by
Janis Patterson
One of the more peculiar kinds of
book is known somewhat disparagingly as the Mary Sue. Although it can occur in
any genre, it seems most prevalent in romance and marginally less so in mystery
and usually but not always is the offering of a beginning or very amateurish
writer. The generally accepted definition of a Mary Sue book is that the
protagonist is always just too perfect – too beautiful/handsome, too smart, too
brave, too kind, too loveable, too adored by everyone they meet, too…
everything. Obviously most of the time this is just a bit of wish fulfillment
and self-projection by an unskilled author. Yes, there are professional authors
who indulge in this fantasy trip, but thankfully they are rare.
On the other hand, some don’t
believe a writer can create a believable character without putting a little of
themselves into the mix. It is this touch of humanity that makes the character
live. So when we are creating our characters, how much of yourself do you put
into your people? I’ve asked this of a lot of writers and have gotten answers
ranging from ‘nothing at all’ to ‘a passion for ripe olives’ to ‘she’s my Aunt
Clarissa.’
I know that writers are all
different, but I do believe that most writers tend to make their protagonist
the same sex as themselves. While there are some who do write the opposite sex both
beautifully and believably, doesn’t the basic denominator of sex itself color
our writing? A well-crafted male character will have a different view of and
reaction to the world than an equally well-crafted female character, no matter
by which sex they are written.
While I am neither, I have written
20 year old protagonists and 80 year old protagonists, but at the base of their
character is the fact that they are women and that basic fact of femaleness
does a great deal to shape them.
I’m not going to go into sex
stereotypes, which is its own minefield, but say again that what and who we are
has to influence the characters we create. As an experiment, we should take the
skeletal description of a character – for example, a 35 year old widowed single
mother of three who is a welder, who used to want to be a nun and who is
allergic to peanuts – and then ask five or ten authors to flesh the character
out by writing a couple of scenes. Other than those skeleton points, I wonder how
much any of the characters created would resemble each other.
To offer up my own work, my main
protagonists are human (as I am), are female (as I am), are Caucasian (as I
am), are politically and socially conservative (as I am), are generally tall
(as I am not but wish I were) and reasonably intelligent (as I hope I am).
Other than that they run the gamut from demure 19th century
librarian to arrogant and opinionated old lady to wildly courageous
contemporary spy and, should they ever meet, would probably have nothing of
substance to say to each other.
I’m not saying that every writer
should have something of herself in her characters. Neither am I saying that no
writer should ever put anything of herself in her characters. I am instead
offering for thought that a part of ourselves does live in our characters, that
it cannot help but do so. Our job as writers, though, is to keep Mary Sue at a
distance and let our characters shine as themselves.
11 comments:
Wonderful perspective, Janice.
Hi, Janis,
With mysteries, flawed H/H are the the norm. With romances, it's trickier. For example, in the PW review of TEA LEAVES AND TAROT CARDS, the hero was criticized as unlikable because he was flawed. It surprised me. I don't like "perfect" people in fiction, even romances. P.S. I never heard the term "Mary Sue" before. Interesting.
It's always interesting to read another writer's take on characterisation. I probably put too much of myself into my characters, but they don't necessarily have my personality, more my quirks. I'll pick one and magnify it, make it their thing. That helps me define them and figure out who they are.
Also, I prefer writing the opposite gender. I think it's because if I am putting myself into the character, using the opposite gender provides that little bit of distance. Maybe? :)
Ah, poor Mary Sue. Nobody likes her because she's too perfect. ;)
I enjoy flawed characters, but I believe what Jacqueline said is true - that flaws are less tolerated in romances. Or they're at least trickier to write. Yes, readers still want the flaws, but which ones? And I'm sure it's different for everyone. As are the personality types I enjoy reading. For instance, I find I enjoy alpha heroes more, and strong heroines, and while they can have flaws, I like these types of characters, especially if they recognize their flaws fairly early on and I can tell they're going to face them. A friend of mine wrote a beta hero recently, and I fell in love with him eventually, but it took me some time! ;)
Oh, and my favorite kinds of movies/books are those where the flaw becomes the strength that saves the day. Love that!
I have seen this advice before, and I'm not sure that some very famous characters are not Mary Sues. How about Miss Marple? How about Kinsey Millhone? OTOH, of course there's Scarlett O'Hara. Maybe I'm just not seeing the flaws in Miss Marple and Kinsey. That said, I think the advice is good advice overall. I do write a lot in the male POV, but I think that's because I read mostly male writers when in my teens and early twenties. Thanks for an interesting, thought-provoking post.
I have two female protagonists in two different series. Some of my likes, views, and interests occur in both ladies: love of science, baseball, birding. Right now I'm writing a new series and the protagonists is a man. What an education this is! It's really working out quite well.
I agree. perfect doesn't exist and no matter how much your story is fiction, a perfect hero, heroin is too unbelievable.
Never heard the "Mary Sue" term before (but the book that permanently lives under my bed probably had that beginner flaw).
An author brings their perspective to the keyboard, so I'd be surprised if at least something didn't show up. On the other hand, I do get assumed (and horrified) when people try to attribute some part of my characters to me personally!
The "Mary Sue" syndrome was well known in fanfiction, where I started writing online, as an author insert - and also "Marty Stu" for male characters LOL.
This is a great post because it highlights the conflict of the old advice of "write what you know". Of course, what we all should know now is that we can write whatever we like! as long as it's well crafted and plausible
I write M/M romance so I suppose I'm free from inserting my physical characteristics on my characters LOL, but I know I bring my emotional feelings and opinions into their stories.
One of the original perceived barriers to M/M romance was that female readers wouldn't like it because they like to associate with the Heroine. And M/M romance written by women comes under regular criticism, that women can't portray male life if they don't live it.
I can safely say many readers *love* M/M, but these are all interesting debating points :).
Excellent post, Janis. I learned early on that my favorite characters in books, movies and on TV were those who had enough flaws to make them memorable. It seems to indicate a great level of realism. I'm definitely not perfect, so why should my characters be that way.
Marja McGraw
There are a few romance writers I don't read because their heroines are so impossibly perfect (Jude Devereaux, yes, I'm talking about you...). And then there are Courtney Milan heroines, who are flawed and wonderful at the same time (yay for Minerva the Iron Chess Beyotch, who at the first tries to make herself smaller--but when it comes to chess, she can't).
Post a Comment