Picture this, dear Reader: You are on a review-site (Goodreads, IMDB. Whatever, it doesn't matter) and while you are there, you decide to check out the reviews of something you watched/read/played recently and, in some of the less enthusiastic reviews, you find the above statement or a variation thereof.
This statement has always bothered me, because I seldom feel that its valid as criticism. Note that I said seldom, not never, there are definitely times when the creator(s) of a work intended a character to be liked by the audience and failed at making them so.That said, if a character isn't likable, nine times out of ten, its because they were not meant to be.
And yet, a lot of people seem to treat is as such, considering likability to be tantamount when talking about characters in a work of fiction.
Why is that? Personally, I think its because people tend to equate 'likable' with 'interesting'. Now, to be fair, the two tend to go hand in hand, even for me. I know that, if I find a character to be likable, its a fair assumption that I find them interesting as well.
However, just because two things are connected does not mean they are synonymous. And so, I shall explain (or at least attempt) how the two of them differ, in my opinion.
Basically, to me, a character being likable means that I like that character, as a person. They have my sympathy and I would not mind socializing with them in real-life.
None of the above need apply to a character that I simply find engaging in the role given to them by the narrative. Some of my favorite characters in fiction are horrible people, even outright monsters. However, they are compelling monsters and ultimately, that's what counts: The Worst crime a fictional character can be guilty of is not mass-murder, enslavement or any other real-life atrocity. No, its to be boring.
No comments:
Post a Comment