The actual definition requires a lot of explanation so I'm only going to go into it if you're really interested. Maybe expand it into a new thread even though I dread the fallout. On the other hand, it's quite a bit more straightforward to explain why the definition of "a female character thas is unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses" is wrong. Or more accurately, why it's inadequate.
Think about it this way, what are people really trying to say when they claim that a character is a Mary Sue? They're saying that she's an example of poor characterization, usually reserved for some of the worst out there. But how bad really is a character who doesn't have any flaws? The are quite a few of these figures in literature, myth, religion, and popular culture.
The are quite a few of these figures in literature, myth, religion, and popular culture. These include Sinbad, Robin Hood, Galahad, Sherlock Holmes, and religious figures like Buddha and so forth. Obviously it's unfair to say that these characters are bad or not memorable or any of the things that we associate with poor characterization.
So let's flip it around; what's the worst thing about a character with no flaws and weakness? They're hard to write well because there's not much to latch onto and few things that they have to learn so it's hard to show character growth.
But in the end, that just means that saying, "She's a Mary Sue" would be the equivalent to saying "She doesn't have much room to grow into", and that's obviously not what's happening. And so the conclusion has to be that a Mary Sue is something else; something a lot more negative.
Buddha went through trails and tribulations and was in no way perfect growing up, and honestly I do not have a problem with "Mary Sues" in stories. I have stories where my protagonist are overpowered, unnaturally perfect, and kicking ass and I'm enjoying every second of it, depends on the story of course.
I personally think that a Mary sue is a character that isn't just perfect, there's honestly nothing wrong with that, but also a character that's always depicted as such by the author(s). Like, it's as if the story's there to place said character in a pedestal.
Thats pretty similar to my definition but ToastedRossi told me I was wrong and wanted to tell me the real definition. So I was just asking for clarification because it wasn't clear to me. I understand his buildup of near flawless characters, and it seems he wants to say in his definition its a derogatory term of a character that is unnaturally perfect... or maybe not I don't want to write words into his/her mouth.
Side topic: Can someone actually differentiate fake white lotus and green tea bitch? I searched them and they seemed so similar that I thought theyre interchangeable. Am I wrong here? :<
Think of it this way: if I'm writing a story and my character has no flaws, then what's the actual problem? Nevermind what is and isn't a Mary Sue for a second and ponder what this character becomes incapable of that other can do. What is it that actually makes such a character bad?
I don't have a problem with that, I believe the author has a right to do what they want. Whether or not people like it is up to the people. I never said a unnaturally flawless character is what makes a character or story bad.
Comments on Profile Post by animanaicT