Why is Mary-Sue a bad thing? Please and thank you!

"Overly idealised mannerisms" - doesn't that just mean that they're brave/kind/selfless/etc. to an unlikely degree? What's wrong with that? D:

If it's to an unlikely degree, it's not realistic. I'll get into that مزید later.

"Lacking noteworthy flaws" - Again, I don't understand why that's bad D:

All characters need to have character flaws, no exception. No one on this Earth is perfect in every possible way. Therefore no book character should be perfect in every possible way. There is no person on this Earth that is loved سے طرف کی everyone, so there should be no person in a story who is loved سے طرف کی everyone. No matter the genre, fictional stories are supposed to reflect real life in some way. Being the "perfect character" is not possible. The whole reason people love (or hate) character flaws so much is because the character grows as a person throughout the story. It's amazing to watch how much a character can develop and change (for good یا bad) throughout the story. Without character development, the character stays the same throughout the entire story. That's not realistic. People change throughout a significant period of time, especially when a huge devastating event happens (which usually occurs in books). If these characters don't have flaws, there's nothing to overcome. It's absolutely dull.

It may seem interesting and appealing to the reader at first, because they could insert themselves into the character's shoes and for a moment feel everyone loves them, too. That may be the reason they love the book so much, because it's a break from reality. The problem is... how does it affect them in real life? If the character is perfect and everyone loves him/her, the reader won't be able to relate the story to the real world at all. This may not seem like a problem, but it is. They'll soon begin to dislike reality and live for the moments as they re-read the book over and over again because their reality could never be as perfect.

For example, let's say someone is being severely bullied. They really love this one book, because the character in the story never gets bullied, and they can imagine and pretend for once that they are the character in the story who never once gets bullied. But... how does that help their bullying problem? They may get help from teachers, counselors, and parents, but deep down internally they feel the same.

Now, let's say this same person reads a different book. But this book isn't like the other book. In this book, the main character is severely bullied, just like the reader. As sad as the bullying to the character in the story is, the reader connects with the main character right away. The main character, later in the story, may become this great, brave leader, یا maybe they save someone's life. یا maybe they just become this decent, good person who helps out someone else.

I agree with you.
This is why I don't believe in the idea of "Mary-Sue"

I've read so many کتابیں with characters that would fit perfectly into the definition of a "Mary-Sue", yet they receive no criticism.

I'm pretty sure every single book character can be twisted into looking like a Mary-Sue, in one way یا another.


In Bella's case, I think it's humorous when people call her a Mary-Sue.
They like to pick on her, say she's so weak and defenseless. She's too dependent. She doesn't always make good decisions. She's too judgmental.
Yet somehow, these same people say she's flawless and perfect.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

A Mary Sue's "over idealized manerisms" are the fact that she's so selfless and brave and kind and sexual that everyone loves her for no real reason. This is not good because she's harder to identify with if she's so perfect.

Which leads me to flaws. Again, harder to identify with if she has no real flaws like quick to anger یا یا even stupid.

Read this: link and see if آپ can identify with the main Mary Sue. Read a couple chapters.

"Wish fulfilmet" is usually مزید of an مصنف as a ٹھنڈے, کولر person. In the example above, the مصنف Tara starts inserting her name where Ebony's should be, especially in later chapters. In Twilight, Bella's تفصیل exactly matches that of Stephanie Meyer, minus a few dozen pounds.

Never read LOTR, but Legolas does come off as a Captain Obvious Gary Stu in the movie.

Basically they are stating that Mary-sue characters are very, very dull. And, just too perfect to be considered a character with flaws. Bella is supposedly perfect, and Edward has nothing wrong with him, he just sticks out. A Mary-sue can reflect on how under-developed a character is; if a character is too perfect then they are under-developed. Nevertheless, if they aren't and have flaws, then they are well developed and can fix their problems throughout the book یا series.

These are the basic characteristics of Mary Sue, but what is even مزید important is how they function together.

"Overly idealised mannerisms" - doesn't that just mean that they're brave/kind/selfless/etc. to an unlikely degree? What's wrong with that? D: Does anyone have an example?
Tehnically, there is nothing wrong with idealised characters. Sometimes they are necessary to get the point across or, with an apropriate plot, can come out as believable characters.
An example of this is The Bride from Kill Bill. A summary in case آپ never watched it: One of the best contract killers in the world wants to settle down and have a family. On her weeding دن (she is also heavily pregnant), her former assasination squad tracks her down and she is shot in the head سے طرف کی her employer, Bill (while telling him it's his child). She survives and wakes up in hospital four years latter. After that, she is searching and killing the five people (four members of her squad and Bill) to get her revenge, during which she reveals to be incredible fighter, quick learner and dedicated over all reasonable measures. In other words, it would be hard to find anyone like this and in that sense she is idealised. But that alone does not make her a Mary-Sue.

"Lacking noteworthy flaws" - Again, I don't understand why that's bad D: Could someone give an example?
This one is a bit harder. I can use your example - Tolkien's elves. They are flawless. Beautiful and smart and fast and almost-imortal and all that. But the whole LOTR is writen in a poetic and fairytale style that allows that. All bad people are bad and all good are good. There is no questioning these concepts. This would be hard to put in a modern fantasy, but it worked in its beginnings in the fifties.

"Primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the مصنف یا reader" - This one I understand least of all. Why does it matter? D: Imagine Tolkien used LOTR as a self-insertion, and based Legolas on himself. That wouldn't make the LOTR world any less amazing, یا the story less interesting, یا Legolas less of an amusing character ^_^ Why does it matter?
I have no problems imagining Tolkien based his character(s) on himself. There is actually no problem whatsoever with it. As someone who sometimes writes, I can tell آپ I ofen give my characters at least something I have - a dream, a personality trait یا just a simmilar realationship that I have in real life. All writers do it and it is what ultimately creates believable characters.
So there is nothing wrong if Tolkien based Legolas on him. Mary-Sue however, is something else than being based on author. She is her author. The writer didn't use herself (or himself in case of Gary-Stues) as an inspiration. She used the character as a self-insert in a fantasy.
Now imagine Legolas was Tolkien's Gary-Stu. He would be beautiful and smart and fast even سے طرف کی elfin standars, hook up with Arwen and maybe invent tanks to win the

I know this سوال has been already answered, but I just wanted to add something from myself. I think the thing that's bad about Mary Sue's is that if it's the main character, it will probably make the story much مزید boring and worse overall. If a character is perfect and has no personal traits that means her personality won't develop. I always thought that writing means دکھانا not only the "main" plot, like fighting the evil overlord, but also دکھانا characters' development, which includes mostly overcoming their traits and weaknesses. Character without weaknesses won't دکھائیں us anything new and refreshing... maybe except new superpowers. Not too realistic, huh?

because if the character is a Mary-sue she is perfect and has no flaws so then the character seems boring but also because if she is mary-sue the character will lack depth because she makes no mistakes
THIS IS WHY I THINK IT'S A BAD THING

Well, a Mary Sue isn't a person. They don't have any flaws, and they always seem to do random good things. Who do آپ know is like that?

A character should be three dimensional. Even the heros need a weakness.

I think some people take it to far in their critisisms in my own honest oppinion. What i think when i hear the word Mary Sue is someone stuck into a harry ptter fanfiction for example whos name is japanese has floor length قوس قزح hair, is impossibly small, with eyes bigger than possible that are also rainbow. I think that alot of people have gotten to nit picky when reading characters. I wanted to test my theory سے طرف کی using a pretty well known Mary Sue test, using JK Rowlings Harry Potter. He came out a Mary Sue یا should i say Gary Stu. As long as your character fits into the universe and has proper Character development ignore the haters. I have a feeling if they read Harry Potter like they read some of the fanfiction and original fiction without knowing it was harry potter they would accuse harry of being a Gary stu. Most people have gotten so critical that they have unfortunately become...Boring. One of my characters was accused of being Mary Sue so i got worried and took my story to my english teacher and she loved it so they have turned the Mary Sue thing into an internet witch hunt and if someone calls a character a mary sue there will be others that jump on the band wagon. So my mary sue is not like that of other authors opinions and i only believe a Mary Sue can be in a fanfiction not an original fiction. Mary sue is becoming a new way to flame an author.

Mary-Sues are considered bad among readers because they are too perfect. An ideal character, be it from a book, film, tv دکھائیں یا the like, needs to be a realistic human being. They need to have flaws and imperfections because no human being is completely perfect. People are defined سے طرف کی the balance of their imperfections and perfections, so to have a character that is 100% perfect is annoying, and generally make the entire book/film/tv دکھائیں dreadful. Characters need to clash and burn, not just go along with what the Mary-Sue does.
As for your last point, self insertions are annoying beyond belief, because invariably the plot-line is shaped to make the مصنف seem to be better than who they actually are; give them qualities they don't have and to make up for whatever has gone wrong in their lives.

It makes the مصنف out to be rather selfish...as though the story was مزید intended for teh mthan anyone else. Mary/Gary sue is usually based on the author...but perfect. It's being dishonest with readers and with yourself, and all in all very unrealistic...people aren't perfect, and are never good ar everything یا loved سے طرف کی eveyone who matters...It's important for a character to have flaws and depth so readers can relate to them...instead of the مصنف just trying to make themsleves seem like they're better than they really are. It's mostly about dishonesty, I think. but it's also just plain annoying and unreal to have a perfect character and a perfect situation. Does tgat make sense? :)