But not Mary Sue, at least not anymore; I’ve seen the term used for too many things that aren’t any of those. Something with a less elastic definition like “author insertion character” or “wish fulfillment fantasy” would work better than “Mary Sue”, because the latter is defined far too elastically IMHO.
Ok, I accept that there are people out there who have abused the phrase “Mary Sue.”
Anyway, I think that James Bond is another Mary Sue / wish fulfillment fantasy / author’s dream guy.
I used to enjoy watching James Bond movies quite a bit. James Bond is a connoisseur about everything. Girls throw themselves at him wherever he goes. The normal rules don’t apply to James Bond. (What is a license to kill anyway? Does that mean he can shoot anyone who brings 15 items into the “12 items only” line?)
James Bond as originally written as a Stu, but in films the point is being essentially infallible.
I dont view that as the same thing - its more an in joke than a wish fantasy, trying to come up with something even more absurd that he can overcome or survive.
I view the Hamilton books mentioned early in the thread as a perfect example. They’re so utterly self indulgent later in the series its mindblowing.
Otara
The Gary Stu in my first serious fanfic was a sociopath.
Just saying.
I thought of one from history:
‘Natty’ Bumppo (sheesh, that name sounds awful to the modern ear), from the Deerstalker books by James Fenimore Cooper.
Well, no, I haven’t read any of the books, actually, but if the fellow was as terrifyingly perfect as Mark Twain satirized him as being, it would be absolutely necessary to nuke him from space. Just because.
Dr. Anne Edwards in The Sparrow. She’s brilliant, kind, funny, attractive and just too damn wonderful for this world or any other. Classic Mary-Sue.
I disagree, but I don’t see any objective way to assess this. I concede there may be critics out there who argued that Bond has become a self-parody.
I liked that someone pointed out that Winston Churchil was a Mary Sue in the Plotholes in WWII thread
I was just coming in to suggest Honor Harrington. Absolutely the most Mary Sue character I have ever encountered in science fiction.
I saw her at a convention and she herself admitted that the character was a Mary Sue and self insert by saying that when she first conceived of Anita, she looked just like her and was the same age she was at the time.
I thought Mary Sues had to have a large element of author insertion in them, which is why they mostly appear in fanfic. Simply being larger than life, even to an absurd degree, doesn’t make a character a Mary Sue. Honor Harrington isn’t any more a Mary Sue than Batman is a Gary Stu.
This isn’t a proper quote using the system because for some reason, although I can see Larry’s post in the thread itself, I can’t quote it and it doesn’t show in View Single Post or the Topic Review under the Reply box. Very confusing.
Self-insertion really isn’t necessary, though it can certainly be a part of it. Self-insertion can highlight the Mary Sue-ism, as it’s a hallmark of poor writing. You put yourself in the story and then you make yourself the Best Person Ever. It’s sloppy. But it’s perfectly possible to write a Mary Sue that has no connection to yourself.
Mary Sue-ism basically idealization; it’s a character that is so perfect that they do not have flaws, or if they do then those flaws either are completely meaningless in the context of the story (say, an allergy to peanuts wherein the topic of food never actually arises) or they’re not really flaws at all (in the sense of job interview-style weaknesses like ‘I’m a perfectionist’).
If a character has even one personal flaw that presents a significant obstacle for them in the course of the story, they’re very likely not a Mary Sue (but they can still be a self-insertion).
To a large degree, though, Mary Sue-ism includes the writer’s skill. If they write well and can make the character likeable, it’s larger than life. If they’re not quite as adept and the writing is poorer quality, it’s a Mary Sue. People like Honor and Batman, so they’re simply epic characters. But Marissa from Stephen Ratliff’s writing, as a crappy fanfic example, is definitely a Mary Sue despite being much like Honor (to my understanding).
I first encountered “Mary Sue” in fanfiction critiques & I wish it would remain there. It’s too juvenile for me.
Haven’t most of us sat through enough English classes to have more precise phrases?
I don’t think there is an official definition of “Mary Sue,” but I do think it makes sense to define the term a bit more broadly. Because the problem with a Mary Sue is not so much the author insertion as the excessive idealization of the character.
I agree with this. For example Honor Harrington was apparently weak in math while in school, but it never held her back in any way. She never made a math error, resulting in innocent people being killed. Her other flaw was that she was so uncompromising in her principles. As you say, this is a non-weakness weakness. Anyway, it leads her to challenge her boyfriend’s killer to a duel, resulting in her dismissal from the military. Of course, later she is reinstated.
What would you call a character who is overly idealized to the point where he or she starts to become uninteresting;starts to break the audience’s willful suspension of disbelief; and/or starts to suck the life out of the story? ETA: I think “Mary Sue” is a nice phrase for this phenomenon.
People say a character is a Mary Sue far too easily. Just because a character is good at something - or several things - doesn’t mean they’re a Mary Sue. I mean, in real life I know several people who are really good at multiple things and also pretty popular - having someone like that in a story is not unrealistic.
They’re clearly both very messed up, though. And non-evil guest characters often don’t like Ziva, and she’s had a couple of unsuccessful relationships, and can’t really use computers well or drive well - she’s just very good at fighting and strategy. Abby’s quirks would be flaws outside of the little world she lives in.
I don’t think it counts if the character is never intended to be taken seriously.
The only thing he’s really good at is Quidditch. Plenty of people don’t like him; he had difficulty finding anyone to take the Yule Ball. The plot does revolve around him, but not because he’s such a special and wonderful person. The only new power he finds he had is speaking to snakes, and there’s an in-story reason for that.
Hermione’s a much better suggestion for a Mary Sue from the Harry Potter series. I guess her being a bit superior and irritable - real character flaws, not something like clumsiness - counteracts that somewhat, but not much. She’s still an interesting character somehow.
Seems precise enough to me. It’s everyone else what’s misusing it. 
Anyway, it’s less of a literary term and more of a trope term. I think it has use, but it does usually need to be followed by explanation for an individual case.
The main character from Kylie Chan’s “Dark Heavens” series (White Tiger, Red Phoenix and Blue Dragon) is a very noticeable Mary Sue. I actually liked the first book, but the second and third ones got progressively more revolting because Emma was so wonderful and perfect.
I’ve just thought of one who’s evolved into a Gary Stu - Vimes from the Discworld books. It was really quite embarrassing how Gary Stu-ish he was in Snuff.
Snuff can pretty much be summed up as “Vimes’s life is now completely awesome and everything goes right.” It’s pretty overkill, yes, though since it’s probably the last Vimes book Pratchett will ever write (:() I consider it the Happy Ending closure and give it some leeway.
The Discworld has a few “perfect” characters, come to think of it. Vimes (post-Jingo), Carrot, Susan Sto Helit, Granny Weatherwax, arguably Rincewind (being an Anti-Sue), maybe some others. They can’t do any wrong (no matter how hard Rincewind tries), their enemies are effortlessly swept aside, and the plot rolls over and shows its belly for them.