Titan's Essential Mary Sue Test

Every new writer dreads their characters being branded as a “Mary Sue”, yet what makes a character such is often poorly defined. As such there are a number of “Mary Sue Tests” floating around that purport to reliably identify whether or not a character is a Sue. These tests by and large focus overmuch on character traits to determine whether or not a character is a Mary Sue, which misses the point completely.

Character traits are by-and-large irrelevant to whether or not a character is a Sue. The most overpowered special snowflake of a character can be written in a non-Sue manner, though they may require nuanced handling to do so. By contrast the most boringly mundane person can easily be written as a Sue. What matters is how the character interacts with the story.

Indeed, the fundamental problem with a Mary Sue is that they occupy the same point in a narrative as the singularity occupies in a black hole. Everything is bent to making the Sue look good, denying any form of autonomy or consistency to other characters or setting elements in pursuit of what can only be described as a delusion of grandeur/victimization written out as narrative.

As such, this Mary Sue Test will largely disregard character traits or superficial “specialness” in order to focus on the real root of the problem in how the character being examined interacts with the rest of the narrative. Where it does examine character traits, the focus of such examination will be on the context of their interaction with the rest of the story. A Mary Sue cannot exist in a narrative vacuum (though plenty can breathe in space).

Each of these questions will be complex and multifaceted; somewhat tedious, but it’s necessary for the test to be accurate. Each question will yield a variable number of points depending on the precise details; the higher the final score, the greater the probability that the character is a Mary Sue. However, since Sue-ness is somewhat subjective, a hard threshold will not be provided (with the exception of a single damning interaction).

If a sub-question is listed as a mitigating factor, it can only cancel points from the overall question it is a part of. If at any point you have a negative score, you have used the test wrong.

You may use the test on organizations as well, by treating them as a single character. In all questions the character or group under examination will be referred to as the subject.

Question 1: Powers
This question applies for technology, magic, cybernetics, superpowers, psychic powers, vampires, etc.
-Does the subject have special powers? (no points)
-Are the subject’s powers not explained adequately? ( +1 )
-Do the subject’s powers trivialize large portions of the plot? ( +1 )
--Do the subject’s powers fail to trivialize large portions of the plot despite being evidently capable of doing so? (+1)
-Mitigating factor: Are the details of the subject’s powers a major focus of the narrative? ( -1 )
-Mitigating factor: If the powers are sufficiently common in the setting as to not stand out as special, ignore this question entirely.
--NOTE: Inconsistencies in the narrative on account of omnipresent powers are a matter for a world-building quality inspector, not a Sue Test.

Question 2: Authority, Interactions With
This question is for how the subject interacts with other characters that ostensibly have authority over them. Parents, teachers, commanding officers, etc.
-Does the subject repeatedly get away with misbehavior without consequences? ( +1)
-Mitigating factor: Do other characters aside from the authority figure notice the repeated misbehavior? This can include the narrator, if any. ( -1)
-Do authority figures mistreat the subject at every turn for no good reason? ( +1 )
-Mitigating factor: Do other characters notice the authority figure’s misbehavior and react accordingly? The narrator is not valid for this factor. ( -1 )
-Do any punishments the subject receives fail to have any noticeable effect? Either through actually proving a hindrance, or through spurring some form of character development (not necessarily positive). ( +1 )

Question 3: Authority, Use Of
Does the subject have any position of authority? (no points)
-Does the subject’s position of authority exist in violation of plausibility? For example, having “passed” officer school in an improbably short period of time? ( +1 )
-Does the subject mistreat those they have authority over? (ignore for villains) ( +1 )
--Mitigating factor: Do either of the above result in significant consequences for the subject? ( -1, does not stack )
-Does the position of authority not seem to come with any responsibilities, except when it would be convenient for the subject? ( +1)

Question 4: Decision-Making
-Does the subject never suffer any significant failures or setbacks? ( +1 )
-Do actions undertaken by the subject never have unintended negative consequences? ( +1)
-Do the subject’s snap judgments of events/other characters/etc. always match reality? ( +1 )
-Does the subject simply know whatever the plot requires them to without a valid reason? ( +1 )

Question 5: Character Relationships
-Do other characters lack priorities unrelated to the subject? (+3)
--Exacerbating factor: Really? No unrelated priorities at all? None whatsoever? (YES. THIS IS A SUE. TEST OVER.)
-Is the subject able to trivially sway other characters to their worldview, regardless of starting attitudes? (ignore if the subject is explicitly using some form of mind control)(+3)

Question 6: Logistical Problems
-Does the subject never suffer difficulties acquiring needed/desired items, even in situations where such would be quite difficult? ( +1 )
-Does the subject acquire new skills, equipment, and powers without needing to expend significant effort on doing so? ( +1 )
-Does the subject never have a highly useful piece of equipment, skill, or power taken away/disabled in some way? ( +1 )

Question 7: Narrative Favoritism
-When the subject faces difficult situations, are they typically resolved by plot contrivance, rather than previously established skills, abilities, and setting details? ( +3 )
--Mitigating factor: Is the work of a genre where that sort of thing is appropriate? (example: certain types of comedy) ( -2 )
-(for villains) Is the subject ultimately victorious, with that conclusion having seemed inevitable from the start? ( +2)
-(for villains) When the subject is defeated, is that defeat the result of narrative contrivance rather than feeling earned? ( +2 )

Once you reach the end, total up the score and decide whether that counts as a Sue. For the record the theoretical maximum score (ignoring that one question about priorities) is 26. It would be 28, but the two villain-only bits at the end are mutually exclusive. The theoretical maximum score for non-villains is 25.

 

Bookmarking this Very useful lil questionnaire. Thanks mate