Do readers need to identify with fictional characters?
On the modern day many people complain about how models, actors are damaging to society because people can't identify with them. Males actors or models which are ''too'' muscular are considered ''unrealistic'' and not relatable to normal people therefore it is argued that they cause self esteem problems, same with female models, specially in young people and young adults.
Many movies are starting to introduce black and female characters and even chubby characters, even in situations were it doesn't make sense, because of the argument that the viewer needs to relate to the fictional/historical characters.
Do fictional stories need to have relatable characters in order to be good? What about a fictional world with no humans, or a world where humans are so different from us that they are considered aliens?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/39885. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Since everyone is saying "no", let me say "yes". To some extent.
Even as a young teenager, I never had trouble to put myself in the shoes of d'Artagnan, or Jean Valjean, or El Cid, or Lancelot, or Frodo. There is no reason whatsoever why any one particular story shouldn't be about only men, or exclusively some other specific demographic. And there's no reason why I shouldn't want to read those stories just because I don't belong to that particular demographic - On the contrary! @SaraCosta, @Liquid, @Rasdashan all say this, so I will not reiterate.
But let us look at the bigger picture. If all stories are about White, Christian men, what does it tell me - a Jewish woman? What do I learn when people who are like me, are exclusively cast as the antagonist, or the butt of a joke? Stories tell us about the world, and about our place in it. What then, do those stories, put together, tell me? They tell me that only white Christian guys can be awesome, only white Christian guys can have adventures, only white Christian guys can make a difference in the world.
You mention body image. When one blonde, blue-eyed, very thin princess finds her Prince Charming, I'm happy for her. When all women who find their Prince Charming are blonde, blue-eyed and very thin, there is an implication that dark-haired, dark-eyed slightly overweight girls don't find Prince Charmings.
Stories about women, black people, people who are neither black nor white, people of all shapes and sizes - those stories too should exist.
What you're seeing now, the push to include everyone everywhere, is a response to a system that's been out of balance for a long time. It might be that we're going too far in the opposite direction, but that's the way systems usually work, until things balance out.
What does it mean for your story? If it is about, for example, British soldiers in WW1, chances are they're going to be white men. And they are going to be quite fit. There are minorities you can touch on within that group - Irish, Scottish, lower class, upper class. No group is homogenous, and it is rather boring when stories are exclusively about what is perceived as the "average specimen".
If your story is about non-humans, they're not all the same either, right? Go ahead then, explore their issues. I'm sure they have some human emotions for us to relate to.
0 comment threads
Do readers need to identify with fictional characters?
The important thing is that the character is relatable and realistic. Having the same sex / skin color / body build as the viewer probably doesn't contribute to eighter.
If anything, hobbies and personality have much sronger effect, I can easily identify with Rajesh Koothrappali (the indian guy from Big Bang theory) because I'm also a geek, but I can also enjoy a movie like The Warrior that's about boxing (something I'm not interested in whatsoever), if the movie is interesting enough.
But the ultimate reason I can relate to both of these cahracter and enjoy the movie from their perspective is that they are good characters, with personality, strengths and weaknesses.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/39914. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
As I see it, you're asking two questions:
Do fictional stories need to have relatable characters in order to be good?
And the answer would be a resounding
Yes
But regarding the actual title, Do readers need to identify with fictional characters?
No
Being able to relate to a character has little to do physical characteristics. Sure, a person who's struggling with disability will be able to relate more with a character who's doing the same (if the character is portrayed well, that is), but that's just a surface level.
Characters are relatable when they show humanity (often even when they're not technically human in their respective universes). With humanity here I mean the "ability to feel human emotion, or perceive the world as an human would do". Despite the fact that humans come in various shapes, gender, sizes, etnicity and culture, the basics of the human experience is worldwide. A person crying in pain will be relatable to each other people who suffered pain before, regardless of the source.
What happens with movies and other visual media is:
- The matter of representation,
- Shortcuts, aka "cues" (there's a more specific term here, but I can't seem to remember it now).
I won't delve into the matter of representation of minorities or different ethnicities since it is indeed a complex issue, and a bit oustide the scope of this answer. I will deal with the shortcuts - also known as "when the representation is done cheap".
In other words, it's when the authors want some share of the audience to relate with a character, but they don't have the time or the will to deal extensively with that character backstory, motivation or psychology. So, in order to make it more interesting to at least a share of the general public, they throw in a "key characteristic" as a token gesture.
In a more general sense, a cue is when you throw hints at the audience expecting them to fill the gaps. Cues can be useful in some situation, but they shouldn't be shortcuts to make your character more relatable.
As you mentioned:
Many movies are starting to introduce black and female characters and even chubby characters, even in situations were it doesn't make sense, because of the argument that the viewer needs to relate to the fictional/historical characters.
I'm recalling Troy: fall of a city link, were suddendly the (supposedly greek) Achilles is portrayed by a black actor (being black of course doesn't influence the skill of the actor, but it doesn't sit well with the historical setting). The point is that this kind of shortcuts can work - I'd be lying if I told you they don't - but while it's true that you could make your work more "appealing" this way, seeming more inclusive and having a more diverse cast, you also risk alienating some of your audience.
Some of your audience, probably of the same category you're trying to appeal to, will recognize that you're using cheap cues and will feel annoyed. In the end, throwing in, for example, a disabled character without dealing with the complex issues of disability is downright disrespectful. In the same way, any "characteristic" of the characters you're dealing with should be addressed if it's of some relevance.
Be true to your setting and to the story you want to tell. Relatable character are good characters, and vice-versa; throwing cues won't help making them better.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads