B&A -- Does having a Mary-Sue/Gary-Stu completely ruin a story? Is it as fatal as some believe?

Yes, this man is still a Gary Stew. Granted, he's rich, handsome, intelligent, etc... he still has the cliche' fault of being a d-bag to everyone. Give him some type of other flaws instead of the obvious ones.

The last name being Forbs is too painfully obvious granted his financial situation and the fact that he's accomplished so much all the while being an extreme introvert is pretty far-fetched in my opinion. If you've studied a lot of CEO's you'd realize they're extremely extroverted and borderline sociopaths... unless he inherited the company? Just take it back to the drawing board and create a more believable character or else people are going to stop reading the book.

I'm not trying to be mean but I think if you're going to pour your heart into something, it'd be best if the audience didn't put the book down because they've seen the protagonist a thousand times before. I hope this helps. Best wishes in creating your character Payam.

Saying something does not make it so. You don't seem to get that. Since this is a recently copy/pasted question, you get my recently copy/pasted answer.

His "positive traits", which aren't actually positive traits, make me gag. He's perfect without trying. He didn't become that by working his way up, he was born into money and a family business.

Naturally women follow, he doesn't have to try. Having a naturally high IQ, it's easy to learn languages. He can drive helicopters and stuff because he can afford to.

He's pretty because he has good genetics and can afford a healthy lifestyle. A positive trait would be kindness to those less fortunate. Being born rich and powerful is not a positive trait, it's luck, and it isn't relatable.

His "negative traits" aren't even negative. I know you try and say he has "flaws like a normal person" but working hard, having a successful business strategy of not taking bullcrap/procrastinating, standing firm to his own way, and knowing which buttons to push when he wants to hurt someone are NOT bad things. --- It's Gary "Stu" and yes, House was often criticized as being "too impossibly smart".

Going through your list though, House was not "very good looking, he was not "very rich", he was not some bigshot CEO and everything he did get he earned by working his way through school. He had to answer to his boss and do boring jobs he didn't like such as clinic duty. He certainly didn't get things from being born into some family.

Women were not throwing themselves at him, the only women he ever got were prostitutes, illegal immigrants using him for a green card, and two patients who had altered mental statuses that made them think they liked him. People were not attracted to him, people were repulsed by him. Unlike your character, his flaws of being a filthly, lazy, suicidal drug-addict whose life was controlled completely by the constant fear of pain and death leading to psychotic breaks and him going to prison after ramming his car through a house and nearly killing people out of blind rage, are actual flaws.

Big difference. Please stop comparing them. Although again, House had plenty of critics and the actor himself thought House's genius went too far.

Your character doesn't need excuses, he needs a complete revamp. You keep saying things like "He's perfect, but he isn't perfect." while showing that he is and now you're saying "It isn't a romance, but it mostly is" while showing that it is. You really need to look at things through clearer eyes.

A lot of writers fall in love with their creations and that's just fine unless you expect others to feel the same. If you can't see it, then try asking some real critics.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.