to how this might be re-worded?

Hrmm...maybe add "above commone envy or jealous"? Like anything above and beyond what would be normal in the world they are writing in. Like being jealous of a girl with a lot of money who can get whatever she wants is common in our realtiy, but anything over random observations or little inserts here and there is to much. As a reader, we would get the idea with a sentence or too and don't need to be reminded again and again.

The type of situation I had in mind:
Underling: Sir, the troops are awaiting orders.
Overlord: Must... destroy... hero...
Underling: Sir?
Overlord: Destroy the hero! Must destroy the hero! He insulted me and stole the Beautiful Princess from me and scribbled graffiti on my bathroom mirror!
Underling: Sir, our forces in the Flaming Lands are suffering heavy damages and are waiting for backup. Shall I order the troops to go-
Overlord: STOP INTERRUPTING ME WHILE I'M OBSESSING OVER THE HERO!

lol yes very bad, thats just over doing it and obviously wrong. However, having the major villian fixated on your character can happen for a reason, again there is needed description. Also it depends on if the character is the main character of the story or not and whether they did something to deserve that kind of attention. Just a bit of rewording to add in more detail to the question I think would be good :).

Okay, that was a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea. And yes, it can work for the villain to have nothing personal against the hero. Sauron didn't have anything against Frodo per se; Frodo just happened to be carrying the ring. Norman Osborn had nothing personal against Spider-Man in the movie; Spider-Man was just in the way, and Norman's was pretty whacked, making him a dangerous villain. The only thing the White Witch had against the children in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe was that a prophesy foretold that four human children would overthrow her. There was no personal animosity involved.

I find a lot of stories like that. Where they really have nothing against them, their just in the way. Kind of bugs me cause I want a reason lol. I hate conflict merrily because they just happened to do this or that. I consider it chance story telling and with the "chance" that it could have never happened or happened different makes it semi-unenjoyable for me. It seems more like a fan writer's story played out in a created universe more then it does the canon.

Villains with personal obsessions can work. However, it can also be a sign that the world revolves around the hero, which can indicate a Mary Sue.

Like I said before, the question just needs a bit more description on what is and is not Mary Sue. Hero fixation not natural bad unless...

96 questions out of the test are worth two points. 162 are worth one point.

haha! well I guess I just happened to picked all the right ones xD

I don't think there's anyone other than Tolkien who has put that much work into a fantasy world. 'Tis a pity so many authors don't attempt to put at least a little more work into their worlds, though.

Yeah it is, I mean I hate getting confused about someone's story, asking them about it, and they don't even know the answer! How hard is it to plan a little outside of the exact words you are writing? I think thats what has made me put so much work into my stories lol, I want to have an answer for everything xD. Besides that, its just fun to create and imagine.

Click here to return to the test page.