I don't know that I can comment on the "correctness" of the piece, since everyone's definition of Mary Stu, canon, and where the two intersect, is different - but it is a helpful dialogue, and a useful one for writing. As far as PPC canon goes, I don't know that it could be made to conform with the PPC 'verse, but I don't think that makes it any less interesting, or important, or even correct - we're hardly the arbiters of everything right about fanfic.

(Having poked at their main site, I must say I also rather like it overall. Interesting stuff!)

What is this.

I laughed in a few spots. {= )

I think the main problem with it as far as meshing with the PPC definition goes is that we don't define Mary Sues as necessarily being author-inserts. Sure, they might be, but making the accusation means making assumptions about people we've never met based on a piece of fiction, which is kind of not cool and also debases our claim that our problem is the writing, not the author. If we can't separate the Sue from its author, how do we expect the author to do so?

Also, not all author-inserts are necessarily Sues, which I think the article demonstrates without meaning to. A self-insert that keeps to herself and doesn't muck with the plot or characters, as seems to be the case with Ophidia, is not a Mary Sue by our definition. In fact, she seems like an interesting original character to me.

By the way, I don't think I've seen you around before. Are you new to the Board?

~Neshomeh