[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 6 KB, 251x218, 1313719563866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2038159 [Reply] [Original]

Relatable characters are ruining storytelling.
Thoughts?

>> No.2038167

I have yet to read about a character with thirteen inches flaccid. Or who has been butthole licked by daddy and his gay Asian friend.

>> No.2038170

>>2038167
They've all been attention whores like you, though
not because you're a tripfag

>> No.2038171

interesting idea. I'd have to say there has to be some aspects of the character that's relatable, take Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and Holden in Catcher, I've never met anybody that similar to them, but there's definetly aspects to them to which readers can relate. I'd have to say its the writers job to balance the character, making him both interesting and plausible.

>> No.2038174

אינדעעד

>> No.2038177

>>2038171
OP's belief is, you shouldn't write characters to be relatable. you write them, and if the reader can relate to them, that's all the better

>> No.2038326

An interesting character in fiction is supposed to (at least help) cnovey a theme. A theme, by definition, is a statement regarding human nature, so characters in literature should be realatable the same way a theme is relatable, because it says something about human nature. Now having a character that does not convey a theme is not unheard of, but i feel like it would be a poor character.

>> No.2038336

relatable characters in and of themselves aren't a bad thing

it's only bad only when the author mixes up "relatable" with "bland" like in Harry Potter or Twilight.

>> No.2038342

>>2038326
Complex characters can't be boiled down to some tidy statement on human nature without losing EVERYTHING that makes them "interesting".

>> No.2038353

>>2038342
They can if you do it right.