Introduction
One of the most common writing advice being given to new writers is to write relatable characters. Such characters are seen as more approachable to the general reader and more result in your work being more likely to be actually read. However I would like to criticise this sentiment that has persevered through the recent times, and has taken precedence over writing authentic characters. This becomes the problem once the authenticity of a character comes at the cost for the character to be relatable. One does not merely write characters for their own sake as their own autonomous person to be explored rather they write an empty collection of traits to be sold to an average consumer. This problem shall be examined briefly inside of this light post.
Key Arguments
The first argument I would like to pose is the illusion of relatability problem. „Relatable“ characters are often generic, designed to appeal to the broadest audience. This trend is most vividly seen in the Japanese manga industry, most common in „isekai“ genre. Where characters start out as nobodies inside of their rooms being the shut in losers who later get transported inside of another world where they suddenly get enormous powers and respect from everyone around them, despite their personality staying the same. These characters often see little to no development through the story and their personalities are equally as hollow in order to make it easier for the audience to project themselves onto them so they can enjoy a power fantasy.
Characters that have been stripped of the extremes of personality and all the richness hidden inside of the human psyche end up as being hollow rather than real. An example of the extremes found within the human psyche could be seen in none other than in the Greek pantheon of gods, who are not retalable per say, however their goals are to be individual entities for their own sake. In doing so the gods ended up staying timeless and are fascinating to the readers over a millennia after. I believe it is precisely due to the fact they weren’t based off of a formula for what makes a character „relatable“ that hides the secret to their depth and story structure.
Another common issue is surrounding the concept of „relatability“ by itself. As it is currently constructed relatability is a product of market logic rather than a deep psychological or existential truth. Characters being written need to appease the economic interests of their publishers, thus chaining the authors to what is more marketable, and explorations of human psychology is not a particularly sell-able craft. Thus the reason being why we might relate to characters written by existentialist authors such as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre is not the same as why we might relate to a character in this year’s best seller. The former is written with the goal of exploring deep existential truths, while the latter is strictly governed by the market logic that lends itself to its sell-ability.
Relatibility as constructed by modern media uses audience testing and data-driven writing to manufacture relatability. This leads to predictable, formulaic characters that lack genuine human complexity. The problem becomes that characters are written solely to be relatable to the average consumer. Thus this makes them less human and more of a catalyst for the reader to inject themselves into a story they weren’t meant to be a part of.
Conclusion
In conclusion fiction is most impactfull when it challenges, not mirrors the reader. Writing a good character should not be done with the purpose of having a character be an empty shell where the reader projects themselves. The character should be treated as an entity inside of the story they are a part of first and foremost. This makes them more memorable, and in turn the readers might relate to them more, however certain readers might be drawn away from the media due to them being unable to relate. Unrelatable characters like this might force us to see the world differently and expand our empathy.
A great book cannot appease everyone, it should be a matter of fact that the book that is capable of appeasing everyone to be a mediocre book, one incapable of being great nor bad, it is merely tolerable to the general reader. In stark contrast a polarising book is always memorable, due to being either hated or loved by the readers. The power lies in its stronger emotional responses by both sides, that should be a clear sign that it succeed in moving the readers. It should be noted how books where the reader is presented more challenging perspectives end up being more memorable, depending on how well the author presents it the reader might get confused or enlightened. It is important that great books can only appease the few never the majority and especially not everyone. Hence each book will have a dedicated fan base and hatred base.
It is once you learn to live with the hate you receive you earn the power. The people will always judge things they cannot understand do not be bothered by that. There is a horror larger than people demanding your books be burnt. The worst are the people who merely gloss over your book not giving it an an ounce of their attention. They who merely tolerate the book and aren’t sucked in into the world of your book. It is in that moment you will learn that hatred is not the opposite of love, it is indifference. Those people are not moved by your book, they are the ones unable to spiral into your pages and be hypnotised by the story. They do not promote your ideas, at least the haters will tell everyone to not read your book, publicly announce their hatred for you book, which unfortunately for them people end up as they are told. As such avoid writing mediocre books and weaponize every word to suck the reader into the book and embrace the chaos.