...oh, gosh, she's written Pete in a top hat.

Oh... joy.

Oh whatever, it's not like she knows me. At least I'm not wearing eyeliner.

...

Don't get any ideas.

laughs and laughs and laughs and laughs.

and laughs

I can't wait for Fay's story.

giggles delightedly, which turns into a coughing fit

she's written Pete in a top hat.

And nothing else, as far as I can gather. (Which seems distinctly improper, if you ask me.)

Oh, you didn't mean that like porn?

(I looked at the Myspace page--it was centre-aligned italics--I'll read the reviews)

I have a completely unrelated question: Can it be a Mary Sue without authorial insertion? Is it possible for a character to look too good to be true without the feeling that the writer's getting personally off on it? If so, what would you call it instead?

I'd still consider that Mary Sue; I don't know whether that meshes with the general consensus, but I've always tended to think of Mary Sue as a catch-all term for actual authorial insertion characters ::cough::AnitaBlake::cough:: and for too-perfect-to-be-true-or-interesting characters that are more a result of the writer's inability to create rounded and plausible original characters than they are an expression of the writer's wish to jump into the text.

But ymmv.

and for too-perfect-to-be-true-or-interesting characters that are more a result of the writer's inability to create rounded and plausible original characters than they are an expression of the writer's wish to jump into the text.

Bingo. This is what I mean by Mary Sue.

I think "Too good to be true," is Mary Sue.

Which just boils down to how good is too good to be true? Is Temperance Brennan or anyone on her team or even Seeley Booth too good to be true? Charlie Eppes? James Bond? Jason Bourne? That's the line you have to walk with your original characters, I guess, but for conflict you can't have your original characters completely overshadowed by these people, and fans of canon can get really possessive and prickly.

Which just boils down to how good is too good to be true? Is Temperance Brennan or anyone on her team or even Seeley Booth too good to be true?

Hmm. I think to make it work you have to have two things - a why and a consequence. So Brennan is over the top good but it has something to do with serious childhood issues and it plays out badly in her personal life. Shawn on Psych might be another - he's able to do what he does though yes, innate talent, but also borderline abuse growing up and while he may not recognize it, boy is he fucked up.

Movie Bond doesn't meet this, book Bond possibly, though it's been a while. (I don't know the other examples you cite enough.) Which isn't to say that Brennan and Booth and I'm guessing most of them don't totally push the boundaries of believability. But it's when you get that kind of performance without the other elements that things get past where they can be handwaved.

I'm guessing most of them don't totally push the boundaries of believability

Charlie Eppes, from Numb3rs, had an idyllic childhood with a great family and can tie any real world problem to math and solve it, and is more talented than anyone else in his department.

I consider all of the guys on Bones to be insanely talented, even for TV, but they only made the forensic anthropologists emotionally stunted, and not even all of them. Someone like Hodgins is toting around more money than God, three PhDs, and is a pocket stud.

I don't see how you can write a sympathetic antagonist/new challenging protagonist for a setup like those (which were just the ones that came off the top of my head--I'd also include Leverage) that doesn't get really dicey with the too good thing, given that the canon characters already look like Mary Sues. What are you to do then?