Empathy and reader Connection...

[Heliotrope]

I'm curious to know what others mean by "empathy," especially empathy with a fictional character.

Good question. For me, it is as simple as "does this character have motivations that feel like true, human motivations?" It is as simple as that.

I was able to have empathy for Thanos in Infinity War because his motives felt true. I didn't have to like him, or agree with him, but I understood where he was coming from and why he felt he needed to do what he did.

I have empathy for John Hammond because his motives, again, felt true. It felt true that a person may want to share his scientific discovery with the world in a way that is playful and fun. I don't agree with what he did (bringing dinosaurs to life and putting them in a park) but Micheal Crichton presented John Hammond's motive in such a way that it felt like a real thing a person might do, with a real emotional reason behind it.

I can have empathy for these characters, because I understand their motive, even if I don't agree with it. I don't have to like them, or love them, or agree with them. But if they feel true; if they have a real, human reason behind their actions, I can empathize.

Now.... if a character is presented to me with a motive that does not feel 'true'.... it is usually because of *edit: three reasons.

1) The writer didn't put in the effort to show the human reason behind the character's actions. The writer simply assumed I would care. This happens sometimes when writers uses tricks, like making characters purely good or purely evil.... We MUST care because the bad guy is sooooo bad! This is why I get bored of shows like The Walking Dead after a while. I get it. Zombies. Everyone is fending for themselves. There are a lot of bad people about.... blah blah blah.

2) The writer uses cliche cheap tricks to try to make me care, like child abuse, or death of a mother, or something like that.

3) The writer doesn't SHOW the reasons behind the character's actions, he/she just tells me "Sophie hates her life because everyone is so mean to her so one day she decides her get her revenge." Obviously no one is going write like that.... lol, but I do read some stories sometimes where I just don't feel, personally, that the actions/motivations are justified. The writer doesn't give me enough.

For some, it seems to mean simply caring about a character and her situation, or liking/loving a character.

No, it doesn't mean this, for me. I can empathize with Thanos without liking/loving or caring about him. I care about the Avengers finding and destroying him, but I can still empathize with his cause, because it feels true. Like a real thing a person might do.

This. can obviously be done from any POV. Close, distant, first person, omniscient, narrative, play, or film. It has nothing to do with how close I am in a character's head. It has to do with does their motive/goal feel real.

I have no empathy for a group of people simply for being a group of people. It's so hard for me when new writers say things like "I have this character who is a warrior, but she has no flaws. I need to think of some quirks to make her more relatable."

No. A simple warrior with a quirky personality will not earn my empathy. Cute personality traits will not make me care about her. Give her a quest that feels authentic. Give her real, human motivations to do what she does, and she could do some really bad stuff I would never agree with, but I will empathize with her.

 

[FifthView]

I was able to have empathy for Thanos in Infinity War because his motives felt true. I didn't have to like him, or agree with him, but I understood where he was coming from and why he felt he needed to do what he did.

I think the only time I felt empathy for Thanos was when he had to kill Gamora, and then later when he confronted her child form after The Snap. Actually, those were the strongest times; but there were other times they were interacting when I felt an authentic father-daughter vibe, and I empathized with him a little.

but I can still empathize with his cause, because it feels true.

I didn't feel any empathy for this. I thought his reasoning was ridiculous. Because, first of all, all these beings left alive—a full half of all living beings—were going to reproduce and get back to their high populations anyway eventually. So it was really all for naught. And I couldn't believe he had never realized this.

I did have the tiniest bit of empathy with him concerning the fate of his homeworld, which set him off on his path. But the plan did not feel true.

I can't wait to see Joker. I want to judge the seemingly knee-jerk reactions against it. But this might turn into another case of "Yeah, I empathize with your sad self pre-Joker, but not after you go evil."

Edit: BTW, the above is interesting to me because I'm judging my empathy levels toward Thanos here simply by remembering how I felt—and still feel, remembering these things—and not by some sort of objective reasoning, heh.

 

[Heliotrope]

I can't wait to see Joker. I want to judge the seemingly knee-jerk reactions against it. But this might turn into another case of "Yeah, I empathize with your sad self pre-Joker, but not after you go evil."

Me too!

 

[Heliotrope]

Edit: BTW, the above is interesting to me because I'm judging my empathy levels toward Thanos here simply by remembering how I felt—and still feel, remembering these things—and not by some sort of objective reasoning, heh.

You do have a tendency toward objective reasoning (like a wise cartoon owl with glasses), lol, while I often go off of "Well that's how I feel, so there!" (Hands on hips, tongue stuck out, pigtails swinging).

 

[Devor]

Empathy usually refers to feeling what the other person feels, taking on those emotions for yourself. That's usually what you're shooting for in 3rd Person Limited, locked into the characters' perspective and the characters' emotions, yours to experience for yourself. So it's a big deal in writing. But it doesn't replace likability. Unlikable characters are just hard to put up with, empathy or not.

I'm not going to go into what makes a character likable. There's too many pieces going into that. But it's more than empathy. Maybe some readers are looking for empathy as the big main part of why they read? That's for sure true. But there are other ways to write a story, where empathy - actual empathy - is a smaller, even non-existent part of it. But then, empathy (like in 3rd person limited) is something books do so much better than film or games or whatever else, so is a book the best medium for stories that don't lean into empathy?

I think that's where I'm at. There are lots of reasons to read a story, but a novel does empathy really well, so if I'm writing a novel I want to play on that, whether it's my personal strength as a writer or not, because that's something novels do really well and it'd be almost foolish not to use it.

 

[Heliotrope]

John Gardner, in The Art of Fiction thinks of empathy differently... tying it not to feeling what the other person feels, but to believing in the motive...

Failure to recognize that the central character must act, not simply be acted upon, is the single most common mistake in the fiction of beginners. We care how things turn out because the character cares - our interest comes from empathy - and though we may know more than the character knows, anticipating dangers the character cannot see, we understand and to some degree sympathize with the character's desire, approving of what the character approves (what the character values) even if we sense the character's ideal is impractical or insufficient.

Later...

Fiction seeks out truth. Granted, it seeks a poetic kind of truth, universals not easy translatable into moral codes. But part of our interest as we read is in learning how the world works; how the conflicts we share with the writer and all other human beings can be resolved if at all; what values we can affirm, and in general, what the moral risks are. The writer who can't distinguish truth from a peanut butter sandwich can never write good fiction.

It think this view is worth discussing, in regards to empathy. Gardner speaks of fiction being a vehicle for exploring certain moral "truths"... good always wins (or does it?), women deserve respect (or do they?), slavery is wrong (or is it?), we shouldn't bring back extinct animals and show them in parks (or should we?) etc, etc, etc.....

When we are reading fiction we are looking for these truths, and when a character stands up for something we believe in (has agency, has a goal, has a motivation we can get behind, like a woman wanting to be a warrior instead of a princess, or a slave fighting for freedom, or a man trying to save people from a bunch of dinosaurs and shut down a park) then that creates empathy and makes us want to see them succeed.

Thoughts?

 

[Chessie2]

A woman wanting to be a princess is honorable. There's a lot of conflict that can come from that desire.

Re: empathy. I think stirring up reader empathy is more than agency and risk. It's about all the pieces of a story working together to emotionally fulfill a reader. The conversation here is focusing on just the character but if a reader can't engage with the story they won't care. Authors need to use the setting, supporting cast and theme as well as have a strong foundation of the craft in order to succeed at stirring readers emotionally.

 

[FifthView]

Re: empathy. I think stirring up reader empathy is more than agency and risk. It's about all the pieces of a story working together to emotionally fulfill a reader. The conversation here is focusing on just the character but if a reader can't engage with the story they won't care. Authors need to use the setting, supporting cast and theme as well as have a strong foundation of the craft in order to succeed at stirring readers emotionally.

Yes! Absolutely this!

I think for this topic, this is a great link between character and world.

It's not enough that the character have a goal; the goal needs to be something we as readers can understand—at the very least—and maybe support. Probably, even feel a stake in, ourselves. For instance, going back to Harry Potter: Defeating Voldemort is a worthy goal. Saving the wizarding and muggle worlds is a worthy goal. Our empathy is not solely a result of seeing Harry, Hermione and Ron motivated by a goal, nor a result of wanting to see them as victorious people or safe/saved people. No, they want to save the world, but this is because of what they see in the world, the family and friends they want to save, the freedoms and even fair (or fairer) governance of the world, the openness and potential for enjoyment that Hogwarts represents. We readers must see those things also, and agree that these are elements worth saving, in order to empathize with Harry's quest.

I am in agreement with Harry and his chums because I, too, want to save those things from Voldemort.

 

[FifthView]

Heliotrope:

We care how things turn out because the character cares - our interest comes from empathy

I don't like the phrasing John Gardner used there, not at all. This for me has been a central issue regarding this topic. I've encountered too many examples of writing which seemed to buy into the notion that the reader will care about something simply because the character cares about it.

My example about knitting? Check. There's an example of what I mean.

My example about a character who constantly longs to have never been fatherless? Check. Another example.

and though we may know more than the character knows, anticipating dangers the character cannot see, we understand and to some degree sympathize with the character's desire, approving of what the character approves (what the character values) even if we sense the character's ideal is impractical or insufficient.

Similarly, this is flawed. He comes close with "approving of what the character approves (what the character values)", but I think he may be putting the cart before the horse. We don't approve and value something simply because the character does. No, we see what she sees, and independent of her we also approve or value that thing. At least, this is true of me. I can't speak for all readers because I simply don't know all readers.

He comes close with that statement but ends with "even if we sense the character's ideal is impractical or insufficient." I do think we might empathize in this case. We can understand being wrong, heh. You know that truism, be careful what you wish for? The impractical or insufficient ideal may be a case of having a confused focus or a misdirected focus. We may see that Bob is angry because his bosses treat him as a mere cog in their self-enriching machine, and empathize; but if Bob also develops an ideal image of all corporations literally burned to the ground regardless of the faceless, nameless, and perhaps innocent people who will be hurt—do we still empathize with that goal? (Here, returning to the subject of Joker. Which I've not yet seen, heh.)

Fiction seeks out truth. Granted, it seeks a poetic kind of truth, universals not easy translatable into moral codes. But part of our interest as we read is in learning how the world works; how the conflicts we share with the writer and all other human beings can be resolved if at all; what values we can affirm, and in general, what the moral risks are. The writer who can't distinguish truth from a peanut butter sandwich can never write good fiction.

It think this view is worth discussing, in regards to empathy. Gardner speaks of fiction being a vehicle for exploring certain moral "truths"... good always wins (or does it?), women deserve respect (or do they?), slavery is wrong (or is it?), we shouldn't bring back extinct animals and show them in parks (or should we?) etc, etc, etc.....

I am glad you brought this up. I've been thinking about it, unsure how to present my thoughts. For me, beyond the character and the objective environment of the world, there are the ideas a story presents. These might even be ideas the character puts forward; but they can be ideas suggested by the milieu or the milieu + character interaction even if the character never thinks them (or is incapable of thinking them!)

Devor mentioned the emotional aspects of empathy, feeling as the character feels what the character feels, but I feel...heh...that I can have empathy with a character when I find we share similar ideas. Even if a character is doing a Joker-esque empathy-killing routine in a crowd, killing at random, I might still realize I have some empathy whenever such a character is having ideas that, to me, seem right. The Dark Knight is a great example for me. When that version of Joker talked about killing some random soldiers vs killing a mayor, whether people don't care or "suddenly lose their minds," I was like, YEP. YEP. [And ironically, that little speech ties in well with the opening post of this thread, heh.]

But beyond my impressions of a character, beyond the topic of empathy...A story can engage me by making me think. [I have had some ideas along these lines re: your story set in the Pillars of Creation, btw.] I don't know to what degree this means I am empathizing with the narrator or author even if not with any character in a story. Circling back to the issue of prologues, I recently read the opening paragraphs of Pratchett's Hogfather: an example that made me think, not involving any main character. And chuckle. And even part that seemed to represent or address some of my ideas concerning the topic of this thread!

[Incidentally, I've never read Pratchett's books. Everything I've read about them has always suggested I'd absolutely love them. I'd love their style, their approach. But for some reason, I've been putting them off.]

 

[Devor]

Heliotrope, in my opinion that isn't empathy, and we lose something by watering down the word into something so generalized. Empathy is not sympathy, or understanding, or agreement with. We may have trouble empathizing with a character whose motives we disagree with, but the empathy itself is an emotional agreement, not a rational one.

If we watch a James Bond film, we agree with Bond, we like Bond, but we don't empathize with him. We're not in the mind and heart of the spy, feeling his suspicions, feeling his confidence, plotting and rationalizing the way that he does. And in fact that's often the point - it's often Bond who is outsmarting the rest of us, and that's part of why we like him.

To say that we empathize with Bond because we agree with him is to strip the word of its meaning, and therefore its usefulness. Empathy is an emotional experience. What does it take to empathize with a character? And when should we be using (or not using) these techniques? Put another way, when do we want to control the readers' emotions through the characters' lens, and when do we want the reader to react on their own? That's a powerful question, and one that's hard to think about if we don't understand our words.

*edit*

I suppose it's probably fair to say that we empathize with Bond a little (we're not psychopaths), but it's a passive, behind-the-banter part of the story.

 

[Chessie2]

I hate James Bond and all of his movies. GoldenEye 007 was passable only because of Pierce Brosnan (hottie). The idea that I, as a consumer, should empathize with a womanizer and a spy who barely lifts a finger to do anything is laughable. It's why I love Archer so much, because I can laugh at such a ridiculous individual. This is why everything in a story has to work together to move readers. If it's the wrong genre/plot/character/magic system whatever then you have nothing and readers simply move on to the next thing.

 

[Heliotrope]

If we watch a James Bond film, we agree with Bond, we like Bond, but we don't empathize with him. We're not in the mind and heart of the spy, feeling his suspicions, feeling his confidence, plotting and rationalizing the way that he does. And in fact that's often the point - it's often Bond who is outsmarting the rest of us, and that's part of why we like him.

Yeah, this is why I brought up Gardner... because he has a different view on what empathy means in regards to fiction. For him, it's not about feeling what the character feels (I do agree that it is near impossible to make a reader feel what the character feels) but more about feeling with the character, or at least having a mutual understanding...

But he goes on to say that as the reader we:

understand and to some degree sympathize with the character's desire, approving of what the character approves (what the character values)

And this is where I think Chessie2 has a good point here:

The idea that I, as a consumer, should empathize with a womanizer and a spy who barely lifts a finger to do anything is laughable.

If the reader doesn't understand and to some degree sympathize with the character's desires, we aren't going to be interested in the outcome. We don't care. So some people might love James Bond and approve of what the character approves (values) and some people may not, and therefore some people will like the story and some people may not be interested in his story.

For Chessie2's sake, I'll use the princess/warrior as an example. If I believe in the moral truth that women deserve more choices as to their futures, and I want to write a story about a princess who chooses to be a warrior (just to pick a cliche example), and I write it in a human and compelling way and find an audience who also appreciates that moral truth, then yay!

Then Chessie2 says "Wait, a princess is also a pretty great calling, and here is why..." then she writes another book giving very human and compelling reasons why a princess is also a great calling, and finds an audience who appreciates her perspective on that moral truth, then yay!

But there will be some people who think, "Meh, I don't agree with either of those." And they may not read the books, and that is okay too.

 

[FifthView]

We're not in the mind and heart of the spy, feeling his suspicions, feeling his confidence, plotting and rationalizing the way that he does.

The idea that I, as a consumer, should empathize with a womanizer and a spy who barely lifts a finger to do anything is laughable. I

Another distinction between various concepts of empathy?

On the one hand, there seems to be a kind of holistic definition. To "empathize with a character" means being in lockstep throughout, with the total package, basically with his entire being. Naturally one might say "I disagreed with the character on one or two small points," but overall, I felt empathy with him.

Quite a few of my comments here would show that I'm looking at the subject differently. If a character is struggling to cross a large area in the desert, the sun is bearing down, he's sweating, his mind is wandering, his mouth feels like sandpaper, we can empathize. But this doesn't mean we also feel empathy in any other way with the character. That could be a villain's POV chapter, just after the hero has shot down his plane over the Sahara.

I don't recall feeling lots of empathy with James Bond "overall," but there are lots of moments when I do. Things like this:

"Oh you gotta be kidding me."

I can empathize with that. Now that I think about it, I also wonder if there is an inherent empathy, in movies at least, when the protagonist is being chased. Do we have memories of being chased around the house when we were kids? Heh. Dunno. But it's one of those primal things. Like the fear of heights.

 

[Devor]

Bond was just an example but the thing is, the Bond movies don't ask you to empathize with him. That's not what they spend time trying to do. On the other hand, if you look at Jamie and Cersei Lannister in the ASOIAF books, we're led to hating them, but then we see it from their POV, and while the hate might not go away, the books will lead you to empathize with them (if you let them - they still really don't deserve it). That empathy is what the books are shooting for, whether you give it to them or not, and you can see that in the way the books are written.

 

[Chessie2]

That empathy is what the books are shooting for, whether you give it to them or not, and you can see that in the way the books are written.

Agreed. Even the antagonists should have a redeeming pov.

 

[FifthView]

But there are other ways to write a story, where empathy - actual empathy - is a smaller, even non-existent part of it. But then, empathy (like in 3rd person limited) is something books do so much better than film or games or whatever else, so is a book the best medium for stories that don't lean into empathy?

I think that's where I'm at. There are lots of reasons to read a story, but a novel does empathy really well, so if I'm writing a novel I want to play on that, whether it's my personal strength as a writer or not, because that's something novels do really well and it'd be almost foolish not to use it.

I think this is an important consideration. I agree; why not use the medium's inherent strengths?

OTOH, I think third person limited can become a kind of crutch—in the worst cases—and maybe sometimes just the path of least resistance.

I.e., it's easier to build empathy with that tool, so people use it lots. And why not? But maybe some of the other tools for creating empathy end up rusting on the tool bench.

 

[FifthView]

I.e., it's easier to build empathy with that tool, so people use it lots. And why not? But maybe some of the other tools for creating empathy end up rusting on the tool bench.

After some rest and sleep and a clear mind, I see this is more of a personal complaint that took the form of a broad swipe without further explanation, expressed unclearly.

I think "the other tools for creating empathy" should be rephrased as "the other tools for engaging a reader," which would include tools for creating empathy but also many others. This really expresses clumsily the points Chessie2 brought up so well: There are many areas of storytelling beyond simply creating empathy with a main character, and these are extremely important.

For most of this thread, the subject has been on characters, creating empathy, and POV. I'm somewhat to blame because I detected an inherent bias in the original question and I responded by addressing it. I do think opening with a main character is a great idea. I also think that doing so is not an auto-win condition, heh. This is true of everything. Putting all your eggs in one basket—or having only one egg!—is a danger if so many other aspects of good storytelling go undeveloped or are severely underutilized.

What hasn't been addressed as much: Why do other approaches for the opening so often fall flat?

On the one hand, the opening question, as phrased, seemed to answer that by giving only one reason: No main character introduced!

I don't think that's the complete story. Delaying the introduction of a main character certainly does seem to put an initial burden on a story. I just doubt there is only one way to overcome that burden (i.e., by introducing the main character ASAP.) There are other ways to engage a reader, and perhaps those flat openings are simply putting all eggs in a single basket or relying too much on only one egg. A different egg than "main character in third person limited POV." For instance, using telling to inform the reader of the basic world-centric historical facts, or using an overhead description of a battle occurring that focuses only on troop movements, attacks, and routs. And only this, an egg that isn't savory enough or satisfying enough for most readers. What other examples? There are reasons those prologues or openings fall flat beyond the simple lack of a main character POV, and perhaps there are strategies for making them work.

Of course, even if there are ways to do this successfully, I'm not sure there's a clear reason for choosing this over having a main character appear right away. There may be good reasons, depending on the story and how the author wants to affect a reader (and, affect the story!)