Mary Sue- Not sure I understand

[Krensky]

ok with the exception of the last one (witch i really don't know) It seams to line up with sue hood...

It has a few (similar) meanings, but here it can basically be seen as "Look at me! Look at me!"

how ever I did find God Mode sue...a variant with no repercussions ont eh writer...
godmode Sue @TV tropes

TV Trope's neologisms aren't useful in literary analysis since they have no generally accepted meaning outside of internet hipsterism. They're are fun to read though.

Again, Elminster is a bit flashier and prominent, but he really doesn't look any different then a number of classical and modern heroic characters. A large part of his over use and exposure seems to be a mix of authors at TSR/WotC cramming in too many places because he's cool, and because he is (was?) the iconic character of the Realms due to Greenwood's use of him as the unreliable narrator for the Realms in general.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, just listened to an interview with R. A. Salvatore on the Open Design Podcast One of his best lines is, when talking about writing for a shared universe, authors aren't allowed to kill each other's characters. When asked who would win between Drizz't (sp) and Elminister, his answer was, "Well, if I write it, Elminister DIES!"

Really, I think we're splitting hairs. Even if you deny the Mary Sue appelation, the fact that Deus Ex Machina gets chucked around so often pretty much says it all. It's a God Mode DMPC that is all knowing and all powerful. Pre or post Spellplague, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Which raises the question: Is Gandalf a Mary-Sue?

No, that was Tom Bombadil.

 

[Doug McCrae]

With whom he's in a monogamous relationship for the decades of the Realms' published 'present'.

What's the sarcasm for? You can easily verify everything I wrote if you care to look.

It's not monogamous. Here's a quote from Ed Greenwood from the Candlekeep Forum.

neither I nor the nigh-immortal... fictional Realms characters I’ve created view “sleeping with” people as being incompatible with having deep, committed relationships with someone else. So they don’t see it as “lax” at all (and by the way, neither did a LOT of real-world American people of a certain generation, during the 1960s/Woodstock generation -- making love to Person A was seen as having nothing at all to do with being life-bonded to Person B).
Yes, The Simbul and Elminster DO love each other. Deeply. Yet neither of them would define faithfulness to the other as having anything at all to do with sex. So, yes, “swinging” between committed or married couples isn’t seen as Bad by a lot of Faerunians, in many places and situations (though among most citizens across the Realms, it would be).
...
I make no apology for this mental separation between love and lust. Outliving lover after lover, family after family, (many of) your own children, realm after realm, and so on will do that to you. You grab physical love when you can, and search for long-term partners with a desperate hunger.

The reference to the Woodstock era is particularly indicative of where Ed is coming from imo. In the same post he goes on to say -

If I was publishing the “uncensored” Realms, in fiction, most of my liches would be desperate to have physical relations with adventurers, not kill them. Think about it.

Again, at least it's not furry erotica though. That's something.

 

[Derulbaskul]

Mary Sue is, for the Forgotten Realms, the same as World of Warcraft for D&D4E: a cheap throwaway line with which to start fights on messageboards.

 

[billd91]

Again, Elminster is a bit flashier and prominent, but he really doesn't look any different then a number of classical and modern heroic characters.

I don't think that necessarily gives him a pass on his looming Gary Stu-ness. He's built like one, even if he isn't typically used like one. One toe over the line and he's there in fully Gary Stu glory. Perhaps a Gary Stu with a lot of potential energy.

The difference between a highly competent character and a Mary Sue/Gary Stu is a question of crossing one or more poorly defined lines and doing so too often.
Aragorn in LotR is highly competent, becomes pretty much loved by all and extremely politically powerful. Heading for Gary Stu territory? But he's rarely written to steal the thunder of the other characters, has moments of real indecisiveness, and spends some time off camera doing some of his greatest deeds. When he reaches his apotheosis, he largely fades into the background as an active character, and focus tightens on the hobbit protagonists.

 

[Mallus]

I think the term Mary Sue is kinda funny when used outside of a discussion of fan fiction. Especially when you start applying it to genres of fiction that are essentially built around power/competence fantasies. It's almost as if some people are embarrassed to be reading about the likes Doc Savage. In for a penny, in for a pound, I say.

And wouldn't it be nice --for writers-- if good characterization was simply a matter of making a protagonist bad at a few things...

 

[Dausuul]

TV Trope's neologisms aren't useful in literary analysis since they have no generally accepted meaning outside of internet hipsterism. They're are fun to read though.

Okay, this is just too funny. You realize you're talking about the term "Mary Sue," right? It comes from Star Trek fanfic! It's on exactly the same level as TvTropes. It's not like you can break out the Oxford English Dictionary and point to the definition. And "literary analysis?" If this thread is literary analysis, then TvTropes is a freakin' dissertation. Which is actually not so far from the truth; academic literary analysis is mostly just TvTropes with bigger words and more pretensions.

If you want a discussion of the Mary Sue concept and its applicability to both fanfic and canon characters (and no, the fanfic community does not have exclusive rights to the term), TvTropes is an excellent place to start.

My own personal definition: Mary Sue is any character whose presence causes reality to lose all depth and become a mirror reflecting her glory. All sympathetic characters love and praise her, even if they ought by rights to hate her guts. (They may turn against her briefly, so that the universe can then show them the error of their ways.) People who would normally step up to solve a problem simply wring their hands in despair, so that Mary Sue can save the day. All desirable characters want to sleep with her and/or are in love with her, regardless of whether this makes any sense for those characters. Everything she does is the right thing to do, and all the other characters agree that it was the right thing, even when she does something that in a non-warped reality would be considered appalling. The only time she's ever wrong is when she has doubts as to how special she is.

Is it always a bad thing for a character to be a Mary Sue? Well, I hesitate to say always about anything, but almost always, yes. Is her presence proof that the writer sucks overall? No. Good writers, even great ones, sometimes fall into the Mary Sue trap while remaining good writers in other respects. IMO, Buffy the Vampire Slayer became textbook Mary Sue in the latter half of Season 7, and she had some Sue-ish traits going on before that. I'm not fond of that part of Buffydom, but I still love the show overall and think Joss Whedon is an awesome writer.

I honestly can't say whether Elminster qualifies, since I haven't read the novels in which he plays a role. From what I've heard, he certainly seems to have some of the traits, but maybe it's exaggerated.

Oh, and regarding the "nudity is non-sexual in the Realms" business: Again, I haven't read the novels, but based on past experience with this sort of thing, I am extremely skeptical. If there are examples of this lack-of-nudity-taboo where the non-Elminster participant is not a stunningly attractive woman, I'll believe it. Otherwise, it's just a thinly veiled excuse to have stunningly attractive women get naked around Elminster.

 

[Vuron]

IMHO Elminster was initially envisioned as a powerful, extremely well-connected magic-user who is a bit of a meddler and deus ex machinae but much less powerful than he appeared in later fiction.

In the original greybox he was definitely a powerful wizard who was a decent match for Manshoon (the assumed primary antagonist for dalelands campaigns). However he was mainly useful as a resource for adventurers in that area. Sage Knowledge + wizard tower made for a good source of plothooks. Much like Gandalf it was assumed that if he was influencing events it was by subtly encouraging PCs to take up arms against the Zhents and defend the Dales and Cormyr.

Later on in Halls of Heroes, Elminster got a significant powerup (interesting enough Ed was not a writer on that book - I choose to blame Jeff Grubb who seems to have pushed a more superhero status for Elminster early on). He got some interesting abilities (including Psionics - not seen on him since).

Spellfire which came out about this time saw Elminster as powerful (and certainly a bit of a deus ex machinae) but beside indicating that Ed was not the greatest writer (although I kinda enjoyed this book), I didn't think it was exceptionally egregious as a Marty Sue. Shandril was much closer to a mary sue with exceptional abilities (in no way supported by the ruleset) that made her death to wizards.

I think the tide really shifted around the development of 2e and the decision to make Elminster and Driz'zt the signature characters of the setting. Troy Denning wrote the horrible Avatar trilogy which definitely amps up Elminster (although in comparison to the Marty Sues of Cyric and Kelemvor and the Mary Sue of Midnight Elminster is pretty much tame).

Elminster and Drizzt continued their too cool for rules status and I think this is about the time that TSR books editorial staff made the decision to push stories from Elminster's perspective rather than stories built around the Knights of Myth Drannor (which I gather is what Ed would've prefered). I assume that Ed wanting to keep writing decided to go along with the TSR preference and keep writing uber Elminster stories.

The wizards three bits in Dragon were also a reflection of this. The Forgotten Realms was the cash cow so Elminster gets first billing, Mordekainen gets second billing (maybe as a slight to EGG- who knows), and Dalamar as second fiddle to Raistlin gets third billing. Further as the "good" wizard, it seems that the TSR Standards group were more comfortably pushing Elminster as a good wizard instead of Dalamar's "evil" or Mordekainen's active neutrality.

However that there were reasons for Elminster becoming a marty stu does not condone that course of events. Ed could've toned down the rules breaking badassitude of the character (as could Salvatore) and he chose not to. Combined with Ed's liberal opinions towards sexual relations in the realms and Elminster became a overly powerful lecher. This negative impact has been magnified by countless Forgotten Realms DMs using Elminster as a godawful DMPC. Hell I know I used him as such way back in the day.

But honestly EGG's Gord was similarly overpowered and rules breaking (son of the catlord my ass). I can only assume that stories featuring Mordekainen would've unfortunately resembled Elminster stories (although I prefer high gygaxian to high greenwoodian).

 

[Obryn]

But honestly EGG's Gord was similarly overpowered and rules breaking (son of the catlord my ass). I can only assume that stories featuring Mordekainen would've unfortunately resembled Elminster stories (although I prefer high gygaxian to high greenwoodian).

Oh, absolutely, 100%.

I re-read the Gord the Rogue books just a while back, and he's basically the prototype of Driz'zt. I mean, by the final book, he's essentially a god, and kills literally thousands of demons in one scene. The series started out great - Gord was actually fairly interesting in Sea of Death and City of Hawks - but it got absurd by the later books.

-O