Oh look arguments about Mary Sue definitions. How shocking.

We have difficulty with the Mary Sue Litmus Test because people feel the test misrepresents Mary Sue, the definitions has been changed, examples have been stripped and now this. This isn't even a trope. Any other trope But Well Written gets thrown out on Tropes Are Tools grounds. Now we have a Bad Writing thing with the hard to define nebuluous thing that makes it bad taken out. What do we get out of this? A backwards clone of Escapist Character? A page of cases of people arguing over the Mary Sue Litmus Test over the internet? Yep, pretty much.

Oh and all the wicks seem to be either Justifying Edit 2: Electric Boogaloo or a convincing explanation as to why they just aren't a Mary Sue.

Drizzt do'Urden. Superman. Sara Crewe. Beth March. Little Nell.

All of them are Mary Sues by every definition other than "annoys most readers".

And maybe that's what we're getting at: A character that would be a Mary Sue, fits as many traits as characters near-univerally recognized to be sues—except that s/he doesn't annoy the audience.

Perhaps a title switch would make sense—something along the lines of "Pseudo Sue", maybe?

Sorry, but as soon as we say "These guys are really Sues, which are badly written characters, except they're well-written characters!", we've completely lost any and all definition of "Mary Sue".

Simply being the main character, or the viewpoint character doesn't make a character a Sue. Beth March is not a Mary Sue: the story is not bent to fit her. Sara Crewe is not a Mary Sue: It's her story, of course it is going to revolve around her and she isn't "better, prettier, more perfect" than any other character. Superman is not a Sue: he's doesn't escape consequences of his actions, and he isn't universally beloved in-universe.

I agree. In my opinion, a Mary Sue is by definition a poor character. The Canon Sue gets by on the fact that the character's unbelievable prowess is part of the point, and that much of this is either from Word of God and/or primarily in the perceptions of other characters in the story. This trope requires that a character by well-written, as well as the fact that many of these characters have prominent flaws that are only conquered in the course of natural character development, such as Luke Skywalker.

However, the thought behind the trope is not without merit. It seems to want to be a catalog of extremely well-executed characters in various works. Perhaps the trope could be restructured as a Crowning Character of Awesome trope or something along the same lines.

This page misses the whole point of a mary sue. A mary sue is bad writing. People don't seem to get that a character who makes the story revolved them is what truly make a sue

But can't a character possess some aspects of being a Mary Sue and yet, still be likable?

The thing is that mary sue traits usually don't really affect the story. Yes they can have mary sue traits and be likable but the thing is being superintellignet, beautiful, or being having amazing skill at something doesn't instantly make a character a mary sue. Its how the character affects the story that really makes them a mary sue.

I suppose that in this case, this trope needs to be renamed and redefined. "A character with Common Mary Sue Traits who remains to be a good/likeable character" or something to that effect might work.

Oh, god, kill this. KILL IT.

Then that doesn't make them a mary sue. The main reason mary sues are so grating is how they make the universe bend to their will. Also people fail to realize that the traits listed on the mary sue page are COMMON mary sue traits not DEFINITIVE mary use traits. They're just traits that are usually given to mary sues. A character can have some of those traits and still not be a bit sueish.