Very very good. My personal bugbear is the limiting nature of relatability, the idea that you cannot enjoy or engage with anything that doesn’t somehow show you an exact representation of yourself. I like Star Wars, Spartacus, The Comedians and Scoop, but none of them is “relatable” *and I don’t need them to be*.
I thought the first Bridget Jones film was enormous fun (though I confess I wondered if there was enough material when Helen Fielding first made the leap from a column in the Independent to a book). But it was buoyed up by great performances from Zellweger and Grant and Firth (and the best fight scene in cinematic history), and a sense of confidence and fun. But that was a long time ago in a different world. Now some people seem to expect us to retreat into our tiny, delineated boxes of direct (sorry, "lived") experience and stay there lest we presume to represent anything that hasn't happened to us. Which is the death of, well, writing. My two most recently published short stories both have a female narrator and I think/hope they work all right. But I'm not a woman, never have been, have no ambitions in that direction. Equally, Sir Walter Scott wasn't a mediaeval knight (OK, he probably wanted to be). And don't get me started on Chrétien de Troyes...
You have nailed it all on the head Laura (dare I say I found this to be so relatable , I jest!). Such an overused buzz word I find, and beautifully pointed out, from Elizabeth Bennett to Carrie Bradshaw, both I loved in my own way, but could I relate and make their experience mine.. goodness no! A little side note on the age point..I was reading the other day that Angela Lansbury was always cast as the much older (think Manchurian Candidate), mentally gargoyled woman because she wasn't deemed to be pretty or young enough looking...it really irked me beyond belief!
Many thanks Nic - thank you for reading. That's so interesting about Angela L, I just looked up the M Candidate and she was in her late 30s playing Laurence Harvey's MOTHER... as I'm sure you knew!
She did have an amazing career longevity when her real age caught up, but still....
I know, late thirties playing his cruel mother (the role handed out to the least attractive by Hollywood standards apparently, oh it irks me) . Really loved reading this Laura, much food for thought, thank you!
Exactly. I can’t relate to Austen’s women. I don’t want to. Doesn’t stop me from loving to read them, and re-read them.
By the way, your Angela Lansbury point is interesting. Seems to me that in Manchurian Candidate (and everything she did) she gets the last laugh: she was extraordinary.
Really enjoy reading this piece, Laura. It’ll be interesting to see what that BJ4 is about and if the writers have incorporated some of the criticism towards the previous films and how Bridget was portrayed. The concept of relatability is, as you have described, such a double-edge sword that we are often sold to make a product more marketable. While in my interactions with people I need to be able to relate to them to connect, when it comes to the realms of fiction I simply need to find the characters interesting, but I don’t necessarily need to agree with or relate to anything they do. Most of us, in any case, can’t. Suffice that Robinson Crusoe example to show how you can still enjoy Swift’s novel without having been a castaway and therefore, able to relate to his misadventures.
I don’t think I want to relate in the way the word is bandied about with such abandon. I just want to read and be taken to the world of the story. If some/all of the characters or language have moments when I recognise or feel something personal about them, then that’s a wonderful thing…but, it’s not what reading is all about. And we do find things about ourselves when we read (and write) but that’s a far deeper, and more mysterious process, than relating.
So, I've thought. First: Relatable. What does it even mean? It kind of tries to make someone else's story (fiction or non) more about me, me, me. Which it obviously isn't and I've no right to squeeze myself into that space. There is a selfishness, no, a self-absorption, in the expectation that characters should be 'relatable'. Now 'empathy' I can go along with. It's less of a 'Yes! That's me, that's so me!' and more of an 'Okay, I can understand that feeling, I think.' More of an ability to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes and wondering what your reaction would be, rather than insisting that their shoes are really your shoes. Hmm, to much analogy/metaphor I think...
Thanks so much June, I love and appreciate this. It IS a kind of self-absorption but there seems to be a tendency these days to read/watch in that solipsistic all about me way.
I've just remembered hearing somebody say, on a TV book programme, about MIDDLEMARCH of all things, I cannot relate to somebody wearing a bonnet.
No wonder we love Substack. The place where empathy wins over relatability.
Too right. Recently I was discussing 'For Thy Great Pain Have Mercy On My Little Pain' by Victoria Mackenzie, and some were unable to see it as about faith because they had no faith themselves, and foisted onto it a rational/scientific lens i.e that Margery Kempe was an attention-seeker acting out and probably delusional, and Julian someone escaping from bad experiences. It's such a 'thin' reading experience.
So...relatable, Laura! I have not had a single novel published that hasn't had a comment from my editors (all female, all white, all London-based) to make my female characters more relatable. What does it even mean? Relatable to whom? A middle-aged London-based white female editor? And as for Bridget Jones, there was almost more publicity about Rennée Zellweger - how did she put all that weight on? Look how fast she lost it! Good girl! And look at her now in What/If...as if being a successful business woman means you have to be so thin your collarbones could slice a man in two.
Oh thanks Sanjida! How interesting to hear that.... and how intensely frustrating/ridiculous. The idea that I need to read about a single white midlifer with no kids in order to be able to relate - I mean please.
Loved this! I always thought there was an element of satire in the original BJ novel - that whole feeling as if you're winging it but actually being rather successful thing, her friends as well. Totally lost in the film, which just turns them into a bunch of oddballs (nothing wrong with oddballs, of course, just not what HF was doing).
Yes, that's what's always so infuriating - if something pretty terrible is commercially successful, not only does nobody care - they start looking for more of the same…
A must-read for all women over the age of 18! Even the youngsters need to get into training to fend off the nonsense they will have to face. Thank you Laura!
I don't require relatability. It drives me crazy when a chat show host only wants to hear about a great artist's children and their doings and leaves only a minute to discuss the work.
Relatable is a straightjacket of a word. Like so many used casually. And words don't like that. They spew an aura of unpleasantness, when rubbed off the wrong way,I mean, soooo overused they become a prickly pear version of their former selves.
About T. S. I just don't get it. But I am probably behind with the times.
Very very good. My personal bugbear is the limiting nature of relatability, the idea that you cannot enjoy or engage with anything that doesn’t somehow show you an exact representation of yourself. I like Star Wars, Spartacus, The Comedians and Scoop, but none of them is “relatable” *and I don’t need them to be*.
Thank you so much - and yes, agree completely that it limits everything - it's so unnecessary.
Really glad you enjoyed as I felt it was all a bit female-centric.... !!!!
I thought the first Bridget Jones film was enormous fun (though I confess I wondered if there was enough material when Helen Fielding first made the leap from a column in the Independent to a book). But it was buoyed up by great performances from Zellweger and Grant and Firth (and the best fight scene in cinematic history), and a sense of confidence and fun. But that was a long time ago in a different world. Now some people seem to expect us to retreat into our tiny, delineated boxes of direct (sorry, "lived") experience and stay there lest we presume to represent anything that hasn't happened to us. Which is the death of, well, writing. My two most recently published short stories both have a female narrator and I think/hope they work all right. But I'm not a woman, never have been, have no ambitions in that direction. Equally, Sir Walter Scott wasn't a mediaeval knight (OK, he probably wanted to be). And don't get me started on Chrétien de Troyes...
Yes…it’s the insularity of relatability that seems so problematic, so limiting as you put it.
You have nailed it all on the head Laura (dare I say I found this to be so relatable , I jest!). Such an overused buzz word I find, and beautifully pointed out, from Elizabeth Bennett to Carrie Bradshaw, both I loved in my own way, but could I relate and make their experience mine.. goodness no! A little side note on the age point..I was reading the other day that Angela Lansbury was always cast as the much older (think Manchurian Candidate), mentally gargoyled woman because she wasn't deemed to be pretty or young enough looking...it really irked me beyond belief!
Many thanks Nic - thank you for reading. That's so interesting about Angela L, I just looked up the M Candidate and she was in her late 30s playing Laurence Harvey's MOTHER... as I'm sure you knew!
She did have an amazing career longevity when her real age caught up, but still....
I know, late thirties playing his cruel mother (the role handed out to the least attractive by Hollywood standards apparently, oh it irks me) . Really loved reading this Laura, much food for thought, thank you!
Exactly. I can’t relate to Austen’s women. I don’t want to. Doesn’t stop me from loving to read them, and re-read them.
By the way, your Angela Lansbury point is interesting. Seems to me that in Manchurian Candidate (and everything she did) she gets the last laugh: she was extraordinary.
Many thanks for reading - great to get male feedback as it was so much about women.
Nic Winter alerted me to Angela and the Manch Candidate, I was amazed! Completely agree that she was terrific, a true presence.
I absolutely agree with you and oh my goodness , I love that, yes Angela did get the last laugh indeed, didn't she? A wonderful actress and talent.
I also loathe the word—relatable, as I do amazing, fantastic and grunge.
Really enjoy reading this piece, Laura. It’ll be interesting to see what that BJ4 is about and if the writers have incorporated some of the criticism towards the previous films and how Bridget was portrayed. The concept of relatability is, as you have described, such a double-edge sword that we are often sold to make a product more marketable. While in my interactions with people I need to be able to relate to them to connect, when it comes to the realms of fiction I simply need to find the characters interesting, but I don’t necessarily need to agree with or relate to anything they do. Most of us, in any case, can’t. Suffice that Robinson Crusoe example to show how you can still enjoy Swift’s novel without having been a castaway and therefore, able to relate to his misadventures.
Thank you so much for reading it!
Cool piece…loved it.
I don’t think I want to relate in the way the word is bandied about with such abandon. I just want to read and be taken to the world of the story. If some/all of the characters or language have moments when I recognise or feel something personal about them, then that’s a wonderful thing…but, it’s not what reading is all about. And we do find things about ourselves when we read (and write) but that’s a far deeper, and more mysterious process, than relating.
My feelings exactly. And thank you.
So, I've thought. First: Relatable. What does it even mean? It kind of tries to make someone else's story (fiction or non) more about me, me, me. Which it obviously isn't and I've no right to squeeze myself into that space. There is a selfishness, no, a self-absorption, in the expectation that characters should be 'relatable'. Now 'empathy' I can go along with. It's less of a 'Yes! That's me, that's so me!' and more of an 'Okay, I can understand that feeling, I think.' More of an ability to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes and wondering what your reaction would be, rather than insisting that their shoes are really your shoes. Hmm, to much analogy/metaphor I think...
Excellent thought-provoking piece.
And, if I may say so, comment...
Thanks so much June, I love and appreciate this. It IS a kind of self-absorption but there seems to be a tendency these days to read/watch in that solipsistic all about me way.
I've just remembered hearing somebody say, on a TV book programme, about MIDDLEMARCH of all things, I cannot relate to somebody wearing a bonnet.
No wonder we love Substack. The place where empathy wins over relatability.
Too right. Recently I was discussing 'For Thy Great Pain Have Mercy On My Little Pain' by Victoria Mackenzie, and some were unable to see it as about faith because they had no faith themselves, and foisted onto it a rational/scientific lens i.e that Margery Kempe was an attention-seeker acting out and probably delusional, and Julian someone escaping from bad experiences. It's such a 'thin' reading experience.
So...relatable, Laura! I have not had a single novel published that hasn't had a comment from my editors (all female, all white, all London-based) to make my female characters more relatable. What does it even mean? Relatable to whom? A middle-aged London-based white female editor? And as for Bridget Jones, there was almost more publicity about Rennée Zellweger - how did she put all that weight on? Look how fast she lost it! Good girl! And look at her now in What/If...as if being a successful business woman means you have to be so thin your collarbones could slice a man in two.
Oh thanks Sanjida! How interesting to hear that.... and how intensely frustrating/ridiculous. The idea that I need to read about a single white midlifer with no kids in order to be able to relate - I mean please.
Loved this! I always thought there was an element of satire in the original BJ novel - that whole feeling as if you're winging it but actually being rather successful thing, her friends as well. Totally lost in the film, which just turns them into a bunch of oddballs (nothing wrong with oddballs, of course, just not what HF was doing).
On the money as ever, WTRI... !
It was a smart concept made just ridiculous to my mind in the film (but given the box office receipts, WHAT DO.I KNOW...)
Yes, that's what's always so infuriating - if something pretty terrible is commercially successful, not only does nobody care - they start looking for more of the same…
A must-read for all women over the age of 18! Even the youngsters need to get into training to fend off the nonsense they will have to face. Thank you Laura!
I don't require relatability. It drives me crazy when a chat show host only wants to hear about a great artist's children and their doings and leaves only a minute to discuss the work.
Thanks for reading, that's such a good point. So true!
Relatable is a straightjacket of a word. Like so many used casually. And words don't like that. They spew an aura of unpleasantness, when rubbed off the wrong way,I mean, soooo overused they become a prickly pear version of their former selves.
About T. S. I just don't get it. But I am probably behind with the times.
Straitjacket is exactly right. Love it.
And very glad to know that you don't 'relate' to TS... !!!
Interesting. I'm going to think about it.
I nearly choked on my cornflakes at 'Robinson Crusoe - he's so relatable'.🤣
June you are so lovely.... thank you!
Who knows, perhaps he was?????