/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2390405]

Are self inserts bad? And what about celebrity inserts?

[Anonymous No.2390408]

Like, pocket vaginas?

[Anonymous No.2390410]

Bump, wanting to know this.

[Anonymous No.2390414]

>>2390408
No, like the author inserting himself in the literature.
Like a Stan Lee cameo, but part of the story revolves around Stan Lee.

[Anonymous No.2390416]

>>2390414
If not, Stan Lee is the main character.

[Anonymous No.2390421]

Both bad form, I think. It's a novel, not a Hitchcock film (although, come to think of it, you can feel free to put Alfred in your book).

[Anonymous No.2390423]

Nothing is bad if executed well. Paul Auster being in the New York Trilogy works just fine; Coupland being in J-Pod does not.

[Anonymous No.2390428]

>>2390421
Well, lets say this.

You want to explain what you see at night, and write a little book about it. Just letting your mind flow as you write it, and just letting your brain melt.

[Anonymous No.2390427]

Yes and yes...unless it's historical metafiction.

[Anonymous No.2390430]

I've only read it where it's done well but that was with books that have weird omniscient narrator that is revealed to be the author in specific segments

[Anonymous No.2390433]

>>2390405
Self inserts, no. Most books are semi-autobiographical.

Celeb inserts, not so much. Unless you know celebs.

[Anonymous No.2390438]

Well, what about writing a fiction?

Using a well known person (Harry Houdini, Albert Einstein, etc.) might be terrible.

[Anonymous No.2390448]

What about writing yourself in a time period?

Born of a commoner, raised a king?

[Anonymous No.2390459]

>>2390421
>tfw the first character you ever wrote was named Alfred Hitchcock

[Anonymous No.2390478]

Yes, self inserts are bad. Because your ego will get in the way and instead of writing a compelling story with flawed characters struggling to overcome obstacles you'll be worried about making your fictional self look awesome and be content.