Do readers primarily identify with or judge heroes in a novel?
In this article about different categories of heroes, Matt Bird states that sensitive and unlucky heroes are hard to write because audiences have a hard time caring about them. He says:
Americans are hard-wired to hate losers... If I were to ask you, 'who’s more sympathetic, a homeless guy or a CEO?', most people would say the homeless guy. The problem, I think, is that moviegoers aren’t looking at snapshots, we’re living with someone. We’re not being asked to judge them, we’re being asked to identify with them, and if you asked people which of those two they’d rather share their lives with, you’d probably get a different answer.
This is all in the context of movie scripts, but I'm wondering if the same is true of novels. I know that I never consciously put myself in the place of the hero or imagine them as a real person, a friend, or a stand-in for myself. But do most readers do this? And even if not, do they somehow still identify with the hero such that proactive, competent, or enviable heroes are better at creating the fantasy that pulls many readers in?
And what does this say about role-model heroes whom we love because they inspire us? What about everyman heroes? Anti-heroes?
2 answers
I wrote a blog post a little while back about what it means for a reader to identify with a protagonist: https://gmbaker.net/avatar-friend-and-shrink-three-modes-of-reader-intimacy/
I identified three modes of engagement:
-
Avatar -- the reader lives vicariously through the character (looking out through their eye)
-
Friend -- the reader goes on an adventure with the character (looking at the same things side by side, but also at them)
-
Shrink -- the reader psychanalyses the character (looking into their head)
I suspect that Bird is right if we assume engagement in avatar mode, which is often the case for pulp fiction today.
But he is not right if we assume friend mode, which I take to be the traditional mode of literature.
He is also not right if we assume shrink mode, which is common in literary fiction, for instance.
0 comment threads
From my perspective as a reader I'd say I am more on the "over the shoulder looking" side. If there is only one protagonist in the story, this is easy (e.g. Indiana Jones). If there are two or more (e.g. Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn) I tend to like the "underdog" more. The main character appears a little "over the top" to me. The underdog, is more likable as in the example with CEO/Hobo. If the main char turns "evil" or even just does something "implausible" I instantly lose trust in that character, even if everything before was indicating him being "the good guy" (e.g. Obi Wan Kenobi in Episode 1 as he eagerly wants to attack Darth Maul... that was so dark side of the force). But come to think of it... at the point Mal in Firefly just shot a guy instead of trying to negotiate or something... I did not lose that trust frankly. You mentioned Anti-Hero... is Mal one? Maybe and that is the explanation for it. When it comes to Anti-Heroes I think of "Joker" (J. Phoenix) first. It is a tragedy and you can really feel with him but there is also this small little feeling of disgust deep within.
I'd say it is a common trope, yes, thinking as being part of the story and feel closely with the main char. Of course we want to identify ourselves with the "hero" and the "good guy" unless it is a special genre where the focus is elsewhere (on the villain for example). Because obviously, as a reader, you want to spent our time "with them". If the hero is not to my liking, I'd probably put the book away or end the movie.
Having that said, I think what you describe is not a contradiction or implausibility, it is just a wide spectrum of possible shades of (main) characters and everyone has its sweet spot(s) in that spectrum somewhere. There certainly is no general rule.
0 comment threads
1 comment thread