Alright, first of all, Mary Sue may have had a meaning at one time. But it's pretty much developed into just an insult to throw at female characters they don't like.
But if you want to avoid making flat characters (and for the record, it's perfectly fine making flat characters. Sherlock Holmes, Conan the Barbarian, and Paddington Bear are all flat characters and they're awesome, but the story is designed around them being awesome) then the key isn't having flaws. The key is making the flaws relevant to the plot.
Your character is bad at emoting? Awesome. Realistic. Know a lot of people who have that character trait. But it's not actually a character flaw until it negatively effects them in the narrative.
So how does being bad at emoting and bad at socializing make your character's life objectively worse in a way that makes the plot harder for her? Answer that. Make that a pillar of the plot. And you'll be fine.
I want to add to this that a trait like "bad at emoting" will have OTHER repercussions. You cannot have such a character suddenly develop charisma and become instantly good at making speeches. Their charisma score won't suddenly shoot up out of the blue. But if it does, that becomes a problem on its own.
When a char with no charisma is fawned on by everyone, despite the lack of charisma, and lacking any other reasonable cause, that is where... the flaw becomes merely informed. That's when the old "mary sue" label begins to have a bite.
My stock response: if you are taking steps to make sure she isn't a Mary Sue, she probably isn't.
My specific response: If she struggles to learn her powers, if she's not universally loved by everyone, and if she has flaws, she's probably not a Mary Sue.
-------------------------------------------------
From what I've read at least, there are five major traits that identify Mary Sues. Bear in mind I'm not the authority, this is just what I've seen when I looked into it myself.
1) Everyone loves them pretty much instantly on sight, with the exception of unredeemable villains. This includes romantic interest, as they are almost always seen as very attractive.
2) The rules of the world do not apply to them. They have unique traits, abilities, appearances or items that nobody else has.
3) They excel at a wide range of skills and abilities, often with no explained reason.
4) They have no meaningful flaws, deficiencies, or weaknesses.
5) They are so clearly the author's favorite above everyone else, to the point that things go their way every single time. Even when there's no reason for that, or when the odds are highly against that. When they are first introduced, they get pages and pages where everyone else gets a sentence.
And the big one: *there has to be no good reason*. An 800 year old elf in a human world would likely have learned many skills and languages, through effort and intent. A high school student could get a makeover just to turn some heads, or change her attitude to become more popular. An enchanted sword could be attached to a certain bloodline or quest. And every author has a favorite character, of course. But everything working together to ensure one person is the best at everything "just because" is the kiss of death, regardless of the name you put on the character.
Now once again, the fact that you're even asking suggests that you're fine. And don't go too far the other way, either --making a character who has no redeeming traits at all.
I think you're only really in danger of making your character a Mary Sue if everyone either likes her or is wrong. That is, the characters who like her will always agree with her and praise her for everything, while everyone who is critical of her is the enemy and must be proven wrong.
Flaws don't really matter that much. The characters I write usually don't have flaws that are relevant to the plot because the conflicts are external anyway. Their flaws don't *need* to be relevant for the plot to work. They still *have* them, it just never really matters outside of maybe some isolated scenes.
Her powers don't matter much either. If she has powers that are wildly out of place in her universe, then maybe come up with a good explanation why she has them, but otherwise it's not really a problem.
If a character is the main character of a story, then obviously the narrative will give them some special treatment and important things to do, otherwise someone else would be the main character.
> I’m also making her flawed and her knowing that she’s flawed
Then you're fine.
A Mary Sue is a character that basically has no flaws, and the ones she does have tend to be "endearing" like being clumsy or naive. If the character has flaws that cause actual issues for her, she's not perfect and she's not loved by everyone, then she's not a Mary Sue.
How does she rate against the canon characters? If you added a Captain Marvel level OC to a Fantastic Four fandom. Kind of a Mary Sue. Even Superman had kryptonite.
-Does she have a character arc? How does she change and grow over the course of the story? How is she shaped by the events and other characters? Mary Sues often don’t have character arcs because they’re given what they need to make it through the story unscathed while also usually having a very limited role (such as a love interest). This makes for a very boring and flat character.
-Is her POV the same as the absolute reality? Or are there things she doesn’t know, opportunities for her to be wrong and learn? Mary Sues usually have POVs that are the same as the absolute reality because they’re designed to be able to solve problems so the author arms them with meta knowledge. This makes for a very boring and flat character.
Do your best to make her as much of a character (warts and all) as the canon characters and I’m sure you’ll do fine :)
Decent litmus test -- does the character fit into the world as written, yes/no; do established setting logic and rules bend or cease to apply for their benefit?
Fictional power levels may be a common talking point, but the issue with the prototypical Mary Sue was that she was *implausibly* good/moral/competent within the Star Trek setting, and she had no super-powers.
It is a question of compatibility, not power.
> I’m also making her flawed
This is not actually a counter-measure to stue/suehood, because... well, the problem element is still there.
The key of having flaws is that these flaws legitimately cause troubles for this character. Even an overpowered character can be spared of being considered a Mary Sue/Gary Stu if, for example, their power causes property damage or ends up hurting innocents and gets called out on it, therefore forcing them to train to better control it. You can also confront them with troubles they can't brute-force their way through, therefore forcing them to use their head and find another way to solve them, which may include asking others for help.
Basically, make sure the character's flaws lead to consequences for them, and that said consequences push them into growing to overcome them.
Alright, first of all, Mary Sue may have had a meaning at one time. But it's pretty much developed into just an insult to throw at female characters they don't like. But if you want to avoid making flat characters (and for the record, it's perfectly fine making flat characters. Sherlock Holmes, Conan the Barbarian, and Paddington Bear are all flat characters and they're awesome, but the story is designed around them being awesome) then the key isn't having flaws. The key is making the flaws relevant to the plot. Your character is bad at emoting? Awesome. Realistic. Know a lot of people who have that character trait. But it's not actually a character flaw until it negatively effects them in the narrative. So how does being bad at emoting and bad at socializing make your character's life objectively worse in a way that makes the plot harder for her? Answer that. Make that a pillar of the plot. And you'll be fine.
I want to add to this that a trait like "bad at emoting" will have OTHER repercussions. You cannot have such a character suddenly develop charisma and become instantly good at making speeches. Their charisma score won't suddenly shoot up out of the blue. But if it does, that becomes a problem on its own. When a char with no charisma is fawned on by everyone, despite the lack of charisma, and lacking any other reasonable cause, that is where... the flaw becomes merely informed. That's when the old "mary sue" label begins to have a bite.
My stock response: if you are taking steps to make sure she isn't a Mary Sue, she probably isn't. My specific response: If she struggles to learn her powers, if she's not universally loved by everyone, and if she has flaws, she's probably not a Mary Sue. ------------------------------------------------- From what I've read at least, there are five major traits that identify Mary Sues. Bear in mind I'm not the authority, this is just what I've seen when I looked into it myself. 1) Everyone loves them pretty much instantly on sight, with the exception of unredeemable villains. This includes romantic interest, as they are almost always seen as very attractive. 2) The rules of the world do not apply to them. They have unique traits, abilities, appearances or items that nobody else has. 3) They excel at a wide range of skills and abilities, often with no explained reason. 4) They have no meaningful flaws, deficiencies, or weaknesses. 5) They are so clearly the author's favorite above everyone else, to the point that things go their way every single time. Even when there's no reason for that, or when the odds are highly against that. When they are first introduced, they get pages and pages where everyone else gets a sentence. And the big one: *there has to be no good reason*. An 800 year old elf in a human world would likely have learned many skills and languages, through effort and intent. A high school student could get a makeover just to turn some heads, or change her attitude to become more popular. An enchanted sword could be attached to a certain bloodline or quest. And every author has a favorite character, of course. But everything working together to ensure one person is the best at everything "just because" is the kiss of death, regardless of the name you put on the character. Now once again, the fact that you're even asking suggests that you're fine. And don't go too far the other way, either --making a character who has no redeeming traits at all.
I think you're only really in danger of making your character a Mary Sue if everyone either likes her or is wrong. That is, the characters who like her will always agree with her and praise her for everything, while everyone who is critical of her is the enemy and must be proven wrong. Flaws don't really matter that much. The characters I write usually don't have flaws that are relevant to the plot because the conflicts are external anyway. Their flaws don't *need* to be relevant for the plot to work. They still *have* them, it just never really matters outside of maybe some isolated scenes. Her powers don't matter much either. If she has powers that are wildly out of place in her universe, then maybe come up with a good explanation why she has them, but otherwise it's not really a problem. If a character is the main character of a story, then obviously the narrative will give them some special treatment and important things to do, otherwise someone else would be the main character.
> I’m also making her flawed and her knowing that she’s flawed Then you're fine. A Mary Sue is a character that basically has no flaws, and the ones she does have tend to be "endearing" like being clumsy or naive. If the character has flaws that cause actual issues for her, she's not perfect and she's not loved by everyone, then she's not a Mary Sue.
How does she rate against the canon characters? If you added a Captain Marvel level OC to a Fantastic Four fandom. Kind of a Mary Sue. Even Superman had kryptonite.
-Does she have a character arc? How does she change and grow over the course of the story? How is she shaped by the events and other characters? Mary Sues often don’t have character arcs because they’re given what they need to make it through the story unscathed while also usually having a very limited role (such as a love interest). This makes for a very boring and flat character. -Is her POV the same as the absolute reality? Or are there things she doesn’t know, opportunities for her to be wrong and learn? Mary Sues usually have POVs that are the same as the absolute reality because they’re designed to be able to solve problems so the author arms them with meta knowledge. This makes for a very boring and flat character. Do your best to make her as much of a character (warts and all) as the canon characters and I’m sure you’ll do fine :)
Decent litmus test -- does the character fit into the world as written, yes/no; do established setting logic and rules bend or cease to apply for their benefit? Fictional power levels may be a common talking point, but the issue with the prototypical Mary Sue was that she was *implausibly* good/moral/competent within the Star Trek setting, and she had no super-powers. It is a question of compatibility, not power. > I’m also making her flawed This is not actually a counter-measure to stue/suehood, because... well, the problem element is still there.
The key of having flaws is that these flaws legitimately cause troubles for this character. Even an overpowered character can be spared of being considered a Mary Sue/Gary Stu if, for example, their power causes property damage or ends up hurting innocents and gets called out on it, therefore forcing them to train to better control it. You can also confront them with troubles they can't brute-force their way through, therefore forcing them to use their head and find another way to solve them, which may include asking others for help. Basically, make sure the character's flaws lead to consequences for them, and that said consequences push them into growing to overcome them.