This is a great piece. It encompasses a lot of the problems I have with recent fiction trends.
The author does the heavy lifting in this relationship between writer and reader, so I don't understand self-inserts at all. If I wanted to imagine myself in a magical kingdom, I would just do that. I don't need to spend $14.99 for the experience.
Great article! As a fellow non-self-insertion reader, I get it. And I really wonder (and worry) about those who somehow read as if they themselves are the main character. Like... How??
I do love Persuasion though. Not because I see myself in Anne Eliot, but because I like her and the book. You do have a point that it could use some expansion, however. 😅
For my own experience, I would alter the chicken pot pie metaphor: It's like going to a good restaurant and being served a frozen chicken pot pie from Walmart. The girl at the next table squeals with excitement and pops the dish into the microwave that she somehow knew to bring along, while I am furious and frustrated because I was looking forward to a chef-cooked masterpiece.
My standpoint might be slightly different but I see what you’re saying.
When I read, I want to run away into the story. I want the world around me to disappear. I want to feel what they feel, to be immersed in it. Sometimes that puts me in their shoes but most of the time I’m still sidelined I guess.
While I like a great deal of character build up and story is a must, I’m okay with letting my imagination fill the gaps here and there. It is a fine line however. I will tire if I’m doing more of the heavy lifting.
When I write a character, there may be a bit of me in there (I think that’s impossible to avoid completely) but they are different in many ways. They don’t make the same choices I would (which is honestly quite strange sometimes).
Interesting. My mind doesn’t get completely immersed in a story; there’s still a part of me that’s aware of my surroundings.
It’s always fun when I’m writing dialogue between characters and suddenly they take it in a direction I hadn’t thought of. It’s like I’m recording what they say instead of forcing them to say things.
Same! I do feel more like a documentarian at times rather than a writer of fiction. They really do take on a life of their own. It’s part of what I love about it though.
As a reader I don't think I AM the character; but if the book's good, I also don't just feel like I'm merely observing them. There's some special kind of empathy-enablement that can happen—and I think this is one reason why it's important to read books that don't always centre characters like me (whatever 'like me' really means, and that's not a simple question, however reductionist some people would like to make it).
As a writer I also don't think I AM the character; they can be different from me in many ways, live in a different world, be different age and/or gender, but there is a deep level of engagement. Without it I couldn't write characters, certainly POV characters, at all.
Excellent point, I think, about self-insertion and trigger warnings.
As a writer--this is an important craftsmanship point. You only get the words on the page to convince people to love your story. If you take the care and attention to provide all the ingredients for the story-pot-pie, you will set your story apart. It's harder this way--you can't crank out 6 novels a year writing with this level of details--but you can differentiate your writing by quality and not quantity. Everything in the story should serve the story--like Chekov's gun, if the guns hanging on the wall someone needs to fire it in the next chapter or scene. Otherwise it's wasted words in a finite story.
As a reader--I definitely haven't approached reading with this perspective, but I think I also naturally enforce that barrier? I also look "over the shoulder" of characters and not through their eyes. If you can stop yourself filling in gaps then you can more frankly assess what is actually on the page.
As an occasional dissector of stories--the only quibble I think I would make--is that some stories are worth dissecting but it doesn't reveal anything objective about the story, it reveals something about us. If we think we can walk away from a novel with a definitive interpretation, or symbology, we're going to be sorely disappointed. Everyone gets something different out of a story, and SOMETIMES the author intends it but sometimes the author doesn't and that's part of the readers experience. Recognizing that it's a unique individual experience is pretty important, so that we can learn from people and stories and not try to impose some strange brand of orthodoxy on it.
A great story is worth waiting for and if you have an audience who will wait for whatever you write (within a reasonable time frame), I think it’s a more gratifying reputation than “I write two books every year that people promptly forget exist.” Not as much money in the long game, but writers are probably used to that.
I’ve been considering writing something about the dissection of books—sorta the how, when, why, and is it too much? side of things. If I do any form of dissection it’ll be pretty basic stuff, just looking at the human interactions and asking questions about what’s gonna happen next. The “time wasting” form of dissection would be in a book like The Great Gatsby where people put a lot of meaning into the green light. Totally pointless, especially since docks having green lights is a thing. There’s a point when looking for symbolism goes way too far and that’s what I find most annoying about literature readers: everything has to mean something. No it doesn’t.
I guess what book dissection says about me is that I want things to be plain and straightforward. Save the uncertainty for real life where it might actually be more important if you read between the lines.
Who are you? Why are we the same? Are you my reader twin?
Seriously, I can't stand self-inserts. I'm not here to read about myself or push myself into a character who is making terrible choices that I don't like or agree with. See a lot of fantasy romance. I want characters whom I can enjoy reading their stories and I want that story to be good. I want them to have distinct personalities and not the same flat personality like 15 other characters like them that I forget within 24hrs. after I finish a book.
As a reader I don't need to put myself in the story. I also don't need to have characters be like me, or be likeable, in order for the book to be interesting. But there are limits to this. If the book is mostly are all about things that I am not, that I'm probably not going to pick it up or never finish it.
Writing to express an identity is just fine, but eventually the writer of a big and complex story crosses a line where their YA romance or hero's journey or revenge tragedy arc moves from being a plot or subplot to the main plot and they risk losing readers who aren't down for that as the book's dominant theme.
I think characters have to be likable on some level, unless the writing is just spectacular and the plot so interesting that it doesn’t matter what kind of person I’m following. But they definitely don’t have to resemble me in any way.
It’s hard for me to imagine, and I have a great imagination, being one of the characters in a book. I do, however, get lost in a book if it is compelling. The most compelling book I ever read is Jane Eyre. Yet, I understand why people do that. I think you’re right, it’s an empty core. I am an observer, and I have no problem, missing a back story. It allows my imagination to be engaged. All of which may explain why I became a psychologist. I imagine multiple back stories and then go exploring. I also love interior books. I don’t need the back story of Anne Eliot; she is in the moment feeling the frustration, sorrow and regret of her current life. It is enough for me that she was young and easily persuadable missing her mother as the backstory. But, I think ultimately, Persuasion is not a romance.
Writing this got me thinking about compelling books in general. It is why I like some mysteries and thrillers if well written with interesting characters. The most compelling poems I’ve ever read are Christina Rossetti’s and Edna Saint Vincent Millay’s.
As always, thank you for your interesting commentaries. They get me thinking.
I think about this often actually, and I believed I was the only one. A similar situation is when people automatically assume that the voice of the narrator in a poem is the author. I’ve never written a poem where I was the voice of the narrator- always through the perspective of a fictional character. I don’t know why people self-insert into stories. Let us know when you figure that out. I suspect that it has something to do with modernism though.
Gosh, I know exactly what you mean here, although I hadn't really thought about it in those terms. I had noticed the shallower and shallower heroines, and the ever more interesting men (looking at you, Paper Magician). I've gotten to where if something even smells like that kind of book, it's an instant DNF. I have to go way back in time to find interesting heroines, like Mary Stewart's heroic ladies, or even Sarah Crewe from a Little Princess. For some reason there's been an epidemic of amnesia, and I've been seeing a lot of heroines with no memories. Probably the latest way for readers to insert themselves.
I’m really outta the loop on current book trends (aside from noticing the increase in romantasy), so I had no idea amnesia was making a comeback. I remember some YA books that used that as a mid-trilogy cliffhanger, but it’s always struck me as a cheap shot at more drama. It’d be interesting if it’s being used now so readers can take over the POV.
Well said! I’m with you. If you’re gonna write fiction, gimme a good story or I won’t waste my time. It follows that those who have nothing to say have nothing to write. If you can’t create real characters, engaging dialogue, adequate scenery and a compelling plot, maybe you’re not a fiction writer. It is a privilege to be read by others. It’s a huge compliment that someone would set aside everything else just to listen to you. Every writer owes his audience the courtesy of making those moments count.
The writer owns the burden of effort. If I want to labor, I’ll write my own book.
I think this is why romance books are the top selling genre: they’re easy to write because no real effort is put into the protagonist and most of them are set in the modern world, so the description needn’t be fancy either. But a lot of people like them and I’m guessing it’s because they can “take over” the story.
I've never really thought that much about this... until now. I don't think I usually insert myself into the main character when I'm reading. In fact, I can only recall one time in particular where I really identified strongly with a character I was reading. Other times, I've wished I could be like a certain character. But I don't think I feel like I actually am the main character. (The distance is even more pronounced when I'm watching movies, so that's interesting. Maybe it's because reading requires so much more interpretation from our brains. We don't have the ready-made pictures to go along with the story.)
The one book I’ve read where I strongly connected with the main character was Jane Eyre. I still wasn’t Jane, but her actions and thoughts were similar to mine. And when it comes to movies, you’re right, the distance is bigger.
This is a great piece. It encompasses a lot of the problems I have with recent fiction trends.
The author does the heavy lifting in this relationship between writer and reader, so I don't understand self-inserts at all. If I wanted to imagine myself in a magical kingdom, I would just do that. I don't need to spend $14.99 for the experience.
Thanks, Ian!
For the most part, I’m ignoring new books. Older books aren’t always going to be better, but at least I’m not being reminded of current era junk.
Great article! As a fellow non-self-insertion reader, I get it. And I really wonder (and worry) about those who somehow read as if they themselves are the main character. Like... How??
I do love Persuasion though. Not because I see myself in Anne Eliot, but because I like her and the book. You do have a point that it could use some expansion, however. 😅
For my own experience, I would alter the chicken pot pie metaphor: It's like going to a good restaurant and being served a frozen chicken pot pie from Walmart. The girl at the next table squeals with excitement and pops the dish into the microwave that she somehow knew to bring along, while I am furious and frustrated because I was looking forward to a chef-cooked masterpiece.
And now I want chicken pot pie 😂
I really don’t get how anyone could insert themselves into a story either. Are they just very empathetic and, like…empty inside?
I could go for some chicken pot pie too :)
My standpoint might be slightly different but I see what you’re saying.
When I read, I want to run away into the story. I want the world around me to disappear. I want to feel what they feel, to be immersed in it. Sometimes that puts me in their shoes but most of the time I’m still sidelined I guess.
While I like a great deal of character build up and story is a must, I’m okay with letting my imagination fill the gaps here and there. It is a fine line however. I will tire if I’m doing more of the heavy lifting.
When I write a character, there may be a bit of me in there (I think that’s impossible to avoid completely) but they are different in many ways. They don’t make the same choices I would (which is honestly quite strange sometimes).
Interesting. My mind doesn’t get completely immersed in a story; there’s still a part of me that’s aware of my surroundings.
It’s always fun when I’m writing dialogue between characters and suddenly they take it in a direction I hadn’t thought of. It’s like I’m recording what they say instead of forcing them to say things.
Thanks for reading!
Same! I do feel more like a documentarian at times rather than a writer of fiction. They really do take on a life of their own. It’s part of what I love about it though.
Very interesting piece.
As a reader I don't think I AM the character; but if the book's good, I also don't just feel like I'm merely observing them. There's some special kind of empathy-enablement that can happen—and I think this is one reason why it's important to read books that don't always centre characters like me (whatever 'like me' really means, and that's not a simple question, however reductionist some people would like to make it).
As a writer I also don't think I AM the character; they can be different from me in many ways, live in a different world, be different age and/or gender, but there is a deep level of engagement. Without it I couldn't write characters, certainly POV characters, at all.
Excellent point, I think, about self-insertion and trigger warnings.
Yep. You can get close to the characters, but not too close. Thanks for reading!
As a writer--this is an important craftsmanship point. You only get the words on the page to convince people to love your story. If you take the care and attention to provide all the ingredients for the story-pot-pie, you will set your story apart. It's harder this way--you can't crank out 6 novels a year writing with this level of details--but you can differentiate your writing by quality and not quantity. Everything in the story should serve the story--like Chekov's gun, if the guns hanging on the wall someone needs to fire it in the next chapter or scene. Otherwise it's wasted words in a finite story.
As a reader--I definitely haven't approached reading with this perspective, but I think I also naturally enforce that barrier? I also look "over the shoulder" of characters and not through their eyes. If you can stop yourself filling in gaps then you can more frankly assess what is actually on the page.
As an occasional dissector of stories--the only quibble I think I would make--is that some stories are worth dissecting but it doesn't reveal anything objective about the story, it reveals something about us. If we think we can walk away from a novel with a definitive interpretation, or symbology, we're going to be sorely disappointed. Everyone gets something different out of a story, and SOMETIMES the author intends it but sometimes the author doesn't and that's part of the readers experience. Recognizing that it's a unique individual experience is pretty important, so that we can learn from people and stories and not try to impose some strange brand of orthodoxy on it.
Great essay!
A great story is worth waiting for and if you have an audience who will wait for whatever you write (within a reasonable time frame), I think it’s a more gratifying reputation than “I write two books every year that people promptly forget exist.” Not as much money in the long game, but writers are probably used to that.
I’ve been considering writing something about the dissection of books—sorta the how, when, why, and is it too much? side of things. If I do any form of dissection it’ll be pretty basic stuff, just looking at the human interactions and asking questions about what’s gonna happen next. The “time wasting” form of dissection would be in a book like The Great Gatsby where people put a lot of meaning into the green light. Totally pointless, especially since docks having green lights is a thing. There’s a point when looking for symbolism goes way too far and that’s what I find most annoying about literature readers: everything has to mean something. No it doesn’t.
I guess what book dissection says about me is that I want things to be plain and straightforward. Save the uncertainty for real life where it might actually be more important if you read between the lines.
Anyway, I have thoughts, as you might imagine :)
Your essays-to-write list floweth over!
Who are you? Why are we the same? Are you my reader twin?
Seriously, I can't stand self-inserts. I'm not here to read about myself or push myself into a character who is making terrible choices that I don't like or agree with. See a lot of fantasy romance. I want characters whom I can enjoy reading their stories and I want that story to be good. I want them to have distinct personalities and not the same flat personality like 15 other characters like them that I forget within 24hrs. after I finish a book.
Are YOU my reader twin? So nice to hear someone who is on the same brain path.
Thanks for sharing your sane opinion!
As a reader I don't need to put myself in the story. I also don't need to have characters be like me, or be likeable, in order for the book to be interesting. But there are limits to this. If the book is mostly are all about things that I am not, that I'm probably not going to pick it up or never finish it.
Writing to express an identity is just fine, but eventually the writer of a big and complex story crosses a line where their YA romance or hero's journey or revenge tragedy arc moves from being a plot or subplot to the main plot and they risk losing readers who aren't down for that as the book's dominant theme.
I think characters have to be likable on some level, unless the writing is just spectacular and the plot so interesting that it doesn’t matter what kind of person I’m following. But they definitely don’t have to resemble me in any way.
Thanks for commenting!
It’s hard for me to imagine, and I have a great imagination, being one of the characters in a book. I do, however, get lost in a book if it is compelling. The most compelling book I ever read is Jane Eyre. Yet, I understand why people do that. I think you’re right, it’s an empty core. I am an observer, and I have no problem, missing a back story. It allows my imagination to be engaged. All of which may explain why I became a psychologist. I imagine multiple back stories and then go exploring. I also love interior books. I don’t need the back story of Anne Eliot; she is in the moment feeling the frustration, sorrow and regret of her current life. It is enough for me that she was young and easily persuadable missing her mother as the backstory. But, I think ultimately, Persuasion is not a romance.
Writing this got me thinking about compelling books in general. It is why I like some mysteries and thrillers if well written with interesting characters. The most compelling poems I’ve ever read are Christina Rossetti’s and Edna Saint Vincent Millay’s.
As always, thank you for your interesting commentaries. They get me thinking.
I’m a big fan of Jane Eyre! And I also have a great imagination, but it does not extend to putting myself into characters.
Thanks for your comment!
I think about this often actually, and I believed I was the only one. A similar situation is when people automatically assume that the voice of the narrator in a poem is the author. I’ve never written a poem where I was the voice of the narrator- always through the perspective of a fictional character. I don’t know why people self-insert into stories. Let us know when you figure that out. I suspect that it has something to do with modernism though.
“Modernism” has done a number on a lot of things, I suspect.
Thanks for commenting!
Gosh, I know exactly what you mean here, although I hadn't really thought about it in those terms. I had noticed the shallower and shallower heroines, and the ever more interesting men (looking at you, Paper Magician). I've gotten to where if something even smells like that kind of book, it's an instant DNF. I have to go way back in time to find interesting heroines, like Mary Stewart's heroic ladies, or even Sarah Crewe from a Little Princess. For some reason there's been an epidemic of amnesia, and I've been seeing a lot of heroines with no memories. Probably the latest way for readers to insert themselves.
I’m really outta the loop on current book trends (aside from noticing the increase in romantasy), so I had no idea amnesia was making a comeback. I remember some YA books that used that as a mid-trilogy cliffhanger, but it’s always struck me as a cheap shot at more drama. It’d be interesting if it’s being used now so readers can take over the POV.
Well said! I’m with you. If you’re gonna write fiction, gimme a good story or I won’t waste my time. It follows that those who have nothing to say have nothing to write. If you can’t create real characters, engaging dialogue, adequate scenery and a compelling plot, maybe you’re not a fiction writer. It is a privilege to be read by others. It’s a huge compliment that someone would set aside everything else just to listen to you. Every writer owes his audience the courtesy of making those moments count.
The writer owns the burden of effort. If I want to labor, I’ll write my own book.
I think this is why romance books are the top selling genre: they’re easy to write because no real effort is put into the protagonist and most of them are set in the modern world, so the description needn’t be fancy either. But a lot of people like them and I’m guessing it’s because they can “take over” the story.
Oy. Can't say I ever read a romance novel, and that sounds a tad pathetic, but OK.
I've never really thought that much about this... until now. I don't think I usually insert myself into the main character when I'm reading. In fact, I can only recall one time in particular where I really identified strongly with a character I was reading. Other times, I've wished I could be like a certain character. But I don't think I feel like I actually am the main character. (The distance is even more pronounced when I'm watching movies, so that's interesting. Maybe it's because reading requires so much more interpretation from our brains. We don't have the ready-made pictures to go along with the story.)
The one book I’ve read where I strongly connected with the main character was Jane Eyre. I still wasn’t Jane, but her actions and thoughts were similar to mine. And when it comes to movies, you’re right, the distance is bigger.
Thanks for reading!