Hello, new to the forum, been reading posts for years though. Through the years, I have been noticing a pattern among comic book readers (not only here, of course). Most of them use the word "relatable" to show that their character is great. More often than not, though, they use the word in a very narrow-minded way. Let me explain (every character I mention below is referenced just for the sake of the argument; I love all the characters you'll see below, not trying to "diss" anyone):
Spider-Man is a teen with money, girl and social-anxiety problems. Comic readers: "This is such a relatable character, therefore great".
Batman is a rich playboy who gets vengeance by beating up criminals. Comic readers: "This is not a very relatable character, therefore not that great".
(This is not a VS between Bats and Spidey or their respective companies. I'm just using these two, because they are popular and represent DC and Marvel, respectively.)
The problem, imo, seems to be that a lot of comic book readers do not really understand what makes a great character...well, great. They think he/she mainly has to be relatable. More than that, they mostly interpret "relatable" as "someone who is in the same financial, romantic etc. condition as me", which is a valid meaning, but not the only one. This has led to the majority of the CB community adopting this kind of thought-process when assessing the quality of a superhero. And it's just wrong.
First of all, a great character is someone we can relate to despite the status of his romantic life, his place in the social hierarchy or his psychological/physiological attributes. Michael Corleone, for example, is not a great, relatable character because he has trouble getting the girl or because he can't pay the rent or because his boss yelled at him the other day and his social anxiety increased...It's because you see the human struggle in him, his human flaws and his way of dealing with a situation (be it a good or a bad way) and this makes you care. He is a handsome mobster with tons of money and, possibly, tons of women he has slept with (mainly before the events of the movies) and yet you feel for him. Those of you who have watched the Godfather films, come on, tell me he is not a character you can relate with. Tell me you didn't feel for him during the two movies' runtime (forget the third). I'm waiting for you.
But this is not the only thing a character needs to be great. Personality is equally important. But, again, readers often misunderstand the meaning of the word. They often think it is someone who is charismatic (Tony Stark), talks a lot (Spider-Man or Deadpool), funny (all of them) or generally has a characteristic that screams "I HAVE A PERSONALITY". However, personality simply is...the combination of character traits in a human. For example, Batman (to keep in line with the first comparison) often gets flack for lacking a personality (he isn't funny, talkative, or charismatic etc.), but they don't get that he is not talkative because he's a more cerebral (as Bruce) and visceral (as Batman) human being. He distinctively lacks a sense of humor, which is mentioned many times throughout Batman stories, not because the writers forgot to write a few jokes for him, but because he is intentionally solemn. (I could really go on about why Batman has a great personality, or why he is relatable, but this is not a post to defend Batman, plus, I wanna see your thoughts on the subject first).
In conclusion, I get the reasoning behind the misunderstanding of the word "relatability". Many readers feel the need to project themselves through superheroes (it is escapism, afer all), but with this kind of thought-process, Kick-Ass is the greatest superhero of all time, period. Plus, personality is everything a character is, not just his jokes or his coolness. So, no, Iron Man does not have a better personality than, say, Captain America. He's just different.
Log in to comment