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

[gmw]

I'm equally fascinated by the idea that someone would bother to read fiction if they didn't care. For me, in the best fiction, there is a real emotional involvement and anything that lacks that falls short of my expectations (or hopes, anyway).

... Although I do have to admit that, as a writer myself, I do find some intellectual curiosity about the mechanics: how certain writers achieve what they do, or - more often - how certain writers fail to achieve it. All in the faint hope of learning what to do and what not to do. But in what I consider to be the best fiction, that separation tends to fail me, and I "wake up" later and wonder how they did it to me ... again.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm fascinated by how so many talk about liking, caring about, or being interested in characters as if they are actual people, rather than successful or unsuccessful constructs of the author; used to propel the plot. I'll go as far as to notice whether the characters are "believable" in their plot arcs (and I may even "like" or "dislike" some of them), but I never see them as fully autonomous entities. I'm almost always generally apathetic to their fictional plights in the long run. But that's probably because I don't strive to hop into their heads (or their worlds) when I'm reading about them. For me, escapism includes the freedom to not have to be truly invested in these fictional contructs' drama/joy (like I need to be in real life). They're disposable: and the author either did them well or they didn't. *shrug*

Of course I don't see them as real people. But I do need to be interested in their "plight", as you call it, even if it's only imaginary. And no, I'm not invested in this as I would be in someone/something in real life. It's wholly imaginary and I may forget all about those characters when I'm reading another book. But if I'm totally indifferent what happens to the characters, I'll grow bored and toss the book. For me that means the characters aren't well done.

I doubt anyone here is as emotionally invested in fictional characters as we are in real people. But for many of us, there must be some emotional investment, or we just lose interest.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm equally fascinated by the idea that someone would bother to read fiction if they didn't care. For me, in the best fiction, there is a real emotional involvement and anything that lacks that falls short of my expectations (or hopes, anyway).)

Yes, exactly. If I care nothing about the characters on an emotional level, I'll be bored. Good fiction must engage my emotions to an extent.

[Tarana]

I don't need to 'connect' to either, but if I don't enjoy either the story or the characters, I quit and move on. Some people need vastly described characters - if it's a good story, I don't need that (pulp fiction - flat characters, great story). I don't quite get the 'connect' either. I read a lot of crime novels - I don't connect with killers or the detectives to enjoy the meandering of the story.

[Sirtel]

A good example how one may not like or connect to the protagonist, but still be interested and invested in their fate. I'm reading the Agent Pendergast series by Preston & Child and am finishing book 3 at the moment. I actually dislike Pendergast, or would if he was an actual person. He's an awful snob and moreover, almost a total opposite of me in every way (temper, character, preferences etc.). We have practically nothing in common. But he's interesting and I like to read about him. I want to know what happens in subsequent books. He engages my emotions. It helps that I generally like most of the other characters in the books, otherwise Pendergast would get really annoying pretty fast.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm equally fascinated by the idea that someone would bother to read fiction if they didn't care. For me, in the best fiction, there is a real emotional involvement and anything that lacks that falls short of my expectations (or hopes, anyway).

Just goes to illustrate differences. *shrug*

I care about a lot of things when I read: good plotting, good dialog, good action, good word-craft. But for me, reading is about pure escapism. Including escaping from the real world need to care/worry about the characters I meet. They may make me laugh from time to time, but if they die, I don't mourn them. I don't shed tears. I just hope their death makes the story better. I don't care about them-- because there is no them. I care about how they propel (or drag down) the story.

[icallaci]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Just goes to illustrate differences. *shrug*

I care about a lot of things when I read: good plotting, good dialog, good action, good word-craft. But for me, reading is about pure escapism. Including escaping from the real world need to care/worry about the characters I meet. They may make me laugh from time to time, but if they die, I don't mourn them. I don't shed tears. I just hope their death makes the story better. I don't care about them-- because there is no them. I care about how they propel (or drag down) the story.

This. And if I can learn something, whether it be facts about a subject I'm interested in, or about what makes a person (even if fictional) tick, or about how problems get solved, I'm all in. I have zero emotional involvement in fictional characters.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by icallaci

This. And if I can learn something, whether it be facts about a subject I'm interested in, or about what makes a person (even if fictional) tick, or about how problems get solved, I'm all in. I have zero emotional involvement in fictional characters.

Those are two very different approaches to reading - intellectual and emotional. You and Diap seem to be enjoying books solely on an intellectual level, while I read fiction mainly for emotional involvement. I don't care whether I learn something from a fictional book or not. If I want to learn, I'll usually read nonfiction.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Just goes to illustrate differences. *shrug*

I care about a lot of things when I read: good plotting, good dialog, good action, good word-craft. [...]

Differences indeed. A book can be all those things to me, but if it doesn't engage me emotionally the best it can hope for is usually a 3/5. I can recognise* the book is well done but I usually just sigh and say that it didn't really work for me (which is my version of saying "connect", I suppose). I've had plenty of those. If that was the best I could hope for I'd probably find a new hobby.

I know a lot of people that mostly read non-fiction, and I had been assuming that that's what happened when people were unable to find emotional involvement in fiction. Turns out I'm wrong ... again.


* Recognising what the author is doing as I'm reading** is something that I've always thought of as a problem. In most horror books I see and recognise the author trying to scare me and it's like watching a "The making of" documentary - it's not scary. Similarly, when I see a fantasy author doing "world building" then I think of it as a failure - I shouldn't be able see it, it should just exist and grow around me.

** I separate my reactions. There is what happens while I'm reading the story as a story, and there is what happens when I think back over what I've read and recognised it as fiction ... and sometimes recognise it as absolute rubbish that I enjoyed immensely.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm fascinated by how so many talk about liking, caring about, or being interested in characters as if they are actual people, rather than successful or unsuccessful constructs of the author; used to propel the plot. ...

Honestly I don't understand the point of reading fiction if you don't care about the characters. It's almost like reducing the plot to a mathematical formula. It sounds cold to me.

For me characters do come "alive." Sometimes when I write, I've changed the plot because a character (whom I've gotten to "know" better) could no longer do what I originally planned they would do. They've changed and I have to respect that.

At any rate, that's how I look at it. Stories, in my opinion, are primarily about people (characters) -- the world they "inhabit" (though important) is secondary.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Those are two very different approaches to reading - intellectual and emotional. You and Diap seem to be enjoying books solely on an intellectual level, while I read fiction mainly for emotional involvement. I don't care whether I learn something from a fictional book or not. If I want to learn, I'll usually read nonfiction.

Same here. I wouldn't read fiction if I didn't care about the characters. I would find a word puzzle or something to take up my time.

[DiapDealer]

It's ok. You don't have to understand it. I love fiction and almost never read non-fiction. I just don''t read for emotional involvement with the characters. I find doing so as weird as I'm sure you find my approach. To me, it's akin to having an emotional connection with my potato peeler. I have more than enough emotional connections with real people. I'm not going to seek them out with fictional people.

I do word puzzles as well, but I prefer reading.

[icallaci]

I enjoy fiction too, and sometimes learn more from it than from nonfiction because stories can illustrate things that simple recitation of facts cannot. So maybe that is the connection people are talking about? I tend to feel manipulated if I sense an author is trying too hard to establish an emotional connection. It's interesting to see the different viewpoints on this (and probably explains why fiction that gets rave reviews sometimes falls flat for me).

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's ok. You don't have to understand it. I love fiction and almost never read non-fiction. I just don''t read for emotional involvement with the characters. I find doing so as weird as I'm sure you find my approach. To me, it's akin to having an emotional connection with my potato peeler. I have more than enough emotional connections with real people. I'm not going to seek them out with fictional people.

I think it's a good thing that people are different in so many ways. It would be a pretty monotonous world if everyone was the same.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by icallaci

I enjoy fiction too, and sometimes learn more from it than from nonfiction because stories can illustrate things that simple recitation of facts cannot. So maybe that is the connection people are talking about? I tend to feel manipulated if I sense an author is trying too hard to establish an emotional connection. It's interesting to see the different viewpoints on this (and probably explains why fiction that gets rave reviews sometimes falls flat for me).

Fiction that gets rave reviews often falls flat for me too, because the characters just don't work for me. Whether I like a book or not depends on my interest in its characters. And pretty often the characters make me yawn instead of wanting to know what happens to them. Sadly that's not something I can predict before reading the book, the reviews and opinions of other readers are usually no indication whether I'll be able to care about the characters or not. So I've yawned through many highly praised novels.