Is Alexander Hamilton a Mary Sue?

This summer, Disney+ released the filmed stage production of Hamilton and I, like everyone else, watched it. I enjoyed seeing the show for the first time, after only hearing the music. It was interesting to see the characters acting out their parts, and it was also interesting to see creative writing tropes at work, like character foils and a clear theme of legacy.

However, there was one trope that stood out to me as something worth debating, and it led me to this question:

Is Alexander Hamilton a Mary Sue?

Of course not! Blasphemy! Slander! A Mary Sue is a trope indicative of bad writing, and Hamilton is certainly not that!

 Oh, I agree. The musical is very well-written. But when looking at its very smart, capable, well-connected main character that every other character seems to obsess over both positively and negatively, I kept wondering if the main character were named Alexandra Hamilton, if we'd already see tons of tweets, blog posts, and YouTube videos calling her a Mary Sue.

So what is a Mary Sue? A Mary Sue is a character, often appearing in fan fiction, that is an author's idealized self-insert character. This character is the best at everything. They are smarter, stronger, more talented, etc. than everyone else. If they appear in fan fiction, they outshine the actual heroes and characters of the story they're inserted into. Everyone in the story is obsessed with this character: the heroes adore her and the villains either want her dead or want to own her themselves. The Mary Sue is perfect. She can do no wrong, and anyone who opposes her is evil or extremely foolish.

(I say "her," as the trope began with a female character, but a Mary Sue can be a him, as well.)

I really like this video's definition of a Mary Sue. By this definition, a Mary Sue is a character that warps the story around them.

Why do I like this definition? Because it allows for characters who are popular with other characters as well as characters who are overpowered. A Mary Sue is always overpowered, but an overpowered character is not always a Mary Sue.

For the purpose of this post, I'm going to treat the play Hamilton as a work of creative writing, not a straight biography of a historical figure. Why? Because it's not a biography, and it uses those writing tropes I mentioned earlier. The Mary Sue is just one more trope to explore.

And explore I shall.

How does this apply to Hamilton? Let's break it down. Most people can agree that a Mary Sue is a character that is:

1. Overpowered in some way

2. A character that warps the plot and story around him/her

3. Too perfect to be real

4. Obsessed over by the other characters, again, unrealistically

5. (Optional) A self-insert character in fan fiction

As I watched Hamilton, I started to see some of these traits appear, or at least it seemed that way. Let's go through this list. Is Hamilton a Mary Sue? I will make the case for yea, and for nay.

1. Overpowered in some way

YEA

Alexander Hamilton is a Mary Sue. He's depicted as extremely smart ("top-notch brain" - "Helpless") and is vital, in story, to winning the Battle of Yorktown ("No one has more resilience or matches my practical tactical brilliance" - "Guns and Ships").

Hamilton is also lauded for writing 51 of the Federalist Papers, which sounds so very Mary Sue. Going so much farther than his co-writers? Well, of course he would! He's so freaking talented, why wouldn't he greatly outshine everyone?

Is there nothing he can't do? We are told also that Hamilton has "a marksman's ability" ("The World Was Wide Enough") in aiming and firing a gun. He also is "reliable with the ladies" ("A Winter's Ball") to the tune of two sisters falling in love with him on sight during the same night. We can imagine that mean's he's attractive.

So, mental, physical, and romantic prowess above and beyond that of the other characters. Need I say more?

NAY

Hamilton is not overpowered. While exceptional, he remains realistic in his abilities. The Revolutionary War brought out amazing talented people, and Hamilton is no exception. Were he truly overpowered, he'd be the one leading the army, the one becoming president, and he'd have far more admirers. We also see parts of this play where he fails: he fails to protect his reputation, his marriage, and his son. He was not smart enough to find a better way out of his problem.

Talented, yes. Powerful in the context of the story, sure. But not overly so. Besides, a powerful character is not necessarily a Mary Sue. Sherlock Holmes is brilliant but no Sue.

2. A character that warps the the plot/story around him/her

NAY

Not everything in this play is about Hamilton. The Revolutionary War does not revolve around him (see what I did there?), and King George III doesn't act and react based on Hamilton. Sure, he's the main character, and therefore would be in a position central to the story. But a Mary Sue warps a story. A Mary Sue makes everything about them: every action, reaction, and character is pulled out of proportion by the Sue. They then do things that are not in character just to accommodate the Sue.

Do we see this in Hamilton? No, we don't. Characters remain in character throughout. Therefore, not a Sue.

YEA

Sure, a lot of the play is about the war. But from whose perspective? And who takes center stage, literally, in this production? And is it realistic to do so?

From the first song of the play, this one seems to also apply to Alexander Hamilton. The very first song is about Hamilton, which works well as an introduction to the character, but it also establishes something very interesting about this play: Hamilton is at the center. Every character is introduced by how they relate to Hamilton, not who they are on their own. Lafayette, Mulligan, and Laurens are his friends. The women love him. Burr is the one who shot him. You see?

And do the other characters act in character? Is it realistic for multiple women to fall for Hamilton on sight? Does that happen in real life? And what about Washington taking Hamilton's side in a cabinet debate apparently simply because he prefers Hamilton in general? Is that realistic, too? Perhaps the characters remain in character, but that character is already established to be such that glorifies Hamilton and everything he does. Even antagonists just exist to show how awesome Hamilton is.

And is that realistic? I say no. He's a Mary Sue.

3. Too perfect to be real

NAY

Hamilton comes across as rather perfect, right? Oh, except there's that one little thing:

The Reynolds Pamphlet.

Oh no, I didn't forget about that. I couldn't. Not when "Burn" is such a beautiful song.

This part of the play is what complicates Hamilton as a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is perfect. He would never do anything as stupid as cheat on his wife. Therefore, Hamilton cannot be a textbook Mary Sue. Along with that, we are assured Hamilton is "abrasive" and "talks too much" ("Nonstop").

Even worse, Hamilton cheats on his wife and then publishes a pamphlet clearing his name of misusing funds by confessing to the affair. In the play, we are NOT supposed to sympathize with this. We're NOT supposed to think it's fine or good, just because Hamilton did it. We also see negative outcomes of this choice. This is not in keeping with the Mary Sue persona.

The obvious proof of Hamilton not being a Sue is that he's a likable character. Sues are so perfect they're boring. Hamilton is certainly not that.

YEA

Sure, Hamilton has flaws. He's abrasive and verbose. But those are like a character being described as "clumsy." Not real flaws, since we never really see them negatively impact Hamilton's character or story. 

So let's focus on that Reynolds Pamphlet incident, because that's the most powerful case against "Mary Sue-hood."

Even this is complicated. While we're not supposed to agree with this choice, Hamilton is forgiven of it, eventually. We also see that Hamilton himself is the author of this mistake: he commits it, and he's the one who reveals it and causes his own downfall.

So while I'll concede this point as showing that Hamilton isn't "too perfect," it only strengthens the argument for "overpowered": the only person capable of harming or defeating Hamilton is Hamilton. Even at the end, in his duel, we're told Hamilton has "a marksman's ability" while Burr is "a terrible shot" ("The World Was Wide Enough"), implying that Burr won through luck and because Hamilton pointed his gun at the sky.

A bit of a throwback, but characteristics of a Sue interweave with each other: a perfect character is perfect at everything, even ruining their own lives, right?

4. The center of everyone's thoughts and actions

YEA

This is best evidence for "Mary Sue-hood" we have for Alexander Hamilton. Every character in this play revolves around Hamilton. Every woman in the play loves him: Eliza marries him, but Angelica sings a great song about how much she loves him and wishes she could be with him, after falling in love with him in only minutes. Maria Reynolds seduces him.

Moving on, the play has Lafayette, Mulligan, and Laurens befriend and admire Hamilton from the moment they meet him, and Washington specifically calls for him to be his "right-hand man."

Jefferson and Madison seem to be constantly thinking about how to defeat Hamilton, making moves based on what he's doing and how to counter him or use him to their advantage. But the most clear image of how Hamilton is the center of the universe for this play is how Burr interacts with him. Burr sings a song about his own life and philosophy ("Wait For It") and it ends about Hamilton, not about Burr. Burr's rising ambition was inspired by Hamilton, and at the end, Burr's life is defined by his obsession with Hamilton ("It's him or me, the world will never be the same!", "Now I'm the villain in your history" - "The World Was Wide Enough").

 

Every character makes decisions revolving around Hamilton. He amazes and impresses other heroes, and even the antagonists are obsessed with him. It's interesting to see King George III even read the Reynolds Pamphlet, like even across the sea, the other characters are fascinated with what Hamilton is doing.

NAY

Okay, that is a good point. But Hamilton is the main character; the play is about him! Is Luke Skywalker a Mary Sue just because Obi-Wan and Yoda train him, and Vader wants him to join the Dark Side? No! A main character is central to the plot. That's why they're the main character.

And in this play, King George doesn't actually care about Hamilton. And while Maria Reynolds seduces him, we have no real proof she loves him like Eliza and Angelica are shown to. There is nuance here; the characters don't all fall at Hamilton's feet. The characters that are bound up with him are also not flat; Jefferson and Madison work with him at times. 

5: A self-insert character in fan fiction

NAY 

Hamilton is a historical figure, and not a character dreamed up by his author. Therefore he can't be a self-insert character by definition.

YEA

True. But I'd like to present for your consideration:

- Hamilton is arguably fan fiction of American history

and 

- Lin-Manuel Miranda, the writer of the the play, also played Alexander Hamilton on stage.

Not really an indication of self-insert, but makes you think, doesn't it? 

END DEBATE

So, what's the verdict?

Not saying. Make your own call.

But what's the point?

Like I said, I think if Hamilton was female, there'd be a lot of screaming that "she's a Mary Sue." A female character that is smart, a good fighter, and loved by all the men? One that every character is constantly thinking about? MARY SUE IT IS!

That assessment would ignore the other points: that she's likable and in fact fallible. Sues aren't like that.

When you call a character a Mary Sue, why do you form that conclusion? Is the character a Sue or just talented? Does the character warp the plot or are they simply active in it? Do other characters obsess over them or are they just important to story and character development?

And here's a question worth considering: if the "yea" argument convinced you, and you think Hamilton is a Mary Sue but still consider the play good writing, might it be time to examine this trope? A trope can be used poorly or it can be used well. Can the Mary Sue be used well? Is this proof that it can?

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Last, my book THE EXPLORER'S CODE hits stores next Tuesday. You can preorder it now. 

I also have a new video out. Here it is!

"They're Fighting - That's How You Know They're in Love"

Hey! This week is LTUE!

It's finally here, from Thursday Feb. 14-Saturday Feb. 16! I'm excited, but also kind of nervous. I hope to see you there. Here's my specific schedule, of my panels, but I plan on being there all day, every day of the conference. It's a good one.

As you can see from the LTUE dates, this week is also Valentine's Day.

Which means that, hopefully, you will get treated or treat yourself, and I will treat all of you to a romantic(?) trope that I think can work really well, or be a sign of really lazy writing/fandom.

The "they fight all the time so they must have romantic chemistry" trope.

As someone who has a couple of characters who are known for fighting a lot, I hear about this trope a lot. Heck, as someone who is on the internet a lot, I hear about this trope a lot. It's everywhere, from Hallmark movies to people's ship wars online. Here's the thing: I think too often it's done poorly and allows for glorifying toxic relationships.

Let us begin. This trope is so popular in romances as a way of raising tension in the story. If there's nothing keeping the main characters apart, then there's not much of a story. However, if they meet and instantly find something about the other person that irritates them, or something they even loathe, then you can keep a wedge between them for longer, and draw out the tension.

I see nothing wrong with this as long as it's done believably. In fact, I think this can be an excellent way to show character and character growth. Say what you will about Hallmark movies, but they're pretty good at this: the flaws the characters find in each other that cause them to fight are often based on misunderstandings stemming from past experiences or personality traits, or end up revealing issues the characters need to resolve before they can achieve the happy ending.

For example, they fight because she thinks he's lazy and he thinks she's a snob, but what has happened is that he saw her brush someone off without knowing the context, and she is very hardworking, to a fault, and needs to learn to let more in her life (she's the main protagonist).

You've seen this movie, I'm sure, or many like it. This kind of fighting tends to get resolved as the characters learn more about themselves and each other, and grow as people. They see that what they thought was a big deal actually was just a misunderstanding or that it wasn't as important as the things they admire or have in common with the other person.

This is done well. What is not done well is when the story takes this trope at face value and decides that fighting=chemistry.

No. NO. NO. NO!

I want to illustrate this with a story from my own life. I came home from a group gathering angry because I'd gotten into an argument with a guy (this was a couple months ago before I starting dating my boyfriend). When I told my parents about it, they responded with amusement and told me, "If this was a movie, you'd end up falling for him."

Context? I was fighting with the guy because he was trying to convince me that black people who get shot by police deserve it and that it's okay to pay women less than men for the same job because their ability to get pregnant makes them a liability.

In short, I didn't like him and I found his views revolting. We disagreed on a very fundamental level. This was not a misunderstanding or a character flaw I had to "get over." If I did the fiction thing and took this as a sign of chemistry, I would have found myself in a toxic relationship.

And yet I see this happen sometimes in stories and TV and online writing. Writers want to show chemistry, so they show the characters fighting without paying attention to the traits or perspectives that would lead to the argument, and how those traits lead to a wholesome relationship later. Or, I see fans shipping relationships, say, "These characters fight all the time. You can smell the chemistry," without, again, considering why they're fighting and if, just maybe, the differences are a little too much here.

Tropes aren't inherently good or bad, but I think when they're handled lazily they can lead to some very bad things. Like glorifying fighting in relationships as a sign of chemistry, when most social science agrees that while couples fight, the ability to work through issues together is a better indicator of success, and also, people tend to prefer partners who are similar to them in background and views.

That's not universal, of course. But the point I'm trying to make is that when writing characters who clash, writers need to consider why they're clashing and how the romantic relationship leads to positive growth for both parties, not a future of consistent bickering. Unless you're trying to show an unhealthy relationship, then by all means, go for it.

So, this Valentine's Day, I wish you lots of love and lots of well-written love stories, full of positive conflict and devoid of unhealthy relationships. May I suggest The Lunar Chronicles by Marissa Meyer?

Some of My Favorite Tropes

I had a productive morning! I got ready for school to start in about a week, and I also did some good writing. I'm approaching the climax of a novel, so I want to finish that before I start working on those spooky short stories.

(Which are getting better and better in my planning stages, all the same!)

Besides, the climax is always the best part. I've earned this dessert, dang it.

Anyway, because I'm in a good mood, I decided to write a positive post today. I considered writing about one or two of my least favorite tropes that I wish would just die, but I've talked a lot about those and I don't want to use this blog to whine. So today I'm going to name some of my favorite tropes, and why I think I love them so much.

1. Tapping on the fourth wall.

Let me explain this one. "Breaking the fourth wall" is when the writer acknowledges the presence of a reader and that the work is a piece of fiction of some kind. The show is a TV show, not real life, or the book in your hands is a work of fiction. The Muppets do this all the time. So does this guy:

When I say "tapping," it's not a full acknowledgement that there is a reader for the text. It's not a "yes, we know this is fiction and we're going to reference that." It's more a subtle appeal to readers, as readers, like slipping in a tiny reference to another show or book that wouldn't exist in that world. Like naming characters after characters from another franchise, or even very subtly calling out the premise of the piece. ("A show about a dog detective? No one would ever watch that!" in a show about a dog detective, for example.)

Or this:

They're talking about a show inside the show, but Gravity Falls also has a big mystery element. They're talking about both.

Tiny break, tiny crack in the fourth wall. But nothing super obvious. I love these because if you catch them, you get the joke, but you don't need to catch them to get the joke.

2. Implied backstories.

These are when the backstory of a character or situation isn't stated, but implied with words like "again," "one time," "like before." And we either get the whole implication, or we get enough and are dying to hear the full story, though we don't need to.

Like, there's a strange scene where the protagonist walks in one someone fingerpainting with their toes while eating lemon meringue pie, wearing a ball gown, and singing along to Taylor Swift. And they say, "Really? Again?"

Which implies this whole thing happened before. As weird and singular as you think it would be.

Or, "You shot me."

"One time!"

This is comedy gold to me. But used well, it can establish some good character development through implied backstory that can help readers understand the relationships between characters or past situations. Like this:

Person crying into ice cream, holding a picture of a past love interest.
Protag: *gently* "Really? Again?"

Not a great example, but there you go. I love implied backstories.

3. The Bad Guy really blew it, but didn't know it until the end.

This makes me so happy. Every. Dang. Time.

This is when the climax comes and the good guys go to fight the bad guy and apparently get smashed in combat (of physical or mental nature). The Big Bad is gloating, all hope is lost, the heroes are defeated...or maybe that's just what they wanted the Bad Guy to think.

A trope heavy in heist shows like Ocean's 11 and Leverage, this works best when it's been supported and foreshadowed the whole story and no one saw it coming. I love the reversal when the Bad Guy has to go from gloating to, "wait, what?" in a heartbeat, as the heroes get to give the closing monologue and tell them how they missed some key detail that let the heroes' plan come together.

Because you think the villain is supposed to give that monologue, but the heroes do, you see? You see the joke?

And it's clever. And I love me some clever writing and clever characters.

A good example of this is actually in the Harry Potter series, right at the end. Who is the master of the Elder Wand? Why, Harry is, not Voldemort, even after all the effort Voldy put into finding it.

Hohoho, I love it! This may be my favorite trope of all.

Anyway, there we go. Three of my favorite tropes. What are some of yours?

Superhero Tropes

Happy Monday to you all!

In Provo, it's a little gray and dismal today, which means I'm writing and listening to Christmas music. Yes, I know it's August. No, I don't care. Listening to it now doesn't diminish my appreciation for it in December, and I think that any music that encourages joy and goodwill toward others is worth listening to any time of year.

Refraining from raining on my parade is appreciated.

So, this last Tuesday I visited Orem Library. It was great! I loved being there and talking to the kids. I love doing visits; it's one of my favorite perks of being a writer.

The other is writing about crazy bonkers ideas and the "research" that feeds said crazy bonkers ideas.

I have a new project. It's in very, very early stages (I'm drafting a first draft now) so I'm not going to go into too much detail. Suffice it to say, I dreamed (as in at night) up the plot so you know it's going to be strange, and it involves superheroes.

But not superpowers.

It's a weird one, but I'm having fun, and that's all that matters, right?

Anyway, writing a sort-of superhero story involves research. I love it when watching The Flash becomes research. I've also been training for this for years!

(Does this mean I should go see Spider-Man: Homecoming again? For research? I think it does!)

As I've been researching, I've noticed some interesting superhero tropes. We'll see if I play with any of them in my story or not, but either way, they're fun to notice. Educational, too. Like....

- So many characters have alliterative names. Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Reed Richards, etc.

- Many heroes are scientifically inclined.

- However, the scientifically-inclined heroes fight the villains by brute force.

- Villains, on the other hand, tend to fight using technology and science (what does this say about how we see scientific research, I wonder?).

- The mask and costume are typically spangly and brightly colored.

- Heroes are stronger when united.

 - Villains are stronger when alone, as teaming up tends to end in in-fighting and backstabbing.

- Even though heroes are stronger as a team, they tend to punch first, ask questions later, when dealing with conflict.

- Secrets. Secrets everywhere.

- No one (except Hawkeye) seems capable of holding down a spouse and kids.

 - Superpowers have associate powers no one talks about. Like superspeed and super-endurance, so the physical body doesn't tear apart (skin needs to be strong, too).

- Superheroes are overwhelmingly on the young side of the spectrum.

- Villains range in age.

- Girl heroes tend to wear their hair down.

I'm going to cap it here. If you were hoping for some deep, meaningful blog post today, sorry to disappoint. I'm just exploring, prewriting, and sharing the things I observed with you. Some of which don't make much sense to me. If I'm going to play soccer, go for a run, or enter a jujitsu tournament, I tie my hair back so it doesn't get in my way. Why don't superhero women do the same? I guess Wonder Woman does have that headband.

So that's good.

Here is this week's debut:

Young Adult:
Mary Taranta - Shimmer and Burn (8/8)