If an author is fretting about having created a Mary-Sue or Marty-Stu, then the chances are probably that she or he hasn’t. The attitude of a writer who has created a Mary-Sue is generally one of uncritical indulgence, like a bad parent. That type of unreflective writer can’t see why anyone could fail to admire his/her marvellous character. After all, s/he’s been given any number of outstanding traits, hasn’t s/he? She or he has been given all sorts of opportunities to glow (but has s/he been given any opportunities to grow?).
I have been reading some more about Mary-Sues and Marty-Stu’s (or Gary-Stu’s) recently. A lot of writers hate this term, and it is certainly true that the term Mary-Sue is bandied about so routinely that writers go in dread of being accused of creating one, well aware that the description is often applied loosely to female or – less often – male leads whom a reader dislikes.
Precise definitions of what comprises one of these dismal creations vary, though there is some general agreement.
There’s a couple of really funny articles about this.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackHoleSue
‘The very laws of the universe bend to accommodate her. If there’s only one in a million chance she could succeed at something, she’ll accomplish it with flying colors. If the logical outcome of the story would end in her failure, a Deus ex Machina will ensure her victory. Nothing is too implausible for her to accomplish, whether it be going from Rags to Royalty, killing an Eldritch Abomination, or bringing about world peace. Even the most disdainful and unmoving characters will be Easily Impressed with her. Is there some great deity of unimaginable power in the setting? Expect her to have them astounded by her abilities…’
and for the Marty-Stu’s:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu
His gravity is so great, he draws all the attention and causes other characters (and, often, reality itself) to bend and contort in order to accommodate him and elevate him above all other characters. Characters don’t act naturally around him – guys wish to emulate him and all the girls flock to him regardless of circumstances. They serve as plot enablers for him to display his powers or abilities, with dialogue that only acts as set-ups for his response. He dominates every scene he is in, with most scenes without him serving only to give the characters a chance to “talk freely” about him – this usually translates to unambiguous praise and exposition about how great he is. Most people don’t oppose him and anybody who does will either realize their fault in doing so or just prove easy to overcome. Often a combination of the above Stu archetypes.
These are of course, extremes. It is generally agreed that the Marty-Stu’s or Mary-Sue’s can be placed on a spectrum, with some characters – uusually ‘wish-fulfilment inserts’ making up the most blatant examples (for instance, Heather Simmonds in Kathleen E Woodweiss’ 1974 historical romance ‘The Flame and the Flower’ , and Ian Fleming’s James Bond) with others towards the middle of the spectrum, and yet others on the edge.
My own definition is that if everyone admires a character, save those who are motivated by jealousy, and s/he never looks less than perfect – even when very ill, and s/he never makes a fool of herself/himself, then the chances are high that character is a fully-paid-up, card-holding Mary-Sue or Marty Stu. Writers may hate the term, but there is a lot of truth in many of the accusations as well as some injustice in others.
Ones in classic novels include Samuel Richardson’s mid eighteenth century best seller Pamela, who has no faults save a feminine timidity the reader was clearly meant to find adorable. Nobody – ever – finds any fault with her appearance or character. She has endless skills, including how to carve a joint of meat to perfection and how to look embroider waistcoats well enough to make an impression at court.
Defenders of Richardson argue that as he was an early novelist, his falling into this error in trying to depict an admirable heroine is understandable. They also excuse her constantly repeating compliments as a fault due to his using the ‘epistolary method’ (ie, telling a story through a series of letters and diary entries, largely from the heroine herself). The end result is, however, pretty unsympathetic to modern taste, and it is always with astonishment that I read how contemporary female readers adored Pamela.
It is interesting, as a matter of fact, that we are never told exactly what she looks like, or even her hair or eye colour, although we learn that she has a tiny waist and ‘a baby face’. Presumably, this was because the reader was expected to imagine an ideal looking young girl. This, presumably, would be according to eighteenth century notions of female beauty, including a pale skin, high colouring, longish nose, round face, etc.
Whether or not the male lead Mr B can be called a ‘Marty-Stu’ is debatable. He is certainly given the faults of excessive pride, but he is still depicted as the most rich, powerful, handsome, charming man in his circle, and he comes across as largely a cardboard character. His other fault, hypocrisy, which is one of the traits he certainly shares with Pamela, is clearly one that Samuel Richardson was unable to see.
Fanny Burney’s Evelina is another Mary-Sue for the same reasons. Her only fault is innocence of society’s rules. She is so wonderful that even her jealous rivals cannot seemingly criticise anything about her appearance or character (this is, of course, ridiculous: a low minded competitor will say all sorts of insulting things about a favoured rival’s outside and inside, wholly untroubled as to how true they might be).
If an author is fretting about having created a Mary-Sue or Marty-Stu, then the chances are probably that she or he hasn’t. The attitude of a writer who has created a Mary-Sue is generally one of uncritical indulgence, like a bad parent. That type of unreflective writer can’t see why anyone could fail to admire his/her marvellous character. After all, s/he’s been given any number of outstanding traits, hasn’t s/he? She or he has been given all sorts of opportunities to glow (but has s/he been given any opportunities to grow?).
Of course, it has been argued that the idea of the Mary-Sue came about through an element of sexism. Readers and viewers are less likely to resent a male character who is ‘the specially chosen one’, with special skills and outstandingly good looks and who is admired by all.
This is certainly to some extent true. James Bond’s impossible level of fitness and his outstanding attraction for women – despite his smoking about eighty a day – went seemingly unchallenged until the term ‘Marty-Stu’ was invented some time after the idea of the original Mary-Sue was first aired. I remember reading an article which suggested that a good test as to whether or not a talented, attractive female character is a Mary-Sue is to ask, ‘Would I be so irritated by these characteristics if they belonged to a male character?’
There are, besides so many traits that can be a sign of a Mary-Sue or Marty-Stu that avoiding them all can be difficult. It wouldn’t do to become morbidly obsessed with not creating a Mary-Sue or Marty-Stu that one goes to the opposite extreme, and creates an unattractive bore. Besides, even this character trope has been listed among the Sue’s and Stus. Here it is:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiSue
Unfortunately, simply inverting the Common Mary Sue Traits does not prevent a character from being a Mary Sue. When other characters still worship them and the plot still bends over backwards to facilitate them they’re still a Mary Sue, despite now being described as an unspeakably ugly and incredibly pathetic loser. This can actually be even more annoying than a vanilla Mary Sue — at least it makes some sort of sense for characters to worship a beautiful, friendly, hypercompetent Mary Sue, but when they’re physically ugly with an unpleasant personality and can barely tie their own shoes (much less solve other people’s problems) and everyone still treats them like the greatest thing since sliced bread, Willing Suspension of Disbelief gets smashed into tiny little pieces. (And yet, this is sometimes Oscar Bait for movies about the Inspirationally Disadvantaged.)
Of course, there is an opposite effect. Rather than admiration, some Anti-Sues instead have their peers’ intense hatred and dislike of them be what overrides any other plot in the story — that is, they’ll drop everything they’re doing just to make the Anti-Sue’s life that much more miserable and keep them around solely for that purpose, as if they were a walking Jerkass Ball. ..
There are a good few articles that give good advice about how to avoid making your character come across as one of these dreaded Mary-Sue’s or Marty-Stu’s. These include some excellent tips which, while aimed at novice writers, give some hints that would benefit experienced ones:
and
I believe that one of the best ways you can ensure that a character is not perceived as a Marty-Stu or Mary-Sue is to have him or her fail.
It is for others to say whether I succeeded or not, but that is what I did with Émile in ‘That Scoundrel Émile Dubois’. Clever as he is, his best efforts fail to save his family members all being killed, directly or indirectly, by the Terror.
On a lighter note, that is also what I did with Harley Venn in ‘The Villainous Viscount’. It might be thought that a handsome, athletic young viscount would have little difficulty in finding a bride, when he decides to fulfil the terms of his late uncle’s will by getting married. In fact, he is rejected for one reason or another by three on his list of eligible heiresses, and when he moves on to a girl fairly low on his list (the female lead) she turns him down as well...