Someone complained on the Bad RPers Suck community in LiveJournal about games where original characters are not allowed, because they are all Mary Sues.

Now, I don't play fandom games. I prefer to create my own characters rather than try to fit myself into someone else's, so I'm always playing an OC. Still, I don't see how original characters are necessarily more likely to be Mary Sues than canon. Really. You have someone who thinks they're tricky and nasty and evil, and they want to play Voldemort in a Harry Potter game. This is not Mary Sue-ism?

This isn't to say that OC can't be Mary Sues. I've played with plenty of them. (I've never *cough, cough* written one myself *cough, cough*, of course.)

I'm just curious as to other people's opinions and experiences with this.

Not all OCs are inserts or personal wish-fulfillment, and decrying that they are is ridiculous. Also, decrying a character -- ANY character, OC or canon -- who is prodigiously talented in any area as obviously a Sue is ALSO ridiculous.

People misuse the term a LOT. A Sue (or Stu) is a specific kind of author insertion that serves as a proxy for the author's own personal wish fulfillment. An excellent example of a canon Sue is Anita Blake; she is everything that LK Hamilton wishes she were or could be (she has said specifically this in interviews, this is not my anti-Anita bias showing, I promise).

Sues suck because the author is emotionally invested because they ARE the author, in an idealized state. This means they get het up about threads or stories in which they are not the perfect heroine, they have trouble with consequences, and absolutely under no circumstances can they ever be criticized.

The flip side of the coin is the author inspiration, and I think many excellent RPers use this to their advantage. An inspiration is a character that the author shares traits or experiences with, and so the author is better able to flesh out their story. They maybe like the author, but they are not the author. An excellent example of this in canon is Hermione Granger; JKR has stated she used her own experiences as a snooty friendless know-it-all in grammar school to better develop the sparring relationships within the trio. This is a great, effective way to flesh out your characterization, but it's true there's a fine line between an inspiration and a Sue.

I find the argument that OCs are Mary Sues silly because canons are someone's OC. |:

Draco Malfoy IS JKR's OC. He is. He was and is her original character.

ALL characters are someone's OCs. Superman is an OC. Someone had to create him, yes? Yes. And he was the creator's OC.

Now they're "canon" because they're published and popular and all that jazz. :3 But the point is, someone had to create them just as we create our own OCs. There's nothing innately special or superior about them in comparison to our own brain babies. *shrug* They all came from someone's brain juices and fantasies. The only difference is that they got published and have a following. :B

And really, a lot of canon characters are pretty Mary Sue-ish, going off Cal's definition. Which is the only definition of Mary Sue that I really like. :3

That said, I only like playing my own creations. x3 I see nothing wrong with playing fandom characters, I just can't pull it off. I tried and I felt uncomfortable and awkward. :\ Playing with my own toys is easier 'cause I know 'em inside and out. xD

I feel like a Sue is defined more in the intention than anything, and you can definitely warp a canon character to fit that. For example, if you play a canon character for the primary (or sole) purpose of playing out your favorite hawt pairing, you've probably made that character a Mary Sue.

Though, I really am reluctant to label a character as a Sue. I think a lot of character that are called Sues could be better described as plain old unrealistic. It's the way they're presented that makes them a Sue.

I believe the opposite is true. Canon characters are more likely to be Sues because they are singled out to have a whole story written about their specialness. I mean Harry Potter had to be a Sue or nobody would be interested. If George down the street had been the sole survivor of a Voldemort attack, would we even bother to read about Harry?

There do seem to be several interpretations of what makes a character a Mary Sue (Gary Stu). For me, it's kind of like art. I may not be able to define one, but I know one when I see it. And I can see it in both "canon" and original characters.

I guess what I was really trying to ask is if there's a . . . crap, I can't think of the word . . . rivalry? Is there a rivalry between players of original characters ad those of "canon" characters? I'm sure there are people who feel superior because they play one or the other -- people find the most ridiculous reasons to feel superior -- but is there a problem in the RP world because of this, or is the instance in my original post an isolated one?

I've been fairly insulated from the broader RP community, I guess, playing original characters in original games, mostly with people I know, so I really don't know. It seems very petty, so I hope I'm reading too much into things (a skill I have honed over the years, so I'm quite good at it).

I don't think there's a rivalry, but then again I've only played on original games that allow only original characters. *shrug* So if there is a rivalry between the two, I don't know about it and honestly don't care about it. I'm happy and merry over there on my two games playing with a bunch of awesome players and awesome original characters. <3

It doesn't seem to be a problem, though. I see lots of games around where players can play OCs and canon characters together and they work out harmoniously. It's just that sometimes players don't want that mix--they want either just originals or just canons for whatever reason, which I can definitely understand. I mean I'd never in a million years allow canons into my games, for instance--we're strictly OCs and strictly original settings, and it just wouldn't make a lick of sense, anyway. xD But it's not because I think OCs are superior or visa versa.

Rivalry seems silly, anyway. Pretendy fun time games, people. <3

I think that what defines the Sue the best is the lack of flaws. Let's take our example Harry Potter. Yes his storyline is what makes him a Sue but what seperates him from actually being one is how flawed he is. He takes the easy way out whenever he can, He lashes out at everyone when he's angry, and he lets his arrogance and pride get in the way when it comes to making important decisions sometimes.

Most OC's I encounter are Sues in my eyes...especially when their biggest flaw is "She can't see her own strength" or something like that. But I have played both Cannons and OCs and I don't find more people playing either more suish than the other.

There are no Mary-Sues. There is only good roleplaying and bad roleplaying.

That's my opinion on it. I've never noticed people playing canons better on average than OCs, or vice versa. Mostly I don't like canons, because I get bored by people actually following canon, but they are still played well sometimes and terribly other times, just like OCs.

I have no preference in fandom games whether there are canons or not. I don't like canon-only games, because I like to play my own characters. I don't like original games having 'canons' (actually pre-made characters). I've played on pretty much every situation concerning allowing canons/OCs or not, except original boards with pre-mades only. I've never noticed any one type attracting worse players.

Quoted for truth, and for Yoda.

I could never join a canon-only website. For me, making the character is actually much more fun than actually playing the character.

That reminds me of an Oscar Wilde quote, something like "there is no such thing as an immoral book, only good writing and bad writing."

From my experience, I've seen more sue-ish OCs, but the vast majority of OCs have been good (or at least okay) characters, and I don't see what the problem with originals is as long as there's some sort of approval/screening process. At the same time, though, it depends on what the canons are like and how well developed they are.

That's basically it. Any character, canon or original, can become a Sue or Stu. It all depends on who plays them. There are characters out there that are exceptionally talented and wise and nearly perfect in every way. If they are played well, they will not be considered a Sue/Stu. They will be loved and their player will be admired and valued. If they are played poorly, they will be considered a horrible, unbalanced character.

Just about every awesome canon that I can think of would easily be a Sue/Stu in the wrong hands. Cyclops, Morpheus, Aragorn, Arwen, Dumbledore. . . the list goes on and on. It is possible to have an amazing character that doesn't irritate the heck out of people. Inexperienced writers generally can't handle them, but they can exist.

Think of people that you know that seem to be good at everything (I've been told in jest that I'm a Mary-Sue XD). They're probably not real-life Mary-Sues or Gary-Stus. They're real people functioning in the real world. They have real problems, and they probably have some quirks and flaws. Some of them are merely wearing an irritatingly good veneer, but there are also exceptional characters in reality. These are the types of characters that can be played well if they're understood.

Man. I've eaten my bodyweight in soup.

My favourite Essay on Mary-Sueism is here. To me, Mary Sueism is born of lack of imagination or pure inexperience and as has been said, both of these can be attributed to canons or originals in equal measure. A played Mary Sue isn't a bad thing--or doesn't have to be--given that they're placed in the right hands. It's easier to play a canon Mary Sue well, provided you follow the guidelines put down by the original author. An original Mary Sue is more likely to get out of control because the only person setting down guidelines is the player themselves. Of course, that's on the basis that the player will allow it to reach that point. They may not.

Edit: yeah, I'm sick. I finally read it properly.

-noob, or whatever-

I agree with Emma. There are people who put themselves in as the characters and that is just like putting yourself into a story. Are you really that interesting? Probably not. I prefer to write OC's though I'm only on one board (out of the four active ones I'm on) that accept cannon, and I still stick with my original characters, I understand them better. I could never myself play a cannon character in fear that I won't write the write, but that's just me.

A character needs flaws, needs quirks, needs just those little bit of emotion that makes them real. Not every character had a dark past and now is all perky and happy to be around, and play on every sports team, captian at least three of them. Look at people around you do you see anyone who is perfect? No, then why would a character be? That's just my opinion feel free to ignore or whap me lol :)

I don't think there's a rivalry between people who play original characters and people who play canons. I play both, but the original characters are my creations, of course I love them more.

With relation to Harry Potter, Harry is a Sue. His flaws are not nearly as great as his strengths (the chosen one) and they can all be explained by him being under pressure and his parents dying. My favourite book in the Harry Potter series is the one that he whines all the way through, because that 's the best characterization that Rowling does of Harry.

Do I think Harry is Rowling's wish fulfilment? No. I think Hermione is. All we hear is how Hermione is so intelligent, and she's supposed to be naturally talented, but she doesn't act like someone who is. She acts like someone who wants everyone to know how smart she is, but who actually just reads a lot and tries really hard. I think Rowling probably wanted to be one of those kids who was that smart, and she tried to write a character like that without knowing that in real life, if you're that smart, you don't have to try that hard and you don't look for that attention.