I ask that title seriously. Are you, as a person, a Mary/Gary Sue?
If your answer is “no”, then what’s with the stereotype against self-inserts? If you are actually inserting yourself into a story, how could the character be a Mary Sue if you, yourself, are not? I contend that the issue is not so much that self-inserts are Mary Sues, but rather we have a poor use of the term “self-insert”.
I wish to begin by pointing out that self-inserts fall under two categories: the “sideline” types and “author-character” types. For the first category, the best I can describe at this moment is that the “sideline” self-insert is one where the author is a more an observer rather than an impactful character in the events surrounding him. Such stories include Dante in his Divine Comedy and C. S. Lewis in The Great Divorce. (By the way, where are the people accusing Dante and Lewis of Gary Sue-ing?) The other type of self-insert is what could be perhaps called the “author-character” insert, where there’s a character that’s supposed to be, or obviously represents, the author while acting as a regular member of the cast rather than the observers Dante and Lewis are in their stories. It is with this second form that most people protest.
Let’s begin by addressing what I’ve heard called the “superhuman” or “flawless” character issue. If the main character is flawless and breezes through everything, never fails, never seems to struggle, then there isn’t any tension and, consequently, often destroys interest from the reader. In other words, it’s hard to make flawless/nearly flawless characters interesting. I don’t say impossible, mind you. Virtuous, flawless characters can be engaging, but (1) those virtuous characters still struggle, just in a different way than the flawed character, and (2) paraphrasing one kind of Japanese beauty, flaws are a way of adding beauty/interest to a character. Flaws help prevent a character from being invincible.
Unfortunately, so-called “self-inserts” commonly fall under the category of the invincible protagonist. The creator thinks of everything he wishes to be able to do or admires, slaps them all together, throws in the list of his own likes and dislikes, and sometimes even gives said conglomeration his own name. The end result is an flawless bore fest that matches everything the creator wishes to be. I know. I’ve made such characters.
But here’s the thing… this idealization isn’t actually the creator. It’s an ideal. It’s how the author wishes to be, not how the author is, and if the creation doesn’t match the reality of the creator, can we legitimately call it a self-insert? I don’t think so. If the only similarity is matching likes/dislikes, appearance, and perhaps a few vague similarities in strengths or personality, it’s still an idealization rather than a resemblance of the author. If there’s someone with similar appearance and interests to me, is that person me? What about if we have some similar strengths and personality points? No. That’s just my mom. Seriously. But even with our similarities, we aren’t the same person. In the same vein, an author can insert an idealized version of himself into a story, but that isn’t really a self-insert. Anyone of any personality could insert such a character into a story, with the exact same traits. Whether or not there are similarities to the author is superfluous.
On the other hand, if an author actually did insert himself into his story, if the author is honest with himself, you might have the most real character you could ever have. For instance, a self-insert of my present self would be someone who is intelligent, serious, creative, dedicated, generally rational, and loves language and cheesy, innocent shoujo manga and romances (among other things), but who also tends towards indecisiveness, insecurity, pessimism, pride, bitterness, social disconnect/awkwardness, flip-flopping between bluntness and evasiveness, and fear. And, yes, in writing a story I probably have to simplify the character from myself a bit and would likely have to make my self-insert either overcome some of those flaws that, at the time of my writing, I still contain, or make the character succumb further to those flaws in order to bring progress to the plot. However, those flaws and strengths would still influence the actions my self-insert takes throughout the story, especially if I honestly ask myself “how might I respond to this situation?” rather than “how do I think I should respond?”, which is a question to save for the end. And only I, among all other humans, can truly know the answers.
I wish I was different. I wish I could be charismatic, brave, justice-seeking, poetic, kind, caring, empathetic, and a whole bunch of other things. But if I’m honest with myself, those qualities aren’t me, just my idealization. The real me is listed in the paragraph above. And if those qualities make me a Mary Sue, well, what am I supposed to say? Apparently I could never make a compelling character.
So, summary time: self-insert characters, real self-inserts that actually mirror the author, are not necessarily bad and would probably be engaging, realistic characters. The problem is a perfect/idealized character, who doesn’t have to (and often doesn’t) resemble the author at all. Such figures are not real self-inserts, for they are not the author actually inserting himself into the story. So let’s stop using inaccurate terms and address the real issues, shall we?
All stories mentioned (c) their respective creators
No comments:
Post a Comment