[RD] Identifying with fictional characters and caring for them

[Lohrenswald]

I hear relatively often as a criticism of fictional works (mostly movies and tv, though books, comics and so on also applies (and video games to some extent)) that the viewer can't identify with the main character.
First of all I'm not sure if I completely understand. Identyfing with means the character has to be like you? Or that you could be able to vision yourself in their shoes? Can't the latter pretty much always be done?

But why is this a problem? If the main character is unlike you isn't that better? You experience being yourself every day, shouldn't fictional works provide something different?
Like why is this brought up?

A similiar issue I find, is often when a character dies, and it's a tragedy for the main character, and people say there was no reason to care for the character. Like what do you want? Tons of time to break from the main plotlines to hammer in that these characters care for eachother? And again, what does this have to do with you? Why would it bother you if you care for the dying character or not? It obviously matter for the main characterm and that's the point.

So basically, what's the deal with all this?

 

[Synobun]

About identifying with fictional characters: it's not so much as them being exactly like you as it is them exhibiting traits or experiences that you can feel as though you understand or also experience yourself. For example, I used to identify with Clark Kent in Smallville putting everyone else before himself. That didn't mean I thought I was Superman, but that Superman the character showed semblances of humanity that I felt resonated within my personality.

The best sign of a character that's been well-done is when they do something and you can say, "I get that," or "This happens to me too." Doesn't mean you're them or they're you, but it does mean they're human.

 

[Cutlass]

There's a concept when reading/watching fiction called 'suspension of disbelief'. What that means is that you know that it's not real, but at least to some extent you treat it like it is. That allows you to become more immersed in the story, and so care about it more. It becomes more enjoyable, you can become more involved. And that includes being involved and caring about the characters. Up to the point of caring about their welfare. Now unless you're weird or dumb or unbalanced, you still know that they aren't real, that it's all a fiction. But getting into it like that makes it work better.

 

[Lohrenswald]

@Synsensa
Yea but why is that taken as a sign of quality?
I don't expect people to have similar traits as me and react to things similarly like I do and so on.

And again, I'd think fictional works most of the time are better of to describe something different than I experience.

 

[Synobun]

@Synsensa
Yea but why is that taken as a sign of quality?
I don't expect people to have similar traits as me and react to things similarly like I do and so on.

And again, I'd think fictional works most of the time are better of to describe something different than I experience.

For that I'd point to the "I get that" part of my post. Some level of understanding or shared experience is usually essential to a character's development, otherwise they're just an arbitrary construct. Being able to understand why a character has done something, even if you haven't done it yourself, shows that this character isn't on a completely fictional plane. They experience, in their fake way, something that you might experience or someone you know might experience. Even if they're alien, or evil, or from a time you hold no concept of, it demonstrates that even they have thoughts and feelings like you do.

 

[Ryika]

I think the idea that a fictional character has to be "like you" for you to identify with them is just flawed and really a new thing born of identity politics. A fictional character has to be consistent with how we see real people acting, that's all that is needed to make a character relatable.

Anything on top of that is just the bonus of reaffirming ones own existence. If I can see myself in a character and that character does something positive our brain is very close to understanding that as us doing something positive or at least as reaffirmation that we're good the way we are.

I find that people who put an extraordinary emphasis on reaffirmation are usually people who are of questionable stability character-wise. People who either have not found themselves yet or people who are not happy with who they are.

Of course that should not be confused with the people who ask for genuine diversity in characters. It's usually the difference between asking for more stereotypes to be introduced vs. actually individually interesting characters.

 

[sophie]

Having characters that are different isn't wrong per se, but characters (and more broadly the universe a story inhabits) needs to be relateable at some level, because if the audience can't relate then the audience tunes out, which means that it fails as a work of art. It doesn't mean that everything needs to be exactly the same or bland. An artist can take a familiar or relateable element and flip it on its head. A lot of works, particularly in the fantasy, sci-fi, and horror genres include a "normal" protagonist as an audience insert to whom the audience can relate to and thereby the author can more easily translate the stranger and less recognizable elements of his story.

Identifying with characters is important also, not because it emphasizes that nobody is allowed to be different, but the contrary: it shines a light on how whitewashed art is and has been. As a white straight male, it's very easy for me to identify with big M Media because Media is oriented towards me. Characters are designed to relate to me and so I can identify with them. But this leaves very little space for people who aren't white straight males to navigate Media. Media isn't for them and they have to pick from what little from their identity does manage to filter into the mainstream, or else settle for the token scraps Media throws them. The problem with Tokenism isn't that there's a black character or a gay character or a woman on-screen, nor even that producers were compelled to include those characters in casting decisions to increase marketability, but rather that Token characters are based on stereotypes that a) are white stereotypes and therefore even the non-white characters are in essence still white characters, and b) that those stereotypes are the only portrayals the marginalized group gets, and, as I noted in point a), those characters are fundamentally unrelatable to that minority group.

 

[Lexicus]

I think the idea that a fictional character has to be "like you" for you to identify with them is just flawed and really a new thing born of identity politics.

There is nothing new about this at all. Why do you think the Greeks loved the heroes of the Trojan War, or the Romans loved hearing about Aeneas, Romulus and Remus, or the Norse about Beowulf (apologies for the Eurocentrism)?

@OP people generally need to be able to emphathize with characters (not necessarily the protagonist I guess) to some degree or the story can fail as a work of art.
I mean, I guess that's not always true but I'd say it pretty generally is. And particularly for video games, which are a uniquely interactive form of art where the audience can become heavily invested in them I'd say it's important for people to be able to project themselves into the character to some degree.

This is probably why lots of video game protags are basically blank slates: so that players can project whatever they want onto the character.

 

[Kozmos]

I never understood when reading book reviews, criticisms like X and Y characters are simply not likeable or relatable. Must you have an emotional attachment with fictional constructs? Can't you simply try and pretend to be something other than yourself and imagine there are people who are nothing like you and care nothing about what you care about? Bah.

 

[Zelig]

I have trouble identifying with real people and caring for them.

 

[Perfection]

Humans have tiny rational brains and big emotional brains.

if your fiction fails to generate feelings then it fails to actually engage most of your brain.

The way it does that is by having characters that relate to you in the same way actual people do.

 

[abradley]

Ah yes, identifying with a fictional character. I find a really good book does that for me. Something like Kenneth Roberts' Northwest Passage:

Northwest Passage
by Kenneth Roberts
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/103171.Northwest_Passage
4.12/5 · Rating Details · 2,117 Ratings · 80 Reviews
Told through the eyes of primary character Langdon Towne, much of this novel centers around the exploits and character of Robert Rogers, the leader of Rogers' Rangers, who were a colonial force fighting with the British during the French and Indian War.

Structurally, Northwest Passage is divided into halves. The first half is a carefully researched, day-by-day recreation of the raid by Rogers' Rangers on the Indian village at Saint-François-du-Lac, Quebec (or Saint Francis, to the Americans troops), a settlement of the Abenakis, an American Indian tribe. The second half of the novel covers Rogers' later life in London, England and Fort Michilimackinac, Michigan. Roberts' decision to cover the novel's material in two distinct halves followed the actual trajectory of Rogers' life. (less)

When reading it I was Langdon Towne. Not a super hero, just an everyday Joe.

And possible my favorite was Anthony Adverse:

http://www.amazon.com/Anthony-Adverse-Hervey-Allen/dp/0030284007

If you love a good read you will love Herve Allen's "Anthony Adverse" published in 1933.

I first read this fascinating, page-turning, couldn't-put-it-down historical adventure in the 1950's when I was a teen-ager in a small, read that as population 2,163, north Louisiana town.

After several years of visiting Bookmobiles the town finally opened a library and "Anthony Adverse" was the first or second book I checked out.

It was also my first "adult" book i. e. a book that wasn't on the high school English Department's required reading list.

My thoughtful daughter was aware of my "Anthony Adverse" history and recent gave me an original edition.

Strangely I was reluctant to re-read this treasure.

I remembered that it was the saga of an orphan boy who makes good. However, in the intervening fifty years details became blurred and I wondered if I would still find it as engrossing as I thought that I did as a teen-ager.

Sometimes fondly remembered books do not stand the test of time and should in my opinion remain cherished memories.

No so with "Anthony Adverse."

The adventure, which spans Europe from the late 1700's to the slave trade in Africa, New Orleans and the Louisiana Purchase, the largely unexplored American West and Spain's loss of its Mexican empire, remains vividly alive and well.

The richness of Herve Allen's writing has few peers in contemporary literature. (Pat Conroy's "Prince Of Tides" comes to mind as one contender.)

Page 1005:

"Here in this cathedral of Burgos was the record of an incredible spiritual energy. Something not at all preoccupied with building things of use to enhance the ease of physical existence. It was beyond that.
It was the expression of the attitudes and experiences of pure being that had builded here. How could the age out of which this had risen be called "poverty stricken."? Those who had built and carved and painted here had been more than happy. They had left the record of their ecstasy in a divine orgasm of stone."

"Anthony Adverse" is a novel of epic proportions that combines historical figures such as Napoleon and Josephine and the Spanish Royal Court with historical fiction in such a clever way that I could only wonder, "Did they actually have that conversation. Did that actually happen?"

You'll meet handsome men, beautiful women, pious and not so pious priests, German, Italian, French, English and American bankers, pirates,slave traders, ruffians, cutthroats, vagabonds, the pure of heart and the unbelievably cruel.

Fortunes are won. Fortunes are lost. Empires rise and fall. Hearts break. Frontiers are explored. The innocent perish. Tragedy happens.

I can only wonder why PBS, the BBC or HBO hasn't embraced this magnificent work and turned it into an award winning series.

Read "Anthony Adverse" and on page 1224 you will be wishing for a thousand more pages.

Did I mention that I really like this book?

The movie is OK, the book is great.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I hear relatively often as a criticism of fictional works (mostly movies and tv, though books, comics and so on also applies (and video games to some extent)) that the viewer can't identify with the main character.
First of all I'm not sure if I completely understand. Identyfing with means the character has to be like you? Or that you could be able to vision yourself in their shoes? Can't the latter pretty much always be done?

If the character can't be identified with in some way, he/she/it will probably be so boring to you that you'll just shut off the program, close the book, or choose a different computer game. They don't have to be like you, but they do have to have some trait that you find either appealing or understandable.

There are some shows and types of shows that I find monumentally boring. For example, I've tried to like some of the current American sitcoms, but I just can't. The characters come across as shallow and it seems like actors lobbing one-liners at each other, without trying to convey that they're portraying an actual character.

But why is this a problem? If the main character is unlike you isn't that better? You experience being yourself every day, shouldn't fictional works provide something different?
Like why is this brought up?

Some people have a particular comfort zone and they don't want to step out of it. My comfort zones fall into science fiction, fantasy, and historical fiction. If I were to try to watch a mainstream romance or read one, I'd likely be bored inside of 10 minutes. But move the romance into a setting that's within my comfort zone, and I'll get more interested.

Unless, of course, the writer can't write a romance to save his life. Ben Bova writes fantastic space opera. But his romance subplots are sheer cardboard. I really don't care about Jamie Waterman's romance with his female co-worker. I do care if they solve whatever problems they're faced with as they're exploring Mars. I don't get what's so great about the female character in Mercury, but Mance Bracknell goes through hell for more than 10 years to get her back.

A similiar issue I find, is often when a character dies, and it's a tragedy for the main character, and people say there was no reason to care for the character. Like what do you want? Tons of time to break from the main plotlines to hammer in that these characters care for eachother? And again, what does this have to do with you? Why would it bother you if you care for the dying character or not? It obviously matter for the main characterm and that's the point.

Some people feel silly if they care about a fictional character. As far as I'm concerned, if a character dies in a book I'm reading, or in a movie I'm watching, I respect the writer far more if I feel anything other than indifference. I'm one of the people who cried at the end of Wrath of Khan when Spock died. And I sniffled and cried through Sturm Brightblade's death and funeral in Dragons of Winter Night - and I don't even like that character!

About identifying with fictional characters: it's not so much as them being exactly like you as it is them exhibiting traits or experiences that you can feel as though you understand or also experience yourself. For example, I used to identify with Clark Kent in Smallville putting everyone else before himself. That didn't mean I thought I was Superman, but that Superman the character showed semblances of humanity that I felt resonated within my personality.

The best sign of a character that's been well-done is when they do something and you can say, "I get that," or "This happens to me too." Doesn't mean you're them or they're you, but it does mean they're human.

They don't have to be human. What people respond to is human-like traits. The prime example of this is Spock (Original Spock, not that shallow imitation in the Abrams movies).

Spock is a misfit. He's a child of two worlds, completely fitting into neither, because no matter which one he's in, there's that other half that the people around him can't relate to. And even if he won't say it out loud, the audience knows that he wants to be accepted by both worlds. I completely get that, because it's how things have been for just about my whole life.

In fact, there are many TV shows, books, and movies where my favorite character is the misfit. Even in the Dragonlance series, my favorite character is Raistlin. He's sly, cunning, and really not a nice person. But I totally get where he's coming from, because of certain elements of his backstory.

 

[Synobun]

They don't have to be human. What people respond to is human-like traits. The prime example of this is Spock (Original Spock, not that shallow imitation in the Abrams movies).

You're absolutely right. I was hoping the italicized "human" would imply that I meant the experience of humanity rather than physically being a human but I get how that wasn't obvious. My bad.

 

[Borachio]

Oooh yes. I have to at least care what happens to a fictional character. If I don't, I generally can't finish the book. I mean, why would I continue reading if I didn't care what happens?

And caring for them is a sort of identifying, I think. So I don't have to be actually like them at all to identify with them.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You're absolutely right. I was hoping the italicized "human" would imply that I meant the experience of humanity rather than physically being a human but I get how that wasn't obvious. My bad.

Not a problem.

I've been a science fiction/fantasy fan for over 40 years, so it's natural that my perceptions and examples tend to come from that area.

Oooh yes. I have to at least care what happens to a fictional character. If I don't, I generally can't finish the book. I mean, why would I continue reading if I didn't care what happens?

And caring for them is a sort of identifying, I think. So I don't have to be actually like them at all to identify with them.

The basic question, I think, is "does this character interest me enough that I want to know what happens next?".

Take J.R. Ewing, for example (from the old Dallas TV series, for those here young enough not to remember). J.R. Ewing was, for the most part, an awful person. Yet the audience was fascinated. He was the character we all loved to hate, and we kept watching - not only to see what he'd do next, but we kept hoping he would get his comeuppance.

 

[Kennigit]

Humans have tiny rational brains and big emotional brains.

if your fiction fails to generate feelings then it fails to actually engage most of your brain.

The way it does that is by having characters that relate to you in the same way actual people do.

This is good summary, but for me personally I like it for characters to fit in their world


Way too much muddling around with some characters on making them relate to the reader's experience. The bad guy doesn't have to have a gentle side if it makes sense for him to be totally bad/insane. In RPGs, a dwarf/elf/gnome/whatever don't have to feel human at all. Aliens can behave completely differently than humans. etc

Also saving characters from death because they are likeable. If you put the character in a situation where they should die, they should die. If you want your likeable character to not die, don't put him impossibly near death only to live

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Way too much muddling around with some characters on making them relate to the reader's experience. The bad guy doesn't have to have a gentle side if it makes sense for him to be totally bad/insane. In RPGs, a dwarf/elf/gnome/whatever don't have to feel human at all. Aliens can behave completely differently than humans. etc

This is true. However, if the audience doesn't understand why the alien or dwarf/elf/gnome/whatever does what he/she/it does, they won't care what happens next. "Because they're not human" isn't good enough. Characters may not act as most humans would act, but they should have some reason for their actions.

Also saving characters from death because they are likeable. If you put the character in a situation where they should die, they should die. If you want your likeable character to not die, don't put him impossibly near death only to live

This happens on soap operas all the time, and also on most science fiction and fantasy shows.

It even happened this past season on Doctor Who. Clara should have died, permanently and for real. But because she's a "likeable character" (I can't stand her), she got a reprieve. I don't know if that's because TPTB want her to be able to come back for some future special story, or because they were just too wimpy to kill off yet another of the Doctor's companions. But given how that story was set up, she should be DEAD. And yet they made her just sorta dead, and now she's gallivanting around the universe with an immortal Viking woman, in their own TARDIS that looks like a 1950s diner.

 

[Perfection]

This is good summary, but for me personally I like it for characters to fit in their world

Way too much muddling around with some characters on making them relate to the reader's experience. The bad guy doesn't have to have a gentle side if it makes sense for him to be totally bad/insane. In RPGs, a dwarf/elf/gnome/whatever don't have to feel human at all. Aliens can behave completely differently than humans. etc

I totally hear what you're saying. I think though it supports my sentiments instead of undercuts it!

Humans I think show a remarkable imagination when it comes to the minds of others. We can relate to villains, the insane, or strange otherworldly aliens in the same way we relate to other "normal" humans even if their lives are remarkably different.

When someone tries to soften a villain or make an alien less weird just for the sake of reader comprehension/like-ability they end up creating an inconsistent character. We pick up on that inconsistency and as a result find the relatability harder.

 

[abradley]

Realize this isn't PC , but am Caucasian plus some Cherokee and find it near impossible to identify with a none Caucasian/Native American Characters.

Even with Danzel Washington's movie's, can't identify. But before you accuse me of 'Racism' realize, I can't identify with female characters or animal characters either.

As far as Danzel's movies, don't remember any I didn't enjoy, just wasn't me.

His 'Flight (2012)', came close ... but no banana.


Link to video.

Almost identified with the messed up person bit, not the hero bit.