How important is a character's likeability/relatability to you?

[booklover6]

I will stop reading a book if I don't like the character. To me characters are the most important thing in the book. I MUST like the main character. I must be able to sympathize or empathize with her/him. The plot is secondary to me.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by booklover6

I will stop reading a book if I don't like the character. To me characters are the most important thing in the book. I MUST like the main character. I must be able to sympathize or empathize with her/him. The plot is secondary to me.

So ... if a novel is written from the POV of a villain, you wouldn't read it?

Or perhaps I'm defining like more narrowly than you are.

[booklover6]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... if a novel is written from the POV of a villain, you wouldn't read it?

Or perhaps I'm defining like more narrowly than you are.

It depends. If the villain is likeable, yes. If he has redeeming characteristics, if I can see the possibility of his redemption. I do read zombie books, post apocaptic books, and SF, in addition to romance, so not all of my main characters are femaile. But I definitely prefer to read about female main characters. So for the most part, I don't read anything where the sole POV of a villain.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by booklover6

It depends. If the villain is likeable, yes. If he has redeeming characteristics, if I can see the possibility of his redemption. I do read zombie books, post apocaptic books, and SF, in addition to romance, so not all of my main characters are femaile. But I definitely prefer to read about female main characters. So for the most part, I don't read anything where the sole POV of a villain.

I don't read straight romances usually although I think a little romance is a good thing in most books. I seem to like both male and female characters. Strong, witty, intelligent and with a sense of purpose are all things I admire. It is always amazing to me when an author can make me think of a zombie as a real being with real thoughts and motives if even for a short while.

Helen

[QuantumIguana]

To me, a character is relateable if it doesn't make me roll my eyes and say "yeah, right..." I can relate to characters that I might actually encounter in real life, even if they might be uncommon. A character who is a billionaire stock broker with multiple PhDs, wins Grammys in multiple categories, cures cancer in his spare time and advises the Dahli Lama... not so relateable.

As for being likeable, I don't need characters to be Dudley DoRight, but I think a lot of fiction goes overboard with flawed heroes that are little better than the villains. If the protagonist is overly flawed, then I don't really care what happens to them.

[Yapyap]

Good plot is important, but I need to have at least one character to care about in order to really love a book. A book can have the best writing (stylistically) and most intricate plot ever, but if it doesn't have any characters for me to be intrigued by, to cheer (or boo) for, to want to know how they will fare, to "feel" them as real people (doesn't have to be humans!), it will never be a "five star book" for me.

So, yeah, relatable characters are important. I don't think I'd really be interested in a book from a POV of an irredeemably evil character - I want at least something to like, to go with any nastiness - but I don't need a perfectly "good" character either.

Preferably I'd like to have a small but well defined cast of flawed but relatable, interesting characters who feel like real people with back stories and relationships (I don't by that mean "I want to read romance" but friendships, competition, family or what not at least for some of the people involved). I don't really care for characters being there just as props for the plot, who feel like flat pieces of cardboard (or bundles of clichés and stereotypes) who are there to move the plot along but don't come off as rounded or realistic.

[booklover6]

I am re-reading The Stand by Stephen King, which has zillions of characters. He has a way of making them seem very real. In this book, the disaster scenes are what I like best. But there are at least 3 characters that I care about.

If an author can't make a reader care about their characters, then they have failed.

I am not a King fan, I just like this one book, because of the plot. I love post apocalyptic stories. I used to read James Axler's Deathlands books. I need to get back to them.

[Catlady]

I recently reread Jaws; the novel is different from the movie in many respects. None of the characters is really fleshed out or interesting or likable. They're mostly petty and small and just eh. But the plot propels the story and makes it fascinating.

[jersysman]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I recently reread Jaws; the novel is different from the movie in many respects. None of the characters is really fleshed out or interesting or likable. They're mostly petty and small and just eh. But the plot propels the story and makes it fascinating.

I thought the shark was the main character of that book and the character does its job very well. It has educated and enlightened me to not encroach on their sanctuary.

[soulfuldog]

I think this is a really interesting question, possibly because it's not something I've ever thought about before, and now that I have thought about it, I'm not sure what my answer to it is... I think it probably helps, if you like or can relate to the main character, the only thing I do know for certain is that if I really dislike the main character in a book, or if they are unrealistic, it really puts me off reading it.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jersysman

I thought the shark was the main character of that book and the character does its job very well. It has educated and enlightened me to not encroach on their sanctuary.

We're never in the shark's head; it's just a relentless eating machine. It's certainly not likable!

[AlbertaCowboy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

A character who is a billionaire stock broker with multiple PhDs, wins Grammys in multiple categories, cures cancer in his spare time and advises the Dahli Lama... not so relateable.

This is what really bugs me.
I get so sick of "Dirk Pitt Syndrome", where the main character is a marine biologist/ex military/amateur archaeologist/linguist/computer hacker/mountaineer/pilot/hostage negotiator etc etc etc.
Although it can go the other way too, where the characters exhibit unbelievable skills for no real reason.
I've stopped reading books because despite the plot being very interesting and well flushed out, the main character suddenly displays incredible levels of marksmanship and Batman levels of calm under extreme pressure. Maybe a throwaway "Boy I'm glad Gramps taught me how to shoot the old .22" line and no one wonders why all of a sudden, the mild mannered vulcanologist can shoot like a JTF2 sniper.

(But then again, my favorite character is a magic wielding private eye wizard in Chicago, so I guess being relatable isn't as big as an issue as I first thought...)

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

It seems that it is important to me. I have read a few books lately that were well written interesting etc. And the protagonists were reasonable normal people, but for some reason I don't like them overly much. I certainly don't find them objectionable, and there are some evil characters in books and shows I like far more.

I've read a few books lately where the characters just seem to be going through the motions, step 1, step 2, step 3 ... etc. Personally I have to have some reason to care to enjoy the story.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy

This is what really bugs me.
I get so sick of "Dirk Pitt Syndrome", where the main character is a marine biologist/ex military/amateur archaeologist/linguist/computer hacker/mountaineer/pilot/hostage negotiator etc etc etc.
Although it can go the other way too, where the characters exhibit unbelievable skills for no real reason.
I've stopped reading books because despite the plot being very interesting and well flushed out, the main character suddenly displays incredible levels of marksmanship and Batman levels of calm under extreme pressure. Maybe a throwaway "Boy I'm glad Gramps taught me how to shoot the old .22" line and no one wonders why all of a sudden, the mild mannered vulcanologist can shoot like a JTF2 sniper.

(But then again, my favorite character is a magic wielding private eye wizard in Chicago, so I guess being relatable isn't as big as an issue as I first thought...)

I've never read the Dresden Files, but my wife likes the series. I think there's a difference between accepting a premise - in this case that wizards exist - and accepting characters who don't act like humans. If wizards are humans, I expect the wizards to behave like humans. If we have aliens, I will accept them acting differently than humans - they ought to - but they ought to act plausibly, based on what has already established and upon reason. A Vulcan in a conga line at Carnivale isn't an impossibility, but requires some explanation. And a jetsetting realtor who is an expert in microbiology, an olympic fencer, archaeologist and steam fitter isn't any more plausible even if it is an alien.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by Catlady

We're never in the shark's head; it's just a relentless eating machine.

We don't need to get into the shark's mind to relate to it, just imagine a teenaged boy - another relentless eating machine.