Harry Potter Rowling's Self-Inserts in HP

[Watashiwa]

You're really not.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

You're really not.

Fantastic, good sir. That tells me exactly which parts of the last few pages offend you, directs me to where we held that the four characters are self inserts, and supports your own position so very securely. I applaud you for being so specific with so few words. A casual observer would think you weren't even trying.

 

[Lord Raine]

Well, I can agree (or compromise, in some ways I suppose) that Hermione and Dumbledore aren't fully self-inserts

THEY ARE NOT PARTIAL SELF-INSERTS. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THAT WORD MEANS!?

 

[Chuckg]

I think that the magical spell of Driftus Topicus has by now shifted things over to a discussion of stupid writing, not of self inserts.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Well, I can agree (or compromise, in some ways I suppose) that Hermione and Dumbledore aren't fully self-inserts

THEY ARE NOT PARTIAL SELF-INSERTS. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THAT WORD MEANS!?

Way to take that out of its fucking context.

Well, I can agree (or compromise, in some ways I suppose) that Hermione and Dumbledore aren't fully self-inserts but have to act as the finger of the Author in order to get the plot the way she wants to.

That's the more important part of the sentence in any case. Though frankly finger of the author describes my feelings best and the sentence would be less controversial without mentioning self insert.

 

[ragnarok1337]

Because there are sick, sick people in this world who can't tell the difference between someone capable of writing well (J.K. Rowling) and someone who's a complete hack (Do I really have to say?). These sad people are desperate for any sort of authority in their lives, even if it comes from shittastic author. And their jealousy of the author who's actually competent makes them worse.

I think we all agree that they are not self-inserts. If you think that we still do, you have ignored nearly the entire thread. Now the discussion has gone to why certain things make no logical sense that Rowling ignored. So yeah, you can shut the hell up now. The more you argue your point, the less intelligent you have.

NO ONE supports Perfect Lionheart. The OP may have used him as a starting point, but we have gone FAR beyone that.

 

[LightningHunter]

Well, I can agree (or compromise, in some ways I suppose) that Hermione and Dumbledore aren't fully self-inserts but have to act as the finger of the Author in order to get the plot the way she wants to.

But that is indeed something I fault in JK's writing, especially in her later books.

She started with just hte one book. And it was a good book. Mostly for children, obviously. It was a childrens book about a child wizard. She had pretty much carte blanche, since nothing had been written before to conflict with what she wrote. It was her version of magic. Her version of dragons and goblins and her magical society. If things didn't go fully answered, well we don't all understand everything there is to know about the world after just a single year of learning about it.

The book became so popular she started to write more. And my guess is that she then decided, in the second book, that eventually Harry and Ginny woul get together. So she wrote her into the damsel in distress position. Except, she couldn't really write plenty of interaction between the two once at Hogwarts because it would reveal Ginny to be the culprit should her unnatural behavior be noticed to soon instead of during the Great Reveal.

Basically, once she had the second book going, she knew she would get to write more, and thus decided the pairings at the end. Everything that would happen inbetween wasn't written yet though, nor planned, nor anything.

And thus she wrote freely, let her characters grow, added new ones, expanded on her world, and ignored the few minor plotholes (like why she hadn't thought more about making mrs. Weasley ask loudly about the train platform. In the first book you don't realy think about it and JK really only used it as an easy method of getting Ron and Harry together as friends. it's the fans that use it to justify the Evil Weasley genre. And it's a most exelent point, no matter how you look at it it is unnatural, tough JK never intended the Weasley's to be anything but the perfect poor-in-money rich-in-love family.). But then she passed the half-way mark she had given herself; fourth year. Only three more years to go, only three more books! And she realised she had gotten nowhere with the Harry/Ginny romance. She hadn't thought up what had kept Voldemort alive (though she had made him say how he had gone beyond any other wizard on the path of immortality). Her characters had grown away from her plans. And so she began to drag them back into their boundaries, ignoring the freedom she had given them to develop into real characters. She did this largely by making even more abundant use of her two living plot-devices.

So wether or not Ginny is a projection of her perfect female girlfriend archetype, and Molly as the perfect mother archetype, the fact that Dumbledore is a tool for JKR seems to me to be undeniable.

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. This is entirely your interpretation of how the books were written. I mean, Christ, you could've even Wikipedia'd the books or Googled how she planned them, instead of making up your own little story about how the books were written.

I think we all agree that they are not self-inserts. If you think that we still do, you have ignored nearly the entire thread. Now the discussion has gone to why certain things make no logical sense that Rowling ignored. So yeah, you can shut the hell up now. The more you argue your point, the less intelligent you have.

NO ONE supports Perfect Lionheart. The OP may have used him as a starting point, but we have gone FAR beyone that.

Heh.

So, if there is no talk about self-inserts or Perfect Lionheart, then this thread is never going to return on topic and there's no point continuing to post in it. You may as well dig up any random thread and use it to complain about how butthurt you are about this.

Anyone else got any more fucking crap they want to add?

 

[Ordo]

Well, I can agree (or compromise, in some ways I suppose) that Hermione and Dumbledore aren't fully self-inserts but have to act as the finger of the Author in order to get the plot the way she wants to.

But that is indeed something I fault in JK's writing, especially in her later books.

She started with just hte one book. And it was a good book. Mostly for children, obviously. It was a childrens book about a child wizard. She had pretty much carte blanche, since nothing had been written before to conflict with what she wrote. It was her version of magic. Her version of dragons and goblins and her magical society. If things didn't go fully answered, well we don't all understand everything there is to know about the world after just a single year of learning about it.

The book became so popular she started to write more. And my guess is that she then decided, in the second book, that eventually Harry and Ginny woul get together. So she wrote her into the damsel in distress position. Except, she couldn't really write plenty of interaction between the two once at Hogwarts because it would reveal Ginny to be the culprit should her unnatural behavior be noticed to soon instead of during the Great Reveal.

Basically, once she had the second book going, she knew she would get to write more, and thus decided the pairings at the end. Everything that would happen inbetween wasn't written yet though, nor planned, nor anything.

And thus she wrote freely, let her characters grow, added new ones, expanded on her world, and ignored the few minor plotholes (like why she hadn't thought more about making mrs. Weasley ask loudly about the train platform. In the first book you don't realy think about it and JK really only used it as an easy method of getting Ron and Harry together as friends. it's the fans that use it to justify the Evil Weasley genre. And it's a most exelent point, no matter how you look at it it is unnatural, tough JK never intended the Weasley's to be anything but the perfect poor-in-money rich-in-love family.). But then she passed the half-way mark she had given herself; fourth year. Only three more years to go, only three more books! And she realised she had gotten nowhere with the Harry/Ginny romance. She hadn't thought up what had kept Voldemort alive (though she had made him say how he had gone beyond any other wizard on the path of immortality). Her characters had grown away from her plans. And so she began to drag them back into their boundaries, ignoring the freedom she had given them to develop into real characters. She did this largely by making even more abundant use of her two living plot-devices.

So wether or not Ginny is a projection of her perfect female girlfriend archetype, and Molly as the perfect mother archetype, the fact that Dumbledore is a tool for JKR seems to me to be undeniable.

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. This is entirely your interpretation of how the books were written. I mean, Christ, you could've even Wikipedia'd the books or Googled how she planned them, instead of making up your own little story about how the books were written.

Interestingly, the same excuse (the characters grew beyond the authors intention) was used to explain why Prince Zuk. was really in love with Katara in Avatar the last Airbend. It didn't hold water then, and it dosen't hold water now.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

So, if there is no talk about self-inserts or Perfect Lionheart, then this thread is never going to return on topic and there's no point continuing to post in it. You may as well dig up any random thread and use it to complain about how butthurt you are about this.

Why bother? This is TFF. Last I checked threadjacks and going off topic are practically expected.

 

[knight_of_ni]

Interestingly, the same excuse (the characters grew beyond the authors intention) was used to explain why Prince Zuk. was really in love with Katara in Avatar the last Airbend. It didn't hold water then, and it dosen't hold water now.

In that case, the screenwriters and directors really were trying to troll that section of the fan-base. They put in a lot of stuff that gave a definite subtext to the pairing, if you are looking for it, but in the end it petered out, because there actually wasn't anything to it other than subtext.

 

[Ordo]

Interestingly, the same excuse (the characters grew beyond the authors intention) was used to explain why Prince Zuk. was really in love with Katara in Avatar the last Airbend. It didn't hold water then, and it dosen't hold water now.

In that case, the screenwriters and directors really were trying to troll that section of the fan-base. They put in a lot of stuff that gave a definite subtext to the pairing, if you are looking for it, but in the end it petered out, because there actually wasn't anything to it other than subtext.

The thing is, fans often see what they want to see. Look at how fanon treats various characters from HP and other series. I will grant that by the late second and third seasons the 'Airbender' may have been toying with the Zuko/Katara fandom but as you pointed out, there really wasn't any meat to their intereactions.

 

[Takerial]

All characters will have some part of the author's personalities in them.

You cannot write what you do not know. So if you want to whine about that being self-insert, then you have to go whine to every author in existence because that will be the case for every single one of their characters.

A self-insert is a character the author specifically puts into the story as a representation of themselves.

Sometimes its the author inserting themselves into the actual story (Stephen King) but more often than not they will alter it slightly, a new name with some new talents and such (Stephanie Meyer with Bella).

Either form, the author has to actively be writing this character as a way to put themselves into the story. If that isn't the case, then it isn't a self-insert.

Hermione is probably the only one that would even come close to being a self-insert, and even that is debatable. Even if she was, it would have only been the first couple of books. Hermione would have evolved from being a self-insert after that.

Ginny isn't a self-insert. I don't even know why people think she is. She spent most of the second book being the form of the plot and didn't even get that active of a part in that.

Then she was all but forgotten about until the sixth book where she was mysteriously brought back as Harry's love interest.

Is she a poorly thought out character that suddenly had more importance than there should have been and was reckless used as a love interest? Yes.

Self-insert she is not. Nothing about her screams self-insert. You guys should be ashamed of following Lionheart's retarded leap of logic with this one.

If poor relationship writing was any indication of a self-insert, then there would be a lot more self-inserts in this world.

As for Dumbledore. Well Lionheart apparently thinks a plot device is a self-insert, so we'll just ignore the obviously stupid argument for self-insert on that one. Not that I'm surprised, Lionheart would fail even a kindergartener's writing assignment, and they pretty much will pass you if you know your alphabet.

Molly. Is Molly Rowling's vision of a perfect mother? Possible. Did Rowling view Molly's image as being something she wanted to be? Possible.

Does that make her a self-insert? Not in the slightest. It would make her a mary sue.

Truthfully, the only character I could see being any real form of self-insert is Harry.

 

[Lord Raine]

All characters will have some part of the author's personalities in them.

You cannot write what you do not know. So if you want to whine about that being self-insert, then you have to go whine to every author in existence because that will be the case for every single one of their characters.

A self-insert is a character the author specifically puts into the story as a representation of themselves.

Sometimes its the author inserting themselves into the actual story (Stephen King) but more often than not they will alter it slightly, a new name with some new talents and such (Stephanie Meyer with Bella).

Either form, the author has to actively be writing this character as a way to put themselves into the story. If that isn't the case, then it isn't a self-insert.

Hermione is probably the only one that would even come close to being a self-insert, and even that is debatable. Even if she was, it would have only been the first couple of books. Hermione would have evolved from being a self-insert after that.

Ginny isn't a self-insert. I don't even know why people think she is. She spent most of the second book being the form of the plot and didn't even get that active of a part in that.

Then she was all but forgotten about until the sixth book where she was mysteriously brought back as Harry's love interest.

Is she a poorly thought out character that suddenly had more importance than there should have been and was reckless used as a love interest? Yes.

Self-insert she is not. Nothing about her screams self-insert. You guys should be ashamed of following Lionheart's retarded leap of logic with this one.

If poor relationship writing was any indication of a self-insert, then there would be a lot more self-inserts in this world.

As for Dumbledore. Well Lionheart apparently thinks a plot device is a self-insert, so we'll just ignore the obviously stupid argument for self-insert on that one. Not that I'm surprised, Lionheart would fail even a kindergartener's writing assignment, and they pretty much will pass you if you know your alphabet.

Molly. Is Molly Rowling's vision of a perfect mother? Possible. Did Rowling view Molly's image as being something she wanted to be? Possible.

Does that make her a self-insert? Not in the slightest. It would make her a mary sue.

Truthfully, the only character I could see being any real form of self-insert is Harry.

Pretty much absolutely all of this. You guys are using Self Insert as a synonym for plot device and poor character development, which is total bullshit and you should feel bad for saying it. The closest thing the books ever get to a Self Insert is Harry himself. If we go with the canon as a whole, then a Self Insert does exist. Rowling Word of Godded herself into the canon when someone asked a question about it. She exists in Harry Potter as a modestly famous muggle writer of children's books who is not in any way unusual or having anything to do with magic. Basically what she is right now, only possibly less famous.

If anything, she should be commended for having her Self-Insert be so mundane, normal, and not at all relevant to the plot. I doubt any of you would do that, though, seeing how this entire thread has the "invent reasons to bash Rowling" vein running through it.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Pretty much absolutely all of this. You guys are using Self Insert as a synonym for plot device and poor character development, which is total bullshit and you should feel bad for saying it.

Since fucking when, the first page? Do you even read the recent posts or just stop when you find something to rag on? Did you not meet your daily quota or something? Do you stare at the page until your eyes blur so you can delude yourself into thinking we're saying someone is a self insert?

We are so far fucking past saying characters are self inserts and yet you persist in bringing us back to the god damn topic. At best we're saying some characters' personas and actions are shoved out the window so they dance to Rowling's tune.

The closest thing the books ever get to a Self Insert is Harry himself.

Harry Potter is the closest canon character to being a Self Insert.

HOW?!

How does he resemble Rowling? Is Rowling a mistreated orphan who is so goddamn passive she needs to watch someone be threatened with death or outright die before she takes initiative? Do you have anything at all to back this up?

And how the fuck is that statement any different from the people you've been raging at? And don't give me shit about people calling characters full fledged self inserts, I don't think anyone in the past three pages has claimed that and if someone has they are not in the majority and have not done so in the last page.

If you can declare with a straight face that Harry is the closest thing the books ever get to a self insert, then why are you criticizing people for claiming characters have aspects of a self insert or show evidence of Rowling projecting herself or some ideal? Is saying Harry Potter is the closest thing to a self insert different from what we've been saying? If so, I call bullshit. By claiming someone is the closest thing to a self insert you imply that it is not a black and white classification and there can be degrees, or to use a tired metaphor, shades of gray that let a character be 'closer' to being a self insert. So if you do acknowledge that a character can be 'closer' to being a self insert then you have completely undermined the hardline stance you have been taking this entire time!

Hell, if Harry Potter is 'closest' to being a self insert, then how 'close' is Hermione, who was based on Rowling younger self?!

Please, explain! If you can somehow turn this into a logical and internally consistent justification I would love to hear it.

If we go with the canon as a whole, then a Self Insert does exist. Rowling Word of Godded herself into the canon when someone asked a question about it. She exists in Harry Potter as a modestly famous muggle writer of children's books who is not in any way unusual or having anything to do with magic. Basically what she is right now, only possibly less famous.

Yeah, so she fits the label nicely when you use a strict yes or no classification system that you apparently don't use when evaluating Harry. I don't think anyone has disputed that factoid.

If anything, she should be commended for having her Self-Insert be so mundane, normal, and not at all relevant to the plot.

No she shouldn't. If it's not relevant to the plot, then adding it has had no effect. It's pointless trivia. It's a cute shout out and example of leaning on the fourth wall. Saying you exist in your creation but have no effect on the story as a whole should not be commended because it demonstrates no actual skill. It doesn't show off her ability as a writer. So what should we do, praise it as an example of restraint? Why? And should we praise other writings for having the restraint to not insert themselves at all so they have no effect on the plot? It has the same effect as what Rowling did.

I doubt any of you would do that, though, seeing how this entire thread has the "invent reasons to bash Rowling" vein running through it.

You're damn right I won't. I see nothing worthy of praise.

 

[Lord Raine]

You read the entire series of books, and are posting in a forum dedicated to the fandom.

Nothing to praise? Sure. You've got everyone convinced on that one.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

You read the entire series of books, and are posting in a forum dedicated to the fandom.

Nothing to praise? Sure. You've got everyone convinced on that one.

No, I see nothing to praise about her use of a Self-Insert.

If anything, she should be commended for having her Self-Insert be so mundane, normal, and not at all relevant to the plot. I doubt any of you would do that, though, seeing how this entire thread has the "invent reasons to bash Rowling" vein running through it.

That's what I see nothing to praise about.

And hey, you managed to avoid everything else I wrote. I was wondering how you were going to handle that. You didn't address any of my points and still managed to find a something to take out of context so you can nitpick and therefore salvage a shred of pride.

Nice job on meeting my expectations.

 

[LightningHunter]

The closest thing the books ever get to a Self Insert is Harry himself.

Harry Potter is the closest canon character to being a Self Insert.

HOW?!

How does he resemble Rowling? Is Rowling a mistreated orphan who is so goddamn passive she needs to watch someone be threatened with death or outright die before she takes initiative? Do you have anything at all to back this up?

And how the fuck is that statement any different from the people you've been raging at? And don't give me shit about people calling characters full fledged self inserts, I don't think anyone in the past three pages has claimed that and if someone has they are not in the majority and have not done so in the last page.

If you can declare with a straight face that Harry is the closest thing the books ever get to a self insert, then why are you criticizing people for claiming characters have aspects of a self insert or show evidence of Rowling projecting herself or some ideal? Is saying Harry Potter is the closest thing to a self insert different from what we've been saying? If so, I call bullshit. By claiming someone is the closest thing to a self insert you imply that it is not a black and white classification and there can be degrees, or to use a tired metaphor, shades of gray that let a character be 'closer' to being a self insert. So if you do acknowledge that a character can be 'closer' to being a self insert then you have completely undermined the hardline stance you have been taking this entire time!

Hell, if Harry Potter is 'closest' to being a self insert, then how 'close' is Hermione, who was based on Rowling younger self?!

Please, explain! If you can somehow turn this into a logical and internally consistent justification I would love to hear it.

Well, since apparently you need someone to hold your hand, let me explain.

Harry is the closest to being a Self Insert- because he's the protagonist.

In stories with magic or sci-fi or something like that, the readers essentially need a relatively normal person like them to guide them through the story. This allows for all of the scenes when something Harry doesn't know is explained to him and is thus explained to the readers. In DH, we were even shown a couple scenes where Ron took several things Harry and Hermione didn't know for granted because he was that used to him and had never seen any. If the story had been centred around him or any other pure-blood, then it becomes harder to do this.

As such, Rowling has to make Harry the most normal and real character in the story in order for people to relate to them. People write best what they know so she obviously will take traits from herself and people around her so readers can essentially use Harry to insert themselves into the scene.

It's not a self-insert. It's close, but no. It's a device used to help the reader feel that they're in the story.

 

[Chuckg]

Well, since apparently you need someone to hold your hand, let me explain.

Harry is the closest to being a Self Insert- because he's the protagonist.

People find the Count of Monte Durzkaban to be the 'most relatable'? For reals? I cannot remotely relate to Harry's existence; I was brought up by human beings, and my own emotional traumas are in entirely different directions and largely related to experiences of my adult life.

If anybody's the most relatable, its Ron. Pureblood wizard or no, he's the only one of the Trio with a normal family that we've seen. Even the Grangers eventually run into that 'I mindwiped my own parents' thing that is a bit difficult to fanwank around.

PS: I actually had to write the above paragraph despite being anything but a Ron fan, because, well, facts are not always what I would like them to be. *bleargh*

 

[LightningHunter]

Well, since apparently you need someone to hold your hand, let me explain.

Harry is the closest to being a Self Insert- because he's the protagonist.

People find the Count of Monte Durzkaban to be the 'most relatable'? For reals? I cannot remotely relate to Harry's existence; I was brought up by human beings, and my own emotional traumas are in entirely different directions and largely related to experiences of my adult life.

If anybody's the most relatable, its Ron. Pureblood wizard or no, he's the only one of the Trio with a normal family that we've seen. Even the Grangers eventually run into that 'I mindwiped my own parents' thing that is a bit difficult to fanwank around.

PS: I actually had to write the above paragraph despite being anything but a Ron fan, because, well, facts are not always what I would like them to be. *bleargh*

Not all protagonists are written to be relatable but it works well with certain stories.

Secondly, let me elaborate. It's not about the frickin' backstory that makes people relate to characters. No one had their uncle shot after they gained superpowers but Spider-Man is still regarded as a very relatable superhero.

People relate because Harry's like them in that he's the guy being introduced to this vast world of magic. Then you have all the other stuff going around him, big expectations of him, a lot of pressure, et cetera, et cetera; all things that people know and can feel for.

 

[WhiteKnightLeo]

t:I wrote a self-insert once. In fact, I'm still writing it. My character is never the protagonist, despite the POV changing every book of the story. In fact, I don't get much screentime, because my story is less about me and the decisions I would make and more about how people would react to them (if anyone's curious, the fandom I SI'd into is mostly Rune Soldier Louie). I did this to buffer against Mary Sue-ness; it's hard to become one when the camera is rarely focused on you. [/end t:]

If Harry is a self-insert, it isn't for JKR. And since she's the author, he isn't one.



@LightningHunter: What part of "Harry is the closest to being a Self Insert- because he's the protagonist. " is confusing you? We are arguing that Harry cannot be a SI, because it would be his origins that would matter.

 

[Chuckg]

Secondly, let me elaborate. It's not about the frickin' backstory that makes people relate to characters. No one had their uncle shot after they gained superpowers but Spider-Man is still regarded as a very relatable superhero.

On the other hand, a lot of people have grown up having Peter Parker's mundane life, even if they don't have his superpowered life. Only one guy in school can be the prom king or the captain of the football team, the vast majority of the rest get to be Peter Parker. Likewise, how many people have not lost at least one family member? Saying that 'oh Peter has superpowers, therefore he's as unrelatable as Harry Potter' is nonsense. You're doing the sideways shuffle here.

Harry, on the other hand, has a mundane life that is completely outside the experience of 99.9+% of his readership (and would that the world were such it was 100%!), and then is in the magical world, even less so.

Sure, Harry's the protagonist, but if we're supposed to close our eyes and imagine that we are him and he is us, then the author has a screw loose. I like to watch Harry's life; I'd sooner open a vein than actually live it.

Being Spider-Man, otoh... well, a lot of Peter's mundane woes are actually self inflicted, y'know? (Which again speaks to something in most of us.)

 

[WhiteKnightLeo]

Secondly, let me elaborate. It's not about the frickin' backstory that makes people relate to characters. No one had their uncle shot after they gained superpowers but Spider-Man is still regarded as a very relatable superhero.

On the other hand, a lot of people have grown up having Peter Parker's mundane life, even if they don't have his superpowered life. Only one guy in school can be the prom king or the captain of the football team, the vast majority of the rest get to be Peter Parker. Likewise, how many people have not lost at least one family member? Saying that 'oh Peter has superpowers, therefore he's as unrelatable as Harry Potter' is nonsense. You're doing the sideways shuffle here.

Harry, on the other hand, has a mundane life that is completely outside the experience of 99.9+% of his readership (and would that the world were such it was 100%!), and then is in the magical world, even less so.

Sure, Harry's the protagonist, but if we're supposed to close our eyes and imagine that we are him and he is us, then the author has a screw loose. I like to watch Harry's life; I'd sooner open a vein than actually live it.

Being Spider-Man, otoh... well, a lot of Peter's mundane woes are actually self inflicted, y'know? (Which again speaks to something in most of us.)

tl:dr
Personality makes a protagonist. Backstory makes an SI.

 

[LightningHunter]

@LightningHunter: What part of "Harry is the closest to being a Self Insert- because he's the protagonist. " is confusing you? We are arguing that Harry cannot be a SI, because it would be his origins that would matter.

...what? Why would I be getting confused by what I said?

I was replying to Hymn who was finding it hard to understand why the protagonist character will be similar to a self-insert. I never said Harry was a self-insert.

On the other hand, a lot of people have grown up having Peter Parker's mundane life, even if they don't have his superpowered life.? Only one guy in school can be the prom king or the captain of the football team, the vast majority of the rest get to be Peter Parker.? Likewise, how many people have not lost at least one family member?? Saying that 'oh Peter has superpowers, therefore he's as unrelatable as Harry Potter' is nonsense.? You're doing the sideways shuffle here.

Harry, on the other hand, has a mundane life that is completely outside the experience of 99.9+% of his readership (and would that the world were such it was 100%!), and then is in the magical world, even less so.

Sure, Harry's the protagonist, but if we're supposed to close our eyes and imagine that we are him and he is us, then the author has a screw loose.? I like to watch Harry's life; I'd sooner open a vein than actually live it.

Being Spider-Man, otoh... well, a lot of Peter's mundane woes are actually self inflicted, y'know?? (Which again speaks to something in most of us.)

Okay, maybe I just picked a bad example. What I meant is that past all the backstory-tragedy and fantasy, there's something in Harry that we recognise and speaks to us as readers.

I never said "we're supposed to close our eyes and imagine that we are him and he is us". I just said we're supposed to relate to him and he's supposed to be our way of inserting ourselves into the scene. That's why we can feel emotion about what happens in the storyline, because we're emotionally invested in characters and care about what happens to them.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Well, since apparently you need someone to hold your hand, let me explain.

Spare me the condescending attitude. Asking someone to justify their claims is perfectly reasonable.

Harry is the closest to being a Self Insert- because he's the protagonist.

Going by the definitions we've been using in this thread, the one thing everyone has agreed on is that a self insert is the author adding themselves to their work. You are going in a completely different direction here and saying that Harry is close to the self-insert for the reader. These are different concepts. Not uninteresting ones, don't get me wrong, but you're applying a different definition to what everyone else has been touting thus far. Including Takerial, the guy who came up with this Harry Potter is the closest thing to an SI. If you two are on the same wavelength, then I have to wonder what he was thinking when he said an SI is an author actively trying to insert themselves into a story.

In stories with magic or sci-fi or something like that, the readers essentially need a relatively normal person like them to guide them through the story. This allows for all of the scenes when something Harry doesn't know is explained to him and is thus explained to the readers. In DH, we were even shown a couple scenes where Ron took several things Harry and Hermione didn't know for granted because he was that used to him and had never seen any. If the story had been centred around him or any other pure-blood, then it becomes harder to do this.

As such, Rowling has to make Harry the most normal and real character in the story in order for people to relate to them. People write best what they know so she obviously will take traits from herself and people around her so readers can essentially use Harry to insert themselves into the scene.

It's not a self-insert. It's close, but no. It's a device used to help the reader feel that they're in the story.

Again, everyone thus far agreed that a self insert is the author inserting themselves. This is a different line of thinking altogether. Writing Harry as a fish out of water so that the reader better empathizes with him is not the same as a self insert as it has been defined thus far.

 

[Takerial]

I said Harry would be the best choice for a SI for Rowling because of the parallels between the two of them.

His orphan status was done because of her mother's death when she was writing the story.

A lot of the unnecessary struggling and almost torment at the hand of his family seems a little strong and could be influenced by the fact that she was struggling after her divorce and such.

Is there enough there to go "Yeah he's her self-insert?"

No. But if I HAD to pick one of the characters as being her actual self-insert. It would be Harry.

And no, back story does not make a character a self-insert. An author can write a character as them being in the story, and change the back story for them.

Granted, they do tend to add a lot of parallels in story and that is usually the only real way to get a good estimate on who is a self-insert or not. But it's not a 100% way to tell.

Honestly, unless an author comes out and says it, you're not really going to know for sure.