Do we need our superheroes to be relatable, or can they just be good characters?

[QuinnFillory]

Lately, I have been hearing and seeing a lot of talk about how we need characters to be more relatable, how we need to relate to them more. Apparently, if a character doesn't have a thing in common with the audience, we can't care about them. I understand that point of view. However, I am not sure it needs to be true. I am pretty sure that a lot of people in past eras didn't relate to characters like Batman, Superman or even the Fantastic Four. However, they were and are still popular until this day. I am not saying that relatability shouldn't matter because it does a great deal, but I am saying that good writing and characterization should still remain the most important factors for people reading these characters.

[Carabas]

I have never had any problems relating to most well-written characters, from the Punisher to Wonder Woman to Rocket Raccoon, no matter how different they are from me.

Relatable doesn't mean similar.

[DrNewGod]

Carabas has the right answer here. An interesting, well-written story, that makes good use of the characters without having to completely revise them, is all that you need. Absent those ingredients (interesting, well-written), "relatable" has a way of turning out to be "annoying".

[PaulBullion]

If you have an entire universe with 90% of the main characters being very much like, say, 35% of the population, you're doing it wrong, though. No matter how relatable you write them.

[kjn]

I'm a little unsure what is meant with "relatable" here, and with the entire question, especially "if a character doesn't have a thing in common with the audience, we can't care about them".

Now, a thing in common between a person and a character can be many things. It can be physical characteristics. It can be mentality. It can be actions. It can be relational structures. Or it can be aspirational. Or simply being human—after all empathy at its core is being able to care for anyone else. But it's something that must be nurtured.

There is also no disconnect between calling for more varied character types on one hand and good writing and characterisation on the other. After all, the most important factor in good characterisation is that the writer can relate to the character they are writing. A poor writer will thus end up with a specific type of hero or heroine with everyone else redshirts or one-dimensional villains. While a good writer will provide a good variety of character types on all sides.

Last, don't downplay the damage it can do if someone like you never gets to fill a specific role. Expectations matter. That's why the Amazon charge in the opening battle of Wonder Woman was so important, or the description of the 54th Volunteer Infantry in Glory, or why Babs still is celebrated as Oracle. Our fictional universes are richer because of them.

[Powerboy]

I'm a little unsure what is meant with "relatable" here, and with the entire question, especially "if a character doesn't have a thing in common with the audience, we can't care about them".

Now, a thing in common between a person and a character can be many things. It can be physical characteristics. It can be mentality. It can be actions. It can be relational structures. Or it can be aspirational. Or simply being human—after all empathy at its core is being able to care for anyone else. But it's something that must be nurtured.

There is also no disconnect between calling for more varied character types one hand and good writing and characterisation on the other. After all, the most important factor in good characterisation is that the writer can relate to the character they are writing. A poor writer will thus end up with a specific type of hero or heroine with everyone else redshirts or one-dimensional villains. While a good writer will provide a good variety of character types on all sides.

Last, don't downplay the damage it can do if someone like you never gets to fill a specific role. Expectations matter. That's why the Amazon charge in the opening battle of Wonder Woman was so important, or the description of the 54th Volunteer Infantry in Glory, or why Babs still is celebrated as Oracle. Our fictional universes are richer because of them.

^ This. We don't all mean the same thing by relatable.

[Conch22]

Relatable has a few different facets to it.

I recall, I believe it was Bruce Timm, Dwayne McDuffie and a couple other creatives discussing the Justice League cartoon and one of them brought up the point the stories come from, have a genesis in, real world interactions, but it's those experiences writ large. That Superman feeling a sense of responsibility to save people is the dressed up, grandiose version of a more mundane or ordinary responsibility.


A characters personality, while not needing to be relatable, should be understandable. I don't relate to the Joker, but I understand he's an obsessive sadist that lives for exhilarating games. I'm not left with a tangent of broken experiences where the Joker is kindly one moment and malicious the next and in the rare instances where there is a character that justifies that, it's usually one with a fractured psyche like Moonknight where that informs the character and when that's handled by a skilled writer, works well.


So, situations with an exaggeration of reality, oftentimes with an understandable, layered though consistent archetype, is the most common dichotomy of creating an understandable character, to my understanding.


And there's the surface level of "I need to share a particular physical trait with the character", which, while there's certain aspects of a character that add to the whole and add an extra appeal, I've seen overemphasis on the purely physical that seems shallow. At the same time, I prefer some consistency in the attributes a character displays, particularly depending on how centralized they are to a given story and how developed they are, certain traits on a character and physical level should be maintained and honored, so it does become a point the character is iconic in certain regards on both levels, that's less from a relatability issue than preference in a character remaining what you liked when you discovered them, of maintaining the foundation that established a given characters fandom.

[catbellysqueezer]

Is this going to end up being a thing against women or minority characters?

[heretic]

The idea that one cannot or should not like a character you that you are not supposed to 'relate' to is a rather toxic one.

....

Which is why the pushback against characters who are not white/straight/male is sadly toxic. How is America Chavez, Ms Marvel, etc. not Good Characters? Why did Foster picking up the Hammer get so much more flak than Marsterson?

[Conch22]

The idea that one cannot or should not like a character you that you are not supposed to 'relate' to is a rather toxic one.

....

Which is why the pushback against characters who are not white/straight/male is sadly toxic. How is America Chavez, Ms Marvel, etc. not Good Characters? Why did Foster picking up the Hammer get so much more flak than Marsterson?

Depends on which writer is handling them, really. A lot of people seem to prefer America Chavez in The Young Avengers or The Ultimates compared to her solo book. Jason Aaaron did a GG dig early on and a strawman of why any criticism of his Thor change is obviously coming from "creeps that say feminism like it's a four letter word". He was courting some controversy in my opinion.

Which doesn't really matter because the book sold well. There's a ton of things I haven't liked that've sold well. Ms. Marvel is the Sesame Street of Marvel books. Not bad, per se, on average, just not geared towards a lot of longtime readers preferences in terms of tone or art. Her essentially enacting renditions on thought criminals during the Civil War 2 event is also something I've seen brought up as a failing in the handling of the character.

Though I've seen people who claim to be progressive and on the right side of history weaponize a complainants status against them, that they aren't gay so it's just not for them, they aren't female so it's just not for them, they aren't black so it's just not for them. While this comes off as a weak attempt to sidestep criticisms by otherizing dissatisfied consumers in a niche hobby, it also often speaks to a rather segregationist mindset, where such behaviour is reframed as empowerment. It seems to flow from the mindset that there are no bad tactics, just bad targets.

I've veered more towards DC and independents as of late, so I'll be enjoying Simon Baz and Jessica Cruz as Green Lanterns, Damian Wayne as Robin, Kenan Kong as the New Superman, The Wildstorm relaunch with new version of Michael Cray and Voodoo, Mother Panic, Executive Assistant Iris, new Strangers in Paradise and Quantum and Woody. There seems to be more quality there for my tastes and subsequently less to nil backlash

[catbellysqueezer]

Maybe I am in the wrong part of the world, but I have never once heard or seen anyone say that a character is not for them because the character is straight/white/male.

But I've seen about 60,000+ people complain about women or minority characters.

[KurtW95]

Relatable in a way. But also better than us. They are idealized fiction afterall. I wouldn’t want to read about myself. That would just be boring. A lot of people say that Marvel characters are more relatable than DC characters, who in turn are more of a group we would aspire to be like, but all are still idealized to an extent. They should be cool. Fun to read about and look cool too. One thing that has kind of bothered me lately in comics have been that several characters have been drawn anatomically less idealized and more normal. I’m not asking for insane proportions with giant torsos or anything, but above average. They used to write about this stuff in Wizard when describing how to draw superheroes.

[kjn]

Relatable in a way. But also better than us. They are idealized fiction afterall. I wouldn’t want to read about myself. That would just be boring. A lot of people say that Marvel characters are more relatable than DC characters, who in turn are more of a group we would aspire to be like, but all are still idealized to an extent. They should be cool. Fun to read about and look cool too. One thing that has kind of bothered me lately in comics have been that several characters have been drawn anatomically less idealized and more normal. I’m not asking for insane proportions with giant torsos or anything, but above average. They used to write about this stuff in Wizard when describing how to draw superheroes.

Agreed. The characters we want to read or hear about are often larger than life but still similar to us.

I do think the trend towards more normal body types is a really good one, and for several reasons. For one, the superhero body types as they had developed were essentially caricatures. Partly because of idealised body types, partly because almost everyone looked the same, but also because my impression was that a lot of artists had honed their skills by imitating prior superhero art, not by drawing real bodies in a studio.

You can see something like this even with a really good artist like Cliff Chiang. He basically has one female face that he draws all the time.

[Conch22]

Maybe I am in the wrong part of the world, but I have never once heard or seen anyone say that a character is not for them because the character is straight/white/male.

But I've seen about 60,000+ people complain about women or minority characters.

Take my word for it, it's something I've seen as a rebuttal many times in online discussions around superheroes. If you've ever read Scalped, there's an introduction (can't remember who wrote it, doesn't really matter) in the first volume praising Jason Aarons ability to write "Indian characters" and that it's jarring given he's not aboriginal that his characters come off as so authentic. Which to me, the idea Aaron being able to write these characters being presented as unusual, is that same idea of not being able to understand and empathize outside your gender/ race/ creed/ orientation status which is present in the "it's not for you argument" which I obviously decry for the bigotry inherent to it. The 60,000 plus people thing I'm not going to contest, whether it's the recent Shazam collection being shuttered due to worries about the way the representation in that very old story would be perceived or wandering onto a film page promoting news of a Kamala Kahn movie and the absolute stomach cancer some of those comment were, there's definitely people complaining about characters in a minority status. Differentiating between critique and a player haters ball is the important distinction, though. Don't wanna be painting people in general with too broad a brush.

Relatable in a way. But also better than us. They are idealized fiction afterall. I wouldn’t want to read about myself. That would just be boring. A lot of people say that Marvel characters are more relatable than DC characters, who in turn are more of a group we would aspire to be like, but all are still idealized to an extent. They should be cool. Fun to read about and look cool too. One thing that has kind of bothered me lately in comics have been that several characters have been drawn anatomically less idealized and more normal. I’m not asking for insane proportions with giant torsos or anything, but above average. They used to write about this stuff in Wizard when describing how to draw superheroes.

They used to have those art tutorial pages, loved those. Reading some old issues lately and admiring some early Michael Turner art, there's books I'd be more inclined to give a chance with an art style closer to that. With books like The Wildstorm, I understand the realistic proportions, given the batman begins style semi realism it's going for.

[kjn]

Another fundamental factor is who we are taught to relate to, and that's fundamentally a question of privilege and power. Being able to relate to or empathise with someone of less status and power than yourself is often lauded as a virtue, but it can be a question of life and death for those with less power, or no power at all. The CEO who can empathise with their secretary is deemed considerate, but the secretary is literally unable to do their job without their ability to empathise with the CEO.

So when public figures—either real or imagined—are predominantly white heterosexual men, what does it teach? Both those who are white heterosexual men, and those who are not?