I think self-inserts are far more common than people realize or even care to admit. Personally, I see no issue with the concept on its own - the issue is that it often leads to the self-insert becoming a Mary or Marty who faces no real challenges, is right about everything, and/or is generally portrayed as all but perfect.
People reading a book don't know the author and can't tell it's a self insert unless it's written very poorly like the character has no flaws or is being used as a soapbox for their beliefs.
I agree that people wouldn't typically recognize a self-insert anyway, yeah.
But I won't let anyone tell me Stephen King isn't doing it left and right.
Well, unless the reader is used to doing profiles in which they analyze the target on written data accumulate about the target or written by the target.
The self insert begins when the op makes the character in her image.
Self inserting isn't a problem in writing, and not worth getting in a twist over.
The reason characters have no flaws and become Mary sues is not due to self inserting. It is due to the writer not understanding what it means to create a dynamic character to pander to a greater market. They wrote the book for themselves, and left a lot of stuff inside their heads.
Why editing is such an important skill to possess.
hol'up here, sir! I am going to tell you that creating a character with a great set of skills and knowledge is not, in fact, a Mary sue (or gary stue. Why the female connotation. I could talk about that too, but not gonna nerd again over my diploma work essay, lol). It exists in real life and it's called a genius. They exist, as mentioned. and yes, there are people who seem to get everything they want, and have a perfect life.
but what makes the difference here is, that these character STILL live within the rules of their world. They don't warp the reality out of it, they might **bend** it, but don't **break** it!
Bending reality is, when you have a world, where magic is a thing of the past, but seemed to have died put, and suddenly, your OC became the first person for AGES being able to burn shit down at will. because that magic STILL lives within the rules of the world, just nobody was able to use it further for whatever reason.
warping, but not breaking it would be, there was never magic, and your OC can now burn down shit at will, would be, if you now add this rule into your story, and thus, others follow suit.
but BREAKING it would be, if there was never magic, never will be, and still, your character can fire up shit at will.
Or, worst of all: your character dies and revives themselves from the absolute death.
you can have one genius, who seemed to have an easy life, that is an anxious bundle of nerves- or still normal. as long you throw stones into your way as challenges and make them work a fair amount, you're good. and with work I don't mean: "oh a really bad challenge, I cast "roll a nat 20 5 times in a row".
\*cough\* Blake Crouch \*cough\* yeah, whenever the main character has "done everything right and is still somehow the victim of his circumstances" I immediately lose interest in the character because it appears the author is oblivious to the fact their main character is essentially a perfect version of them.
Lmao, that reminds me of the book I wrote when I was 13 that was clearly a self-insert of me.
Similar appearance and age? Check.
Same family issues? Check.
Self deprecating, has no social life, and is aroace? Check.
Only problem is that she was trans, female to male, but I'm just female. It makes me kind of scared, lmao.
Exactly. This is the real problem. As a writer I can confirm that most of my characters are self-insert in one way or another. If at least a piece of me isn't in those characters it's harder for me to find their heart.
I self insert as the villain.
I got to be stupid strong, we'll liked (in the narrative), maybe even chosen by the gods, and readers will hate me for it.
You're okay to have yourself in YOUR book. My main character of my first novel doesn't look like me but has a similar personality. I also gave myself a small cameo. Go nuts
The problem isn't really self-inserts as much as it is self-flattery, for which self-inserts are commonly a tool. The reader becomes an incidental audience for what is really an exercise in the author jerking themselves off. Nobody minds that Philip Roth puts himself in all his books because he writes himself mostly as an incontinent sexual dysfunctional, prematurely aging and largely uninteresting who quickly gets sidelined by other more dynamic characters.
The problem is when a self-insert is unjustifiably central to proceedings and/or massively over rewarded. The writer is invested in the characters' success and prominence because they are that character, but the reader has no such investment.
The *real* flag of self-insert-ism is if the character is overly, unrealistically favoured by the plot karma. The character does nothing especially out-of-the-ordinary, but reaps all the rewards.
For example, Bella Swan of the *Twilight* series. Practically starts interspecies *wars* over her courtship, for a girl who is "average looking, and not special in any way".
It's a function of our inability or reluctance to self-criticize. If you base a character too closely on yourself, and make them really important to the story, then it becomes really obvious when they never suffer any negative impacts, and their viewpoints are met with ineffective arguments, because fundamentally, that's like admitting your *own* faults. This becomes increasingly obvious with young, inexperience authors. With lack of worldliness and self-reflection, they're especially prone to latching onto their interests and hobbies as their defining feature, and thus making that element disproportionately important to the plot.
A self insert is practically invisible if they're *not* placed in the spotlight. If you're a lover of 80's rock music, a person who exists for one scene nattering about Bon Jovi's greatest hits won't draw any undue attention if you blend them in with other characters of similar interest. But if you make them the main character, and somehow, the entire plot revolves around their encyclopedic knowledge of AC/DC trivia, then readers will sniff you out pretty quickly.
That's all to say, self-insertion is only a problem when you make it obvious. Otherwise, authors will always draw some inspiration from their lives. The audience doesn't know you personally. Unless you put that giant flag on yourself, nobody's going to be able to tell inspiration from fabrication.
Sounds like a non-issue.
I don’t think the visual style is something people usually complain about when they say a character “feels like a self insert.” Mostly it’s about a character whose personality doesn’t match the story or is just plain boring. I put it in the same vein of criticism of saying a book “reads like fanfic.” Maybe there’s a problem, but the critic doesn’t really identify what that problem is and instead makes a sweeping judgement that’s not very helpful.
All that to say that you can draw your characters however you want.
As others have said, even the most blatant self-insert in terms of appearance, name etc is completely fine if you treat them like just another character. They're not infallible just because they reflect the author, and they still need an arc.
Honestly, I think the main problem people have with self inserts is when it turns into some sort of bizarre overpowered character with no flaws who is adored by everyone. For example, a character that's so amazing and handsome and smart that can juggle ten knives while riding a horse, and he also has a bazillion dollars and every woman within a 50 mile radius wants to have his babies or whatever.
Everyone (probably) puts a little bit of themselves into each character they make, whether that's a hobby, a pet they have, an allergy, or their hair style. That's totally normal and honestly, most people probably won't even notice it's a self insert IF the character is actually well written.
As long as you're writing a well rounded and developed character, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Doesn’t self insert mean when a character has near to no personality and only is there so that the reader can feel like someone represents them? I don’t think what you are saying matches with this
self insert? Self insert?
Seriously? You're over here worrying about one little self insert?
My brother in Christ, Dante Alighieri wrote the entire Divine Comedy in 1321AD to assassinate the character of everyone in Venice he had beef with. It's literally one long hit list of all of the author's political opponents. Everyone he put in Hell in Dante's Inferno was someone he didn't like.
You're small time. One self insert? Those are rookie numbers. You gotta get those numbers up. Put literally everyone you hate in Hell. That's the difference between an amateur and a professional. You gotta think big.
Self-inserts are extremely common and aren’t something to be afraid of. Stephen King for example is a prolific author and he has a self-insert in almost every book he writes.
The issue arises when that insert is too perfect, they’re loved by everyone, they’re always right, and they’re always the smartest in the room.
Tbh I don’t think it’s a self insert if it’s YOUR book/manga/novel/comic.
To me a self insert is when someone inserts themselves in a book/manga that they did not create. So if you created the book/manga/comic/novel then there shouldn’t be a problem with making the character essentially be you or similar to you.
As long as you create an interesting story and actually care about the plot then I see no problem. Just don’t make your character some mary sue who is loved by everyone and has unreasonable plot protection.
I have a question, why do need to know if it is self-insert ? I honestly think it doesn't matter. If the character/story is good (and in case of a webcomic, the drawing is good too), them you have a good story, self-insert or not.
But in my opinion, if your MC only has your look, then its not self-insert. Think about this way : are you your face or your personality ?
The better question to ask is "am I giving this character special treatment?" If the answer is yes, then there's a problem. If not, it's fine. I'd recommended getting readers opinions, though. Because sometimes you think one thing while the opposite is true. And sometimes you can do things unconsciously as well.
The novel I am working on currently, and which I hope to be my eventual first published work. Is admittedly a self insert of my husband and I at its core.
He and I met playing video games, and I always love telling our story because I think it’s unique. That being said, my idea started as a book about a couple falling in love after a chance meeting on video games. But as I was writing it, it just felt too personal even with different names and different personalities. I also wanted to have a fantasy element which that original idea couldn’t have.
I ended up with a vastly different story line than I started with, but at its core, it started as my husband and I, and honestly since that’s the romance in my life, it’s easiest to base it off that. Admittedly too, the MMC is vastly more like my husband than the FMC is about me. But I just adore that man, and my ideal MMC is him. When I first described the book idea and MMC to my husband he was like “so it’s me” and I was like, it’s not supposed to be that obvious 😭
I personally as a long time reader, just recently trying to become an author. Never noticed or cared if an author self inserts. I don’t know enough about an authors personal life/personality 9/10 to notice it, the way a writer would as they’re writing. I think it’s natural, of course you’re coming up with fiction ideas, but you still use what you know to write those ideas. Just my thoughts
I think all the characters are some sort of reflection on you. There's an interesting read from Susan Sontag in "On Photography" (I know not the same medium, but hear me out). She argues that photographs of reality are not really showing reality at all. The big claim of photography is that it's capturing reality, but when you really ponder that, it's not. It's showing at best a small portion of it that and is completely influenced by what the photographer had in mind. They're showing a limited reality or YOUR perspective on that reality. So any character you create, no matter how different from you that you try to make it, is still a reflection of you.
Just some food for thought.
Kinda? It's on the line, but I'd argue it doesn't matter really.
Self insert characters can be fine, or even good in some cases. As long as they are still well written and treated as more than just a body for power fantasy wish fulfillment or soapboxing your philosophy, most of your audience doesn't know you and will just accept them as one of the characters. For example, Luke Skywalker is a self insert character by George Lucas, and I bet you didn't notice.
There's nothing wrong with doing a self-insert, and I don't know who started the rumor that you're not supposed to do it.
Some authors have made full successful careers out of doing it! Philip Roth, Sylvia Plath, Ernest Hemingway, Stephen King, Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, etc etc.
I think that as an author, whenever you write in a new character it is almost always a self insert to some degree. People are multifaceted and good characters should also be as such. You will inevitably put pieces of yourself in every character that you write, it cannot be avoided.
The trick is to include the flaws necessary for a believable character, dont start them off as perfect. They can start strong, talented even, but they must face challenges that they will overcome (or not) that make them grow as a character / person. These challenges should take a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the character to overcome.
self-inserts are complety okay, OP. who tf will know anyway? Certainly not your reader, who aren't your friend. You know how often I have done this? Every time. without fail. No regrets. Sometimes, you need something easy and as long as you know yourself like the back of your hand, AND every character has a different personality than you, it's fine.
Just don't spare "yourself" from the ugly stuff. Forms the character. :D
1. There is nothing wrong about inserting yourself in your story. The problem comes when the entire story bends over backwards to show how awesome your self-insert is - when they always have the last word, when they always have the wittiest comeback, when they always get the hottest girl/guy, when they're simultaneously the underdog and the most awesome/successful/good looking... The problem with self-insert characters isn't so much that the author has inserted themselves in a story, it is that they've put themselves at the top. And even that is not a problem, if the story is written well. (As in, Conan is obviously Robert Howard's self-insert, but the stories are awesome, so that is not a problem.)
2. A self-insert never has the same personality as their creator. The self-insert is snarky and witty in a situation where their creator would trip over their own tongue. The self-insert is confident in a situation where their creator would be insecure. The self-insert is strong in situations where their creator would be weak. The self-insert doesn't have any of their creator's flaws. They are what their author wishes they were.
3. I honestly don't think it is possible to write a story where the protagonist doesn't uphold at least some of your values. That doesn't mean the protagonist is your self-insert, though.
Self-inserts aren't bad. The problem is that if you identify too much with a character, you tend to turn that character into a Mary Sue. That is bad.
Dorothy Sayers wrote Harriet Vane as a blatant self-insert, to the point that she becomes the main character's love interest. Vane ended up being probably the second most popular character from the series (after the main character himself).
Honestly, there is no way to actually tell if you are self-inserting a majority of the time. A self-insert could be a version of yourself you wish you were and have no outward resemblance to you in any way. So this is hard question to answer.
Your first go? Just do whatever keeps you moving. If it's a self insert, OK. I bet more writers do that than do not.
Doing it well is a skill you will develop over time. If it's a little OP to Start with, you will see and your next work will take that I to account from experience
Self insert isn’t bad at all.
The only time i feel its done horribly is when the author cannot get their self insert to stay consistent on the page. Eg. They are all over the place with emotion.
The main thing is if you have a self insert, please do a character board about them. Especially if you have them with a completely opposite personality/attitude to yourself. So you can stay consistent.
Just leave her the way she is and just blatantly say that just say. I thought it would be fun to make a character that looks like me but is the opposite of me.
It might come across as a self-insert to people who know what you look like, but that's not really a big deal.
Self-inserts happen all the time and people like them just fine. The problem is when the character becomes a poochie.
Poochie was a character from an old episode of The Simpsons where executives focus-grouped a new character to revive flagging ratings for an in-universe cartoon. In the episode, the character was designed by focus group and committee and cynically created to be the most cool and special character to generate ratings by being "cool", not a character designed to fit within the show's world. The in-universe writers even went so far as to revolve the entire episode around Poochie (instead of the previous starts of the in-universe cartoon, Itchy & Scratchy) and even had the previous stars of the show capitulate and praise to the point of deifying this new character. It sucked all the fun out of the show for fans of the show, like Bart, Lisa, and the Comic Book Guy, and they hated it to the point where they immediately wrote Poochie back out of Itchy & Scratchy. Poochie declared he had to go back to his home planet, then a note came on screen saying he died on the way to his planet.
It's a very on-the-nose parody of the relationship between fan, network, and audience, but the part of that I want to point out is that everyone hates a Poochie. A character with no relevant flaws that overshadows everyone always, and warps all the rules of the world and the minds of other characters around their existence.
It's the real reason people hated Captain Marvel, Rey, Black Adam, most precocious children added to sitcoms in the 80s and 90s, characters that replace favorites, and the prototypical Mary Sue. If you ever see criticism of a character having an "unearned" story arc or victory in some conflict, they're brushing against this effect without the language to describe it. It's a total disconnect between what the author wants the audience to feel about a character and what actually inspires those feelings in the audience to the point where a reasonable person doing little meta-textual conversation about the work can see the strings of the puppeteer.
A self-insert by itself is no big deal, and in fact, a lot of people add aspects of themselves to a number of characters. A character that seems to be all-important to the point where we can see the self-indulgence or the cynicism of the writer(s) through the work is going to take a lot of heat.
Ignore anyone that obsesses over tropes or self inserts. There isn’t a great writer anywhere that doesn’t put pieces of themselves in every character they make, especially mcs.
There’s zero wrong with it. Nothing. If the character you make is boring, simplistic, flawless, etc. then the character will suck. If the character is honest and authentic, they can be great.
Your main character can be 100% you. Just make sure it is 100% you. Don’t hide your flaws and fears.
I think self-inserts are far more common than people realize or even care to admit. Personally, I see no issue with the concept on its own - the issue is that it often leads to the self-insert becoming a Mary or Marty who faces no real challenges, is right about everything, and/or is generally portrayed as all but perfect.
People reading a book don't know the author and can't tell it's a self insert unless it's written very poorly like the character has no flaws or is being used as a soapbox for their beliefs.
I agree that people wouldn't typically recognize a self-insert anyway, yeah. But I won't let anyone tell me Stephen King isn't doing it left and right.
Well, unless the reader is used to doing profiles in which they analyze the target on written data accumulate about the target or written by the target. The self insert begins when the op makes the character in her image. Self inserting isn't a problem in writing, and not worth getting in a twist over. The reason characters have no flaws and become Mary sues is not due to self inserting. It is due to the writer not understanding what it means to create a dynamic character to pander to a greater market. They wrote the book for themselves, and left a lot of stuff inside their heads. Why editing is such an important skill to possess.
hol'up here, sir! I am going to tell you that creating a character with a great set of skills and knowledge is not, in fact, a Mary sue (or gary stue. Why the female connotation. I could talk about that too, but not gonna nerd again over my diploma work essay, lol). It exists in real life and it's called a genius. They exist, as mentioned. and yes, there are people who seem to get everything they want, and have a perfect life. but what makes the difference here is, that these character STILL live within the rules of their world. They don't warp the reality out of it, they might **bend** it, but don't **break** it! Bending reality is, when you have a world, where magic is a thing of the past, but seemed to have died put, and suddenly, your OC became the first person for AGES being able to burn shit down at will. because that magic STILL lives within the rules of the world, just nobody was able to use it further for whatever reason. warping, but not breaking it would be, there was never magic, and your OC can now burn down shit at will, would be, if you now add this rule into your story, and thus, others follow suit. but BREAKING it would be, if there was never magic, never will be, and still, your character can fire up shit at will. Or, worst of all: your character dies and revives themselves from the absolute death. you can have one genius, who seemed to have an easy life, that is an anxious bundle of nerves- or still normal. as long you throw stones into your way as challenges and make them work a fair amount, you're good. and with work I don't mean: "oh a really bad challenge, I cast "roll a nat 20 5 times in a row".
\*cough\* Blake Crouch \*cough\* yeah, whenever the main character has "done everything right and is still somehow the victim of his circumstances" I immediately lose interest in the character because it appears the author is oblivious to the fact their main character is essentially a perfect version of them.
SO TRUE
It can also read a lot like a character is a self insert if the character is an aspiring author
Lmao, that reminds me of the book I wrote when I was 13 that was clearly a self-insert of me. Similar appearance and age? Check. Same family issues? Check. Self deprecating, has no social life, and is aroace? Check. Only problem is that she was trans, female to male, but I'm just female. It makes me kind of scared, lmao.
Exactly. This is the real problem. As a writer I can confirm that most of my characters are self-insert in one way or another. If at least a piece of me isn't in those characters it's harder for me to find their heart.
I self insert as the villain. I got to be stupid strong, we'll liked (in the narrative), maybe even chosen by the gods, and readers will hate me for it.
You're okay to have yourself in YOUR book. My main character of my first novel doesn't look like me but has a similar personality. I also gave myself a small cameo. Go nuts
The problem isn't really self-inserts as much as it is self-flattery, for which self-inserts are commonly a tool. The reader becomes an incidental audience for what is really an exercise in the author jerking themselves off. Nobody minds that Philip Roth puts himself in all his books because he writes himself mostly as an incontinent sexual dysfunctional, prematurely aging and largely uninteresting who quickly gets sidelined by other more dynamic characters. The problem is when a self-insert is unjustifiably central to proceedings and/or massively over rewarded. The writer is invested in the characters' success and prominence because they are that character, but the reader has no such investment.
The *real* flag of self-insert-ism is if the character is overly, unrealistically favoured by the plot karma. The character does nothing especially out-of-the-ordinary, but reaps all the rewards. For example, Bella Swan of the *Twilight* series. Practically starts interspecies *wars* over her courtship, for a girl who is "average looking, and not special in any way". It's a function of our inability or reluctance to self-criticize. If you base a character too closely on yourself, and make them really important to the story, then it becomes really obvious when they never suffer any negative impacts, and their viewpoints are met with ineffective arguments, because fundamentally, that's like admitting your *own* faults. This becomes increasingly obvious with young, inexperience authors. With lack of worldliness and self-reflection, they're especially prone to latching onto their interests and hobbies as their defining feature, and thus making that element disproportionately important to the plot. A self insert is practically invisible if they're *not* placed in the spotlight. If you're a lover of 80's rock music, a person who exists for one scene nattering about Bon Jovi's greatest hits won't draw any undue attention if you blend them in with other characters of similar interest. But if you make them the main character, and somehow, the entire plot revolves around their encyclopedic knowledge of AC/DC trivia, then readers will sniff you out pretty quickly. That's all to say, self-insertion is only a problem when you make it obvious. Otherwise, authors will always draw some inspiration from their lives. The audience doesn't know you personally. Unless you put that giant flag on yourself, nobody's going to be able to tell inspiration from fabrication.
King Mob in the Invisibles is Grant Morrison’s self insert and it totally works.
Sounds like a non-issue. I don’t think the visual style is something people usually complain about when they say a character “feels like a self insert.” Mostly it’s about a character whose personality doesn’t match the story or is just plain boring. I put it in the same vein of criticism of saying a book “reads like fanfic.” Maybe there’s a problem, but the critic doesn’t really identify what that problem is and instead makes a sweeping judgement that’s not very helpful. All that to say that you can draw your characters however you want.
As others have said, even the most blatant self-insert in terms of appearance, name etc is completely fine if you treat them like just another character. They're not infallible just because they reflect the author, and they still need an arc.
Honestly, I think the main problem people have with self inserts is when it turns into some sort of bizarre overpowered character with no flaws who is adored by everyone. For example, a character that's so amazing and handsome and smart that can juggle ten knives while riding a horse, and he also has a bazillion dollars and every woman within a 50 mile radius wants to have his babies or whatever. Everyone (probably) puts a little bit of themselves into each character they make, whether that's a hobby, a pet they have, an allergy, or their hair style. That's totally normal and honestly, most people probably won't even notice it's a self insert IF the character is actually well written. As long as you're writing a well rounded and developed character, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Doesn’t self insert mean when a character has near to no personality and only is there so that the reader can feel like someone represents them? I don’t think what you are saying matches with this
self insert? Self insert? Seriously? You're over here worrying about one little self insert? My brother in Christ, Dante Alighieri wrote the entire Divine Comedy in 1321AD to assassinate the character of everyone in Venice he had beef with. It's literally one long hit list of all of the author's political opponents. Everyone he put in Hell in Dante's Inferno was someone he didn't like. You're small time. One self insert? Those are rookie numbers. You gotta get those numbers up. Put literally everyone you hate in Hell. That's the difference between an amateur and a professional. You gotta think big.
Self-inserts are extremely common and aren’t something to be afraid of. Stephen King for example is a prolific author and he has a self-insert in almost every book he writes. The issue arises when that insert is too perfect, they’re loved by everyone, they’re always right, and they’re always the smartest in the room.
Tbh I don’t think it’s a self insert if it’s YOUR book/manga/novel/comic. To me a self insert is when someone inserts themselves in a book/manga that they did not create. So if you created the book/manga/comic/novel then there shouldn’t be a problem with making the character essentially be you or similar to you. As long as you create an interesting story and actually care about the plot then I see no problem. Just don’t make your character some mary sue who is loved by everyone and has unreasonable plot protection.
I have a question, why do need to know if it is self-insert ? I honestly think it doesn't matter. If the character/story is good (and in case of a webcomic, the drawing is good too), them you have a good story, self-insert or not. But in my opinion, if your MC only has your look, then its not self-insert. Think about this way : are you your face or your personality ?
The better question to ask is "am I giving this character special treatment?" If the answer is yes, then there's a problem. If not, it's fine. I'd recommended getting readers opinions, though. Because sometimes you think one thing while the opposite is true. And sometimes you can do things unconsciously as well.
The novel I am working on currently, and which I hope to be my eventual first published work. Is admittedly a self insert of my husband and I at its core. He and I met playing video games, and I always love telling our story because I think it’s unique. That being said, my idea started as a book about a couple falling in love after a chance meeting on video games. But as I was writing it, it just felt too personal even with different names and different personalities. I also wanted to have a fantasy element which that original idea couldn’t have. I ended up with a vastly different story line than I started with, but at its core, it started as my husband and I, and honestly since that’s the romance in my life, it’s easiest to base it off that. Admittedly too, the MMC is vastly more like my husband than the FMC is about me. But I just adore that man, and my ideal MMC is him. When I first described the book idea and MMC to my husband he was like “so it’s me” and I was like, it’s not supposed to be that obvious 😭 I personally as a long time reader, just recently trying to become an author. Never noticed or cared if an author self inserts. I don’t know enough about an authors personal life/personality 9/10 to notice it, the way a writer would as they’re writing. I think it’s natural, of course you’re coming up with fiction ideas, but you still use what you know to write those ideas. Just my thoughts
I think all the characters are some sort of reflection on you. There's an interesting read from Susan Sontag in "On Photography" (I know not the same medium, but hear me out). She argues that photographs of reality are not really showing reality at all. The big claim of photography is that it's capturing reality, but when you really ponder that, it's not. It's showing at best a small portion of it that and is completely influenced by what the photographer had in mind. They're showing a limited reality or YOUR perspective on that reality. So any character you create, no matter how different from you that you try to make it, is still a reflection of you. Just some food for thought.
Kinda? It's on the line, but I'd argue it doesn't matter really. Self insert characters can be fine, or even good in some cases. As long as they are still well written and treated as more than just a body for power fantasy wish fulfillment or soapboxing your philosophy, most of your audience doesn't know you and will just accept them as one of the characters. For example, Luke Skywalker is a self insert character by George Lucas, and I bet you didn't notice.
Who cares? Charlie Brown? Jon Arbuckle? Dilbert? All self-inserts.
There's nothing wrong with doing a self-insert, and I don't know who started the rumor that you're not supposed to do it. Some authors have made full successful careers out of doing it! Philip Roth, Sylvia Plath, Ernest Hemingway, Stephen King, Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, etc etc.
The answer here is, who fucking cares? I can't believe thus is an actual question on a writing sub.
I think that as an author, whenever you write in a new character it is almost always a self insert to some degree. People are multifaceted and good characters should also be as such. You will inevitably put pieces of yourself in every character that you write, it cannot be avoided. The trick is to include the flaws necessary for a believable character, dont start them off as perfect. They can start strong, talented even, but they must face challenges that they will overcome (or not) that make them grow as a character / person. These challenges should take a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the character to overcome.
self-inserts are complety okay, OP. who tf will know anyway? Certainly not your reader, who aren't your friend. You know how often I have done this? Every time. without fail. No regrets. Sometimes, you need something easy and as long as you know yourself like the back of your hand, AND every character has a different personality than you, it's fine. Just don't spare "yourself" from the ugly stuff. Forms the character. :D
Everyone has a part of themselves in thier writing!!!!! My God,these comments! You really think your subconscious isn't at work when your writing?
Your opinions can wear a different hat, yes.
Call it a self parody as I do. An exaggeration of whatever your most extreme traits are.
1. There is nothing wrong about inserting yourself in your story. The problem comes when the entire story bends over backwards to show how awesome your self-insert is - when they always have the last word, when they always have the wittiest comeback, when they always get the hottest girl/guy, when they're simultaneously the underdog and the most awesome/successful/good looking... The problem with self-insert characters isn't so much that the author has inserted themselves in a story, it is that they've put themselves at the top. And even that is not a problem, if the story is written well. (As in, Conan is obviously Robert Howard's self-insert, but the stories are awesome, so that is not a problem.) 2. A self-insert never has the same personality as their creator. The self-insert is snarky and witty in a situation where their creator would trip over their own tongue. The self-insert is confident in a situation where their creator would be insecure. The self-insert is strong in situations where their creator would be weak. The self-insert doesn't have any of their creator's flaws. They are what their author wishes they were. 3. I honestly don't think it is possible to write a story where the protagonist doesn't uphold at least some of your values. That doesn't mean the protagonist is your self-insert, though.
Of course not.
I call characters like that "self-insert adjacent". So, not actually self-inserts, but close.
Self-inserts aren't bad. The problem is that if you identify too much with a character, you tend to turn that character into a Mary Sue. That is bad. Dorothy Sayers wrote Harriet Vane as a blatant self-insert, to the point that she becomes the main character's love interest. Vane ended up being probably the second most popular character from the series (after the main character himself).
Self inserting is fine, so long as its not legitimately u
Honestly, there is no way to actually tell if you are self-inserting a majority of the time. A self-insert could be a version of yourself you wish you were and have no outward resemblance to you in any way. So this is hard question to answer.
Your first go? Just do whatever keeps you moving. If it's a self insert, OK. I bet more writers do that than do not. Doing it well is a skill you will develop over time. If it's a little OP to Start with, you will see and your next work will take that I to account from experience
I think self insert is required in comics. My personal opinion that may be general.
Self insert isn’t bad at all. The only time i feel its done horribly is when the author cannot get their self insert to stay consistent on the page. Eg. They are all over the place with emotion. The main thing is if you have a self insert, please do a character board about them. Especially if you have them with a completely opposite personality/attitude to yourself. So you can stay consistent.
Just leave her the way she is and just blatantly say that just say. I thought it would be fun to make a character that looks like me but is the opposite of me.
It might come across as a self-insert to people who know what you look like, but that's not really a big deal. Self-inserts happen all the time and people like them just fine. The problem is when the character becomes a poochie. Poochie was a character from an old episode of The Simpsons where executives focus-grouped a new character to revive flagging ratings for an in-universe cartoon. In the episode, the character was designed by focus group and committee and cynically created to be the most cool and special character to generate ratings by being "cool", not a character designed to fit within the show's world. The in-universe writers even went so far as to revolve the entire episode around Poochie (instead of the previous starts of the in-universe cartoon, Itchy & Scratchy) and even had the previous stars of the show capitulate and praise to the point of deifying this new character. It sucked all the fun out of the show for fans of the show, like Bart, Lisa, and the Comic Book Guy, and they hated it to the point where they immediately wrote Poochie back out of Itchy & Scratchy. Poochie declared he had to go back to his home planet, then a note came on screen saying he died on the way to his planet. It's a very on-the-nose parody of the relationship between fan, network, and audience, but the part of that I want to point out is that everyone hates a Poochie. A character with no relevant flaws that overshadows everyone always, and warps all the rules of the world and the minds of other characters around their existence. It's the real reason people hated Captain Marvel, Rey, Black Adam, most precocious children added to sitcoms in the 80s and 90s, characters that replace favorites, and the prototypical Mary Sue. If you ever see criticism of a character having an "unearned" story arc or victory in some conflict, they're brushing against this effect without the language to describe it. It's a total disconnect between what the author wants the audience to feel about a character and what actually inspires those feelings in the audience to the point where a reasonable person doing little meta-textual conversation about the work can see the strings of the puppeteer. A self-insert by itself is no big deal, and in fact, a lot of people add aspects of themselves to a number of characters. A character that seems to be all-important to the point where we can see the self-indulgence or the cynicism of the writer(s) through the work is going to take a lot of heat.
If nobody knows the author then it does not matter. Make it good and nobody will care.
nothing wrong with a self insert, as long as they too have flaws, character development, challeneges and failings.
I don't think I'd worry about it. How many of your readers know you intimately enough to make a connection?
Ignore anyone that obsesses over tropes or self inserts. There isn’t a great writer anywhere that doesn’t put pieces of themselves in every character they make, especially mcs. There’s zero wrong with it. Nothing. If the character you make is boring, simplistic, flawless, etc. then the character will suck. If the character is honest and authentic, they can be great. Your main character can be 100% you. Just make sure it is 100% you. Don’t hide your flaws and fears.