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

[hildea]

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.

You might like "Code Name Verity" by Elizabeth Wein. It starts with the protagonist being imprisoned and interrogated by Gestapo, so it's not a happy book, but it's really good. (I tear up when reading it -- even when rereading -- so it's definitively a book that engages my emotions.)

[icallaci]

Originally Posted by hildea

You might like "Code Name Verity" by Elizabeth Wein. It starts with the protagonist being imprisoned and interrogated by Gestapo, so it's not a happy book, but it's really good. (I tear up when reading it -- even when rereading -- so it's definitively a book that engages my emotions.)

Thank you!

[janrey]

I read reviews that people don't "like" the characters. I don't have to like them, in fact I can hate them if that is the point of the story. To me, the characters have to evoke emotion in my reading. The worst thing is feeling the lack of anything for the characters such that the story is meaningless.

[Freeshadow]

somwhere along these lines, yes. As tastes differ it's quite hard to explain one's own way to "connect" to a book.
Books that definitely NOT work for me are all Kafka or "The stranger" by Camus.
The way I not_connect to a book is exactly the same as with sports or gossip: although things happen and people are involved, I couldn't care less about it.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

And if you do, what does that mean to you?

On Goodreads I often see people complain they couldn't connect to the characters or story. I'm not even sure what that means.

Does "connect" mean the reader felt they had something in common with the main character? Does it mean that the story had some kind of personal significance for the reader?

Depends what it means.
I don't have to "like" the characters but I don't want them to appear too unrealistic, dopey, or poorly written.

[Fat Abe]

Let's consider the question where the pronoun, you, is changed to the noun, writer. What will ensure the writer the greatest chance of success for his/her book? It turns the question around so that financial success is the most important consideration, and personal taste is a matter of secondary importance. This way, we can be helpful to current and future authors, so that the supply of books that interests the majority of us will always be ample. In the thriller genre, it seems that honor in a character is important, even if the morals of the hero are not necessarily pure. Two examples are Jack Reacher and Amos Decker (Memory Man). Dirty protagonists or cops are less appealing, but not that rare. They tend to fit the role of antagonists or anti-heroes. Tami Hoag and Gillian Flynn are excellent writers who create anti-heroes with depth and interest. I haven't read that many romance novels, but the synopses of such books seem to include a handsome man or woman, together with characters who are taken advantage of. Hoag has dabbled with thrillers and romance novels, which means that one day I will be reading the latter type of novel. Without attempting to pigeon-hole a writer, I would say that writing ability counts, and it transcends characterization. Once you get behind a writer, they can write a book about any subject, and you'll pick it up to read. Imagination is a powerful force that can push aside stereotypes. One off-beat example: Manhood for Amateurs by Michael Chabon.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Once you get behind a writer, they can write a book about any subject, and you'll pick it up to read.

Not at all. I don't have favorite authors as such. When an author whose book or series I liked releases a novel in a genre or about a topic I'm not interested in, I won't buy or read it. For me, genre and subject matter come first; the writer comes second.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Once you get behind a writer, they can write a book about any subject, and you'll pick it up to read.

Nope.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

I haven't read that many romance novels, but the synopses of such books seem to include a handsome man or woman, together with characters who are taken advantage of.

Um, no. Not necessarily. The protagonists don't need to be handsome, and a romance doesn't need to include characters which are taken advantage of.

Once you get behind a writer, they can write a book about any subject, and you'll pick it up to read.

For me, that's true. For instance, I never thought I'd read a romance where one of the protagonists was a billionaire, but when Courtney Milan wrote one, I took a chance on it, and did not regret it.
I guess the only firm conclusion we can draw is that there are no universal truths in what readers like

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Once you get behind a writer, they can write a book about any subject, and you'll pick it up to read.

Uh... no.

I like great writers, and I like certain genres. I'm happy when I find a great writer writing what I want to read.

But I'm not following them into other territories unless I do a lot of research to see if they'll possible do it for me in another genre. Because many of them don't. What they were good at in one area doesn't say that they'll be good in another. They have to earn that trust in the new genre.

I don't just trust any actors, musicians, artists, or even bands, either. They can be great at one thing, and stink in another. Lesson learned early on that.

[4691mls]

I need to be interested enough in the characters to care how the plot turns out, but I don't feel like I need to especially like or "connect" to the characters. I like mysteries so a good plot where I want to know how it turns out is important.