Harry Potter Rowling's Self-Inserts in HP

Prince Charon

Well-Known Member
#1
You know the phrase 'it takes one to know one'? Well, Polychromeknight (Skysaber/Lionheart) <a href='http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CaerAzkaban/message/183984?unwrap=1' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>had this to say</a>:

I've had more success writing Self-Inserts than anyone else I know, so take it from someone who knows. Rowling had FOUR self-inserts in the Harry Potter series.

First is Hermione, the publicly admitted one. She was supposed to be the 'image of childhood past'. But you'll note a lack of author-empathy with the character later on. This is a tell that, though she may still have a hand in the sock-puppet, this *isn't* the character Rowling truly sees herself as. Not now, not anymore, at any rate.

Second is the next most obvious one, Ginny is the 'image of romantic self'. Rowling feels no need to describe this character, or why she would be desirable to Harry, because Rowling inherently believes she *is* desirable, and so her character is also, and naturally she, being in charge, gets the boy.

Both of those and their relationships could be described in a great deal more detail, but I won't bother. It would all be rehash anyway.

Third most obvious is, naturally, Dumbledore. He is her 'author-insert' for lack of a better term. He is her plot device, her avatar, her all, in a 'author walking the pages of her own story' sense. He is the creation she uses to get everything done. Rowling doesn't have to think of reasons. Anything she wants done, Dumbledore causes to happen. He is her fingers in the story, and the reason he comes across as a monster later on is basically that Rowling never thought through any of her actions, so nothing he does adds up.

This was not a character built with driving reasons, a personality, background or goals. This was her lazy man's way of getting done the things she wanted to happen, without bothering to think up how they might have turned out that way on their own. Feel like writing a story where the main character is abused? She never bothers to ask herself how that could have come to pass, she just makes Dumbledore send him there. Then back again, etc. Want a tournament in which people die? Dumbledore organizes it. Want a secret organization to fight evil Voldy? Well, of course Dumbledore is in charge of it.

If you take a bunch of random story ideas and drop them all in a bucket, mix well, and then use Dumbledore to glue them all together in no particular order, you have the Harry Potter story.

The fourth self-insert caught me by surprise when I realized it, and I haven't seen anyone else catch on yet. It is Molly.

Yup! Molly Weasley is that last of her self-inserts that I have detected. You see all of the classic signs. This character is one that has everything she wants, but money (a reflection of her own state pre-blockbuster?), and has the odd dichotomy of being at the same time well-regarded by the other cast... without in any way observable deserving it.

The character feels ownership of Harry without substantive reason, and, when it comes right down to it, I fear she actually represents what Rowling thinks of as 'the perfect mother'.
No matter how you feel about his level of sanity (or definition of 'success' in this context, which no, I will not ask him about), he has written a whole bloody lot of fairly long SIs, and thus ought to be able to recognize them. This is one area where his judgement is trustworthy.
 

Anonguy

Well-Known Member
#2
>trusting Lionheart on anything

You are banned from having an opinion forever.
 

Coelacanth

Well-Known Member
#3
I've read through it, and I think he makes a valid argument.

I can't believe I said that. :wacko:
 

ragnarok1337

Well-Known Member
#4
Anonguy said:
>trusting Lionheart on anything

You are banned from having an opinion forever.
His argument does make logical sense. Which is surprising for Lionheart. I have no idea how accurate it is, of course.
 

Lord Raine

Well-Known Member
#5
Except it doesn't make logical sense. I don't even think he understands what Self Insert is.
 

Coelacanth

Well-Known Member
#6
Lord Raine said:
Except it doesn't make logical sense. I don't even think he understands what Self Insert is.
It would be more accurate if he described it as reflections of the author's personality.
 

Lord Raine

Well-Known Member
#7
She said she drew on herself for inspiration in writing Hermione, which is not what a self-insert is. I draw upon myself, and the people I know in real life, all the time when I write, because you can write your best when you're writing things that you are familiar with, and the people you are obviously most familiar with are yourself, your family, and your friends. Kishimoto said he drew on himself to write Naruto and Sasuke, and his experiences with bullying girls in middle school to help write Sakura. That does not make Naruto or Sasuke Self-Inserts, nor does it make Hermione a Self-Insert, and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot who is trying to look smart and curry favor with the anti-whatever crowd.

A Self-Insert is when the author exists in the story as themselves. From what I recall, she actually did create a Self-Insert character. Rowling exists in her own universe as a perfectly ordinary muggle who writes children's books and has nothing whatsoever to do with magic or anything out of the ordinary. Hermione is not Rowling in Harry Potter. ROWLING is Rowling in Harry Potter. Word of God. So Lionheart can shove it up his ass, as can everyone who has agreed with him or said he has a valid point. No, he doesn't. Learn what the fuck a Self-Insert actually is before you go accusing people of creating them.
 
#8
Lord Raine said:
She said she drew on herself for inspiration in writing Hermione, which is not what a self-insert is. I draw upon myself, and the people I know in real life, all the time when I write, because you can write your best when you're writing things that you are familiar with, and the people you are obviously most familiar with are yourself, your family, and your friends. Kishimoto said he drew on himself to write Naruto and Sasuke, and his experiences with bullying girls in middle school to help write Sakura. That does not make Naruto or Sasuke Self-Inserts, nor does it make Hermione a Self-Insert, and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot who is trying to look smart and curry favor with the anti-whatever crowd.

A Self-Insert is when the author exists in the story as themselves. From what I recall, she actually did create a Self-Insert character. Rowling exists in her own universe as a perfectly ordinary muggle who writes children's books and has nothing whatsoever to do with magic or anything out of the ordinary. Hermione is not Rowling in Harry Potter. ROWLING is Rowling in Harry Potter. Word of God. So Lionheart can shove it up his ass, as can everyone who has agreed with him or said he has a valid point. No, he doesn't. Learn what the fuck a Self-Insert actually is before you go accusing people of creating them.
Self Inserts they may no be, but for once Lionheart does have a few good points about Dumbledore, Ginny, Mrs. Weasley. The Hermione part was admitted in an interview so there's no point in addressing it, but channeling aspects of herself does fit rather nicely with the nature of the characters in question. I think Rowling is on record saying that she uses Dumbledore or Hermione as her mouthpieces when she needs to explain something, and Dumbledore in particular gets away with the Omniscient Morality License quite a bit.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there's a deeper connection to Rowling for those four characters than any other character (minus the actual self insert).
 

Lord Raine

Well-Known Member
#9
It's not a good point. I can do the exact same thing with any character I want. It's easy. You just take a character trait, abstract it, and then say it's 'obviously' part of the personality of a woman you have never met or talked to or even seen in your entire life. I could just as easily use that same 'logic' to argue that Rowling is an anarchist because she clearly puts Fred and George on a pedestal during Order of the Phoenix. Or that she's homophobic. Or that she's racist.

Why you all are so impressed by such a shallow bit of word bullshittery, I have no idea. Maybe because you want it to be true? I guess? I honestly have no idea, and I don't really care, either. My point stands. Lionheart doesn't know what the hell a Self-Insert is, neither do a lot of you, and even if he wasn't screwing up the terms, his logic is still nonsensical anyway. Six Degrees of Adolf Hitler is a game, not a valid argument.
 

WhiteKnightLeo

Well-Known Member
#10
I will admit that I have nothing constructive to contribute; however, I've had my suspicions about Molly since JKR had her beating a professional terrorist in a straight-up fight.
 

Chuckg

Well-Known Member
#11
I'm gonna go with 'the best person for spotting a con is another con man' here. If there's one thing Perfect Lionheart is a master of, its crappy Mary Sue writing. It can be fairly stated that he has brought the art of crap Suefic up to levels of epic suck seldom achieved by mortal man more than once or twice in a generation. He fails at everything else, yes, including items of knowledge and logic so basic that you'd think flatworms could know them, but...

... the hell of it is, it actually explains a lot that otherwise just sat there and didn't make sense.

As the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The trick is spotting when. :)

PS: Oh, and saying Dumbledore gets away with the Omniscient Morality License 'quite a bit' is like saying that tsunami victims are wetter than other people.
 

Garahs

Well-Known Member
#12
WhiteKnightLeo said:
I will admit that I have nothing constructive to contribute; however, I've had my suspicions about Molly since JKR had her beating a professional terrorist in a straight-up fight.
A professional vigilante beating a terrorist in a straight up fight? Say it isn't so! :crazy:
 

WhiteKnightLeo

Well-Known Member
#13
Garahs said:
WhiteKnightLeo said:
I will admit that I have nothing constructive to contribute; however, I've had my suspicions about Molly since JKR had her beating a professional terrorist in a straight-up fight.
A professional vigilante beating a terrorist in a straight up fight? Say it isn't so! :crazy:
Professional vigilante? What other fight was Molly Weasley ever in?
 

Li Qin

Well-Known Member
#14
Chuckg said:
I'm gonna go with 'the best person for spotting a con is another con man' here. If there's one thing Perfect Lionheart is a master of, its crappy Mary Sue writing. It can be fairly stated that he has brought the art of crap Suefic up to levels of epic suck seldom achieved by mortal man more than once or twice in a generation. He fails at everything else, yes, including items of knowledge and logic so basic that you'd think flatworms could know them, but...

... the hell of it is, it actually explains a lot that otherwise just sat there and didn't make sense.

As the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The trick is spotting when. :)

PS: Oh, and saying Dumbledore gets away with the Omniscient Morality License 'quite a bit' is like saying that tsunami victims are wetter than other people.
And what if this con-man is trying to con you into seeing a con when there isn't one. But you believe in his judgment so you get coned.

TBH the characters described are just plot characters. They show up do their thing to help advance the plot, with the exception of Hermione who's the exposition character.

BEsides there is no good self insert story, since all it is, is just the author jacking off.
 

Pirazy

Well-Known Member
#15
WhiteKnightLeo said:
Garahs said:
WhiteKnightLeo said:
I will admit that I have nothing constructive to contribute; however, I've had my suspicions about Molly since JKR had her beating a professional terrorist in a straight-up fight.
A professional vigilante beating a terrorist in a straight up fight? Say it isn't so! :crazy:
Professional vigilante? What other fight was Molly Weasley ever in?
Nothing hones your fighting skills like doing the laundry and making dinner since you graduated ~40 years ago..
 

Garahs

Well-Known Member
#16
WhiteKnightLeo said:
Garahs said:
WhiteKnightLeo said:
I will admit that I have nothing constructive to contribute; however, I've had my suspicions about Molly since JKR had her beating a professional terrorist in a straight-up fight.
A professional vigilante beating a terrorist in a straight up fight? Say it isn't so! :crazy:
Professional vigilante? What other fight was Molly Weasley ever in?
Molly was part of the "old crowd" of the Order. She's still around and did in fact beat Bellatrix, so unless you have proof stating she never fought in the previous war, it's assumed she did.
 

Garahs

Well-Known Member
#17
Pirazy said:
WhiteKnightLeo said:
Garahs said:
WhiteKnightLeo said:
I will admit that I have nothing constructive to contribute; however, I've had my suspicions about Molly since JKR had her beating a professional terrorist in a straight-up fight.
A professional vigilante beating a terrorist in a straight up fight? Say it isn't so! :crazy:
Professional vigilante? What other fight was Molly Weasley ever in?
Nothing hones your fighting skills like doing the laundry and making dinner since you graduated ~40 years ago..
Neither does sitting in a cell in azcaban for the same timeframe.
 

Python453

Well-Known Member
#18
I can't believe you guys. Lionheart? Seriously?

Sons, I am disappoint.
 

WhiteKnightLeo

Well-Known Member
#19
Garahs said:
Pirazy said:
WhiteKnightLeo said:
Garahs said:
WhiteKnightLeo said:
I will admit that I have nothing constructive to contribute; however, I've had my suspicions about Molly since JKR had her beating a professional terrorist in a straight-up fight.
A professional vigilante beating a terrorist in a straight up fight? Say it isn't so! :crazy:
Professional vigilante? What other fight was Molly Weasley ever in?
Nothing hones your fighting skills like doing the laundry and making dinner since you graduated ~40 years ago..
Neither does sitting in a cell in azcaban for the same timeframe.
Bellatrix fought Harry, if you recall.
She also fought Sirius. And beat him. She quite clearly had recovered from Azkaban.

The fact that Molly was a member of the Old Crowd does not mean that she ever fought, just as Fletcher clearly does not fight. Even in a vigilante organization, there are ways to help without fighting. If nothing else, maintaining a safe house and keeping the fire burning is a good way.

My point was that the fight was ridiculous. Had she caught Bellatrix off guard, or from behind while she attacked Ginny, that would make perfect sense. Anger can drive us to do things we normally wouldn't. But anger is no substitute for skill or experience, and we have no indication that Molly had either. The manner of her defeating Bellatrix is the senseless part.
 
#20
I dislike Lionheart's work. That being said, I do agree that there is something wrong (especially in the later books) with all four of those characters. More than with any other character (apart from Ron who is just as broken but not a projection of parts of the self, merely badly written as originally he was a balanced character who had loyalty and a bit of bravery to oppose his jealousy and childishness, but then the negatives became flanderized and all he had was his bad points).

Hermione does know everything.And I do mean everything. While not the Device of Plot Twists like Dumbledore, she has the answer to pretty much any problem. The reason? She read it in a book once. I mean, how convenient that pretty much everything they need to know about magical society is in a book that she has read in her off-time. How much time does Hermione Granger have? Did she keep the TIme Turner in secret just so she could read obscure knowledge in case it was required and mysteriously enough didn't age a day? (BTW, she's older than all her yearmates by now, even disregarding the fact she was born midway september.) The only times she didn't know something was that knowing would ruin the plot. If she knew who Nicholas Flamell was, the mystery would have ended too soon, possibly with them retrieving the stone before it hit june (the last month of the schoolyear and the mysterious month in which bad things alway happen). If she recognised the signs of a Basilisk from the start they'd have made Dumbledore organise ways of staying safe for the school.

Ginny Weasley, what needs to be said? She was a none-existance that existed. Her name was known, nothing else. I mean, you didn't need to have someone Harry knew from year 1 as his girlfriend. It could just as well have been a visiting girl from Beauxbattons, or someone from another house when they were finally forced together in a class. You cound have some sort of chemistry from the start. Instead, it's a girl that has been there for years, and all the while apparently the feelings have been simmering off-screen. I can understand the feelings for a friend slowely develloping, but Ginny wasn't even a friend. So in the end, Ginny does indeed have about as much a right to be considered a candidate for girlfriend as any of the other unknowns, but at least make the process believeable.

Dumbledore, indeed, has no real personality. He's given political power, magical power, people and status and a past to fit the plot whenever something is required. Odd as it is, Lionheart told us pretty much everything in his post.

Molly, well I never liked her, so I'm probably a bit biassed. And I can imagine overprotective mothers like her existing. Not evil, but unable to let her children grow up. If she is a self insert? Well, not sure, but she is a rather unrealistic character, as she is so incredibly smothering, yet all the real complaints I've heard about her inside the book is that she gives Ron sandwiches he doesn't like. And while she was a member of the Order, I always saw her as the support-type. Behind the senes, making lunch and cleaning the base. The cleaning lady in the army of soldiers, tacticians, public relations officers and generals. You could expect her to pick up a wand and grouped with a bunch of other wizards and witches blindly shooting in the hopes of overwhelming your opponent, maybe blind-siding someone in a duel with one of the fighters. But a one-on-one fight with Bellatrix? Known to be one of the most sadistic fighters Voldemort has on his side?

Does not compute.
 

atlas_hugged

Well-Known Member
#21
Pretty sure Mama Bears doing impressive things when their kin is threatened is a common trope, with some slight basis in reality. Besides, you're given two options: You can either believe she had fighting experience like a lot of other people did from the old guard, or you can believe she had none. Canon has nothing to say whatsoever on the matter, so why deliberately choose the one that creates an inconsistency in the book?
 

Ordo

Well-Known Member
#22
ucal said:
Pretty sure Mama Bears doing impressive things when their kin is threatened is a common trope, with some slight basis in reality. Besides, you're given two options: You can either believe she had fighting experience like a lot of other people did from the old guard, or you can believe she had none. Canon has nothing to say whatsoever on the matter, so why deliberately choose the one that creates an inconsistency in the book?
Considering the Ripley of 'Alien' snuck into an Xenomorph hive to rescue Newt, then fought her way out, before battleing the Hive Queen in hand to hand combat using a glorifed forklift I would agree with the quoted statement. Molly had 40 plus years of living in the Magical world, she's survived 'Morts' fist rampage, and raised some talented kids. I will grant that we never saw her flaunt her abilities before in a combat situation, but she never really had to either.
 

WhiteKnightLeo

Well-Known Member
#23
Ordo said:
ucal said:
Pretty sure Mama Bears doing impressive things when their kin is threatened is a common trope, with some slight basis in reality. Besides, you're given two options:? You can either believe she had fighting experience like a lot of other people did from the old guard, or you can believe she had none.? Canon has nothing to say whatsoever on the matter, so why deliberately choose the one that creates an inconsistency in the book?
Considering the Ripley of 'Alien' snuck into an Xenomorph hive to rescue Newt, then fought her way out, before battleing the Hive Queen in hand to hand combat using a glorifed forklift I would agree with the quoted statement. Molly had 40 plus years of living in the Magical world, she's survived 'Morts' fist rampage, and raised some talented kids. I will grant that we never saw her flaunt her abilities before in a combat situation, but she never really had to either.
Ripley also had some training, even just a little. Ellen Ripley > Molly Weasley
 
#24
Lord Raine said:
It's not a good point. I can do the exact same thing with any character I want. It's easy. You just take a character trait, abstract it, and then say it's 'obviously' part of the personality of a woman you have never met or talked to or even seen in your entire life. I could just as easily use that same 'logic' to argue that Rowling is an anarchist because she clearly puts Fred and George on a pedestal during Order of the Phoenix. Or that she's homophobic. Or that she's racist.

Why you all are so impressed by such a shallow bit of word bullshittery, I have no idea. Maybe because you want it to be true? I guess? I honestly have no idea, and I don't really care, either. My point stands. Lionheart doesn't know what the hell a Self-Insert is, neither do a lot of you, and even if he wasn't screwing up the terms, his logic is still nonsensical anyway. Six Degrees of Adolf Hitler is a game, not a valid argument.
Fine. No conclusive proof on a lot of counts. I rather like the idea of Rowling indulging herself with the Ginny romance and Molly victory because it does indeed suit my view of the author and her characters, but that's speculating and quite possibly sheer pettiness on my part. I don't particularly like Molly, and while my imagination is perfectly capable of crafting scenarios where she may feasibly have the skill, it's more credit than I particularly want to attribute to Molly or Rowling. Rowling simply is not a meticulous enough author for me to be motivated to make allowances in order to explain flaws/plot holes.

I do maintain that Hermione and Dumbledore act as Rowling's mouthpiece and occasionally as her hand to keep the plot on track, regardless of whether it makes sense for the characters. I wouldn't call either of them Author Avatars, but I do feel that Rowling occasionally forces the actions of a character in order to railroad her own plot. Dumbledore is simply the worst offender by far.
 

Chuckg

Well-Known Member
#25
Garahs said:
Molly was part of the "old crowd" of the Order.
She's not in the group photo of Order 1.0 that Moody showed Harry in OotP. Only her two brothers were.

And re: Ellen Ripley vs. Molly Weasley, Ripley's greatest feats involved sheer insane balls, which is a quality both the skilled and the unskilled can share. She was never shown as actually having more weapons skills than the Marines, she just had the ability to keep a clearer head under stress. Which, y'know, used to be first mate of a ship, leadership ability is on the resume.

Molly Weasley, on the other hand, took on the person generally acknowledged to be the single best Death Eater there was at straight-up face-to-face murder, and put her down with superior dueling skillz. Out of nowhere, she stands up to a world-class professional and manifests a first-time-on-stage burst of epic warrior skills to roflstomp them.

Bit of a difference.
 
Top