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

[icallaci]

I just love this forum. I never realized before (duh) that my favorite fiction books TAUGHT me something, either about human nature or history or other worlds or solving puzzles or whatever. I always assumed (again, duh) that my "connection" to a book had to do with either the subject matter or the quality of the writing, and that these were objective criteria that are easily discernable and communicated. The idea that an emotional connection with the characters can sometimes be more important than my own priorities was there in the back of my head, but I dismissed it when looking at reviews for my next "good book" to read. Now I am much clearer about what I want from fiction, and I have this forum and its members to thank.

[Catlady]

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*

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.

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).

One of my main genres in historical fiction set during WWII. I don't especially care about or remember the characters on the page from one book to the next, but the lives of those fictional characters illustrate what real people did, or what was done to them, and that helps give me more understanding of the times than a dry nonfiction account can. In that sense I do have an emotional connection.

When I read suspense/mystery, my emotional connection is to the plot--I want to see justice served and the wrongs righted, at least most of the time. I want a moral sensibility, even if morality doesn't triumph.

[j.p.s]

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.

I agree that fiction can be a better vehicle for ideas than non-fiction, but disagree that non-fiction is inherently a "simple recitation of facts".

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Catlady

When I read suspense/mystery, my emotional connection is to the plot--I want to see justice served and the wrongs righted, at least most of the time. I want a moral sensibility, even if morality doesn't triumph.

I read lots of mysteries too. But even there I must care about the characters to some extent. If they make me yawn, I won't care whether the villain gets caught or not. If the protagonists are particularly annoying, I may even wish for the villain(s) to prevail, unless they're annoying as well. In which case I just ditch the book.

No plot, however exciting or clever, makes up for boring/annoying characters for me.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I read lots of mysteries too. But even there I must care about the characters to some extent. If they make me yawn, I won't care whether the villain gets caught or not. If the protagonists are particularly annoying, I may even wish for the villain(s) to prevail, unless they're annoying as well. In which case I just ditch the book.

No plot, however exciting or clever, makes up for boring/annoying characters for me.

I decide whether I want to read about the characters before I ever choose the book. Certain character descriptions in the blurb turn me off immediately; others tempt me. I don't know if they're going to be boring or annoying or anything else till I read the book.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't know if they're going to be boring or annoying or anything else till I read the book.

I don't know that either and so I've been disappointed many times.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

No plot, however exciting or clever, makes up for boring/annoying characters for me.

Same for me. But 'boring/annoying' falls outside of my own definition of "caring". I'm perfectly capable of finding characters to be interesting and likable without caring a bit for their welfare or plight.

So like "connecting," I suspect we all might have different notions about what "caring about characters" entails. You, for instance, seem to use "care about" in a way that I would use "find interesting."

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So like "connecting," I suspect we all might have different notions about what "caring about characters" entails.

That's for sure. And I certainly don't care about fictional characters the way I care about real people close to me or even pets. But I'd lie if I said I only felt a remote, intellectual interest in them. I've been sad or angry about the fate of some fictional characters. I've been fervently hoping a character would succeed in their fictional aim. Again, not the way I would feel about real people, but it's definitely an emotional reaction. The more I liked the book, the longer the feeling stays with me. With some books, I forget it quickly; with others, I can remember the way I felt for years or even decades.

[icallaci]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I agree that fiction can be a better vehicle for ideas than non-fiction, but disagree that non-fiction is inherently a "simple recitation of facts".

I phrased that badly. I enjoy both fiction and nonfiction. However, I prefer my nonfiction to stick to verifiable facts. I dislike nonfiction that speculates about a person's state of mind or motive or presumed interior dialogue. I dislike nonfiction that reaches conclusions without a firm basis in documented sources. Speculation is what fiction does well. Facts are what nonfiction does well (one hopes). As for those fiction books that are "based on fact," I usually end up doing a ton of research in an attempt to separate fact from fiction in my head, and end up driving myself crazy.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Same for me. But 'boring/annoying' falls outside of my own definition of "caring". I'm perfectly capable of finding characters to be interesting and likable without caring a bit for their welfare or plight.

So like "connecting," I suspect we all might have different notions about what "caring about characters" entails. You, for instance, seem to use "care about" in a way that I would use "find interesting."

Yes, there are some definitional problems here even with something apparently simple like "annoying". Is a character badly written and so annoying in an arguably objective (or at least in-the-real-world) sense, or is a character well written and so annoying in a subjective (fictional-world) sense. Feeling annoyance in the latter, I would argue, is an emotional response to the story.

I accept that recognising a character as likeable is not the same as caring whether they live or die in the book. But what about excitement? Do you merely recognise that the book might raise feelings of excitement in some people, or do you feel the excitement as a book reaches its climax? If the latter then you are responding emotionally to the story. In which case we're talking about different levels of emotional involvement rather than none ... which is what I expected really. Most of this sort of stuff is a spectrum rather than on vs off.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

Do you merely recognise that the book might raise feelings of excitement in some people, or do you feel the excitement as a book reaches its climax? If the latter then you are responding emotionally to the story.

The former really. It's rare these days that the end of a book generates any real excitement for me. Maybe in my youth.

But I don't think I've ever said that reading a book is a completely emotionless experience for me. I've said that I don't really develop an emotional attachment to fictional characters. "Caring about characters" is where I jumped in.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The former really. It's rare these days that the end of a book generates any real excitement for me. Maybe in my youth.

But I don't think I've ever said that reading a book is a completely emotionless experience for me. I've said that I don't really develop an emotional attachment to fictional characters. "Caring about characters" is where I jumped in.

Sure, but it's all interwoven ... or it is for me. The events of the story affect the characters, and the excitement I feel approaching the climax of the book is typically tied to how I feel for the characters. And, though it seems strange even to me, I can experience that tension even if I've read the book several times and so already know how it comes out. In a well written book the story is happening for me all over again and the real-world and its memories can just take a seat out in the waiting room for a while.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by gmw

And, though it seems strange even to me, I can experience that tension even if I've read the book several times and so already know how it comes out. In a well written book the story is happening for me all over again and the real-world and its memories can just take a seat out in the waiting room for a while.

I think this is why I regard The Count of Monte Cristo as a remarkable book. I've read it 3 times and each time I was gripped, despite obviously knowing exactly how everything panned out after the first read. To do that over 1200+ pages is quite the achievement, imo

[icallaci]

Originally Posted by Catlady

One of my main genres in historical fiction set during WWII. I don't especially care about or remember the characters on the page from one book to the next, but the lives of those fictional characters illustrate what real people did, or what was done to them, and that helps give me more understanding of the times than a dry nonfiction account can. In that sense I do have an emotional connection.

Historical fiction is one of my favorite genres too, for exactly the same reason, although I have grown tired of most WWII fiction, unless it highlights something other than "romance under duress" or "stiff-upper-lip survival" themes. Spies and code-breaking still fascinate me. I love to read about those.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by icallaci

Historical fiction is one of my favorite genres too, for exactly the same reason, although I have grown tired of most WWII fiction, unless it highlights something other than "romance under duress" or "stiff-upper-lip survival" themes. Spies and code-breaking still fascinate me. I love to read about those.

The anachronisms and errors in fact in most works of historical fiction are dealbreakers for me. It’s not that I play gotcha, exactly; I can live with the random mistake especially when it doesn’t matter to the story, but once credibility is lost I’m done.

It’s a pity that the quality of what’s out there isn’t better, because I agree that fiction is a good entry to a largely unknown topic; it can pique your interest and give an accessible overview and context for further exploration.