Actually, the concept of an independent identity is only something that can be supposed but not found. Here, the author supposes that Waluigi's identity is given meaning through a reflection and an inversion of Mario which at first reading is seductive. It's elegant. It's neat, contained and accessible. Nevertheless the presupposition is that Mario has an identity wholly independent of Waluigi. Intuitively, we feel that Mario does have an independent identity: Mario existed decades prior to Waluigi. Mario came first, then Luigi, then Wario, and finally Waluigi. The argument is that because of this ordering, Mario is an antecedent unaffected by the creation of those who came after. However, the identity of "wholesome all Italian plumbing superman" is one that has been narrowed. The identity of Mario prior to Luigi was Jumpman. The introduction of Wario changed the identity of Mario as well. Mario had always collected gold coins but Wario collected coins as a primary directive. This contrast shows that Mario isn't a Scrooge McDuck-type miser. Now, you the reader probably feel that what I'm suggesting is anachronistic. Mario came before Waluigi therefore Waluigi could not change Mario necessarily. We need to consider that the present understanding of Mario qua Mario 2017 is not the same understanding of Mario qua Mario 1981. Likewise, the Mario of 1981 was only considered "his own man" because he was alone. As the cast of the Mushroom Kingdom grew, Mario's identity narrowed through negation: he could not be a person who wore green as that was an aspect of Luigi's identity, he could not spit eggs as that was Birdo's identity. You feel that Mario is not derivative simply because he was originally placed without Others. He was the sole protagonist in a story about saving a girl from the antagonist Donkey Kong. But this isn't something positive. It isn't an identity which we should strive for not because it's bad but because it is impossible.
