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

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy

(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 think Harry is very relatable. I mean, obviously being a wizard is outside of my experience, but much of what he goes through and does has more to do with being human than it does with being a wizard.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

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

And I have two going cheap if anyone needs to get rid of some food.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidfor

And I have two going cheap if anyone needs to get rid of some food.

Wanna borrow my shark instead?

[gmw]

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.[...]

Hey, don't knock Dirk! He's my hero.

More seriously, there's a place for Dirk Pitt and other super heros. Action packed books that don't take themselves too seriously; books about the action rather than credibility; books you read for fun rather than education. When they're done well, as Clive Cussler used to do it with Dirk, they work well. When they're not done well the lack or realism/credibility in the main characters just compounds the faults.

Star Trek works, not because anyone thinks it is realistic science fiction, or because the characters have more than the barest necessity of pop-psychology depth, or because the all-too-human-looking aliens are at all believable, but because it's science fiction that we wished could be true.

Who would have accepted names like "Dumbledore" and "Hogwarts" (etc.) in a serious story, if it hadn't started out has a relatively harmless but enjoyable children's story first? By the time you got really involved the names worked, and you couldn't imagine anything else, but the books had to lead you to that point.

And I think that's really the point: every book needs it's redeeming elements. You can forgive a lot if there is something about the story you enjoy.

Often the main protagonists are quite bland, they serve as the reader's access to the story. This works as long as there are other aspects of the story to pull you in: the setting, the action, the other characters. To my eyes there has to be something extraordinary about the story, some reason for being. It doesn't have to be a likeable or relatable main character, but if that doesn't exist then something else had better make up for it.

And mood plays a big part for me. There are times when I thoroughly enjoy picking up a Tarzan story and breezing through it, but at other times I'm likely to throw it at the wall in disgust, I want something deeper. It's why I don't plan what I'm going to read next, I don't know what I'll be in the mood for until I get there.

[ebusinesstutor]

One of the most annoying character traits I find that make me dislike books is when the character is totally incompetent and refuses to learn.

While I like many of Robin Hobbs books, I really dislike the main character in the Soldiers Son series. Whiny, incompetent and never seems to learn from his mistakes.

I prefer characters that are capable and that grow during the book. Yes, most characters make mistakes, but when they make the same one over and over again without learning, this just gets annoying.

[speakingtohe]

I often like weird names although Dumbledore or hgwarts don't do it for me. A French Canadian name in a medieval setting (no time travel involved) tickles my funny bone.

Or a book that opens like this

Spoiler:

The woman's voice was full of the music of business.
"Donald Strachey?"
"Yo."
"Mr. Stuart Blount is calling. One moment please."
I hung up.
Cars were double-parked on both sides of Central Avenue, and I watched an Albany police cruiser negotiate the course like a Conestoga wagon up the Donner Pass. By Thanksgiving it could be in Schenectady.
Again. "Donald Strachey?"
"Speaking."
"We were--disconnected, sir. Stuart Blount will be with you in just a moment."
I hung up.
The sky over Jimmy's Lounge was slate gray and a cold wind chewed at the crumbling caulking around the win-dowpane next to me. Five weeks after Labor Day and already winter was sliding across the state from Buffalo like a new Ice Age. I found some masking tape in the back of my desk drawer. I ripped off a long strip and pressed it against the grime where the pane met the frame.
Ring, ring.
"Strachey."
"Mr. Strachey, this is Stuart Blount. I've been trying to reach you."

I know I am going to like this guy no matter what.

For most authors that I like I can give reasons if asked and occasionally I am. Not saying anyone else should/would like them of course,

It is those that I don't like for some inexplicable reason other than I just can't relate. They are not bad books, not totally boring, not dragging someone's name into the plot in chapter 19 and finding out three paragraphs later they are the villain kind of books. Usually I finish them, and I am not one for finishing books that I strongly dislike or find boring. Don't want my money back, just left feeling vaguely dissatisfied.

Have to get me one of those Dirk Pitt books, and see what I make of that

Helen

[AlbertaCowboy]

Originally Posted by gmw

Hey, don't knock Dirk! He's my hero.

When they're done well, as Clive Cussler used to do it with Dirk, they work well. .

Dirk used to be my hero, back when I was a kid and my dad brought me home a stack of books from his school library (ah the perks of being a librarian's son).
I devoured "Raise The Titanic", "Treasure" and "Sahara". I thought Cussler was brilliant. As the series went on and on and on, I just realized that I couldn't handle the formula anymore.
I don't read Cussler anymore now, but man, I wish I could read "Inca Gold" or "Treasure" again for the first time.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Have to get me one of those Dirk Pitt books, and see what I make of that

Helen

I rag on poor Dirk, but it's not his fault. Back in the beginning, he was a great character!

[gmw]

You certainly don't want to read all of Cussler's books back-to-back, but one or two at a time make for great escapism. I always got the feeling that Cussler had his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek for most of these (I really hope he wasn't trying to be serious), as our intrepid Dirk Pitt and his side kick Al Giordino once again beat impossible odds, ignore terrible injuries and still beat the bad guys. I've gone off them since they started to be co-written, the fun seems to have faded out.

[GERGE]

Maxim Arturovitch Pyatnitski

Some of the best novels ever.

[jehane]

Personally, I have to be able to connect with at least one of the characters. Not quite the same as liking or relating to them, though the difference is subtle. For example, although I can appreciate Kay's Tigana, it's one of my least favourites of his work simply because there is no character I can connect to. I can't explain why, most of the characters are eminently likeable, including Brandin (nominally the villain, and probably the one I'm closest to connecting to). OTOH I really like Fowles' The Collector, even though the only real character in the story is the narrator who is probably a sociopath. I don't consider the girl a character - in the story she is more of a prop, which is entirely reasonable given the viewpoint of the narrator. I'd like to think this isn't a reflection on my own character...

[Melon Soda]

I think it would be fairly important to me. It's the characters like Harry Dresden or Jack Reacher that usually get me hooked on the series. What would really grate on my nerves and turn me off a book would be the Mary Sues.... so yeah, how believe-able the characters are would be important to me just as the importance of being able to connect/relate to them!

For me, the story is also just as important as the characters. I do read Clive Cussler now and then (whether it's about the adventures of Dirk Pitt or Kurt Austin or Juan Cabrillo), and I don't even mind if the story is from the POV of a "villian" (like Dexter) if the premise is interesting enough. It's just not going to be the same if the entire book is about Jack Reacher doing nothing but telling you how he's learning to flip pancakes! (oh wait, there's Odd Thomas, and I like him too, but then again he's not just flipping pancakes, but I digress lmao ).

[BuyMore]

Originally Posted by gmw

......

And I think that's really the point: every book needs it's redeeming elements. You can forgive a lot if there is something about the story you enjoy.

Often the main protagonists are quite bland, they serve as the reader's access to the story. This works as long as there are other aspects of the story to pull you in: the setting, the action, the other characters. To my eyes there has to be something extraordinary about the story, some reason for being. It doesn't have to be a likeable or relatable main character, but if that doesn't exist then something else had better make up for it.

And mood plays a big part for me. There are times when I thoroughly enjoy picking up a Tarzan story and breezing through it, but at other times I'm likely to throw it at the wall in disgust, I want something deeper. It's why I don't plan what I'm going to read next, I don't know what I'll be in the mood for until I get there.

I also pick up a new book based on my mood at the time. Planning ahead often ends up in vain.

[4691mls]

I am OK with reading about a character who is somewhat different from me. As a naturally cautious person, I tend to get annoyed by characters who are always getting in trouble by behaving impulsively.

I like for the main character to have at least some compassion for fellow humans. I couldn't stand to watch the TV show "Seinfeld" because I found the characters so self-centered and annoying with very little ability to view a situation from someone else's perspective.

When I read a mystery/thriller where the cop or PI is investigating a deranged psychopathic sadistic serial killer, I typically skip any chapters told from the serial killer's point of view, along with descriptions of their killing methods.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I am OK with reading about a character who is somewhat different from me. As a naturally cautious person, I tend to get annoyed by characters who are always getting in trouble by behaving impulsively....

I like the early Perry Mason books for the very impulsiveness and recklessness he displays. He reminds me of Bill Clinton in a old Doonesbury cartoon. Al Gore is complaining that people don't like him. Clinton tells him that people don't like him because he's too smart. When Gore replies, "But you're smart, and people like you," Clinton tells him, "True. But I do stupid things." The early Mason was like that. Smart as he could be, but always taking unnecessary risks, albeit always on behalf of his clients, that kept him at all times one step shy of disbarment.

[Katsunami]

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.

Just curious as I have encountered two in a row

Helen

It's important to me that a character is believable, which, at least in fantasy, is sometimes not the case. I often have great trouble believing that a 15-16 year old character can be thrown into an adventure "as the only one in the world who can save everybody." Most children of 15-16 I know would be squished flat or die of fright within the first 10 pages of the adventure.

I've been re-reading the Belgariad and Malloreon novels by David Eddings for the last 6 weeks or so, and I think that the second series is better than the first one, although they are very much alike; it's just because the main characters are more believable.

In the first series, Garion and Ce'Nedra are children of 16 and 15, a farm-boy and a spoiled princess, thrown into an adventure to kill a god (Garion's quest), marry the hero (Ce'Nedra's destiny), and then become the most powerful rulers in the west to which all kings must bow.

While it's a good series and written well (for the most part; I sometimes find the dialogue a bit overdone), it's just not that believable. I actually like all the other characters much more, as the story puts them in their late twenties to early thirties, except one (Lelldorin, around 19.)

At some point in the beginning of the second series, Garion is 25. He was 16 in the first book, the quest lasted around a year and a half, and in the second series his assistant/Rivan Warder says something like "It has been eight years since you got married, and you still have no heir."

Later in the book, Belgarath says something like: "It has been about a dozen years since you killed Torak", so Garion has to be around 29 at that point, but it gets murky as some other dude says that Torak was killed about 14 years ago, which would put Garion at 31.

Long story short, at the point the series and quest gets underway in earnest, Garion is around 28-29, and at the end of the series he'd be around 30-31.

I find that a way more believable age to do earth-shattering things than 16.

One thing I also don't like is the young women in the books going after men that would normally be seen as very old. For example, Liselle (Velvet) had been in love with Kheldar (Silk) "as long as she could remember", and had been waiting "to meet him on adult terms." In the beginning of the second series they meet when Liselle is just entering the Drasnian spy service at around 16 (at the same time Garion is around 25), and later, she tags along during the quest. Garion is 29, so Liselle should be around 20 then.

But, at some point in Chtol Murgos, Kheldar says something like: "This would have happened when I was around 8 years old or so... 40 years ago." This would mean Kheldar is around 48 in the second series, performing physical feats you wouldn't ever see a real 48 year old man do (like jumping from horse to horse in mid-canter, like the movie version of Legolas), while being seduced and chased by a 20 year old woman/girl. Gold digger much? Silk IS the richest person in the world, you know.

King Urgit of Chtol Murgos, at age 39 (he actually states his exact age himself), is going to be married to Princess Prala, 16, who has been "seducing him for ages." That's a 23 year difference in age right there, and how in the world would a girl of 16 be seducing men 20+ years older than her "for ages"? Hard to believe.

Yes, I'm a stickler for character ages, and them doing unbelievable things at various stages in their life. I know fanatsy is partly suspension of disbelief, but having 16-17 year old boys and girls killing gods, and 16-20 year old girls chase after 39-48 year old men is just hard to swallow sometimes.