| Holy shit I-is this AD? Somebody who isn't a harem/ecchi fan who not only understands that harem protagonists aren't actually self-inserts but knows the proper definition of a self-insert character? What fucking timeline is this? I know it's 3 in the morning where I live, so am I actually asleep and is this all a dream? But yes, literally 100% everything in this OP I'm behind. Like, looking through it there isn't even anything I'd nitpick. Goddamn great PSA thread <3 |
ManabanApr 10, 2018 5:56 PM
 |
finally a man who understands the truth  |
 |
| i just disagree with you, but this finnaly someone understood that self insert is psuedo critics.... |
 "If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| I always just criticize them for being dogshit characters in dogshit shows, though never really bought the whole self insert complaint. |
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
| I would never criticize a Harem MC, my two fav shows are Harem after all, gonna search more about self inserts anyway, have never heard of it. |
| They're still annoying and uninteresting tho(most of them at least) |
| ppl don't think their opinions be wrong, but it do. |
Jare4lopez said: I would never criticize a Harem MC, my two fav shows are Harem after all, gonna search more about self inserts anyway, have never heard of it. As was stated in the OP, a self-insert character is a character meant to represent the author or creator within the narrative of the work of fiction itself. Here's one from MAL's DB. Generally people try to use this on harem MCs as a legitimate criticism - and I mean very often - which is misuse of a legitimate literary term in order to justify their issues with a character's role in the narrative. Basically, if you see somebody complain about self-insert characters in the sense of them being a surrogate for the audience and not as a character designed to represent the creator of said work, it's basically the equivalent of somebody tattooing "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" in bold letters in their post. Not even remotely because they're taking on the act of criticizing a character - but because they're meaning one thing and actually communicating something else, and only making it clear that they're unknowingly using the wrong term when they try to explain themselves a bit further in their post. It's kind of secondhand embarrassment inducing to me at times, and it's made even worse because they never become the wiser that they're misusing literary terms. I just gave up a while back. Not that audience surrogate would be much better of a thing to use in this context, mind you, though at least the term itself would actually be communicating what they're intending to say - things like inner-monologue (for VN protags namely) and characterizations like timid or pervy or dense deny this from being the case. RPG characters tend to be surrogate characters, though not always, just having aspects that make the character somewhat of an everyman doesn't mean they function as the audience's eyes and ears within a story - so the most realistic way to properly criticize what people often reach through is either simply noting their blandness and lack of distinction. |
ManabanApr 10, 2018 6:34 PM
|
| I think self-insert nowadays means that even the viewers can be it. Ohh well, I don't really mind harem anime, it's just the sexualization of female characters that is so over-the-top! *sarcasm intended* People need to stop bashing harems over the fake claim of self-insert. Its fake criticism because... I feel like crying... Is this really the AD I know? |
| What people often call self insert characters are characters that are made to be bland enough that most people can insert themselves into the place of the character. Really, it's just lazy/bad writing most of the time in my opinion (not always, mind you), but the term is being incorrectly used. That being said, even though the term is misused, often the point of the misuse still proves true. As for the OT, it's true that not EVERY harem MC is a bland, personalityless do-gooder who somehow is oblivious to everything going on around him, but enough of them are to make the stereotype be fairly accurate. |
 |
Octavar said: What people often call self insert characters are characters that are made to be bland enough that most people can insert themselves into the place of the character. Really, it's just lazy/bad writing most of the time in my opinion (not always, mind you), but the term is being incorrectly used. That being said, even though the term is misused, often the point of the misuse still proves true. As for the OT, it's true that not EVERY harem MC is a bland, personalityless do-gooder who somehow is oblivious to everything going on around him, but enough of them are to make the stereotype be fairly accurate. Not even that. A character like you're describing cannot function as an audience surrogate because it works on the assumption that literally every person would be a do-gooder in that same vein and have no different reaction. In general these types of observer characters don't really function in literature that well. Like, in porn - the audience is assumed to be there for some type of pornographic content or fetish play, whatever. This is the purpose of POV and positioning the camera in ways that give off the impression of being able to imagine oneself in being in the position of the guy fucking the chick instead of usually just showing the guy's face and having him smile and give a nice thumbs up at the camera with a wink. Not that it's the only type of porn, mind you, obviously it's not all shot like that, but you get my point - POV porn is shot like that in order to use the cameraman as a the surrogate for the audience. A VN character with his own thoughts and ways of responding to things with the camera being shot from his POV - not an audience surrogate because of the former. You have to realize how many potentially conflicting traits must be milled out and removed for an audience surrogate character to actually be an audience surrogate character. Things like possessing potentially conflicting traits with an audience can happen on even the broadest of levels. Though I wouldn't put it past some people to read some of that and assume that it's poorly written audience surrogate characters because they actually display independent traits that have a good chance of conflicting with a good sect of viewers and not because it isn't functioning as that type of character to begin with, mind you. There are fair criticisms to be lobbed at the average harem MC, the stereotype you brought up - but this isn't one of them. Like, it isn't even a matter of interpretation or personal opinion. It's legitimately wrong in the vast, vast majority of cases. Like, there's even anime where audience surrogate is the correct term to apply yet people largely ignore actual cases and continue to treat just some fuckin' stereotype or idea of the average harem MC as basically what is very obviously is not. Could talk about that stereotype as broad and bland, or designed to relatable even, and still have a fair enough argument, but the surrogate aspect seems like it's still much more than reaching because even in the most ceded ground scenario "relatable" and "audience surrogate" aren't exactly mutually inclusive terms. |
ManabanApr 10, 2018 6:53 PM
|
Manaban said: Jare4lopez said: I would never criticize a Harem MC, my two fav shows are Harem after all, gonna search more about self inserts anyway, have never heard of it. As was stated in the OP, a self-insert character is a character meant to represent the author or creator within the narrative of the work of fiction itself. Here's one from MAL's DB. Generally people try to use this on harem MCs as a legitimate criticism - and I mean very often - which is misuse of a legitimate literary term in order to justify their issues with a character's role in the narrative. Basically, if you see somebody complain about self-insert characters in the sense of them being a surrogate for the audience and not as a character designed to represent the creator of said work, it's basically the equivalent of somebody tattooing "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" in bold letters in their post. Not even remotely because they're taking on the act of criticizing a character - but because they're meaning one thing and actually communicating something else, and only making it clear that they're unknowingly using the wrong term when they try to explain themselves a bit further in their post. It's kind of secondhand embarrassment inducing to me at times, and it's made even worse because they never become the wiser that they're misusing literary terms. I just gave up a while back. Not that audience surrogate would be much better of a thing to use in this context, mind you, though at least the term itself would actually be communicating what they're intending to say - things like inner-monologue (for VN protags namely) and characterizations like timid or pervy or dense deny this from being the case. RPG characters tend to be surrogate characters, though not always, just having aspects that make the character somewhat of an everyman doesn't mean they function as the audience's eyes and ears within a story - so the most realistic way to properly criticize what people often reach through is either simply noting their blandness and lack of distinction. [Taken from Wikipedia] "Self-insertion is a literary device in which a fictional character, who represents the real author of a work of fiction, appears as an idealized character within that fiction, either overtly or in disguise.[1] In art, the equivalent is the inserted self-portrait, where the artist includes a self-portrait in a painting of a narrative subject. This has been a common artistic device since at least the European Renaissance." [Taken from TV Tropes] "As the name implies, a Self-Insert Fic is one where the author has made a simulacrum of themselves, commonly called an avatar, in the story's world as a key character (usually The Protagonist, but any other role that's vital to the story qualifies). If the author has any sense of subtlety, the resulting character won't share their name or alias, but it's still easy to tell who that "new character" is. The self-insert is very often a Mary Sue; as a matter of fact, the original Mary Sue (she who gives that trope its name) was born from a parody of the standard Self-Insert Fic. In the most extreme cases, which are usually but not always quite bad, the insert character gains some degree of godlike power, or retains considerable knowledge of the series in which he's been inserted, or both, and uses them to adjust things to his or her liking. In rare instances, it might work well, especially if the people in the setting — heroes and villains — react accordingly to the new situation and the character that knows all the stuff he saw in the (anime/game/etc) and the situation changes in ways they can't anticipate. However, equally common is the subversion, where the author applies This Loser Is You to themselves and ends up as The Ditz, The Fool, or in extreme cases a Butt-Monkey. Care must be taken to not still make themselves more important than anybody else. The main rule is to never put the character in a high-ranking story position, although they may be the narrator. The Self-Insert Fic has two primary varieties: the Self as New Character, where the author simply opens the top of the story and drops a copy of themselves right in, and the Self as Existing Character, where the author finds himself forced to take over the life (and sometimes the body) of an existing canon character, without necessarily being restrained to staying "in character" for their new role. See Emergency Impersonation, You Will Be Beethoven, or Possession Sue for different versions of the latter. Note that self-insertion isn't a bad thing. It doesn't even mean that you're a bad writer. After all, there's nothing wrong with a little Wish Fulfillment. But if you want other people to enjoy your story too, you're going to need to insert your flaws as well as your fantasies. Just as not everybody loves and adores a person in real life, they're not all going to love and adore them in a fanfic, either. Self-insertion, complete with flaws and realistic reactions from everyone involved, is just as good a way to make an Original Character as any other; besides, if there's one character you can write without ever making them Out of Character, it's yourself! What was originally a self-insert can even adapt and evolve into a genuine Original Character, completely different from who you are. The trouble is that many new writers don't think about that. They think only about ways in which their Author Avatar can be perfect, can within minutes hook up with the sexiest character available, cure their faults, force their beliefs on others, and ninja-kick their way to being the hero, rather than working on a realistic way they can enter the plot." [Quick search on Google] http://mentalfloss.com/article/60290/7-authors-who-wrote-themselves-their-work I think it's clear now , what I don't get is 1- Why do people have a problem with it? I mean , I'm sure many legendary authors have put themselves into their works , some without even noticing ... 2 - Where does the confusion come from? Both concepts seem to be very different to me... |
| Indeed, the self-insert claim is false + people never had an evidence as to prove that... |
KatsutoSakiApr 10, 2018 7:53 PM
 |
| I never can understand what self-insert is, @_@ |
ZSTGL_IMA said: Indeed, the self-insert claim is false + people never had an evidence as to proof that... Wait...let me get this right, people are supposed to provide evidence to back up a claim? Since when? |
| the term people would use is wish fulfillment, which while i also dont find a valid criticism, prob is more accurate than audience surrogate or self insert just that literally no one knows the correct usage of the term anyways |
| It's good that Slop leveling won the CR awards with such a power gap, Gaijin Weebs don't deserve good anime. Not after what they did to frieren, kusuriya, and many others |
| Well, everything changes. Like, the current definition of tsundere differs from what was a tsundere in 2006. So, if enough people use the wrong definition, the wrong definition will ending becoming the modern one. |
 |
| Yeah less bashing harem mains for being self-insert and more bashing for them being generic beta losers. |
 "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
| I mean... At the end of the day, the criticism against that character still stands. People dislike "self-inserts" (however you want to define that) because the character is bland and has a plastic personality. Even if it's wrong to refer to them as self-inserts, the basic reason people have for disliking that character is unchanged. Also, I don't see what the big deal is about people misusing the term "self-insert." If you want to make a distinction in terminology between the author self-inserting into a character and the audience member self-inserting into a character, then go ahead, but I really don't think it means much in the end. |
 What's the difference? |
| It's not like this is the only term people use incorrectly. As long as we understand what they are trying to say then it's fine. There's no need to be judgemental if someone misuses a term. Many of us are not even fluent in English, let alone knowing a technical term. Plus, it doesn't change the fact that many harem ecchi MC are for "self-insert." |
| Well perhaps people are using "self-insert" inaccurately. However since you can understand what misconceptions people have on the term, surely you understand what they mean when they wrongly use the term. In any case, I never understood why people were so concerned about the main character of a harem anime anyways. In vast majority of the cases, it's the harem members that matter and the main characters are just.... there... well maybe sometimes they detract from the overall enjoyment of a harem anime, but still mostly irrelevant. Good harem anime have good girls, bad harem anime have bad girls. Simple. |
| If your favourite character is Tsutsukakushi Tsukiko, you are my soul mate. Been a long time since I've been here, I'll continue expressing myself freely and believe everyone should too. My MAL Interview |
Jare4lopez said: 1- Why do people have a problem with it? I mean , I'm sure many legendary authors have put themselves into their works , some without even noticing ... With audience surrogates? Or, at least, the generally misguided belief that a character is an audience surrogate. Idk. For this fanbase, could be a lot of things in one and would require a lot of conjecture on my end because it's not especially a straightforward issue, which would put me at the risk of sounding like a massive, presumptious asshole. For critics, because audience surrogates do legit function as wish-fulfillment and that tends to be frowned upon in critical circles because it's made primarily for appealing to an audience at its core and not producing a grand work of art that serves as a commentary/exploration on some sort of aspect or condition, like a lot of critical analysis is much more geared towards as opposed to whether or not it's functionally sound. Simple as that. Self-insert characters? Mary Sues in fanfiction, at least in terms of bringing it to prominence to where people like you and me are here discussing it. Jare4lopez said: 2 - Where does the confusion come from? Both concepts seem to be very different to me... They are. People who do this legitimately just don't know what they're saying and are trying to use words they don't seem to understand. |
ManabanApr 10, 2018 8:06 PM
|
Setsuei said: ZSTGL_IMA said: Indeed, the self-insert claim is false + people never had an evidence as to proof that... Wait...let me get this right, people are supposed to provide evidence to back up a claim? Since when? I hope this is a joke. The sentence sounds so absurd to me that I'm going to assume it is :> Just never know with AD ._. Daemon said: Also, I don't see what the big deal is about people misusing the term "self-insert." If you want to make a distinction in terminology between the author self-inserting into a character and the audience member self-inserting into a character, then go ahead, but I really don't think it means much in the end. "Why do people think I sound kind of dumb for blatantly using the wrong words to try to express myself?" seems like a rather silly question to ask, does it not? Now excuse me, if we want to get into a slapfight over this it might take a while for me to respond since I am getting rather hungry. Eyelids heavy, it's really late and I haven't slept in a long time, so on and so forth :D UImoetard said: Plus, it doesn't change the fact that many harem ecchi MC are for "self-insert." Wrote a solid bit earlier about the differences between audience surrogates and harem protags like you're trying to talk about here. I can waste my life away reiterating it for you, if you'd like. Would prefer not to waste my time if you'll just plug your ears, tho. There's plenty of fair issues to have with this hypothetical image of a standard harem MC, honestly, or at least the one I'm envisioning. But serving as a blank slate for the audience to fill in themselves is not only blatantly not understanding how the concept of a blank slate works but, again, outright ignoring actual blank slates. |
ManabanApr 10, 2018 8:16 PM
|
Manaban said: UImoetard said: Plus, it doesn't change the fact that many harem ecchi MC are for "self-insert." Wrote a solid bit earlier about the differences between audience surrogates and harem protags like you're trying to talk about here. I can waste my life away reiterating it for you, if you'd like. Would prefer not to waste my time if you'll just plug your ears, tho. Or you could quote yourself if you want. I am a bit too lazy to read through the entire discussion. |
velvetPhos said: Praland said: Well, everything changes. Like, the current definition of tsundere differs from what was a tsundere in 2006. So, if enough people use the wrong definition, the wrong definition will ending becoming the modern one. Totally agree with you… It’s like complaining for using “moe” that is not same as definition in 90s… If enough people use wrong definition, then wrong one will be new “right” definition. It's become such common knowledge that everywhere defines it under the correct definition and the only people who consistently misuse the term are largely found within the anime community. There is a world outside of a few dumbasses on anime discussion boards, unfortunately. We're not the arbiters of standard lexicon. UImoetard said: Or you could quote yourself if you want. I am a bit too lazy to read through the entire discussion. Sure thing. Manaban said: Octavar said: What people often call self insert characters are characters that are made to be bland enough that most people can insert themselves into the place of the character. Really, it's just lazy/bad writing most of the time in my opinion (not always, mind you), but the term is being incorrectly used. That being said, even though the term is misused, often the point of the misuse still proves true. As for the OT, it's true that not EVERY harem MC is a bland, personalityless do-gooder who somehow is oblivious to everything going on around him, but enough of them are to make the stereotype be fairly accurate. Not even that. A character like you're describing cannot function as an audience surrogate because it works on the assumption that literally every person would be a do-gooder in that same vein and have no different reaction. In general these types of observer characters don't really function in literature that well. Like, in porn - the audience is assumed to be there for some type of pornographic content or fetish play, whatever. This is the purpose of POV and positioning the camera in ways that give off the impression of being able to imagine oneself in being in the position of the guy fucking the chick instead of usually just showing the guy's face and having him smile and give a nice thumbs up at the camera with a wink. Not that it's the only type of porn, mind you, obviously it's not all shot like that, but you get my point - POV porn is shot like that in order to use the cameraman as a the surrogate for the audience. A VN character with his own thoughts and ways of responding to things with the camera being shot from his POV - not an audience surrogate because of the former. You have to realize how many potentially conflicting traits must be milled out and removed for an audience surrogate character to actually be an audience surrogate character. Things like possessing potentially conflicting traits with an audience can happen on even the broadest of levels. Though I wouldn't put it past some people to read some of that and assume that it's poorly written audience surrogate characters because they actually display independent traits that have a good chance of conflicting with a good sect of viewers and not because it isn't functioning as that type of character to begin with, mind you. There are fair criticisms to be lobbed at the average harem MC, the stereotype you brought up - but this isn't one of them. Like, it isn't even a matter of interpretation or personal opinion. It's legitimately wrong in the vast, vast majority of cases. Like, there's even anime where audience surrogate is the correct term to apply yet people largely ignore actual cases and continue to treat just some fuckin' stereotype or idea of the average harem MC as basically what is very obviously is not. Could talk about that stereotype as broad and bland, or designed to relatable even, and still have a fair enough argument, but the surrogate aspect seems like it's still much more than reaching because even in the most ceded ground scenario "relatable" and "audience surrogate" aren't exactly mutually inclusive terms. Manaban said: Jare4lopez said: I would never criticize a Harem MC, my two fav shows are Harem after all, gonna search more about self inserts anyway, have never heard of it. As was stated in the OP, a self-insert character is a character meant to represent the author or creator within the narrative of the work of fiction itself. Here's one from MAL's DB. Generally people try to use this on harem MCs as a legitimate criticism - and I mean very often - which is misuse of a legitimate literary term in order to justify their issues with a character's role in the narrative. Basically, if you see somebody complain about self-insert characters in the sense of them being a surrogate for the audience and not as a character designed to represent the creator of said work, it's basically the equivalent of somebody tattooing "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" in bold letters in their post. Not even remotely because they're taking on the act of criticizing a character - but because they're meaning one thing and actually communicating something else, and only making it clear that they're unknowingly using the wrong term when they try to explain themselves a bit further in their post. It's kind of secondhand embarrassment inducing to me at times, and it's made even worse because they never become the wiser that they're misusing literary terms. I just gave up a while back. Not that audience surrogate would be much better of a thing to use in this context, mind you, though at least the term itself would actually be communicating what they're intending to say - things like inner-monologue (for VN protags namely) and characterizations like timid or pervy or dense deny this from being the case. RPG characters tend to be surrogate characters, though not always, just having aspects that make the character somewhat of an everyman doesn't mean they function as the audience's eyes and ears within a story - so the most realistic way to properly criticize what people often reach through is either simply noting their blandness and lack of distinction. |
|
Manaban said: "Why do people think I sound kind of dumb for blatantly using the wrong words to try to express myself?" seems like a rather silly question to ask, does it not? No, because it's not "blatant" like you're saying. Calling a character a "self-insert" can be interpreted either as the author self-inserting or the reader self-inserting. Now, I am not trying to argue that the author self-inserting and the reader self-inserting are the same thing or even remotely similar. However, I am trying to argue that it is easy to label the two things under the general term of "self-insert" because in both cases, both people are still self-inserting. You're only arguing semantics here, and I'm not sure why you're so offended by something as little as this. |
What's the difference? |
| The closest thing to self-insertion in anime/manga/LNs are relatable characters, since those are the characters that you can put yourself into their shoes. Otherwise, "self-insert" is just another buzzword that people like to use as criticism, but it doesn't carry any weight and makes them look stupid. |
My Queens  |
Setsuei said: ZSTGL_IMA said: Indeed, the self-insert claim is false + people never had an evidence as to proof that... Wait...let me get this right, people are supposed to provide evidence to back up a claim? Since when? If they can't back up their claim, it bears no value... This reply is so absurd that I have to ask, what's your point? |
|
Manaban said: Setsuei said: Wait...let me get this right, people are supposed to provide evidence to back up a claim? Since when? I hope this is a joke. The sentence sounds so absurd to me that I'm going to assume it is :> Just never know with AD ._. Nope. There's absolutely no way that was sarcasm... OK now I'm just being a dick,but yes that was a joke. |
| I don't actually know enough about what self insert means to dispute it, but I always took it to mean having a character designed in a way that the viewer could easily put themselves in that character's shoes. Whether or not that is what it means to be a self-insert character is kind of pointless and pedantic. The vast majority of the people who are "wrong" and the vast majority of the people reading their argument understand what they are saying. To me it sounds like you are making the argument that people should stop arguing that the ocean is blue, because it is actually aquamarine. As a side note, having a character designed so the author can put himself in his shoes seems pointless as well, since the viewer will generally have no idea unless they knew the author personally. |
 |
Daemon said: Manaban said: "Why do people think I sound kind of dumb for blatantly using the wrong words to try to express myself?" seems like a rather silly question to ask, does it not? No, because it's not "blatant" like you're saying. Calling a character a "self-insert" can be interpreted either as the author self-inserting or the reader self-inserting. I can also interpret Nyan Koi! as a deep expose on the fragility of the human condition if I so wanted, but I'm not going to because I have nothing to substantiate as much. In this case, though, we do have things to substantiate that "you are wrong if you treat audience surrogate and self-insert as the same thing," like, idk, actual linguistics and defined terminology. So, sure, you can interpret it like so if you want - generally what it comes across as being intended to communicate at this point - but interpretations aren't necessarily correct in of themselves. Or, if you want to be relativist and assign interpretations as the value given on an individual level, just go ahead and start swapping out words with their commonly associated meaning like I did with "sleep" and "hungry" in my response to you. Nobody's technically stopping you, but it's not exactly irrational of others when people stop treat you as capable of properly expressing yourself when that becomes the case. Daemon said: Now, I am not trying to argue that the author self-inserting and the reader self-inserting are the same thing or even remotely similar. They're not. That's why we use different terms for them. Daemon said: However, I am trying to argue that it is easy to label the two things under the general term of "self-insert" because in both cases, both people are still self-inserting. Functionally different, though. Can't call a freezer and a refrigerator by the same term without at least causing someone linguistic confusion because words tend to be assigned for things that operate in different ways. Audience members self-inserting tend to be more aligned with an individual interpretation that's being set up or encouraged by the narrative, circumstances or scenario that's being presented to them in a work. Author self-insertion is a creator creating a work that completely features them as represented by a character everybody who consumes that work is going to encounter. Daemon said: You're only arguing semantics here, and I'm not sure why you're so offended by something as little as this. If you don't like my attitude, sorry to hear that. I am being a bit taunting and confrontational, but eh, I don't exactly mind that. I'm relishing in it, even. Experiencing this brand of schadenfreude is absolutely wonderful to me. Literally just me being the equivalent of a little kid chanting "told you so told you so," so I wouldn't worry too much on it. |
|
ZSTGL_IMA said: Setsuei said: Wait...let me get this right, people are supposed to provide evidence to back up a claim? Since when? If they can't back up their claim, it bears no value... This reply is so absurd that I have to ask, what's your point? Sorry, couldn't help it. In all seriousness I actually do agree. |
| Shinji Ikari, who has a harem, is a self insert. And is, better than most bland harem protags. Shinji Ikari is not a fantasy, but a reality for someone. And because he is a reality for someone, there will be other people who relate to him on a very personal level. Same with Welcome to the NHK. It has a self insert protagonist. Written with heart and soul that hey, this person exists. Harem anime tend to base their stuff on.... other anime. And not real people. Which is what makes them suck. Because they are derivatives of derivatives. |
Energetic-NovaApr 10, 2018 8:50 PM
The anime community in a nutshell.  |
Manaban said: UImoetard said: Or you could quote yourself if you want. I am a bit too lazy to read through the entire discussion. Sure thing. Manaban said: Not even that. A character like you're describing cannot function as an audience surrogate because it works on the assumption that literally every person would be a do-gooder in that same vein and have no different reaction. In general these types of observer characters don't really function in literature that well. Like, in porn - the audience is assumed to be there for some type of pornographic content or fetish play, whatever. This is the purpose of POV and positioning the camera in ways that give off the impression of being able to imagine oneself in being in the position of the guy fucking the chick instead of usually just showing the guy's face and having him smile and give a nice thumbs up at the camera with a wink. Not that it's the only type of porn, mind you, obviously it's not all shot like that, but you get my point - POV porn is shot like that in order to use the cameraman as a the surrogate for the audience. A VN character with his own thoughts and ways of responding to things with the camera being shot from his POV - not an audience surrogate because of the former. You have to realize how many potentially conflicting traits must be milled out and removed for an audience surrogate character to actually be an audience surrogate character. Things like possessing potentially conflicting traits with an audience can happen on even the broadest of levels. Though I wouldn't put it past some people to read some of that and assume that it's poorly written audience surrogate characters because they actually display independent traits that have a good chance of conflicting with a good sect of viewers and not because it isn't functioning as that type of character to begin with, mind you. There are fair criticisms to be lobbed at the average harem MC, the stereotype you brought up - but this isn't one of them. Like, it isn't even a matter of interpretation or personal opinion. It's legitimately wrong in the vast, vast majority of cases. Like, there's even anime where audience surrogate is the correct term to apply yet people largely ignore actual cases and continue to treat just some fuckin' stereotype or idea of the average harem MC as basically what is very obviously is not. Could talk about that stereotype as broad and bland, or designed to relatable even, and still have a fair enough argument, but the surrogate aspect seems like it's still much more than reaching because even in the most ceded ground scenario "relatable" and "audience surrogate" aren't exactly mutually inclusive terms. Manaban said: As was stated in the OP, a self-insert character is a character meant to represent the author or creator within the narrative of the work of fiction itself. Here's one from MAL's DB. Generally people try to use this on harem MCs as a legitimate criticism - and I mean very often - which is misuse of a legitimate literary term in order to justify their issues with a character's role in the narrative. Basically, if you see somebody complain about self-insert characters in the sense of them being a surrogate for the audience and not as a character designed to represent the creator of said work, it's basically the equivalent of somebody tattooing "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" in bold letters in their post. Not even remotely because they're taking on the act of criticizing a character - but because they're meaning one thing and actually communicating something else, and only making it clear that they're unknowingly using the wrong term when they try to explain themselves a bit further in their post. It's kind of secondhand embarrassment inducing to me at times, and it's made even worse because they never become the wiser that they're misusing literary terms. I just gave up a while back. Not that audience surrogate would be much better of a thing to use in this context, mind you, though at least the term itself would actually be communicating what they're intending to say - things like inner-monologue (for VN protags namely) and characterizations like timid or pervy or dense deny this from being the case. RPG characters tend to be surrogate characters, though not always, just having aspects that make the character somewhat of an everyman doesn't mean they function as the audience's eyes and ears within a story - so the most realistic way to properly criticize what people often reach through is either simply noting their blandness and lack of distinction. I doubt most of the people here are as knowledgeable as you in this kind of topic. However, that also means most of us don't use "self insert" as an exact equivalent to the "audience surrogate" that you explained. I believe that people who use "self insert" has a much broader definition in mind. Even if most harem MCs are something different from auidence surrogates, based on your explanation, they both seem to aim for similar goal. Someone that you can imagine yourself being, which might be the definition of "self insert" that the majority have in mind. Though, I find no problem with harem MCs. All I care about are the waifus. |
velvetPhos said: Manaban said: It's become such common knowledge that everywhere defines it under the correct definition and the only people who consistently misuse the term are largely found within the anime community. There is a world outside of a few dumbasses on anime discussion boards, unfortunately. We're not the arbiters of standard lexicon. You sound like it is not ok for word to diverge into different meanings? “Moe” was regular adjective/noun that used in literature to describe plants and small groups of people started to use the term in anime related way. If the word is used in that fashion in specific groups, then that is the definition for the group. I wrote about this a while back in private, so I'll just quote myself on it. But oh well, regardless of that tangent bit, that actually did become what the term became associated with on a widespread level. This isn't similar in the sense that we're sitting here discussing it in the context of it functioning as a literary criticism and not as a slang term for finding anime girls cute. Correctly using the terminology is ultimately a lot more important in communicating your thought or idea appropriately. |
ManabanApr 10, 2018 8:58 PM
|
Manaban said: I can also interpret Nyan Koi! as a deep expose on the fragility of the human condition if I so wanted, but I'm not going to because I have nothing to substantiate as much. In this case, though, we do have things to substantiate that "you are wrong if you treat audience surrogate and self-insert as the same thing," like, idk, actual linguistics and defined terminology. If you want to talk linguistics, sure. Like I said earlier, in both instances, someone is still self-inserting. Therefore, the term "self-insert" can be used to describe both cases. It is the intention for who the self-insert is for that you are disputing, and I again will say that this is an extremely pedantic thing to argue about. So, sure, you can interpret it like so if you want - generally what it comes across as being intended to communicate at this point - but interpretations aren't necessarily correct in of themselves. Or, if you want to be relativist and assign interpretations as the value given on an individual level, just go ahead and start swapping out words with their commonly associated meaning like I did with "sleep" and "hungry" in my response to you. Nobody's technically stopping you, but it's not exactly irrational of others when people stop treat you as capable of properly expressing yourself when that becomes the case. Okay, then what's the point in caring so much about this? If everyone involved can understand the meaning, then why go through so much trouble to preach the "technically correct" version? The point of language is to communicate and get a point across, and if that is happening effectively, then it's not really much of a problem. Functionally different, though. Can't call a freezer and a refrigerator by the same term without at least causing someone linguistic confusion because words tend to be assigned for things that operate in different ways. Audience members self-inserting tend to be more aligned with an individual interpretation that's being set up or encouraged by the narrative, circumstances or scenario that's being presented to them in a work. Author self-insertion is a creator creating a work that completely features them as represented by a character everybody who consumes that work is going to encounter. Don't agree with the freezer and fridge comparison. In that case, there is a clear understanding of the difference that is pretty much common knowledge. Not the case with "self-insert," as evidenced by all the responses in this thread. Your comparison would only make sense if people commonly called both fridges and freezers "freezers," which doesn't happen. If you don't like my attitude, sorry to hear that. I am being a bit taunting and confrontational, but eh, I don't exactly mind that. I'm relishing in it, even. Experiencing this brand of schadenfreude is absolutely wonderful to me. I'm confused here. Weren't you the one who got offended by me originally, which is why you implied that people who mixed up the terms were dumb? This issue doesn't matter much to me, but it seems you care enough to insult people over it. Not sure what sense of "schadenfreude" you're getting because I am not offended by you at all so far. In fact, your post was actually fairly polite by Internet standards. |
What's the difference? |
15poundfish said: Energetic-Nova said: Bullshit, if I was Shinji I would be honored and feel a duty to save the world from an alien threat. I also would avoid the children and go for Misato. I would ask the other girls to go to therapy and leave me alone because they would just make me pull my hair out.Shinji Ikari, who has a harem, is a self insert. And is, better than most bland harem protags. Shinji Ikari is not a fantasy, but a reality for someone. And because he is a reality for someone, there will be other people who relate to him on a very personal level. Same with Welcome to the NHK. It has a self insert protagonist. Written with heart and soul that hey, this person exists. Harem anime tend to base their stuff on.... other anime. And not real people. Which is what makes them suck. Because they are derivatives of derivatives. Shinji is based on Hideaki Anno himself. He has said this. And said that he let some of his worst qualities be apart of Shinji's character. Other people have said that they put themselves in Shinji as well but also say they can't WRITE SHINJI as he is in the anime because they are not Anno. Such as Sadamoto who wrote a different Shinji in the manga. It doesn't matter what YOU would do in your FANTASY, it matters what someone would really do.And what Anno would do. And sometimes that means not being perfect with no flaws. It involves being a real human. If you replace mecha pilot with.... Animator... and save the world with Save anime industry.... I mean he is basically saying he doesn't want to be seen as the savior of the anime industry, nor does he want such an expectation put on him. Anno is also saying he cannot save the anime industry alone. He isn't the chosen one. And if he were, anime would just die. |
Energetic-NovaApr 10, 2018 9:11 PM
| The anime community in a nutshell. |
Daemon said: If you want to talk linguistics, sure. Like I said earlier, in both instances, someone is still self-inserting. Therefore, the term "self-insert" can be used to describe both cases. It is the intention for who the self-insert is for that you are disputing, and I again will say that this is an extremely pedantic thing to argue about. Not really, we're arguing over the definition of a commonly applied critical term and whether or not it's being applied properly. I feel like it's somewhat self-explanatory why I don't view this as pedantic discourse. The issue with your argument is that it assumes that I'm going to treat "self-inserting" and "surrogating" as the same thing whenever I don't do that at all and I've made that clear by now, and that standard applications and definitions of these terms, outside of what's being acknowledged as incorrect in treating an audience surrogate character as a self-insert character. Now, can I understand what you mean with it? Sure, but that's only because I've been around this place long enough to know how commonplace it is for people to use the term self-insert incorrectly in place of proper "audience surrogate." It doesn't at all mean that the term is being applied correctly here just because the meaning is being understood, since y'know, in the case of me it's being understood just because I understand how often people misuse it on this board. Daemon said: Okay, then what's the point in caring so much about this? If everyone involved can understand the meaning, then why go through so much trouble to preach the "technically correct" version? The point of language is to communicate and get a point across, and if that is happening effectively, then it's not really much of a problem. Your argument here is literally just "we're wrong so much that we come to expect ourselves to always be wrong in this regard so what's the big deal." I hope you realize as much. Daemon said: Don't agree with the freezer and fridge comparison. In that case, there is a clear understanding of the difference that is pretty much common knowledge. Yes. Just like the majority of people being unable to distinguish between an audience surrogate and a self-insert proper are found on this board levels of common knowledge. Might as well be the whole world right there, so I agree - let's completely change the accepted definition of a word just because a subset of anime fans have consistently misused it for a while now >_> Not the case with "self-insert," as evidenced by all the responses in this thread. Comes across mostly as people who had been misusing the term realizing they've been misusing the term and trying to defend themselves for as much to me. Because, y'know, it's non-arguable that they have and your position is nothing less than "well so what if we've been wrong" and trying to justify as much. Your comparison would only make sense if people commonly called both fridges and freezers "freezers," which doesn't happen. Would it make more sense to you if I used the terms "Audience surrogate" and "Self-Insert" then, if that's the issue you have? |
|
| I only watch harem anime for the oppai loli so i couldn't careless about the mc lol |
| . |
velvetPhos said: It is better if everyone can use the “right” definition, but if the idea can be transmitted without major misunderstanding, then I don’t see any problem. Those people who made “self-insert” related thread successfully transmitted their idea, because almost everyone could tell that those people used the “wrong” definition. It’s not like the situation that no one understand what self-insert mean in the context of certain thread. So, I don’t see any problem here. Okay, instead of sitting here and going round and round trying to explain this to you, I'll cut a deal with you - I will let people continue to misuse the term if I'm allowed to laugh at them for not using the term correctly in return because, again, even if they're being understood it doesn't make it sound less dumb. Like I tried to illustrate here: Now excuse me, if we want to get into a slapfight over this it might take a while for me to respond since I am getting rather hungry. Eyelids heavy, it's really late and I haven't slept in a long time, so on and so forth :D It's pretty goddamn obvious by the surrounding text that I mean "sleep" instead of "hungry" if you possess basic reading comprehension skills. It still sounds really dumb of me to say because I'm very much misusing the word. So, sound good? |
|
| i didn't even know self insert was a thing until i became active here lol when it came to harems, i always thought "yay, a bunch of hot girls" and not "yay a guy surrounded by a bunch of hot girls" lol... and ofc.. thats still what i think |
   |
Manaban said: velvetPhos said: It is better if everyone can use the “right” definition, but if the idea can be transmitted without major misunderstanding, then I don’t see any problem. Those people who made “self-insert” related thread successfully transmitted their idea, because almost everyone could tell that those people used the “wrong” definition. It’s not like the situation that no one understand what self-insert mean in the context of certain thread. So, I don’t see any problem here. Okay, instead of sitting here and going round and round trying to explain this to you, I'll cut a deal with you - I will let people continue to misuse the term if I'm allowed to laugh at them for not using the term correctly in return. Sound good? I just came to the thread but go ahead, as long as you explain them first and even with that explanation those who misuse the term still does. If they accept to be corrected then you don't have to laugh at them, obviously. |
| One day I'll be active here, in the mean time I'll keep track of what I watch offline 😅 |
GranSaiyaman said: Manaban said: Okay, instead of sitting here and going round and round trying to explain this to you, I'll cut a deal with you - I will let people continue to misuse the term if I'm allowed to laugh at them for not using the term correctly in return. Sound good? I just came to the thread but go ahead, as long as you explain them first and even with that explanation those who misuse the term still does. If they accept to be corrected then you don't have to laugh at them, obviously. Well, obviously I wouldn't laugh at them if they started using words correctly. If they did that, I'd have no casus belli for laughing at them :( |
|
| It's not that characters can't be categorized as self insert, it's that some are more so that others. Being partially doesn't mean can't still be counted as. The problem with this is that this almost only applies to visual novel game harem characters, not a anime nor a visual novel's anime adapted counterpart, as those characters are given a personality of their own regardless of how bland or boring they are. You will never be able to 100% self insert yourself in any scripted content as the audience, but you can still do so partially as that's clearly the goal with many eroges. Authors self inserting themselves is completely different than the audience. If anything, it's more projecting themselves. |
| So there's author self-insert vs. audience self-insert. These can be different. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
More topics from this board
» To what extent ratings dictates what you watch?PraiseTheWaifus - 60 minutes ago |
5 |
by Nirinbo
»»
16 seconds ago |
|
» 🥚 Best Husbando of the Past Eras Tournament ( 1 2 3 4 )Supersonic_Pain - Oct 10 |
151 |
by Zarutaku
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Waifu War V5 (Anniversary-Edition!) (Round of 16) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Minkalex - Sep 28 |
723 |
by Adnash
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Why is older anime seldom recommended?thewiru - Oct 28 |
47 |
by therealnagora
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
» How would you "Zero to hero" someone into anime? ( 1 2 )thewiru - Oct 26 |
76 |
by valico
»»
37 minutes ago |