Writing self in?

[Toy Master Typhus]

I hear from time to time on some discussions about people who write themselves into their books, comics and other things. It was always referenced to as a bad thing but why is that? I mean it is one thing to write yourself in as a John Doe or Mary Sue, I can understand the hate for that, but why is it wrong to write yourself into part of a character?

 

[Lost In The Void]

It can be well done for example enjoying a fictional self biography called Lunar Park

 

[Crazie_Guy]

Every author writes a bit of themselves into their works, it's kind of hard not to what with them being the entirety of their own existence and the difficulty of writing things you don't know.


It's the overly indulgent self insertions people don't like. If you write a copy of yourself into a story and then let 'yourself' live out your every fantasy in some sort of attempt to live vicariously through your own creation, it's going to be somewhat uncomfortable for other people to read.

 

[Scrustle]

It's because when it happens often the character that the author whites in as themselves is usually a very obvious and unrealistic idealised version of themselves. They write themselves in to the book as someone who is amazing at everything and loved by everyone. People see it as the author being self indulgent and trying to give themselves an ego boost.

Also, why is this in gaming discussion?

 

[Toy Master Typhus]

I was too lazy to find right discussion panel at 1 in the morning.

 

[DEAD34345]

When people say this they usually mean that the author has created the book as a way of living out their fantasies through it. They write themselves in (usually a much more idealistic version of themselves who can do no real wrong) and then take themselves through great adventures and stories. It's usually painful for anyone other than the author to read. That's not to say writing in a character based on yourself is necessarily a bad thing, but I think you'd have to be very introspective and honest with yourself for it to turn out right.

 

[MailOrderClone]

Here's a good example of writing yourself into the story done well. The Animal Man comic book run written by Grant Morrison features Morrison himself appearing at the end of his 26 issue run as the person writing the story. He doesn't present himself in a particularly positive way, but rather as a somewhat detached man who was hired to write a comic book about a then D-list superhero, and who wanted to fix the mess he's written the character into before he hands the character's continued adventures off to someone else.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Tolkien's and his wife's gravestones include Beren and Lúthien, respectively.

There's nothing wrong with it and it's inevitable there's something of the author in a character they've written anyways.

Lunncal boiled the essence of the subject down, spot on.

 

[Skeggers]

Writing yourself in could be considered a cop out for being too lazy to give a character depth and just substituting yourself, I suppose.

I don't really see it as bad, myself, unless it's hideously overdone and whoever it is writing presents themselves as an unstoppable force of heroism and beauty.

 

[Makon]

The problem with writing yourself, directly, as a character is that you come off as someone who wants to glorify themselves.

All writers put a bit of themselves in a character; their anger, greed, lust, altruism, ect. There's nothing at all wrong with this. Sometimes, actually, you need to do this in order to make your character seem all that much more real and believable. Channeling your own feelings of something through a character comes off much more naturally than forcing it.

Now, as stated above, some writers will insert themselves into a story, in whole, so that they can glorify themselves. "In this book, I do this!", "I did X in this book!", and so on. That, or they can't find it in themselves to construct a new protagonist, and would rather just insert themselves instead. This stems from a lack of creative thought in character design.

TL;DR: Every writer puts a piece of themselves in a character, no matter how large or small. The problem only arises when you supplement an entire character for a glamorization of yourself.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Vonnegut Writes himself in, but he's literally just the same as he is in real life.

Some stories such as Vonnegut's Slaughter-house five or Heller's Catch-22 are semi-autobiographical if that counts as "writing yourself in".

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I mean it is one thing to write yourself in as a John Doe or Mary Sue

That is exactly the problem. The author can be so borderline narcissistic about themselves when they try to engross themselves into their world.

It should be remembered that the author may be unwilling to explain themselves much either. They think, "I'll write what I would do," and they completely forget to explain why they would do that. It's a weak reason, to have no reason!

This all varies from author to author. Reimagining themselves as someone else non-central to the story is absolutely fine; pushing themselves in as a main character is usually not good, but definitely not a deal breaker. Having someone who would do the same things as them, while retaining different traits (hopefully one of which is inherently flawed) is definitely workable and fine; someone who works only to stroke the author's ego is something that's boring.

 

[Something Amyss]

I hear from time to time on some discussions about people who write themselves into their books, comics and other things. It was always referenced to as a bad thing but why is that? I mean it is one thing to write yourself in as a John Doe or Mary Sue, I can understand the hate for that, but why is it wrong to write yourself into part of a character?

Because the majority of the time, they do make them Canon/Mary Sues.

It's not that it can't be done well, but rather that it almost certainly won't be done well. We're usually a poor judge of our own abilities and qualities, and it's often hard to disassociate ourselves from that. It usually goes back, and it gets a bad rep for that reason.

Think of it as like rape. Rape can be a powerful tool to explore certain elements of humanity, but it takes a gentle hand to address it maturely. More often than not, it's tasteless shock. People kind of groan at it as a result. Same with abortions, Nazis (with an asterisk, because they're still our favourite punching bags), etc.

When I write, for some reason it works for me to put myself into a side character. A character that is around often but is not a major player and certainly not the protagonist. While this character is not 'me' and may possess traits and characterization that differ greatly from myself, I use this character as my window into the story and world I'm writing. I roleplay this character, in a way, while I'm writing.

I want to actually write myself into a cameo for the hell of it. I don't want to be one of my main characters, or even routine supporting cast, but I'd get a kick out of just having myself show up in sort of a one-off scenario or minor significance.

As for the prior paragraph, I agree with the notion that writers tend to put a bit of themselves into every character. It's part of how you actually craft a decent character, I think. But that's not self-insert. And to some extent, it's actually encouraged.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

As an individual, I feel like I have a lot of great qualities; I'm just honestly not that interesting of a person.

So instead, I decided to infuse each of the main characters of my stories with one of my traits and pass it as their defining personality trait.

I have an enthusiastic telepathic alien, a brooding, yet righteous genetically engineered assassin, a disciplined Bushido from cyber space, and a shy, yet talented artist who can manipulate the weather, to name a few.