I don't know "Bones", but one of the things annoying about Mary Sues also is the universally beloved thing...Laura Ballard on H:LOTS was a bit like this...her first week there she solves a multiple murder that kept FrankenTim guessing all summer, then she wins a commendation and even Munch tells everyone how great she is, and Tim Bayliss says she's sexy. I kind of always hated that character from that introduction. "Too good to be true" can be hard to define, especially when real life can be so...

I also think that it depends on the characters around them. The bar for "too good to be true" for Bones is higher, as everyone there is rather improbable. On H:LOTS, the bar is much closer to reality, so what would be "normal" in the Bones-verse would be unbelievable in the H:LOTS Baltimore.

I think some of it's down to the medium too: a character who's written as being basically a Mary Sue can be rendered a hell of a lot more believable and human by a good actor. They can sell someone as being more than the sum of their (too-good-to-be-true) parts. But in (fan)fiction, all you've got is the unamelliorated prose.

For that matter, I think that a written character could easily enough have a whole load of checklist points for MarySue without actually being a MarySue, because there ARE amazingly, implausibly gifted & attractive people (like, well, ita springs to mind, actually. And her mum, iirc) and a good writer can make their characters real and three dimensional even if they're remarkably gifted & heroic.

I wouldn't call Tempe or Charlie Eppes Mary Sues because I think the actors do a shitload of legwork in making them plausible (if exceptional) people. But I agree that certainly Brennan's writing has been contradictory, and they overplay the "I don't know what that means" card A LOT.

There's something about the realism of the world they're set in too. I mean, if you get right down to it there's very little that's plausible about the Bones 'verse, from the characters to the science to the crimes. So in that context, you have people who are skewed a little (okay a lot) more to the remarkable than you could get away with in, say, HLoTS.

(In Bones, I'd say Angela actually comes closest to the old authorial insertion type Mary Sue, as opposed to the simply way too good for plausibility.)

I'd say Angela actually comes closest to the old authorial insertion type Mary Sue

Her eyes are almost violet, it's true. It's hard to talk authorial insertion as a factor when the main character is based on the author, I guess.

If I'm going to write a new team member for the Jeffersonian, or Leverage or a friendly rival for Charlie Eppes, I just have to be damned good, it boils down to. Because it doesn't matter if I managed to avoid making it look like I want to be this character--the fact that I have to make them so good at everything the main character(s) is/are good at, plus likeable (and attractive, for the former two shows, I think) I'm on thin ice already.

plus likeable

Ah, but I think that's part of it - a Mary Sue character is liked, rather than likeable. imho. We're TOLD that they are fabulous and universally beloved blah blah blah idealism cakes, rather than being made to like them ourselves. If the author can make them genuinely likeable, then we're probably looking at someone who's more three dimensional than a Mary Sue.

I mean, Dawn probably ought to be a Mary Sue, and Fred definitely should be - but if they (actor and writers, or writer) flesh them out and make them real and make us give a damn, then they aren't a Mary Sue. Mary Sues are flat. It's the difference between Buffy and a Buffybot, kinda, in terms of characterisation.

Er - so I may have just started to commit GCS RPF. here.

Excellent! (Running off to read now.)

We're TOLD that they are fabulous and universally beloved blah blah blah idealism cakes, rather than being made to like them ourselves.

Yeah, this.

Although my interpretation of Mary Sue is: someone who warps the narrative around them. They're like a black hole of charisma and achievement, and not only do they have a ton of accomplishments and are universally beloved, but they also steal the thunder of everyone else in the story. In fact, the story is written in order to make sure that they get to be the star.

This is somewhat acceptable in a single-protagonist story, but unacceptable in an ensemble environment. And even in a single-person focused story, it gets overwhelming. See, e.g., Jerusalem by Laurie King, which is where I stopped reading the Mary Russell Holmes novels.

beams

Fay is my favorite.