Now, I have to say that not all those labeled Mary Sues are automatically bad. It is usually certain traits of a character that lead to the title of Sue, and certain things within this archetype have resulted in a general condemnation of all characters with these.

A Mary Sue can be described as a character designed to Save The Day, or has extraordinary special powers, or always gets paired with his/her Lust Object. No, not love. Lust. Now read my rant on love in the Rules Topic above, then check out a Sue romance, and you'll understand why I Do Not Tolerate That Bulls**t. (When there is a good and realistic portrayal of love, however, that is an exception. That falls under something else completely - Very Good Writing, and is usually found along with legitimate characters who fit the general Mary Sue definition above, but are realistically written.)

The main problem with a Suvian character is that he/she is utterly flawless and, in the author's eyes, meant to be 'ideal'. Such a character cannot be described in any way as 'human'. This is because humanity is derived from a balance found in our strengths and our weaknesses. In a word, humanity is imperfect. In that imperfection, we may find the ability to rise to greatness through our own merits and determination.

The trait of human weakness, the temptation to give in to failure and fall to wrongdoing, is an indelible part of our existence. The inner strength to rise up from failure is, as well, permanent. Even the best of the world cannot be seen as entirely without sin. In the typical Mary Sue, such qualities are removed completely. The Sue is always good, kind, and caring; she never sees the lure of power or riches, and is shown as unchangeably pure. In this, the humanity of a character is stripped away - to allow for a single-minded and unchanging creature who is, in the end, completely alien.

As the Sue claims to be the pinnacle of achievement, she is forever barred from the all too human act of striving for greater and better things. There is no perfection because the climb upwards is eternal. And as the Sue is bound by a limit placed by her creator's vision of an ideal, she is a paradox unto herself; her flawlessness is, in itself, her greatest flaw.

Change is an important factor of any character. The ability to grow, to improve, is what lets the reader empathize and associate with the character. Most Sues, however, are content with staying bound to the static descriptions placed by their creators. A creature who is utterly unaffected by what happens to it can be seen to be quite unlike us, for our experiences shape us and ultimately lead to what we are in the end. And that creature is our typical Sue.

Suvian powers are commonly given, whether at birth or later in life. The character receives these abilities without effort, without any drive to gain such things. This is their failing, for that which is earned is greater than that which is given. The master who trained for a lifetime to develop his skills with a blade is, by his nature, better than the young girl who was born with the ability to wield such a weapon with great ease. The diligent master, who tested and overcame his own limits to achieve greatness, gained experience, learned, and changed from it. The pains he put himself through, in the end, made the reward in the end all the better, just as the man who works for a cup of water would find it sweeter than if he had just taken it. True power is that which comes from within, not without.

On the issue of noble lineage, I find that there is no significance to being royalty or not. Titles mean nothing if a person's character is innately flawed. True nobility, as with great power, comes from a desire to better oneself, not long names and family trees. Most Sues feel no hardship or struggle when gaining their abilities, and so are akin to the spoiled rich kid who did not earn a single cent of his parents' fortune. As such, their so-called 'talents' have no value; they are as worthless trinkets, worth less than a poor man's lunch from the garbage.

On the other hand, a character who, despite personal failings, becomes worthy of the right to step above his or her station, does not fall into these. Take, for example, Frodo Baggins. He is the hero; he saves the world, and is allowed to spend the rest of his life in Paradise. However, he is an ordinary hobbit, who would never have dreamed of being able to stand up against an embodiment of evil and at least partially redeem one who was utterly corrupted.

The importance of this is that, throughout his journey, he developed his own courage and strength of will to bring about the Ring's destruction. While he may have given in to temptation in the end, his act of sparing Gollum led to the Ring's destruction, without which the Ring would have fallen back into the hands of the Dark Lord. Frodo achieved true greatness from within, and not from without. This is what most 'Mary Sues' lack, and what makes them so damnable.

There are some so-called Sues who are redeemable. These are few and far between, and are very difficult to create. These are characters who help save the day, have extraordinary talent, and generally achieve what the author would very much like to do. However, these characters develop like true people, and as such can be considered good characters. They are, in fact, not real Sues, per se, but legitimate creations with distinct personalities and roles much greater than normal.

Note: Strange that some things you might learn from two hours in Philosophy class may apply to writing. Since I'm in high school, and therefore haven't gone to things like that, I'm probably pulling things out of my a**. Confusing, badly worded, and probably repetitive things. However, they might be *right*. Make of this what you will, and know that writing essays at 12 AM does not allow for much refinement. Also, comments are appreciated, as long as they do not consist of 'Bulls**t!' or something similar.

~Yes, I am a pretentious a** when writing this sort of thing. I'm not denying it.