This day in age, the idea of a work being relatable is what makes said work easier for it's audience to understand. Having the ability to relate to the audience and truly helping viewers to understand how the characters feel is what makes a work ultimately a success. In Rebecca Mead's article,
The Scourge of “Relatability”, she argues the problematic nature of the word "relatable." Although I agree that relatability is indeed problematic, I believe this for different reasons. In my mind, the ability to be relatable is of the upmost importance. Perhaps in Shakespearian time this was not the motive or the drive for entertainment, but in the year 2014 a piece is truly amazing if the audience is left completely haunted by the effects of a work due to the relatable characteristics it contains. While Mead obviously believed the complete opposite and argued that relatability should not be the only quality viewers look for in a work, it should not be abandoned as a vital piece to the formula that results in a successful work of entertainment. Relatability is not as much a problem as it is a necessity, without this quality viewers would be less likely to get the full experience that the directors wished. Mead argues that present-day viewers are unimaginative and un-empathetic, this is a bit of an over exaggeration as the audience is as empathetic and imaginative as a director/writer pushes them to be. While back when Shakespeare wrote plays his motive was obviously much different and for this reason one cannot fairly compare todays writers and audiences to that of the 1500's and expect no change. The power that the word "relatable" contains is staggering, it can cause an audience to change their views on the world, it forces a grown man to cry, the power of this problematic term is so strong that if a film does not contain such a quality it is indeed pushed aside an considered a "flop." This forces directors to be more in tune with their audience and creates an unofficial bond with those who can truly relate. What sucks isn't the fact that an audience now expects relatability within a work, but that at one point they didn't, thus leaving no connection with the master creating the material of which they devoted so much of their time to. Therefore, yes the term and idea of a piece being "relatable" is problematic, problematic in the comprehensive nature of an audience of which inevitably changes over time along with it's writers.
What does relatable mean? Relate means to bring into or establish an association, connection, or a relation to something or someone. In Rebecca Mead’s article The Scourge of “Relatability”, Mead establishes her opinion that the word “relatable” is problematic now a days because of a tweet posted by Ira Glass of her not being able to relate to Shakespeare. Mead believes that now “the reader or viewer expects the work to be done for them” rather than using “the active exercise of imagination.” I disagree with Mead in her statement because I believe that the expectation of a work to be relatable is only so that the reader or viewer can connect to it or have a bond to the work. If no connection or bond is made to the work then there really is no point in continuing to read or watch it further. There will be no purpose of the work and in the long run will be forgotten. From my personal experience, I like to read books that I can relate to, for example, one of my favorite books from senior year English was A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. I felt a sense of connection to the book because it was about woman and about all the hardships they have to go through during a rough period in Afghanistan. Out of all of the books that I read during my senior year this was the most admired and remembered. I feel that the word “relatable” is not the problem because people are using it as a way to connect to a work to get a better understanding and possibly a better experience with it. So they are actually using their imagination and having empathy towards the work.
ReplyDeleteRelatable- a audience`s ability to forge a connection between themselves and piece of work they are reading or viewing. Yes, this makes relatability a part of the criteria by which an audience forms their opinion; however it doesn’t make it a word that is ultimately “problematic”. Personally, when I say something is relatable to I mean it to be relatable either on a personal level or relatable to the issues that society is having as a whole. Mead mentions the works of Rainbow Rowell and John Green, two authors who I am familiar with as I have read both Eleanor and Park (by Rowell) and The Fault in Our Stars (by Green). These two works are loved by people because they are relatable and relevant to the people that have had to deal with the problems of heartbreak, self-esteem, or terminal disease. It is not a bad thing for people to want to see themselves in the work of an artist or a writer. Being able to find yourself in any form of entertainment is a very powerful thing that can most definitely sway a person`s opinion in favor of a piece of work. However, weather something is relatable to someone isn’t necessarily the deciding factor on if a book or movie is going to be successful or not. Ever since I became an avid reader it wasn’t weather or not the main theme of a book applied to me that decided if I loved it or not. It was if I liked the style of writing; if the book allowed me to get lost in the world that the author created then to me the book was worth reading. The word “relatable” is not a problem to anyone unless they decide to make it one.
ReplyDelete