How can flaws help avoid Sue-dom?

This is a question I've been pondering a lot lately. A lot of the time I hear people say that this or that character is a Mary Sue, yet upon inspection I find a lot of flaws to said character. Not to the point where they are flat out unlikable or just mean but rather actual flaws that contribute to their arc or add more believability.

Now the protagonist that I am working on, Jane, used to be really Sue-like, to the point where I wonder what I was smoking when writing. Now I've added more depth and much more severe flaws (distant, post-traumatic stress, cognitive dissonance to name but a few things she's prone to or suffers from). Yet I can't help but wonder what exactly determines a Mary Sue in the eyes of so many people, it often feels like something that has been lost in translation.

So, what I'm asking is of course the thread title but also what can cause Sue-dom despite a flawed character.

Short answer to the starter question; flaws cannot on their own make a non-Sue. Sues are frequently by definition immensely flawed people who'd never make it in reality, but they do in the story because the deck is stacked towards them.

A Sue is not only possible by themselves, but in their interaction with other characters, and with the narrative itself.

Honestly, I'd say that the amount of flaws have nothing to do with whether someone is a Sue.

My definition of a Sue is someone who bends the plot to their convenience to the detriment of the story and characterization. A good character will be flawed in that they have to work for their successes, but adding and subtracting flaws cannot make or un-make a Sue.

Misconceptions like this are the reason why the Anti-Sue exists- a character who is so abrasive and unlikeable that you're left wondering why they're the focus of the story at all, but still manage to break the rules, bend the universe, take advantage of Contrived Coincidence after Contrived Coincidence, and be the author's darling.

If you're self-aware and critical of yourself and your own flaws, you should have no problem recognizing if you've been doting on a certain character a little too much.

It appears that the definition of a Mary Sue for me and people I talk to really is lost. Thanks for clarifying, though I suppose I'd still be bothered by the way some people throw the term around.

Believe me, you're not alone. I've long held the opinion that the term Mary Sue, as a critical concept, is dead - the type of characters it described still very much exist, but it's past time to find something new and less-abused to call them.

The term mary sue is meaningless. nobody can't agree what it means in the first place for starters. Everyone has their own definition.

The idea that something subjective is therefore without meaning is a rather dangerous one.

Try peddling that about racism, for example.

I think you just described half the words in the English language.

I am not generalising. I am speaking about Mary Sue specifically.It is meaningless.

For the record:

Definition of racism'''Source Oxford dictionary".

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism

I can pick a dictionary for that half of the english dictionary. For Mary Sue the story is different.

edited 9th Sep '12 7:13:21 PM by FallenLegend

That's not really true - it had a specific meaning originally, and it more-or-less means "character I dislike" nowadays. Of course, the latter is useless as a meaningful term of criticism... but I already said that.

I disagree. If you are using an etimological source, then yeah it had a meaning once.Nowdays it doesn't.

It is used for "anything I don't like" that's true. But that's not the meaning everyone is trying to give.

edited 9th Sep '12 7:28:34 PM by FallenLegend

Here's the thing. You could bring as many dictionaries as you want. And guess what? I could argue with every last one of them. You could bring those words to ten people, and each of them would have a different definition. Are they all meaningless?

@Nightmare

You are confusing what I mean. One thing is the concept being abstract and subjetive like "Justice".it isn't meaningless even if we can't agree on a unique definition.We are all describing the same thing

Another one is that the term is meaningless becuase it is contradictory on every sense... and everyone is describing something different

edited 9th Sep '12 7:27:09 PM by FallenLegend

Another one of these threads? Really?

To further my point here are some contradictions the term has to the point It's safe to assume that we are not describing the same thing.Just a little taste on all the contradictions I have seen.

1. Some people say marysue is only a fanfic term others think it includes canon.
2. Some people think it's a female only trope others think it is for all genders.
3. Some people think Mary Sue is "bad thing/bad writting" others thing it can be "charming and good", others that a sue can be written well.
4. Some people think just being perfect makes a sue, others think having few flaws make you a sue, others think that even flawed characters can be sues.
5. Some people think every Author Avatar is a sue, others don't.
6. Some think it's all about how the other character's react to her, others think a sue is on itself a sue regardless of the plot and character interaction.
7. Some think it is an inmature isult and others a valid description and a form of good criticism.
8. Some think we must use the "original" concept, others that the concept has "evolved".
9. Some people believe that you can measure how much "sue" a character is. Others that a character is either a Sue or not.
10. What's the main trait of a sue?, being disliked?, being too perfect? bending the plot?
11. Some people think it exists. Others don't

and that's just some few things... Whenever there is sue topic nobody can't agree on even the very basics.

In this very wiki there were edit wars and entire threads for the controversy of the definition. The closest people have got to an agreement is that it exists, not what it means.

For example Kelsen on his book "what is justice?" decided that no definition of justice he had seen so far was correct. But even if he disagreed on the definition of others like Plato's definition. They all were speaking of the same thing.

edited 9th Sep '12 8:02:26 PM by FallenLegend

Quite honestly, I would dispute that.

I don't doubt it.Even more contradictions...

edited 9th Sep '12 7:38:50 PM by FallenLegend

All three of these can be used as a name for a subjective quality. Inferior or superior can also be subjective qualities when they are not something easily measurable; trusting can be taken both ways, as a example.

Your argument that because something is subjective it is thus not real is not only ridiculous, it is dangerous.

I never said that, please read my post above.

to quote myself:

edited 9th Sep '12 7:49:44 PM by FallenLegend

Make sure that your characters can, in terms of personality and ability, exist in the established framework of your universe, make sure that they feel and act like real people and make sure that other characters react realistically to them (in keeping with consistent characterisation).

Making that happen is the hard bit, of course, but that solves most (not all, but most) character-related problems.

Flaws on their own, as said before, don't help at all to make a character less likely to be called a "Sue." Nor does it help make them a better character in any way. In the hands of your typical hack, flaws for characters they like are inevitably Informed Flaws, either all the time or when it really counts.