SillySilenia

I will agree that the specific forms of self-centered behaviors shown unknowingly by Sue writers can be almost endlessly fascinating. Just seeing how many Sue-tropes could appear across a fandom can become almost addicting (and a huge time-suck) For example, the raising of a Sue's skill and form of the denegration of canon characters becomes sad. All without the writer even being aware of what they reveal.
Showing instead of telling is one of the better ways to prevent a bunch of Sue issues. Once Sue has filleted a reef shark, defused an abomb and made those colorful eggs using the wax to mask colors... in enough detail to show how she did them, means these accomplishments aren't just handwaving. Better to let another character shine so she doesn't get the black ink on her fingernails or lovely outfit.
I agree writing in game fandoms is especially challenging as so many things in canon are actually tick marks on a Sue purity test. tragic past? check. last survivor? check. multiple characters chasing them? check. scar that doesn't affect beauty? check. Special/unique abilities no one else has? check. But these things are required for the plot. The same problem can exist in any fandom though. When the canon characters are accomplished or interesting, new characters have to be, too.
I'm not as sure it's necessary to make the lead the only one necessary to do it, one of the problems is that the old greek sin of hubris still applies. I prefer to make sure the lead has problems and weaknesses that get in their way. And I very much like to write more about and featuring the secondary characters in my fanfic. The lead may be the lynchpin, but they still need the other stones to make an arch.
The anti-Sue is still perfect, just as perfectly awful. And Sue tests or experience in spotting Sue-dom is good as cautionary tales to writers.

One of the problems with Mary Sues is that we're mainly told about them, rather than see them do something. We're told they're smart, witty, good in strategy, perfect, beautiful, strong, independent, social, friendly, etc.
Yet with exception of beauty (a lot of Sue-writers do tend to describe their pet Sue's appearance with huge amount of detail), we never see that proved. Okay, maybe the Sue wins a game of chess in the story's background somewhere (not that that immediately makes someone a strategy wiz), and maybe some people laugh at a witty remark of them (though often, the remark itself isn't shown and if it is, it's usually not all that witty), but that's it.
Sometimes, we hear about them doing things that prove those points, but even then, the actual action is rarely shown. "Mary Antoinette Raven Tara Susan "Sue" Blackwood smiled as the strategy she had convinced the others of proved to be working." vs. "I think," Mary said, "that we should reinforce the troops here, because the intelligence we have suggests the enemy will likely come ashore nearby. Perhaps we could set up a trap there for them."
The first only tells us she's good in strategy, the second shows it (or disproves it, depending on the result later in the story).
Of course, it's not a problem if some things are told rather than shown; however, the problem with many Sues is that we almost completely have to rely on things the author tells us, rather than shows us, which makes Sues boring - perhaps even moreso than their supposed lack of flaws, or the sheer predictability of the character and events it stars in. (It also basically makes most Sues a form of unreliable narrating)

Because I often write for game fandoms, I am often handed plot lines that require my PC to be something of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. The challenge for me becomes one of explaining why this one particular person is the only one who can save the world, while at the same time trying to flesh out the frequently cardboard NPCs that follow my PC around.
It's a fascinating challenge to un-Sue that Sue. If you think about it, no hero ever acts alone. There's always something, and that can be the fun part of writing for these fandoms. I like to flesh out the NPCs with back stories that give you an idea of why they're tagging along, and personalities of their own instead of having them serve as mirrors for the PC's actions. I've also been known to credit some of the quest successes to NPCs rather than the PC where it makes more sense for the NPC to have done better. It makes for a richer and more realistic narrative.
Having said that, the anti-Sue is as awful. The lead character who is paralyzed by indecision, or self doubt. The guilt-wracked character who can't forgive themselves for past mistakes, and judges every action by those errors. The one who turns humility into a vice rather than a virtue (which calls to mind another pet peeve completely unrelated to this thread). The self-effacing mouse who becomes somehow competent under duress.
Gamers have a love/hate relationship with Sues, and when we turn writer, we get a chance to see if we can do better. That's the fun part.

One of the problems with Mary Sues is that we're mainly told about them, rather than see them do something. We're told they're smart, witty, good in strategy, perfect, beautiful, strong, independent, social, friendly, etc.
Yet with exception of beauty (a lot of Sue-writers do tend to describe their pet Sue's appearance with huge amount of detail), we never see that proved. Okay, maybe the Sue wins a game of chess in the story's background somewhere (not that that immediately makes someone a strategy wiz), and maybe some people laugh at a witty remark of them (though often, the remark itself isn't shown and if it is, it's usually not all that witty), but that's it.
Sometimes, we hear about them doing things that prove those points, but even then, the actual action is rarely shown. "Mary Antoinette Raven Tara Susan "Sue" Blackwood smiled as the strategy she had convinced the others of proved to be working." vs. "I think," Mary said, "that we should reinforce the troops here, because the intelligence we have suggests the enemy will likely come ashore nearby. Perhaps we could set up a trap there for them."
The first only tells us she's good in strategy, the second shows it (or disproves it, depending on the result later in the story).
Of course, it's not a problem if some things are told rather than shown; however, the problem with many Sues is that we almost completely have to rely on things the author tells us, rather than shows us, which makes Sues boring - perhaps even moreso than their supposed lack of flaws, or the sheer predictability of the character and events it stars in. (It also basically makes most Sues a form of unreliable narrating)

First, if you're trying to make some point about JennMarie, it's misplaced. She's been banned from the site, and it's not up for discussion. Reasons are here: http://www2.adult-fanfiction.org/forum/index.php/topic/46302-jennmarietwisted-and-other-names-repeat-offender/
Second, the site's policies on underagers has been clearly defined since inception. It has been addressed in news posts. Reference this: http://www2.adult-fanfiction.org/forum/index.php/topic/28524-happy-new-year/
Third, read this: http://www2.adult-fanfiction.org/forum/index.php/topic/29354-an-owners-rant
Apollo, as owner of the site, has made sure the policy is quite clear.

Before I lock this thread, the site is domiciled in and governed by the laws of the United States, where the legal age is established as 18. Until and unless the site's owner decides to take up residence in another country, it will remain governed by the laws of the United States.
This author will not be permitted to return. The matter is not up for discussion.

Personally, I would not say that I hate Mary Sues, for the simple reason that I don't care enough about them to form hatred.
Which is exactly the problem, in my opinion - they're boring and it's almost impossible to form some kind of connection with them as characters (beyond boredness, apathy, pity and, if the story itself could be good but the Sue ruins it, despise).
Am I jealous of them? No. I have, on the internet, dealt with crowds that were near-worshipping me. Frankly speaking, it's annoying, frustrating and suffocating, not to mention creepy. I have absolutely no wish for such a thing to happen to me in real life. Internet is bad enough.
I don't give a damn about looks, especially not "perfect" looks - perfect looks don't tell stories, as to say, in the way a scar, or wrinkles, etc. do - and I have no wish to have them.
So no, I am not jealous. I don't want to be loved by 90% of the people around me because I'm "perfect" and hated by the remaining 10% out of "spite" and "jealousy".
I don't want to run in and save the day because all people around me miraculously forget they're just as capable of solving problems.
Basically, Mary Sue is just about everything I am not and have no wish to be.
I agree that canon-Sues are worse than fanfic Sues. It makes me wonder how people got -that- published. What I detest even more, however, is when characters in canon morph into Sues through the series (Yes, Auel, I'm looking at Ayla here). I hate reading about a character I used to have a connection with become more and more like a character that could've come out of a six-year-old's first story. (Except for the humping-their-way-through-prehistoric-Europe part)

@ Tigro Spottystripes:
It certainly doesn't hurt to say something like that in a review. It just would be even better if you at least give a bit of an idea what exactly it is you like so much, or of what could have been done better. Perhaps you don't have specific criticism, nothing that stood out like a sore thumb. Maybe it's difficult to exactly pin-point what made the story so enjoyable.
However, even just saying something like "this and this line/scene/conversation made me laugh", or "I cried a little when this/that happened" in an otherwise "plain" review makes it special. Hell, even a line like "I wonder how [character] is going to react to [other character]'s action/revelation/etc." could be enough.
It shows that you read the story and considered it worth another few moments of your time to leave a review, whereas a review like "I liked it. Please update. I wanna read more!" could be meant for any and every story. Nothing in it refers to the fic you just read. It reads like a copy-and-paste response, even when heartfelt by the person leaving it, because it's so generic.

@ Tigro Spottystripes:
It certainly doesn't hurt to say something like that in a review. It just would be even better if you at least give a bit of an idea what exactly it is you like so much, or of what could have been done better. Perhaps you don't have specific criticism, nothing that stood out like a sore thumb. Maybe it's difficult to exactly pin-point what made the story so enjoyable.
However, even just saying something like "this and this line/scene/conversation made me laugh", or "I cried a little when this/that happened" in an otherwise "plain" review makes it special. Hell, even a line like "I wonder how [character] is going to react to [other character]'s action/revelation/etc." could be enough.
It shows that you read the story and considered it worth another few moments of your time to leave a review, whereas a review like "I liked it. Please update. I wanna read more!" could be meant for any and every story. Nothing in it refers to the fic you just read. It reads like a copy-and-paste response, even when heartfelt by the person leaving it, because it's so generic.

@ Tigro Spottystripes:
It certainly doesn't hurt to say something like that in a review. It just would be even better if you at least give a bit of an idea what exactly it is you like so much, or of what could have been done better. Perhaps you don't have specific criticism, nothing that stood out like a sore thumb. Maybe it's difficult to exactly pin-point what made the story so enjoyable.
However, even just saying something like "this and this line/scene/conversation made me laugh", or "I cried a little when this/that happened" in an otherwise "plain" review makes it special. Hell, even a line like "I wonder how [character] is going to react to [other character]'s action/revelation/etc." could be enough.
It shows that you read the story and considered it worth another few moments of your time to leave a review, whereas a review like "I liked it. Please update. I wanna read more!" could be meant for any and every story. Nothing in it refers to the fic you just read. It reads like a copy-and-paste response, even when heartfelt by the person leaving it, because it's so generic.

Yes, in that Nymphadora piece of yours, for example.
Which I think I forgot to review. /slaps self. Bad me.

Insane Man Believes Eternal Cupcakes Invade Latex Elephants
A N I M A L

Not here, but in my attempt at NaNo this year (which failed due to me being ill and bed-ridden for almost half of the month November):
- She could tell by looking at their feces that there was something wrong. (Diarrhea, perchance? XD)
- She was quiet quite. (And I am silly very.)

Not here, but in my attempt at NaNo this year (which failed due to me being ill and bed-ridden for almost half of the month November):
- She could tell by looking at their feces that there was something wrong. (Diarrhea, perchance? XD)
- She was quiet quite. (And I am silly very.)

Sadly, Guest_Leah, we're pretty used to dealing with immature morons who threaten to hold their breath unless they get their own way. It's all about them and what they want, or didn't you know that? The world owes them a favour and it's our duty to trip over ourselves to accommodate them, even if that means us risking jail time. So in the future, when you come across one of these childish numb-nuts, you'll know to commence your deferential kowtowing immediately, since they deserve it you know!