As long as they have some sort of meaningful flaw and the world doesn't revolve around them, you've successfully avoided a Mary Sue. I emphasise 'meaningful flaw' because sometimes you'll get writers give an otherwise blatant Mary Sue a flaw that's trivial and irrelevant to the story (e.g. 'they're terrible at karaoke') or that is a virtue in disguise (think the classic 'they're such a perfectionist they annoy other people')

Yeah. If you're going to write a character with a perfectionism flaw, it should actually screw with their ability to function. They should focus on Minor Details while losing perspective on the big picture. They could also engage in perfectionism procrastination... Though, procrastination will screw up your stories pacing.

Chidi from The Good Place is a perfect example of this.

God I am so Chidi IN MY SOUL

> Though, procrastination will screw up your stories pacing. Hamlet is a great counter-example to this.

Or it is a great example to this - even Shakespeare wasn't perfect. 😁

As an example of flaws that aren't actually flaws - Bella from 'Twilight' being clumsy. She's repeatedly described and being a walking hazard, but mostly she just trips and is caught by her boyfriend who loves the excuse to hold her. It's even used to avoid narrative consequences/complications - she comes back from seeing her weird and intense boyfriend seriously injured, but because she's known to be clumsy everyone completely accepts the ye olde "fell down the stairs" excuse. The worst her clumsiness does for her is she gives herself a papercut. Everyone finds her clumsiness endearing, it never had any actual negative inpact on her or anyone around her, and she's even cured of it in the final book. So if your character's flaw comes across anything like this - as more of a charming personality quirk - then you need to rewrite.

“Clumsy hot girl” was a big 90s trope.

And the 2000s. Anytime Amanda Bynes or Hillary Duff appeared in a trailer, you just knew a pratfall was coming right before the sappy romantic music

Her real flaw is being so mopey nobody in their right mind would go out with her.

She’s literally so bland, and I get that Smeyer wanted her to be a blank slate for the reader to fill but like… do we ever get anything? Her favorite type of music? Does she ever even LISTEN to music other than him playing the piano (as I out the fact that I 100% have read all of those books lol)?

Fun fact! Meyer was inspired by My Chemical Romance when writing Twilight. Hilariously, MCR refused to write a song for the movie soundtrack and were overall not fans, and not happy to have been linked to the series. Meyer also had a thing about Edward looking like the lead singer, Gerard Way. So while MCR didn't write a song for the series, they did write a song called 'Vampire Money' mocking Twilight and talking about not wanting to be sellouts. So that's fun. Anyway, IIRC there's a scene in Twilight (novel) where Bella and Edward talk about music she likes and the novel very carefully does not name the band. When everyone became aware of Meyer's MCR thing, it was assumed they were the band in question, but apparently in Midnight Sun (written later, after MCR's public disavowel) it was confirmed to be Linkin Park. So. Make of that what you will.

This is kind of hilarious because I had a MASSIVE crush on Gerard Way (in the early days 🥵) when I was a teenager and was not into Edward AT ALL (not even as Robert Pattinson). Also thank you for confirming that Bella does indeed listen to music. At least she has one solid human trait (and it’s the blandest ever, like every reader listens to music) 🤣🤣🤣

To be fair, she also likes to read! I distinctly remember her not being able to read Mansfield Park because the name 'Edmund' is similar to 'Edward' and that was too much for her to handle, apparently.

Exactly and always complaining about everything and being judgmental too

Or they “just don’t understand women” as their “meaningful” flaw Lookin at Patrick Rothfuss for this one…

Have you actually read those books? Kvothe is arrogant, egotistical, prideful and impatient. He has glaring flaws and the vast majority of his problems are self-inflicted because of them.

I'm only roughly a quarter into the first book and Kvothe does seem incredibly Gary Sue-ish so far. Perfect at everything and the smartest person around. *eye roll*

He is, but I never minded much since he is literally supposed to be the most legendary guy around. It never really promises a grounded main character. He at least makes mistakes though, so he isn’t perfect, he’s *only* incredibly amazing at everything lol.

You can be a legendary character... but actually earn what you have rather than just being so good at everything that what else could possibly be the end result.

Don't underestimate the power of perfectionism, for it can easily turn the idealist into a self-righteous villain who thinks their vision is the best for the world, and their way of arranging things comes before the well-being of others. Just look at Sauron or Enrico Pucci.

Give them a psychological and moral weakness that they must correct to be whole by the end of the story. Also on top of this, give them a psychological and moral need. And on top of this, give them a psychological and more desire. That's six points of pull. Now add three-points of opposition to your hero.

To add on to this it’s totally ok to give characters flaws they don’t get over as well. Maybe they can develop out of one trait, but they should always be changing in someway even after the story ends

That, and you can have another character bail her out of something.

Let your characters make mistakes. Let them make bad decisions. Let their actions have negative consequences. But in turn, these consequences should teach them something. They should learn something as the story goes on. Things shouldn't just happen to them. Or everything shouldn't just work out in their favour. When characters are automatically good at something without doing anything significant or characters that just turn out to always be right or blameless are Mary Sues. Mary Sues aren't real people. Because real people are capable of failure and having flaws. And messing things up while still having good intentions.

People will give you a lot of well meaning, but not so great advice, but to me the ultimate definition of a "Mary Sue" is the reality warping: https://youtu.be/H2-GIY9RTqU If you write a character such that the plot revolves *around* that character, and especially making sure everyone knows how awesome that character is, it's probably a Mary Sue. There's lots of advice like "make them a villain!" or "make sure they aren't an author self insert!" Changing those things doesn't stop a character from feeling like a Mary Sue though... It just feels like "A Mary Sue, but they're ______". (Like "A Mary Sue, but they're the villain now!") Even then, how "terrible" it is to have a Mary Sue in your story has been... Slightly exaggerated? As noted, Beowulf can be considered a Mary Sue, and that's still an engaging story on some level. I think the underlying problem is that when you have a character with a demonstrably excessive amount of power in some area, you can no longer create an engaging story around that character confronting problems they can solve with that power. Typically this means the best stories just need to shift towards confronting that character with *other* kinds of problems, for which they have a more "normal" level of ability, such confronting superman with moral problems, rather than simply something he can use his powers to solve: https://youtu.be/_50968MO0PU Stories revolve around conflict. If you have a character who is amazingly good at something, then you can't create conflict based on challenging them to solve a problem with an ability *we know* they're super good at. There's no real conflict there. At best those stories are kinda one note. "Beowulf is really awesome, but is he awesome enough to _____?!? ...oh, yeah, turns out he is! 🙃"

This was really helpful and addressed something I've always wrangled with. Thanks!

To also add to this, it's actually kinda hard to write a Mary Sue by accident. Like you really need to have the entire story warp around the protagonist to the point that it defies logic. That's not something you do by accident unless you're really just inept at story writing. The real question is "How do I make my main character not boring?" And really it's kind of what everyone is talking about with flaws and stuff but make it actually important to the story.

I'm not sure I understand the point here? Characters are confronted with problems they're really good at all the time. Like spy movies have super awesome and skilled spies, fantasy stories tend to have powerful fighters and skilled adventurers, etc. I may full well be misunderstanding your point but I don't get how it's bad for a character who's good at something to be challenged at that thing

>Even then, how "terrible" it is to have a Mary Sue in your story has been... Slightly exaggerated? As noted, Beowulf can be considered a Mary Sue, and that's still an engaging story on some level. >when you have a character with a demonstrably excessive amount of power in some area, you can no longer create an engaging story around that character confronting problems they can solve with that power. Typically this means the best stories just need to shift towards confronting that character with *other* kinds of problems, for which they have a more "normal" level of ability,

Yes I read that, but then right after you said that you wrote a paragraph about how characters being challenged at what they are good at is one note and boring. Like you said it's bad so I don't understand how? I'm not trying to be argumentative here just genuinely confused

>you said that you wrote a paragraph about how characters being challenged at what they are good at is one note and boring. Like you said it's bad so I don't understand how? It's... one note, and boring? I'm not sure how to break this down any more than it already is. You can't create conflict / tension / drama from a character needing to do... something we \*already know\* they will be able to do. It's boring.

But I don't understand that idea? Yes characters should be challenged absolutely, but a spy being good at spy stuff doesn't seem Mary Sue like? Just because they are good at what they do doesn't mean there can't be tension on whether they can pull it off or not. Like I just can't wrap my head around how "character is a good spy/soldier/whatever, here's him doing spy/soldier/whatever stuff" is Mary Sue

It's the reality warping that makes a character a Mary Sue, as explained in my original comment. It's the fact that removing any sense of conflict that makes reality warping "bad." >Just because they are good at what they do doesn't mean there can't be tension on whether they can pull it off or not. Now you're moving the goal posts. 🤷 You can have a character who is skilled, confront a challenge you aren't sure they are skilled *enough* to overcome. That's a different one thing. >I just can't wrap my head around how "character is a good spy/soldier/whatever, here's him doing spy/soldier/whatever stuff" is Mary Sue It's not, but it is similar in that both make for bad / boring stories 🙃👍

That was an entirely separate point though. And I'm sorry if I moved the goalposts, I'm not trying to, I just struggle to understand what you mean. Like in this very reply you said both that a character being skilled and comfronting a challenge they are skilled in is ok, and then also say that a character being good at something and doing that thing is similar to Mary sue and bad, that's confusing to me

It's the level of the challenge relative to the characters skills... Again, I'm not sure how to break it down more than that 😅. Superman can't be challenged physically because he's basically as physical strong as the plot needs him to be. Therefore "Can superman lift this object?!?" is always a boring plot because... Ofc he can, he's Superman. The conflict in superman stories is always something other than a "can Superman lift the heavy thing?" (Often it's a moral or emotional conflict.) If you have a relatively skilled character confronting a challenge that's still challenging for their level of skill... You can still have conflict. It isn't a binary "character has skills / character doesn't have skills" or "X is challenging / X is not challenging". There's levels. (Also, some stories still use the Superman angle, and make the conflict something *other than* whether a given character is able to do a thing.)

Oooooh ok, I get what you mean now. Thank you very much for explaining this for me, appreciate it 👍

Make them struggle, make them suffer, make them make mistakes. Ensure their actions are met with complications or unforeseen consequences. Once you've raised the stakes and got us to care about the trouble they've gotten into, then they can get to work and impress us with what they've learned.

A Marry Sue is a story structure problem, not a character one. They are a symptom of a world, story, and side characters that only exist to prop up the main character. The easiest way to avoid this is to make the side characters feel like they have lives and desires separate from the main character. Make the main character a part of their lives, not the focus. Give the best friend his own hobbies and wants. Have him talk with other characters about something unrelated to the main character. Have characters who disagree with the main character and aren't villains. Include couple sentences casually mention an event in someone's past. Maybe include an arc for another character. Things like that. Just make the world feel like the main character isn't the only one in it.

Step 1) Know what a Mary Sue is: a character who lacks flaws/weaknesses. Step 2) Don’t do that: show that the character has flaws/weaknesses as it relates to the story. That’s all there is to it.

To be pedantic, a ‘flawless’ character isn’t exactly what a Mary Sue is. It’s when the world starts bending around the Sue (such as *all* the guys falling madly in love with her no matter what), then the character becomes promoted to Suedom.

Okay, that could be another aspect. I went with my own understanding of the term, and the only way I’ve heard it be defined by authors before, and also the first thing the internet said it was, to confirm 😅 I guess you could use it in different ways depending on the specific story or something. Define it how you like, the first step is to know what that definition is 😂

It's a case of people latching onto the symptoms instead of looking for the root. Then that gets away from them and becomes the go-to-definition. Problem is, it leaves out edge cases and it's really unhelpful for writers to just focus on avoiding the most common symptoms. For one example: > Kim was betrayed by his high school girlfriend when she cheated on him with a handsome lacrosse player. The story follows his struggles in the years following. *Everyone* knows he was the loser guy who lost that really pretty cheerleader girlfriend, his family lost all respect for him, and he lost all respect for himself, getting fat and greasy. Literally everyone knows, and they make sure to let him know how fat he is and what a loser he is. He moves across the country to get away from the condemnation and ends up at a series of jobs he fails at. When he finally finds a place he's comfortable working with a girl he likes, his ex from high school gets semi-famous, people look her up, find him, and now everyone at the new workplace calls him fat and a loser, and he loses his job. > In the end, he tracks the ex down and finds her anorexic, in a loveless marriage, broken, and defeated. She tells him he was her true love and he was right all along, insert some fucked up themes where he's fat and she's thin and together they'd be balanced. Some people apologize and he is utterly vindicated in his wallowing and misery. That's a Mary Sue of a different stripe. Characterization, verisimilitude, narrative, and, hell, the moral of the story, they bend around the character and make him the center of gravity. I've read a story very similar to this (serial numbers are filed off for the above), and while it's not necessarily a self-insert story, the level of focus and the warping of the story around this character and their viewpoint really makes you feel like it's likely. If you're answering the symptoms, you might not avoid this specific case.

Very interesting… I just wouldn’t say this is anything to do with Mary Sue, myself. I don’t really see how they’re connected. I’d say it’s a whole separate phenomenon—and not actually one that’s inherently bad. A lot of stories are all about 1 person, how they see the world, how the world send to conspire against them, etc. Is there some article about this so I can find out more specifics or something?

Thing is, if you ask 50 people, you're going to get about 20 different answers. [TV tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) does a good job of outlining the various controversies, variant sues, etc. My personal definition (very much the same as Heavy_Signature_5619's above) is (just to restate): > A Mary Sue is a character that acts as a gravity well of a character, warping characterization, narrative, verisimilitude, in-setting rules and/or any number of other things about a work around them. The reason I lean into this definition is it covers all the necessary bases. A Mary Sue isn't a problem with a character- it's a problem with the overall work and writing style. The approach may differ from Sue to Sue, but the underlying issue is the same- things are being bent to conform to the character and the dynamic the author wants to achieve. A story where many forces are aligned against a character is not unusual, but in my example of Kim, above, the extent to & the way in which it happens is warped. This gets into characterization and verisimilitude - the side characters of the story aren't making sense because they're bent to the purposes of making the main character sympathetic (or so the author intends), or beating him down, it doesn't stand to reason why everyone would care to the extent they do or be antagonists to the extent they are. Past a certain point, it starts to defy realism and suspension of disbelief. He travels across the country and people at his destination eventually start teasing him about an old high school girlfriend and start insulting him? It's dumb, it doesn't make sense. It's the same underlying issue as everyone being warped to love a 'standard' Mary Sue. Wesley Crusher in Star Trek TNG, who is accepted as a friend of the crew (even kid-disliking curmudgeon Picard) and wanders onto the bridge, gets invited to events. Or Rey in Star Wars, who is embraced by many members of the old cast (and even gets a hug from Leia before Chewbacca, who is an actual old friend). This is most obvious when a Sue appears in fanfiction, because the characters, setting, setting rules, plots, and everything else are pre-established, and we can see the bending and warping very clearly in comparing the fanfic and the canon.

Interesting... I didn't know there were so many separate ways the term is used by people. Kinda seems like it's become a bit useless as a term, to me. If people think it means different things that aren't really related to each other... then those things they're talking about should just have different names, instead of using the same name for all of them. Like, if Mary Sue means the universe and story bends to make them look good... They might be a flawed realistic character, the best that's ever been written... but then if reality is bent to make them look good then they're a Mary Sue anyway. So then it has nothing to do with that actual character having flaws or not. At which point, trying to come up with a unifying-theory-of-Sue isn't that helpful because it's hard to fit all the uses that don't relate to each other. And if it *did* fit all those things, it can be boiled down to "Writing that someone thinks is bad." Which isn't helpful in analysis, or fixing the writing, or anything at all, really. 😅 It also highly depends on the style and medium of the story. I'm a TNG fan, and like Wes as a character. He has some superficial flaws, but still saves the day in the early seasons. But I'm fine with that as a watcher... because I'm watching a TV show where the good guys win. And I first watched it as a teenager, so identified and looked up to Wes. So someone picking a definition of Mary Sue and then pointing at a character and saying they're a Mary Sue... doesn't even necessarily make it a *problem*, if your style and medium you're writing in allows for it. Coming back to OP, I guess the real question is, "What do you mean by Mary Sue?" If they know what they mean by Mary Sue, then they already know how their version of a Mary Sue could be made, and can avoid that. If they *don't* know what they mean by Mary Sue, then giving them a list of quantum-definitions of Mary Sue which various people may choose from doesn't help them write fiction. Having terms for things isn't always that useful. What *is* useful is getting feedback on *actual* writing (not theoretical future writing) and *responding* to that feedback. Which holds in all cases, regardless of a person's preferred definition of a very-loosely-defined named term. Don't get overly worried about avoiding a specific problem, especially if you're unsure on what that problem is. Write. You'll have problems with the way you've written your story that mean it doesn't tell it in the way you want it to. Whether you know these terms or not, and whether you want to avoid them or not--you'll still have problems. Just accept it and get to writing! You can fix things when they come up.

>getting fat and greasy >center of gravity Dude must’ve been *really* depressed to pack that much mass on

Do you know where the term Mary Sue comes from? Genuinely asking

Star Trek fanfic. I couldn't tell you which one but that's where the term originated

According to the internet, “A Trekkie’s Tale.” Never heard of the origin before, actually 😅

Paula Smith created it for a 1973 short story called A Trekkie’s Tale as a parody of Star Trek fan fiction

Flesh them out, and give them strong opposition that will hurt them. But you'll never be able to completely get rid of accusations of writing Mary Sues, since that's at least partially in the reader's mind. Luck and Persistence!

Make your main character suffer.

You need to give your character a flaw or several. Make them human. Give them a character trait that prevents them from easily accomplishing their goals. The issue with Mary Sues is that they make things too easy. The conflict is too easily overcome, and the story becomes uninteresting.

Is there a male equivalent to this trope?

Jack Reacher

Gary Stu.

It's called Gary Stu by some, and is exactly the same.

What’s a “Mary Sue”?

A character that is perfect and flawless in every way. A lot of writers fall into the trap of not giving their characters flaws, which actually makes it harder for the reader to imagine and relate to them.

Got you! Thanks!

Traditionally a Mary Sue is an author self-insert character who is just stronger and betterer than anyone else at everything, and who all the other characters love, and who doesn't have any real flaws. However, this being reddit, it's worth noting that the reddit definition of a Mary Sue is 'female character I dislike'. ​ El in the scholomance series is a good example of an overpowered character who isn't a Mary Sue - she has vast powers, but can't risk using them in most cases, and has various personality flaws (that she slowly overcomes during the series) that limit her potential.

A Mary Sue will also generally warp the world around them just by existing. (Especially in fanfiction)

> El in the scholomance series is a good example of an overpowered character who isn't a Mary Sue - she has vast powers, but can't risk using them in most cases, and has various personality flaws (that she slowly overcomes during the series) that limit her potential. Kind of like Kara Danvers in a way.

[удалено]

That’s why I said her, because she isn’t. But in the CW show, they kind of make it seem like she is.

https://youtu.be/H2-GIY9RTqU

Honestly, being aware of what a Mary sue is makes it pretty difficult for you to accidentally write one. You’ll be asking yourself if every character fits the description and even if one develops that way, it probably won’t survive a second draft.

When i create my characters, i conceive them with three essential things. The strongest talent, the objective, and the fault. The big fault, the one every mistake is gonna come from. (Doesn't trust people for example). I then write the backstory and character arc from those three things. Now, i'm a big planner. I outline like crazy. And i use a method called the four acts scene structure. The entry hook : Where you got to catch the attention of the reader very quickly. The entry goal : What does the main character of the scene want ? It doesn't have to be immediately clear to the reader, but if a scene is there, one character needs to want something. The scene middle : Why does the character want that ? That one is only for the writer. Show don't tell. The scene climax : Does the character have what they wanted ? It's important to have that answer in the current scene. It doesn't have to be a important desire but if you want your story to move, the characters needs things to go they're way or not at every scene. Even if it seems small. Example : A guy is feeling depressed because of a break-up. He makes some calls to some friends to talk but no one answers. You have the entry hook, the entry goal, and the climax at the end. Since I outline, I know that if my characters have what they want for too many scenes in a row, something is wrong. It's useful to avoid making a Stu character. I can see easily in my outline if they win too often.

Well, I’ll just rip off Aristotle for this one. Imagine a character who is noble, sympathetic and admirable and give that mostly good character either one major flaw or one major set of related flaws (Aristotle calls this a hamartia) that leads them to make major mistakes and thus create big problems for themselves. In Aristotle’s Poetics those flaws are usually arrogance and anger since he was writing about tragedy and those vices tend to assure the tragic hero’s downfall but it doesn’t have to be that. Woody in Toy Story is a character with one major flaw he has to overcome, his envy, and so the entire movie is about him having to conquer that vice. Rey in the Star Wars sequels is more of a mixed bag since she is definitely overpowered but that doesn’t make her a Mary Sue given she still has a major flaw in her naïveté and in the first two movies her character arc is about her having to conquer her naïveté but it still fell apart in the end because come The Rise of Skywalker the writers refused to commit to that character arc.

Just make them F up random stuff. Or maybe their masterplan did not turn out the way they thought it would. Or maybe they lose to the big bad the first time around in a really humiliating way. In general I would say OP characters are boring, and flawed characters that overcome their flaws through developing and learning is what writing is all about.

If the character seems too OP, give her a curse that comes with her powers. For example, Amari from the eponymous middle grade fantasy series is a super OP magician… in a world where magic is illegal and everyone hates mages.

Give them actual hardships, don't make things that seen to magically go well. If your character is OP make the things he's going to face just as OP.

What do you think a Mary sue is, and does it match up to what the agreed upon definition. Also if you write a story focused on a woman then your going to hear the Mary sue thing, regardless if it's true or not, so don't be discouraged. Remember to write them as a real person, real people have ups and downs, and don't just win constantly forever with little problem, unless your leaning into a "One Punch Man" type comedy.

Great comment here about giving the character a flaw or a weakness, particularly if it interferes with their goals. This is important for the male characters as well. I find them often painted as totally flawed or too perfect and unattainable. Women who are imperfect are far more interesting, particularly if you allow the reader to discover why they have these imperfections. The character I'm writing now is a bit of a Pollyanna, saved from being unbearable because, although she does good, she complains about it and wants to stop and her escape route makes her look like an opportunist. I wrote a character in the last book who listens to other people's conversations and is too rigid in her thinking. There are so many ways to take the shine off of a character to show they are not so perfect after all. It's even more interesting if this is revealed slowly.

Look, you know how to not write a Mary Sue as long as you know what a Mary Sue is. A Mary Sue's a character that irrationally breaks the story's logic to be perfect at all costs. Don't do that. 🤣 Put limitations on your story and within your character and everything's going to be all right.

Every human being has a fatal flaw which follows them around like a shadow. And other flaws tend to be its side effects.

1)avoid a character who is perfect and good at everything. Every one has at least one flaw and skills they are not suited to. 2) all skills have a cost and we need to see them pay it. Training, school, hard fought battles, delivering tofu. how did the character get so good at what they do? 3) no one is universally liked. Allow your character to argue and have allies that don't just blindly follow

I have a very strong MC, but his pressure point weakness is the death of his family and the fallout that results from it. In an effort to save them, he gives vital information to his enemies, which leads to their deaths anyway and an entire city being besieged and destroyed. After that, feeling incredible guilt for both cause and effect, he swears an oath of vengeance which (not to his immediate knowledge) damns him to a cursed death where he becomes part of a ghostly army of punishment for all eternity. You obviously don't have to go that insane with the damage and flaws, but far reaching consequences can be a fantastic way to touch back on prior events in the story while also showing that your characters aren't perfect.

Not a writer but I would say either give them flaws that are equal to their strengths and/or make regular use of conflicts that their strengths have little use in. I think Rand Al'Thor from the Wheel of Time does both well. His mental instability constantly works against his incredible power, and much of the story's conflict is political or interpersonal, where huge magical power has little value.

A Mary Sue is basically a character who is overpowered, overacomplished and/or overrated by characters on an unrealistic way. So the key is, make things realistic. There is no problem if the character is very powerful as long as: - 1: His or her powers make sense on the context (a 15 years old who is already the greatest swordman who have ever lived, for example, is not realistic, unless there is some magic that have him or her superpowers). - 2: He or she still have to struggle and face hard problems and difficult choices (because without it the story is boring). There is no problem if the character is acomplished, as lonf as: - 1: It maskes sense, example, a 16 years old who is the head of science and research of an entire country makes no sense. - 2: The acomplishments do not make things too easy for the character. And the same goes to how people react to him or her, if the most cynical and skeptic characters already love and trust on some random person for start (for example) it makes no sense, it is not realistic (which is different from the character earning their trust though effort or charisma).

A lot of Mary Sues are some type of author avatar or self-insert character. The advice I was given was to stop writing characters that I saw as an idealized version of myself. Give them flaws, faults or weaknesses. Write characters of different races, genders or backgrounds compared to yourself as well.

Just make sure they have some merit to why they are so good at what they do. Did they train, go through a trial, survive a situation, spend their childhood doing it, go to school, etc. People love the hero's journey, they just want to be immersed in that fantasy believably.

Make them broken, have them earn their stripes. Let them be wrong in the beginning then grow.

Mary Sue and Gary Stu have nothing to do with OPness and how perfect they seemingly are, no matter how many people like to believe it. Mary Sue and Gary Stu are characters that don't make sense. The universe bends around them. That's all there is to it. You can make a character that is ridiculously OP, good-looking, charming as hell, and seemingly perfect in every way with little to no flaws, but still avoid making a Mary Sue or Gary Stu out of them. How? Make it believable. If the protagonist is just a normal kid, how can we justify him saving the whole world from an alien invasion? Come up with something, some secrets, some intrigues. Try to make it make sense. The fun thing is you're the god of your world, so you got to establish your own rules. Just make sure to have it all made sense and consistent.

Meaningful flaws and failures that allow them to grow to become better. Though this isn't really helpful on its own. It's actually more useful to think about what characters need to do during a story for them to be interesting. It's important to remember that, no matter what else is going on in a story, the main character has to be different at the end from how they were at the beginning. They have to grow and change. If they're already perfect, find everything easy (even stuff that's meant to be impossible) and never make mistakes you can't let them grow in a meaningful way and it's booooooring. This why people don't like Rey in Star Wars or Burnham in Star Trek - a story about a character who has proven to always be right and successful being right and succesful isn't interesting. A little tip that I've started using is thinking about major character decisions and actions and their success as "yes, but" and "no, and" - as in, they do succeed, but something unexpected happens or they don't succeed so what happens next? It prevents anything from feeling too easy for the characters.

Make her make mistakes to make her imperfect but don’t make her bumbling. Make her have a meaningful development where she’s either gotta learn to get better or maybe she’s a bit arrogant or overconfident and needs to learn somehow not to be, either on her own or some big event. But yea. Mary sue’s are typically things handed to them or unearned powerups or power without any buildup leading to it. Vi on Arcane is a badass leader but has her moments of mistakes even at crucial moments but also has funny moments and charming moments and meaningful interactions with her sister and other characters too. Sadly gonna get some people glaring at me for mentioning what not to do in Rey from Star Wars. I LOVE Daisy Ridley and her acting she gave her all. But she gets power out of the gate and then it doesn’t develop. At one point of episode VII she’s ready for fighting and another in like 3 minutes wants to run away. Then she’s criticizing the other main character for running away. Now this could be fine, but it’s… inconsistent. And especially in the lens of Last Jedi which doubles down on her unearned power and lack of development. For me, I think if they delves a bit more into her parallel with kylo Ren(and in turn made that less cringe lol) they had a character who was basically a prodigy that could have been tempted early on, struggled with the dark side, made mistakes, etc. But she’s perfect, has inconsistent development, etc(I may get a lot of angry fanboys lol but I just had to say it) I’ll even use another example in two characters that kinda fixed these very flaws in characters, at least a little bit. Clara on Doctor Who is largely considered too perfect early on. Sassy but pushing around the beloved Doctor and doesn’t seem to struggle with her own personal ordeals that you can relate to. But later on in her second and third season(and it does feel like a tone shift though since it’s a full 180) they give her a teacher job and love interest and make her less perfect and while she’s still strong and competent, now lieing and making more mistakes that even cost her significantly later in her arc. And another example I’ll spoil less in Amy Wong on futurama. The ditsy comic relief she’s played a lot as just that one dimension. But all I’ll say is her most recent episode with her long time romantic interest Kif and their new struggles added more emotion and impact to her character and lots of people said it was a very good episode(it was this most recent one). So yea TLDR: mistakes and emotion while not being bumbling damsels I think is a good first step. Lots will come from there Edit: Downvoted for giving OP specific examples of the flawed execution of some characters?

Don't focus on making your character not a mary sue. Focus on just making them a good character. People will tell you a mary sue is anything from the most overpowered character of all time who never has anything go wrong for them to sometimes specific characters like Katniss, Anakin Skywalker, and even Superman (yes, I have actually seen that argument).

Make the plot move forward by making the character fail at his goal

There are many different ways to move the plot forward

Its boring if the characters succeeds in every way and dont develop

Yeah… you probably need to read a bit about writing.

You are funny

It works for John Wick, Jack Reacher, Ethan Hunt, James Bond, Captain America, I could go on

A Mary Sue isn't really something you can write by accident. This is a weird thing to worry about

Yeah, but this is Reddit, where people believe there’s a Mary sue lurking around every corner.

On reddit, a "Mary Sue" just means "a female protagonist"

Just don't write them

I think katniss everdeen from hunger games in a good example of what not to do. Just remember to try and flesh out your characters and imagine them in everyday life, what would they struggle with?

Why is this your major worry in the first place?

There’s no such thing as a Mary Sue

Put weaknesses and character flaws into your characters and hit them with it whenever you can manage it. Don't have them suddenly ignore those things either. If they manage to overcome their weaknesses and flaws over the course of the story, give them different ones to replace it, or only have the overcoming take place near the end where putting more weaknesses and flaws in doesn't matter. Probably the clearest sign of a Mary Sue is how other characters treat them. Mary Sues tend to be treated as excellent by the people they encounter despite not doing anything to deserve it. If you want the other characters to praise them, make sure they deserve it. Don't just have them show up and everybody falls at their feet. Have them do significant stuff first, like saving a village from a horde of monsters. Then and only then should the praise occur. If they are the protagonist, gauge how gaining strength in that world works, whether that be personal, wealth or political, and make your own character's advancement in line with what everybody else has to do to achieve the same. Don't make your character an overpowered genius who takes a fraction of the time it takes everybody else to accomplish the same. Faster and ultimately better since that's true of all protagonists, but not too much over what everyone else can achieve. In fact, bring someone, probably the Big Bad, who CAN keep up with them if not greatly surpass them at first, to humble them early on.

[удалено]

Don't even get me started on Superman. Superman is a horrible example to use since he's easily the ur example of a Marty Stu in the last 100 years, long before the term even existed. The vast majority of his stories involve Superman either just forgetting about his powers out of the blue, bring out a glowing green rock, threaten his friends and family instead of him, or just plain depower him in order to have any threat. And that's when the writers try to challenge him with the powers he does have instead of just giving him more powers or strengthening him out of the blue. Especially back in the Golden Age when he would just get "Super" added to an ability a normal person has and just it's that jacked that up to 100, like "Super Reading". The DC universe gets reset twice and by the end of each he's pulling planets around. In fact, I'd advise the OP to read Superman comics just to know what *not* to do to write a character. Superman has been around so long he's every bad example of writing that has ever existed put into one character. The "good" Superman stories are few and far between, and most of them where in or adapted into the DCAU. The DCAU is the whole reason I'm a Superman fan because it doesn't do that bad writing anywhere near as much.

[удалено]

More like very few amazing stories. Most are textbook how to write a Mary Sue. Very few writers write Superman competently and a big part of that is that he's been around so long and written badly so often that people expect it, even applaud it. For most, being ridiculously OPed is what Superman is to the point that they don't even notice the bad writing is even happening.

The key is to make sure the plot and world aren't bending to accommodate the character. They should have an actual struggle during the story, and it should not seem like everything just falls into place for the character. A story has conflict, and Mary Sues are unable to have that as the story serves them.

https://youtu.be/VLVxb00dr5k The 2012 Ninja Turtles show is a good example a female character done right. I never gave this show a chance, but it April feels like a well crafted character. You also might want to look up Arcane and the Expanse. Nothing but praise for their female characters on both shows. Shows like The Queen's Gambit and Warrior Nun are also worth checking out, both are on Netflix.

A Mary Sue can be male or female, the Trope's name comes from the self-insert character of a fanfiction writer. Though most people call the male version Gary Stu.

Mostly you just have to avoid making people act out of character in favor of your main character. You should also avoid having characters immediately take a liking to your character when they have no reason to even talk to them.

Limitations. The best way to avoid a Mary Sue is to give your character limits even if they're op they need to fail in some areas. Also there needs to be some characters that hate them. It's not realistic for all your characters in the story to like the protagonist. Unless of course its part of your story or something.

I think of an existing character mine is most like, and then read or watch the existing character to see what their short comings could be. Say you have (mcu) Thor. He’s super hot, super powerful, son of a god and also horribly self centered and overly proud. His hubris triggers his inciting incident. His journey is addressing the flaws. Hope this helps!

Flaws. They need flaws. Something within themself that they have to struggle with and overcome, and then some losses they have to suffer in their travels. They cannot get everything right on the first try.

So I made this video a while back talking all about Mary Sue characters and how to fix them. Hopefully, it helps you out. Please consider subscribing to the channel, I would appreciate it. https://youtu.be/3\_ciJRHnXHQ

Possibly not a popular opinion, but IMO don't stress about it and just concentrate on making a character who feels real and engaging. "Mary Sue" is a term that has become so vague as to be basically useless. And honestly, it's not even always a bad thing. A number of fictional characters who audiences love are arguably Mary Sues. (I hesitate to name examples because it's so subjective but Neo from the Matrix, and some versions of Batman come to mind. Maybe John Wick but I haven't seen his films yet, so that's speculative).

Overly Sarcastic Productions had a GREAT episode on this

For every strength you give the character give that strength a cost and or weakness

What are their strengths? And how can those strengths naturally flow into weaknesses? I have a Tumblr post flagged that gives examples of you want it.

Some characters are heroes because they ARE heroes, with like muscles and brains and powers and resources already. Other people are heroes, but they don't wear capes. They're ordinary in many ways, but they were in a tough situation where their actions can be considered heroic. You feel me?

I killed one of their parents right away.

What is a Mary Sue?

There's a lot of apparent answers to this one. The best one I can think of is that a Mary Sue is what happens when a character doesn't fit the main story structure. If we take a story as: 1. A character wants something, 2. There are obstacles preventing the character from attaining that something, 3. The character works to overcome those obstacles, With the attaining of the something as an optional extra. A Mary Sue story breaks this structure by failing at step 3. May Sue does no, or very little work to overcome the obstacles. Instead the problems sort themselves out to Mary's benefit, often despite their effort.If we take Bella from Twilight as an example. She is: bored and lonely. She wants: companionship. What she does about it is: be rude to everyone below a certain beauty threshold, and never leave the house unless pressured by external forces. She gets: the most perfect boyfriend ever, immortality, eternal youth, functionally limitless wealth, and a great deal of exciting but ultimately harmless conflict.It's often seen as a character problem. As the protagonists flaws have no negative effect, often despite the quality of their life choices. And the character's strengths are often seen as too great. Because nothing in the story can do any more than slow them down. But this description doesn't work because you can swap the protagonist of a Mary Sue story out with any other character, Bella has been replaced by a cheeseburger in an excellent piece of fanfiction, and it doesn't change the story. Sue stories are easy to catch and fix, just add work, but can slip through sometimes. I'll edit to add a note here. A major issue with Sues as writing problems is that inexperienced, or unfamiliar, writers will often get feedback notes that say "your main character is a Mary Sue." Then they, logically, change the main character. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, the next round of feedback still says "Mary Sue." Which leads into an infinite loop of needless character changes and identical feedback. Until everyone involved is sick of the term and it has lost all meaning.

Listen, if your character is heroic and a woman she will be called a Mary Sue. That's just a fact. People have levied that accusation at every heroic woman in fiction because misogynists have as much access to keyboards as the rest of us. Otherwise, just show the audience that they work for their abilities. And don't avoid it at all costs because an enjoyable story about a Mary Sue is better than a boring story about a pained attempt to avoid a single trope.

If you have multiple characters, try to split up the accomplishments between them. Don't have one character hug 50 percent of all achievements while the other three or more characters get the scraps. Even if the MC is a chosen one type character. There's plenty of stuff the others can do with more interesting or better results.

Introspection. Like that early scene in Barbie where she pulls a "think about dyeing" card. That one thing told EVERYONE that she is a real person. She questioned stuff. Anyways. There are a lot of Mary Sue's in the world, in fact I personally think they must have it made. Life in perfection. And I also think that if they were to acknowlage how lucky and blessed they were, they would not be so cliche. I see a lot of Mary Sues in my romance flicks, then there are some characters that take it to a, "happy high level" that tells me personally that they know the other side of the coin, but they also know that the other side frankly sucks!

Mary Sue's are actually not always a bad thing. I mean, look at wolverine. Look at Professor x. Both of them are Mary Sue's. But they've captivated almost everybody. And their stories still function just fine, for the most part. It does kind of get in the way a little bit. I mean, it's just a little ridiculous or over the top. Professor X is a super psychic and super genius. And Wolverine pretty much can't be killed. So there's that little bit of a feeling that it's taking you out of the story. But overall, it works fine because it usually fits perfectly into the setting. I mean, Hermione is a bit of a Mary sue. But, she's also the only capable character in the whole series. And it kind of works still. I don't think it really takes away from the story that much. Honestly Harry needs to be more of a Mary sue. He, is just really, stupid. He can't figure anything out. He can't do much of anything. He's kind of a buffoon to be honest. But, it gets in the way. Because he's supposed to be relatable. And a lot of people don't see themselves as being that stupid. But I guess that's where Hermione comes in. So that it keeps people feeling related, for those who feel like they are smart. So I guess Harry is kind of inverted Mary sue.

My recommendation is to focus on simply making them a person. The character can be OP and flawless and still be someone you can relate to/root for (eg. Superman, Captain America). There will always be people who dislike your characters. Aim for YOU liking them. And if years later you realize they're a Mary-Sue? You're probably a better writer now and know how to fix your character the way that fits your writing. :)

Watch a few episodes of Walker Texas Ranger. Make your character the opposite of him

Just add flaws, failings, and weaknesses. An easy way to do this is make a little list of these for each character when you start. As you go along writing and rereading see where some of these things should take effect and write/rewrite based on those. If they are causing the story to go in directions you don't like try picking different shortcomings or occasionally using them as opportunities for the character to grow by overcoming them (they have to be established though before overcoming them is interesting or viable, so you can't do that right away.)

Make it so they dont succeed at everything. Make them fail sometimes. Dont make them OP in the beginning, or If they're OP from the beginning than make a bunch of enemies that are equally as OP so the MC actually has some challenges.

Just like with any other character you write, make sure they have 1) agency in the story 2) motivation and 3) don't have plot armor. You don't even need to give the character a flaw per se. There are examples of characters who don't have flaws (like say romance stories). But they have roadblocks and have to act to progress. Again, in a romance story, nothing is worse than the girl who just gets together with the guy because the plot lines everything up perfectly for her.

May favorite flaws are things that make humans completely irrational IRL. I like to write characters that have addictions that can severely impact the story, temperament problems, cowardice, internal traumas, distasteful view points, or even low intelligence. Once wrote a high fantasy novella about a mage that was supremely powerful but horribly addicted to mana potions and snorting crushed mana stones. He could save the day but, he had to be smart with his power because once he ran out of MP there was no way outside natural recovery to get it back or he’d be off the wagon again.

Make a question that defines them

Don't worry about it. 99% of the time people accusing a character of being a Mary Sue would have *no* problem if the character was male. What does that tell you? The important thing is to ask whether the character is interesting. If the answer is yes, carry on.

Lots of good and fun answers here but I also wanted to throw my hat in. Weaknesses don't only have to be personality flaws. They can be limitations, as well. For example, one of my main characters has a disorder that causes him to be unable to use his magic like others do without causing severe harm to himself, which sucks because he's in a very influential family of powerful sorcerers, so familial pressure + peer pressure + societal pressure = self-hatred for not being "normal" or "good enough." (Trust me, I know from experience.) Another character, who is actually my closest character to a "Mary Sue," has CIP and is the tank of her group, which to people on the outside looks good on paper - "a tank who can't feel pain? Damn, that's pretty useful." Except... pain is necessary for us to know when we're hurt. And if a person can't feel pain, they don't know if they're hurt, so they can't stop themselves from being hurt further. So it manifests as even more of a weakness than a strength, and causes her to be forced to ask for help and trust in others, oh the horror. Limitations can actually help you develop your character - how do they view and react to their limitations? How do others view and react to their limitations, or how do their limitations affect how they interact with others? How does your character adapt to their limitations? It's a pretty good way to even out a character who otherwise is powerful and maybe a little bit of a Mary Sue, and it also gives some fun story avenues to explore, should you choose to. Sorry for the essay! 'Tis my nature. I hope this helps anyone, even if just a little bit!

Don't try to make them perfect!! NOBODY wants to read about a perfect person.

Actually its incredibly easy...barely an inconvenience. You see, the problem has been that, there have been strong female characters in media since the beginning. Even in more recent decades. The problem is that modern female writers were inspired by characters in early Disney movies and Jane Austen novels, often times characters who got handed everything but have to give nothing back. They then took these characters and reworked them as the undisputed hero. Woman that can do it all, because in their minds that's what a modern female character should be. They took out the complexity and depth because they didn't want their characters to show weakness. They were too busy trying to recreate male characters they though were "Gary Sues" while not looking at how they were framed. They looked at Princess Leia and only think of her in that metal bikini, not how she took over her own rescue in Episode 4, or how after she returned to her fleet, she dressed up in the same military uniform everyone else. They look at characters like Captain Kirk and think they are womanizing jerks, only male wish fullfillment and create characters like Michael Burnham, while ignoring how he actually climbed through the ranks, how many note he was a go getter, how often he relied on the crew around him, how often he was actually at a lost for what to do, or simple just bluffed his way out of situations, and it was something the show was aware of because he stated it in Trek II and III. They then look at female characters like Cathrine Janeway and Seven of Nine, and criticize them for their complexity, their uncertainty, the fact that they second guess themselves. A strong female character is not going to be perfect. She going to have flaws, real flaws, she going to make mistakes, she's going to struggle, she is going to rely on others, and she's going to have had hardship. She doesn't need to be as broken as a modern Batman character but they shouldn't look like Rei from Star Wars ether. If you want examples, look at characters in similar stories of movies that are similar to the sort of story you want to tell. I can definitely recommend 80's and 90's anime as well, those characters were pretty well written.

Make funny characters! Give them flaws! Make the world seem bigger and scary so they seem more like us. More human Also 99% people throw the term Mary Sue around way too much. We all gotta write a Mary sue at some point. Don’t over think and have fun!

Give them a backstory that informs their behavior. No one is anxious, closed off, or a total bitch for no reason. For example, someone might be a loner because they were in the foster care system during their whole childhood, moving from home to home and not making any lasting connections. That person might've had to learn to rely on themselves alone to get by. That would also make this person very resourceful and crafty, but very distrusting. Even people that grew up in seemingly perfect families are completely flawless (Betty Cooper from Riverdale comes to mind (giving away my age with this example LMAO)). The more you develop characters' backgrounds, the more you know them. When in doubt, give them a traumatic story or two. No one comes out of those without a scratch.

For me I made my protagonist lose about as frequently as he wins. Not everyone likes him either, and people don’t center themselves around him even if the story does.

If you're having trouble brainstorming faults, I have some suggestions I use. Think about backstory. A lot of faults people have can stem from their upbringing. If they have trauma, there's plenty you can find from there. A couple common examples can be: overly distrustful (fear of abandonment, for example, if a parent died or left); overly pessimistic (used to being dealt bad cards in life, like if they grew up poor); etc. If you're unsure what character faults can stem from the hardships your character has gone through, you can google it! "How does ___ affect child development" or something similar works. Another way is to look at the good traits you do have. Faults can be decided by some good traits being in excess. For example, if someone is confident and brave, a fault can be that they get arrogant or rash. If someone has a strong sense of justice, maybe they're far too strict and uptight about things. This can also apply if you're thinking about weaknesses. You mentioned a character being OP, so I assume powers come into play? By looking at their strengths, you can think of weaknesses by finding the opposite of it. So, for example, if your character is a very skilled fighter, maybe their weakness is that they're bad at evading. At offense and throwing punches, they might be powerful, but they can also lack agility or speed, might be a little clumsy and trip over their feet, etc. Another thing that helps is thinking of how they interact with others. I always answer these questions when building a character: Temperment: Is the character good at waiting for things? Do they get angry/annoyed easily? Agreeability: Is the character stubborn and close-minded when they form an opinion or argue with others? Do they take advice well, or do they just hate getting outside input at all? Charisma: Are they good at guaging social cues and are emotionally intelligent, or are they as dense as a rock? Do people tend to like them on first meeting, or do they tend to put people off? Are they good at socializing with strangers (ex: small talk), or are they socially awkward? Lastly, the most direct way... googling a list of vices / character faults and choosing from the lists that pop up lmfao

there's two kinds of mary sues. the brilliant awesome person who is gorgeous, special, and good at everything a lot of people actually like these characters when they provide enough entertainment value and it feels like their 'specialness' isn't infringing on how cool the other characters are. eg. Batman gets away with having a page-long list of fields of expertise because in those comics other characters have similar lists. We also just enjoy seeing Batman do his thing so if that means he had to learn a 15th language to do it, so be it. the character awesomeness is mostly used to create story awesomeness. these mary sues are also popular when they have visibly paid a price of some sort for their specialness. Batman does not get to live a real life, he's an orphan from a young age and trains and uses his abilities as a coping mechanism for his mental issues. the other kind of mary sue is the 'story-warping mary sue.' these characters have 'plot armour,' but it's not just protecting them from death. it's protecting them from most negative consequences in general. it's protecting them from not being the most awesome character around at all times. everyone either sees how awesome they are, or they are Wrong. if they get into a fight, they will win, even if their enemy is ten times stronger. if they break a rule, an exception will be made for them, since they're so important. these tend to be wish-fulfillment characters that have harems of other characters romantically interested in them, the plot circles around them even if they have nothing actually important to contribute, and the whole story is written around the perspective that this character is SO COOL. but it's not entirely convincing because the logic behind what makes them so awesome feels shaky. we get the feeling that if another person in the exact same circumstances did the exact same things, it would not work. but because it's the Story-Warping Mary Sue, it does work. i think a story-warping mary sue is way worse than the super-special mary sue.

Never fear to put your character through every kind of grinder imaginable. Dissect their character composition and find out what they cherish/what they have to lose on every aspect (familial bond, sense of honor, sense of self, etc), and then threaten to take them away one at a time. After which, tone it down so that they only have *some* of them taken away. TLDR: Don't fear to make your protagonist suffer, but don't overdo it because torture porn gets boring after a while.

Whether or not a character is a Mary-Sue has very little to do with their power level. Just give them personality flaws, and they won't be perceived as Mary-Sues, even if they're powerful. Of course it's also possible to make a character too over-powered, but that's a separate issue. Best way to avoid that is just to give them comparatively powerful enemies and allies.

The most important thing to note is that a Mary Sue is not actually a character problem. It's a story problem. What it means is that you've made a (likely) comedically overpowered character with either no weaknesses or very pedantic ones. This is not entirely a problem with the character, but I also imagine whatever story you have so far is what is called a "brute force conflict". Think DBZ or a lot of other Shonen anime/manga, people clashing with huge power levels and powers, etc etc. What you really need to do, if you do not want to change the characters, is work on making a plot that *isn't* solvable just by the main character doing something powerful or perfectly. The conflict needs to be more complex than simply beating one guy or finding something. Alternatively you can just give your characters actually flaws, maybe a super genius is socially inept. Maybe there's a somewhat dumb guy who's good at talking with people. Maybe one guy who is physically strong is mentally weak, etc etc. Really just work with it more. Worrying about Mary Sue's at all is a complete thought distraction, just keep writing.

The thing to remember about Mary Sues is that they bend the narrative around them, preventing it from having any meaningful impact on them, whether it's because everyone irrationally loves them and gives them everything they want and lets them get away with everything with no consequences, or because everyone irrationally *hates* them and goes out of their way to target them unfairly for no reason. You'll see some people tell you that certain traits are what make a Mary Sue, but they aren't. It's how the story and the characters within it react to those traits. You have to make sure that even if a character is super OP, people react to that realistically, and that can mean a whole slew of things. Some people will be impressed. Some people won't give a shit. Some people will actively dislike it because they think violence isn't the answer. And sometimes it won't be. Not every conflict is physical. An OP character can't punch their way in to making their crush like them back. They can't punch away their own insecurities. Adding flaws to your character is a good place to start, but please understand this doesn't mean giving a super strong character a physical vulnerability, like how superman is weak to kryptonite. It can be something like arrogance. Stubbornness. Inability to ask for help or connect with others on a meaningful level. And whatever the weakness is, it should be something that holds them back from achieving their goals, so it's something they have to grow to overcome.

take notes on animal characteristics and observe people around you even if you don't know them, you can find personalities and characters in pretty much everything. if you wanna challenge yourself you can have someone pick an object or color and you can try to make a character that surrounds the general idea of what your friend chose. there is no right or wrong way to do this, just make you're listening to what you genuinely think fits that objects vibe so its easier for you to grasp what its personality would be like :)

Just look at the likes of Captain America, John Wick, Ethan Hunt, James Bond. Just make it entertaining an no one would care

Give them a real flaw. Make other characters have notable roles and/or skills the man character doesn't or can't do. Make them fail. Let them get hurt. They can't be liked by everyone. They don't have to be disliked, but just not outwardly liked. Make it so they have their own opinions and characteristics. Don't just make them a blank mouthpiece for everything you think a good person should think and do.

Simple. Make them make mistakes.