On Sues and Such; or, First-Time OC Writing

[sigune]

a_t_rain wrote, in a comment to my previous entry (this one), that “it's funny how so many first-time OC writers DO make a beeline for all the things Thou Shalt Not Do without even knowing what those things are.”
She raises what I think is a very interesting point. I gave some thought to it, and this is how I think it went with me and Bromelia/Brynhild – but by all means post your own experiences, I’m very curious to hear about them!

I think (but this is a very personal supposition) that many fanfic authors wander into the world of fan fiction because they have a soft spot for a specific (set of) character(s). They fantasise about said character(s), and somehow it seems appealing to create one all of your own to interact with them – it is your own, not-so-very-secret infiltration in a universe you like. It is very appealing to use all kinds of special powers/devices/backgrounds (preferably all at once) specific to the universe you have made your playground. These are the things that drew the author there in the first place. But the dangerous part is the one where they become so wrapped up in the game that they lose perspective and don’t notice that their new character is an irritating, quaint distortion that thrusts itself unbidden upon the poor, unsuspecting canon characters. If canon doesn’t mention your OC (and it never does), that means they can’t be very important to the main plot or, for that matter, to those characters you have been so eager to align them with. Consequently, it is unlikely they will beat Harry at Quidditch, outsmart Dumbledore, improve on Snape’s potions, unite the Hogwarts houses and/or defeat Voldemort.

Concretely, this is what happened to me:
I was drawn into Potter fan fiction through a sudden fascination with Severus Snape. I began to draw him in December 2003. Almost at once, I was drawing Bromelia too. I didn’t have a Snape story (I wrote my first in March 2004). If I had no story, then what was that OC doing there? Well, I just cooked her up to befriend Snape. That was all. She did not suggest any real, rounded plots, only small incidents and fragments of no consequence.
By comparison, when I created Septimia and then Stephen, I started from canon and Snape, and thought up the two OCs because they were necessary to the plot I had in mind. I wanted to tell the story of Severus’ defection from Voldemort, and I needed to figure out for myself what might have driven him into the Death Eaters’ ranks in the first place. He needed a background, a father and a mother – the arguing people we saw in the Occlumency lesson. The story - The Return of the Prodigal Son - necessitated Stephen and Septimia, and I think that made a lot of difference. The characteristics I gave them were determined by the story’s needs, not the other way around.
The proof of the pudding is that I wrote some six stories in which Bromelia did not figure at all, not because I struggled to keep her out but because there was really no way for her to get in – whereas Stephen and/or Septimia got at least a passing mention in every single one, and were at the very core of others.

Apart from the fact that my first OC was a kind of toy with no place in canon, as opposed to Stephen and Septimia, there was something else in play. At the time of Bromelia’s creation – it seems hard to believe by now – I had no idea what fan fiction was. I read my first fan stories and became a member of FA in February 2004, about three months after Bromelia saw the light of paper life. Stephen and Septimia made their first, very shy, fictional appearance nearly two months after that, and by that time I had read quite a few stories by other people. It made a great difference.
The thing is, I am not interested in writing the same things other people have written. I like subverting stock ideas – though it is up to you to judge whether or not I succeed. If I had been reading fan fiction before creating Bromelia, I would not have made the mistake (?) of endowing her with all those typical OFSue characteristics – characteristics that appear as ‘bad’ or ‘not done’ because they have been done so often and by so many people, which marks them as self-evident, fun to think up but not very interesting to read.
Example: when I first conceived Stephen, I went by the Occlumency lesson memory of the man shouting at his wife, as all of us must who want to write Snape père. I have a draft of the beginning of a prose story in which Stephen is a drunk, a violent man, a pure-blood and a Dark wizard. Although I was anxious not to allow other people’s versions of Snape’s parentage to influence me, I read around a bit, only to find that just almost every author I read had concluded that a man who shouts at his cowering wife is a) a drunk; b) an abuser; c) a Dark wizard, obviously, in view of a) and b); and d) a pure-blood, because of a), b) and c) and the fact that Snape fils became a Death Eater.
So far for my originality.

Now, I am a very contrary person, so if everybody read the scene that way, I made it a point of honour to try and come up with an equally plausible explanation that went in an entirely different direction. That is when I decided Papa Snape was a half-blood shouting at his wife because he’d discovered she was teaching his son Dark magic and he really didn’t like the idea. Severus came to hate his father not because the man beat him up but because he was so forbidding and never cared to explain his reasons for being so, and his turning towards the Death Eaters became a rather drastic form of teenage rebellion. To date, it’s still an unusual take on the Snape family of which I am consequently a little proud, but I wouldn’t have arrived at it if I hadn’t read my first idea done to death in other people’s stories.

I guess that what I am saying is that the “first-time” in After the Rain’s comment has its importance. You have to be well-versed in a genre and acquainted with its rules and stock characters/situations in order to be able to distinguish between ‘done’ and ‘not done’. At least, that’s how it is with me. I am less likely to produce something that I can consider ‘good’ when I have to do it from scratch; I need to read things that I find fault with, and start from there to make a version that is more to my personal liking.

The best thing to do for any (fan) writer, I would suggest, is to read what others do, see how they tackle characters and plots and make up your mind as to whether you like their solutions or not. Things like Mary Sue Litmus Tests only mean so much, and sometimes I think they have a lot to answer for. We may very well wonder which characters, canon or otherwise, would come out of these tests scot-free, and the tools may cause an author who is less than confident in their own abilities to discard characters which are actually perfectly alright. Also, an OFC who makes it safely out of such a Litmus test is, let us face the facts, likely to be a total bore. Who would want to read about her, a person without oddities, without talents, without a personality? (Er. It just occurs to me that a Modernist author might like to deal with her. I guess I should confess it’s not my preferred reading; you may beg to differ of course.)

The term ‘Mary Sue’ is much abused and is liable to send people unnecessarily into a panic. A Sue is defined as, among other things, a projection of the author; but there are excellent stories around with OFCs who are remarkably much like their creators and yet make for a great read. Personally I’m much more annoyed with authors who write about things and people they obviously don’t know anything about. Likewise, the Potterverse happens to display a lot of weird features and powers and ancestries; it would be ridiculous to forbid authors to use them in creating OCs. Tonks is a Metamorphmagus. That means there will be others. We know of several Animagi, and canon says it is a skill that can be acquired through training. That means it’s not unacceptably far-fetched that your OC should learn how to do it. The same goes for Occlumency and Legilimency. The thing is that you need to make sure these special features are never an aim in itself or an easy way out of plot holes, and they must be consistent with the Potterverse. Everything is in the writing. A good author can pull off just about everything; a bad writer can ruin the greatest plot and the best characters. Just look at all those little monsters who go by canon names but aren’t even remotely recognisable as JKR’s originals. I mean, I am all for fan authors letting their personality shine through their writings rather than trying to copy Rowling – but if they pretend to write a canon character, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least a little verisimilitude :-)… Fan fiction is by definition based on a pre-existing universe. It is a genre in itself. It has rules. It is nice to stick to them from time to time (without becoming dogmatic, of course).

There, those are my reflections on the subject :-).

Comments

[aerynstales.livejournal.com]

When I read the above quote, I had to laugh. Why? Because I must admit to doing the same thing. I came to the fandom the summer of 2004...and actively sought archives and sites that catered to Severus Snape. I wanted to write an epic (yes, cuz you know one-shots and me...like I can ever leave anything alone) and came up with this 'brilliant original idea' and plotted it all out and was so enthusiastic for it.

Well, long story short...I think I hit just about every cliche out there and then some. And I also think I managed to break a few cardinal rules. *irons hands*

I've learn a lot since coming into fandom and reading other...and I heartily recommend that to everyone too. I admit to still growing as well...but since I've put away the fic of doom and started on other projects, I'm finding I'm loving stretching myself. Looking into areas that have been explored by so many and adding my take to them.

So far, people are warming to them...and even if they don't, not everyone is going to write Snape the same way or in a way everyone is going to like. Infinite diversity and more the merrier. Though I do admit to loving cannon!Snape more and more each day. It took a long time to get the Rickman glasses off my view, and now I'm thrilling at writing a greasy haired ugly git.

As for my OFCs? They range wildly - my co-author and I are trying a Muggle gal who happens to run into him during his exile (assuming after HBP he has one) and we also have another story line where we have an OFC who was his wife when he was young and died as a result of some very bad choices he made (like...joining the Death Eaters)...she was a witch and a diplomat for the Ministry and not someone you would think of being with him...which is kinda the fun. Plus I get to explore the First Rise of Voldemort a bit more.

But the best advice, and really sorry for this long post, Sigune, I can give on OFC's is to have them sit in your head for a while and really put your mind to thinking what they think and feeling what they feel. Don't force them to fit your plot (nor cannon characters as well)...if you want them to do something that is not what they'd be doing...don't do it. And keep in mind...is this really someone whom this cannon character would interact with? Are they speaking with the right dialect (ie: is your Brit sounding like a Yank)? Do they fit the time period? Anyhoo...I could go on for ages but my lunch break person is here to relieve me...heh.

Excellent thoughts, Sigune...and really something for all to ponder and keep in mind. :D

[jen-deben.livejournal.com]

This is very interesting.

I remember when I was younger, the characters that ran around in my head as the centre of their own stories tended to be very Sue-like. They had everyone wrapped around their little fingers. I may be guilty of ageism here, but I wonder if the general powerlessness (and longing for power and autonomy) that goes with being a young teen tends to breed Sueish fantasy characters, so that when younger writers start writing, they tend to create Sues. To not do so requires them to be very aware of what a Sue is, and to consciously avoid it.

Now that I'm older, Sueish characters annoy me. I find flawed characters so much more interesting. I wonder if that is due to the fact that as you get older, and start having aches, pains and crappy coworkers, and just generally come to the realisation that you will never be omnipotent and perfect, that you start to really crave stories that address what it is like to be ordinary. After all, being ordinary is still complex and interesting, and you want the world to recognise that, so your fiction tries to address flawed, believable characters.

I started writing fanfiction because I had designs on writing a novel, but didn't have a lot of confidence in my ability to plot. I was obsessed with Snape at the time, which made it easy to come up with storylines for him, so I regarded fanfiction as a fun way to practice my writing and plotting skills. The reviews proved to be great too, in that they gave me that shot of confidence I needed. I recognise that having someone say your fanfiction is good is not at all equivalent to a professional editor saying so, but it still was good to be told that I could write something that people enjoyed reading.

And my first story, which involved Snape aging backward to childhood, was a total cliche. I was thoroughly embarrassed when I found an entire community on ff.net devoted to those kinds of storylines. However, when I read through a few of them, I decided that my story was still good, and that I had nothing to be embarrassed about. So I don't worry about whether my ideas are fresh or not as much, these days - only about whether or not I'm writing well. After all, plots get recycled in literature also, and no one bats an eye at it. It's the execution of an idea that counts (although you do have to execute things much more skillfully, if what you're writing is something that people have seen a hundred times before).

[hannahmarder.livejournal.com]

I think that maybe the 'Mary-Sue' phenomenom is actually a phase that most writers go through, and that the strenuous efforts to stamp it out in the fandom will never work for that very reason (not to mention being frequently counter-productive in creating paranoia and fear). Even writers obsessed with not creating a Mary Sue, who post up character charts and take all the 'litmus tests' can still end up writing one.

There are several threads around on FAP about the Mary-Sue phenomenon, including a 'have you ever written a Mary-Sue?' one that makes interesting reading. Most posters there - including many very good, highly acclaimed writers - admit to having written a 'Mary-Sue' type character at some point. They may not have posted it, or it might have been written for a different fandom or even pre-fanfiction days, but nonetheless, most people admit to having written a Sue at some stage.

The fact that so many writers have written a Mary Sue and have yet gone on to write excellent fics and good OCs and wouldn't dream of writing a Mary-Sue anymore, suggests that it is a phase and that most writers, even good writers, go through it and come out again. By coming down heavily on writers of Mary Sues, we may be damaging their confidence and putting them off writing, while the problem would go away of it's own accord naturally.

'Mary-Sue' is not restricted to Potterverse either - I understand she can be found in other fandoms, such as Lord of the Rings. The fact she isn't restricted to one place is further evidence that it is a natural part of a writer's development. When I was about thirteen I loved a corny TV programme called 'Bugs.' I wrote several stories which would nowadays be called fanfic, featuring a self insert called Julietta Esmeralda Du Fay (or something similiarly awful). She looked like I wished I looked (acne and glasses vanished, several inches in height and bust gained), was intelligent, popular and saved the day every time. It was fun for a while, then I got bored and (IMO) haven't written one since.

[aerynstales.livejournal.com]

'Mary-Sue' is not restricted to Potterverse either - I understand she can be found in other fandoms, such as Lord of the Rings.

I will second this! I write Sherlock Holmes fanfiction as well...and this fandom is rife with Mary Sues. And quite a few of them are admittedly teenage girls writing for the first time. I do think as well that writing one is a first step process...how can one learn but by making mistakes? But in this (Holmes) fandom there is not only the cannon to consider but also time period...and it's sad to say, but the more 'mature' (as in older) audiences will rip these young ladies to shreds for it.

But then we step into another territory...criticism. Do you think one should point out to another writer that their character is galloping into Mary Sue territory? And how harsh/gentle do you think one should be about it?

[jen-deben.livejournal.com]

...criticism. Do you think one should point out to another writer that their character is galloping into Mary Sue territory? And how harsh/gentle do you think one should be about it?

If someone puts a story into a public forum, then I think criticism is something that they must accept. If it's a public forum, then everyone - readers and writers alike - has an equal right to express themselves there. A writer can fish for praise, or ignore the comments of trolls, but I don't think any writer has a right demand that negative comments never be made about their work. The readers are not there as ego-strokers; they have a right to their opinions, even the negative ones, and a right to express those opinions.

I do believe in the merits of constructive criticism however. Comments like "Your story rules!" or "Your story sucks!" are not criticism; they don't address what is right or wrong with the story. The writer cannot improve, based on that. Mary Sues make for bad stories, because there is no drama or tension in a story when one character is all-powerful (as kaskait points out very eloquently below).

I try to be gentle when I have something negative to say about someone's work, and I also try to slip in a few encouragements and positive comments as well. Slashing someone's ego to pieces (which is easy to do; you don't see it, but a lot of writers have their heart and soul stapled to the page) is not constructive. I have a right to criticise, but I'm not helping a writer if I sink her into such a pit of self-loathing that she stops being creative. So I always try to be supportive as well as critical, and stress that I'd like to see the writer get better, not give up.

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

Do you think one should point out to another writer that their character is galloping into Mary Sue territory? And how harsh/gentle do you think one should be about it?

If there is something concretely, objectively wrong with the character, it should be possible to describe what it is without using the "Mary Sue" label at all. I don't think it's a label that's particularly useful when giving concrit, because it means so many things to different people. To be honest, if somebody did use that phrase when reviewing one of my stories, I'd probably roll my eyes and ignore it, because an awful lot of people in the fandom seem to define "Mary Sue" as "any competent female character under the age of fifty" and / or "anybody who has a relationship with my favorite male character." But if they pointed out a specific way in which the character was unrealistic or didn't fit in with the canon universe, then I'd pay attention.

[hannahmarder.livejournal.com]

Do you think one should point out to another writer that their character is galloping into Mary Sue territory? And how harsh/gentle do you think one should be about it?
If I feel a writer is having problems with characterisation, then I would certainly point it out, but without using the dreaded 'Mary Sue.' This is because there is so much confusion over what a Mary Sue actually is, and because any writer having their character accused of being one is going to be so hurt and upset that nothing constructive is likely to come of it.

If I encounter a Mary Sue, I will tell the writer specifically what I find unbelievable about the character and how they might improve in future chapters/ other fics. Whenever I criticise a fic, however much I disliked it, I always try to say something positive as well, since knowing what you're doing right can be as useful as knowing what needs improvement.

I usually try to be gentle when giving concrit, though I am always honest. Rather than just saying that something is poor, I say what the writer might do to improve it. Mary Sues are annoying, and it's tempting to tell the writer in no uncertain terms, but I don't think that that approach does any good. On the other hand, if there are problems with a writer's characterisation, then it can be helpful to point it out to them in a constructive way.

[kaskait.livejournal.com]

I think Sue-isms are personal avatars. A fantasy way of writing yourself as a strong, self willed person with no problems or enemies. In daydreams, all of us turn into sue or stu. It's a coping mechanism, ultimately.

The Sue/Stu factor will always have to be fought against in any work of fiction whether fanfic or your own stories. It's so easy to let them take over. I don't write fanfic but I have dabbled in my own stories. I try to combat the Sue factor by looking for the Drama. If you pick the scenario with the most conflict, the most drama, then the Sue/Stu will have a hard time inserting themselves into that dynamic. Sue/Stu people like to live in that happy, happy world in which no one cries, experiences disappointment or unreturned love. If you don't create that kind of environment, then they won't roost in your stories. But it's hard..oh so hard.

First TIme Writing

[secondsilk.livejournal.com]

I've written two Mary Sues in my time. One was a bit part in a CSI fic and in my editing I've toned her down a bit. Her first appearance (of two in one chaptered fic) was before I really understood the term, and the second after - so I tried to explain her a bit. People thought she was wierd, but like her well enough. The second never saw the light of day and in fact her staring story was never written.

I like redressing the stories everyone else has. Most (although not the best) of my ideas come from "correcting" other stories. And sometimes that is to create, as you do, a different explanation for a past. (Congratulations on your Snape-past, by the way. Certainly closer to canon than Evil-Dark-Wizard father).
I'm a sickler for explaining canon situations in the inbetween moments. This means that I rarely need OCs. I also came to fic writing mostly through crossovers (because they can be in canon even though they will never be canon and that's a nice freedom). So most Other Characters in my fics were from other fandoms. (This has its own problems, and I loved thinking up new and not-so-"interesting" ways for the characters to co-exist.)

You never got to write you Romance-Sue, but most Romance-Sues save the day. They save the canon chracters from the "mistakes" (plot-movement) they make without actually rewriting the skills and choices of the characters themselves. Most of what I know about Sues I learnt on the God Awful Fanfiction Forums, and I'm beginning to think that most are written out of love and respect for canon. They're not evil, just misguided. All that's wrong with Mary Sues is that they are written by people who still confuse creativity and originality with visibility.

I was talking to a Snape-fan friend of mine who once read Hermione/Snape (before I read HP fic at all) and I said she should write a fic which shows that Snape's not all evil. And she said she'd rather write about a young, intelliegent woman who saves Snape from his past. I said that you get to write one of those ever, and you never get to publish it.