Referring to literature, the word relatable has changed over time. In Shakespears' time, the word meant it could be told and related to some other thing. Today, we refer to the word as being related to ourselves and our own lives. Is this problematic? It would depend on which way you look at it. For someone to classify a work of literature as Ira Glass did in the article based only on "relatability", is showing themselves to be a shallow-minded person.
I do believe that most people do choose books to read that they can relate to themselves. Many of the books young adult readers are choosing to read are about the future. These books include Divergent, The Giver and Hunger Games. In each of these books the author writes in a way that is believable up to a point, by creating characters similar to today's young adult readers. The movie industry has chosen these books to be made into movies because the movie goers can relate to them and that's what sells movies. But does that mean that other books are not good literature? Absolutely not. Over the years many different types of literature has been appreciated by millions of different people. To judge a piece of literature only by if it's relatable or not is ignorant. Some may always appreciate one type of literature over another.
As the article points out, it's not the word that is problematic; it's the reader who views literature based solely on if it's relatable or not. It's the reader that's not open to other forms of literature that one may actually have to use it's imagination or mind to understand the work that's problematic.
Relatable, is a problematic word because it is hardly a word at all. Just typing this comment in Microsoft word shows that the word, “Relatable”, is not in the programs dictionary. The way that relatable has been used in the past was strictly used in a more formal manner than it is used today. The value of this word has hit a flat line. No one truly understands the meaning of relatable. Shakespeare's work has provided an abundant amount of scenarios in which his audience can relate to life in general. That was the basis in which Shakespeare used to help people become more engaged in his works. It was more of a multitude of points of view on a single subject rather than a single perspective on multiple subjects. The relatable you're analyzing is the common day use of relatable. The idea of everything revolves around me and if it has slight similarity then it must involve me. That relatable, is in fact the false definition of the word that you are defending by stating that, “..creating characters similar to today's young adults..” The misunderstanding of the true definition of the word relatable has not only altered many peoples many peoples genre choices, but it has also limited the amount of works, that are the true definition of relatable, to become uncommon. This misunderstanding also does not justify the ignorance of people. To claim that relatable is problematic, you have to go to the root of the problem, people. People are the reason that relatable has lost it's meaning.
ReplyDeleteThough I would agree with your opening statement that the usage of the world relatability has changed over the course of time, I disagree with the fact that to judge a piece of literature only by if it’s relatable or not is ignorant. I have always found it easier to enjoy and truly get engaged in a book if I was able to relate to one or more of either the characters, or the situation they are in. Who’s to say by being able to engage one’s self into the depths of the pages and see not only their own fears, but journey and strength found along the way is ignorant? Not only is it easier to yes, relate yourself to the text, but you are also more likely to pass that book on to your family and friends and encourage them to read it as well. I’m not saying that books that present a story you have no connection with aren’t just as moving as those that do, but when words are able to touch you on a personal level and bring back a flood of memories and emotions tied onto them, there isn’t anything more rewarding than that. Especially to an author, to know your words were able to move people in a positive way is truly an achievement. To me, the words of John Green in The Fault in Our Stars moved me in such a way that I actually began to look at the world differently. In my opinion, that doesn’t make me ignorant, it makes me blessed.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that it’s based on the reader whether or not if they want to base the reading/play on relatability and that the problematic part of the situation is that it limits their perception to only choose to certain material that has some sort to relation to their own lives.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of relatability doesn’t automatically come with a negative connation, because it allows us to make connects with what we are trying to comprehend and lets us have a better understanding of what’s going on. But at the same time if we don’t initially have a connection with the material it forces us to find a new way to relate the book or play making us expand our perceptions. I also disagree with the statement that we “demand that “work” be “relatable’’ , because we the readers don’t necessarily demand it, but they writers know that that’s what’s going to sell and get the most attention. So really whose fault is it that we over use this simple word. The writers that provide the work or the people who read it?
Something that is relatable is all dependent on who the audience is, it’s a sense of perception and point of view. I do disagree that the word has changed over time, because we still use it today to simply relate certain objects or situations to other objects or situations. Although time has progressed we still use relatable how Shakespeare used it back then, but in certain scenarios we use it in the new context, which applies to how we feel and connect with the material. A more self-center context way of using the word, but non the less still relating things together.