Iyfjky

Question

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?

You edited your question in such a way that the answer given required an additional explanation. Please consider using a comment (as well) next time. — 14 mins ago

score 1 · Answer 1 · 2018-11-05 09:41:57Z

The difference between a movie and a story is that the imagination of the observer is not used as much with a movie.
Everything is already shown and because of this diversity is a hot topic.

In a story the reader needs to be able to imagine him/herself inside of the world created by the author. If the characters are not relatable or identifiable in some way there is no way for the reader to immerse.

This is a problem movies don't have so I would say yes it is important to have relatable characters in the sense that the reader can live inside the story, feel the emotions the character is feeling. You can present the characters in whichever way you deem proper.

The edit to the question asked if this was also the case for aliens and fictional creatures.

Yes, relatable characters also includes fictional creatures and aliens. The people reading your story are humans. So they must relate to these aliens in some way too. This is often done by giving the aliens some kind of human treat, or behaviour. This is the relatable part for human readers.

Liquid 3,498935 · Answer 2 · 2018-11-05 09:44:46Z

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, 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 just 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.

Sara Costa 3,4882629 · Answer 3 · 2018-11-05 09:45:33Z

Personally, I don't need to identify with the characters to enjoy a story, whether in literature or in cinema. What I do need is to identify the characters as realistic constructs with human reactions and quirks.

As a young teenager, I discovered one of my favourite authors ever. The Portuguese Miguel Torga wrote plenty of short stories whose protagonists were animals or people living mostly miserable lives in the poor, harsh hinterland of his time. As a young middle class girl reading tales fifty years after they were written in a seemingly completely different society, I couldn't possibily relate to the frog eviscerated by a wild little boy or to the pregnant young woman who faced a lonely labour in the middle of the mountains to prevent her village from learning of her disgrace. But those characters I could never identify with allowed me to learn about sides of human nature I couldn't possibly know about at 13.

I feel the same towards films or any type of story, no matter the medium. If you can recognise the character as human in its actions and reactions, then you can enjoy its tale.

In fact, it strongly annoys me the growing pressure to have protagonists the reader can identify with, especially when that advice is explicitly connected with a character which can work as a sort of self-insert for the reader. Someone the reader can think 'this could almost be me'.

A story allows the reader/viewer/listener to put themself in the shoes of any person. Why should one purposefully limit the protagonists to constructs that mirror the supposed average or minority reader?

Some of the best stories I've read were the ones where I couldn't possibly relate to the character - whether in gender, social class, fears, ambitions... Those were the stories that opened my eyes to the fact that different people think and feel differently than me, that such differences are neither bad nor good, that actions one may deem insane or even evil can have profound reasons behind them, and that, through all those unsurmountable differences of feeling and action, we're all still human and fundamentally the same.

In conclusion: while I don't think it's inherently bad to have a character the reader can identify with, I certainly do not think that is essential. A character the reader can identify as fundamentally human is all a writer needs, as far as I'm concerned.

P.S.: While re-reading the answer, I felt the need to state that what I wrote above should not be seen as an excuse to always have the same typical white man/boy as a hero. While it's true that, as a woman, I thoroughly enjoy well-crafted male protagonists, I do think a lot of men would benefit from being allowed to experience stories from a woman's shoes... and I definitely don't mean 'chick' tales.

score 1 · Answer 4 · 2018-11-05 09:41:57Z

The difference between a movie and a story is that the imagination of the observer is not used as much with a movie.
Everything is already shown and because of this diversity is a hot topic.

In a story the reader needs to be able to imagine him/herself inside of the world created by the author. If the characters are not relatable or identifiable in some way there is no way for the reader to immerse.

This is a problem movies don't have so I would say yes it is important to have relatable characters in the sense that the reader can live inside the story, feel the emotions the character is feeling. You can present the characters in whichever way you deem proper.

The edit to the question asked if this was also the case for aliens and fictional creatures.

Yes, relatable characters also includes fictional creatures and aliens. The people reading your story are humans. So they must relate to these aliens in some way too. This is often done by giving the aliens some kind of human treat, or behaviour. This is the relatable part for human readers.

Liquid 3,498935 · Answer 5 · 2018-11-05 09:44:46Z

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, 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 just 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.

Sara Costa 3,4882629 · Answer 6 · 2018-11-05 09:45:33Z