A Book's Success Conditioned by Its Characters
To what extent the reader's ability to relate to the characters affect his overall liking of a book?
Through my relatively short in time reading experience, I’ve noticed an organic tendency to sympathize with several book characters whose values coincide with mine, and respectively to dislike other characters whose actions or decisions I don’t support. I’ve also noticed that certain stories impact me more than others, according to my personal sensitivities.
Observing these responses, I tried to find out why this is the case, and furthermore whether my liking or disliking of a character affects my reading experience or my overall opinion about the book.
First of all, I discovered that reader-response criticism describes the phenomenon, when a reader interprets a story according to his personal life experiences. Precisely:
"Reader-response theory recognizes the reader as an active agent who imparts ‘real existence’ to the work and completes its meaning through interpretation."1
Undoubtedly, reading is an act of engagement, it’s emotional and personal. It’s practically impossible to read with complete detachment. One’s interpretation of a book and its characters goes hand in hand with the way one feels about situations encountered in real life, filtered by morals, ethics, and personal ideas.
This leads me to think that, since the way one relates and reacts under certain circumstances can grow or change with time, one’s reading experience differs from one stage to another. For instance, someone consciously working on themselves, cultivating understanding, respect, or self-boundaries, might interpret a book in different ways, especially after re-reading it—when one is finally ready to do so.
Therefore, I cannot but accept that reader-response mechanism is entirely conditioned by the reader’s mental and emotional tools, available and capable to understand messages, and sensitive to any mild or great change.
Doesn’t relating to a character offer more possibilities for the reader to like the book?
Having the concept of personal response and interpretation in mind, I wonder what makes a book stand out in the end, if not its character’s qualities?
Obviously, it’s common for growing characters to be liked more; when a book portrays someone willing to grow (who eventually does, despite earlier immaturity or insensitivity), the reader feels empathy and roots for his transformation.
Admittedly, it’s more straightforward for an author to create a range of characters, each one representing the "good" or the "bad", offering variety to the story while also helping to convey clear moral messages. In this case, there is symmetry and certain predictability, the reader knows what to expect.
Another option is to craft complex characters, where the lines blur, portraying a more realistic image of human nature and its complexities, painted with imperfections.
Taking the example of Jane Austen and her novel Emma, according to the Pressbooks network The Open Education at Bay Path University:
"Austen was nervous about her creation of Emma, for as she wrote in a letter: ‘I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like.’ Yet Austen does exactly this: in Emma, she creates a character that taxes the reader’s patience, one the author recognizes that readers may not like."
"Austen’s comments on Emma point to the fact that readers identify with characters in a novel. And we can extrapolate further: readers like or dislike what they read; readers are moved to joy, anger, sadness, and so on by a literary work; and readers read literature from a personal level. For an author, this ‘reader response’ is of utmost importance, as Austen most certainly realizes. If readers do not like Emma, do not empathize with her on some emotional level, then they will dislike the novel."2
How did the authors, who created unapproachable characters, manage to reach a vast audience and endure long after publication?
As a natural outcome, I ask myself, what happens with antiheroes and really despicable characters, especially when they seem indifferent to any common "right" path?
There are books, which were written as an eye-opener, with vile characters representing an unhealthy condition, hidden under the human mask. It’s definitely a challenge and a risk writers have to face, when they choose to embrace the "abnormal", the ideas or characters the majority may not support.
Of course, there are examples of such books like Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë, The Stranger by Albert Camus, or Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, proving that this challenge can succeed only if supported by certain qualities, such as strong writing, clear ideas, and valid points: authors who wrote about morally complex or immoral characters often aimed to convey a message, to make a point, and to reveal something deeper.
In those cases, although the authors’ intentions being recognized, the reader’s ability to relate to the characters obviously decreases, due to the importance of character identification being real and valid, according to Rebecca Tukachinsky Forster:
"Character identification constitutes one of the most profound narrative experiences, encompassing cognitive, emotional, and motivational dimensions. Although related to other forms of engagement, such as transportation, identification constitutes a unique psychologicalprocess."3
However, while a reader, first being a human, has the need to be understood and seen, his need to relate to a character cannot be always fulfilled, for many reasons, which can lead to rejection, thus stepping away from a book.
Is it possible to separate the work from its characters?
Recognizing a book’s value is a matter of several approaches: an academic student is called to focus more on the technical parts, while an average reader might pay more attention to the emotions or ideas the book evokes in him, taking, of course, into account the different layers one can dig into.
Books like The Portrait of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde or Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev have been recognized as literary gems and are still appreciated by many readers universally, despite the unlikable characters of Gray or Bazarov. While the reading experience of each one, as previously mentioned, is subjective, there is a certain amount of objectivity that lies in the author’s creative and writing capacities, and is commonly undeniable.
That said, while a character’s development or decadence play a big part in a reader’s experience, it’s not the only aspect that could determine the book’s liking or disliking. I’d like to believe that it takes more to praise or reject a work, and this is where subjectivity enters the game. Should relatability be a criterion for appreciating or neglecting a book? I guess this is up to each one to decide.
Final thoughts
In any case, reading can be more than being told a story. It offers lessons, food for thought and provides perspectives, as long as one is ready to welcome those and see what’s beyond. A valuable book functions as a mirror for the reader, reflecting and revealing one’s deeper feelings and thoughts: a companion that holds one’s hand, guiding one through paths one might not have dare taking on his own.
Coming up with a conclusion and an answer to my questions is not the ultimate goal. Perhaps there is not even a definite verdict. Exploring, though, the reading field and trying to expand it each time a bit further is an exciting process for me, even if some topics remain open.
Note: No AI was used to write this post. Only my partner's valuable help to spot little mistakes.