Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We've all seen/read them, a movie/book (Twilight)/Comic (Least I could do) where the main character is extraordinarily like the author.

I was wondering what everyone's stance was on these. Are they bad? Are they annoying? Do you care?

That's a Mary Sue you are thinking of.

There are various stories which feature the author in some or other capacity. If done well they are good -- Automated Alice by Jeff Noon is an example. If done badly they are bad. That is a function of literary skill rather than a core principle.

Quite a few autobiographies heavily feature the author.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Quite a few autobiographies heavily feature the author.

Give this man an internet!

I thought Mary Sue was when a character was so perfectly stereotypical that they don't really have a personality.

No, that's a Matt Ward

Slarg232 wrote:I thought Mary Sue was when a character was so perfectly stereotypical that they don't really have a personality.

No, a Mary Sue is when an author unknowingly puts themsleves in the story and makes themselves super-awesome or even a source of pity.

Slarg232 wrote:We've all seen/read them, a movie/book (Twilight)/Comic (Least I could do) where the main character is extraordinarily like the author.

So you're saying Stephenie Meyer is a vapid, whiny [censored] with no likable traits, who is sexist against both men and women, and uses and abuses everyone who would possibly love her for cold and callous purposes?

I find it hard to like any book that features a character like this. I feel like nothing bad will ever truly happen to them. Take Anita Blake for example, she has like the spirit of like 7 different were creatures in her and a bunch of other crap. One or two spirits will mess most people up but there seems no end to her abilities. She seems like the Pokemon master of paranormal stuff.

Slarg232 wrote:I thought Mary Sue was when a character was so perfectly stereotypical that they don't really have a personality.

This. A Mary Sue is idealized and flawless and not necessarily personality-less, but generally just a boring character because they can do no wrong.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:No, a Mary Sue is when an author unknowingly puts themsleves in the story and makes themselves super-awesome or even a source of pity.

Not this.

Melissia wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:We've all seen/read them, a movie/book (Twilight)/Comic (Least I could do) where the main character is extraordinarily like the author.

So you're saying Stephenie Meyer is a vapid, whiny [censored] with no likable traits, who is sexist against both men and women, and uses and abuses everyone who would possibly love her for cold and callous purposes?

I think people are slightly missing what a Mary Sue is. The character isn't the author, but what the author would picture themselves if they were the character. It is a way of dealing with their own inadequacies subconsciously. Think of Mary Sue characters as Munchkin characters from a D&D game. You know the ones that are way too over the top and if you ever let the player who is playing that character DM, they would have a +7 Flaming Vorpal Weapon within five minutes.

... I never said anything about mary sue.

And really, a Mary Sue character has NOTHING to do with self-insert. At all.

LordofHats wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I thought Mary Sue was when a character was so perfectly stereotypical that they don't really have a personality.

This. A Mary Sue is idealized and flawless and not necessarily personality-less, but generally just a boring character because they can do no wrong.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:No, a Mary Sue is when an author unknowingly puts themsleves in the story and makes themselves super-awesome or even a source of pity.

Not this.

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

There's multiple definitions of the term. Not all of them involve self-inserts.

No, there is the incorrect term people use on the internet for "thing I don't like" and the real term.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:No, there is the incorrect term people use on the internet for "thing I don't like" and the real term.

There is no "real term" because it is not a formal term, it is a pop culture one. It originated in fan-fiction to described an overly idealized original character (or interpretation of a non-original one) and then spread from there.

Melissia wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:No, there is the incorrect term people use on the internet for "thing I don't like" and the real term.

There is no "real term" because it is not a formal term, it is a pop culture one.

Please read the actual story Mary Sue. It becomes very obvious what its about and what its criticizing. Pretty sure 98% of the people who use the term have never read the story.

Please read this for a more intelligently written and more in depth essay on the subject:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

I don't give a damn about the original story.

No, read the story.

It originated in fan fiction as a reference to a specific character.

--------------

I'm with KK. Alan Moore himself shows up toward the end of Voice of the Fire, and that book is awesome all the way through.

Like anything else, if it is well written it does not matter where the ideas came from - either from the writer wanting to put themselves into a story, or the writer creating a unique character.

Actually that wiki is fairly good but even it calls it "Self-Insert fic"

KamikazeCanuck wrote:No, read the story.

No. It is irrelevant, as the term has evolved past that original use just as the term gay has evolved past "happy".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Actually that wiki is fairly good but even it calls it "Self-Insert fic"

If you had paid attention (you didn't) you'd have noticed that it very much specified that this is neither the only nor the most prominent definition.

Melissia wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:No, read the story.

No. It is irrelevant, as the term has evolved past that original use just as the term gay has evolved past "happy".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Actually that wiki is fairly good but even it calls it "Self-Insert fic"

If you had paid attention (you didn't) you'd have noticed that it very much specified that this is neither the only nor the most prominent definition.

It states how it has mutated into meaninglessness because of misuse. It's become a generic insult thrown around for what someone doesn't like. Which is not fair to its original point of what it was trying to criticize.

I think the only explicit example I can think of is with Clive Cussler books where he pops up in a brief cameo role. I have to admit, I thought authors would be pretty professional and not get suckered into making themselves the protagonist or a leading character (either consciously or not). Does this sort of thing happen a lot then?

It happens a lot with inexperienced or new writers. It's hard not to project yourself into a lone protangonist.

There are a very large number of people who write stories.
There is a smaller number of people with good ideas.
There is a large number of people who are self-interested.

It happens. Especially in fanfic. I don't read fanfic, as a rule, but with "real" authors sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I don't know how often it happens, but I was thinking of trying my hand at writing either:

A Horror Story, in the style of Frankenstein and the Mountains of Madness, with me being the main character (get killed )

or

A Sci Fi Story, with me being the "main" character following my Sergeant around in a Watson and Holmes type of deal.

Both would be in first person/journalistic type of deal. I just think it would be easier to write that way; instead of imagining how the character would react, I just have to think of how I would react.

Yeah, see that's how Mary Sue syndrome happens. Each main character needs to be fully realized in his own right. You shouldn't be thinking about how you'll react but how your character reacts based on his life experiences (not yours). His background and personality should be thought out first before anything else. Do not simply insert yourself.

A certain story which had an extremely (And ludicrously) idealized version of the author's dead child grown up comes to mind-- an untouchable innocent, good at everything she wanted to do (and things she didn't, in the rare times she had to do them), pure, perfect, and beloved by all.

... even though it was not an author insert, it was still a mary sue fic. And probably also a cry for help, but that's another story.

Slarg232 wrote:I don't know how often it happens, but I was thinking of trying my hand at writing either:

A Horror Story, in the style of Frankenstein and the Mountains of Madness, with me being the main character (get killed )

Most people don't know this but Mary Sue dies at the end of "Mary Sue."