Do you need to "connect" to a story and/or characters?

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by issybird

No, I don’t need to “connect” and like you, I’m not even sure what that means.

My sense of it is what you suggest, that either or both they can identify with a character and that the story resonates personally with them. My own take on that kind of thing is that it’s irrelevant at best and frequently a signifier of cheesy story telling that engenders a cheap response. I only want characters and to be consistent and accurate within the story that’s being told.

Along similar lines and I think it has much in common with your question, I don’t understand the plaint when a story is damned because characters aren’t likable. Are they interesting, are they funny? Do they make sense within the context of the story? That’s all I need. It’s a book not a family gathering!

I agree with issybird

[JSWolf]

I just need to like the story and/or the characters. I do not need to connect with anything.

[Catlady]

Though plot is most important to me, I do choose genre books based on characters and setting, so, yeah, I guess I do need to "connect" in some way. I look for some element of familiarity. Maybe it's just a fake familiarity from TV/movies, or maybe it's an actual familiarity from life experience. But this is a matter of the selection process. Once I'm reading, I care about the plot.

[maddz]

I think to me the important thing in a story is that I want to know what happens next. I don’t have to connect to a character for that to happen. If that sense of dramatic possibility isn’t there, then I need to be able to invest in some other aspect (like engaging characters) for me to read the story, let alone finish it.

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Perhaps "connect" means "care about", like in personal connections. If you are not interested in finding out what is going on with the characters, the story will be a slog.

I think this describes my feelings as well. When I finish a good book, I usually want it to continue, to know what happens next to the characters. On the flip side, there have many books when I didn't give a rip to what happens next.

Best example of that would be "Divergent." I could not have cared less about any of them, and don't even remember if I finished the book. No way was I reading the next books in the series. I don't think I finished the movie either. The characters were so flat and one dimensional.

I'd love to know what happened next to Macon Leary and Muriel Pritchett. And those wacko Leary siblings from "The Accidental Tourist."

[DNSB]

A quote from Sam Clemens (aka Mark Twain) that pretty much says what I feel:

The test of any good fiction is that you should care something for the characters; the good to succeed, the bad to fail. The trouble with most fiction is that you want them all to land in hell, together, as quickly as possible.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DNSB

A quote from Sam Clemens (aka Mark Twain) that pretty much says what I feel:

The test of any good fiction is that you should care something for the characters; the good to succeed, the bad to fail. The trouble with most fiction is that you want them all to land in hell, together, as quickly as possible.

Actually, I'd love to see more books where the bad win and the good fail.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I don't need to necessarily like them or identify with them, but I do need to be interested in them. If the characters fail to stir any interest in me, I'll usually get bored and ditch the book, no matter how well written.

Originally Posted by rkomar

Perhaps "connect" means "care about", like in personal connections. If you are not interested in finding out what is going on with the characters, the story will be a slog.

Originally Posted by gmw

I tend not to like fiction where I feel disconnected from the characters and story. You see in that, that "connect" is about feeling involved in the story, not alienated from it, but how that feeling of involvement, of connection, occurs will vary with each book.

How I feel about the protagonists is important to how I feel about a book, and the quotes above all feel right to me. To like a book, I need to want the protagonists to succeed. If I'm indifferent to them, I'll lose interest, and if I dislike them, the book will annoy me.

But this doesn't mean they have to be people I'd like if I met them in real life! Terrible people can be written in a way that make me root for them while I'm reading, and admirable people can be written to be deadly dull.

An example: In Colleen McCullough's "First Man in Rome" series, Lucius Cornelius Sulla is an amoral, egoistical, cruel person. For instance, he murders several people because they will be more convenient to him dead than alive. But the author still manages to describe him in a way that makes me root for him.
Later in the series, Gaius Julis Caesar becomes the main character. He is described as an over-the-top superhero, which makes him boring and annoying, and I abandoned the 6-book series somewhere in the last book because I didn't really care about what happened to him.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hildea

But this doesn't mean they have to be people I'd like if I met them in real life! Terrible people can be written in a way that make me root for them while I'm reading, and admirable people can be written to be deadly dull.

I agree. Most people I like in real life would make pretty boring fictional characters, and the most interesting fictional characters I've read about would be no joy to know in real life. I'd probably go out of my way to avoid most of my favorite characters in real life.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I'd probably go out of my way to avoid most of my favorite characters in real life.

A lot of my favourite characters I would not want to meet on a well lit main street never mind in the proverbial gloomy back alley.

[gmw]

^ in reaction to the last few comments...

It is quite common for me to enjoy the "other" characters in a story more than the main protagonist(s). It seems that quite often a story is told through a fairly bland, but ostensibly likable or relatable, main character in order to appeal to (or not offend) the maximum audience possible*. There may also be the argument that the more interesting characters only work in contrast, that as the main meal (so to speak) they would be too much.


* If anything this striving to avoid offence is getting more pronounced as authors try their hardest not to be linked to some form of prejudice. Apparently some authors not only have beta-readers, but dedicated "sensitivity readers". Not quite sure how that works.

[Lys]

Originally Posted by DNSB

A lot of my favourite characters I would not want to meet on a well lit main street never mind in the proverbial gloomy back alley.

Or, as my friend keeps reminding me: if I like a character, there are good changes they won't reach the end in one piece, nor with their body still over ground

So, back to the OP's question: I don't need to identify myself with any characters of any story, but a story or characters within need to be able to communicate me something, to pick up my interest, to make me curious/care about what's happening next.

"To connect" to a story means "to be interested in what the author wanted to show" to me.

[ps67]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, I'd love to see more books where the bad win and the good fail.

There's already life for that...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ps67

There's already life for that...

Life can't plot for crap. Plus there's waaaaaaaay too much Mary Sue-ing and deus ex machina going on for my taste.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Does "connect" mean the reader felt they had something in common with the main character? Does it mean that the story had some kind of personal significance for the reader?

If I don't care about the main character(s) I have trouble enjoying the story. I don't know about "something in common" with the character(s) but at least something likable or interesting about them.

There's a reason why so many children's stories focus on orphans (or the half orphaned).