Realism VS. Relatability

Disclaimer: The Spiderman/Batman character examples that are to follow have nothing to do with the original comic book characters ... well, they might, but I wouldn't know because I haven't read them. So the point is, if you're a Spiderman/Batman of comic book origin lover, please don't argue with me, I admit I am uneducated in ways other than the big blockbuster movies. No offence is intended. 


The age-old Spiderman VS. Batman argument comes up a lot in our house. This blog post isn't necessarily an argument - that is to say, I'm not trying to diss Batman. The argument here is Realism VS. Relatability, and my superheroes are the vehicle. 


Before we get into this, my computer tells me that relatability is not a word. The online merriam-webster dictionary tells me otherwise (but who knows how reliable that is). I can't think of any alternative word that means what I'm assuming we all know relatability means, so I'm going to roll with it anyway. I'm a writer! I can make things up! And I say if it wasn't a word, it is now!


On with the show. So what is the difference between realism and relatability? Why does it matter? 


As a writer and a reader, I enjoy both of these things in a novel. I like finding ways to relate to the characters, the situations, the emotions in a story. I also appreciate the effort an author puts in to make their story world and the way their characters act and react realistic. However, in most stories there is a point where, for the sake of the epic tale you are weaving, an element of your realism must be left behind. This is where Suspension of Disbelief, aided by relatability, comes to the rescue. 


Suspension of disbelief basically means, 'I'll accept your skewed reality because I'm enjoying the story'. It's that moment in the story where - what the? - Harry Potter is a wizard. Mole does spring cleaning. Christian wins Satine's heart with a love medley of pop songs while the moon sings and fireworks appear out of nowhere. John McClane miraculously survives, again. This is the moment where the writer must let go of the story's safety harness. It's time to freefall, and the reader/watcher is the parachute. Are they going to stick with the story?


In the examples I've used, I would safely assume that the answer is yes.  But why is that? Why do we love this stuff? Why aren't we yelling at the book/TV screen in confusion? This stuff can't happen! It's preposterous! Magic doesn't exist. Animals don't talk. The moon doesn't sing! And if this were real, he would have died back there. So why do we stick with the story? 


Simply, it's because we enjoy imagining things that couldn't really happen. But to be more specific, we enjoy it because despite the lack of realism, there is still an element of relatability that is realistic to us. Harry Potter thought he was an Average Joe like the rest of us. Mole's OCD reminds you of someone you know. The love Christian has for Satine is real to us. And John McClane ... well, we'd be disappointed if he died when he should have ... so we're rooting for him against the odds! 


What does this have to do with Spiderman and Batman, you ask? Well, these two heroes are what sparked the idea for this post. My brother Justin tells me that the great thing about Batman is that because he doesn't have proper super powers, it's his awesome technology that makes him a superhero. It's cool and realistic and whatnot because it could potentially happen. I agree with him on this, but my problem with Batman is that as a 19-year-old Australian girl who is disappointed about missing out on $100+ pay because she's home sick instead of working her 6-hour shift at a local cafe, I find Gotham city billionaire Bruce Wayne a leetle difficult to relate to. (Although right now, I probably sound a touch like Batman ... where are those lozenges?)


Spiderman, on the other hand? Photography-loving, nerdy teenager who, after getting his powers, spends his evenings scribbling away with textas designing a superhero costume? This works a little better for me.


The big point here is, who do you want your story to relate to? There's obviously a difference between the relatability of Spiderman and Batman (which includes the emotional states of the characters, their interactions with other characters, and the inner journey they take throughout their stories, but I won't go into all that detail). This isn't to say that I don't like Batman. I like the Batman films and there is much to love and appreciate. But as a big believer in the ability and need to emotionally invest in a character, I don't really have any emotional attachment to Batman (like, if he dies at the end of his upcoming film ... well, nice knowing you Batman.)


How much have you considered realism and relatability in your story? Have you found a balance? Are you reaching out to your target audience? 


In my own novel I have a lot of different things to consider. I'm already relying heavily on the reader's suspension of disbelief because by the fourth paragraph of the first page, one of the characters is revealed to be a shapeshifter. A big portion of realism has already flown out the window at this stage. And now it's up to me to keep my reader hooked. Sure, the fact that something totally out of the norm has just happened is enough to keep any reader going for several more pages, but in order to get them to Chapter Two, I need some relatable material. My shapeshifter is about 60 years old, rather gruff, lives in a rundown terrace house and probably hasn't showered for a week. He's not really relatable to my YA audience (roughly aged 15), so I bring in a younger character who, despite her air of confidence, is secretly a little scared of this guy. Now we have relatability. And we also have intrigue. What's she doing at this guy's house? What will happen there? 


My hopes are that these elements combined will lead to my reader turning the page and continuing to unravel the story. If I'm a good enough writer, I just might be right. 


If there are any writers out there reading this (a big squishy hug hello if you've come via NaNoWriMo), I hope this post is of some use to you. Happy writing!

An Introduction to French Cinema: It's Hard to Get Aquainted

So, I'm yet to start this series because I'm yet to find a decent guide to help me along. My plan of attack is to watch some things in a historically chronological order, whilst also watching some contemporary stuff at the same time.

Problem is, I've not idea where to begin. There's an awesome-looking book on Book Depository called Studying French Cinema, but it's still three weeks away from release. So I'll have to wait on that one. I've looked at a couple of others such as French Cinema by Charles Drazin, but one review I read said that he sort of gives up on giving films made after 1959 (ie, after Luc Godard's Breathless) the attention they deserve. So that sort of doesn't work for me, because I'd like a book that thoroughly covers both old and new history. Especially new, because the broad Film History book I have right now has a decent amount of French film beginnings ... but it's pretty hefty reading and I'm only up to 1912 or something, so mentions of accessible French titles has so far been scarce.

I went into Newtown today in hopes that some of the bookshops that import from overseas would have something I could purchase, but in four shops I only found one second-hand book, and it was about comparing French films with their American remakes and studying the influence that the French film industry has on America. So that was no good.

It frustrates me how difficult it is to get books about the history of other countries here. Like, as if I want to read about Australian history (film or otherwise)! Who does that? It's no wonder bookshops here are failing and people are buying more things online. I can't find anything I want in an actual shop. Trying to find research material for Eloquence was (and still is) a bit of a nightmare; when looking for specific British history one can find only broad world history books or general overviews of the history of Britain, which isn't helpful because that means I'm buying a book for $30 and only getting like $5 of relevant reading material. So again, most of my books on the 19th-century have arrived in the mailbox from the UK. Obviously, when I go there I will be taking an empty suitcase and buying books.

As for film sections themselves, most of the space is taken up by Hollywood (obviously) with a few dodgy-looking titles about Australian film or about one specific person like Martin Scorcese (who is awesome, but in this case irrelevant).

So, this series will continue with content that is ACTUALLY ABOUT A MOVIE ... later on. Once I work out what the heck I'm doing. Meanwhile, I'm going to watch Public Enemies and pretend I'm cultured because Marion Cotillard is in the movie. Hehe.

P.S When I was in Newtown today there was a big crew of 30+ people shooting some kind of short film or a show. I stood around like a lost idiot and watched them for a bit, but they were all busy and I couldn't really ask them what was going on. I imagined they were from Sydney Film School, even though I knew they couldn't be because the crew was too big and very professional. Moral of this story: I'm excited for film school to start. One more month!