3 ms·

The worst is when people complain about "unlikable" characters or not being able to "identify" with them. Who cares? The book wasn't written so you could make i

by cgh 3y ago

The worst is when people complain about "unlikable" characters or not being able to "identify" with them. Who cares? The book wasn't written so you could make imaginary friends and has zero to do with its literary merits.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Books are written for one of two reasons: to make a point, or to make money. If you write to make money, and people can't identify with your characters, other things being equal, you're going to sell fewer copies. If you write to make a point, and people can't identify with your characters, other things being equal, you're going to attract fewer readers to whom you can make your point. Why? In both cases, because people don't like reading stuff where the characters do random things for incomprehensible reasons. That's not an interesting book. You might as well write a book about squares in a video game that move according to the output of a random number generator. That's not to say that surprising things can't happen. They have to, or again, the book isn't interesting. But the characters have to be recognizably human to us, or it quits being a book about human characters.
- viscanti 3y ago
  > But the characters have to be recognizably human to us, or it quits being a book about human characters. It seems like there could be considerable distance between "likable" and "recognizably human". Lots of complaints are around the characters being "unlikable", when they're doing completely human things that are just not nice. If an author is forced to only include friendly and likable characters, there's a pretty substantial limitation on the types of human behavior that can be covered.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  It's more a question of whether an individual can identify with a character. If a book makes it into a literature class, chances are there's a reason for it. I'd like to get at that, learn about that. Saying whether or not you, specifically, identify with a specific character is simultaneously the most low effort observation you can make, and the least relevant to anyone else in the world. It's one thing to talk about what makes the character hard to identify with in general, but just telling me "I didn't identify with this character" is a waste of everyone's time.
- throwanem 3y ago
  Sometimes the dehumanization is the point. I think that's fair to say of Ballard, certainly in the subset of his work with which I'm familiar. Sometimes you can't use "recognizably human" characters to make the point you need to make. Peter Watts is a good example of this; not only in Blindsight but throughout his body of work, the most effective characters are typically those least recognizable as human. Such works are typically labeled as "high-concept", and I concede they can be an acquired taste. But it's not at all true to say every story is either at heart about human relationships or worthless, else this other sort of stories would never have been common enough to need naming what distinguishes them.
- musicale 3y ago
  > Books are written for one of two reasons: to make a point, or to make money. How about to inform, to amuse or entertain, or to tell a story? Or because the author feels compelled to write things, or is bored and needs something creative to do?

by cgh 3y ago

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Books are written for one of two reasons: to make a point, or to make money. If you write to make money, and people can't identify with your characters, other things being equal, you're going to sell fewer copies. If you write to make a point, and people can't identify with your characters, other things being equal, you're going to attract fewer readers to whom you can make your point. Why? In both cases, because people don't like reading stuff where the characters do random things for incomprehensible reasons. That's not an interesting book. You might as well write a book about squares in a video game that move according to the output of a random number generator. That's not to say that surprising things can't happen. They have to, or again, the book isn't interesting. But the characters have to be recognizably human to us, or it quits being a book about human characters.

viscanti 3y ago
> But the characters have to be recognizably human to us, or it quits being a book about human characters. It seems like there could be considerable distance between "likable" and "recognizably human". Lots of complaints are around the characters being "unlikable", when they're doing completely human things that are just not nice. If an author is forced to only include friendly and likable characters, there's a pretty substantial limitation on the types of human behavior that can be covered.
karaterobot 3y ago
It's more a question of whether an individual can identify with a character. If a book makes it into a literature class, chances are there's a reason for it. I'd like to get at that, learn about that. Saying whether or not you, specifically, identify with a specific character is simultaneously the most low effort observation you can make, and the least relevant to anyone else in the world. It's one thing to talk about what makes the character hard to identify with in general, but just telling me "I didn't identify with this character" is a waste of everyone's time.
throwanem 3y ago
Sometimes the dehumanization is the point. I think that's fair to say of Ballard, certainly in the subset of his work with which I'm familiar. Sometimes you can't use "recognizably human" characters to make the point you need to make. Peter Watts is a good example of this; not only in Blindsight but throughout his body of work, the most effective characters are typically those least recognizable as human. Such works are typically labeled as "high-concept", and I concede they can be an acquired taste. But it's not at all true to say every story is either at heart about human relationships or worthless, else this other sort of stories would never have been common enough to need naming what distinguishes them.
musicale 3y ago
> Books are written for one of two reasons: to make a point, or to make money. How about to inform, to amuse or entertain, or to tell a story? Or because the author feels compelled to write things, or is bored and needs something creative to do?