Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
I don't want to get into what Sheryl qualifies as, but I would like to touch upon this a bit. While I'm familiar with the origin of the term "Mary Sue", I'm not sure why people attach so much importance to it. By itself, a character with either no appreciable flaws or an overabundance of abilities can still be interesting and well-conceived (and perhaps even realistic). While characters with flaws have the potential to be more flavorful, this isn't automatically true. I can see how it's easier to just add up the Mary Sueness of a character, it seems awfully lazy to use it as the prime (or even sole) factor in labeling that character poorly written.
|
After having read through the fanfic that coined the phrase, I'm more inclined to think that the term "Mary Sue" is more a criticism about the authenticity of a character. It's not that the character's traits are "implausible", but rather that the author noticeably tries to sell the appeal of the character to the audience. In fanfiction in particular, one of the ways in which this happens is when the canon cast (who have their established fanbases to begin with) start promoting an author-created character.
While "flawed" characters can be very interesting, these flaws strike me more as qualities that we "ought not to enjoy, but secretly do." In that sense, I'd question the extent to which many of these "flawed characters" are actually flawed. If you genuinely disliked a character's traits, I'd expect that you'd be less likely to enjoy watching them.
