Subject: Then you've got your answer.
Author:
Posted on: 2012-09-07 19:49:00 UTC
Anti-Sues, as you describe them here, are just another kind of Sue. They are basically what happens when someone models a character after a Sue litmus test with the goal of having as few points as possible.
Specifically, what is the PPC's stance on anti-Sues? Are they good? Should they be tweaked so that they are less-noticeably Suephobic? And has the PPC ever actually encountered such a character before?
As usual, I'm asking out of simple curiosity.
Though it can be hard, the ideal situation is one where the character has flaws that go beyond the superficial, such as prejudice, bitterness, or lack of empathy, and they slowly attempt to create it through out the story. Most good characters are not bad people just because of their character flaws, just not as good as they could be. By the end of the story, the character should have developed to be a better- or worse- person. They will still have their flaws, but they will have changed in some shape or form. Static characters are the exception of course, but no one wants a static character as the focal point of their story.
Even a static character should be well balanced though. In the end, there's a lot to mess around with, so experiment with different types, backgrounds, and things 'till they begi to fit into place.
If this had nothing to do with the question, I'm just going to hide behind my balrog now.
This had a lot to do with the question - and even if it didn't, as I keep saying (well, this'll be the third time, but whatever), I like having a lot of opinions; I think it makes it easier to learn, not just for the question-asker, but for everyone else who reads posts like this!
So...thankies for your input, sorry I didn't see it sooner, and try not to get too close to the balrog - you could get scorched!
Oh, and don't worry. I make sure to keep a good distance away from Leglus at all times.
From what I've seen of anti-Sues, most of them are written by people who have written Mary Sues before and have received negative criticism, so they try and make their character as non-Sueish as possible. Unfortunately, most authors focus on the physical traits: making their characters ugly screw-ups who have no manners, and don't realize that they still have a character that gets everything they want, has their lust object fall for them, and totally one-ups the canon characters. The only instances I can think of for a good anti-Sue would be if the character was used for comic relief (my mind drifts to Nobby Nobbs).
I think that if you do it well (i.e., you don't write a Sue), you can have a pretty messed up character who eventually gets the guy/gal...after many, many chapters of evolving the characters and setting up a solid, believable bond that would likely manifest at or near the end as love.
Unfortunately, it's rather hard for a good writer to pull that off, so...-sighs-
It's a point of principle with me that everything is possible to write well and believably. Girl Falls Into Middle-earth? Easy! (Actually I doubt it was easy - Boz put a heck of a lot of work into that story). So yes, I would say it could definitely be done - but it would take, as you say, a character-driven author to do it, and most authors aren't. Plot twists take precedence over character growth. Heck, I'm currently actively trying to write a genuine evolving character, and I'm still finding most of his change turning into Epiphany Moments. That's not how people actually change - but it's an easy literary shorthand.
(For my money - and I'll have to poke at this on the next draft - the way to do it is to make his actions separated by epiphany-type shifts, but to make his thoughts change gradually in between. Thus keeping the narrative convenience of 'Gasp! You've never said you cared before!', but without the audience reaction of 'Gasp! Why in the world do you care now?')
hS
Wow. That is an impressive piece. Thankies for bringing it to light!
I'm having the same trouble with one of my characters - I'd like for her to go from "everyone hates me, so the world sucks" to "the world is an equal mix of good and bad, so I should give each person I meet a fair chance to be my friend."
Except the changes keep coming after someone saves her life/she accidentally kills someone/her "evil" relative is really just insane-and-brainwashed. It's hard work, creating believable characters - although I like your idea of having the personality gradually shift.
Basically an anti-Sue is rather obvious (and a bit mistaken) attempt to be as much the opposite of a Mary Sue as the author can manage.
For example, if a Mary Sue is beautiful, wonderful with all living creatures, and perfects every skill within a matter of hours at most, an anti-Sue is hideous (for many reasons), hates all living creatures with a possible exception of a few people he/she respects, and fails miserably when trying to learn a new skill (and has taken literally years to learn to, say, tie his/her shoelaces).
From what I can tell, an anti-Sue comes from the mistaken belief that the opposite of perfection is perfectly opposite, rather than imperfect. I've seen one or two reasonable anti-Sues, but most of the ones I've come across are somehow even more annoying, as the canon still goes out of its way to make things easy for them, and despite the increased amount of wangsting, the canon characters are all still fawning over them.
...that the anti-Sue is usually still a Mary Sue, despite the author's attempts to write him/her otherwise. Just, you know, uglier and with a glodawful singing voice/grasp on societal manners. And, of course, everyone wants to love the anti-Sue and nurture him/her back to health and teach him/her the beauty of life.
Basically, an anti-Sue is like a grimdark Mary Sue.
Anti-Sues, as you describe them here, are just another kind of Sue. They are basically what happens when someone models a character after a Sue litmus test with the goal of having as few points as possible.