Mary Sue Doesn't Live Here Anymore

[AstralFire]

Those of you who know me personally are likely aware of the fact that I engage in something called 'roleplaying,' a sort of entertainment in which one essentially 'plays pretend' with other presumably grown adults. And it is likely that many of you perusing this enjoy reading amateur fiction on the internet from time to time. In both communities, there exists a rather popular phrase: "Mary Sue," and its synonym "Gary Stu," for the sake of gender equality.

If you asked a random sample of people to define the term, you would get a large variety of definitions. A recurring theme (and the one most likely to be picked upon) in the supermajority of definitions would be that a Mary Sue is a 'wish-fulfillment' character - a version of the author's own self, with either idealized traits and/or at the string of a center of extraordinary events. A person that the author wishes they could be like, in personality or achievements. One description that has long stuck in my mind is "building a character out of too much 'specialness'." For a quick primer on the Mary Sue in action, I suggest seeing this video for an intentional example of a Sue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUUBHHz645E). In any event, the phrase is a purely negative pejorative and Mary Sues are actively discouraged. To this end, supposed 'litmus tests' exist for novice roleplayers and writers to check for the dreaded flaw of being wish-fulfillment. Entire websites are crafted to showcase their follies.

For the most part, there is good intention in these actions; the proliferation of better writing will always be a net positive, all other things being equal. (I will choose to avoid discussing those who have a burning need to showcase superiority and have social approval of ridicule to those they deem lesser writers.) The effort is misguided, however, because the 'wish-fulfillment' or 'special' is what is continually measured and challenged, and not the quality.

First issue: It leads to characters being written that are just as poor at resonating with their audience as the Sues. Many novice writers who attempt to avoid the Sue by reducing 'specialness' simply make a story and character that reads blandly - this is not an improvement over being hackneyed. Others will try to write a character he or she does not know or understand simply because the character is radically different from the author's self. An author who is writing what she or he doesn't know or find interesting lacks the confidence and comprehension to make their audience find it interesting. This issue is not helped by the fact that many features given as 'sure Sue checks' will flunk at least a handful of major literary figures.

Second issue: There is a distinct difference between "this character concept is bad" and "this character concept is difficult to write." The former can almost always be more accurately substituted by the latter. Taking on challenges is a core feature of the history of humanity's achievements, and the successes prove to be what most intrigues us, time after time.

I present to you the case of a privileged young man gifted with swordplay and engaged in a close relationship with a beautiful princess. His parent is murdered, and he is sent on a life-long (and eventually, life-ending) quest for vengeance and rage which consumes him as it also consumes everyone around him. His relationship with the princess becomes strained as she fears for him, and after an explosive confrontation, she dies of a broken heart.

I have described both Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet#Synopsis) and a man who hates sand because it is rough and gets everywhere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s).

What do I ask you to take away from this? Obviously, this post is long-winded, but brevity is the soul of wit - and communication. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to go through such an exhaustive explanation everytime a newbie asks about the subject. If you must be brief when giving advice to a novice writer, it is this simple: "Don't worry about not being a Mary Sue. Worry about not being bad." They will seek out more information on what 'bad' may be at their own pace, and we can let the phrase, in all of its inaccuracy and misdirection, move on... to the next dimension (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ehVNXVyv0#t=0m22s).

Addendum: Large roleplaying communities with no ability to self-regulate have an additional concern with 'special' - there can only be so many people who single-handedly negotiated the end of a major war or commanded armies. This, however, should be filed under social consideration more than poor writing, and must be separately addressed; in an open situation where there are dozens or hundreds of individuals engaging in roleplay as the fancy takes them, it is best to be cautious about having a character assume widespread fame or impact.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Sir, I appreciate you.
The obsession and preoccupation with Marysues drives me nuts to no ends, and there really is a distinctive difference.

[Reinholdt]

I'll second the appreciation of this post.

[Optimystik]

I think you missed something crucial in your analysis. You're equating "Author Insert" with "Mary Sue" when they are two separate terms, though they do frequently go hand-in-hand. An author-insert, while having a lot of potential for abuse, is not the sole litmus for a Sue - even if that character is used for wish-fulfillment purposes.

To be a Sue, a character must warp the entire story around them. Canonical characters that should feel nothing but indifference toward this newcomer have much stronger emotion than they should - in the Sue's presence, they are moved either to extreme love, affection and protectiveness... or to hatred, jealousy and conflict, with little to no middle ground.

Consider Harry Potter and it's legendary derivation My Immortal. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanFic/MyImmortal) In the actual Potterverse, Harry and Malfoy can barely remember the names of the other students who attend their school, outside of their immediate circle of friends. Neither of them would thus have any reason to pay attention to Ebony, never mind plotting her demise or seeking intimate trysts in the forbidden woods. This goes double and treble for such lofty characters like Dumbledore and Voldemort, who also deem the girl worthy of their attention for no real reason.

It is quite possible to have an author insert without it being a Sue - he/she just has to be kept out of the spotlight, just as the real author would be unremarkable/ineffectual if thrust into the fantasy world he is writing about. Kevin Smith (aka Silent Bob) pulls this off quite well, for instance, by making himself all but powerless to stop the troublesome impulses of his boisterous companion Jay. Similarly, Stephen King writes himself into his own novels quite a bit, and generally as a victim or supporting character.

[hamishspence]

Mercedes Lackey's "Myste" in the Valdemar books, is an example of an Author Insert which, while having a impact, isn't quite as Sue-ish as some.

Partly because Myste has all the author's physical problems as well.

[AstralFire]

Sir, I appreciate you.
The obsession and preoccupation with Marysues drives me nuts to no ends, and there really is a distinctive difference.

Greetings to you, my fellow random-brassiers-in-Target-finding acquaintance. :)


I think you missed something crucial in your analysis. You're equating "Author Insert" with "Mary Sue" when they are two separate terms, though they do frequently go hand-in-hand. An author-insert, while having a lot of potential for abuse, is not the sole litmus for a Sue - even if that character is used for wish-fulfillment purposes.

...snipped...

It is quite possible to have an author insert without it being a Sue - he/she just has to be kept out of the spotlight, just as the real author would be unremarkable/ineffectual if thrust into the fantasy world he is writing about. Kevin Smith (aka Silent Bob) pulls this off quite well, for instance, by making himself all but powerless to stop the troublesome impulses of his boisterous companion Jay. Similarly, Stephen King writes himself into his own novels quite a bit, and generally as a victim or supporting character.

As I said on another forum: Essentially, I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with the term when used precisely; the Wikipedia page discussing Mary Sue, for example, hits upon just about all of my points and expands on them. The problem is that when people say 'Mary Sue' and are asked to explain, they -mean- 'bad' but will still say and focus on 'wish-fulfillment' and 'special,' so we may as well redirect our attentions on the core issue - 'bad'. Also, the definition of Mary Sue is extremely wild and variant, so your precise usage will not jive with my own.

[truemane]

I've ranted about this before, but this seems a reasonable place to revisit the topic.

The problem with defining the Mary Stu is that the problem is one of tone, not content. As you said, you can find any number of main characters in any number of accepted and/or treasured works of art that failfailfail any Mary Stu test. And you can find any number of characters that grate on the Mary Stu haters despite not being as Mary Stu as others.

Because it's all about tone. It's not WHAT that character does or says or is, it's HOW they do it.

The parallel I always draw is pornography. Courts have a devil of a time defining and legislating pornography. Not just because one man's porn is another man's art (although that's true too) but because porn comes down to tone. You can't say nipple = pron or penis=pron. It's even hard to say that naked kid=pron because there are any number of non-sexual contexts in which a child could reasonably be naked. Add the 'artistic merit' clause on top of that and the issue becomes even more complicated.

There was a Judge (I forget where) who said, in the middle of some sort of anti-obscenity case "You can't define pornography but you know it when you see it."

Mary Stus are the same. You could say any given trait, and I could explain it away. Centre of the universe? Of course! It's the main character! Perfect in every way? No way! Look at that time they were wrong about something! Perfect except for one carefully placed flaw that exists only to avoid the curse of the Mary Stu? Same with Achilles.

It's a game you can't win. You say Eragon is a Mary Stu for X and Y and Z and I say he's not for A and B and C.

Because it comes down to tone. And that's the one thing that you can't really put in a checklist.

This goes double for the Mary Stu in a role-playing game. One player can play a perfect character with all 18's who does and says everything right and gets whatever they want and wins all the fights, but they could do it with some style and some grace and in a group where it's funny and okay and there's nothing Mary Stu about it.

Then you take the bitter misanthropic loner with the scar on the face and the black glossy armour who only ever 'talks with the edge of his sword' and who always has to talk as though he's the villain in a Victorian melodrama, and it doesn't matter if he wins or loses or whatever, he rubs you the wrong way and he has Mary Stu written all over him.

I feel the same about the Mary Stu's younger brother the DMPC, as well. So many pages devoted to arguing over what it is and how it is and it, too, comes down to tone.

EDIT: Also, great post, OP.

[Prime32]

I think you missed something crucial in your analysis. You're equating "Author Insert" with "Mary Sue" when they are two separate terms, though they do frequently go hand-in-hand. An author-insert, while having a lot of potential for abuse, is not the sole litmus for a Sue - even if that character is used for wish-fulfillment purposes.

To be a Sue, a character must warp the entire story around them. Canonical characters that should feel nothing but indifference toward this newcomer have much stronger emotion than they should - in the Sue's presence, they are moved either to extreme love, affection and protectiveness... or to hatred, jealousy and conflict, with little to no middle ground.

Consider Harry Potter and it's legendary derivation My Immortal. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanFic/MyImmortal) In the actual Potterverse, Harry and Malfoy can barely remember the names of the other students who attend their school, outside of their immediate circle of friends. Neither of them would thus have any reason to pay attention to Ebony, never mind plotting her demise or seeking intimate trysts in the forbidden woods. This goes double and treble for such lofty characters like Dumbledore and Voldemort, who also deem the girl worthy of their attention for no real reason.

It is quite possible to have an author insert without it being a Sue - he/she just has to be kept out of the spotlight, just as the real author would be unremarkable/ineffectual if thrust into the fantasy world he is writing about. Kevin Smith (aka Silent Bob) pulls this off quite well, for instance, by making himself all but powerless to stop the troublesome impulses of his boisterous companion Jay. Similarly, Stephen King writes himself into his own novels quite a bit, and generally as a victim or supporting character.I should point out that Hermione herself was a self-insertion by J.K. Rowling.

[Closet_Skeleton]

For the most part, there is good intention in these actions; the proliferation of better writing will always be a net positive, all other things being equal. (I will choose to avoid discussing those who have a burning need to showcase superiority and have social approval of ridicule to those they deem lesser writers.) The effort is misguided, however, because the 'wish-fulfillment' or 'special' is what is continually measured and challenged, and not the quality.

Every Mary Sue litmus test I've seen says exactly that.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Mary Sue (n): any character you don't like.
-every fandom ever

There's nothing wrong with extraordinary things happening to a character, or with a character having extraordinary abilities, capabilities or virtues. That's what generally constitutes a plot. There's not even anything wrong with inserting the author as a character - some of my favorite authors do just that (look at how many of Dan Simmons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Simmons)'s short story protagonists are middle-aged teachers from Boulder, Colorado). The important thing to remember is to make your characters real, living people who are part of the setting, and not just piles of "awesome" that don't make any sense as anything but your own fantasies. Also, if they're meant to be sympathetic, have them act in ways that are sympathetic - this is something people like the authors of Twilight and Eragon forget, with their whiny and/or self-righteous-pig "heroes".

[Starbuck_II]

I should point out that Hermione herself was a self-insertion by J.K. Rowling.

J.k. Rowling is a mud blood?

[Dienekes]

Mary Sue (n): any character you don't like.
-every fandom ever

I'm not certain I agree with this. I'm fairly certain many star wars fans dislike jar jar in a relatively loud spoken way, however few would call him a mary sue, just incredibly annoying.

[Nerd-o-rama]

People don't necessarily apply it to everyone they don't like, it just often gets misused to describe canon characters that aren't Mary Sues, just unpopular. I am...rather surprised I've never heard someone describe Jar Jar that way, since the attitude of outraged "why would George Lucas add in a character so completely unlikeable except for his own personal amusement?" fits how people usually justify calling characters Mary Sues when they aren't.

Maybe because he's ugly.

[AstralFire]

I think that has to do with Jar-Jar more closely resembling a character out of an edutainment cartoon than Star Trek fanfiction. Also because you don't really top Luke S. if you want to know which character Lucas probably wish-fulfilled through the most.

[Prime32]

People don't necessarily apply it to everyone they don't like, it just often gets misused to describe canon characters that aren't Mary Sues, just unpopular. I am...rather surprised I've never heard someone describe Jar Jar that way, since the attitude of outraged "why would George Lucas add in a character so completely unlikeable except for his own personal amusement?" fits how people usually justify calling characters Mary Sues when they aren't.

Maybe because he's ugly.Also because he's incompetent and the plot wouldn't be very different without him. Mary Sues cause the plot to move around them - when we see major characters talking while the character isn't present they'll always be talking about the character.


J.k. Rowling is a mud blood?What, you thought she was a wizard witch?

[Nerd-o-rama]

I think that has to do with Jar-Jar more closely resembling a character out of an edutainment cartoon than Star Trek fanfiction. Also because you don't really top Luke S. if you want to know which character Lucas probably wish-fulfilled through the most.

Honestly, though, Luke Skywalker (in the original trilogy, anyway, not necessarily the EU) is so astoundingly archetypal and generic you can hardly call him a Mary Sue. Mary Sues aren't that Generic Fantasy Hero - it takes being a Special Unique Snowflake Fantasy Hero to start getting offensive.

[Optimystik]

I should point out that Hermione herself was a self-insertion by J.K. Rowling.


Mercedes Lackey's "Myste" in the Valdemar books, is an example of an Author Insert which, while having a impact, isn't quite as Sue-ish as some.

Partly because Myste has all the author's physical problems as well.

These are two more good examples of where Author Insert can be done correctly (i.e. without creating a Sue.)

[Nerd-o-rama]

Also because he's incompetent and the plot wouldn't be very different without him. Mary Sues cause the plot to move around them - when we see major characters talking while the character isn't present they'll always be talking about the character.

Well, I've seen people call, for example, Feldt Grace from Gundam 00 a Mary Sue. I dare you to find a named character in that show less relevant to the plot.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Also because he's incompetent and the plot wouldn't be very different without him. Mary Sues cause the plot to move around them - when we see major characters talking while the character isn't present they'll always be talking about the character.

Actually, we can blame almost everything on Jar-Jar.
After all, he was the one who put the motion forward in the Senate to give Palpy full power.

[Zen Monkey]

Watch most Steven Seagal movies. (I say that for example, not as a recommendation). He'll never lose a fight, or even break a sweat. He always has a dark and mysterious past. He always gets the girl, and all of the good guys talk about how glad they are that he's on their side. The villains, however, will always talk about how tough he is. In fact, there will usually be a long villain speech about how amazingly cool the hero is and how afraid everyone should be. No flaws (in the character, not in the performance), no real obstacles, and exists in a world where every character loves to talk about how special this one guy is.

[Optimystik]

Actually, we can blame almost everything on Jar-Jar.
After all, he was the one who put the motion forward in the Senate to give Palpy full power.

Perhaps, but Palpatine would have found a way to make that happen regardless.

Jar-Jar is more a Scrappy than a Sue.

[Dienekes]

Actually, we can blame almost everything on Jar-Jar.
After all, he was the one who put the motion forward in the Senate to give Palpy full power.

Ehh, the heavy implications were that they just needed someone to stand up and say it and it landed on Jar Jar mostly do to... well I have no idea why Jar Jar should even be allowed in a senate building.

But anyway it was Palpy's actions Jar Jar was simply one of many stooges that could have been easily written out or replaced.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Ehh, the heavy implications were that they just needed someone to stand up and say it and it landed on Jar Jar mostly do to... well I have no idea why Jar Jar should even be allowed in a senate building.

But anyway it was Palpy's actions Jar Jar was simply one of many stooges that could have been easily written out or replaced.

Yes, but Lucas chose Jar Jar.
Of course, I'm not arguing that Jar Jar himself was necessary, as anyone could have done such an action, but the role he played was pivotal

[Dienekes]

Yes, but Lucas chose Jar Jar.
Of course, I'm not arguing that Jar Jar himself was necessary, as anyone could have done such an action, but the role he played was pivotal

Well now we're getting into semantics, but I would argue that what separates him from a Mary Sue was that the role was pivotal, he was not. While for a Mary Sue they are pivotal and the roles revolve around them.

If we're no longer discussing Mary Sues and just Jar Jar, then yes, he did play a role in the overall plot of the Star Wars universe.

[Optimystik]

Yes, but Lucas chose Jar Jar.

That doesn't make him a Sue though. There was a legitimate, in-universe reason for the Senate to listen to him - i.e. he was the Gungan Senator.

If they were listening to him and valuing his opinion for no special reason, that would be a stronger mark of Suedom.

[Dervag]

There was a Judge (I forget where) who said, in the middle of some sort of anti-obscenity case "You can't define pornography but you know it when you see it."Potter Stewart, a justice on the US Supreme Court, in his opinion on an obscenity case.


Because it comes down to tone. And that's the one thing that you can't really put in a checklist.I think what's critical is whether a character's importance was earned. Lots of people love to read about hypercompetent heroes, or people who socialize with the most powerful leaders around them. But it comes across as wrong when people can appear on the scene from day one and have that kind of status without having worked for it, without bearing burdens and performing feats on par with the rewards and glory they've received.
______


I should point out that Hermione herself was a self-insertion by J.K. Rowling.Yes, and this is probably a good example; Hermione earns her importance by being a good friend to others and by working extremely hard- so hard that it becomes a major plot point. People around her come to respect her over time because she deserves respect, not because she's a Designated Main Character.


J.k. Rowling is a mud blood?Well, I assume her parents weren't powerful sorcerors...
_______


Honestly, though, Luke Skywalker (in the original trilogy, anyway, not necessarily the EU) is so astoundingly archetypal and generic you can hardly call him a Mary Sue. Mary Sues aren't that Generic Fantasy Hero - it takes being a Special Unique Snowflake Fantasy Hero to start getting offensive.Yeah. Luke shows ignorance, makes mistakes, has to be led around by the nose by assorted mentors for much of the story, that sort of thing. He's clearly a mortal human being who gets caught up in great things and eventually acquires power as a result of sacrifice and effort. That saves him from Sue-hood.
______


People don't necessarily apply it to everyone they don't like, it just often gets misused to describe canon characters that aren't Mary Sues, just unpopular. I am...rather surprised I've never heard someone describe Jar Jar that way, since the attitude of outraged "why would George Lucas add in a character so completely unlikeable except for his own personal amusement?" fits how people usually justify calling characters Mary Sues when they aren't.

Maybe because he's ugly.Also because he's annoying and incompetent. Mary Sues are generally competent: they succeed too much, not too little. Jar Jar is just a useless fool, though.


Ehh, the heavy implications were that they just needed someone to stand up and say it and it landed on Jar Jar mostly do to... well I have no idea why Jar Jar should even be allowed in a senate building.

But anyway it was Palpy's actions Jar Jar was simply one of many stooges that could have been easily written out or replaced.At a guess, because the Republic is so corrupt and so many of the Senators are already controlled by special interests that they're used to having useless fools in the Senate. It's the competent ones who really care about the interests of their constituents who are a surprise...

[RabbitHoleLost]

That doesn't make him a Sue though. There was a legitimate, in-universe reason for the Senate to listen to him - i.e. he was the Gungan Senator.

If they were listening to him and valuing his opinion for no special reason, that would be a stronger mark of Suedom.

I wasn't arguing that he was a Sue. I was arguing against the point that he had no importance to the plot.

[Optimystik]

I wasn't arguing that he was a Sue. I was arguing against the point that he had no importance to the plot.

But Prime32 is right - Palpatine could have had a variety of other characters put his name forward and not changed the narrative.

The mere fact that he was chosen doesn't make him important, if he is replaceable.

[RabbitHoleLost]

But Prime32 is right - Palpatine could have had a variety of other characters put his name forward and not changed the narrative.

The mere fact that he was chosen doesn't make him important, if he is replaceable.

And...I already addressed this.
We're going round and round and round and round.... :smalltongue:

I also think Lucas chose him for that position because he was hated, but, that's separate, methinks, and this whole conversation derailed the original point.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'll be honest; I've never understood why people hate Jar Jar. I like him. I think he's funny (in much the same way that the Three Stooges are funny).

[Moff Chumley]

Jar Jar ruined my childhood. :smallfrown:

But seriously, there's a lot of racist undertones surrounding the Gungans, if only in the area where I (and George Lucas) live.

[Matar]

I'm not really sure I understand this. Maybe it be cause i be dum

Anyways. Isn't a Sue just a perfect character? Everything she/he does is super awesome god like! And everyone can talk about how awesome she/he is!

And that's bad. I don't know about anyone else, but personally I can enjoy a story that had a bland main character. Or just bland characters. So long as they felt real, they didn't HAVE to do amazing things. But a perfect character can ruin even the greatest thing.

For example, ad everyone is going to kill me for this. Ghost in the Shell. I hate -and- love this anime because of the Stu in it. She is perfect in every way and even had an entire episode devoted to just showing how awesome she was. -This ruined it for me-. And yet, on the episodes that didn't involve her in the slightest, I really enjoyed myself. They were freaking awesome, but so few and far between.

Meh. I ramble.

[Catch]

The proclivity of online fiction readers to have taken Favored Enemy (Sue) relates, I believe, to the fact that it's far easier to point out what makes a poor story than to qualify what makes an effective one.

Because one requires a strong grasp of storytelling conventions, but the other, only the ability to point and sneer.

[Drakyn]

The proclivity of online fiction readers to have taken Favored Enemy (Sue) relates, I believe, to the fact that it's far easier to point out what makes a poor story than to qualify what makes an effective one.

Because one requires a strong grasp of storytelling conventions, but the other, only the ability to point and sneer.

I get your point (it's best to learn to understand all details of the story, not just yell at the obvious mistakes) but you're missing the magical alchemy of (A) most of everything is crap (and the internet has LOTS of stuff, and hence crap) and (B) the internet, in addition to being for porn, is also for complaining, which together lead to (C) the internet is full of crappy stuff to complain at for lighthearted sport.

There is very little that's lost by all joining in a hearty laugh at how stupid and pathetic a pile of Sue Eragon or Bella are. Maybe it's not highbrow, but not every person wants to be a literature critic. This is fun for the whole family. And let's be frank here - genuine Sues require pointing and sneering, and the more the sneerier!

[RabbitHoleLost]

Well, yeah, its easy to point out in established media who and who is not a Mary Sue.
I think the OP was referencing more personal roleplay characters, and I agreed, having lived through one of the Sue-Witch-Hunts FFRP had.

[Job]

Just passing through, also "the" quick reference sheet"

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h291/chopstewie/Mary-Sue.jpg

On topic, I agree, don't worry about the "Sue-ness" of your character while writing, just expose yourself to honest criticism. In fact most of the 'test' I've seen online have large disclaimers or even tell you to spice it up if a character is getting a really low rating. However I hardly think the term has been rendered meaningless.

[Cheesegear]

Mercedes Lackey's "Myste" in the Valdemar books, is an example of an Author Insert which, while having a impact, isn't quite as Sue-ish as some.

...She has the Mary Sue quality of ending up with the coolest guy in school Herald Alberich. A man who ordinarily wouldn't have anything to do with her. Their 'relationship' was forced and badly written. And when I did find out that Myste was self-insertion, things become much clearer.

I think it's worse, because it isn't a fan-fiction. That's actually what the author wrote.

[Dervag]

I'm not really sure I understand this. Maybe it be cause i be dum

Anyways. Isn't a Sue just a perfect character? Everything she/he does is super awesome god like! And everyone can talk about how awesome she/he is!

And that's bad. I don't know about anyone else, but personally I can enjoy a story that had a bland main character. Or just bland characters. So long as they felt real, they didn't HAVE to do amazing things. But a perfect character can ruin even the greatest thing.

For example, ad everyone is going to kill me for this. Ghost in the Shell. I hate -and- love this anime because of the Stu in it. She is perfect in every way and even had an entire episode devoted to just showing how awesome she was. -This ruined it for me-. And yet, on the episodes that didn't involve her in the slightest, I really enjoyed myself. They were freaking awesome, but so few and far between.

Meh. I ramble.The trouble is:

There is some very good fiction that has an implausibly heroic hero. It's just not the sort of thing you read because of how interesting the protagonist is. For instance, E. E. Smith practically invented the genre of space opera* with a couple of big magazine serials in which the protagonist was an incorruptible, athletic, heroic genius. So much so as to defy belief... and yet the stories are still widely read, because the sheer depth and scale of the novels is awe-inspiring (if you're the kind of person who likes tales of interstellar war and exploration to begin with).

On the other hand, no one reads the stories because of how compelling the main heroes are. They aren't, but Smith got away with it and still wrote good work despite that. It can be done.

*He was a major influence on, for example, Star Wars and Babylon 5.
________

Very few people can match that level of quality without good characters, and impossibly heroic heroes generally aren't good characters. I think that's why the phrase "Mary Sue" gets so much mileage: because there are so many stories that are ruined by the perfection or invincibility of their main characters. Especially in the amateur writing community (which has evolved into "fanfic" in Internet-speak).

Professionals usually know better, with a few exceptions. Even then, notice that one of the most infamous characters accused of being a Mary Sue in today's published fiction comes from Eragon... which was self-published. Another comes from the Twilight series... which Ms. Meyer sent to fifteen publishers, five of which ignored her and nine of which rejected the novel outright.

The publishing industry needs editors for a reason, and one of the things editors do is protect the reader from Sues.

[BRC]

Mary Sue is a tricky term, for several reasons.
First of all, alot of the ways people identify Sues are not actually traits that make somebody a Sue, they are traits unrelated, but usually associated with Sues. Things like a tragic past, for example, are used in all sorts of fiction because it's a very handy yet plausible way to solve alot of things with a character. You can provide them with motivation, backstory, a reason to leave home/devote themselves to whatever story you need them to be part of without raising questions.

Same with the Protagonist being Special in some way. Being descended from somebody special or having some special ability for example. This is only an implausible character trait if you assume authors work by creating a world, then picking somebody in it at random to write about. Alot of physical features people use to identify Mary Sues, or things about the character's name, do not cause a character to be a Mary sue, they are just often associated with archtypical examples.

For example, one of the things people say about Mary Sues is that they tend to be self-inserts. Idealized versions of the author. I am a male 19 year old with slightly reddish brown curly hair and brown eyes. If I write a story featuring a Male 19 year old protagonist with slightly reddish brown curly hair and brown eyes, does that make him a Gary Stu? No, and yet many people will take the fact that a protagonist is similar to the author as evidence of Sueness.

Another tricky thing is the idea of "Dodges". Let's say there is a story featuring the archtypical Mary Sue, but the Author attempts to avoid having the character called a Sue by putting in "Dodges". She states the character is not especially beautiful, then goes on to describe her like some sort of greek goddess. The character is explicitly stated as unpopular, yet has a massive cast of friends. The character is described as not especially intelligent, yet gets perfect grades, ect ect.

Now, the Author, still attempting to avoid their character being called a Sue put's in more dodges. To explain away the perfect grades, they put in a sentence about the character studying really hard, or not doing well in one subject that never comes up again. To avoid the accusation that everybody seems to become the character's best friend, the Author writes in some people who show up, say that hate the character, and then vanish.

The character is still a Sue. Merely sticking in a sentence about the character struggling, or a quick mention of somebody not liking them isn't enough. Of course, at what point does a character switch from being a Sue that the Author is trying to hide by quickly mentioning non-sue traits to a genuine non-sue.


Another Tricky thing is that series that features a Sue can still be a good series. The Archtypical Sue is the protagonist of a badly written self-insert fanfic, and so the implication is that any series that features a Sue MUST be an equal level of quality, and that being in a bad story is a feature of being a sue. And yet, you've got books like the original Dune, where Paul is very skilled, incredibly intelligent, quickly switches from living his entire life in the palace of a very watery planet to learning the ways of, and becoming the leader of the Fremen. Has a tragic past, is the Chosen One, ect ect.

And yet some would argue Paul Atredies cannot be a Sue, because Dune is a good book. And it is, it's a great book. TNG has Wesley Crusher, the super genius teenager who figures out solutions an entire well-trained engineering crew could not on a regular basis, and it's still an awesome series.

[Cheesegear]

And yet some would argue Paul Atredies cannot be a Sue, because Dune is a good book. And it is, it's a great book. TNG has Wesley Crusher, the super genius teenager who figures out solutions an entire well-trained engineering crew could not on a regular basis, and it's still an awesome series.

Deathstalker has Owen Deathstalker. And multiple other characters who are just as cool as he is. It's still a good book.

Just about any story of David Gemmel's features a Marty Stu of varying degrees. They're still good books.

[Green Bean]

A Mary Sue is what happens when a character is ridiculously perfect, with few flaws. They are usually powerful, and always right about whatever they say.

A Mary Sue is what happens when an author inserts themselves into the story. They often look and act alike, but what counts is that the character is used as wish fulfillment.

A Mary Sue is what happens when a story is focused entirely around a character. There may be others who are technically more important, but absolutely everything that occurs revolves around the Sue.

A Mary Sue is what happens when an outside character gets any sort of advantage over my favorite character, or shows any interest in either member of my OTP.

The point is, there are multiple standards people use to call a character a Sue. I imagine most people use some combination of the above as a gut measurement. The thing is, none of these categories presupposes the other, and since there's no consensus on the definition, there's going to be no consensus on how to apply it. And that's not even taking into account the people who just use it as a shorthand for "I don't like this character."

[Drakyn]

If a shorthand definition can be used for mary sue without excluding any of the possibilities exhaustively delved into above and above that, would "an author's doted-upon pet character" work?

[hanzo66]

Yeah, I usually accept that a Sue is either:

(in Fanfics)
1. A character who is Too Perfect and played straight.
2. A character who's able to gain the romantic interest of a character the author makes it clear he/she likes.
3. A character who makes a story all about her/him.
4. A character who lacks little to any depth aside from the above.


I've learned that sometimes this can all be excused if the character has some sort of depth to it. A likeable character with some natural character flaws may be able to get away with some qualities of it here and there. Notably, the reasons that Bella and Eragon are on that Sue list is that the former is a rather dull character noted for her obsession in an unhealthy relationship while the latter is seen as generic at the least and annoying and hypocritically corrupt at the worst.

Still, the definition fluctuates.

[Xondoure]

What bugs me is when you have fiction about a character, and then people acuse that character because they are the center of the story. :smallannoyed:

[Yarram]

I see what you're saying, but I see most of the problem with Anti-Sue is when people bandwagon, rather than come up with their own independent opinion.
I'm a fanfiction reader. Most of it is the worst sewerage you've ever imagined in your life. Some of it is even worse than that. After reading loads of both good and terrible stories, you'll find that most Sue's aren't inserts at all, but when an author feels bad about a canon character having to suffer. It's gotten to the point, where I see a Sue as a character that doesn't suffer for the course of the story, unless that suffering is self imposed.
On you're advice to novice authors:
Novice authors shouldn't be writing. They should be reading.
The only advice I ever give to an author is to read a crapload of stories, and then to figure out for themselves which ones they like, and which ones they hate, and write accordingly.
It's one thing to jump into the river and swim... But it's better to watch other peoples techniques before you try it yourself.

I'll be honest; I've never understood why people hate Jar Jar. I like him. I think he's funny (in much the same way that the Three Stooges are funny).
And no. He is not funny. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this time it is wrong.

[Dervag]

I see what you're saying, but I see most of the problem with Anti-Sue is when people bandwagon, rather than come up with their own independent opinion.
I'm a fanfiction reader. Most of it is the worst sewerage you've ever imagined in your life. Some of it is even worse than that. After reading loads of both good and terrible stories, you'll find that most Sue's aren't inserts at all, but when an author feels bad about a canon character having to suffer. It's gotten to the point, where I see a Sue as a character that doesn't suffer for the course of the story, unless that suffering is self imposed....Well...

That's basically true. There are some types of story where no one suffers very much, and that's all right. But since I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, it shouldn't detract from your real point.

I'd say this is closely related to the "generates effects without appropriate causes" definition we saw earlier. A character who can achieve what most people would have to suffer and sacrifice for without doing so is quite likely to be a Sue. But so is one who does suffer for what they achieve... if the suffering isn't being inflicted on them for adequate reasons. People who only run into trouble because others wound them out of pure spite don't make good characters either.

[AstralFire]

I see what you're saying, but I see most of the problem with Anti-Sue is when people bandwagon, rather than come up with their own independent opinion.
I'm a fanfiction reader. Most of it is the worst sewerage you've ever imagined in your life. Some of it is even worse than that. After reading loads of both good and terrible stories, you'll find that most Sue's aren't inserts at all, but when an author feels bad about a canon character having to suffer. It's gotten to the point, where I see a Sue as a character that doesn't suffer for the course of the story, unless that suffering is self imposed.
On you're advice to novice authors:
Novice authors shouldn't be writing. They should be reading.
The only advice I ever give to an author is to read a crapload of stories, and then to figure out for themselves which ones they like, and which ones they hate, and write accordingly.
It's one thing to jump into the river and swim... But it's better to watch other peoples techniques before you try it yourself.

And no. He is not funny. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this time it is wrong.

Interesting.


On you're advice to novice authors:
Novice authors shouldn't be writing. They should be reading.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this time it is wrong.

Better arrayed.

The worst possible advice you can ever give someone who is learning an artform (and indeed, most things short of skydiving) is "don't do it yet." Being well-versed in literature (and I don't mean simply written literature) is essential to being a good writer; so is having a variety of life experience. But all of that is useless if you do not constantly practice writing. You simply should do it with an open and critical mind.

I've been writing and reading stories since I was six; I'm sure we still have my first short story that I wrote arrayed somewhere in the archives of our Apple IIc floppies. Though I do not presume to be an exceptional writer, I would not be half the writer than I am if I ever said to myself, "I suck too much to write yet. Let me stop writing." Trial and error, seeing what works and what doesn't, learning how to craft it... how does that maxim go?

You learn more from a failure than a success? Yeah.

[Prime32]

Wasn't the advice to throw away the first story you write, rather than to try making it perfect on your first attempt?

[Dervag]

The worst possible advice you can ever give someone who is learning an artform (and indeed, most things short of skydiving) is "don't do it yet." Being well-versed in literature (and I don't mean simply written literature) is essential to being a good writer; so is having a variety of life experience. But all of that is useless if you do not constantly practice writing. You simply should do it with an open and critical mind.Let's tweak that:

Novice writers should write, but they should spend more time reading than writing. The ratio of reading to writing should decline as the writing improves, until (hopefully) the novice writer gets to the point at which they can actually earn an income by writing.


You learn more from a failure than a success? Yeah.Yes, but you need to know what success looks like in order to learn from failure. Some of the lower-end novice writers on the Internet don't do that: their reference pool for what a story should look like consists of three movies, the Final Fantasy games, and a couple of novels they skimmed in middle school.

That's not a recipe for success, and if they fail it's going to be hard to explain to them why they failed, because they haven't read enough really good stories to get a sense for the patterns of what goes into a good story.

[BRC]

Novice writers should write, but they should understand that they are writing to learn how to write, not to create a finished product. Just as a sports player practices before playing a game, and an Actor Rehearses before performing in front of a paying audience, a Novice writer should understand that they are novices, that they should look at their writing and what people say about it as a way to create better writing in the future.

[truemane]

Any kind of real writer wouldn't even feel the need to make that decision. They'd be writing every day for the sheer joy of creation. And if you told them they weren't allowed to write any more until they read a few more books, they'd nod and smile and sneak out the laptop in the middle of the night and write anyway.

And I don't know about novice writers knowing they're not writing finished product. When I was a novice I thought every word I put on paper was PURE GENUIS. Every hackneyed character, every clichéd line, every timber-creaking plot twist: PURE GENIUS. When I was finished a story I couldn't even bring myself to re-write it because it was clearly perfect the way it was. Obviously all those hacks that claimed 'writing is re-writing' weren't the literary phenom I was.

And I only ever learned how much I sucked in relation to how good I was after I improved. I would look down on last month's stories and say "I can't believe I thought that crap was any good. Wow, what a hack-job. Not like the PURE GENIUS I'm producing now."

Walking the line between accepting criticism and sticking to your guns is tricky. Decades later I still haven't gotten the hang of it.

[PhoeKun]

Writers should write, and that's pretty much all there is to it. If they keep at it, they'll improve. It's simply that they're likely to improve faster if they read a lot, as well. It doesn't exactly jive with me that a writer wouldn't like to read, but it happens sometimes.

I've found myself amending some old thoughts of mine on writing, recently. Not everyone who writes is meant to be a writer. There are varying levels of talent that can't necessarily be made up for with study and practice, and sometimes a person just doesn't have "it", no matter how much they want it or how hard they try. A few others just won't get "it", and won't ever figure out what they're doing needs improvement in the first place.

But none of that matters, because writing should be a reward unto itself. Anyone who derives pleasure from writing should write, no matter what. And you're not doing anyone any favors by telling them they shouldn't.


Any kind of real writer wouldn't even feel the need to make that decision. They'd be writing every day for the sheer joy of creation. And if you told them they weren't allowed to write any more until they read a few more books, they'd nod and smile and sneak out the laptop in the middle of the night and write anyway.

And I don't know about novice writers knowing they're not writing finished product. When I was a novice I thought every word I put on paper was PURE GENUIS. Every hackneyed character, every clichéd line, every timber-creaking plot twist: PURE GENIUS. When I was finished a story I couldn't even bring myself to re-write it because it was clearly perfect the way it was. Obviously all those hacks that claimed 'writing is re-writing' weren't the literary phenom I was.

And I only ever learned how much I sucked in relation to how good I was after I improved. I would look down on last month's stories and say "I can't believe I thought that crap was any good. Wow, what a hack-job. Not like the PURE GENIUS I'm producing now."

Walking the line between accepting criticism and sticking to your guns is tricky. Decades later I still haven't gotten the hang of it.

Oh, true. Never ever change. :smallsmile:

I guess it's not ideal, but I can't help wishing that kind of confidence was more prevalent (aside: maybe it is, and I just don't know it). It seems to me that far too many people are so convinced of their... shall we call it "need for improvement" that they struggle with the motivation to put pen to paper in the first place. Personally, I'd kill for even a week where I was convinced of my own literary genius.

edit: on the original topic of discussion -

Mary Sue is a useless term. There's no real consensus on what it means, and every second spent decrying them is a second better spent giving the author help and advice on how to improve their characterization. Nyeh.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Objection!

Writing a lot can actually make you worse if you don't out in effort to improve and thus develop and ingrain in your mind bad habits.

This applies to both writing and art. (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/)

(Ironically, I post this on a filler art day where he actually managed to be acceptable at proportions and even shading. The bow and to some degree to hobgoblin's left leg are still wtf, though.)

[BRC]

I suppose the ideal mindset for writing is one in which you get an idea and are convinced you are the reincarnation of Shakespearicles for the duration of your writing. After you finish, you decide that you're a novice and an amateur (even if you arn't), leaving you more open to constructive criticism.

[Foeofthelance]

Wasn't the advice to throw away the first story you write, rather than to try making it perfect on your first attempt?

That depends on what you consider your "first" story. Are we talking those short things you write for school, or the first thing you've written for your own purposes?

I'd say the first thing you should do with your first story is to post it somewhere on the internet (but NOT a major publishing site). Let other people look at it and critique it, especially if it isn't a piece of fanfiction. I admit I put my first "major" work online, and the reviews have actually helped me grow as a writer. The quality of the work might not be all that great, but that's the point. (I was going over some materials I had written a few years ago. Some of it makes me cringe, some of it I think I can save, and some of it I would burn if it wasn't for the fact I don't have it on paper.) You need to learn from your mistakes, whatever they may be.

I think of writing like I think of chess. You don't get better at it by playing by yourself, but by playing against others and seeing how they react to the things you do.

[truemane]

Writers should write, and that's pretty much all there is to it. If they keep at it, they'll improve. It's simply that they're likely to improve faster if they read a lot, as well. It doesn't exactly jive with me that a writer wouldn't like to read, but it happens sometimes.

I've found myself amending some old thoughts of mine on writing, recently. Not everyone who writes is meant to be a writer. There are varying levels of talent that can't necessarily be made up for with study and practice, and sometimes a person just doesn't have "it", no matter how much they want it or how hard they try. A few others just won't get "it", and won't ever figure out what they're doing needs improvement in the first place.

But none of that matters, because writing should be a reward unto itself. Anyone who derives pleasure from writing should write, no matter what. And you're not doing anyone any favors by telling them they shouldn't.

Exactly. Precisely. Well say, Phoe. Thank you. If the act itself isn't joyous, find something else to do. It's hard enough to do when it's better than sex or drugs. I can't imagine slogging through it if it were torture.

The older I get the more it seems to me that the key talent/skill in the act of writing is spotting your errors once you're done. You can write whatever you want at the outset, but it's the ability to read what you wrote a week ago and be able to shave (HACK!) off the stuff that's not working and keep the stuff that does work that makes a writer.

What did Howard Roark say in the Fountainhead? He's the most brilliant architect in the word and he was talking about a blue funk he went through and he says something along the lines of "I was in a bad state, producing bad stuff."

And Peter, the most famous and most hackneyed architect in the world says, "You produce bad stuff?"

And Roark responds, "Probably more of it than any other architect. The only difference is that none of it gets shown to the public."

I'm paraphrasing to the point of sacrilege here, but the point is that the best is the best not because they make fewer mistakes, but rather they're better at fixing them.

And, like having an ear for music, I'm not all that certain you can teach that part. I've known people who were good writers. The produced decent, solid, slick prose and good stories and believable characters. But they couldn't pick it apart after and fix it. And when you tried to help them they either took everything you said too much to heart and went too far with it or just ignored the important parts and only fixed the superficial parts and called it done. So instead of successive drafts getting better, they just got different kinds of good. Like wiping a dirty floor with a dirty mop. You don't actually get rid of any dirt, you just move it around. And some of these people wanted to be better. The best. GREAT even. Novel Prize great. For the ages great. But they just couldn't do what far lesser writers could do: scan a page of prose and decide what the good parts are.


I guess it's not ideal, but I can't help wishing that kind of confidence was more prevalent (aside: maybe it is, and I just don't know it). It seems to me that far too many people are so convinced of their... shall we call it "need for improvement" that they struggle with the motivation to put pen to paper in the first place. Personally, I'd kill for even a week where I was convinced of my own literary genius.

Note I'm talking about WHILE I'm writing, not before. I do all that stuff too. All the time. Every day even. I write almost every day and almost every day I have to take a deep breath and tell myself I'm not a loser with delusions. But once I start hitting keys, boy, look out. PURE GENIUS.


Mary Sue is a useless term. There's no real consensus on what it means, and every second spent decrying them is a second better spent giving the author help and advice on how to improve their characterization. Nyeh.

[/thread]

[AstralFire]

I do not believe that the value of being well-read can be understated, and I emphasized its importance in my post as well. Neither did I contest the reality that you will end up a poorer writer if you have no drive to improve. None of that changes the simple fact that you must write to improve; there is no magic 'ratio' of reading to writing that must be observed, either, since elements of good storytelling can be observed in more than just text literature.

The passion to improve can only be sustained at a long-term by the passion to write in the first place.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Writers should write, and that's pretty much all there is to it. If they keep at it, they'll improve. It's simply that they're likely to improve faster if they read a lot, as well. It doesn't exactly jive with me that a writer wouldn't like to read, but it happens sometimes.

I've found myself amending some old thoughts of mine on writing, recently. Not everyone who writes is meant to be a writer. There are varying levels of talent that can't necessarily be made up for with study and practice, and sometimes a person just doesn't have "it", no matter how much they want it or how hard they try. A few others just won't get "it", and won't ever figure out what they're doing needs improvement in the first place.

But none of that matters, because writing should be a reward unto itself. Anyone who derives pleasure from writing should write, no matter what. And you're not doing anyone any favors by telling them they shouldn't.



Oh, true. Never ever change. :smallsmile:

I guess it's not ideal, but I can't help wishing that kind of confidence was more prevalent (aside: maybe it is, and I just don't know it). It seems to me that far too many people are so convinced of their... shall we call it "need for improvement" that they struggle with the motivation to put pen to paper in the first place. Personally, I'd kill for even a week where I was convinced of my own literary genius.

edit: on the original topic of discussion -

Mary Sue is a useless term. There's no real consensus on what it means, and every second spent decrying them is a second better spent giving the author help and advice on how to improve their characterization. Nyeh.

Phoe, I adore you and your generosity with your kindness, your good sense. What I see in you is something very, very rare, and it was something I glimpsed here as in one of the Twilight Bashing threads.
You are endlessly forgiving and accepting when concerned with writing and literature, whether or not its up to your ideals of "good". So encouraging.

I wish I had the ability to word my opinion on Sues as well as you have.

[Jerthanis]

I totally agree. I think Mary Sue characters are symptoms that sometimes arise out of poorly written material. A bad story with a Mary Sue doesn't become a good one if the Mary Sue is changed.

Heck, "Mary Sue" can be a definition applied to some of the most well loved and popular characters of all time.

[Solaris]

There is some very good fiction that has an implausibly heroic hero.

Some in real life, too. Reference: Field medics (but I'll never say it to their face).

I, like a few others, say that it's how others react to the character moreso than the character itself that really defines a Sue.


On you're advice to novice authors:
Novice authors shouldn't be writing. They should be reading.

I disagree. They should be writing - but they should be able to accept criticism. You can read a butt-ton of books, but until you actually put pencil to paper and start doing it yourself you won't begin to learn. I know that if I hadn't begun writing where others could see it, my stuff would be a lot worse than it is now.


And no. He is not funny. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this time it is wrong.

Just because you (or the other ninety percent of us) don't find something funny doesn't mean he can't. Humor is subjective.

[Dervag]

Objection!

Writing a lot can actually make you worse if you don't out in effort to improve and thus develop and ingrain in your mind bad habits.

This applies to both writing and art. (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/)

(Ironically, I post this on a filler art day where he actually managed to be acceptable at proportions and even shading. The bow and to some degree to hobgoblin's left leg are still wtf, though.)Yeah. Also, there's a difference between just doing something a lot and practice that will make you better. To get practice, you need feedback: you have to be able to recognize if you've done something wrong, learn or deduce ways to avoid making the same mistake, and then not make the same mistake. Otherwise, you haven't learned anything.

Reading is useful to writers if and only if it helps them learn to improve their technique. It doesn't always, but it can.


The passion to improve can only be sustained at a long-term by the passion to write in the first place.True. Fair enough.

[Yarram]

I disagree. They should be writing - but they should be able to accept criticism. You can read a butt-ton of books, but until you actually put pencil to paper and start doing it yourself you won't begin to learn. I know that if I hadn't begun writing where others could see it, my stuff would be a lot worse than it is now.
The point I was trying to make, is that far too many novice authors read one story, and then dive in head-first thinking that they can do the same. The difference between a good author and a bad author is their ability to differentiate between good and poor quality works. Practice is one thing, but practice is useless if you're unable to tell whether or not what you've written is good or bad later.
Too many people, do what I said previously. They Bandwagon. Rather than developing their own taste, they merely sprout what other people say is good, and spend their lives as authors trying to predict what other people will like, rather than knowing what they'll like, because you're able to just write something you know that you'd enjoy.

Just because you (or the other ninety percent of us) don't find something funny doesn't mean he can't. Humor is subjective.
In context though, he thought that JarJar was funny. JarJar is not funny. He merely laughed at him. :smallbiggrin:
(Yes. I realise that am a hypocrite. On one hand, people need to develop taste by themselves. On the other, they're taste needs to be similar to my own, otherwise they're wrong.)

[DomaDoma]

So, just to recap: on this thread, we've had Mary Sues defined as -

* A self insert
* An annoyingly perfect character
* A character whose awesome is showcased too much
* A character who warps the plot around him/her
* A character for whom things are too easy
* A character who gets the perfect love interest for no good reason

And that's not counting the "purity" and "angst" definitions that are rampant on the Web.

All of which indicates a vast Mary Sue Nebula that doesn't amount to anything you'd call a meaningful label. Hell, it's a category that includes both a freeloading doormat like Bella Swan and an all-powerful jackass like Eragon without batting an eye; that says something right there.

Is it any wonder the OP wants the label done away with entirely?

Honestly, one of my favorite types of character is the type that might be considered the "too awesome" breed of Sue, but have genuine talent to back it up. Honor Harrington, Daenerys Targaryen, Mary Russell and the four main characters of Death Note fit into this category.

It is, as has been said, a matter of writing well. Your protagonist shouldn't go without serious challenge, their romance (if meaningful) should be well-developed, and they should do things to some kind of character and plot purpose rather than just to demonstrate their coolness, but these failings are entirely separate from one another.

[Mr. Scaly]

So, just to recap: on this thread, we've had Mary Sues defined as -

* A self insert
* An annoyingly perfect character
* A character whose awesome is showcased too much
* A character who warps the plot around him/her
* A character for whom things are too easy
* A character who gets the perfect love interest for no good reason

And that's not counting the "purity" and "angst" definitions that are rampant on the Web.

I'd like to add:

* A theoretically flawed character whose flaws are downplayed, overlooked, made light of or otherwise ignored.