Is it possible to enjoy a novel when you don't have anything in common with the characters?

[Barbara]

What's interesting to me about this question is the word 'enjoy.' I couldn't say I 'enjoyed' Lord of the Flies yet it is one of my all-time favourite novels. Golding took me slowly and skillfully to a chilling place I've never been before or since.

[Kamal]

Isn't that the true purpose of reading ? the greatest enjoyment ? to encounter lives and experiences that you may not face in your real life .. What about reading a novel about Tarazan , Ivanho , Hannibal or even an ancient lord of war that you know nothing about ? After all we are not heroes . Simply when it comes to writing novels , you can't write a novel about your daily suffering ; your boss , your wife , bills etc . Maybe relating yourself to one of the characters , I guess it's a push to finish the thing or develop sympathy which is not a very good thing because - of course and you can't avoid it - will make you misjudge the work !!

[Simon]

Kamal wrote: "Isn't that the true purpose of reading ? the greatest enjoyment ? to encounter lives and experiences that you may not face in your real life .. What about reading a novel about Tarazan , Ivanho , H..."

Exactly, the novel can work in the fourth dimension of time in a way that no other medium has yet mastered, but more importantly it works in the fifth dimension of thought and insight into those characters with which we may have no empathy. Golding is a master of making us observe the inner workings of the more repellent aspects of human nature.

[Hayley]

I think rather than enjoyment, the thing I love most about a novel is whether or not it makes me FEEL anything, and by feel anything, I mean deeply. Whether those feelings are enjoyable or not is secondary. The enjoyment for me is in the feeling. Those are the novels that will stand the test of time.

[Cheryl]

I tend to only read books where I have nothing in common with anyone. That is why I read. (Escapism)

That is just me though.

[Simon]

Cheryl wrote: "I tend to only read books where I have nothing in common with anyone. That is why I read. (Escapism)

That is just me though."

No, not just you! And not necessarily escapism, although there is a fair it of that along the road.

[Taryn]

Anne wrote: "I've read several criticisms of Lord of the Flies in which readers say they don't like it because they feel they have nothing in common with the characters. But surely one of the joys of reading a ..."

I don't see what having something in common with a character has anything to do with enjoying a book. While I love Lolita, while I am neither a man nor have the love for a 12 year old doesn't mean I don't empathize with his pain. Regardless of plot or character there is something about reading that speaks to the soul. Beyond the lines of prose you could find understanding, introspection, etc. I have never been trapped on an island with no hope for survival, but I have rebelled against authority on many occasions. Jack is the embodiment of the unrestricted depraved portion of humanity and not something that I would want to share commonalities.

[Christos]

You always have something in common with any character in any book.

[Melanie]

Yes, definitely! It's really interesting to see how the character thinks and it becomes more engaging when you try to fully understand where they're coming from. It's interesting to see things from another person's point of view. It would be pretty boring if every novel you read had your exact same character.

[Lori]

it is possible to like a novel I don't find anything common with.for me if i have a character or two I can root for or like i can enjoy the book. if every character is horrible and i cannot feel sympathy, or empathy for them than sometimes i stop reading the book. or on the other hand it if is just plain boring.got to hold my interest.

[Gary]

Lord of the Flies will be around for a long time. It addresses issues that challenge every individual. Do we do what the strong tell us (or suffer pain/humiliation)? or do we hold onto our hearts and suffer punishment?
This subject comes up with every generation - the Lord of the Flies seems to skip out of time more than most books. It will be hard to date it.

[T]

With today's varied genres and numerous number of books, there are probably many aspects that makes a certain book attractive/enjoyable. I personally never understood about that certain reason, that "I enjoyed it because the character shared many commonalities with me!" one. Actually, before interacting with anyone, I don't think that reason ever even passed my mind. I understand the reason why, but as I said with varied genres and numerous number of books, there is more than one way for people to enjoy books.

For example, my favourite characters in the Lord of the Flies were Piggy and Roger (also a bit of liking to Simon?). Talking about Roger, that does not mean I am a sadist, nor do I find it an attractive (erotic?) trait. The reason why is not just something grand, showing the sadistic nature of human etc., but also something simple as "I wonder how he would grow up...".

Nevertheless, it is absolutely possible. Just like what many people here are saying. It is all just a matter of preference.

[Kurt]

I used to not be able to enjoy reading a novel about people I had nothing in common with, or more extreme, I couldn't read a novel about people I didn't admire.

I wrote an essay about getting over this: http://www.kurtkeefner.com/2012/09/de...

Since then I've read at least one novel narrated by a character that (I would like to think) I have nothing in common with: Engleby

Mike Engleby has something wrong him, maybe Asperger's syndrome. He is also exceedingly creepy. He stalks a college classmate and maybe kills her. Even he's not sure.

Getting inside this guy's head is a real experience. The best part may be where he reads a statement by the only friend he's got describing what he's like. The shock of seeing him from the outside is thrilling.

(I hated Lord of the Flies though. And I don't believe that's what would happen to a society of boys in that situation.)

[Simon]

Kurt wrote: "I used to not be able to enjoy reading a novel about people I had nothing in common with, or more extreme, I couldn't read a novel about people I didn't admire.

I wrote an essay about getting over..."

Engelby is a terrific and very unsettling read, I was thinking of The Cement Garden by Ian McEwen, ambitiously unsettling character, and you can't put it down.

[Sarah]

Monty J wrote: "The operative word is "anything." It's virtually impossible not to have SOMEthing in common with a character. It's a matter of degree. Even if the character isn't human, the very definition of "cha..."

Well put! I find the only books I can't "get into" are the ones where I can find no *empathy* with a character.

[Joan]

I have little in common with most characters in the books I read.

In addition to required assignments, I've read most of the classics. I read some popular fiction and non-fiction, simply for a different viewpoint. Lord Of the Flies was not my favorite book of that era but I hope to take something from each book I read, and usually do.

[Karla]

I never put much thought into whether or not I relate to the characters when I pick up a book.

For me, the thing that makes a story enjoyable is the plot. Secondary to this is the author's message (if there is one.)

As far as the characters go, I mainly just accept them for who they are. They usually don't influence if I like a story, they are just themselves. This isn't to say I don't react to them. There are characters who I like, characters who I dislike, characters who I find annoying or endearing. There are characters who I cheer for and others who I hope get their comeupance in the end. But I don't actively try to relate to them. Understand them yes, relate, no.

Yes, a book will speak to me or the message may resonate more if I find a character who is a lot like me, but it certainly isn't necessary for me to enjoy a book. A character doesn't have to be like me for me to find them endearing. Nor do I seek out stories with characters I can relate to. If I'm not already familiar with the author or the characters, I pretty much look only at the plot when I'm deciding which new book to read.

I do like well crafted characters, and I think strong, endearing characters will bring a reader back to a story. I'm fascinated by story-telling as an art, and I love reading about how authors or actors view the characters in their stories.

The only thing that really annoys me is when an author has a character commit an act that goes completely against their nature and is inexplicable except for the needs of the plot or for shock value. That absolutely kills a story for me.

[Connor]

I don't think it's possible to really enjoy a book without having some kind of relation to them.

[[deleted user]]

I agree with the earlier comment that it is more "relating" to a character. Some characters you relate to (can understand, admire, empathise with, love, hate...) you just woudn't want to meet, like or make friends with. I relate to Ralph in Lord of the flies as he stands up for what I would like to be see standing up for. Yet I reckon I would be closer to a Jack in reality if I am being honest, even though I feel like kicking him in the teeth when I read the book. That's the magic of fiction I guess......

[Margarita]

I think that whatever book you decide to read, there will always be a similarity between the reader and the character. Or maybe not even a character but a certain situation that arises in the story that you can somewhat relate to. I think that what really matters is that you enjoy the book rather than try to find similarities between you and the characters.

[[deleted user]]

No, on the contrary, I quite enjoy varying viewpoints and characters. A different/unique character brings a lot to the table and gives me new insights. Plus, diversity is always fun and interesting.

Generally, I attach myself to the intellectual or artistic or nerdy character (there usually always is one), since I am an obvious geek myself, as well as any characters who love to joke/use sarcasm too much, similar to me. However, I am partial to "badass" characters (especially female ones) despite having zero in common with those guys.

[Whitney]

I think its very possible to like books without relateable characters. I was forced to read this for school in 9th grade, and honestly I couldn't finish it. Just not my cup of tea.

[Laura]

I actually strongly disliked this book because I found it weird that those kids actually did the things that they did. That and the fact that I was forced to read it.

[abby]

I think that it is hard sometimes, but it can be enjoyable.
The porpose of reading is to slip away from your life and explore someone elses. You need to have a new experience when you read, see things from another point of view, go places you've never been.
That being said, it's hard to really enjoy a book when you and the characters have nothing in common. If there is no thread to tie you to the character, it is easy to slip out of it. There needs to be something that you can relate to with the character, whether it's a dream, personality, or a setting.

[Feliks]

Yes, certainly. Novels can do this because they're more cerebral; a breakdown usually occurs when watching a movie. Movies need empathy between audience and character.

However, (speaking just from my own experience) I sometimes have trouble reading novels written by women. That is a point-of-view issue; not that I'm averse to their view but that (depending on the subject matter or genre) its just really jarring and hard to reconcile with mine, as a man.

For example, I can read feminist literature or a 'female topic' book and have no problem--but have rarely found say, an action-thriller penned by a female which goes down smoothly.

[Kip]

Anne wrote: "I've read several criticisms of Lord of the Flies in which readers say they don't like it because they feel they have nothing in common with the characters. But surely one of the joys of reading a ..."

I couldn't agree more, Anne - it's a tiresome and trite criticism of a story by lazy post-literate readers who want a book to be a friend or collection of friends and not a book. I think it is forgiveable for younger readers to think this way, but certainly as a reader gets older he or she should realise that characters are a fairly superficial aspect of the inherent poetry weaved throughout a novel.

[Monty J]

It needs to be made clear that, like The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird this book is not children's literature though it's about children and written from their point of view.

But that's where the similarity ends. Those two books were grounded in reality and based on things that really happened. The Lord of the Flies was a fantasy, an allegorical construct. These things did not happen, nor would believable characters likely behave as described. They were all foils, enabling the author to engage in a mental exercise to illustrate certain socio-political hypotheses. If you're not interested in sociology or politics, the book won't be interesting. The characters are a secondary consideration. It's a literary puppet show.

[Lisa]

While it is easy to enjoy a story about someone you identify with, it's narcissistic if you do it exclusively. Break outta da box!

[Deon]

Yes, very possible.

[Patricia]

Absolutely!.....that is the gift of connecting with a book....it is so satisfying to read one that speaks to you! Some books are truly awful but many just speak differently to different people.