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

[Katsunami]

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.

Oh, you see this sort of stuff a lot with real celebrities as well.

X is a singer, songwriter, instrumentalist, fashion designer, author, actor, TV personality, ambassador to Amnesty, and has started companies in venture capital, real estate, and retail.

Nobody in the world has time to do all that, except if you have a huge amount of money and pay people to do those things FOR you.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy

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.

Don't you just love perfect characters? I've decided to not read a series (Finn Ryan) after reading the first sample chapter of the first book.

He goes out of his way to describe a young woman who:
- Studies at a university (putting her in the 18-24 age bracket)
- Has a perfect body
- Has a beautiful face
- Is extremely brilliant
- Is an Indiana Jones-type archeology expert
- And does some work for some secret agencies

Perfect, beautiful, brilliant, and has two spectacular careers in archeology and secret services while still in school.

Uh... nope.

[missimpossible]

I think, for me, there is a difference between characters who have a lot of negative traits, but the author wishes to portray as positive or heroic and a character who has acknowledged negative traits who manages to be engaging. To use popular examples, Edward Cullen is an example of someone who we're supposed to root for in the Bella/Edward relationship, but who many (including myself) would argue is such an overwhelmingly negative influence on the book that he (among other things) makes the book impossible to enjoy. On the other hand, Harry from Harry Potter has many negative traits which are acknowledged but is still an enjoyable character to read and empathise with. As an example which could go either way, Humbert Humbert is possible to read about because the author expects you acknowledge that he is a vile person who is delusional in his treatment of Lolita. But on the other hand, many people find the entire subject matter (understandably) far too upsetting to read about, and that Humbert Humbert's negative qualities undermine anything the book has to offer them.

Of course, your mileage may vary on pretty much any example - I hopefully managed to illustrate my point without being rude in any way!

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

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.

Ahh, but real life children are, in their imaginations at least, more idealistic, less cautious, and willing to suffer in a good cause than a lot of adults..

I read a lot of history books wen I was young and imagined myself as being heroic, and even a martyr like Joan of Arc.

Alexander the Great was one of the most successful military commanders in history. He was best known for conquering pretty much all of the world known to the ancient Greeks including Syria, part of India, Egypt, and way more around 300 BC. Alexander was the son of King Philip II of Macedon. By the time he was 16 Alexander had founded his first colony and named it Alexandroupolis.

Children/teens may not have as much acquired knowledge as adults or the strength, although some do.

My father and two of my uncles lied about their ages and fought in WW II as many have done before them. They all saw combat and survived although my father was captured and spent 2 years in a POW camp.

Of course most books that have anyone of any age performing one miraculous feat after another or ordinary citizens, housewives, lighthouse keepers, fry cooks, senior citizens in wheelchairs etc. who solve a crime every 6 months that has the police baffled is pretty hard to believe. Still I like some of these books and dislike others.

I don't have to believe a story to like it, if I did I might like a lot of them less.

Helen

Edit: I have actually known 16-20 year old girls who were in love with 60+ year old men. And some of these men were poor and unattractive and the girls very attractive. Same with younger men chasing/marrying much older women who treat them badly and remaining in love. Inexplicable perhaps, but not as uncommon as one would think.

[Yapyap]

To add to what Helen says, that point about "16-20-year-old girls chasing after 39-48-year-old men" is something that would make me search out a book, not stay away from it!

It's something I don't see a lot in books - modern books, anyway - but as someone who, back when I was 17, fell head over heels in love with a 50+ year old neither-rich-nor-famous man, it's something I find extremely realistic. It's all these books where teen girls fall in love with teen boys that I find hard to relate to, instead...

[Katsunami]

Well, then start reading David Eddings. It's a recurring theme, cropping up over and over (and over) again, multiple times in each series. (I've not yet read Regina's Song and The Redemption of Athalus, though.)

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Well, then start reading David Eddings. It's a recurring theme, cropping up over and over (and over) again, multiple times in each series. (I've not yet read Regina's Song and The Redemption of Athalus, though.)

If I currently had any interest in traditional/epic/high fantasy (or whatever category this falls under - fantasy that isn't urban fantasy set in the contemporary world), believe me, I would!

I already filed the information away in the back of my mind, in case my interest in that genre re-awakens some day...