[ SECRET POST #4862 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4862 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #696.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

I feel like the definition did get awfully broad.

[(Anonymous)]

I always thought of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu as an original character who was introduced that was so awesome/badass/genius/whatever that the story and canon characters got warped around them - they can do no wrong narratively and if any of the canon characters don't like them, well those canon characters are wrong and possibly bad.

A Canon Sue/Stu comes in a few different variations - a new character that is brought in and is as above; the main character that is not just amazingly awesome/badass/genius/whatever and can do no wrong, but has "flaws" that turn out to actually be virtues and the story and other characters just twist around this; or a main character that becomes amazingly awesome/badass/genius/whatever, can do no wrong, and has "flaws" that turn out to actually be virtues, plus anything they do wrong is not only not called out as wrong, but narratively supported as right because this character did it (this sometimes comes about in reaction to some of the audience not liking the character or their actions and the creators/writers doubling down).

A character can be awesome/badass/genius/whatever or a self-insert and still not be a Sue/Stu. But if the story and other characters contort themselves just to show how obviously right and good they are all the time, well.

Re: I feel like the definition did get awfully broad.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the key here is wish fulfillment, which typically stalks 99.9% of self-insert characters. You simply can't have a character that warps the world around them WITHOUT that element of wish fulfillment, because it's a direct result of the author considering their character one of the most important things in this fictional world. I really don't think you can separate one from the other. Some media is more subtle than others in doing this, but VERY VERY rarely do I see a self-insert that doesn't have some element of wish fulfillment to it.

So yes, I think you're right in that part of the definition is exactly what you describe in your second paragraph. But I think it's inescapable that those character traits stem from wish-fulfilment, and that the author desires some of those traits in real life, even if the character doesn't superficially resemble the author themselves.