Writing Discussion 1

[kriadydragon]

Thanks to everyone who's made topic suggestions thus far. I've decided to combine two suggested topics.

The Fine Art of Character Voice while still staying original

and

How to avoid Mary Sues

One, because I think these two topics excellent for getting into character discussion and also because, two, I'd been having issues with one of my own character's voices (I feel like the character may be channeling the tenth Doctor from Doctor Who a little too much).

I would also like to add a third topic to this - making your character fallible, or, how to write a character so that they're not always right. Because I don't know about everyone else, but there have been times I've been horribly tempted to make my protagonist nothing but the voice of reason.

So please chime in with any thoughts you may have, whether it's all the topics or even just one of them.

Comments

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

Starting things off...

My own, personal definition of a Mary Sue/Marty Stu isn't just an over-the-top character but an over-the-top character who takes over a story meant to be about a completely different protagonist. There was a novel I read a while back in which the main protagonist was all but shoved aside by the introduction of another protagonist who was much tougher, smarter, and with way more back story than the main protagonist. It made me wonder what the point of the main protagonist was, since the secondary protagonist was obviously the favorite.

My own rule of thumb when it comes to characters is this - make your most interesting character your main character, not your secondary character. They're interesting for a reason, that reason being that you like them, you like writing them. So then why are you making them the sidekick rather than the hero? Either put them at the forefront or save them for another story, because they're going eventually take over one way or another.

For fanfiction, I think, it's a tricky subject to tackle because these days people will cry Mary Sue just because on OC is the POV character. My definition of the MS being the over-the-top character who takes over a story still stands, but their existence comes down to either writing inexperience or satisfying a personal kink. I think the reason the MS is so hated is because the majority of fanfic readers come for the canon characters, not some original character who only the writer thinks is awesome. I think avoiding that over-the-top OC is pretty easy - don't make them over-the-top then have the canon world revolve around them. Make them a plot device rather than the plot, either as a means to explore the canon characters, a particular episode or the canon world itself. Make them a part of the canon world without taking over the canon world, and definitely don't bash the canon characters or diminish them just to enhance your OC. Overall, I guess, just remember that people are coming for the canon characters.

[sholio]

That's an interesting angle on Mary Sue-type characters in original fiction that I hadn't really thought about - that they take over a story that used to "belong" to a different character. Which of course is exactly why people object to many/most Mary Sues in fanfic, but I had never thought about it being true of original fiction as well. Thinking back on it, though, on the handful of occasions when I've encountered a character in an original novel that made me think "Mary Sue", it was generally a character who was introduced late or started out as a supporting character, and came to take over an increasingly large share of the story. Or turned up in everything the author ever wrote because he/she just couldn't get enough of them.

These days, I am largely in the camp of those who claim that "Mary Sue" has become useless for fannish terminology because everyone uses it differently. It's kinda like we all have a general idea of what Mary Sue means to us, and we all know it's bad, but none of us really agree on what it is, so we just squish everything we don't like into that one umbrella definition. Some people use it to put down any character they don't like, or anyone who's really good at anything. Some people take the "self-insertion" part of the definition to a ridiculous extreme and claim that you should never write a character who resembles you in any way -- it seems to me that when I see original characters described as Mary Sues, this is almost always the aspect that people are complaining about. For example, I've seen several reviewers and readers criticize the "Girl With a Dragon Tattoo" books on those grounds -- the main viewpoint character is a middle-aged male journalist who runs a magazine! The author is also a middle-aged male journalist who runs a magazine! Marty Stu! Okay, there is a little more to it than that, but having read the first two books before I'd encountered the criticism or knew a thing about the author, I'd never thought twice about it, and certainly there was nothing about the character that made me think "Mary Sue!" ... I liked the character and the books.

And I think that the latter definition (Mary Sue as self-insert) is actually damaging to new writers, especially those trying to make the jump from fanfic to original fiction, because they think that if they find themselves writing a character who resembles them in some way, from the casually superficial (I am a teenage girl! This character is also a teenage girl!) to the deep (I believe wholeheartedly in this thing, and I want to write a character who believes in this thing!) that there's something objectively bad about it. But we have to put ourselves in what we write. It's just what happens.

Having gone off on that tangent, however *g* ... the idea of a Mary Sue as a black hole that warps the story around themselves and makes it ALL ABOUT THEM is a very useful one to me, and pretty much in line with how I'd already thought about it in fanfic. Like I said, it hadn't occurred to me that it also comes up in original fiction, but I think you're right, it does. "Author's pet" might be another way of describing it. And just like every other definition of Mary Sue, it's subjective -- if you like a character, then having more of them isn't necessarily a bad thing ...

But, no, that's not exactly true, is it? I can think of times that characters I really liked in small roles were spoiled by overexposure. And I have caught myself in the act of smoothing off the rough spots when I was writing favorite fannish characters -- wanting to write them as better than they are in canon, because I like them and don't find it easy to write their less appealing traits.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize you could have a Mary Sue in original fiction, either, until I read the above mentioned novel. I've read other stories where it felt like the "new guy/gal" was taking over but with this novel it was so utterly blatant that I felt like I was reading a fanfic by a semi-novice writer.

What I find odd is this temptation to sometimes want to make your awesome, interesting character secondary. I mean, I can understand it if you're writing along and, oops, character number two has exceeded character one in coolness. But there have been times when I've created characters that I like that, for some reason, I wanted to make sidekicks rather than the main character. Which would make the main character a device simply for the sake of having a main character. If this happens I'll back out of the story pretty quick (well, not back out but set it aside until I can work the issue out), but why it happens I have no idea.

I've come to really dislike the self-insert definition of Mary Sue, because as you said you can't help self-inserts. All newly created characters are self-inserts in some way whether consciously or subconsciously. Heck, even canon characters if fanfic sometimes end up written with a few of our traits or beliefs. You work with what you know and what you know best is yourself.

"Author's pet" I like that:D

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

I think the "self-insert" definition doesn't really work, because those Mary-Sues aren't really self-inserts, they are versions of what the author would like to be. So they are not actually the authors "self" but his "dream-self".

[sholio]

I do think some characters work better as supporting characters than main characters. Another issue with the "author's pet" thing is that some characters are just fine in small doses but become unbearably annoying if they are thrust into the spotlight. And some characters would lose what makes them interesting if they ever did become the spotlight characters. Taking a White Collar example again, I think Mozzie is great as the quirky, oddball friend who wanders in and out of the characters' lives, but that he'd lose a lot of what made him interesting (part of which is his mysteriousness and the fact that you never know quite what he's going to do) if he were the focus of the story. So maybe some characters jump easily into the supporting character role because their destiny is to be supporting characters. *g*

Having said that, though, my sister and I used to refer disparagingly to certain characters as "main character type", which is to say, Everyman characters who were more of, like you said, a main character device than an actual character. I'm pretty sure that these kinds of characters aren't around so much anymore, and are more prevalent in YA than in fiction aimed at adults -- at least, I don't notice them so much these days. I also think that I've become a slightly different kind of reader, and I'm ... I don't know, more attuned to nuance maybe, so that I notice shades of gray in characters who once seemed bland to me.

Personally, as a reader (and viewer), I like specificity rather than generality; I like characters who are unique and quirky and a little bit in-your-face, who couldn't just be dropped into some other book. But I get the impression that some readers prefer characters who have the sharp edges worn down a little more, and want their protagonists to be a window for viewing the world, rather than strikingly memorable on their own. Some genres lend themselves to that sort of thing more than others, too (I would say that at least half of the detective novel series I've read have very interchangeable main characters -- there are obviously quite a few exceptions, but generally speaking, especially in more traditional detective novels, it seems like the main characters is there to solve the mystery, but isn't really supposed to be a unique and memorable character in his or her own right).

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

Finding a character's voice is a fun challenge, but if I don't have it well established before I start the story then it's a pain in the butt. For me, a character usually comes to mind partially formed and is enhanced the more I plot.

I've confessed to using actual actors as the template for a character before. I find having an actual, physical person who I can see makes for good character inspiration, not just for what they look like but what their personality should be. Facial expressions, various reactions to certain situations and their moods have all inspired various personalities for various characters, from quiet and shy to manic and active. And once I have a personality in mind, the rest - how they talk, move, react, etc. - all falls into place. And that extends to the writing itself. I tend to write how the POV character talks. If they use slang, I use slang. If they're formal, my writing is formal. When it's their POV, it's their world, and I'll try to write to reflect that.

[aim2misbhave.livejournal.com]

OK, question: So I was at a talk by Neil Gaiman once and he was talking about how difficult it was to write American Gods from Shadow's POV because he was a character who didn't like to talk, and preferred just to stand around and look threatening. Anyways, this inspired the question of how do you deal with writing POV of a character who doesn't talk a lot?

Or, for that matter, if you're dealing with a character who just doesn't get a lot of screen time in canon - I'm thinking along the lines of Cadman or Lorne or Kanaan or Halling in SGA - how do you give them a unique, and consistent, voice?

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

Well, for me, it all comes down to personality. Because even if I have a character who says very little, they still think, still have opinions and will view a situation in their own way. Even characters who don't have a lot of screen time can exude enough personality to work with. Halling, for example, who was a very calm, spiritual man, was easy to write.

Lorne, however, I always had trouble with because I couldn't pin his personality down. He was such a quiet, unassuming guy that I could never decide what was going on in his head, whether he was a bit of a goody two-shows or an easy going guy just doing his job on the outside while sardonic and judgmental on the inside. I felt like there were a lot of possibilities with him, but none that really resonated to me as "Lorne."

I think what it comes down to is that the more you know about a character the better you're able to give them a voice, even when they don't say all that much.

[tari-roo.livejournal.com]

For a lot of people 'in character' and character voice are almost one in the same. I don't know if I agree with the 100% only because a character can sound 'right' but still be acting Out Of Character.

I also think that sometimes the more extreme characters are easier to 'voice' accurately as their eccentricities give a writer broader brushstrokes. Like Rodney in a rant, or Mozzie. It is the more even keel characters that can be tricker - and can slip into uniformity.

[sholio]

I already got into my feelings on Mary Sues/authors' pets in the comments above, but one additional thing: I have generally gotten a good reaction to OCs in my fanfic, even though I frequently write a kind of OC that is traditionally reviled or at least viewed with heavy skepticism -- young women and female kids. And I think the thing I do that makes it work is that I almost always write them very flawed. I'm not even sure if I'm doing it on purpose -- sometimes I play up those traits, definitely, but in general I just find it's the way that they naturally come out, because most teenagers, young adults and kids are petty, selfish, and prone to making very bad decisions, so it's not hard to write them that way. *g* Grace in my White Collar fic is a fairly typical viewpoint OC for me; I've also written characters like that in two or three other fandoms (Annie in "Old Soldiers Die Hard", my SGA story, is basically a slightly older version of Grace). She's got good traits -- she's brave, smart and resourceful -- but she's also selfish, distrustful and abrasive, and dislikes the main characters.

Actually, come to think of it, that's another thing my OCs tend to have in common: they almost invariably start out disliking the canon characters, and usually it's mutual. They have to win over the canon characters and be won over in turn. And who knows, maybe that's a big part of why it works. If the canon character thinks the OC is the greatest thing ever, then it's just like telling the reader (in original fiction) that your character is the most awesome character that ever awesomed, and they're going to have the exact same response: "Really? Yeah, right. They're not so great." But if the canon character, upon meeting the OC, thinks they're a whiny bundle of neuroses or a selfish brat ... okay, I can see how that could majorly backfire if you make them too obnoxious, but within limits, I think it's a good way of nipping the reader's knee-jerk Mary Sue antipathy in the bud. It makes the new character a little bit of an underdog, and everyone wants to root for underdogs. And it gives you a trajectory for their character, in terms of their relationship with the canon characters. There's somewhere to go -- they have to overcome their differences and become friends, or at least allies. Or, heck, maybe they'll always dislike each other ... but the reader, ideally, wants to find out.

[tari-roo.livejournal.com]

I think we have a tendency to dislike the mutual appreciation society. As you say above, we like flawed characters a lot more, as they add more to the dynamic of a story.

What I find interesting is how sometimes in fanfic the canon characters get turned into Mary Sues - or rather, the slight OOC writing leads them down that path. And its not all that hard to turn our heroes into Mary Sues. Add a little too much emo, a long round of sympathy and admiration from the supporting cast and voila - Mary Suedom achieved.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

they almost invariably start out disliking the canon characters, and usually it's mutual. They have to win over the canon characters and be won over in turn.

I like this because, yes, the best OCs have always been the ones that had some kind of issue with the canon characters and the canon characters issues with them - whether dislike, distrust or wary uncertainty.

And I think the opposite could work as well, in which the OC and the canon characters start off with mutual respect. Not fawning, not wow and wonder, just "this person's not so bad." Stories where, for example, a canon character saves an OC and the OC saves the canon character. There might be wariness at first, of course, but since the initial meeting was positive, the plot is open for the characters' first impressions of each other to be positive. I'm thinking of Kodiak Bear Country's "The Last Survivor" as an example. It begins with an OC saving Sheppard and McKay. Their relationship with each other starts off on the right foot, I guess you could say. But it's as the story progresses that we're shown all their faults interchanging with all their good traits, and that makes them human but still interesting, with no one character taking over.

[sholio]

That's a good point! :) (And I consider Kodiak's story an excellent example of OCs done right.)

Really, the important thing for an OC, I think, just as for any character, is that they should make sense as a character -- if they are a teenager, they should sometimes be flighty or petty or do dumb things, as teenagers do; if they're a professional character, then they should act like a professional and NOT act like a teenager; and so forth. I guess an important caveat to everything I just said is that, if they're going to dislike the protagonists, they ought to have a good reason for it -- I must admit that a peeve of mine in fanfic are OCs who are supposed to be competent professionals but instead are used as a plot device in stories that need a villain. (SGA used to do this with random members of the military who inexplicably hate McKay; White Collar seems to do it with random FBI agents who hate Neal. And then there's every post-Trinity fic ever. *g* I can totally be sold on it if the writer shows me why they'd feel that way and has other characters respond appropriately. But the writer has to make them feel like a person rather than a cardboard cutout of a villain ... and, if they're going to be over-the-top evil, I need to know why none of their co-workers would have noticed!)

[sholio]

As to the other half of the question, character voice: that's tricky! Sometimes characters' personality and voices come to me very easily. That's the case in the novel I'm working on right now; it's easy to write the characters' dialogue -- I can almost hear them. Other times, I struggle and struggle, and never can quite get it. Usually when I'm really having trouble, either I don't have a clear idea in mind for who the character is, or I do have a clear idea but it's entirely the wrong idea, so I'm trying to avoid it ... exactly what you were talking about with channeling a TV character when you don't want to. I tend to have a little trouble with this whenever I get deep into a fandom. During my hardcore SGA period, a lot of my original characters had a tendency to turn into Sheppard and McKay without me wanting them to.

You'd think that as much as I've written, I'd have a good system for working out character voices when they're not coming easily, but I don't. I just start writing and wing it. Sometimes I find it helpful to write side stories or little non-canon bits with the characters to help me get a handle on them. (I did that with a few minor characters in the current novel, to help me get a handle on them.)

For that matter, some character voices in fanfic are easier than others for me. I think one of the reasons why I've dived headlong into White Collar fic -- this isn't my first writing fandom since I started falling out of SGA, but it's definitely the one I've gotten the most into -- is because I find the characters very easy to write. Highlander, my most recent fandom prior to WC, was like pulling teeth ... I started out really enthusiastic, but found that I just could not get their voices to come. WC, though, is like SGA for me -- the characters' voices are really easy and fun, and I feel like I could spend all day writing banter for them.

I'm actually the opposite of you in that I don't like to "cast" my original characters with actors. I find that it inhibits me; I get too hung up on the way the actor looks/sounds/talks/moves, and can't make them a unique individual. I've never enjoyed fantasy-casting books for the same reason (the "who would play such-and-such character from this book in a movie?" game); the characters as they exist in my head can't be adequately represented by any actor. Not that I'm saying there is anything remotely wrong with doing that -- it's just not how my mind works.

... although having said that, I just realized that there's a blatant counterexample in the book I'm currently writing: I did cast one of the characters with an actor at the beginning. I'd completely forgotten about that. *facepalm* So I guess the only thing my writing process has in common from book to book, or character to character, is that I do whatever works for me in that particular situation.

For that matter, one of the things I've been doing with the current series of books is doing little "music videos" in my head. Like fan-made videos, only with imaginary footage. It's actually helped me come up with several scenes. I needed flashy clips to fit the song lyrics, and then went, "Hey wait, that's a good idea, I should use that in the book ..."

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

My trick is to learn as much as possible about the characters - in fanfiction, but collection information about them, for my OCs I create long backstories for them to know what motivates and drives them. Most of the information never make it into a story, but it helps me to think like the characters. My best writing moments are when the characters just take the plot and run with it. It's sometimes a hassle to get them back on track without compromising their character traits, but that's the moment I feel that they are really alive.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

For that matter, one of the things I've been doing with the current series of books is doing little "music videos" in my head. Like fan-made videos, only with imaginary footage.

I do this, too! :D All my stories always start out as a sort of "music video" set to whatever music helps bring out the story's personality (rock for action stories, something gentle for quiet stories, that kind of thing). It's also how I "test" my ideas to know if it's something I want to write. If picturing the video makes me feel all excited and happy, then I know it's something I'm going to enjoy writing. If it doesn't, then I'm probably not going to enjoy it.

[sholio]

Ha, it's so nice to know it's not just me! :D In my case it's not usually something I do at the very beginning, but as I start writing and get a better understanding of the characters and a stronger visual impression of their world, I start building mini-vids in my head.

[sgafan.livejournal.com]

Ha... wow, I totally relate to so much of this post. LOL

Sometimes character voice is just... there. sometimes its not and, at least for me, it can be the same character, just in different situations. ;) In SGA, John Sheppard is my default POV and 99% of the time I don't feel like I have a problem writing his dialog, but that other 1%, holy cow! I think I've even written in some story, somewhere, him saying "I don't know what to say" because I didn't. LOL! Who knows? Maybe that was the right dialog for the moment. ;)

I have no system either. I'm definitely in the "wing it" camp, but then again, this is someone that never outlines a story before diving in and writing. I'm definitely a "wing it" sort of writer, often starting with just an idea/thought/scene and going from there. ;) Winging it is my style.

In fanfic writing, I can totally relate with your journey through Highlander writing. For me, it was LOTR. I love LOTR and wanted to write it *so much*. I started writing and did manage a few stories, but it was like pulling teeth. It was SO HARD for me to write and was constantly a struggle. It was hard to get it to flow and just didn't come naturally.

Then I found SGA and I was like a fish in water. It just came to me and I just started writing (and never looked back). The characters, the dialog, storylines, plots, all of it just flowed. I turned into a writing maniac and couldn't write fast enough to appease the muse.

My long time beta reader is a whiz writer in LOTR. LOL but we definitely have different styles. I think a lot of character voice and writing ease comes from the writer's style and whether that fits the fandom they want to write in, regardless of ability.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

To me, it's important that the characters are there for the plot, and not that the plot revolves around the character.

I think I can explain that the best with White Collar as example: Neal in itself isn't interesting. Peter in itself isn't interesting. Both of them together are interesting because they are so different. And they are so different, because it makes an interesting plot. Most of their character traits are there, because they are needed for the plot: Con man Neal has to be non-violent and a basically good motivation, otherwise it would make no sense to allow him out of prison. Peter has to be clever and honest, because otherwise he wouldn't be able to keep Neal in line.

When they introduced Alex, they did a good job, because she started out as a plot device, and was slowly developed into a rounded character, whenever the plot allowed it. When they introduced Sara, they did a very bad job, because they wrote a whole episode which revolved around this one new character.

The same is true for fanfiction: An OC who is needed fot the plot is rarely a MS, but if he more or less replaces a character already there (or worse, a copule of characters), then he wasn't needed in the first place. And face it, when we read fanfiction, we normally want to read about the characters we already know, not about someone else.

Another aspect in writing "good" characters is that we have to allow them to make mistakes. Especially the main character. It's not enough to give them a bad temper or anything else to make them "flawed", those flaws have to have consequences once in a while, otherwise they are just quirks. You can't get away with that in a side character, but if the main characters are always doing the right thing, they are boring. And unrealistic, no matter how grumpy, or egoistical they are.

And the characters aren't always right! A big danger in writing is giving one character a "voice of reason", which basically ends up in the writer using the voice of the character to preach to the audience about what's right and what's wrong. That's never a good thing. Especially if this "voice of reason" doesn't fit the character.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

An OC who is needed fot the plot is rarely a MS, but if he more or less replaces a character already there (or worse, a copule of characters), then he wasn't needed in the first place.

Oh, excellent point. Because thinking about it, when I've read stories with an obvious Mary Sue, what made them obvious was that their presence made the story feel less than what it could be. I've read stories - by people with excellent writing skills in fact - who tried to write packing an emotional punch, but the punch just didn't happen. Why? Because the one delivering the punch was a character who doesn't belong. They're a new-comer, a stranger, with none of the emotional investment the reader has in the canon characters developed gradually throughout the seasons. They weren't needed, not when there were so many canon characters to choose from, and it made the story incredibly meh.

And you also make a good point about Sara. She was kind of shoved in our faces and that doesn't do a new character any favors. Though Sara did eventually grow on me my initial reaction to her was immediate dislike.

Another aspect in writing "good" characters is that we have to allow them to make mistakes.

Yes, this. One of my biggest stumbling blocks in writing is giving the character's flaws. The temptation to make them always right, always perfect and to avoid the complicated writing that is the consequences of a character's action is overwhelming at times. Thank goodness for cause and effect, though. Something I've come to realize is that there's plenty of potential to make your character flawed, you just have to find it. Sometimes that means writing the story first then going through and finding those moments where the consequences of a character's actions can really shine, or finding that situation where you can show that your character isn't always Mr/Mrs Right.

I think it's also important to remember that flaws don't have to be this big, huge, obvious thing. Most flaws are subtle, some in the moment - a moment of fear, a moment of fury, a moment of heartlessness and then the consequences that follow - and some a constant presence - a character thinking they always know better when they don't. But nothing that has to be in-the-reader's-face or heavily specific (ex. they're a drug addict who's an alcoholic and violent. If that's what you want your character to be that's fine, of course, I'm just saying you don't have to give them big obvious flaws just to make them flawed).

A big danger in writing is giving one character a "voice of reason", which basically ends up in the writer using the voice of the character to preach to the audience about what's right and what's wrong.

Yes to this as well. A very big yes. I hate characters who are never wrong. It's an issue I had with WC fanfic for a time (and still do, sometimes) - Peter being law enforcement and therefore the voice of reason for Neal. I got fed up with stories where Peter was always right and Neal always wrong and it drove me crazy. In fact, there came a point where I almost started to dislike Peter, poor Peter.

There was also an original story I read where my favorite character just couldn't do anything right (even when he did do something right), yet the two other protagonists seemed incapable of doing any wrong. I gave up with only a third left to go in book one.

But just to be clear, a character can still give helpful advice or be the voice of reason in the moment. The problem is when they become a never-ending fountain of wisdom that can do no wrong. The latter are the ones I always want to strangle.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

I think it's also important which flaw you give which character. I think the best flaws are those which steam out of their strength (like someone is a good fighter, but he is also overconfidend because of that, or the bookworm who is also sometimes a little bit of a know-it-all). The flaws should feel natural, not like something which was inserted just to make the character flawed.

And a character should always be conclusive. Sorry for using the Sara example again: She starts out as this overconfident, competent insurance investigator. And the same competent woman totally falls first for Neal's little lies and later on for Keller's fairly transparent scheme. If it had been Elizabeth or Christie or even Cindy this would have made sense - they are not in the business and less savvy than Sara is supposed to be. Sara should know that it's stupid to give up the one proof that the treasure still exist, nevertheless she does it and believes that she is protecting Neal doing it - that makes no sense. (It also makes no sense that she would need weeks to get money from insurance - since she is working insurance, she should know the right people to move things along).

It's a beef I have with female characters in general: I like women who are strong fighters. I like women who are more normal. And I don't mind it if those more normal women react, well, normal in face of danger. I don't expect them overpower a villain, they don't have the ability. But if they have created a strong female fighter, I expect said fighter to fight!

[black-raven135.livejournal.com]

Mary Sue was a 'NO NO, What part don't you understand' notation on the first site I found for reading ff, I was brand new to it, as a result of LOTR.
(They also featured same notation for SLASH)
I was so green then I had to ask the moderators what those terms meant
They were very patient with me.....
When they described who 'Mary Sue' was, she did turn me off IMMEDIATELY, sorry for shouting but it was nauseating
Sort of reminded me of Barbara Cartland or those other equally nauseating books some women read.... and same reaction about SLASH......
So I had found my home and began looking in other directions for same
ff with same notations.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I agree with Friendshipper that these days Mary Sue gets thrown around too much and has way too many definitions. It's gotten so that writing an OC is nerve-wracking because for some, OC automatically means MS. Which is why I prefer my personal definition given above. There's absolutely nothing wrong with OCs or a self-insert character. But when that character takes over, is so over-the-top they're logically impossible, then I have issues.

[black-raven135.livejournal.com]

***nods***
While there is nothing wrong, as you say, too often to my liking, the OC is a Mary Sue which annoys me no end.........in so many ways.
I am just wondering if the writer is so dense that she does not realize
who her character is, in terms of type, or is bent on using a MS so basically
just doesn't care.......in general.

[sgafan.livejournal.com]

Ah! Mary Sue! How we loathe thee! (when we know who she is; Friendshipper has an excellent point about that!) I've seen so many definitions of Mary Sue/Marty Stu that I do wonder if anyone really knows anymore. I know she was originally based off a Star Trek character who was better than anyone else at everything, but the definition has grown to encompass a lot more.

I know that I developed such a paranoia about Mary Sue in my early writing years that I was downright scared to try to write an OC, especially a female one. ;) It took me years and 3 fandoms to try it, finally writing one in SGA and grilling my beta over and over again "is she a Mary Sue? Is she??!" LOL

I think the key to avoiding Mary Sue (or Marty Stu) is creating a character that makes sense. A character that is real. She/he has their strengths but also their flaws. The key here is that the flaw can't be one that gets turned into a strength or a positive aspect in the end. I've seen that too. "Oh look, its my flaw, but its really a good thing and because I'm that way, I saved you in the end." Yeah. Nice try but... no. ;)

I still get nervous writing OC's to this day because of Mary Sue/Marty Stu paranoia. ;)Which is interesting, considering how many of them I've written in this fandom, and even turned into recurring characters. But yes, the OC has to contribute to the story. They have to serve a purpose for moving along the plot or for character development for other major characters, or provide a new dynamic for character exploration. If one or more of those cannot be satisfied by the OC then the author needs to step back and ask 2 questions. 1. Why am I adding this character? and 2. What is the purpose?

I hate to see the term thrown around simply because someone created an OC and *shock* it was a female OC!, because I've seen some damned good OC's created and not given a fair shake because of it.