Why I Hate (Most) OC Reviews

I've noticed there seems to be a new OC review book every week on QuoteV. While I value reviewing stories more, reviewing character outlines can help catch any inconsistencies or help tighten up the character so the writer can have fewer problems from the beginning. That said, writers shouldn't choose the first person, or first few people, they see offering these reviews.

I saw a hilarious thread title in the QuoteV's Writing group that said "Detailed Character Reviews Up to 200 Words." How sparse are these character outlines that it takes only 200 words to review it? And if they only accepted character outlines that were 200 words or less, then there’s be no way I could get any of my 4,000-words-on-average character outlines reviewed either. That’s two to three paragraphs at most.

I would have loved to have found an OC review book that I liked and respected, tell you why they're awesome, and encourage other OC reviewers to follow their example. Alas, this is not the case. After looking through more than fifty pages of searching for these OC review books, I couldn’t find any that I liked. Not one! To be fair, there were two that were . . . OK. Decent-ish. But they weren’t outstanding. They weren't the sort of reviews I was hoping to find. The rest were complete rubbish, and I hated them all. It feels like people are settling for bad reviews. If they believe these sort of reviews are actually good reviews, I disagree.

As an example to the typical reviews I’ve seen given, I’ll tell you how someone reviewed my character. I chose a popular OC review book a few years ago that spouted the same Mary-Sue BS around to see what they would say with one of my characters. I'm no saint when it comes to writing, I still need improvement on characterizing and development, and I wanted constructive criticism to help me improve that. I was begging for it. What I got instead baffles me and reinforces the reasons why I scrutinize character review books.

I chose Jared Gray because he was the first character outline I “completed.” I updated him in my OC booklet, and I still tweak the history as I outline the story, but what’s posted in the journal entry I linked to has remained unchanged since the end of this debacle.

First, the reviewer didn't understand that private character outlines that I use are not as detailed as the character outlines I type for online reviews. I'm pretty sure other writers are the same way. At the time, for fan fiction, I only had the name, appearance, and rough history and I was good to go. My characters didn't have any hobbies, personality, goals, motivations, etc. in their outlines because that was easy stuff to remember or make up as I went, but if I wanted the character reviewed, I knew I needed to put down a ton more information so the reviewer actually knew the character short of reading the story. It's like editing your own story, even the obvious can be missed, and I did miss some needed details for the reviewer to understand. My bad. But there was no reason to give me attitude throughout the review with "Please tell me this is explained," or "You better have a reason for this." Either the information is there, or it isn't. If it isn't, they could have inquired about that in the review in a respectful manner instead of chiding me. I did have a reason, but I forgot to put it down in words.

Another thing they did was guess. "Let me guess, this is going to happen." And then when I proved their guess right, they said, "Called it," as if a little predictability was a bad thing. That was not in the least bit constructive, and was condescending.

Here's the confusing part: the appearance and the clothing was meticulous. I described him so well you could sketch a mugshot of him with technical description, and even the shape of his hands and feet. I described different outfits for casual outdoor, casual indoor, semi-formal and formal plus his superhero outfit, which the reviewer pointed to as a good thing “since people usually only write one outfit,” as they put it. It's no wonder that I got a 10/10 under "Appearance."

"Personality" got an 8/10. I had the Myers-Briggs type and sub-type, a few paragraphs of his general personality along with how his PTSD impaired him being on a team of superheroes. The reviewer said it was really good and extremely balanced, but "could always use improvement" (to which, if something could always use improvement, why did I get a perfect score under Appearance? Why have scores at all if something could always be better?). The reason the reviewer subtracted two points was because of the PTSD, which leads me to the next score.

The reviewer gave me a 1/10 in the backstory. Why? Because of sexual abuse, plus PTSD, plus self-harming. Three things that tend to go hand in hand for a ton of people was overdoing it. In the body of the review, she made it sound like if I had stopped at sexual abuse, then the character may have been redeemable. PTSD was pushing it, but self-harming was an absolute no-no. They also complained that the backstory was all sad. Fair enough. I wanted to focus on how the abuse started, and why the abuse changed him and played an integral part to how he became the person he is at the start of the story. Because I wanted to get to the important parts, how his abuse was central to his metamorphosis from an average kid to how he gained powers, I bullet-pointed the history. Literally. And even then it was pretty darn long. I'm so sorry if I didn't mention any family barbecues. I'm so sorry I didn't mention any holidays. I'm so sorry I didn't mention Jared hanging out with his friends or camping trips or whatever!

As if that wasn't annoying enough, the character was for Teen Titans. Abusive and sad histories are pretty common in superhero characters. Batman, all the Robins, Green Arrow, Flash, Raven, who had a similar backstory and core motivation to Jared, and more superheroes from any superhero universe. The sad part is that even with all the details in everything else, they didn't trust me to do research on these subjects. They lumped me with people that have misrepresented and romanticized trauma even though reviews are supposed to be individualized to only the one writer's work. I had several links to articles and interviews, but I didn't think to include it in my character outline. I've never seen a character reviewer ask for this, so why would I know to include it? Lesson fucking learned.

Shouldn’t reviews give me tools to write better, and not dismiss it as something I would never be able to do? Or something I “shouldn't” write, period?

The Overall Character score was a 4/10 because even though I was super detailed in the personality and appearance, the backstory was so unforgivable, the reviewer didn't even know how to average out the score. At the time, I thought the Overall Character section was a separate score determined by the feelings and whims of the reviewer.

As for the extra tips, they put "FIX THE BACKGROUND!" Yes, in caps lock with the exclamation point. And what they meant by "fix," they meant "get rid of." Everything. Sexual abuse, PTSD, and self-harming. It would have changed my character to the point he wouldn’t have become a skin-walker or a hero and there would be no story. At least not a story I wanted to write.

It gets worse.

I placed a respectful comment asking for them to reconsider. I explained to them that the abuse was the reason how and why he became a hero, and I said that I didn't see how it was fair to penalize my character review for other people who've done the misrepresenting and romanticizing of sexual abuse. I told them I would add onto the character outline to add the necessary information, because it was needed (but the sass wasn't), and I also asked if the Overall Character score was a separate score or an average of the three other categories.

The OC review book had two reviewers. The main author was not the one who reviewed it, but she replied to me and thought worse of my character. She said if I did add in the information, they would reconsider and revise their review. I did add the information. I even added links about grooming, signs of sexual abuse, pedophiles, PTSD, self-harming and self-mutilation, and even a few sources on the Navajo because the character was Navajo (and yet neither of them asked me if I knew anything about being a Navajo and what it's like to live there and all or about the mythology of skinwalkers). It was all to prove that I wasn't fooling around, and the abuse wasn't for the sympathy points. I had a reason. Unless it's an image of their character—often an image the writer didn't make—no one usually adds links to anything, much less to a writer's resource pool. So me adding links to my sources is going the extra mile. OK, an extra mile of the five extra miles I had already put into the character outline.

I waited three weeks even though she said only a few days. Only one thing changed.

The Overall Score. From a 4 to a 6.3. That was the average of the Appearance, Personality and Backstory scores, which stayed exactly the same word for word. I know because I had screenshot everything before and after, including my comment along with their response. Please don't ask for the screenshots because I felt that the review was so ridiculous that I asked them to take down my character review. A year or two later, my hard-drive crashed and I lost every one of those pictures.

I scoured to find good examples of OC reviewing to sing their praises, but I couldn't find any. Instead, here are a list of red flags I look for in OC review books.

The Title Claims to “Kill,” “Exterminate,” “Murder,” “Slay,” etc., to Describe What They Would Do to Characters

Titles set the tone for your work. Do titles such as “The Mary-Sue Killers Spree” sound like people whom want to help give writers a respectful second opinion to improve on their original idea? I bet not. To me it sounds like a bunch of people whom are tired of so-called “Mary-Sues” or so-called “cliches” and want to be rid of them by picking apart every little thing, and then say to scrap it all, start over and to “be more original.”

Unfortunately, these impressions are often proven right. Some of these reviewers may not outright say to get rid of the character, but with all the micro-picking without any valuable advice to improve on the idea, and the condescending tone, it may drive the writers to do it anyway. If you want an atmosphere of lending an authentic helping hand in a respectful manner, going with these threatening titles is not a good start.

Now, if this was for comedic purposes, where people roast the characters, and isn't feigning to be helpful criticism, cool! That's fine as long as you have permission to use other people’s characters. Just don't pretend to be a review book where people are looking for serious constructive criticism.

The Reviewer Has “Do Not Be Offended” as a Rule

No one wants to get into internet drama, unless you like the sport of causing one, but you can't dictate another person’s emotions. People can get upset and offended even at the most tactful and respectful review of their work. Some people may get upset or offended at reviews of other people’s work, like how I was seething when I was looking into all these OC review books. It’s inevitable. “Do not be offended” as a rule says to me that my feelings don’t matter at all, that I’m just a piece of dirt compared to the “all mighty” reviewer. That wanting to discuss my disagreement (no matter how respectful I put it) would label me as a crybaby writer who can’t handle criticism.

Instead of “do not be offended”, have “please be respectful and civil if you disagree with something.” The writer can disagree, but can talk to the reviewer about it so long as they do so in a calm manner. Writers whom want their characters reviewed are opening themselves up, so shouldn’t feel invalidated. Reviewers are not gods, or perfect, and they don’t know everything. Their minds can change over time. They need to put themselves at a higher standard, particularly in customer service, and if they don’t, then their customers will put them in their place. If anything, reviewers need to look into how to defuse online situations should they occur, and how to prevent them so they don't.

Reviewers That Require Faves, Follows, or Comments as “Payment”

I’m on the fence about payments for character reviews. What I don’t like in particular are faves, comments and follows as the payment. Money too, but I haven’t seen anyone on these sites ask for that (thank god).

Faving and following are useless payments. People can fave/follow, wait for the review, and then unfave and unfollow. For this example's sake, let’s give people the benefit of the doubt and say they’re honest. Requiring a follow is a one-time deal. What if someone wants another character reviewed? What are they supposed to do then? Requiring a fave (whether it be for the review book or another of the reviewer’s stories) tells me that they’re in it for the fame and attention, but that’s my personal moral stance. No one has to agree that fame-seeking is a red flag. If you provide good reviews, people will naturally fave the review book, but what if the writer doesn’t like any of the reviewer’s other books?

If I faved every book I wanted character reviews from, I’d have a very cluttered library, and I don’t like clutter. I also don’t like making a group list just for “payments”. That screams “cheap” to me, and I hate to stoop that low. Not to mention, I also don’t want any update notifications about a story I don’t like or care for.

It’s often reviewers that ask for these sorts of payments only produce quick reactionary reviews so they can pump them out. This way, the more reviews they publish, the longer their review book stays in the recently updated list. More people see it, the reviewer receives more payments, thus they get more faves and follows, which bumps them up higher on the featured list, and the cycle continues.

Comments are also useless payments for the deletion factor. This depends on if the website allows people to delete their own comments, but, even if they can't, it can still become a source for drama if the reviewer wants comments on their other books. This can be fame-seeking behavior, but, again, that’s my personal peeve. The drama starts at dictating what kind of comments are acceptable forms of payment. “I liked the story” is a comment, but the reviewer my be so unsatisfied with so little that they deny reviewing the character altogether, or half-ass the review. But, if the writer enters their payment in a long list of honest criticism that is constructive and respectful, then the reviewer may not like this and take it out on the review. No one wins with these kinds of payments.

Unless this was an agreed upon review exchange, I can see how this would irritate the reviewer, but character reviewers don’t claim to be a review exchange.

A review exchange is where all parties agree to give an honest opinion of a body of work without feeling pressured to hold back, and in which either review isn’t colored with bias by the content of another’s review, whether it be in length, how they format the review, or if the review consisted more cons than pros. To combat this bias, each party would write their own review at the same time, and then publish the review on an agreed upon date, on the same day, and the same time. These review books want their review first as payment, and then they type their own review of the person’s work, letting their bias take over, either because they’re unsatisfied, or because they feel pressure to make the other person feel good after having received a review filled to the brim with praises.

Then there’s the issue about review books with co-authors. Are these writers supposed to "pay" each author, or to only the author who reviews the character? Are writers supposed to make another payment if they want another character reviewed? To each of the authors again? It seems daunting to have to follow a person I'm not interested on receiving updates from, or fave a story I have no interest in reading, or trying to come up with a comment on a story I didn’t like mostly because I don’t like feeling forced to read something. And then repeat this process for each author or when I want another character reviewed. Now, despite all that I have said, I did say that I was on the fence with payments. Having to read "payment" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If there were payments, I have conditions that I look for in a review book:

• Payments cannot involve any other work to any other user outside of the OC review book.
• It should be a single payment per character reviewed.
• Writers should pay after they receive their review.

So, if it’s not faving, following, or comments, what would be an acceptable form of payment in my opinion? How about a journal or an activity entry, linking to the review, reviewing the review? That way the reviewer gets some advertising, and the writer’s followers get to see whether the reviewer lived up to the their expectations. Rules:

• Don’t demand a word count.
• Encourage complete honesty—no demanding reviews that only sings praises.
• Don’t demand this payment. Make it a suggestion, or a voluntary donation. “If you would like, I would appreciate a quick shout-out about what you thought of the review you received.”

It’s not perfect, but it’s better than cheap faves, follows or comments as payment. And if someone decides not to review the review, oh well. The reviewer got some practice in and has more material to show people. They still get something out of this. Writing these reviews aren’t wasted effort if you don’t get a payment for them.

Reviewers That Require Images Within the Character Outline

Point-blank, some of us aren’t artists, nor do some of us have the funds to hire one. Sure, some artists are willing to create character art for free, but this doesn’t disregard my next point—images aren’t required to write a story, so why would reviewers need images to review characters? Either the reviewer doesn’t know how to read, the reviewer doesn’t have enough imagination to visualize the character for themselves—both worrisome, and I don’t know which is worse—or they just want another reason to pick apart or bash the character. They either claim that the writer isn’t creative enough by not having any images, or doesn’t like the images themselves due to general art style, the clothing style, face, if the character engaged in body modification, ranging from piercings to scarification, or other menial things.

Yes, the reviewer can dislike the art style, or how the character looks, just like the reviewer can dislike the clothes or body modification stated in words on the character outline. If the reviewer can articulate why, such as inaccurate anatomy, or body modification going against the character if the character hates physical pain, then all the better as a review. My issue is when the reviewer doesn’t like the aesthetics and forces their ideals onto the character with destructive comments, such as “They’re ugly,” or “God, another goth character? Really?” or "The anime style? Can't you be more creative and come up with your own style?"

Now if there wasn’t an image, the reviewer could still put the first two statements in the review, and I would still consider them as deconstructive comments, which is still a problem, but images exacerbates this sort of review. I’m not saying that reviewers should ban images in character outlines, but they shouldn’t require it either. That said. . . .

Reviewers That Gripe Over the Character Outline Containing Images

Have people used images that aren’t theirs? Yes. Have writers used pictures as substitution for written description? Yes, and both of these are bad. Does that mean that having images makes the character underdeveloped or the writer a lazy writer? No, so there’s no need to have an attitude just because someone decided to add a picture or two to their character outline in their journal or their OC book that may not even appear in the story.

For one, if the writer never showed the picture, would the character still have these same complaints? I'd guess not.

And, two, this is the internet. We’re not bound by the limits professional publishers put on us. Even so, publishers, even publishers for the adult demographic, don’t mind images. Or at least they didn’t used to. Illustrations took a major nosedive in the 1960's mostly to do with the cost of the extra ink, paper, and the plates that stamp the illustrations. The writer would get a lower amount of royalties if they do manage to have illustrations, but if the book ends up successful, who cares? And if illustrations came back in style, great! Publishers would be more inclined to find and hire illustrators.

Need proof of illustrated adult novels? Here’s a list:

• The Fellowship of the Ring, and The Silmarillion, by J. R. R. Tolkien
• Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, and Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll
• Every Day Is For the Thief, by Teju Cole
• Vanity Fair, by William Thackeray
• The Angel Esmeralda, by Don DeLillo
• Shampoo Planet, Generation X, Life after God, and Microserfs, by Douglas Coupland
• The Raw Shark Texts, by Steven Hall
• A Visit from the Goon Squad, by Jennifer Egan
• The Castle of Crossed Destinies, by Italo Calvino
• Ten Stories About Smoking, by Stuart Evers
• Frankenstein, by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
• Animal Farm, by George Orwell
• The Hearing Trumpet, by Leonora Carrington
• Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
• The Sherlock Holmes series, by Arthur Conan Doyle
• Paradise Lost, by John Milton
• The Divine Comedy, by Dante Alighieri
• The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde
• Moby Dick, by Herman Melville
• One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, by Ken Kesey
• Kurt Vonnegut's novels
• Many of Charles Dickens’s works too.

And. So. Many. More. None of the above had illustrated maps or a glossary of family crests or the like. None of the above are adult “picture books” either, resembling children’s books, but with adult humor. Nor are any of these comic books. These books had pictures of scenes or images (without being off topic to the book) that helped set the mood or help the readers visualize the written symbols. These books may not have published images on the first printing, but, some time down the line, they added illustrations or photographs.

I haven’t even included light novels which are text-based stories which have few entire pages with images, resembling a page out of a manga without text bubbles.

I’m sure some time in the future, e-books will use animated images to enhance scenes in a book that may be difficult to translate from words, such as intense action scenes, or a weapon transforming from a sniper rifle into a scythe.

This is all keeping in mind that these images do not replace the written narrative nor written description and serve a purpose to enhance the story.

As for writers using copyrighted images, including images used as “face claims”, without transforming them into something original, as defined by what qualifies as a transformative work, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and think it was unintentional. That said, all the reviewer needs to do is tell the writer about copyright laws, provide trustworthy and informative links, and suggest they remove it. (If they don’t, find the original owner of the image and let them know. Let them handle it because it is ultimately their choice whether to do anything.) Throwing a hissy fit and screaming at the writer won’t do anything but make the reviewer look unhinged.

Bottom line, if the reviewer complains about the presence of images, spouting how “unprofessional” it is, it’s a red flag. One, it’s an opinion which shouldn’t be forced upon others, and, two, they haven’t read enough professionally published works, which is worrisome.

They Have a Lot of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Syntax Errors

If the reviewer hasn’t learned enough to be able to correct their own writing mistakes, how could they expect others to take their advice seriously? One or two mistakes is inevitable, but if the review is riddled with them, I’d consider it a deal-breaker. I understand that some people suck at spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax, some may even have disabilities that inhibits them, but that’s what friends are for. Even though it’s not perfect, there’s also spellcheck. The Hemmingway Editor website is also a useful tool that I’ve been using and it’s free. Calling out other people’s mistakes while having so many of their own is pretty hypocritical. Heck! QuoteV now allows Editors to join the reviewer's ranks in the OC review book.

So there’s really no excuse for this.

They Begin Sentences With “You” Instead of “I”

This is a subtle thing that reviewees may not notice or may not know to look for. Reviewers less so. Words affect the recipient more than the one who writes the review, so even if reviewees can’t quite place a finger on why the review seems aggressive, they feel it. Reviewers, on the other hand, may not mean to have that tone, and don’t realize that their writing comes off that way. Since most reviewers that I’ve observed seemed to have not looked into how to write balanced reviews, few people know about I-sentences and you-sentences. Sentences that begin with “you” sounds like an order, while sentences beginning with “I” sounds like the person’s giving an opinion, which is the point of reviews. For example:

“This character is too powerful. You need to do this instead.”

VS

“I think this character is too powerful. To combat this, I suggest. . . .”

Sometimes sentences start with one, but is actually the other.

“I don’t like this character, so you should do this.”

VS

“You know, I think the character is OK, but I suggest. . . .”

Look through the person’s reviews and keep score. If they have more you-sentences than I-sentences, then that’s a bad start. If they have more I-sentences than you-sentences, then that’s better, but a review shouldn’t have any of these you-sentences.

The Review Consists of Short Reactions in Between Sections of the Character Outline

I know this has become the norm of character reviews, but I detest this style of reviewing. It’s one thing if the reviewer had large detailed portions of the review between sections of the character outline, but most of these reviews are one or two-liner reactionary statements at a time.

“I like this.”

“That sucks.”

“This is a Mary-Sue trait. Fix it.”

The only time when there are five-sentenced paragraphs or more is usually reserved for ranting or for the conclusion. Even if the reviewer wrote detailed and balanced sections of the review, switching from the outline to the review and back again would get confusing. It's especially true when some websites don’t support different colored or different styled font. Sure, the reviewer could use bold or italics, but it gets hard to read line by line by line.

This is more of a personal pet peeve, because there are some short one-liners that aren't reactionary; there's some actual constructive criticism there, but it is a red flag if they are only reactionary.

They Use Excessive Profanity

Do cuss words have a place in reviews? It depends on the individual. I don't mind profanity, even in reviews. It only becomes an issue when it's excessive or without reason or it's out of anger towards the writer. Profane words or phrases can express good and bad reactions, to emphasize their reactions, but when it's only used for emphasis on criticisms, it becomes an unneeded sting. If they use profanity for emphasis on criticisms as well as praise, it becomes more equal, and I don’t mind it as much.

They Use GIFs As Their Reaction

This is pretty much the same as the profanity point above. If reviewers are using GIFs only for writers to see how pissed or disappointed the reviewer is, what's the point? It's not enough to read *sigh* or *facepalm* or *slams face to the desk*, which are condescending things to put in a review, and isn’t constructive, now we have to see it too? If it's only to emphasize the criticism or negative reaction the reviewer has, it's melodramatic. It's the reviewer trying to maintain some sort of dominant position. If they use GIFs for criticism as well as praise, it's fine with me.

They Review Characters They “Found”

Let me get one thing straightened out: no one needs permission to review anything, whether it be products, books, or other people's characters. So, yes, people are allowed to review characters they found (if the website they host the review on doesn't have any rules against this)—that's not my issue. My real first issue about reviewers that allow readers to submit characters they found is that the characters are often ones that the reviewer would hate so they can bash. Some OC review books even have rules saying something like "If you find any bad characters, let me know so I can review them." If it wasn't just characters the reviewer wants to bash, if it was also characters the reviewer liked, I wouldn't have as much of a personal issue. With me, it's about fairness. Fifty-fifty. Sixty-forty is acceptable too.

My other issue is that despite not asking for permission, these reviewers still copy and paste the entire character outline to their review. If someone had copied and pasted the entirety of someone else's story, and added snippets of commentary, or posted someone else's picture, and only added a mustache and monocle over it, it would all be copyright infringement. These reviewers may spout that because they're reviewing these characters, their review falls under "Fair Use," but I beg to differ. The only one who can deem a piece of work as Fair Use is the judge in that court case. That means neither the reviewer, reviewee, nor I can say what's Fair Use and what isn't; however there are four factors that people can strive to aim for to try and keep themselves safe from a lawsuit:

• The purpose of the work must add a new expression or meaning, and also add value with new information, insights and understandings. Reviews are opinions expressed by the reviewer, and backed up with information and their interpretation.
• Fair use also depends on the nature of the work. Non-fiction, quoting facts and statistics, gets more leeway than fiction.
• It doesn't deprive traffic away from the writer who owns the character or the story in which the character appears in. Whether the reviewer liked or despised the character, it doesn't mean that readers won't go to the writer's work to look for themselves.
• It uses a limited part, if any, of the copyrighted work. Professional reviewers often quote small sections to make a point or to use as an example, but only small sections. They don't quote entire passages or the book.

The last two points are what concerns me when it comes to these online OC review books in general. When people review characters they found, or someone else found for them, these reviewers often don't get permission, and then proceed to copy and paste the entire character outline to their review. For one, it inhibits traffic for the OC creator because if they post entire character outline in the review, why would the audience want to go to the creator's work if they can see it there? The second is because they "quoted" the entire character outline. Without permission, it's, again, copyright infringement.

If these people get permission to post the character outline within their review, fine. That's not a problem. If they reviewed the character without needing to post the entire character outline, that wouldn't be an issue. The reason I stressed on these "found" characters is because most of these reviewers don't get permission and they post the entire character outline.

Bottom line, if you notice that they accept found characters, post the entire character outline, and doesn't ask for their permission, it's a huge red flag. Find the character's creator and ask them if they asked for permission to be sure. And again, let them handle it.

Constructive Criticism vs Deconstructive Comments

First, let's define the difference between constructive criticism vs deconstructive comments. Constructive criticism is criticism that aims to help and improve what they're criticizing, building on what they tear down. Deconstructive criticisms are complaints and gripes without any advice on how to improve it, and tends to put down the work and/or the work's creator. People can argue that people whom use deconstructive criticism do want to help, but the tone of the criticism would sooner make the writer give up than actually want to improve. That's why learning how to phrase criticism is important.

Some reviewers think that "brutal honesty" means having a complete lack of respect and compassion for the person they're reviewing, and choosing to forgo tact and strategic language to say what they want to say and how they want to say it. Reviews state the reviewer's observations and opinions, and if the writer thinks the review has valid points and chooses to make changes to their work, great, but reviews aren't meant to convince the writer to make any changes. Reviewers' aim should always want to help, but sometimes criticism is hard to read, even for those whom ask for it. Keeping this in mind, making pieces of criticism easier to swallow wouldn't hurt anyone. Using a tactful and strategic language to convey criticism doesn't mean watering down any observations or opinions or being dishonest, and it's still considered being "brutally honest" without having to be rude or condescending.

Uses the Phrases “Fix It,” “Get Rid of It,” “Start Over,” or “Kill Your Character”

These and other similar phrases aren't constructive at all and signifies that the reviewer gave up on the character. Instead of advising how to make an idea work, or explaining why something didn't work for the reviewer, they saw something they didn't like and wants the writer to get rid of it without considering how it would affect the character without it. Oftentimes, these things that these reviewers don't like are "cliches," popular tropes, come from a static and shallow list of Mary-Sue traits, sensitive subjects that have been romanticized in other stories, or having anything else that causes the reviewer to have a case of the eye-rolls. Of course reviewers can dislike something, but there are much better ways to phrase or suggest things. If the reviewer can't manage to take a step back from their gut-instinct, how open-minded can their advice be? Not very if they're dismissing a writer's ideas from the first mention of something.

They Don’t Have a Character Outline Template or a List of Information They Are Looking For, But Then Complain About Missing Information

Writers are as diverse as their character outlines—and not all writers have character outlines—so if a reviewer lets the writer dictate what information is important, great! but if they don't provide an outline template, or at least a list of required information for a thorough review, and then complain about all this missing information, the reviewer shouldn't punish the writer for their lack of forethought. Some writers only need a name and appearance, and pantses it the rest of the story, and others can create a novel-length pre-saga for one character. It's up to the reviewer to specify what they view is important for the character, whatever reveals the most to the reviewer, so they have all the information they need to review.

For example, if I were to review a character outline, a list of likes and dislikes often doesn't tell me anything, particularly because people tend to list obvious stuff such as liking kittens and disliking bullies, so I don't tend to include them in my template. As far as I'm concerned, this is extra miscellaneous information that may appear in the story, but isn't really important. However, goals, motivations and obstacles are important to me because it gives me an idea of the direction they want to go, why, and what gets in their way, whether it be internal or external. Unless prompted, I don’t see a lot of character outlines with this information. That said, while I would like to give writers the freedom to format their character templates however they want so they wouldn't have to make a separate template for each reviewer they ask a review from, there are specific things that I would like to know to better understand the character, so I would request that they add this information to their existing character outline. To the pantsers, it's great that writers who work with so little information can still complete their stories, but having only a name and appearance won't yield detailed reviews. Sorry, but you’re going to have to write out that outline.

They Complain That the Character Outline Has Too Much Information

On the other end of the spectrum, there are reviewers who complain about outlines with too much information, some even saying "probably Mary-Sue" by the length of the outline alone, as testified by Novadestin, the author of the Original Anti "Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test":

"I once got told a character was (read in snotty voice) 'probably Mary Sue' just because her profile was 'too long'... yeah, they didn't even bother to read it and just went off cause it was more than a couple pages long."

So what if the outline is on the long side? Information that may seem unimportant may come to play in the story, and if reviewers feel that a piece of information is redundant, the reviewer doesn't have to comment on it. Ignore it and comment on the things that are important. As I mentioned in the previous point, I dislike seeing lists of likes and dislikes, so if I see a list instead of telling me how and why they came to like or dislike something, I would ignore it and move on to what I can comment on.

Reviewers complaining about the length of an outline is lazy, and then declaring the character as "probably Mary Sue" is pathetic. If reviewers declared a page limit or a word count limit, I can understand. They're trying to keep an update schedule, and they don't have the time to devote to one character. The problem is no reviewer I've ever seen has this limit as a rule.

If a book reviewer claimed to specify reviewing any fantasy books, but then says they won't read half the recommended books because they're too long, people would laugh the reviewer off the screen because the fantasy genre is known for epic-length novels. If this book reviewer specified they reviewed short fantasy works from the get-go, bummer because they might be missing out, but the reviewer knows how they work and now potential reviewees know whether their work fits the reviewer's criteria, which saves time for all parties.

Praises Flaws But Doesn’t Like Strengths (and Vice Versa)

When people started accusing characters as Mary-Sues for all these strengths and seeming to be "perfect," can you guess what some writers began to do? They went in the complete opposite direction and gave their characters nothing but flaws and tragic backstories, and now these kinds of characters are being labeled as "anti-Sues." The "cure" backfired on the writer, but this vagueness to do with Mary-Sues always rubbed me the wrong way. Once again, more on Mary-Sues later.

I often find reviewers treat flaws/weaknesses and strengths as separate categories; more often celebrating the existence of a list of flaws, as if a list of flaws was an absolute rarity. Once "anti-Sues" became more and more prevalent, I've seen a few reviewers praise the lord that there were at least some strengths, but this kind of cheering remains a rarity all on its own. I don't agree with this separation mentality, and I find this sort of celebration disturbing. Just as weaknesses should complement a superhero's skills, our flaws often complement our strengths as a person. Both sets work together to make a character, so should be reviewed together.

That said, humans aren't a set number of anything, so why have five flaws and two strengths, or have five flaws for every two strengths? If humans don't have a set number of strengths and flaws, don't treat characters in fiction as such.

Another thing that bothers me about flaws in reviews, is when reviewers try to suggest flaws, and it's almost always something superficial, like acne, or some disability. Physical imperfections aren't flaws. Something like acne, a chipped tooth or scars can cause some insecurity, but what if the character fixes this in the story via medicine, dentistry, surgery or magic? Now the character doesn't have a reason to be insecure. They may have some lingering anxiety about keeping up a skin or dental regimen, but that's it if at all.

Some physical, mental and emotional disabilities may create obstacles for characters, and makes traversing life challenging, but it's also not a flaw.

Flaws are deep within the characters, it's something they have almost no control over, and it's something that can control their outer and inner lives. Let me give you an example to differentiate between flaws, weaknesses, and obstacles: a character has severe diabetes, but has little to no self-control despite the health risk. This lack of self-control, letting the compulsions win, can physically harm this character, but also dampens the character's confidence. Why do they keep letting the compulsion win? Why can't they be strong enough to stop? The diabetes is the obstacle, the weakness is the sweets itself, and the lack of self-control, the addiction or a compulsion to eat these kinds of foods, is the flaw.

Mythcreants does an excellent job giving examples of six types of flaws, which flaw would do best for different types of stories and some specific examples in each of these flaws, but VIA Character can also give you an idea of what can be flaws by telling you 24 character strengths. If a character is weak or extreme in one of these virtues, they can also be flaws.

They Ask For More, But Never Clarify How Much More

This is about lists in outlines, such as likes, dislikes, fears, strengths, weaknesses and flaws. Unless it's a "top 5" or "top 3" list of likes, dislikes and fears, which indicate that the character would have more than what’s listed, I don't understand why reviewers ask for specific numbers for things like strengths and weaknesses as I already touched upon above. For those that don't have a specific number, if a character seems to have more strengths than weaknesses, then the odds of a reviewer wanting more flaws is greater, and these reviewers never specify how many more weaknesses the character should have nor why they should have more weaknesses. This is another reason why I always write out flaws and strengths in paragraphs than in lists, because the reviewer probably wouldn’t bother to keep track of what’s what, and read what’s there than keep a score board. A few may still say to add more flaws, but most of the examples I’ve read seem to give me the impression that they say this just on a principle.

This is an oversight on the reviewer's part that they should have taken care of in the introductory chapter(s) before actually conducting any reviews. Reviewers need to make sure that writers looking to get character reviews know what information is pertinent in order for the reviewer to give them the best review they can give instead of wasting time needling for more information, or going ahead to give a bad review despite that the writer may have already had this information in their head, but didn't know to provide it.

The Reviews Lack Consistency

Reviews that are inconsistent within one character review is suspect. I've seen a reviewer fine with something, and then berate it in the same review, and that in itself is a red flag. The other issue I'll highlight is when the reviewer is inconsistent among many reviews, fine with one thing in one review, but hates the same thing in another review. There could be a few reasons for this.

(1) The reviewer over time changed their mind and never revised their older reviews, which is fine (ish?). If they left a disclaimer in their newer reviews stating that they used to not be fine with something, but they changed their mind because of whatever, then that's definitely a good thing for them to specify. It means they're honest, human, and has a mind that is open, and that's key to finding a good reviewer. This isn't a sudden flip-flop, but an evolution of change in thought.

(2) The reviewer favored their friends over strangers, or are taking bribes for better reviews. This is despicable behavior, but can be difficult to prove.

Or (3) one writer did something the reviewer didn't like, but another writer did the same thing but pulled it off better, and the reviewer liked that. This is normal and fine in a review.

They Treat the Character Outline As the Actual Story

Brace yourself, I’m going to be saying this a lot in the rest of this article: character outlines are not the story. They don't show development, or the lack-thereof, they don't show how why or why not their relationship with another character would work, it doesn't show how they will cope with the trauma they suffered or will suffer, and it also doesn't show the genre or the plot line the character goes through. Even if we had a summary of what the character goes through in the story, on paper is different from experiencing it in detail.

Character outlines are the building blocks to keep the character consistent in the story, and because development isn't shown, character outlines aren't enough to judge for Mary-Sueism. Even a cliched idea on the outline can twist around to become unique in the story.

They Don’t Know the Universe or Fandom, or Doesn’t Care

Different universes and different fandoms have different universal laws, thus reviewers shouldn't treat all characters as if they should come from one universe, or from reality. To put it simply, one character that works in one universe may not work in another. If a reviewer doesn't know the fandom well, how can anyone expect them to write a thoughtful review for characters specific to these fandoms? Heck, even adaptions can change the original universe, but almost no reviewer ever specifies if they mean the manga version or the anime version, or the movie version or the book version of the fandom they know. Movies or shows based off of books are notorious for missing information, expanding what wasn’t in the books, or straight up change things around.

Age demographic plays a part too. Particularly for fandoms aimed towards children and teens, these fandoms sometimes use something that would normally be taken seriously, and jokes around with it.

Dory from Finding Nemo has a short attention span which is played for laughs, but it also aids in revealing character development.

Vilads from The Dragon Prince has narcolepsy, which is for comedy.

Yes, there can be debilitating effects from having short attention spans and narcolepsy, but these characters aren't all doom and gloom either. Joking is a way of coping, after all.

If a writer wants to take it seriously, that's up to them, but if a reviewer is forcing reality on a fandom that doesn't work that way, what's the point in their review?

Then there are fandoms with incomplete universes with plot-holes everywhere built in to the canon. Winx Club comes to mind with the difference between fairies and witches, and if witches can be fairies, if there is a real difference, and there are male fairies, but we never see them in the show.

With these kinds of fandoms, its up to the writer to fill in the holes. If the reviewer finds holes within these changes or additions and wants to point them out and suggest changes, great, but if reviewers are taking this opportunity to force their own additions to fill these holes onto the writer, then they are being dictators.

When I had my own character review book, I was always hesitant of accepting characters for original stories because no one ever told me about their universe . . . even though I stated to do so in the template I provided. If the story is based in reality, OK. That's all that's needed in the character outline for me to review, but if the universe the character resides in is in complete fantasy land where crazy, Newton's law-breaking, stuff happens on a regular basis, how am I supposed to review it if writers don't tell me these things? Sure, I can review the character based on whether this is a strong and complex character, but part of my reviews is also whether the character fits in with the universe, which, to be fair, you could argue as more of a "characters aren't stories" point, but there have been cases where writers sometimes forgot their own rules, and broke it for one character for no reason other than for the character to stand out that could be revealed in their outlines. It's usually small inconsistencies that writers tend to miss that I look for.

Doesn’t Know the Difference Between Canon and Fanon

Canon is what's revealed within the source material or from the writers or producers. Fanon are theories that fans have come up with for the fandom, but the creators haven't confirmed it as canon. One is fact and the other is theory and speculation.

For example, in the RWBY fandom there was a piece of fanon that stated that each team of four members consisted of either all boys, all girls, or two boys and two girls (because the team shared a dorm room and people seemed uncomfortable with the thought of one adult girl sharing a room with three adult guys). I had even seen blank character outline templates specifying that teams couldn't be one boy and three girls or one girl and three boys. Yet, as of volume three, we have seen two teams that don't follow this supposed rule, and no character had ever seemed perturbed by this.

Even before volume three, I always had doubts about this supposed "rule" by how Beacon Academy forms the teams: the first pair of persons to make eye contact became partners, and then the pairs of partners whom chose the same chess pieces (or playing cards if you read about team CFVY’s initiation) were then a team. It's too random to think that odd-numbered-gendered teams couldn't be feasible.

Of course there are also writers whom write Alternative Universe, Crossovers, Alternative Timeline, etc. so it's its own new universe with its own universal laws. While it's unfortunate that most writers don't describe the new universe in their character outline, reviewers can always ask for them to supply this key piece of information before carrying on with the review. Otherwise, it might end up as an argument:

REVIEWER: "This doesn't go along with the canon material because of this, this and that."

WRITER: "That's because it's an AU."

REVIEWER: "Why didn't you say so from the get-go?"

WRITER: "Because I thought it was obvious."

REVIEWER: "Well obviously it wasn't."

WRITER: "Why didn't you ask for this in your outline template?"

REVIEWER: "Because I thought it was obviously important information that you would go ahead and provide."

Never assume that obvious is obvious. Reviewers need to cover their basis before accepting to review anything.

Hates It When the Character Has a Crush on Someone, Especially a Canon Character

I get it—some people don't like romance, but it's a human, natural emotion. And what if this story was for the romance genre or sub-genre? Without a romantic interest, it would make the genre redundant. There are even stories in other genres that can have romance that doesn't distract or detract from the main story line and conflicts. (Of course writers don't have to list love interests or crushes in the character outline if they don't want to because they know the plot.)

If the writer got rid of "crush" or "love interest," how would that affect the review? Would the character not having an interest in romance make the character more developed and better? If the writer put in "none," would the reviewer celebrate, saying "Finally! A character without a romantic interest!" Romance isn't a bad thing!

And why OC and canon characters, as opposed to another OC in fan fiction? Is it because this specific canon character is popular to write romance for? Why discourage it? Just because it's been done before by so many others doesn't mean the writer can't have a turn. Or two. Or as many times as the writer wishes.

Is it because the reviewer can't imagine the pairing working? Character outlines can't explain why the couple would or wouldn't work because that's the story's job. Even if the canon character had a "type," it doesn't mean things couldn't change during the course of the story.

The reviewer fears that the canon character will be out of character? You can't tell that by looking at the character outline alone because character outlines aren't stories. And the character outline is for the OC, not the canon character.

If the reviewer gripes about the mention of romance, that's their bias doing the rationalizing. Red flag.

Hates it When the Character is Related to Canon Characters

If the fan fiction is Alternative Universe, then the impossibility of a canon character having any more family is now a possibility.

If the fan fiction sticks to its canon universe, OK, there can be some issues, but if it's possible, then it's possible.

Other writers have done it? Who cares? This writer could improve on this idea or have a spin to it—we won't know that based on the character outline alone. If the reviewer is griping over the cliched-ness of the OC being a family member to a canon character, would they still have that attitude if it was an uncle OC rather than a sister, twin, or a daughter?

This character has a special genetic ability other members of the family inherit? That's because they are part of the family, duh!

As long as the character isn't a carbon copy of another character, or exists to replace another character, having a familial relationship with a canon character is fine. If either of these is a concern, voice that specific concern instead of blaming it on the fact that the OC is related to a canon character.

They Don’t Know What Plagiarism, Copyrights, or Trademarks Are

Do reviewers need to know what plagiarism, copyrights and trademarks are to review anything? No. But this is here because I have seen a review where the reviewer thought they knew what these were and accused someone of it. It's a messy ordeal for the accused even if they did nothing wrong due to those taking the accusation at face value, and then jump on the bandwagon to get them banned from the site, so I wanted to try and prevent it as much as possible by shedding some light about what happened.

Based on the best of my recollection (because I can't find that review), is that this character was part of some faction, and the name of this group was problematic for the reviewer. At the first mention of the name, they stated that it was the same name of a guild in World of Warcraft, and if the writer continued to mention the name again, they would lose it.

Tell me if this makes sense: the group is called this. Is the name of the group supposed to change each time the writer mentions the group? It's less confusing to refer to the group by its name than by referring the group as "the group." I don't need an answer from you; I know it doesn't make sense.

Anyway, the reviewer counted down to three, and on the third mention of the faction of the same name of the World of Warcraft guild, the reviewer exploded onto the writer, spouting about copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Here's the kicker: names aren't copyrightable. They can be trademarked, but only if you file for it, and online guilds don't qualify, but let's say you could tradmark online guild names without filing for it. It would have to be unique to the point where it would be instantly recognizable, such as people knowing that Harry Potter has dark hair, green eyes, glasses, and a lightning shaped scar on his forehead. The name of the guild was an amalgamation of a noun and a verb, like "stormeater" or something. You cannot trademark that.

The differences between trademarks, copyrights, plagiarism, along with fair use, transformative works, tropes and cliches are filled with grey lines which is why it's up to the judges for a final ruling in a legal court case. Accusing anyone of the first three is serious, and you shouldn't toss it at anyone lightly. If it were me, I would let the originator know and let them handle it. I wrote an article all about what copyrights and trademarks are along with some do's and don'ts if someone finds something too familiar, but the bottom line is that it's the original creator's responsibility to make a decision whether to take any action, not the reviewer's or any other third-party person.

Instead of getting heated and exacerbating the situation, the reviewer can mention their concern and suggest changes and alterations as if the character or idea was a cliche, but leaving the decision whether to change the character up to the writer.

If you come across a reviewer spouting off plagiarism and copyright infringement, and you know they're completely wrong, you can attempt to enlighten them and provide valid resources, but if they don't want to understand, convinced they're right about this, I'd move on.

Wants Originality But Nothing Too “Special”

As consumers of story-based media, whether it be books, movies, or comics, we want to meet characters who bring something new to the table, but, by the same token, if one character brings in so many new elements, skills, and every gadget or thing including the nuclear-powered kitchen sink, it can get tiring, if not boring because this character doesn’t face conflicts that challenges them, or has these things without reason or consequences. That said, as reviewers basing their reviews only on the character outline, how would you be able to tell that this character wouldn’t have consequences or conflicts? For all you know, this character could have died in the story. This character could have been a god. This character could have been a child’s imaginary friend, so of course could do all these amazing things and seemed to know everything and always seemed to be right to the child that imagined them. Say it with me: character outlines are not stories.

But, to play the part of devil’s advocate, let’s look at it from a different angle.

In the first incarnation of one of my characters for the Harry Potter fandom, she was a Slytherin, smart enough to rival Hermione Granger, loves to fly on her enchanted longboard, and is friends with Luna, Neville, and Cedric, but what I ended up choosing to get rid of was that she was psychic, seeing visions of the past surrounding murders, suicides and death. I remember being so adamant that I would keep that one trait because I thought it would make the story interesting. She would avoid Luna at first, but because of bullies, she decides to ignore her visions, and stand up for her; however she wouldn’t have been able to stand being around Harry due to the murder of his parents on top of the connection he had with Voldemort and the murders he committed. I remember coming up with a scene of her being flung into the lake, finding a magical ring, and then at the end of the story accusing one of the Ministry’s wife of murdering her twin sister that she had been impersonating and accusing him of hiding that body.

I still think this would make an interesting story; I could still write this, but, as I outlined the story, I realized these psychic visions and the mystery was only good for the first book out of the trilogy I wanted. It would play its part, and then I would never mention it again, and I felt that was a waste of potential.

Sure, this character of mine may not have been as outlandish as other characters ever created, but the process is the same. If something doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and if this thing isn’t caught in the character outline, it will more than likely get caught in the story outline. And if still not, it will get caught while writing the story. If the writer still doesn’t see the problem, then readers will voice out their opinions on whether something works, but it’s up to the writer whether to make these changes. This illustrates that the character outline doesn’t reveal what works and what doesn’t when it comes to the whole story.

That said, if you do get an inkling or a concern that things can tone it down or gotten rid of in the character outline, of course say you’re concerned that something may be too much, may be redundant, or won’t help move the story along. Suggest how to tone it down, or something else to take its place. Suggest outlining the story before writing it if the writer wasn’t planning on doing that, specifying the concern and asking themselves if by the end of the outlining process if they can alter this thing or get rid of if it doesn’t serve a purpose.

Reviewers complaining about characters they’ve seen over and over and wanting uniqueness, but then say delete this uniqueness without taking into account how this would affect the character and the story, such as my reviewers wanting me to get rid of the abuse even though without it there wouldn’t be a story, may not be the best person to get a review from.

Compares Your Character to Other People’s Characters

This is an extension of the previous point of reviewers wanting uniqueness, but this will be focusing more in the area of cliches. As I had pointed out that character outlines can’t show whether a unique element, trait, ability, or whatever else wouldn’t work for the story, reviewers can’t always tell if a cliché in a character outline wouldn’t twist and bend around to become reinvigorated and unique in the story. For the people in the back: character outlines are not stories!

That said, there’s another aspect to this point. If I want my character reviewed, I want only my character reviewed. There’s nothing more disheartening than hearing, “Wow, this character reminds me so much like another character,” even if the intention was meaningful praise. I don’t want other characters to color the reviewer’s bias either, such as a reviewer denigrating characters suffering from abuse (and the effects of it) because other writers romanticized it. Sure, you can use other characters to help highlight a point on whether something might or might not work as examples, but as examples only. Not a direct comparison of which character did what better, or by saying because other writers did something badly, I can’t write it either.

Rates and Scores Characters

This isn't a deal-breaker for me, per se, but it is a concern. First, It's one thing to review something objective, such as grammar and technical writing application, but it's another beast when it's something subjective, which, based on the writer's mood or what they last watched or read, other than the character outline, sways. Rating a character is reflecting upon the reviewer’s thoughts at the time, and could change in a week, a month or a year. Subjectivity is the point in reviews—getting a human opinion on the work—but this is why I encourage finding many people to review something rather than depending on one person.

Second, it depends on what is being rated and scored. Rating the appearance, personality, background, and even the general writing is fine, despite the subjectivity matter, but "clichedness" and "Sueness"? Scoring high on the previous sets of parameters is good. If you scored high on the other two, that's bad. As I've stated many times before, character outlines are not stories. Things that seem to be "cliched" and "Sue" on paper in the outline may turn out to be great in the story. Having these two does more to deter would-be readers than attract them. Of course, it isn't the reviewer's job to attract readers for the writers, but, if I saw even a low score on "Sueness," that would say to me that there is still some Sueness to them that would turn me off of reading the story, especially now that the review alerted me to it instead of letting me come to that conclusion on my own, organically.

Finally, rating and scores insinuates some sort of competition. Sure, characters could receive the same score, but the writer could think “Whew, at least my character isn’t as bad as that character” or “What? My character isn’t the best character ever? How can I improve this score?” The writer then tries to “improve” their character to improve the score of one reviewer. They end up caring more about an arbitrary number than the character and their story.

Compares Characters to a Standard List of “Mary-Sue” Traits

So many people who have OC review books spew much of the same old shallow BS I pointed to in my Mary-Sue Complaints Checklist where I "debunk" these Sue-traits to illustrate that just because a character has these particular traits, it didn't mean they were Mary-Sues. In fact, much of the inspiration for this checklist came from these OC review books. I've seen people say "Mary-Sue age!" when a character's sixteen. I've seen butt-length hair as a Mary-Sue trait. I've seen CanonxOC pairings scoffed at, or singing as another addition to the list of Sue traits. Fuckity, I’ve seen reviewers cheer at male characters just because they are male.

Many of these OC reviewers also get annoyed at characters for fan fiction, who join a group where the main canon characters joined, or a group that a lot of fan fiction writers also have their OCs join, such as Gryffindor or Slytherin in the Harry Potter fandom without taking into account that we, as the audience of Harry Potter know next to nothing about the remaining two houses, and we know more of Gryffindor and Slytherin students than of the other two houses, so of course Gryffindor and Slytherin houses would be popular to choose. Unless there is a specific rule about how many people make a group, like teams in the Naruto or RWBY fandom, there shouldn’t be an issue, but if the writer changes the rule and makes more OCs for all the teams, then this shouldn’t be an issue to gripe about either.

If you filtered characters down to a list of traits, of course they would seem to be lifeless Mary-Sue dolls. Context of the character and how they interact in the story matters, and since you can’t judge Sueism based only on the character outline, reviewers shouldn't use these “Sue traits” list. Anyone who depends on this list of “forbidden” traits don’t care to consider what the story could show.

Ladyloveandjustice posted this on Tumblr:

So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she is dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete [sic] level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly. They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her [;] even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.

God, what a Mary Sue.

I just described Batman.

The point this person wanted to illustrate was the double-standard male characters have over female characters, that male characters get away with more or they are somehow more acceptable than female characters with the same attributes, but this also highlights the fact that we can filter Batman down to a list of traits, but it wouldn’t be as impactful as reading the comics or watching the cartoons. With a list of traits, we don’t see what Batman does that impacts the story with these traits. We don’t see Batman develop with these lists of traits. We don’t get a story with a list of traits.

Depends on Mary-Sue Tests to Score Characters

If this is for posterity, and it doesn’t count against the character review, I have no problem with this, but if the reviewer is taking these tests in place of the writer to gauge whether a character is a Mary-Sue, and then basing their review on this arbitrary score. . . . I don’t think there is a single word to describe the height of mental laziness and non-critical functioning brains these reviewers have to trust a number based on what little information the character outline contains, and the scaling system of the test-maker’s opinion, and then crafting a review out of it.

Let’s take Syera’s Original Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test as an example because this is the test that’s touted to be the test to go to. And because this is the link "Mary-Sue Killers" linked to me on my first fan ficiton. And because Novadestin did the majority of the work in her Anti Original Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test, where she analyzed every single question and sub-question of an older version of the test on whether these questions could detect Sueism. I’ve read her analysis, and agreed with her 99.9% with only a couple of tweaks I would make, and did make when I calculated the statistics of this test. I then looked at the rest of the questions on the most recent version of the original test and used the same criteria to judge for detecting Sueism.

Out of 438 total questions of the most recent version of the Sue test, including sub-questions:

• 258 questions determined Sueism, of which, 2 are based on cliches, 13 questions are based on author-insertion, and 23 questions are based on plot-points.
• 99 questions needed revising to further specify for Sueism, of which, 5 questions are based on cliches, 7 questions are based on author-insertion, and 26 are based on plot-points.
• And 81 questions should be removed completely, of which, 6 questions are based on cliches, 3 are based on author-insertion, and 34 were based on the plot-points, none of which determine Sue-ism.
• Out of all of these questions, only 41 were De-Sueifiers that subtracted points, but I felt that 6 questions needed to be revised, and 8 questions should be removed. Of the 27 questions I deemed fine, 1 question was based off of author-insertion and 6 are based on plot-points.

That means, if we only used the questions that determined Sueism, subtracting the questions that are based on author-insertion (of which a reviewer would never be able to tell) and questions based on plot points (of which the reviewer would never be able to answer based on the character outline alone), you would only have 50.23% of this test to work with. If we gave the questions that needed to be revised the benefit of the doubt, keeping in mind the circumstances that would make this question be able to determine Sueism, and also subtracting the questions that had elements of author-insertion and plot-points, we would have 70.78% of the questions. Doesn’t sound so bad, right? That’s if we took the entire 5-part test, which no character does because no character is an original character, a fan character and an RPG character.

If we were testing characters for original stories we would have 319 questions to work with, of which:

• 195 questions stays as is, but 1 question is based off of cliches, 10 questions are based on author-insertion, and 14 questions are based off of plot-points.
• 67 questions would need revising, but 2 questions are based off of cliches, 7 questions are based off of author-insertion, and 17 questions are based off of plot-points.
• 57 questions don’t detect Sueism at all, of which 6 questions are based off of cliches, 3 questions are based off of author-insertion, and 18 questions are based off of plot-points.

If we gave questions the benefit of the doubt, we would have 66.14% of questions to answer for original characters for original stories, and only 53.29% of questions if we restricted to answering questions that did detect Sueism without any need for revision. Compared to the entire test, that’s 38.81%-48.17% of questions.

For fan characters, we have 414 questions:

• 241 questions are fine as is, but 2 questions are based on cliches, 12 questions are based off of author-insertion, and 22 questions are based off of plot-points.
• 94 questions need to be revised, but 5 questions are based off of cliches, 7 questions are based off of author-insertions, and 25 questions are based off of plot-points.
• 79 questions should be removed, of which 5 questions are based off of cliches, 3 questions are based off of author-insertions, and 32 questions are based off of plot-points.

If we gave questions the benefit of the doubt, we would have 63.29% of questions to answer gearing for fan characters for fan fiction, and only 49.52% of questions if we restricted to answering questions that did detect Sueism without any need for revision. Compared to the entire test, that’s 46.8%-59.82% of questions.

To top it off, the character reviewer would still have questions they wouldn’t be able to answer based off of the character outline alone, so that’s even fewer questions than the percentages I gave you. The point is, if we were to trust this test, these stats prove that there would be differing scores, both if we restrict the questions answered based off of an opinion of whether a question does actually detect Sueism, and if the writer or the reviewer took the test themselves. I’ll give you an example with Jared.

I made a chart and recorded my answers that would correspond with each variable. In three rows, I have “Overall”, “Benefit of the Doubt” and “Strict.” The first tracks every question whether the questions deemed acceptable to detect Sueism, questions that need revision and questions that should be removed from the test. Benefit of the Doubt didn’t accept questions I felt should have been removed from the test, and Strict only accepted questions that did detect Sueism with no revision necessary. Then, in three columns, I have “Writer”, “Reviewer” and “Character Outline”. Under “Writer”, I took the test knowing all the details that would the story included instead of relying only on the character outline. Under “Reviewer”, I took the test as a character reviewer reviewing the character outline, keeping any possible assumptions or guesses, but getting rid of any questions that are based off of cliches, author-insertions, and plot-points. In the last column, I went over the test again, getting rid of anything that wasn’t disclosed in the character outline.

	Writer	Reviewer	Character Outline
Overall	70	37	30
Benefit of Doubt	43	29	32
Strict	24	25	20

As a writer, I scored a 70 under Overall, 43 under Benefit of the Doubt, and 24 under Strict. As a reviewer, my scores were 37, 29, and 25, and the scores based off of the character outline were 30, 32, and 20. According to the test, my scores are as followed:

17-21 Points

Fanfiction: Low-to-moderate chance your character is a Mary Sue. Generally a safe range to be in.

22-29 Points

Fanfiction: Moderate-to-high chance your character is a Mary Sue. Still a safe-ish range to be in, but be careful.

30-35 Points

Fanfiction & MMO/RPG/Original Fiction: High-to-very high chance your character is a Mary Sue. Risky range to be in.

36-49 Points

Fanfiction & MMO/RPG/Original Fiction: Extremely high chance your character is a Mary Sue. VERY risky range.

50+ Points

Fanfiction & MMO/RPG/Original Fiction: Your character is almost certainly a Mary Sue, and a bad one at that. On the odd chance that xe isn't, it's most likely you didn't read the instructions properly (some people don't do this, which causes freakishly high scores). If it's the latter case, read the instructions and take the test again.

As a writer, I got a higher score than the other categories except for Strict between Writer and Reviewer. That means that reviewers who claim that writers would be too biased to take this test wouldn’t make sense here. If I was too biased, I should have made it so that I would have a lower score. If the reviewer treats their score as a base line, and assumes that the writer will get a much higher score, then about every character they review will be a Mary-Sue no matter what. Well, they’re a “high risk” of being Mary-Sues, which may as well say these characters are definitely Mary-Sues.

Another reason I chose Syera’s test is because Syera wrote an article denouncing her own test and explaining in her own way why the term “Mary-Sue” is useless in critiques and reviews. I’d like to plug in this line from the article about tests in general: “The message that many writers took from [the test] is that certain character traits and plot elements are always bad no matter what, when the reality is that whether something is ‘bad’ or not depends on context and framing.” I promise, this is the last time, character outlines don’t have that context and framing because character outlines aren’t stories.

Says They’ll Revise the Review, But Never Do

Reviewers don’t have to revise reviews if they don’t want to, but when a reviewer says they’ll do something, and never do, it’s them not keeping their promise. It’s unprofessional. And when it’s something as revising a review? Saying they “forgot” or don’t do anything (aside from fixing a score that had been a mistake in their original review) and flat out ignore the writer is disrespectful. The least these reviewers can do if they agreed to a possible revisement is place a statement at the end saying, “I have taken another look at this character outline, and the review I have given, and have decided to stand by what I’ve stated in said review.” That’s it. That’s all that’s needed.

Granted, it may be difficult to find examples of this when searching for reviewers, but if you find people in the comments asking for a second look, keep in touch with these people. Did the reviewers whom accepted this request hold their end of the bargain, or not?

Says They’re Being Completely Objective and Unbiased

I saved this one for last because this holds the brightest and reddest flag in this list due to how deceitful this is. For those that can’t tell the difference between objective and subjective statements, objectivity is completely factual and being true, and subjectivity is opinions and feelings. Being honest and true about your feelings doesn’t make your statements objective. Let’s give you examples.

An objective statement would be, “The chair I’m sitting on is made of wood, and is hard.”

A subjective statement would be, “I think this chair is too hard, so I need a cushion to sit on it.”

Reviews, while can hold both objective and subjective observations, they are in their very nature based on opinions, which are always subjective, and the reviewer will always have a bias due to what they’ve watched, read and experienced, but it’s these biases and subjectivity that makes reviews unique and valuable. When writers want something reviewed, they want a wide variety of opinions, and this is how writers learn about their audience and whether they’ve met that target.

That said, reviewers can also make recommendations to what kind of audience would be better for the writer to aim for.

“While this chair is much too hard for my tush, it would be great for people who sit over a prolonged period due to preventing back pain.” If a review’s aim for reviewing character outlines was to be completely unbiased and objective, they might as well just repost the outline and leave it at that.

Anyone who claims their reviews are completely objective and unbiased either doesn’t know what it means and has read somewhere that this is a better way to review, or is trying to make their reviews seem superior than other reviews and is lying to get more readers. Either way, anyone who claims this is being deceitful, and I wouldn’t trust anything they would have to say.

That seems to be everything I have seen and can think of when it comes to character outline reviews, and I know what you’re probably thinking.

“You bashed every single character reviewer ever! Every reviewer has most of these things, so where on earth would you get your reviews, huh?”

If I can’t find anyone, I don’t request reviews. I’m not going to settle just because there are so few options, and if I can't find anyone? Oh well. I'll go ahead with my story because, as I said, character outlines are only a tiny part of my writing, and not having a review for one character isn't going to stop me from writing the story. It shouldn’t stop you either. “So . . . don’t get characters reviewed at all is what you’re saying.”

If you find good reviewers, by all means, go for it. I just haven’t found reviewers that I enjoy reading from, just as I don’t follow every book blogger or movie reviewer. Trust me, if there was someone like Novadestin doing character reviews, I would go to them in a heart-beat, but, alas, I haven’t found anyone that at least doesn’t need to copy and paste the entire character outline for me to understand what they’re reviewing about.

“Way to be harsh! You’re being way too picky.”

Whelp, judging by the title of this piece, these are my opinions, and no one has to follow them like how I don’t have to change my character based off of one person’s review. That said, despite not finding much value in character reviews, at least in comparison to story reviews, I do hope character reviewing in the community improves. My way isn’t the way to go? Fine, but this is what I think and this is how I chose to express it. Don’t like it? I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Do you have any thoughts or questions on what you just read?

Send me an email to let me know!