How to identify a (personal) Canon Sue?
Sometimes (as an intelligent species, and therefore creative, speculative about reality and so on...) we want to experience some situations which aren't possible at all. Then as a writer you can create a character who "lives that cool stuff which I (the writer) WANTED but isn't possible." Well, this thought defines the notion of "A character who was born to fulfill an author's power fantasy [1]." But, again, as a writer you introduce a story. Then you have a character who has this "feature of a Canon Sue" but isn't.
Considering a part of this video [1], how can I identify a Canon Sue? I mean, suppose that you want to fly by yourself. Are you really creating a Canon Sue by inventing a character who can "live your dream"/"do something that the author wants to do but is impossible in our reality" (fly by yourself), even though you have a proper story of this character to tell?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcXVGIi1m28 (in time interval of 3:16 - 3:20)
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/48852. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Always maintain some distance between yourself and the character. Ensure that the character is somebody you can empathize with, but somebody who is fundamentally and emphatically not you. As in "I could not be that person". It's a little bit like avoiding nepotism: If you hire a relative, or you're a judge deciding a relative's lawsuit, you can't help but be partial to them. It doesn't matter how firmly you resolve to be objective. It's not possible, you can't fake it.
So don't "hire a relative". If you always find yourself asking "how does he feel about this" and never "how do I feel about this", you're on the right track. The character should be perfectly comfortable doing some things you'd never do. You should think of the character as a stranger you've met and you're getting to know. You may well be ambivalent about some things about the character. All the better, so you don't feel bad about kicking them around.
Then you strive to represent this person fairly. Representing a stranger fairly is doable. You're not emotionally involved in their flaws and virtues. It is what it is. Sometimes you want to hold that jerk's feet to the fire.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48863. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
0 comment threads
I agree with Klara. The strategy I often use is to devise a character that has both a superpower AND a significant weakness, and devise a plot in which her superpower is of very limited help, and the only way she can truly prevail is to overcome her weakness.
She may be able to fly, but she is not a detective. Superman can keep law and order among normal humans, but his arch villains tend to be aliens even stronger than him, or like Brainiac, way smarter than him. Spiderman (in the comics) loses half his battles, the designers of Spiderman did that intentionally so the outcome of any given arc would have suspense.
In order for your superhero to not be boring, she needs setbacks to overcome, she has to fail. Fulfill your wish of making her the best in the world at something, or having a unique power. Do not fulfill your wish of making that solve everything. In the story, it shouldn't solve most of the challenges she faces. It's fine if it plays a role in the finale, if flying is, at last, critical to her victory, but it should be impossible for her to achieve victory without overcoming some deficit or weakness she has that truly seems to the reader to give the villain the upper hand.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads