... running my agents through a mission for the Department of WhatThe. One of the main characters has been determined to be a flagrant character replacement - but not a Mary-Sue, mostly due to her not actually doing very much. That means I'm a) making sure I don't call her one, and b) thinking very hard about what to do with her once she's been charged.

It would have been very easy to just say 'main character, doing bad stuff to the story, therefore Mary-Sue' - but I think it's more informative, and more worthwhile for me to write, if I don't do that.

On the flip side, my other ongoing mission includes several discussions on what exactly makes her a 'Sue... all of which comes together as a 'Thank you! Precise definitions are awesome'.

hS

---

Oh, right, comments on what was actually posted...

I think your short definition is a good one. In my quick read-through, it's hitting the following points:

-Gender-neutral - since the article really refers to both Sues and Stus

-'unintentionally' - Parody 'Sues are not real 'Sues (by which I mean, they aren't a problem)

-'flat', 'marked disconnect', 'central focus' - I think these three points come together to signify that they are badly-written. You can, obviously, have a flat character who doesn't ruin the story - if they're a minor character, or in some cases if they're a silent protagonist. But if they're the focus of the story, then yeah, they need to have depth; counterexamples (such as a lot of sci-fi stuff) generally shift the focus to the world, not the character. So the 'flat' and 'central focus' points already make a Mary-Sue a feature of mediocre writing at best. The 'disconnect' shunts it over into bad. That said, I would still like to see 'poorly-written' appear in the article, even if not in the short definition.

-'the plot serves it' - this is a very important point. Again, and I hope this point will be made, this isn't about being active or passive - it's about whether the character exists to improve the story, or whether they exist to showcase themselves, and use the story to that end. The standard 'is better at fighting than [canon warrior]' charge is one of many, many examples of how this can be done (contrasted to 'is better at fighting than [canon warrior] due to [believable reason which is plot-relevant]' - if a trait could be removed without the plot being affected, that's usually a bad sign).

I think most of your other points expand on either 'disconnect' or 'the plot serves it'.

And (I can't access the Wiki from here, so forgive me if it's already there) I think it needs to be clear that the secondary traits - sparkly hair, half-fairy, soulmate of Legolas, etc etc - do not only appear in Sues; they can be used as warning signs, as charges, and as things to comment on (and how!), but they aren't diagnostic. A character with every 'Sue Trait' in the book still isn't a Mary-Sue... if she's well written, and her traits serve the plot, and so on. But that's not very likely...

hS

(PS: Does anyone else get the urge to go through a Litmus Test and come up with a character and story which can hit every 'secondary trait' on the list without being a Mary-Sue?)